System integration: condition for success. The case of Hammarby Sjöstad and Eva-Lanxmeer

Abstract

Today, many new urban areas, such as cities, towns, villages, or districts, are being built worldwide and their completion requires the development of a number of infrastructures. Traditionally, these infrastructures are planned in parallel. However, increased environmental awareness is pushing cities to improve their environmental performance. One way to do so is by systems integration (e.g. connecting drinking water pumping with energy production).
The aim of this paper is to show how different actor networks lead to different process of integration. We especially focus on the influence of actor participation during the design phase. To do so, two case studies are presented: Hammarby Sjöstad in Sweden and EVALanxmeer in the Netherlands.

Full text

SYSTEMS INTEGRATION: CONDITION FOR SUCCESS
THE CASE OF HAMMARBY SJÖSTAD AND EVA-LANXMEER
Anne-Lorène Vernay
Delft Technical University
A.B.H.Vernay@tudelft.nl
Sofie Pandis
Royal University of Technology
pandis@kth.se
Tadeo Baldiri Salcedo Rahola
Delft Technical University
t.b.salcedorahola@tudelft.nl
Karel Mulder
Delft Technical University
K.F.Mulder@tudelft.nl
Nils Brandt
Royal University of Technology
brandt@kth.se
Abstract:
Today, many new urban areas, such as cities, towns, villages, or districts, are being built
worldwide and their completion requires the development of a number of infrastructures.
Traditionally, these infrastructures are planned in parallel. However, increased
environmental awareness is pushing cities to improve their environmental performance. One
way to do so is by systems integration (e.g. connecting drinking water pumping with energy
production).
The aim of this paper is to show how different actor networks lead to different process of
integration. We especially focus on the influence of actor participation during the design
phase. To do so, two case studies are presented: Hammarby Sjöstad in Sweden and EVA-
Lanxmeer in the Netherlands.
Keywords: systems integration; sustainable urban development; techno-economic network
INTRODUCTION
When new urban areas are being built, their completion requires the development of
infrastructures necessary to meet a number of societal functions. Among others there is a need
for energy and drinking water provision, waste management and wastewater treatment, or
transport facilities. Each of these functions can be conceptualized as being produced by
separate socio-technical systems. Traditionally urban planners consider each of these socio-
technical systems independently from each other. Infrastructure for wastewater treatment is
developed separately from that for transport for instance.
In the last decades, increased environmental consciousness has been pushing cities and
municipalities to minimize the environmental footprint of (re)developed urban areas. In
parallel to that, a number of academics have been advocating that in the quest for the
sustainable city a transition should be made from linear to circular systems of production and

consumption. This is expressed under concepts such as circular urban metabolism (Girardet
1996), cities as sustainable ecosystems (Bossel 1998; Newman and Jennings 2008), urban
symbiosis (Van Berkel et al 1009) or symbiocité (Gontier 2005). Behind these concepts lies
the idea that interconnections should be developed between different material and energy
flows in order to improve efficiency and reduce waste. This kind of thinking is also promoted
by scholars from the field of industrial ecology (McDonough and Braungart 2002; Graedel
and Allenby 2003).
Therefore, the aforementioned socio-technical systems have to be locally integrated to each
other. We will refer to this process as ‘systems integration’. Systems integration happens
when socio-technical systems initially operating as separate entities become connected. This
connection results in new inter-linkages between both social and technical components of the
two socio-technical systems. Among others, examples of systems integration are the use of
domestic waste for energy provision or the use of the sludge remaining from the treatment of
wastewater as source of energy for generating transport fuel. Systems integration is not
limited to urban areas. Similar processes of integration can be observed in water management
(integrating qualitative and quantitative management, navigation, tourism) industry (industrial
symbiosis) or farming (industrial symbiosis in greenports).
Numerous cities and municipalities are making attempts at systems integration (see Joss
2010). However, a wide gap exists between what is theoretically possible and what occurs in
practice. Outcomes highly depend on who takes responsibility for the realization of the
system, which stakeholders are involved in the design process, to which degree and how.
Outcome depends on the characteristics of the actor-network involved in the realization of
systems integration. Moreover, the process of realizing systems integration when developing a
new district goes through different phases. The system has to be designed, constructed and
then operated. In this paper, the analysis will address the design phase only. In practice, it is
this phase that determines whether systems integration gets implemented at all and how it will
operate once it is there. Two components of the design phase will be addressed: vision
building, including both developing a vision for the integrated system and gathering support
for it, and the selection of technologies.
In this paper, we argue that the actor-network in the design phase shapes the integration
process. This includes both the elements of integration and the extent of integration. The aim
of this paper is to show how different actor networks led to different processes of integration.
In the remaining sections, the concept of techno-economic network (TEN) stemming from
actor-network theory will be introduced, along with the four poles that compose it. Then, for
each case, the analysis establishes which actors played a role during vision building and the
selection of technological solutions. We identify whether each pole was filled and which
influence this had on the realization of the integrated system. The paper ends with preliminary
conclusions and suggestion for future research.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: ACTOR NETWORK THEORY
According to actor network theory, the existence of an innovation is bound up to the
construction of an actor-world. Callon (1986) stated that “an actor world associates
heterogeneous entities. It defines their identity, the roles they should play, the nature of the
bonds that unite them, their respective sizes and the history in which they participate” (Callon
1986).

