The Sustainable City

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.
uk brought to you by CORE

provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives
UNIVERSITY OF OSLO
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
TIK FDCW
Centre for technology, Faculteit der Cultuurwtenschappen
innovation and culture Universiteit Maastricht
The Sustainable City:

Conceptualisation, Planning and
Technology
Svein Erik Moen

University of Oslo/Universiteit Maastricht
Technological Culture/ International Centre for Integrated Studies
2001
Word count: 18186
ESST
The European Inter-University Association on
Society, Science and Technology
The ESST MA
Contents
Preface ................................................................................................................................... 3
Synopsis................................................................................................................................. 3
1. Sustainable Development and the City .................................................................6
1.1. A new development paradigm: sustainable development. ........................................ 6
1.2. Defining the city. ....................................................................................................... 8
1.3. Notions of the sustainable city in the scholarly literature........................................ 10
1.3.1. Sustainable development, from the global to the local level. ................................ 10
1.3.2. Creating the sustainable city.................................................................................. 12
1.3.3. Managing sustainable environments. .................................................................... 14
1.3.4. Integrated Assessment. .......................................................................................... 15
1.3.5. Summary ............................................................................................................... 16
1.4. The research question. .................................................................................................. 17
1.5. The structure of the thesis............................................................................................. 19
2. Method: Approaching Discourse Analysis ..........................................................21
2.1. Introduction. ................................................................................................................. 21
2.2. Discourse and discourse analysis. ................................................................................ 22
2.3. The model of diffusion. ................................................................................................ 24
2.4. On Actor-Network Theory. .......................................................................................... 25
2.4.1 The model of translation: translation in networks .................................................. 27
2.5. Discourse analysis and ANT. ....................................................................................... 28
2.6. The sustainable city: actors, actants, discursive power ................................................ 30
and suggestions for action. .................................................................................................. 30
3. The Sustainable City..............................................................................................32
3.1. Background. ................................................................................................................. 32
3.2. The Habitat Agenda...................................................................................................... 34
3.2.1. The actors involved. .............................................................................................. 34
3.2.2. The conceptualisation of the sustainable city. ....................................................... 35
3.2.3. Problems identified................................................................................................ 36
3.2.4. Solutions proposed. ............................................................................................... 37
3.3. The Sustainable Cities Report. ..................................................................................... 38
3.4. Creating a Sustainable London..................................................................................... 43
4. Analysing the Sustainable City Discourse ...........................................................49
4.1. Introduction. ................................................................................................................. 49
4.2. The Concept of the Sustainable City. ........................................................................... 51
4.3. The formation of a network: mobilising actors and actants through inscriptions. ....... 52
4.4. The Sustainable City as a governing paradigm. ........................................................... 55
4.4.1. On Planning. .......................................................................................................... 55
4.4.2 On technology. ....................................................................................................... 58
4.5. The sustainable city, an adaptive concept. ................................................................... 61
5. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................66
5.1. The research findings. .................................................................................................. 66
1
5.2. Suggestions for further research. .................................................................................. 70
List of references ........................................................................................................72
2
Preface
Before I came to Maastricht, I had spent one semester at the University of Oslo,
ESST. Here I studied general topics within the field of Society, Technology and
Science (STS). On the agenda were lectures, seminars, essay writing, student
presentations and one substantial project that ended up with a report. This gave me the
insights, and the inspiration to write this thesis, which is the major part of the ESST
MA. I started to work on this thesis in February 2001 as a trainee at the International
Centre for Integrative Studies (ICIS) in Maastricht. I did most of the work on my
thesis at ICIS, were I stayed for 7 months. Simultaneously, I followed the lectures and
seminars on Technological Culture at the University of Maastricht.
During my work on this thesis, I have received a lot of important ideas from the ICIS
people in Maastricht. My thanks goes to ICIS, and in particular I want to thank Dale
Rothman, my supervisor who gave me crucial feedback both during my stay in
Maastricht and after I came back to Norway. Also, I want to thank students and
lecturers at the University of Maastricht, Faculty of Arts and Culture.
Synopsis
The creation of sustainable cities is believed to solve all our urban problems, whether
the problems are environmentally, socially or economically. ‘Sustainable cities’ have
gained widespread scientific and political consensus, and organisations such as the
United Nations, the European Union, NGOs and other political agencies have worked
out concepts and plans for the development and implementation of it. These plans are
manifested in reports and other policy documents that address decision-makers and
the general public to follow suggestions for action. Central features in these plans are
how sustainable cities are to be understood, what sort of problems cities face and how
to cope with these. In particularly, city planning and technology have a crucial role to
3
play in the achievement of sustainable cities. This thesis seeks to investigate whether
the idea and the conceptualisation of the sustainable city is presented different by
different agencies. Here, why similarities and differences exist are to be explained and
accounted for. Furthermore, a special focus is put upon how city planning and
technology are to solve urban problems, and whether these solutions and the idea of
the sustainable city vary between different documents represented by agencies on
different geographic scales. In order to address the scale issue, three documents are
selected for closer investigation: the Habitat Agenda 2 of the United nations, the
Sustainable Cities Report of the European Union, and Creating a Sustainable London,
written by London Sustainable Trust.
Analysing the sustainable city as represented by different agencies pose questions
with regard to the method that is to be applied. The method applied in this thesis, is a
discourse analysis of these documents within the framework of actor-network theory.
According to this theory, texts (actants) can make it possible for the authors (actors)
to achieve power. Furthermore, the texts can function as instruments to build up and
stabilise networks in order to strengthen and stabilise theories and ideas.
It is argued that the idea of the sustainable city is presented in such a way that it is
impossible to resist. This is made possible by work of the authors who mobilise
scientific articles, political conferences and other entities to support their claims.
Furthermore, the ‘sustainable city’ functions a symbolic umbrella; hence actors with
often contradicting interests can support the idea. The ‘sustainable city’ thus becomes
an adaptive concept that is used by many actors, on different geographic scales. These
scales are also produced and reproduced by the work done by actors in heterogeneous
networks.
For city planning, it is found that empowerment, bottom-up and participatory
planning are emphasised together with the importance of experts and scientific
4
planners, who are to manage the urban environment. Here we see that modern and
post-modern concepts on planning and development are used in chorus. As for
technology, we face a technological paradox: the authors of the document point out
sustainable technologies as main instruments of creating sustainable cities while at the
same time identifying environmentally adverse technologies as the main cause of
unsustainable cities.
Keywords: sustainable city, planning, technology discourse analysis, and actor-
network theory.
5
1. Sustainable Development and the City
1.1. A new development paradigm: sustainable development.
City development, urbanisation, and their impacts on the environment and living
conditions have long been major subjects, especially in geographical and urban
anthropological studies on the urban environment. But it was not until the 1990s that
scholarly literature and policy reports on “sustainable cities” emerged. This discourse
can be seen as a response to the political agenda highlighted at the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 of June
1992, popularly known as the Earth Summit. Agenda 21 was the main document
signed at the conference, it was envisaged as a “work plan”, but not a legally binding
document. Influenced by politically powerful reports like Limits to Growth1,
Blueprint for Survival2, and Our Common Future3, the Rio Conference called for a
new development policy, which was compatible with sustainable development as
defined by the Brundtland Commission in Our Common Future:“…development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs.” 4 179 countries supported its recommendations.
By this new development paradigm (using Kuhnian terminology5), “sustainable
development” was manifested in the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development. Not only has it gained widespread cultural and political recognition,
1
Meadows D.H., Meadows D.L., Randers J., Behrens W (1972)
2
Meadows et al. (1972), the Ecologist
3
WECD (1987)
4
WECD (1987), p. 43
5
Kuhn T.S (1962)
6
but also significant theoretical acceptance among many economists and
environmental scientists.6
From 3 to 14 June 1996 the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements took
place in Istanbul. This Habitat Agenda 2 sought to integrate the outcomes of the Rio
Conference by endorsing and promoting (among other goals) sustainable settlements.7
The same year, the Sustainable Cities Report was published by the Expert Group on
the Urban Environment in order to promote sustainable cities within the European
Union (EU).8 Also in 1996, the Sustainable London Trust (SLT) published Creating a
Sustainable London.9 All were concerned with creating sustainable cities. These data
are the main sources of information in this thesis.
For the purposes of this thesis I will accept sustainable development as a general
policy vision. It functions as a symbolic umbrella that covers several development
theories, containing often contrasting theories regarding cultural, social, economical
and environmental development, and several approaches of how to deal with these.
Thus, sustainable development can be seen as an established grand policy narrative,
which can be defined as:
“…stories (scenarios and arguments) which underwrite and stabilize the assumptions
for policymaking in situations that persist with many unknowns, a high degree of
interdependence, and little, if any, agreement.”10
In order to analyse such a narrative, Maarten A. Hajer suggests it can be useful to
apply discourse reading.11 This implies understanding the discourse not as the product
6
Campagni, R., Capello, R., Nijkamp, P: Managing Sustainable Environments. In Paddison, R (2001),
page 127
7
UN (1996)
8
Expert Group on the Urban Environment (1996)
9
Sustainable London Trust (1996)
10
Roe E (1994), page 16
7
of linear, progressive, and value-free process of convincing the different groups, but
rather, as a struggle of various political coalitions, each made up of actors such as
scientists, politicians, activists, or organisations representing such actors.
It is important to emphasise the relative notion of the concept of sustainable
development (and hence the sustainable city). Sustainable development as defined by
the WCED is a highly political concept, developed and accepted within the frame of
the UN. It presents the environmental case in such a way that it can gain support from
institutions like the World Bank and the IMF.12 Thus, it is important to acknowledge
that sustainable development is not a neutral concept, but is influenced by factors such
as prominent scientists, governmental institutions, politicians, monetary institutions,
NGOs, environmental movements, and physical (environmental) conditions. As
suggested here in order escape the taken-for-granted-world, one must be able to
analyse how concepts can change meaning from context to context, or on the
contrary; how concepts can reach widespread consensus.
1.2. Defining the city.
This thesis is specifically concerned with sustainable cities, and how sustainability
should be promoted in the urban space, as reflected in selected reports. For this
purpose, the term ‘city’ will be used in the broadest sense, encompassing human
settlements where population size is large enough, economic function, social
organisation and other factors resemble certain elements of urbanity. The concept of
‘urban’ is taken from William H. Frey and Zachary Zimmer.13 They argue that there
are three elements which distinguish urban and rural: 1) an ecological element such as
population size and density, 2) an economic element which considers the economic
11
Hajer M.A. (1995), Pp. 2-43
12
Hajer, M.A (1995)
13
Frey, W.H., Zimmer, Z: Defining the City. In Paddison, R. (2001)
8
function of the urban area and the activities that take place there, and 3) the character
of social organisation, behaviours, values and perspectives of the world.
The language of the “sustainable city”, is a notion that is comparable to other
approaches referring to similar themes: garden cities, healthy cities, learning cities,
green cities, clean cities and eco-cities. The idea of the “sustainable city” is
investigated because of the apparently existing consensus it represents in science and
politics.
9
1.3. Notions of the sustainable city in the scholarly literature.
In order to give the reader an impression of what different aspects the concept of the
‘sustainable city’ contains, and why some say we need sustainable cities, an account
of the sustainable city debate from the scholarly literature follows here. This describes
the common problems cities face in the 21st century and which solutions are needed as
represented by some selected writers in the field: Gerrit H. Vonkeman, Herbert
Girardet, Robert Campagni, Roberta Capello and Peter Nijkamp. Later on, the
approaches of these authors will be drawn upon in the analysis in chapter four.
1.3.1. Sustainable development, from the global to the local level.
Gerrit H Vonkeman accepts the political dimensions of sustainable development, and
recognises the relative notion of the concept. However, he claims that sustainable
development as defined by the UN offers very little room for different interpretations.
Furthermore, he argues that while politicians and decision-makers may have
understood its full implications, they have shied away from its social, political and
institutional consequences.14
Vonkeman identifies the technosphere as the fundamental source of global
environmental problems. Man developed tools and agriculture and created human
settlements, which grew into villages and towns where science and technology was
developed. This technosphere did not propose any serious problem until its scale
began to become a threat to the natural processes and systems. It began to reduce the
physical space where natural cycles and equilibrium could take place, extracted fossil
energy carriers from the geosphere, and emitted waste of substances into the
14
Vonkeman, G.H (2000), pp. 1-37
10
biosphere. Furthermore, science and technology improved living conditions in such a
way that the world population increased. Operating in a capitalistic economic system,
growth and consumption become characteristic of society, incompatible with a natural
system based on dynamic equilibrium.
Based on these fundamental problems, he concludes that we have to transform our
societies into sustainable systems, which recognise inter-generational and intra-
generational solidarity as the Rio declaration propose. In order to deal with the
problems the technosphere causes, Vonkeman offers a four-phase planning
methodology for achieving regional sustainability.15 During the first phase, experts
(scientific personnel) need to introduce the aims of sustainable development and the
nature of its criteria to stakeholders in the region. The meaning of sustainable
development has to be defined with a high degree of participation and consensus
seeking. Planning experts must propose sustainability indicators, open to discussion
among the stakeholders. The second phase involves the development of a vision, an
implementation strategy and a programme, where the responsibilities of the
stakeholders are determined. This is followed by a third phase, which involves the
elaboration of an operational strategy and actions to meet the targets. In the final
phase, the draft sustainability plan is presented and discussed, aiming to reach
consensus on the plan and the implementation of it. The planning experts have to
assure a process of continuous improvement by providing a regional management
system.
Vonkeman calls for more efficient technologies regarding the pressure on natural
resources, and at the same time decreasing the consumption of resources and energy.
Due to certain cultural barriers to sustainable development, cultural change may first
be necessary to implement such technological development. A sustainable lifestyle
must be promoted, one that does not link with prosperity, wealth, happiness and status
15
Vonkeman, G.H (2000), pp.101-142
11
to material wealth and consumption. One important tool to achieve this is the political
declaration made at the Rio conference in Agenda 21, 1992. Despite progress on
various fronts like policymaking, science and research, he claims that significant
environmental problems remain “deeply embedded in the socioeconomic fabric of all
nations”.16
1.3.2. Creating the sustainable city.
Herbert Girardet writes that:
“The cities of the 21st Century are where human destiny will be played out, and
where the future of the biosphere will be determined. There will be no sustainable
world without sustainable cities.” 17
This statement sets the city as the most important factor in creating sustainable
development. He argues that global economic growth is closely associated with
urbanisation, and that the city is the main engine for economic growth. Large cities
have negative effects on the environment; they are the main environmental pollutants
in the world. Applying the ecological footprint approach18 to the city of London,
Girardet finds that each Londoner has a footprint of some three hectares.19 He claims
that if the figures in London, and Europe in general were to be applied globally, we
would need two planets.
The solution for Girardet is in creating sustainable cities, which are constructed in
such a way that clean water, air, food, housing, education, health, labour and equality
16
Vonkeman, G.H (2000), page 37
17
Girardet, H (1999), Page 9
18
Wackernagel, M., Rees, W (1996)
19
Girardet, H (1999), pp. 28-29
12
are provided without damaging the environment. Accordingly, a sustainable city can
be defined as:
“…organised so as to enable all citizens to meet their own needs and to enhance their
well-being without damaging the natural world or endangering the living conditions
of other people, now or in the future.” 20
He argues that even if modern cities were to dramatically reduce their consumption of
resources and energy, they would still prosper. Improving the resource productivity of
individual consumption patterns, as well as that of urban system as a whole could do
this. Instruments such as waste recycling, improving urban buildings by using new
materials and architecture, new approaches to transport planning, and the use of urban
space can be used. In order to reduce the ecological footprint of cities, urban
metabolism, the flow of resources and products through the urban system for the
benefit of urban populations, must be improved. Nature’s own metabolism has an
essentially circular metabolism, while the city has a linear metabolism where
resources are being pumped through the urban system without much concern about
the resulting waste products.21
Local agenda 21, initiated by Agenda 21, is seen as the main vehicle to achieve
sustainable development in human settlements. The majority of the world’s local
authorities have initiated Local Agenda 21 programmes, but Girardet argues that,
while many useful things have been said, very little has been done to implement them.
He claims that the Agenda 21 project cannot be successful without active participation
of the general public, politicians, and civic leaders and of the world of business.
Furthermore, he calls for a culture of sustainability, where the cultural values
underpinning our cities must be changed.
20
Girardet, H (1999), page 13
21
Girardet, H (1999), pp. 32-46
13
1.3.3. Managing sustainable environments.
Roberto Campagni, Roberta Capello and Peter Nijkamp propose that the sustainable
city must be based on a weak definition of sustainability.22 (As opposed to weak
sustainability, Krishna Rao Pinninti claims that strong sustainability refers to
maintaining both every component of natural capital and human made capital. Weak
sustainability can refer to maintaining total capital intact, without regard to the
composition of that capital 23). They claim that the city was born in direct opposition
to the countryside. As a growing artefact it was designed to attain social goals such as
human interaction, agglomeration of economies, and cultural knowledge processes.
Therefore theoretical tools developed for natural resource management cannot be
transferred to understand and regulate an increasingly non-natural urban environment.
In terms of usual concepts developed in the case of natural resources; the city is by
definition unsustainable, and therefore “strong” sustainability principles are almost
meaningless in an urban environment. Campagni et al maintain that a city in
ecological equilibrium is not a useful concept. Rather, they suggest that urban
sustainability should incorporate supplying agglomeration of economies, dynamic
proximity advantages, welfare, internal social interaction, proper accessibility to the
external world and economies of scale in energy consumption.24 The three subsystems
that constitutes the city, the economic, the social and the physical (natural and built)
environments should be analysed in an integrated manner. Unlimited and chaotic
growth in the city that happens in the process of rapid economic growth and
industrialisation is a challenge to the sustainable city. But this process can be handled
if good management of the city and professional organisation of urban space are
22
Campagni et al: Managing Sustainable Environments. In Paddison, R. (2001), page 128
23
Rao, P.K (2000), pp. 69-90
24
Campagni et al: Manging Sustainable Environments. In Paddison, R. (2001), page 128
14
implemented. A major hindrance to such a process is inefficient bureaucratic
procedures, which fail to exploit the potential embodied in the modern city.
There must be an early response to environmentally adverse technological and
territorial trajectories from a relevant public body. Once a trajectory gets started, the
costs of changing it are huge. Path dependency might “lock in” the system. Urban
governance has to be driven by clear and professional principles. Campagni, et al call
for the implementation of more market-based development principles and long range
public infrastructure provision, which ensure urban sustainability in terms of social,
economic, and environmental benefits for all actors in the urban space. For example,
in the case of emissions they argue that the utilisation of the urban space and the
rights to use it may be based on fair market principles (for example tradable permits),
which should serve the need for all citizens. They claim that in a perfect market, the
permits would be traded until the marginal abatement costs of all actors are equal to
the market price of the emission permits. Such a system offers more certainty and
flexibility than other policy systems.
1.3.4. Integrated Assessment.
Cites can be seen as the motors for sustainable development of European regions.
Jan Rotmans, Marjolein van Asselt and Pier Vellinga stating that the term sustainable
city is value-loaded and thus multi-interpretable. They characterises a sustainable city
as a: "…more balanced development of the social-cultural, economic and
environmental domains of a city and its surroundings" 25.
25
Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M., Vellinga. P (1999), page 5
15
Regarding the future of Europe, the development of cities constitutes one of the most
important driving forces since about 80 % of Europe’s population live in cities. In this
context, it is crucial to be able to monitor city contribution to sustainable
development. In the integrated approach, the economic, ecological and the
institutional development of a city are interwoven. A sustainable city can be managed
if proper planning tools are developed, and if a diversity of the stakeholders
participate in the process. A city-planning instrument can estimate the choices in city
policy making that might be made, playing a facilitating role. They advocate using an
integrated systems approach, which considers the city as a system of interrelated
stocks and flows. These flows consist of economic stocks, social-cultural stocks and
ecological stocks, and are to be analysed in an integrated and cross-disciplinary
manner. Key issues such as transport, water, waste, food, information and
communication must be addressed from an integrated viewpoint.
1.3.5. Summary
There is scientific consensus that cities and the different processes that take place in
the urban space cause problems for the natural environment and social and
economical conditions of humans, both locally and globally. This problem is to be
solved by creating sustainable cities. The concept of the sustainable city varies
whether it should contain a strong or weak sense of sustainability. There is also an
agreement that professional and scientific management in the planning process is
necessary in order to obtain a sustainable city. It varies however, how one should
combine professional expert planning and stakeholder participation. As for more
efficient technology, it is agreed that environmental benign technology and certain
kinds of technological innovation are needed.
16
The scholarly discourse on sustainable cities is thus very much concerned about the
meaning of what a sustainable city is (or what it should mean), and what actions one
should undertake to achieve a sustainable city, and how to plan for such actions. But,
what is the situation on the political arena? Are governmental institutions concerned
with sustainable cities? If they are, how do they approach this issue?
1.4. The research question.
Given this background, the main question to be explored in this thesis is:
Is the idea and the conceptualisation of the sustainable city represented differently in
reports by different agencies? Why, why not? What are the problems they identify and
the solutions they propose regarding city planning and sustainable technologies? Do
these change across different geographic scales?
In order to address this question, a series of interrelated reports are examined. These
will be compared and contrasted by examining the idea of the sustainable city as it is
represented. All the selected reports are linked politically with the Agenda 21
protocol. I will look upon the common themes (and differences) regarding the
problems identified and the solutions proposed. Three different geographical scales
(here meaning different levels of representation) are examined. On the global scale, I
have selected to investigate the Habitat Agenda26 of Istanbul, and parts written in the
Agenda 21 protocol about human settlements, planning and technology. The Expert
Group on the urban Environment of the EU, which has published the Sustainable
Cities Report,27 represents the regional scale. As for the local scale, the Sustainable
London Trust Projects are explored, where Creating a Sustainable London28 by the
26
UN. The Habitat Agenda (1996)
27
Expert Group on the Urban Environment (1996)
28
SLT (1996) Creating a Sustainable London
17
Sustainable London Trust, and other related case studies are published as a part of the
London 21 Organisation.
These reports will be compared regarding their construction of the sustainable city,
and also analysed as to whether these constructions change across scale. The scale
issue is interesting, since the idea of sustainable development as described by Agenda
21 is supposed to be implemented through actions on different scales, with the local
scale pointed out as the most important. The idea of the sustainable city, and the
means to achieve it may differ between those scales. If so, this might also have an
influence on what sort of approaches that should be used, and actions that ought to be
undertaken. On the other hand, if there are similar definitions and approaches on all
geographic scales (UN-EU-city) to reach sustainability, this should also be accounted
for.
Finding what these approaches are about should not be that difficult, since suggested
actions based on ideas of policy visions are explicit written in the text. However,
finding out why those approaches gain consensus is a harder task. Here I will explore
whether the actor network translation model can contribute to achieving a better
understanding of the different conceptualisations that take place.29 Bruno Latour

