Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T06:50:51.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Conceptualizing Urban Systems for Ecologic Sustainability Assessments: Case Study of the Stockholm Royal Seaport City District

from Part IV - Focal Points of Urban Sustainability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2020

By
Ulf Ranhagen  and
Björn Frostell
Edited by
Claudia R. Binder ,
Romano Wyss  and
Emanuele Massaro
Claudia R. Binder
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Romano Wyss
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Emanuele Massaro
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Get access

Summary

Ecologic sustainability assessments are of increasing importance in understanding the physical resource metabolism of urban systems. In Stockholm, the so-called Hammarby Model visualised important synergies in waste and energy flows in the Hammarby Sjöstad urban district and supported improved metabolic thinking. Following the success of this approach, the Eco-Cycle Model 2.0 for the Royal Seaport was developed in cooperation between KTH University and the City of Stockholm. The Eco-Cycle Model 2.0 can take account of more dimensions than the Hammarby Model, including overall and detailed descriptions of resource flows in a lifecycle perspective. Important starting points for the model were (1) global and local challenges concerning the use of resources, with specific relevance for urban development, (2) available models which visualise functions, resource flows, and resource synergies and (3) approaches to material, energy, and water accounting. The primary objective of the model is to show important connections and synergies between resource flows in a modern urban area. Secondary objectives that can be fulfilled in the long term are: to be a tool for the monitoring and follow-up of environmental objectives, to serve as a dynamic tool for the analysis of resource flows, and to contribute to improved urban planning.

Keywords

urban metabolismeco-cycle modelphysical resource flowsvisualizationphysical resource accounts
Type
Chapter
Information
Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems , pp. 460 - 479
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayres, R. U., & Simonis, U. E. (1994). Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations University.Google Scholar
Frostell, B. (2013). Life cycle thinking for improved resource management: LCA or? In Kaufman, J. & Lee, K. M. (eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Engineering, Dordrecht, Springer Verlag, pp. 837–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Global Footprint Network (2018). Carbon footprint. www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/climate-change/ (accessed 20.4.18).Google Scholar
Graedel, T. E., & Allenby, B. R. (1995). Industrial Ecology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hammarby Model (2018). www.hammarbysjostad.eu/2-hammarby-sjostad-the-full-story-the-hammarby-model/ (accessed 20.4.18).Google Scholar
Kramers, A., Höjer, M., Lövehagen, N., & Wangel, J. (2014). Smart sustainable cities: Exploring ICT solutions for reduced energy use in cities. Environmental Modelling & Software, 56, 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez-Alier, J., & Muradian, R. (2015). Taking stock: the keystones of ecological economics. In Martinez-Alier, J. & Muradian, R. (eds.), Handbook of Ecological Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (2009). Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mol, A. P., & Sonnenfeld, D. A. (2000). Ecological Modernisation around the World: Perspectives and Critical Debates (Vol. 11, No. 5). Bingley, West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 475–476.Google Scholar
Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, Community, Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosphy. Translated and revised by David Rothenberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, C. J., Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., & Lewis, H. (2011). Identifying strengths and weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communication of future alternatives. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(3), 231–241.Google Scholar
Ranhagen, U. (2012). 4 big leaps and 20 small steps. Conceptual guidelines on sustainable spatial planning. Swedish Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Ranhagen, U., & Frostell, B. (2014). Eco-cycle Model 2.0. for Stockholm Royal Seaport City District: Feasibility Study Final Report. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology, Dept of Architecture and the Built Environment: Urban and Regional Studies. TRITA-SoM 2014-10.Google Scholar
Ranhagen, U., & Groth, K. (2012). The SymbioCity Approach: A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Urban Development. Stockholm: SKL International.Google Scholar
Ranhagen, U., et al. (2017). Co-creation in urban station communities. Mistra Urban Futures Report, 2.Google Scholar
Reflow (2018). Reflow. http://reflow.stockholm.se/#/water/home/hotspot–6 (accessed 28.4.18).Google Scholar
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.Google Scholar
Salter, J. D., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., & Sheppard, S. R. (2009). The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of environmental management, 90(6), 2090–2101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 229–243.Google Scholar
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855.Google Scholar
Svensson, T., Ranhagen, U., Håkansson, M., et al. (2018). Den uthålliga regionen – Energifrågans hantering i samhällsplanering utanför större tillväxtområden (in Swedish with English summary), Swedish Energy Agency, E2B2 report 2018:15.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×