Moreover, acknowledging that the process of innovation as well as its diffusion requires
connection between the worlds of science and technology and the market, Callon introduced
the concept of Techno-Economic Network (TEN) (Callon et al 1992). A techno-economic-
network is defined as
‘a collective set of actors which participate in the development and diffusion of innovation
and which via numerous interactions organize the relationships between scientifico-technical
research and the market place’ (Callon et al 1992).
According to Callon (1992), TEN are organized around three poles:
 Technical pole: design of products and processes that have their own coherence.
 Science pole: the production of scientific knowledge. It includes institutions such as
universities, or research institutes.
 Market pole: consumers, suppliers, practitioners, their needs and their preferences.
To the three poles model, de Laat (1996), later followed by Buchhorn (2007), introduced a
fourth one around government agencies and public authorities. This is the political pole.
The concept of TEN has been developed in order to understand the processes through which
innovation happens and diffuses. As such the scale at which TEN is applied is often rather
broad, looking at processes within specific domains but in an entire country (Callon et al
1992; Buchhorn 2007). In this paper, the processes analyzed are, on the contrary, very local.
However, there are some important similarities between the processes of systems integration
studied in this paper and the concept of techno-economic network as defined above. Systems
integration requires the development of technologies that go beyond the scale of individual
buildings. A network of heterogeneous actors responsible for the introduction of systems
integration will have to be formed. Its role will be about organizing, with a certain extend of
political support, the relationship between science, technology and the market.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the characteristics of the poles playing a role in the TEN
have to be adapted to that of the network studied here. For instance the role of science is fairly
different as we are not dealing with science that takes place in laboratories but with the
application of scientific knowledge into practice. The four poles are thus described as follows:
 Technical pole: the technologies as artifacts and the organization owning and
operating them.
 Science pole: experts with access to scientific knowledge from both private and the
public sector.
 Market pole: it remains essentially the same. The analysis will focus on the investors
and the end-users. Depending on the size of the project investors could be private
companies, and/or local authorities. However, inhabitants may also fulfill this role.
The end-users would often be the inhabitants themselves but may also be private
companies.
 Political pole: regional or national authorities also play a role by providing political
support.
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
The Hammarby Sjöstad case study builds upon previous research done by one of the authors
(Pandis, upcoming) on the development of the Hammarby Sjöstad district. In addition, four
semi-structured interviews with people personally involved in the formation of the Hammarby
Model and a literature review were conducted. Regarding EVA-Lanxmeer, data presented