maintains that theories, scientific facts, and machines are negotiated between human
and non-human actors. Furthermore, theories, facts and machines are transformed
during translation in actor-networks.30 He argues that there is no such thing as scales,
rather there are just smaller, or longer and more extensively connected networks.
My research question regarding the scale issue may thus look like a serious
contradiction compared to the translation model applied to investigate it. My intention
is to test if Latour’s translation model can contribute to a better understanding of the
29
Latour, B (1987)
30
Latour, B (1987) pp. 103-144
18
processes that take place in the sustainable city discourse. Latour opposes the
diffusion model that treats society only as a medium of different resistances through
which ideas, and machines travel. By discourse analysis within an Actor-Network
Theory framework, I will investigate how actors working in networks settle the
paradigm of the sustainable city (in city planning). Finally, although the terms
‘technology’ and ‘planning’ are used distinctly in this thesis, it is not meant that it is
taken for granted that there actually exist any clear difference, or boundary between
the two. Here, the terms are used with reference to the way they are understood in the
data material.
1.5. The structure of the thesis.
The structure of the thesis is divided into five chapters. After this introduction, an
explanation of the theoretical framework and the research method follows in chapter
two. There I will also elaborate why I chose to investigate the selected reports.
Chapter two will be concerned with how to do a discourse research on the sustainable
city discourse, describing its potential for textual exploration. Furthermore, the
insights achievable by using research methods proposed by some writers within the
field of discourse analyses, and Society, Technology and Science studies (STS) are
explored, actor-network theory (ANT) is specifically discussed. In chapter three the
data material will be presented. The contents of the reports are examined with a
special concern to the idea and the conceptualisation of the sustainable city,
approaches to city planning and sustainable technologies. In chapter four the data
material will be analysed according to the methodological approach as described in
chapter two. The reports will be sifted, compared and contrasted with each other with
regard to the idea of the sustainable city. I am particularly interested in the actors
involved in the making of the report, for whom it is written, the understanding of the
sustainable city, the problems identified, and the solutions proposed. Regarding the
answers to the question that is posed, a conclusion is written in chapter five based on
19
the discourse reading and analysis of the texts. Finally, a proposal for further research
is elaborated.
20
2. Method: Approaching Discourse Analysis
2.1. Introduction.
Mark Boyle and Robert J. Rogerson propose the use of discourse analysis in urban
studies.31 They suggest analysing the policy discourse in order to understand the
cultural constructions of the city, within which the city policy-making is embedded.
Such a discourse reading focuses less on policy practice; rather it foregrounds the
ways of seeing cities assumed in policies and the idea that ways of seeing always
derive from an underlying position of power. For the purpose of this thesis, those
constructions are seen as constantly open to negotiation, which takes place between
different actors, possessing different degrees of power, through their activity in
networks. Applying discourse analysis to investigate key sustainable city reports can
open and visualise any different cultural constructions of the sustainable city.
Furthermore it can be a helpful tool to see if and how these constructions affect the
proposed actions to achieve a sustainable city.
In this chapter, it is asked whether actor-network theory (ANT) can contribute to a
better understanding of the sustainable city discourse, specifically whether there are
different and changing ideas of the sustainable city. For that purpose, an account of
discourse and an approach to discourse analysis is needed, followed by an account of
ANT. At the end an explanation is presented on how discourse analysis that is
inspired by ANT can be applied to the case of the sustainable city discourse.
31
Boyle, M., Rogerson, R.J: Power, Discourse and Trajectories. In Paddison, R (2001), page 414
21
2.2. Discourse and discourse analysis.
Maarten A Hajer defines discourse as:
“…a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that is produced,
reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which
meaning is given to physical and social realities.”32
Of course there are many other definitions of discourse and many ways to approach
discourse analysis. In particular there is the realist approach, which assumes that the
natural environment that is discussed in environmental politics is the same as the
environment “out there”. What Hajer proposes, is a constructivist approach of reading
(environmental) discourses, in opposition to the realist approach. He claims that the
realist assumption fails to recognise that images of reality are dependent on certain
discourses being able to express themselves.33 A similar approach is put forward by
Elizabeth Frazer and Nicola Lacey, who, referring to Michel Focault, state that
language is not neutral.34 It does not give an objective and passive mirroring of
reality. They claim furthermore that certain form of institutionalised language shape
the social reality.
The ontological question of what reality is, and the epistemological questions of how
we can know have been a debate extensively discussed within philosophy as far back
as the Antique in Greece. This debate goes beyond the scope of this thesis. The point
is that while analysing discourses, one can get to know the perspectives of what
reality is as understood by the different actors. If there are different perspectives,
these differences are often visible within a particular discourse. As Fran Tonkiss
32
Hajer, M.A (1995), page 60
33
Hajer, M.A (1995), pp. 16-21.
34
Frazer., E., Lacey, N (1993), page 15.
22
holds, discourse analysis is not so much about getting the truth of an underlying
reality, but to examine the way that language is used to picture the reality.35
From this we can say that texts are important regarding the way they influence
people’s understanding of their reality. Christie W. Mathisen claims that a discourse,
which often takes place through texts (among other media), produces and reproduces
people’s meaning of the world and shapes their identities and attitudes.36 Accordingly,
language as discourse is not a neutral medium, but a domain in which our social world
is constructed and organised. As Norman Fairclough defines discourse, it can be
understood as the “…use of language as a form of social practice.”37
One can illustrate the relation between text and context is about through discourse
analysis. Mathisen claims that: “…discourse analysis is to analyse texts or the use of
language, regarded as social action in its social context.”38 (My translation). We can
thus gain understanding of how people interpret their reality through reading the
discourse they produce, distribute and use. We regard and treat real ecological and
social problems through specific systems of language, which draw on particular
terminologies and specific types of knowledge. Policy documents and reports on
sustainable cities draw on various discursive elements from disciplines such as
economy, ecology, geography, philosophy, political science, sociology and
anthropology. Further, discourses are not independent constructions; rather they are
embedded in the day-to-day life, where they produce considerable effects. Discourses
are not independent entities that can be studied in isolation from their use, history and
the particular network in which they are situated; they do not exist by themselves.
Mathisen claims, in policy making, words are often considered to be less important
than real actions. However, while referring to Jerome Bruner39, Mathisen points out
35
Tonkiss, F: Analysing Discourse. In Researching Society and Culture. In Clive Seale (1998)
36
Mathisen, W.C (1997)
37
Fairclough, N (1995), page 7
38
Mathisen, W.C (1997), page 2
39
Bruner, J (1990)
23
that there is no clear-cut difference between what people say and what people do.
What we say before or while we do something is to a certain degree a determinant in
how action is carried out. We can also conclude that the one who dominates the
discourse also has access to means of control, and therefore also the potential to gain
power. But how do some actors become dominant in a discourse? And how do they
make other actors accept these ideas? Can the meaning of the social and physical
reality simply be produced and diffused in the discourse itself? These are questions
that will be investigated in order to find whether there are differences or similarities
regarding the idea of the sustainable city.
The main focus here is upon selected official documents and reports on sustainable
cities and not so much about other sources of information (i.e. television, radio, art,
etc.). Regarding the sustainable city discourse, my wish is to see if actors at the
various levels have distinctive ideas about what a sustainable city is and, hence, which
actions should be taken to achieve such a goal. If there are similar interpretations of
the idea of the sustainable city, this also must be explained. Is the answer that the idea
of the sustainable city and its implementation simply diffuse over time and through
space vigorously because of its own objective inertia? This thesis argues against this
assumption. Instead, it is proposed that the idea of the sustainable city is only adopted
by cities because of some actors’ work and persuasion in networks. In particular, this
work is done through texts.
2.3. The model of diffusion.
Geographers have long explained the spread of phenomena in terms of diffusion. The
Swedish geographer Torsten Hagerstrand suggested that innovations diffuse as a
spatial process. 40 Here, information circulates through a regional system, modulated
40
Hagerstrand, T (1968)
24
by physical and individual resistances, which together determine the transformation of
the information into innovation.
Bruno Latour opposes the diffusion model. He argues it treats society only as a
medium of different resistances through which ideas and machines travel.41
According to the diffusion model, when a fact is not believed, when an innovation is
not taken up, or when a theory is put into a completely different use, the diffusion
model simply says, “some groups resist”. Latour further maintains that diffusionists
simply add passive social groups into the context that slow down the path and
movement of ideas and innovations. In such a model, facts, theories, ideas and
machines are understood as true, universal, and functional. They have their own
inertia and get black boxed in a society consisting of groups with passive interests,
who either adopt or ignore them. As a consequence of this, Latour says a distinction is
drawn between science and techniques on the one hand, and society on the other.
Here, the society is the reason why true and universal facts, theories, ideas, methods
and functional machines do not spread. By this, we have not only scientific and
technological determinism, where facts spread by their own inertia, but also social,
cultural or economical determinism that seeks to explain that science and technology
is shaped and determined by all these social factors. Instead of the diffusion model,
Latour and other actor-network theorists propose to apply the translation model that is
a part of actor network theory (ANT). This approach is also suggested here.
2.4. On Actor-Network Theory.
John Law maintains that representing a theory that talks of representation in terms of
translation poses the problem of being a “faithful representative”.42 Thus, talking