here are the result of a literature review including a number of reports, brochures, business
plan and communication documents written between 1993 and 2008, nine semi-structured
interviews and two follow-up interviews.
Hammarby Sjöstad
Hammarby Sjöstad literally means the city around the Hammarby Lake. The district covers an
area of 200 Ha. Its development should be finished by 2015. When completed, about 35,000
people would be living and/or working in the area (Fränne 2007).
In the 1990’s a number of semi-legal or illegal small scale industries and storage facilities
were present in the area which came to be known as the Shantytown (Bodén 2002). Over time
the desire to redevelop this area grew stronger in the municipality. At the end of 1995 the city
of Stockholm decided to make a bid for the Olympic games of 2004 and to propose
Hammarby Sjöstad as Olympic Village (Stockholm Stad 1996). The high environmental
performance of the district started to gain importance because the International Olympic
Committee was calling for an environmental focus in the applications. This also increased the
political interest in the district (Bodén 2002; Green 2006; Enberg and Svane 2007).
Vision building:
In 1996 the City of Stockholm developed an environmental program for Hammarby Sjöstad.
In this plan an overarching vision for the district was specified. It stated that “The
environmental performance of the city district should be "twice as good" as the state of the art
technology available in the present day construction field (Stockholm Stad 1996 p4)”. Of
more importance for this study is the vision concerning the use of energy and material in the
district that was also specified. It stated that “The city district is to be planned and built in
accordance with the principles of the natural cycles, the kretslopp.”(Stockholm Stad 1996
p4). It is on this aspect of the vision that we will be focusing. From now on when referring to
the vision, we will only be referring to the vision for the integrated technological system in
development (the Hammarby Model) and not for the district as a whole (the Hammarby
Sjöstad).
Vision building for the Hammarby Model was an interactive process between the City of
Stockholm and the local infrastructure companies (referred to as the eco-cycle companies). In
1996, the City invited the eco-cycle companies to propose technological solutions that would
materialize their vision. However, they contested this vision and showed little interest. The
City and the eco-cycle companies both had different interpretations of the vision. On the one
hand the City wanted the companies to develop solutions specifically for Hammarby. On the
other hand for the eco-cycle companies closing the loop made sense only if their existing
infrastructure could be used. During an interview, the head of the Chief Administration
Office, stated that “the [companies] thought the project was fuzzy and that there already
existed a well-functioning infrastructure in Stockholm. Why mess with it?”
The first proposition made by the eco-cycle companies turned out to be rather “business as
usual” and for that very reason was rejected by the City (Pandis and Brandt 2009). In order to
push the companies forward, the City made clear that the companies risked losing their share
in the project. The eco-cycle companies started mobilizing new employees and made a more
innovative proposition. It was based on their existing infrastructure however, individual
components would be further improved and new components added in order to better close
the eco-cycle. The City embraced this new proposition and encouraged the eco-cycle
companies to work further in that direction. A consensus was reached. This also marked the
birth of what would later become the Hammarby Model.

Selection of technologies:
Once the vision is developed and has gained support, technological options have to be
selected. In Hammarby Sjöstad, some options had already been mentioned during the vision
building process. However, they still had to be developed further before they could actually
be realized.
Biogas as transport fuel:
Biogas for transport, integrating the sewage system and the transport system is one of the
most successful innovations implemented in Hammarby Sjöstad. Biogas is produced in
Hendriksdal, the local wastewater treatment facility. Since 2003 the biogas is also upgraded to
transport fuel quality in a nearby site.
Table 1: biogas for transport: actors involved in each pole, their role and position.
 Political pole: interest in clean vehicle dates back to 1994 when the City of Stockholm
had taken the political decision to promote and invest in clean vehicles (Stockholm
Stad 2004). In 1996, it also started supporting a pilot project in Bromma where biogas
was upgraded to transport fuel.
 Technical pole: Stockholm Water is both owner of Hendriksdal, the plant where
biogas is to be upgraded and of the plant where the aforementioned pilot project took
place in 1996 (Energie-cites 1999; Held et al 2008).
 Market pole: first, the success of the pilot project encouraged Stockholm Water to
invest further in that direction. Second, the City of Stockholm took the resolution to
convert its own fleet into non-fossil, providing a market for biogas (Stockholm Stad
2004). Third, the City introduced programs to promote the use of biofuels in the city
slowly creating local demand for biofuels (Stockholm Stad 2004). Fourth, SL,
Stockholm’s public transport company, started considering biogas as a potential fuel
in 2002. The company had been previously focusing on ethanol but started having
some difficulties with its supplier and decided to diversify its supply (Stockholms
Pole
Actor involved
Role
Position
Politics
The City of Stockholm
Provide political support
Collaborate
Market
Stockholm Water
The City of Stockholm
SL (Stockholm public
transport company)
Invest
Creates a local market,
provide subsidies
Buy the product
Lead
Collaborate
Collaborate
Science
Employees from
Stockholm water
have knowledge from
previous demonstration
project
Collaborate
Technical
Stockholm Water
Owner of the wastewater
treatment facilities;
responsible for the
previous pilot project
Collaborate

Lokaltrafik 2002). In 2003 an official contract was signed with Stockholm Water
regarding the supply of biogas (Hallgreen undated).
 Science pole: Stockholm Water had knowledge about biogas upgrading.
PV:
PV integrating buildings and the electricity system were extensively discussed in the early
plans about Hammarby Sjöstad. Their large scale introduction was even discussed. However,
only very few have been installed and some of those installed are not performing as expected.
Looking at the pole, we can see that some instead of working for the technology actually
worked against it (see table 2).
Table 2: PV: actors involved in each pole, their role and position
 Political pole: the City of Stockholm wanted to introduce technologies that were new
to Stockholm in Hammarby Sjöstad. PV fell into that category. However, as the
project evolved, political support for alternative technologies that did not play a
central role in the Hammarby Model diminished (Pandis upcoming). This is partly
due to the City losing the bid for the Olympic Games.
 Technical pole: First PV are readily available in the market and show decent
performances even in the Nordic Stockholm region (Brogren et al 2004). However,
very few PV were present in Stockholm at the time. Another aspect worth mentioning
is that most of Stockholm is connected to district heating network and so would the
Hammarby Sjöstad. However, Fortum, the company owning the district heating
which is mostly based on combined heat and power, saw PV as a competing
technology. During an interview, the environmental manager in Stockholm Energi
(that would later become Fortum) stated for instance that “solar energy pushes away
cogeneration or other useful techniques”.
 Market pole: Initially Stockholm Energi was interested in investing in PV on a large
scale. However, the company later on changed its mind arguing that they were not
competitive. The privatization of Stockholm Energi in 1998 could partly explain this
change of attitude. Moreover, the City of Stockholm provided only limited support for
project developers to introduce PV who showed little interest. Moreover, when they
did, PV were installed according to aesthetic criteria rather than optimal electricity
Pole
Actor involved
Role
Position
Politics
The City of Stockholm
Provide political support
Support
Market
Fortum
Constructors
Invest in the technology
Invest in the technology
Initially interested, then
arguing against
Limited interest
Science
Fortum
knowledge of solar
energy, its costs and
efficiency
Contest
Technical
Fortum
PV
Owner of the district
heating company
The technology exists
Limited interest
Readily available