about “one” ANT is problematic, because the application of the method itself gets
41
Latour, B (1987), pp 132-144
42
Law, J (1992)
25
transformed and changed when applied by different social scientists (actors) in
different studies. However, in ANT there are some specific features that are common
to how ANT-scholars approach their research.
Scholars such as Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, John Law and Ariel Rip (among
others) represent ANT. ANT is concerned with explaining how scientific disputes
become closed, how machines become taken up, and how ideas and methods become
adopted. These processes are described as closing black boxes, where facts, ideas and
machines attain a more stabilised and final state. Both humans and non-humans are
part of networks of negotiation, where black boxes are an effect of the work done by
of some actors in these networks. A network consists of actors (humans), and actants
(non-humans, non-individual entities). “An actant can literally be anything provided it
is granted to be the source of an action.”43 Actors can work by enrolling and
juxtaposing other heterogeneous entities (actors and actants) within networks, such as
articles, grants, experts, declarations, conferences etc. Networks are constantly
reproduced by: a) problematisation: in which one actor has solutions to propose to
other actors, making in the process oneself indispensable to them, b) interessement:
bringing new recruits from older networks to join and support the particular network,
c) enrolment: defining and distributing the roles in the network by solidifying the new
network’s identity through pressure, and d) mobilisation: where a maximal number of
allies act as a single whole in one place.
According to Latour, ANT aims at accounting for the very essence of societies and
natures: “It does not wish to add social networks to social theory but to rebuild social
theory out of networks. It is as much an ontology or a metaphysics, as sociology.”44
43
Latour, B (1997), page 6
44
26
In order to analyse such networks, a general principle that one must treat actors and
actants symmetrically is applied. This blurs the distinction between the really social
and the really natural and object-centred repertoires.45
In this ontology, black boxes (i.e. universal scientific facts) are not the rule, but the
exceptions that have to be accounted for. Furthermore, black boxes do not diffuse by
their own inertia, rather, they are translated in networks. Here, theories, ideas, and
machines ‘work’ because of work done by some actors.
2.4.1 The model of translation: translation in networks
The way facts, machines and theories are negotiated in this actor-network is called
translation. Translation takes place when actors enrol others.
What is given here is an account of how one can apply ANT in order to analyse the
translations that take place in the sustainable city discourse, and how this might affect
actions proposed. The intention is to explore whether ANT can contribute to a better
understanding of any possible differences regarding the idea of the sustainable city as
represented at three different geographic scales. If there are no differences, this is also
interesting and has to be accounted for. It will be explored whether ANT can provide
a framework to explain if and why any differences and similarities take place.
In order to do this; one must abandon the a priori assumption that there actually exist
different scales. According to John Law, if we want to understand the mechanics of
power and organisation it is important not to start assuming whatever we wish to
45
Callon, M., Latour, B: Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and
Yearley. Pp. 343-368. In Pickering, A (1992)
27
explain.46 He proposes that we should start with a clean slate, assuming that
interaction is all there is, refusing any analytical distinctions between the macro and
the microsocial.47 Latour also proposes a similar solution, saying that everything
happens locally, in networks.
Latour suggests we can dissolve the micro-macro distinction that has “plagued social
theory from its inception.”48 Society does not have a top and a bottom. The metaphor
of scales is replaced by the metaphor of connections, a network that is connected by
nodes such as actors and actants. An actant could be a scientific fact, a theory, a
machine, an ideology or a text document. These actors and actants are to be analysed
as a part of a network, both in themselves and how they are connected to each other.
In this ontology, discursive power is an effect, not a cause, of the many negotiations
that take place in a network. Likewise, the construction of different scales is also an
outcome of this network negotiation, not a cause. That is why ANT suggests that the
notion of network is a good analytical tool to use in order to follow the change of the
adoption of machines, theories and ideas across scale, between the local and the
global. To sum up in a short sentence, Law states that: “All phenomena are the effect
of heterogeneous networks.” 49
2.5. Discourse analysis and ANT.
If discourse power is an outcome of network translation (with negotiation between
actors and actants), and not a cause, one must try to explain how texts and words
travel and are translated in networks. Further, how do networks become stronger,
longer and more intensely connected through the nodes of actors and actants who
46
Law, J (1992)
47
This can be seen as an approach similar to that used in proof by contradiction or the standard practice
in statistics to assume the opposite of what wants to show as the null hypothesis.
48
49
Law , J (1992), page 4
28
operate in the discourse. In this way, one extends the traditional understanding of
discourse as a method to understand the social (human relations) construction of
reality through texts, to also include things (actants) and their role of the construction
of reality.
Michel Callon, John Law and Arie Rip claim that:
“…texts make possible the construction of linkages between existing entities and the
formation of novel entities and, if persuasive, thereby constitute an important method
for attempting to control the environment.” 50
Here, inscriptions are important regarding the construction of an actor-world. Instead
of following the actors, we may therefore follow texts. Although Callon et al are
mostly occupied with analysing the making of scientific texts, this method also could
be relevant for approaching what we call political claims (i.e. creating sustainable
cities), which, among other sources, mobilise established scientific facts to favour its
claim.
When ideas in texts become more stable through network negotiation, ANT suggests
that some actors have been able to successfully pass their claims to others. In
translation, an actor’s creation of a problem (problematisation), and imposition of it
upon other actors and actants can do this. The success of a text is dependent upon
whether the authors have managed to enrol others as defining and distributing roles in
the actor world, a world of entities generated by an actor-network. The authors define
roles, and distribute those to other actors and actants. If the authors of a text have
successfully enrolled their interests to other actors and actants, they have extended the
network, and at the same time, made this network more stable. But this is not to say
50
Callon, M., Law, J., Rip, A: How to Study the Force of Science. In Callon, Law and Rip (eds.),
(1986), page 11
29
that it is stabilised forever. A network may collapse whenever actors and actants
refuse to be a part of it, or when the translation centres (the “obligatory passage-
point”) can no longer hold the other elements together.
According to ANT, a network becoming more and more stable is the exception rather
than the rule. For Latour, it is such exceptional circumstances that have to be
accounted for. While the constructivist approach of reading discourse limits itself to
the social (human relations) construction of meaning, the approach of reading the
discourse suggested here also extends to being occupied with actors and actants in the
actor world, who play a crucial role in the development of a discourse. Although non-
humans do not have the same way of acting as humans have, humans have no
preferential claim to agency. Thus, their activities must be analysed symmetrically
with those of non-humans.
2.6. The sustainable city: actors, actants, discursive power
and suggestions for action.
Based on an actor-network theory and a theoretical fundament on how to understand
discourse and discourse analysis, I propose here to use an actor-network approach to
analyse how and why the sustainability discourses take place. Text authors, text
supporters (i.e. scientists, politicians, articles), text products, the actors described in
the texts, technologies and text distributors are all part of an actor-network. There
might be several discourse networks in the sustainable city discourse, or simply one
network. I will explore if it is possible to detect a network, and whether there are
differences and similarities regarding the: a) actors involved in the discourse b)
concept of the sustainable city, c) problems identified and d) solutions proposed, with
special attention paid to ideas about city planning and sustainable technologies. If
there are no differences, but just simply one perspective that is (apparently) black
boxed, this also has to be accounted for.
30
I will investigate whether the idea and the conceptualisation of the sustainable city is
translated within a network (the actors in the discourse) through the approach of
discourse reading as described above. This experiment can be described as an
exploration of reading discourse within an ANT framework.
31
3. The Sustainable City
3.1. Background.
In 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, the document of Agenda 21 was negotiated and agreed
upon by political leaders from 179 countries. Also, representatives of the UN,
countries, private organisations, business, indigenous people and other groups
participated. According to Agenda 21, humanity stands at a defining moment in
history. Agenda 21 claims that disparities between nations, poverty, hunger, ill health,
illiteracy and the continuing deterioration of ecosystems are problems that need to be
solved. Furthermore, these problems can only be solved in a global partnership for
sustainable development, with a balanced and integrated approach to environment and
development. The document aims to prepare the world for the challenges of the next
century as it:
“…reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on
development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and
foremost the responsibility of governments.”51
In chapter 7, Agenda 21 stresses the importance of promoting sustainable human
settlements. The consumption patterns of cities in industrialised countries stress the
global ecosystem. The situation in developed countries is opposite, human settlements
there need more raw material and economic development in order to overcome basic
economic and social problems. Facing these problems in urban areas, Agenda 21 calls
for a programme that promotes: settlement management, sustainable land use
51
UNECD (1992) Agenda 21, Chapter 1
32
planning and management, sustainable land use planning, sustainable energy,
transport systems and sustainable construction of industry.
The UN has been concerned about the development in human settlements and cities
for a long time (Habitat conference in Vancouver, 1976). The Habitat Agenda 2 (from
now on just the Habitat Agenda) was a conference held in Istanbul in 1996. One
document that is to be analysed in this thesis was written at that conference. In the
Habitat Agenda, the UN seeks to integrate paradigm of sustainable development and
the outcomes of the conference in Rio to the Habitat Agenda, on the city level.
Within the European Union, the sustainable city policy vision is seemingly thorough,
where comprehensive projects are worked out by numerous organisations. The
Sustainable Cities Project started in 1993, launched by the EU. As a part of this, the
European Sustainable Cities & Town Campaign (backed by the European
Commission DGXI ) started in 1994. Its 80 European local authorities committed
themselves to the Aalborg Charter52 and its declaration, promoting sustainable
development at the local level. In this way, the Sustainable Cities Project became a
part of Local 21 in Europe. In that respect, the Sustainable London Trust, which is
part of London 21 Sustainability Network that aims to create a sustainable London, is
also a part of Local 21 in Europe.
What follows is a description of how the Habitat Agenda want to improve the quality
of human settlements, with a focus upon cities. Special attention is paid to: the actors
involved in the making of the document, their conceptualisation of the sustainable
city, the problems they identify and the solutions they propose regarding the role of
city planning and what they call environmentally sound/sustainable technologies. This
process of dividing does not imply that the concept of sustainable cities is
independent of, and unrelated to the problems identified. On the contrary, they are
52
First European Conference on Sustainable Cities & Towns. Aalborg (1994)
33
intimately related. However, the intention by setting up this divide is to see the
different aspects of the sustainable city as described in the report/policy-document
more clearly. Similar descriptions will be provided on the Sustainable Cities Report
of the EU and on Creating a Sustainable London of the SLT. Later on, in chapter four
the data descriptions are juxtaposed according the methodological framework
described in chapter two. Also, the data will be compared with the approaches of the
scholars within the field of sustainable city matters accounted for in chapter one.
3.2. The Habitat Agenda.
3.2.1. The actors involved.
The authors of the UN habitat Agenda are the heads of State or Government and the
official delegations of countries assembled at the United Nations Conference on
Human Settlements (Habitat 2) in Istanbul, Turkey from 3 to 14 June 1996. 185
governments have signed the Habitat Agenda. They claim that this conference marks
a new era of co-operation, culture and solidarity. Moving into the twenty-first century,
they:
“offer a positive vision of sustainable human settlements, a sense of hope for our
common future and an exhortation to join a truly worthwhile and engaging challenge,
that of building together a world where everyone can live in a safe home with the
promise of a decent life of dignity, good health, safety, happiness and hope.”53
They believe that the full and effective implementation of the Habitat Agenda will
require the strengthening of the role and functions of the United Centre for Human
53
UN (1996), page 15
34
Settlements. However, the actors who will determine the success or failures in
improving the human settlement condition are mostly found at the community level in
the public, private and non-profit sectors. Particularly, Local Agenda 21 activities
should be used. The Habitat Agenda calls for other actors such as the International
Monetary Fund, The World Bank, subregional banks, the Bretton Woods institutions
and their structural adjustment programmes, other UN specialised agencies and local
governments to mobilise resources, and work towards the vision of the Habitat.
3.2.2. The conceptualisation of the sustainable city.
The Habitat Agenda offers no explicit definition of a sustainable city in this
document, however the United Nations Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP),
established to put into the practice the concepts and approaches developed, defines it
as: “…a city where achievements in social, economic, and physical development are
made to last.”54
Furthermore, the Habitat Agenda does contain several statements that together, give
an impression of what the concept means. They recognise cities and towns as the
centres of civilisation, which generate economic development, social, cultural,
spiritual and scientific advancement. In section two it is stated that sustainable
development is essential for human settlement development, and gives full
consideration to the needs and necessities of achieving economic growth, social
development and environmental protection.
In the Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements, the Heads of State or Government
and the delegations of countries assembled at the conference endorsed the universal
goal of ensuring adequate shelter for all and making human settlements safer,
54
UN, The sustainable Cities Programme. http://www.undp.org/un/habitat/scp/info/home.htm
35
healthier and more liveable, equitable, sustainable and productive. Furthermore, in
chapter one they place human beings at the centre of sustainable development,
including adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements. They declare
that humans are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. In
that respect, urban settlements hold a promise for human development and for
protection of the world’s natural resources through their ability to support large