production. The function of the building, in which aesthetics was a primary element,
was not effectively reconciled with electricity production (Brogren and green 2003).
 Science pole: Fortum had access to knowledge about PV, their efficiency and their
cost from existing project done by other companies but did not have in-house know
how. Fortum actually contested that PV were an interesting alternative for Stockholm.
During an interview, the environmental manager in Stockholm Energi said that
“during the formation of the Hammarby Model PVs and solar panels were discussed
as an alternative, but we knew this was not economically realistic”.
EVA Lanxmeer
EVA Lanxmeer is a sustainable urban district of 24 Ha developed in the municipality of
Culemborg in the Netherlands in the mid 1990’s. This municipality is part of the province of
Gelderland. In total about 800 people live in the area. Moreover, a number of office buildings
are also present on site combining living with working.
The district, which development was initiated in 1993, is the result of an initiative taken by
Marleen Kaptein. She was triggered by the momentum developing around sustainability, the
Bruntland report had just been published, and by the lack of success from the Dutch
government to involve citizens in their environmental policy (Kaptein 2010). Initially, the
idea for the district was not bound to any specific location. To be able to enter in negotiations
with a municipality she created the EVA-foundation. Using her personal network she gathered
renowned Dutch academics and political figures with direct connection to the ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment around the project. To show their support
they became members of the EVA-foundation.
Vision building:
The process of vision building and support in EVA-Lanxmeer happened very differently from
that in Hammarby Sjöstad. The vision for the district to be was entirely developed by experts,
including national and international academics and experts from the private sector, free from
the influence of local policy makers. The vision included the following elements: an
architecture in harmony with the existing landscape; integration of functions: living, working,
recreation; reduced use of cars; use of ecological building materials; and most importantly for
this paper sustainable water- and energy resource management and the involvement of future
inhabitants; education & advice via the EVA-center (Stichting EVA 1995).
The next step was for the EVA-foundation to find a municipality that was willing to realize a
district based on this vision. People interested in living in such a district were also looked for.
The foundation found support from the Alderman responsible for spatial planning and the
environment in Culemborg and from the head of the department of urban development. The
municipality already had experience with sustainable building, citizen participation and
management of green areas. They had the ambition to go further with urban sustainability and
saw the EVA-foundation and its vision as an opportunity to reach that ambition (Stichting
EVA; Goed 2010; Kaptein 2010).
Furthermore, Marleen Kaptein also found 80 families that signed a document stating that they
would like to live in such a district wherever it would land (Stichting EVA; Goed 2010;
Kaptein 2010).
Later on companies were also invited to join in the discussions concerning the specific
solutions to be implemented in the district. However, to be able to actively participate in the
process, they had to agree with the overarching vision. It was not going to be revised in the
process. In fact the EVA-foundation was actually assigned the role of concept keeper by the

city and would be guarding the concept or vision throughout the development (Stichting
EVA).
Selection of technologies:
Before describing in detail the selection of specific technological solutions, we will first
introduce the context in which these solutions were chosen. In 1997, non-professional
workshops were organized where inhabitants could express how they wished their future
district to look like. Later on, representatives of the inhabitants brought these ideas to
professional workshops where they actually influenced the design of the urban plan (Stichting
EVA). Even if this does not have a direct influence on the choice for specific technological
solutions, this participation is still important to mention. Indeed, the inhabitants participated
throughout the process in the design of their neighbourhood and were kept informed by the
experts of the technological solutions that were being discussed.
Blackwater treatment and the production of biogas:
Early in the process came the idea to separate blackwater (toilet waste) from greywater (water
coming from the kitchen and the shower), to treat it locally using biological processes and to
use the remaining sludge to produce biogas integration of wastewater treatment and energy
production (Stichting EVA; van Timmeren 2004; van Timmeren 2006). Organic waste
produced in the district was also planned to be added to the sludge in order to increase biogas
production. These two elements were both planned to be part of the EVA-Centre (see vision)
(Kaptein 2010). However, the centre was never realized and with it these two technological
solutions did not materialize. A summary of the results of the analysis can be found in the
following table.
Table 3: blackwater treatment and biogas: actors involved in each pole, their role and
position.
 Political pole: the municipality of Culemborg initially supported the project. It was
part of the vision for the district and the municipality had embraced this vision.
However, over time interest diminished and in 2003 the municipality released all
responsibility for the project (Kaptein 2010). This can partly be explained by the fact
Pole
Actor involved
Role
Position
Politics
The municipality of
Culemborg
Provide political support
Initially interested then
released all responsibility
Market
GGR Gas
Nuon
Invest in the technology
Consume the biogas
Initially interested, then
stopped supporting
Reject
Science
Energy expert
Architect
Knowledge of the
treatment of blackwater,
the production of biogas
and its integration into a
building
Provide information
Technical
GGR gas
Blackwater treatment and
biogas production
Operate the technology
Initially interested then
released all responsibility
Available