numbers of people while limiting their impact on the natural environment.
The Habitat Agenda understands sustainable development of human settlements as a
combination of economic development, social development and environmental
protection. Full respect must be paid to all human rights and fundamental freedoms,
including the right to development. It claims that sustainable development:
“…offers a means of achieving a world of greater stability and peace, built on ethical
and spiritual vision.” 55
In chapter four, sustainable urban development requires consideration of the carrying
capacity of the entire ecosystem supporting such development, including the
prevention and mitigation of adverse environmental impacts occurring outside urban
areas. In that regard, the ecological footprint of cities must be reduced.
3.2.3. Problems identified.
In the Declaration, the authors are concerned about the continuing deterioration of
conditions of shelter and human settlements at the same time as increasing
urbanisation is taking place. This deterioration of conditions has reached crisis
proportions. More specifically, they identify problems such as: unsustainable
consumption and production patterns; unsustainable population changes (including
55
UN (1996), Preamble.
36
structure, distribution and excessive population concentration); homelessness;
increasing poverty; unemployment; social exclusion; family instability; inadequate
resources; lack of basic infrastructure and services; inadequate planning; insecurity;
violence; environmental degradation; and increased vulnerability to disasters. They
claim that these problems are exacerbated by inadequate planning, lack of managerial
capabilities, investment, and technology.
3.2.4. Solutions proposed.
The purpose for the conference was to focus upon adequate shelter for all and
sustainable human settlements in an urbanising world. The solutions proposed for the
crisis that is described above are thus numerous improvements in many fields. The
Habitat Agenda “will guide all efforts to turn this vision into reality.”56
For city planning in general, the authors hold that decentralised and participatory
planning and management are preferred. People must be empowered. Urban
settlements, properly planned, hold the promise for human development and the
protection of the world’s natural resources. They advocate for an integrated urban
planning in relation to housing, transport, employment opportunities, environmental
conditions and human facilities. Promoting sustainable spatial development patterns
are means of achieving this. In order to do so, it is argued that a core of professional
staff trained in the area of urban planning (among other fields) must be created.
Furthermore, on metropolitan planning and management, it says that the lack of a
metropolitan-wide authority co-operation creates difficulties in urban management.
Here, regional planning must also be promoted in an integrated manner. However,
professional management is not enough. A bottom-up approach to planning is also
56
UN (1996), Preamble.
37
needed; participation from the grass root level in human settlements is crucial. They
must be included in the policy making process.
As for technology, the Habitat Agenda states in its declaration that one must facilitate
capacity building and promote the transfer of appropriate technology and know-how.
Science and technology have a crucial role in shaping sustainable human settlements
and sustaining the ecosystems they depend upon. They commit themselves to
promoting high-energy efficiency and environmentally sound technologies in all
countries at the local, national, regional and subregional levels. Chapter four offers a
global plan of action for how to facilitate the transfer of environmentally sound
technologies as a part of achieving sustainable human settlements. Here, local and
regional expertise must be mobilised to promote research and the transfer of
technology to support land administration systems.
3.3. The Sustainable Cities Report.
The European Commission in 1991 established the Expert Group on the Urban
Environment, which has written this report. However, they state that any view
expressed in the report does not necessarily reflect the views of the European
Commission.
The Expert Group is composed of 38 national representatives and independent experts
from the EU countries. Inputs in to the preparation of the report have also been
received from the Directorates General in the EU. The report is one of the main
38
outputs of the Sustainable Cities Project that the Expert Group in the Urban
Environment launched in 1993. It represents how the ideas on sustainability have
been developed, and how they should be pursued in European settings, as reflected in
the: European Commission Green Paper on the Environment, the Treaty on European
Union, the Fifth Environmental Action Programme Towards Sustainability, the UN
World Earth Summit at Rio, and the series of conferences concluding with Habitat 2.
The European Sustainable Cities Report is concerned with identifying the principles
of sustainable development and the mechanisms needed to pursue it, in cities and all
levels of the human settlement hierarchy. It focuses on the capacity of local
governments ability to deliver sustainability, and it provides a framework for local
action, identifying a set of principles to use in setting goals, in evaluating and
monitoring progress toward sustainability in urban areas. The Expert group advises
the EU Commission on environmental urban policy. Furthermore, the report is also
aimed at elected representatives in cities, city managers/administrators and urban
environment professionals, who manage sustainability in cities. The successful
implementation also depends upon the active involvement of local communities,
private and voluntary sector.
The Expert group claims that sustainable development requires the management of
demands. It is concerned with reconciling this with the:
“…aspirations of human societies to develop, progress and improve wealth and living
standards”.57
More specifically on the city, the Expert Group maintains that:
57
Expert Group on the Urban Environment (1996), Chapter 3. 1,2
39
“The sustainable city process is about creativity and change. It is about the substance
of policy as well as policy methods. It challenges traditional governmental responses
and seeks new institutional and organising capacities and relationships. The notion of
sustainability is dynamic and evolving and will change over time as understanding of
the local and global environment becomes more sophisticated and shared.”58
Regarding urban sustainability, the Expert Group follows the well-accepted definition
of sustainable development set out in the Brundtland report of 1987:
“…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs.”59
They also use a complementary definition that is defined by World Conservation
Union, UN Environment Programme and World Wide Fund For Nature in 1991,
where the concept means improving the quality of life while living within the carrying
capacity of supporting ecosystems.
The Expert Group advocates a broad concept of urban sustainability, broader than
environmental protection. The report explores the meanings of sustainability by
thinking of the city in ecosystems terms. It is claimed that within cities it is possible to
speak of ecology in the literal sense; the plants and animals that live in them. Also,
one can conceive of the human ecology of cities - the way cities provide for human
needs, wants, and opportunities. Ecology may further be used as a metaphor or model
for the social and economic as well as physical processes of cities. Viewing the city as
a complex interconnected, and dynamic system consisting of environmental,
economic and social factors, the Expert Group understands the city as a living
organism. Drawing on the ecosystems metaphor and sustainable development,
58
Expert Group on the Urban Environment (1996), Epilogue.
59
WECD (1987) page 43.
40
principles of integration, co-operation, homeostasis, subsidiary and energy are
advocated. Cities perceived as sustainable will be seen as attractive locations for
investment as well as pleasant places in which to live and work, being highly resource
efficient, but also safe, healthy, pleasant, fulfilling and inspiring places to live.
The challenge of urban sustainability is to solve the problems identifies in the cities
themselves, and the problems caused by cities.
“As we approach the final years of the 20th Century, the increasing urbanisation of
the world coupled with global issues of climate change, water shortage,
environmental degradation, economic restructuring and social exclusion, demand
that we take a deeper look at the future of our cities in Europe.”60
The Expert Group recognises the problems and challenges that are presented in
Agenda 21, the Habitat Agenda and other related UN reports to the sustainability
issue. Focusing upon European urban systems, the period since the mid 1980s has
witnessed a period of economic recession and population growth in some of the
largest cities. Spatial effects of social polarisation appear in some European cities,
poor quality neighbourhoods of unemployed people, elderly poor, single young
people and minority ethnic groups. These people are more concerned about current
personal survival than on global issues. All regions in the EU are intended to benefit
from economic growth facilitated by the Single Market, but the Single Market
presents challenges to the challenges for sustainability. Too little attention is being
paid to the environmental impacts of the increased movement of goods and people.
60
Expert Group on the Urban Environment (1996), preface.
41
Poor quality of all aspects of the urban environment is a key concern for city,
managers and the public.
The Expert Group argues against the idea that market interaction and market
motivated decisions by individuals can be a satisfactory model of how organisations
work. This market reductionism fails to deal with social and ecological consequences.
Referring to Jane Jacobs, they claim that the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith can just
as easily function as an “invisible elbow”. The Expert Group claims that sustainable
development will happen only if it is explicitly planned for. Hence, they advocate for
the application of system approaches. It should be aimed to formulate, and lead to
specific levels of environmental quality, economic growth and social progress.
Inspired by Agenda 21, which specifies a long term framework of control, the Expert
Group’s planning approach advocates five main environmental tools: the
collaboration of partnership, policy integration, market mechanisms, information
management, and measuring and monitoring. A broad and active role of the municipal
government is emphasised. All means of modifying or constraining the operation of
professions within sustainability objectives should be used. This implies that many
problems related to unsustainability are only soluble if people accept limits on their
freedoms. The “social contract” model of politics, where individuals agree on
collectively limitations on their own actions, may hold the solution to sustainable
urban management.
Cities are to be emphasised as complex systems that are characterised by continuous
processes of change and development since they are ecological and social living
organisms. This results in the principle of ecosystems thinking for urban sustainability
42
and the dual network approach, consisting of two networks: the hydrological network
and the infrastructure network. The infrastructure network has a guiding effect on
highly dynamic uses such as business, offices, mass recreation and agriculture. The
hydrological network influence less dynamic uses such as water collection, nature and
low key recreation. City managers must seek to meet the social, economic and
cultural needs of urban residents while respecting local, regional and global natural
systems. Hence, cities must transform the linear flow of natural resources into wastes
and pollutants into the circular, self-adjusting flows of an ecosystem.
Regarding environmentally sound technologies, the report does not mention any
specific suggestions for technological innovation and transfer. However, urban
problems such as traffic congestion, odour nuisance and noise can be solved
technically by doubling glazing in homes, catalytic converters or electric cars. Other
solutions could be to increase road capacity, remove road traffic away from sensitive
areas or simply reduce the need to travel.
3.4. Creating a Sustainable London.
Jane Taylor and the London Citizens Forum suggested to publish Crating a
Sustainable London. The SLT is a registered charity run by John Jopling as project
manager. The Trust is supported by the Diana Edgson Wright Charitable Trust. The
trustees consist of five persons, including John Jopling, the project manager, and
Herbert Girardet, the writer of the final text (the Manifesto). Other contributors to the
text are researchers, administrators, designers, consultants and many others. The
authors claim that the document is a result of the collaboration of hundreds of people,
43
who are concerned with making London an environmentally, economically and
socially sustainable city. They claim to speak on behalf of all Londoners, and they are
sure that Londoners feel increasingly uncertain about jobs, housing and pollution,
now and in the future.
The document is claimed to be written for almost all the actors in the city such as:
elected representatives, city administrators, urban environment professionals and local
communities. The LST has numerous organisations, books, reports, articles,
magazines, journals and readers comments supporting the statements of their
manifesto.61 The supporters vary from such as Friends of the Earth London groups,
Towards Humanity, Greenpeace, the London Business School, the London Planning
and Development Forum, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Royal
Institute of British architects, Agenda 21 for London, Earth Summit’92- the Rio
Conference and Planetary Connections.
The projects that the SLT supports fall into three categories: those for which SLT is
responsible (among them, Creating a Sustainable London); those who projects in
which SLT is engaged with other partners; and those who projects run by volunteers
where SLT plays a supporting role and which will become part of the London-wide
sustainability network that is called London 21. London 21 is also part of a wider
network called the UK 21 Sustainability Network, consisting of people in other parts
of the country sharing a desire for radical change.62 The basis for this network is built
upon the Local Agenda 21 in London, which is again a result of the initiatives taken
by the UN in Rio in 1992.
61
Sustainable London Trust (1996), appendix.
62
London Sustainable Network: http://www.london21.org/
44
The Sustainable London Trust (SLT) works with the definition:
“…a sustainable city is a city that works so that all its citizens are able to meet their
own needs without endangering the well-being of the natural world or the living
conditions of other people, now or in the future.”63
They use this as a working definition, but it is up to Londoners to determine what this
means for London. The SLT’s definition emphasises people and their needs. These
include: good quality air, healthy food, appropriate housing, education, health care,
satisfying employment or occupation, safety in public places, supportive relationships,
equal opportunities, freedom of expression and special needs of the young, old or
disabled people. Furthermore, cities can only be sustainable with considered, efficient
use and re-use of resources, and by developing a sustainable relationship with the
outside world. The SLT recognise the global dimension of sustainability, accepted at
the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and the similar message coming out of the Habitat 2
conference in 1996 that one needs to respect the carrying capacity of ecosystems and
prevention of opportunities for future generations. The concept of sustainable
development cannot be concerned merely with environmental factors. Sustainability
encourages a holistic overview that offers a pro-active aspiration driven approach to
the future of that is an environmentally, economically and socially sustainable city.
About London in particular, the SLT say that the city is magnificent:
“…its cosmopolitan energy, its great buildings and avenues, its lush parks and back
gardens and its own local villages are admired throughout the world.”64
63
Sustainable London Trust (1996), page 6. http://www.greenchannel.com/slt/intro.htm
45
However, as the “mother” of mega-cities, it faces several problems.
About sustainability and cities, the SLT holds that:
“…as we approach the Millennium, humanity faces a profound crisis: Human
activities are threatening the very support systems on which our health, even our
survival, depends.”65
Specifically talking about the City of London, it has today fallen behind with regard
to the application of the new generation of urban technologies for ensuring efficiency,
waste recycling and effective uses of public transport systems. Furthermore, London
has serious problems such as poor schools, unemployment, poor housing,
homelessness, traffic congestion, high levels of crime, drug abuse, poor public
transport and exclusion of minorities. Londoners have no direct say, the current
adversarial system does not assist citizens to wishing to become involved in the
planning process. On the contrary, it discourages participation. Moreover, the
planning minister for London does not follow the London Planning Advisory
Committee’s excellent advice: to set a holistic agenda for the strategic planning of
London, integrating planning, transport and social issues. Further, they complain that
no more than a polite nod is paid towards Local Agenda 21 by the planning minister.
Across society the feeling of disillusionment and lack of trust in the future is
deepening. Because of these problems, the LST say that some people exhibit anti-
social behaviour.
64
Sustainable London Trust (1996), introduction
65
Sustainable London Trust (1996), introduction, page 4
46
Sustainability must be the organising principle for the problems that the city faces,
and a duty to promote sustainable development is crucial. The promotion of
sustainable development should be written in the constitution of every public body in
London. London has to become a learning city of innovative ideas that reduces its
global impact. One must improve the use of resources, integrate transport systems,
and invest in ethically oriented enterprises.
Making the city sustainable will require a new strategic London wide authority with
appropriate powers and resources; also it needs an active democracy, a bottom-up
decision-making and a strong role for the voluntary sector that is elected by
proportional representation. They support the idea of a Major for the Greater London
Area (that is by now implemented), reporting to a directly elected non-executive
assembly. They also propose a London Citizens Forum, so that Londoners can keep
sustainable development at the top of the city’s agenda through their own channel for
monitoring progress towards environmental and social sustainability.
For city planning, London has to reduce the ecological footprint. It has to become a
city where circular resource flows reduces its waste products. In order to do that, every
Londoner has to make a contribution.
Regarding more concrete solutions for these visions, the ways to turn them into reality
are sketched out in Chapter 3, implementation. Here, much focus is upon active
communities, committed to action planning that integrate the values, skills and
knowledge of local people, architects and technical experts. Strategies for action are to
be worked out by these parties lead by multi-disciplinary independent specialists. They
should deal with matters such as housing, land use planning, local educational policy,
47
traffic management, and mega-store development. Local initiatives are essentially
sustainable because people have a sense of ownership. Through such ‘action
planning’, consensus can be created, according to the SLT, this is a process that
typically takes 3-6 months.
Environmental education linked with London Environmental Education Forum is to
be promoted in order to improve peoples understanding of their environment and their
ability to act accordingly. School children should also be involved in the discussion,
engaged in talking about city planning and the themes in Agenda 21. Other similar
actions should also be promoted, as enabling people explore the four pillars of “Art,
Education, Health and Environment”. Agenda 21 provides the much of the inspiration
of what is proposed in this manifesto. Specifically, Agenda 21 offers hope:
“through on going consensus building, attitudes and convictions can change.” 66
A big problem with the London Boroughs is that they have too little sense of identity,
Local Agenda 21 processes can help to change this. The SLT refer to the model used
by the city of Chattanooga in the USA, where everybody attended to meetings in
order to organise all the solutions proposed into a shared vision of the community’s
future. Making London sustainable demands that Londoners need to shout what best
for London.
Implementing a bottom-up approach (regarding city planning and policy making) that
is suggested here requires that a London Citizens Forum is created. A Forum that
promotes action planing, planning for real, city visioning, open space events and other
techniques. This forum should make all the numerable interests in London to co-
operate. Participants should work on Local Agenda 21, energy, water, air, food,
transport, education and economy.
66
Sustainable London Trust (1996), implementation, page 7.
48
4. Analysing the Sustainable City Discourse
4.1. Introduction.
This chapter is concerned with the development of the sustainable city discourse as it
has been described above, and to explore the discourse within an ANT framework.
Latour maintains that there is nothing better or sturdier than a circumstantial
description of networks. Describing or accounting for a network is exactly what an
explanation or an ex-plicitation is, and this is what has always been the case in so-
called hard sciences, or more exactly ‘progressively hardened sciences’.67 I will
provide a network description of the Habitat Agenda, the Sustainable Cities Report
and Creating a Sustainable London by showing their relatedness and how the authors
build upon each other, and numerous other sources, in order to impose the sustainable
city message on others. Related to my research question, the first two sections will
show how the idea of the sustainable city is presented and how the authors make an
effort to impress this idea on others. Thereafter, the content of the reports will be
analysed regarding similarities and differences between them on the subject of city
planning and technologies. Also, the way the authors of the reports approach the
sustainable city is compared with the notions of the sustainable city in the scholarly
literature. Do the documents present any different views on how city policy makers
are to act? I wanted to find if the urban problems the authors identified and the
solutions they proposed vary across the geographic scales, with special interest to
planning and technologies. In order to facilitate the analytic comparison in a
structured way, Table 1 summarises the key aspects of each of the three reports
reviewed in this thesis.
67
Latour, B (1997) Page 10
49
Report/document UN: The Habitat EU: The Sustainable City: Creating a
Agenda Cities Report Sustainable London
Authors Heads of State or The Expert Group (38 SLT, consisting of five
government at the UN independent experts persons.
Habitat 2 Conference. and representatives).
Other actors Written for: Local. Written for: the Written for: All the
Governments, local. Commission, actors in the city.
People, NGOs representative in cities,
monetary institutions city managers, and
local communities.
Concept of the Brundtland def. Of Brundtland def. Of Brundland def. Of
Sustainable city sustainable dev. sustainable dev. sustainable dev.
Social, economical and Social, economical and Social, economical and
environmental environmental environmental
sustainability. sustainability. sustainability. A
City made to last and in Progress, wealth and growing and learning
harmony with nature. improved living city. A centre for
Economic growth. standards. international finance
Economic growth. and a global market
place.
Problems identified Urban crisis regarding Water, shortage, Fallen behind with
unsustainable climate change, regard to urban
consumption, environmental technologies, especial
production and degradation, economic transport systems.
population. recession and Inadequate planning.
unemployment Traffic congestion.
Unemployment, crime,
drug abuse, and anti-
social behaviour.
Solutions Proposed Empowerment of local Empowerment, but also A sustainable city
people. limiting peoples constitution.
Participatory and freedoms. Action planning.
integrated planning of Using system Implementing a major
cities. Development & approaches towards of London and London
transfer of city planing. Citizens Forum.
environmentally sound Information Innovative ideas
technologies. management. regarding water,
City partnership. transport, energy,
traffic, mega-store
development.
Ethically oriented
enterprises.
Table 1: Actors (authors), other actors (those to undertake the actions), concept of the sustainable city,
problems identified, and solutions proposed.
50
4.2. The Concept of the Sustainable City.
In looking at Table 1, we see on all three scales, the definition of the city is the same
as the definition set by the Brundland Commission on sustainable development. The
focus is upon social, economical and environmental sustainability. For all, economic
growth is of great importance, and on the scale of London this is expressed through
the notion of an international and a global market place. Here, more clearly than in the
other documents, sustainable development can only happen in a liberal capitalistic
world emphasising economic growth and free trade, with the city as a global market
place. The sustainable city tends towards an extremely anthropocentric understanding.
Interestingly, this view contrasts many of the notions of sustainable development and
the sustainable city in scholarly literature looked upon. As Vonkeman and Girardet
claim, a sustainable lifestyle implies less prosperity in terms of material wealth and
consumption. What's more, according to Vonkeman; politicians and decision-makers
who put the concept of sustainable development equal with more consumption and
economic growth have shied away from the concept’s social, political and
institutional consequences.
Generally speaking, all three identify the same problems and the ways to solve them:
adequate planning and sustainable technologies. The approaches do not change very
significantly; all represent similar generic views. However, it goes a bit more concrete
when moving to London, where more specific problems and solutions are sketched
out.
Out of this we can say that the concept of the sustainable city, and how the authors
imagine it, is very similar in all three texts, but as I will show, they have mobilised
interests in their texts that have contradicting interests regarding sustainability issues.
51
4.3. The formation of a network: mobilising actors and actants through
inscriptions.
The authors of each of the documents state that the cities of the world have reached a
crisis of proportions. This translates the reader to a specific problem-solution, creating
sustainable cities becomes the funnel of interests.
With the Habitat Agenda, the authors claim to speak on behalf of actors such as the
185 governments of the UN, the participants of the 1992 Rio conference, other UN
agencies, Local Agenda 21, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the
Bretton Woods institutions, and other organisations and scientists. Also, entities of
actants such as the declaration of the Human Rights, the Brundtland report of 1987
and other reports and scientific articles are mobilised in the texts of the authors.
Supported by these actors and actants, the statements of Habitat Agenda are to be
imposed on all national governments, local governments, city managers, cities, local
communities and businesses around the globe. All these actors are to be enrolled into
an actor- world built up in the Habitat Agenda that is what can be termed as an
inscription. This inscription, which consists of different entities, supports the idea of
sustainable human settlements. The authors behind the Habitat Agenda thus attempt to
become a translation centre in an actor-network, in which they seek to control the
diverse elements that make it up, and in making these diverse elements to support it.
The document is claimed to reflect a global political commitment at the highest level
of development co-operation. It promises a decent life for everyone, a life of dignity,
happiness, good health and several other good things that build on the UN’s ethical
and spiritual visions. Furthermore, it renders itself to be indispensable to others by
wanting to become a translation centre, intending to guide all efforts to turn the vision
of all actors into reality. Currently unsustainable human settlements shall become
socially, economically and physically ever lasting by following the advice of the
Habitat Agenda.
52
The Sustainable Cities Report is one of the major outputs of the Sustainable Cities
Project in the EU. Written by the Expert Group on the Urban Environment, it enrols
the scientific consensus on sustainability, as developed in the UN conferences (i.e. the
Rio Conference) that concluded with Habitat 2. It claims to represent how the ideas of
the Green Paper on the Environment and the EU programmes towards sustainability
are to be developed in the European setting. Furthermore, the group’s 38 national
representatives also received help from the Directorates General in the EU, and were
supported by the Scientific and Technical Secretariat in producing this report. All
these actors and actants are mobilised by the Expert Group in this inscription. Hence,
the Expert Group presents solutions to the problem of unsustainability, in which it
translates sustainable human settlements into sustainable European cities.
The Expert Group recognises sustainable development as defined by the UN as a
solution to their problem, namely, poor management of European cities. By enrolling
the elected representatives in European cities, city managers and all local
communities, the Expert Group demands that we take a deeper look at the future of
our cities in Europe. Cities are the ones to carry out the work, but this is only possible
if people follow the social contract model as defined by the English philosopher
Thomas Hobbes. The people are expected to limit their individual freedom in order to
achieve the sustainable city as defined by the Expert Group, who expect the notion of
sustainability to become more sophisticated and shared in Europe through time. The
Expert Group will find a way in which Europe can develop towards a better or
finished state, by improving environmental quality and creating economic growth and
social progress that will produce wealth and better living standards.
Sustainable London Trust, the authors behind Creating a Sustainable London are very
concerned about the current situation in one specific city, London. They recognise
that human activities are causing an environmental crisis that is threatening its the
53
city’s very existence. According to the SLT, Creating a Sustainable London will help
to solve this problem. They try to enrol all the actors in the city (heterogeneous
entities such as politicians, administrators, city managers, business, NGOs and every
Londoner) as they claim to speak on behalf of the city of London. Their aim is to
mobilise all actors to act according to a sustainable development constitution, which
recognises the political claims taken by the UN conferences on sustainability, in
particular the Habitat Agenda. Only this way can consensus be created, one able to
cope with matters such as housing, land use planning, education, traffic management,
etc. If everybody follows the strategy of the SLT, not only will London become an
environmental sustainable and pleasant place to live, but it will strengthen its position
as a world centre for the trade and finance that generates economic growth and
prosperity for every Londoner.
The claims put forward by the authors of the Habitat Agenda, the Sustainable Cities
Report and the Creating a Sustainable London, are thus strengthened by mobilising
other actors and actants into the authors’ inscriptions. In this manner, it seems as
everybody acts as a single whole through these inscriptions, and that consensus on
what the sustainable city means is reached. The authors, functioning as translation
centres, have extended their discourse through a network of different actors and
actants enrolled through conferences, declarations, books, scientific articles,
magazines and other texts. The success of these inscriptions lies in the authors’ ability
to enrol sufficient resources, and that the latter groups accept the picture proposed to
them. The Habitat Agenda can be said to represent a higher geographical scale, since
it has mobilised more actors and actants than the authors of the other texts have. The
authors have simply created a long and extensively connected network of actors and
actants through the Habitat Agenda, their inscription. Hence, the global geographic
scale, and the actor’ perception of urban problems are results of networking. The
authors have succeeded in making their declaration relevant for all cities in the world.
But is there truly consensus on the meaning of the sustainable city?
54
4.4. The Sustainable City as a governing paradigm.
In the section above, it is shown that through the mobilising of heterogeneous
resources, the authors of the documents have aimed to position themselves as
translation centres by which to enforce the idea of making sustainable cities in
development policy. Furthermore, the discourse consists of actors and actants, who