that the civil servant initially supporting the project left the municipality, and partly
because during the time frame of the project, different municipal councils succeeded
one another. New council members did not understand what was going on in EVA-
Lanxmeer anymore (Kaptein 2010). The project leader for EVA-Lanxmeer employed
in the spatial planning department also mentioned that “the project was too ambitious
for somewhere like Culemborg”.
 Technical pole: the company “GGR gas” was initially expected to operate the biogas
installations. However, the company later on stopped its support (Bonouvrié 2010;
Kaptein 2010). Moreover, for biogas to be produced blackwater treatment had to be
done locally. The two technologies were intimately connected to each other. However
both had already been introduced elsewhere in more or less large scale.
 Market: Large amount of biogas were expected to be produced and a market had to be
found outside the district. One solution considered was to send (part of) it back into
the gas network. However, Nuon, a Dutch energy company responsible for the gas
grid in that area, rejected the idea (Bonouvrié 2010). There were thus many
uncertainties regarding the availability of a market for biogas that was to be produced.
This also partly explains why no large investors could be found for the project.
 Science: energy experts and architect worked on the EVA-concept. Scales models
were made, together with a number of calculations and academic publications (van
Timmeren 2004; van Timmeren 2006; van Timmeren 2007). Technical knowledge
was thus available during the process.
Local treatment of greywater:
Part of the water concept was to locally treat the greywater produced in the district integration
of wastewater treatment and aquatic ecosystem. This includes water coming from the kitchen
and the bathroom. This was one of the solutions successfully implemented in the district
(Stichting EVA).
Table 4: local treatment of greywater: actors involved in each pole, their role and position.
 Political pole: First the municipality of Culemborg supported the idea from the very
beginning. Second the Water Board Rivierenland, a regional government body
responsible for maintaining the level and the quality of the water in the area also
supported the project (Bonouvrié 2010; Kaptein 2010)
Pole
Actor involved
Role
Position
Politics
The municipality of
Culemborg
Water board Rivierenland
Provide political support
Provide support
Support
Collaborate
Market
Future inhabitant
Water board
Produce the greywater
Financing and maintain
the system
Participate
Collaborate
Science
Academic and private
experts
Arcadis
Provide information
Provide information
Inform
Inform
Technical
Brinkvos water
owns the technology to
build the system
Available

 Technical pole: greywater treatment in Culemborg was new. However similar systems
had already been built elsewhere. In EVA-Lanxmeer, technical calculations were done
by Arcadis, a Dutch engineering firm.
 Market: First the Water Board Rivierenland played an important role here by allowing
such an experiment to be realized (Verhaagen, 2011) and by financing it (Bonouvrié
2010; Kaptein 2010). Second the future inhabitants were kept informed of the
technological solution chosen and their implications (Stichting EVA). This has been
very important as for the biological treatment of greywater to function properly,
chemical products such as bleach can’t be thrown into the sink. Inhabitants thus have
to adapt their behavior to the system in place.
 Science: academic and private experts, and Arcadis all provided information about the
greywater system (Stichting EVA).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The aim of this paper was to show how different actor networks led to different process of
integration. The focus was on the influence of actor participation during the design phase,
including vision building and selection of option. We used the concept of Techno-Economic
Network developed in order to understand innovation processes to analyze attempts at
systems integration in two case studies: Hammarby Sjöstad in Sweden and EVA-Lanxmeer in
the Netherlands. It total four different attempts at systems integration were studied. A
summary of the results can be found in table 5.
First, our results show two very different approaches to vision building. In Hammarby
Sjöstad, as initiator, the City of Stockholm developed a vision and then tried to get support
from local infrastructure companies. However to do so she had to both pressure the companies
and agree to make some compromises. In fact, vision building was not a purely separated
process but was also influenced by the initial selection of technological options. Moreover, we
can see a dominance of two groups of actors: the City of Stockholm and the eco-cycle
companies. We can also note that technology related actors have a prominent role while future
inhabitants did not have a say in the process. We can observe that discussions focused on
closing material and energy cycles through technological solutions.
In the case of EVA-Lanxmeer however, a number of experts developed a vision and looked
for partners interested in working with that vision. The partners they sought were a
municipality and future inhabitants. In this vision, the technological component only played a
marginal role. No location was known when the vision was built so it had to be stated rather
general to give space for local specificities to be expressed. Moreover, technical partners were
later invited to join in the discussions but on the conditions that they agreed to work with the
vision. It is the process through which these technological solutions were to be chosen, in
interaction with the inhabitants that was given the most attention.
Regarding the specific technological solutions chosen, our analysis unsurprisingly shows that
the two cases where implementation was successful had all the poles filled and often by more
than one actor. Concerning biogas production in Hammarby Sjöstad, a variety of partners with
different expertise gathered around the project. They all found interest in biogas either as a
way to expend their market, or to help meeting their corporate ambitions. The market and the
science pole were filled by more than one actor ensuring the availability of knowledge and the
presence of a future market for the product in development.