are involved in network translation in which the authors of the texts try to mobilise
other heterogeneous resources. Through this networking, geographic scales are
produced and reproduced. These actors and actants are juxtaposed in such a way that
it difficult to see any difference between science and politics. But has the idea of the
sustainable city become black-boxed, i.e. agreed upon by all actors? Has it become a
governing paradigm, compatible with the notions of the sustainable city in scholar
literature I described in chapter one? I argue that the notion of the sustainable city has
not yet become a black-boxed, but the idea (as a symbol) has certainly become a
governing paradigm in the manner that the idea of the sustainable city is
fundamentally embedded in city planning and technological development.
4.4.1. On Planning.
Regarding mainstream thinking about sustainable cities in scholarly literature, there
are many similarities among the authors about the conceptualisation of the sustainable
city and the solutions they proposed. On the definition of sustainable development,
Vonkeman, Girardet and Campagni et al can be placed under the type of the
Brundtland definition, which is also suggested by the authors of the three documents.
Common in all the scholarly literature and documents investigated is the striking
similarity with regard to the necessity of appropriate city planning. Everybody agrees
55
that planning is one of the key tools to address the issues related to unsustainable
cities. Yet, how they approach these two issues seem to vary. On planning there is a
debate as to what extent local people and stakeholders are to participate in the
planning process. On the one hand, Campagni et al argue that planning first and
foremost is reserved for professional planning experts. This is also an approach similar
to the Expert Group of the EU. On the other hand, Vonkeman, Girardet, and those who
advocate integrated assessment maintain the importance of strong local participation.
This is also manifested in the SLT document and the Habitat Agenda, both want to
promote empowerment of local people.
A tendency among the scholars of sustainability issues, and in the documents I have
analysed is one specific approach with regard to city planning. That is to build
consensus among people in the city through empowerment and participatory/bottom-
up planning. Participatory and bottom-up planning are post-modernist features, which
stresses the openness to a range of voices in social enquiry and political
empowerment. Postmodernism in general rejects the possibility of a planner that can
incorporate all the different interests in society. Since no homogeneity of world-views
can be provided for, the traditional modernist ideal of a consensus is questioned. What
Lois Albrechts and William Denayer term the post-modern turn in planning theory
emphasises that planners must have specialised skills for dealing with ‘different
truths’.68 Also, the planners’ own perspective of the reality must be put under
scrutiny. Here, collaborative planning and empowerment of local people can happen
if we strive to promote flexible networks of language games. At the same time, one
must criticise games that attempt to increase performance and appropriate power unto
themselves. This might be termed an alternative approach to planning and
development. This alternative approach is apparent in the documents analysed, where
experts are required to listen to local people and work out programmes that highlight
68
Albrechts and Denayer: Communicative planning, Emancipatory Politics and Postmodernism. Pp.
375-377. In Paddison (2001) (ed.)
56
empowerment. In opposition to this post-modernist approach is the long-standing
modernist approach, which is more traditional and positivistic. Here, planners believe
they can plan the city in such a way that socially, economically and environmentally
problems can be tamed. This is believed to happen through western rational science
where modernist ideas on progress and development are emphasised. Also this
modernist way of thinking is evident in these documents, as we notice that the authors
above everything, stress sustainable cities that are free of socially, economically and
environmentally problems. Hence, the two approaches, post-modernism and
modernism co-exist in all of the documents analysed.
Thus, paradoxically and despite Hajer’s recognition of various groups, interests,
incommensurable languages and ideologies, none of the authors behind the
documents have left the modernist way of thinking.69 The concepts of both
collaborative planning and rational scientific planning exist side by side, and
modernist ways of thinking and post-modern concepts are used in chorus. The planner
is supposed to uphold the legacy of optimism and rationalism in order to achieve
‘sustainable development’, which is the grand narrative. This idea is understood as
economically, socially and environmentally sound development, an achievable urban
utopia where everybody in the city will live in harmony with each other and nature.
Scientists and other experts are the ones to inform the people about consequences of
different actions. However, it is the residents who are to decide what is important and
what is not regarding sustainability issues.
69
Latour, B (1993): Bruno Latour and other ANT scholars advocate that we have never been modern,
and that there is no such thing as modernity, hence, a modernist way of thinking has never been
evident. We do not have time to discuss this problematic in this thesis. I use the terms ‘modern’ and
‘post-modern’ when describing what planners and developers call modernist and post-modernist ways
to development.
57
4.4.2 On technology.
Vonkeman distinguishes the technosphere as the fundamental source of global
environmental problems. Similar views are represented by Girardet (linear
metabolism), and Campagni et al (environmentally adverse technologies). Still, for all
of these authors, sustainable technologies are the solution to this problem.
Technologies that are produced in order to have less negative effects on the
environment must be developed and implemented. The Habitat Agenda and Creating
a Sustainable London also look upon sustainable technologies as main instruments of
creating the sustainable city, while the Sustainable Cities Report is mostly concerned
with planning.
Regarding the ideology of technology, Langdon Winner states that:
“The prevailing ideology of technology in our time, one that has endured for two
centuries, bears the name “progress” – the belief that living conditions for the
worlds population growth improve through scientific and technological advance as
applied in economic development.” 70
According to Winner, this dominant modernist paradigm is still entrenched in the
collective consciousness of western industrial societies. However, alternative
paradigms do co-exist; many of these hold strong doubts about conventional notions
of progress, because of environmental concerns. Some argue that runaway
technological change and limitless economic growth expansion are a threat to the life
on the planet. Interestingly, we see from the case of the three documents analysed
here that the advocates of both modernism, and actors who believe in alternative ways
70
Winner, Langdon: Three Paradoxes of the Information Age. In: Bender, G., Druckerey, T (eds.)
(1994)
58
of thinking are mobilised under the banner of the ‘sustainable city’. Modernist and
post-modernist views co-exist in these documents.
So, like in the previous section where we found modernist concepts in planning, we
have also the modernist idea of scientific progress and technological improvements
that will cause the perfect city. But there is more, the documents also give us a
technological paradox to cope with. Technology has made us able to exploit natural
recourses on a large scale, and ‘bad’ technologies that have caused environmental
depletion have lead to unsustainable development. At the same time technology is
supposed to save us, and become an important tool in achieving sustainable
development. These ‘sustainable’ technologies are supposed to increase efficiency
with regard to the protection of environmental recourses. Hence, sustainable
technologies offer technological alternatives to the “limits to growth”. Paul Gray
describes this technological paradox when saying that technology is both the source
and the remedy of environmental change.71 A less technological determinist view is
put forward by Arnulf Grubler, who claims that technology is an intermediary, rather
than a prime cause of environmental change.72 He says that the design, selection, and
application of technology are matters of social choice. For the SLT, the UN and the
EU, (and Vonkeman, Girardet and Campagni et al), this social choice is supposed to
be managed by city planners. Recognising the limits to our technological lifestyles,
our technological culture is supposed to change towards a sustainable one. John Lyle
emphasises that sustainability depends on environmental design, it implies that the use
of renewable resources, and sustainable technologies must be incorporated into the
landscape.73
71
Gray, P. E: The Paradox of technological development. In: Ausubel. J. H, and Sladovich. H. E (eds.)
(1989), pp. 192-204.
72
Grubler. A (1998), pp.342
73
Lyle. J (1985)
59
So perhaps it is not just the “technosphere” that is the problem of unsustainability, as
Vonkeman claims, but also the “social sphere”. Furthermore, the distinction between
the two spheres becomes blurred and diffuse if we agree with Latour and other ANT
scholars, who claim that everything happens in heterogeneous networks, which
consist of actors (i.e. human innovators) and actants (i.e. machines). As mentioned, all
have some sort of agency. Here, one does not use terms as ‘technology’, ‘society’ or
‘culture’ to explain phenomena. Instead, one strives to put in plain words what these
phenomena are by the work done by actors in heterogeneous networks.
60
4.5. The sustainable city, an adaptive concept.
At this point, we can state that there is widespread scientific and political consensus
that sustainable cities must be created. However, I suggest that the success of this
concept is the result of letting actors interpret and define it as it suits them. Latour
states that:
“The simplest way to spread a statement is to leave a margin of negotiation to each of
the actors to transform it as he or she sees fit and to adopt it to local circumstances.
Then it will be easier to interest more people in the claim since less control is
exercised on them. Thus, a statement will go from mouth to ear.” 74
This is what Latour characterises as a ‘soft fact’. A Statement, the meaning of which
is open to negotiation has the potential to interest many people, since it can very
easily adapt to local circumstances, hence it travels (in terms of translation) more
easily through time and space. It is suggested here that this also goes for ‘sustainable
development’, and the idea of the ‘sustainable city’. During network negotiation, the
sustainable city has gained consensus among different players with extremely
contradicting interests. These include, just pointing out a few: the IMF, WB, UN, EU,
London Sustainable Trust, Local Agenda 21, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and all
the “local people” on our planet. The ‘sustainable city’ as a meta-narrative, has the
unique ability to unify these diverse groups. However, it is not very probable that all
these interest groups have a similar interpretation of this symbolic, as symbols are
always multi-interpretable, and function as umbrellas. The authors have tried to
incorporate the different narratives their inscriptions. Hajer and other discourse
analysts have shown us that the meaning of sustainable development is relative among
74
Latour, B (1987) Page 208
61
different groups, and that we do not share the understanding of the environment the
same way as we “share the globe”.75
The authors of the three texts described here have given us the opportunity to apply
the term ‘sustainable city’ in more or less every statement that can be associated with
a good society. They let the concept of the sustainable city remain extremely vague, it
contains ideas such as: visions for natural protection, harmony with nature, peace,
democracy, local participation, professional management, a state of duration through
generations, economic growth and improved living standards. As I will argue, this is
exactly the strength (and the “softness”) of the very idea of the sustainable city.
According to Latour, however, there is a price to pay for such a solution.76 As the
‘sustainable city’ becomes negotiated, incorporated and adopted, everyone can
transform it. In addition, since the ‘sustainable city’ can have as many authors as there
are actors along the chain of translation, nobody owns this idea. This has a
consequence that is the price to pay: the ‘sustainable city’ will not become a hard fact,
because there are too many interpretations and definitions. On the other hand, this is
exactly the explanation why the idea has gained such a widespread consensus. The
narrative of the sustainable city provides actors with symbolic references, which
suggest a universal understanding of the reality. Different actors, who often conflict
on many issues, gather around the same story lines. They all want ‘sustainable cities’.
Since the idea is multi-interpretable, it can avoid the clashing of contradicting
interests. Hence, the most eco-centric notion on creating sustainable cities can co-
exist side by side under the identical symbolic, in the same report with
anthropocentric ones. It is still a ‘sustainable city’ that becomes the symbol of the
good society and the answer of all our problems. In other words, the idea and the
concept of the sustainable city is very adaptive.
75
Hajer, M.A (1995), pp. 1-15
76
Latour, B (1987), pp. 205-210
62
The authors offer us a sustainable city of many translative possibilities, and the idea is
enforced through the mobilising heterogeneous resources, thus gaining consensus.
This is exactly the strength of the idea. But in doing so, there is a tendency that the
authors are simply restating policy principles that were used before the term
sustainability came into general use. Progress in terms of wealth, natural protection,
improved living standards and economic growth are long-established and traditional
modernistic routes of development, that are by many described as contradictory and
conflicting with the “real meaning” of sustainability.77 Despite this, and as shown in
the three documents analysed here, economic growth and the overall aim of sustaining
the city as a continuing growth machine is very likely to be circulated under the flag
of sustainability.
The notion of the sustainable city has been made translatable, from the UN to the EU
and all the way to London by travelling in inscriptions through this network. The
sustainable city is produced, and reproduced in the discourse by actors (i.e. authors
and politicians at conferences), and actants (i.e. reports and manifestos) as it travels in
terms of translation from global treaty obligations to EU planning polices to European
cities. As a result, the idea of the sustainable city is made legitimate and necessary for
all cities, and it encompasses all aspects of city policy, city planning, and the types of
technologies that should be in the city. These inscriptions tell us how cities are to be
built, hence, as actants they have some sort of agency. Sustainability is used to justify
city planning and policy, since the very aim of development is to accomplish a
sustainable city, understood as an indispensable and universal ethical value. In fact,
this universal value denies other “non-universal” views the right to exist. It can even
decide what and how the people in the city should think and behave:
77
Daly, H.E (1999)
63
“If current life-styles and sustainability are in conflict, people will have to learn how
to think differently.” 78
Similar to the statement above, the London Sustainable Trust, school children are
supposed to be educated within sustainability issues.79 The ‘sustainable city’ can
signify almost any city in a state of duration, and no one can resist it. In the reports
and policy documents described, the authors have mobilised such a vast amount of
source material from science and politics, from almost surreal coalitions of left wing
environmentalists, nature conservationists and a variety of different governmental
development agencies. Not only are we assured that an ever-lasting city will manifest
itself by following the advice of these authors, we are also promised progress,
increased wealth, improved living standards, economic growth and a future where
cities are developed in harmony with nature. The city must be made to last forever,
and for that reason, all entities that can make the city last must have the priority to
continue. These are environmentally sound technologies, city planning and economic
growth.
The very idea of the sustainable city is the same in all of the texts: it can mean almost
anything from peace and harmony with nature to technological development,