In EVA-Lanxmeer, generally speaking, the context in which the district developed was
favourable for experimenting. Actors with political power were inclined to support, politically
and financially, innovative solutions such as greywater treatment. The science pole was
strongly represented giving credibility to the solution and its feasibility. The market pole,
through the future inhabitants, was also well represented. This was especially important given
the role that inhabitants have in ensuring the proper functioning of the system. However, this
raises questions regarding the long term operation of such a system as new inhabitant have to
be kept informed of the existing rules. This is especially challenging in situations where there
is no formal institutional setting and where responsibilities are not clearly distributed. In
EVA-Lanxmeer, it is the inhabitants themselves that, out of their own will, are organizing
knowledge diffusion in the district.
Table 5: Summary of the findings. The words “yes” and “no” are used to express whether the
pole is filled or not.
Concerning solutions that were not realized, our data also tends to show that independently,
political support (political pole), technological feasibility (technical pole) and knowledge
availability (science pole) are not sufficient for systems integration to be realized. Moreover,
in the two cases where implementation failed, the market pole was very weak. In the case of
PV in Hammarby Sjöstad, the technology was readily available. However, it did not fit in the
portfolio one of the key actor who even contested the usefulness of introduction. Moreover,
shifting political support failed to create a real market for PV in the district.
Looking at backwater treatment and biogas production in EVA-Lanxmeer, out of the four
poles, only the science one was actually fully represented and was actually driving the
realization. The market was rather insecure and uncertainties remained around who would be
Stage
Pole
Hammarby Sjöstad
EVA-Lanxmeer
Vision
building
Politics
Yes
No then yes
Market
No then Yes
No then some yes
Science
Yes
Yes
Technology
Yes
No
Choosing
specific
technologies
Biogas
PV
Biogas
greywater
treatment
Politics
Yes
Yes
Yes then No
Yes
Market
yes
No
No
Yes
Science
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Technology
Yes
Yes
Yes and No
Yes
Final result
Introduction
successful
Introduction
very limited
No introduction
Introduction
successful

building and operating the system. Political actors provided insufficient support, unconvinced
of the economic feasibility of the project.
To conclude, results presented in this paper show that, as expected from the theory, all poles
need to be filled for a successful implementation to happen. Results also show that partial
implementation can be realized with only a few poles active. Moreover, the analysis suggests
that the market pole is difficult to fill and that market actors are difficult to convince to join in
systems integration practices.
These results also raise a number of questions. First, in this paper the analysis only shows the
final results of various attempts at systems integration. A chronological analysis showing how
the poles get filled from the moment when the idea was developed to its realization (or
abandonment) would better reveal which pole drives the process and the dynamics behind
systems integration. This may also reveal when and under which condition does the market
pole start being filled. Moreover, the analysis done here shows what happens but does not
explain why actors decide to join the process or not. Each actor, whether they are doing public
transport, wastewater treatment, district heating, etc. is part of a socio-technical regime. This
regime sets the norms and routine that drive actors and their activities. Including a more in-
depth investigation of the actors and the regime to which they belong would give explanatory
power to the analysis.
REFERENCES
Bodén A. (2002). Hammarby Sjöstad, brochure of the City of Stockholm. Real Estate and Traffic
Administration.
Bonouvrié (2010). personal communication 11 May 2010. Culemborg.
Bossel, H. (1998). Earth at Crossroads. Paths to a sustainable future. Cambridge, Cambridge
Univeristy Press.
Brogren, M. and A. Green (2003). "Hammarby Sjöstad-an interdisciplinary case study of the
integration of photovoltaics in a new ecologically sustainable residential area in Stockholm." Solar
Energy Materials and Solar Cells 75(3-4): 761-765.
Brogren, M., A. Helgesson, et al. (2004). "Optical properties, durability, and system aspects of a new
aluminium-polymer-laminated steel reflector for solar concentrators." Solar Energy Materials and
Solar Cells 82(3): 387-412.
Buchhorn, A. (2007). Becoming a Market: The Untold Story of Biogas. DRUID Winter Conference
2007. Aalborg, Denmark
Callon, M. (1986). The Sociology of an Actor-Network: the Case of the Electric Vehicle. Mapping the
Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. M. Callon, L. J. and A. Rip
(eds.). London, Macmillan: 19-34.
Callon, M., P. Laredo, et al. (1992). "The management and evaluation of technological programs and
the dynamics of techno-economic networks: The case of the AFME." Research Policy 21(3): 215-236.
de Laat (1996). Scripts for the Future: technology Foresight, Strategic Evaluation and Socio-technical
Networks - The Confrontation of Script-Based scenarios. Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam. Ph.D.
thesis.
Enberg, L. A. and Ö. Svane (2007). Compromise, failure or necessity - analysing the brownfield
development of hammarby sjöstad, stockholm, as negotiated sustainability processes in governance
networks. The European Network for Housing Research Conference, W15 - Housing and Urban
Sustainability, Compromise, Failure or Necessity. Rotterdam 25-28 June.
Energie-cités (1999). Biogas/Biofuel - Stockholm Sweden. Enegie-cités. Stockholm.
Fränne, L. (2007). Hammarby Sjöstad – a unique environmental project in Stockholm. Stockholm
GlashusEtt.