economic growth and global trade. Accordingly, the need for sustainable cities has
become the universal governing paradigm on all geographic scales that are constructed
through building networks in these inscriptions.
Therefore, we can agree with Robert A. Beauregard, who argues that the masses of
texts are capable of creating a reality for urban populations.80 By the discourse
analysis applied in this thesis, we find that actants such as textbooks, articles, reports,
political manifestos etc. are actively constructing images of how cities are to be built,
78
Hall, P (1994) in OECD, Paris: Cities for the Twenty-first Century. Page 43.
79
Sustainable London Trust (1996), implementation, page 6
80
Beauregard, R.A (1993).
64
and furthermore that through the discourse, the authors convey how we are to act in a
practical way. Once again, actants such as texts and other non-humans have some sort
of agency.
As explained in chapter two (referring to Callon), I assumed that we should start with
a clean slate and not assume differences that are based upon geographic scales. In this
way we can be able to see how geographic scales are constructed, as well as
explaining if and why there are differences. The authors of the Habitat Agenda have
mobilised masses of actors and actants in their inscription in such a way that they can
claim to represent the whole world. Therefore they can be said to represent the global
geographic scale. The work done on this scale has influenced and shaped other
networks, such as the EU (regional scale) and London (local scale). The work done by
these actors also constructs these scales, where the authors of these inscriptions
function as translation centres on different geographic scales. By mobilising actors
through inscriptions, the paradigm of the sustainable city has become settled and
stabilised through the work done by actors (the authors) in networks, representing
different geographic scales. Because the authors of the three documents draw upon,
and mobilise the same scientific theories and political arguments, the rhetoric of the
authors appears very similar. Hence, conceptualisation, problems identified and
solutions proposed do not vary across geographic scales. The idea of the sustainable
city remains profoundly similar across geographic scales and the idea, as a symbol is
able to gather and contain different actors of clashing interests.
65
5. Conclusion
5.1. The research findings.
Is the idea and the conceptualisation of the sustainable city represented differently by
different agencies? Why or why not? What are the problems they identify and the
solutions they propose regarding city planning and sustainable technologies? Do these
change across different geographic scales?
My starting point was to investigate whether the idea and the conceptualisation of the
sustainable city is represented differently by different agencies. Also, I stated that any
differences or similarities had to be explained and accounted for. In order to achieve
this, a discourse analysis within the framework of an actor-network theory was
selected because of its ability to explain how facts, theories, ideas and machines are
translated and adopted. This is in opposition to the notion that they are diffused
simply because of their own inertia. Furthermore, I wanted to put a special focus upon
the authors’ solutions to achieve sustainable cities, especially on planning and
sustainable technologies, and to see whether these changed across geographic scales.
For data material, I selected three documents, written by authors who represented
respectively: the UN, the EU and the LST, each of great political importance.
Regarding the idea of the sustainable city in these documents, it is explained in a way
that it presents an answer to nearly all our present urban problems. If we follow the
advice of the authors, we will achieve sustainable cities that promise economic
growth, wealth and improved living standards. On top of this we will progress
socially, economically, and scientifically trough time in harmony with nature. What is
66
more, the idea is made legitimate and all encompassing for city policy making by the
work done by the authors of the documents. They have the solutions to our problems,
and work to interest, enrol and mobilise actors and actants into their texts. I have
called these texts inscriptions, because they are written as if they objectively represent
nearly all the interests in the world. The authors function as translation centres in the
networks in which they make a huge amount of other actors and actants to support
their claims. The authors of these inscriptions have legitimised their sustainable city
by drawing upon actants such as scientific literature from books, articles and reports.
The idea of the sustainable city and the solutions to approach it is represented more or
less in the same way by all agencies I have investigated. This approach represents a
governing paradigm of contemporary sustainable city debate. How the authors of the
Habitat Agenda, the Sustainable Cities Report and Creating a Sustainable London
approach the sustainable city regarding planning and sustainable technologies, is the
same on all three scales. Also, the way they cope with sustainability corresponds to
notions of the sustainable city in the scholarly literature. On the topic of geographic
scales, the paradigm of the sustainable city has become settled and stabilised through
the work done by actors (the authors) in networks. This work also constructed the
inscriptions that might be said to represent different geographic scales. The Habitat
Agenda represents the global scale, because of the long and extensively connected
network the authors have managed to mobilise through their inscription. The regional
scale is represented by the EU, which through the Expert Group has demonstrated
how sustainable cities are supposed to be understood and implemented in European
settings. The authors of Creating a Sustainable London represent the local scale. They
have not mobilised that many resources as the UN and the Expert Group; hence, they
address just one city. All these authors belong in the discourse of sustainable cities,
and in this discourse, the idea of the sustainable city is a symbol, multi- interpretable
on all geographic scales. But there is more, in this sustainable city paradigm there
exist a few interesting paradoxes.
67
For planning, we see that notions of collaborative bottom up planning, where the
empowerment of local people is supposed to be promoted is apparent in all three
documents. This can be termed a post-modern approach, which turns away from the
modernist belief that a rational planner can incorporate and represent all the voices
and interests in the city. At the same time, a modernist route towards city
development and planning is emphasised. Through these documents scientists and
planners are the ones who define the problems and the goals of cities. In this
modernist approach, planners find it possible to identify problems and propose
sufficient solutions that, if implemented in the right manner, support desirable
development. They believe that it is possible to realise sustainable development if the
suggested solutions are carried out. Thus, modernist and post-modern approaches are
advocated simultaneously in the same documents by the authors.
As for technologies, the authors point to these as main instruments in creating
sustainable cities. At the same time, they identify technologies and the technosphere
as the main cause of unsustainable cities because of how it has allowed us to develop
in the past. Once again we face a paradox. Through scientific and technological
improvements we can have a city where sustainable development goes beyond the
“the limits to growth”. With this sustainable technological development comes
growing and learning global cities where trade can flourish in a ‘sustainable’
direction.
Through the Habitat Agenda, the Sustainable Cities Report and Creating a Sustainable
London, scientific facts and political conventions are promoted by the authors’ ability
to mobilise many heterogeneous resources. The idea of the sustainable city is enforced
in this process and other explanations to urban problems and solutions to them are
rejected. Through this discourse, the authors have constructed a reality, and in this
reality we are to behave in a certain way. In particular, we have to endorse the idea of
68
the sustainable city that develops towards peace, social justice, stability, natural
harmony and economic growth. If we follow the advice of the authors, we will come
up with an urban utopia. However, as Focault and other discourse analysts have
argued, language is rarely innocent since it shapes peoples identities and attitudes. The
work done by the authors who, enrol, interest and mobilise is immense. Through this
discourse, they aim to combat alternative accounts of the reality of cities, the problems
they face and the solutions that are needed. Hence, the idea of the sustainable city does
not diffuse because of its own inertia, but it is translated in the way the authors enrol
others. This shapes our realities and our perception of the how the sustainable city
should be manifested.
The success of the idea of the sustainable city relies upon its potential to interest many
different people. Although the concept of the sustainable city is related to the
definition of sustainable development as defined by the Brundtland Commission, the
very idea remains vague and translative. Thus, the idea is a symbol that can be a
container of often contradicting interests and views that agree under the symbol of the
‘sustainable city’. The concept of the sustainable city as a consequence becomes an
adaptive concept that is easy to use by many actors.
The documents analysed present plans for general action towards ‘sustainable cities’
by addressing governmental institutions, NGO’s, the industry, local people, scientists
and city planners. The ‘sustainable city’ has become an unquestioned planning
ideology in the United Nations and in the European Union. For Hall and, and those
who are inspired by what is termed orthodox policy analysis (Vonkeman, Girardet,
and Campagni et al), the ‘sustainable city’ is mostly taken for granted. The true and
objective state of the city, and the problems it face imply objective policy options.
This denies other non-universal views on the city to exist. It is impossible to oppose
the idea of the sustainable city in public discourse, since all actors and actants in the
discourse are mobilised in that direction. Not only are texts mobilised, but also
69
conferences, scientists, education programmes and courses for the promotion
sustainable cities. At present, the governing paradigm of the sustainable city hinders
other non-universal values the right to exist; nobody can oppose or resist the idea of
the sustainable city in contemporary political debates, notwithstanding its definition.
Hence, we can agree with Boyle and Rogerson that the ways of seeing cities assumed
in policies and that ways of seeing always derive from and underlying position of
power.81 On the subject of the sustainable city discourse, this power is a result of some
actors’ work through networking.
5.2. Suggestions for further research.
As the UN Summit in Johannesburg 2002 approaches, important issues on
sustainability will be debated; also among these is the sustainable city.
In the thesis presented, the discourse analysis of the sustainable city discourse has
treated mainly texts written by three agencies. However, the findings pose some
interesting questions regarding the factual implementation of the sustainable city, as
carried out in one specific city, i.e. London.
One question is related to the meaning of the sustainable city. Here, city policy
makers and non-governmental organisations in the city might have different
interpretations of the sustainable city. If this is so, which factors decide what sort of
interpretation is going to be used in the implementation of the sustainable city? How
do actors strive to mobilise resources in order to legitimate their view of the
sustainable city? Do any actors question, or oppose the very idea of the sustainable
city? If not, could that be linked to the work done by the advocates of the sustainable
city?
81
Boyle, M., Rogerson, R.J: Power, Discourse and Trajectories. In: Paddison. R (2001), page 414.
70
Another question is on the subject of city planning and sustainable technologies. Here,
investigating specific projects on the topic of sustainability of one specific city would
be interesting. What sort of instruments and approaches are applied in city planning,
and which technological solutions to unsustainability are given?
Finally, the findings of this proposed research should be compared to the policy
statements of the United Nations, particularly the Habitat Agenda, to see whether they
are in tune.
71
List of references
Ausubel. J. H., Sladovich. H. E (eds.): Technology and Environment. National
academy Press, Washington DC, USA.
Beauregard, R.A (1993): Voices of Decline: the Postwar Fate of US Cities.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Bender, G., Druckerey, T (1994): Culture on the Brink, ideologies of technology. Bay
Press, Seattle.
Bruner, J (1990): Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.
Callon, M., J. Law, et al. (Eds.) (1986): Mapping the Dynamics of Science and
Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London, Macmillan.
Daly, H.E (1999): Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Economics. Edward
Elgar Publishing Limited.
Expert Group on the Urban Environment. (1996): The Sustainable Cities Report.
European Commission, Directorate General XI, Environment, Nuclear Safety and
Civil protection. Brussels.
Fairclough, N (1995): Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Discourse Analysis, the
Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
72
First European Conference on Sustainable Cities & Towns (1994): The Aalborg
Charter.
Frazer, E., Lacey, N (1993): The Politics of Community. New York: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Girardet, H., (1999): Creating Sustainable Cities. Published by Green Books for the
Schumacher Society.
Grubler. A (1998): Technology and Global Change. University Press, UK
Hagerstrand, T (1968): Innovation Diffusion as a spatial process (translated by A.
Pred). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Hajer M.A (1995): The politics of Environmental Discourse, Ecological
Modernization and the Policy Process. Clarendon Press Oxford.
Hall, P (1994): In OECD, Paris: Cities for the Twenty-first Century.
Kuhn T.S (1962): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Latour, B (1987): Science in Action, How to follow scientists and engineers through
society. Harward University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Latour, B (1993): We have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press.
73
Latour, B (1997): On Actor-Network Theory: A few clarifications. Page 4. Centre for
Social Theory and Technology (CSTT), Keele University, UK Home – STOT
Resource – Bruno Latour’s Paper. http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/stt/stt/ant/latour.htm
Law, J (1992): Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and
Heterogenety. Centre for Science Studies, Cartmel College Lancaster University. At
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc054jl.html
Lyle. J (1985): Design for Human Ecosystems. New York. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company.
London Sustainable Network: http://www.london21.org/
Mathisen, W.C (1997): Diskursanalyse for statsvitere: Hva, hvorfor og hvordan.
Institutt for statsvitenskap, Universitetet i Oslo.
Meadows D.H., Meadows D.L., Randers J., Behrens W (1972): The Limits To
Growth- A Report to the Club of Rome. New York: Universe Books.
Meadows et al. (1972): Blueprint for Survival. The Ecologist.
Paddison, R (ed.) (2001): Handbook of Urban Studies. SAGE Publications, London,
Thousand Oaks, New Dehli.
Pickering, A (ed.) (1992): Science as Practice and Culture. University of Chicago
press.
Rao, P.K (2000): Sustainable Development, Economics and Policy. Blackwell
Publishers.
74
Roe E (1994): Narrative Policy Analysis, Theory and practice. Duke University Press,
Durham and London.
Rotmans. J., van Asselt. M., Vellinga. P (1999): An Integrated planning Tool for
Sustainable Cities. Integrated Center for International Studies (ICIS), Maastricht.
Sustainable London Trust (1996): Creating a Sustainable London.
http://www.greenchannel.com.slt
Seale, C (ed.) (1998): Researching Society and Culture. SAGE publications London,
Thousand Oaks. New Delhi.
United Nations: the Sustainable Cities programme.
http://www.undp.org/un/habitat/scp/info/home.htm
United Nations (1996): The Habitat Agenda 2.
UNECD (1992) Rio de Janeiro.
Vonkeman G.H., (ed.) (2000): Sustainable Development in European Cities and
regions. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wackernagel, M., Rees W (1995): Our Ecological Footprint, Reducing Human
Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers.
WECD, World Commission on Environment and Development (1987).
75
76

The Sustainable City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sustainable City

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sustainable City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

The Sustainable City:

Svein Erik Moen

Word count: 18186

seminars on Technological Culture at the University of Maastricht.

Rothman, my supervisor who gave me crucial feedback both during my stay in

lecturers at the University of Maastricht, Faculty of Arts and Culture.

the problems are environmentally, socially or economically. ‘Sustainable cities’ have

the sustainable city vary between different documents represented by agencies on

written by London Sustainable Trust.

Analysing the sustainable city as represented by different agencies pose questions

discourse analysis of these documents within the framework of actor-network theory.

stabilise networks in order to strengthen and stabilise theories and ideas.

For city planning, it is found that empowerment, bottom-up and participatory

post-modern concepts on planning and development are used in chorus. As for

sustainable technologies as main instruments of creating sustainable cities while at the

same time identifying environmentally adverse technologies as the main cause of

Keywords: sustainable city, planning, technology discourse analysis, and actor-

1.1. A new development paradigm: sustainable development.

Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 of June

document. Influenced by politically powerful reports like Limits to Growth1,

new development policy, which was compatible with sustainable development as

defined by the Brundtland Commission in Our Common Future:“…development that

to meet their own needs.” 4 179 countries supported its recommendations.

By this new development paradigm (using Kuhnian terminology5), “sustainable

development” was manifested in the Rio Declaration on Environment and

Conference by endorsing and promoting (among other goals) sustainable settlements.7

are the main sources of information in this thesis.

policy vision. It functions as a symbolic umbrella that covers several development

theories, containing often contrasting theories regarding cultural, social, economical

Thus, sustainable development can be seen as an established grand policy narrative,

which can be defined as:

interdependence, and little, if any, agreement.”10

In order to analyse such a narrative, Maarten A. Hajer suggests it can be useful to

rather, as a struggle of various political coalitions, each made up of actors such as

scientists, politicians, activists, or organisations representing such actors.

It is important to emphasise the relative notion of the concept of sustainable

development (and hence the sustainable city). Sustainable development as defined by

as prominent scientists, governmental institutions, politicians, monetary institutions,

NGOs, environmental movements, and physical (environmental) conditions. As

suggested here in order escape the taken-for-granted-world, one must be able to

contrary; how concepts can reach widespread consensus.

1.2. Defining the city.

settlements where population size is large enough, economic function, social

of social organisation, behaviours, values and perspectives of the world.

The language of the “sustainable city”, is a notion that is comparable to other

investigated because of the apparently existing consensus it represents in science and

represented by some selected writers in the field: Gerrit H. Vonkeman, Herbert

1.3.1. Sustainable development, from the global to the local level.

Gerrit H Vonkeman accepts the political dimensions of sustainable development, and

Furthermore, he argues that while politicians and decision-makers may have

Vonkeman identifies the technosphere as the fundamental source of global

growth and consumption become characteristic of society, incompatible with a natural

system based on dynamic equilibrium.

Based on these fundamental problems, he concludes that we have to transform our

societies into sustainable systems, which recognise inter-generational and intra-

problems the technosphere causes, Vonkeman offers a four-phase planning

nature of its criteria to stakeholders in the region. The meaning of sustainable

development has to be defined with a high degree of participation and consensus