Girardet, H. (1996). The Gaia Atlas of Cities. London, Gaia Books Limited.
Goed, J. (2010). Personal communication 05 May 2010. Culemborg.
Gontier, P. (2005). "Symbiocité." Retrieved January 29, 2011, from http://www.pascalgontier.com/.
Green, A. (2006). Hållbar energianvändning i svensk stadsplanering - från visioner till uppföljning av
hammarby sjöstad och västra hamnen. Linköping Studies in Arts and Science Studies in Arts and
Science. Linköping, Linköping University. PhD Thesis.
Hallgreen, L. (undated). Towards a sustainable public transport system in Stockholm. Baltic Biogas
Bus. Stockholm, SL.
Held et al (2008). Biogas from manure and waste products - Swedish case studies. Swedish Gas
Association; Swedish Biogas Association and Swedish Gas center. Stockholm.
Joss, S. (2010). "Eco-cities - a global surbey 2009." WIT Transaction on Ecology and The Environment
129: 239-250.
Kaptein, M. (2010). personal communication 21 April 2010. Culemborg.
McDonough and Braungart 2002. Cradle to cradle ; remaking the way we make things. North Point
Press.
Newman, N. and I. Jennings (2008). Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems. Principles and Practices.
Washington D.C., Island Press.
Pandis and Brandt (2009). Evaluation of Hammarby Sjöstad’s eco-profiling (In Swedish). Stockholm,
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).
Pandis, upcoming. The development of a sustainable urban district in Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm,
Sweden? Environment, Development and Sustainability.
Stichting EVA. "Milieu." Retrieved December 21, 2010, from http://www.eva-lanxmeer.nl/.
Stichting EVA. "Participatie." Retrieved December 21, 2010, from http://www.eva-lanxmeer.nl/.
Stichting EVA. "Process." Retrieved December 21, 2010, from http://www.eva-lanxmeer.nl/.
Stichting EVA (1995). E.V.A. Brochure (Ecologisch Centrum voor Educatie, Voorlichting en Advies).
Amsterdam (in Dutch).
Stockholm Stad (1996). Hammarby Sjöstad Environmental Program. City Planning Administration.
Stockholm.
Stockholm Stad (2004). Stockholm Chooses Clean Vehicles. Stockholm, Stockholm Environment and
Health Administration.
Storstockholms Lokaltrafik (SL) (2002). Årsberättelse 2002. Stockholm, SL (in Swedish).
Van Berkel, R., T. Fujita, et al. (2009). "Industrial and urban symbiosis in Japan: Analysis of the Eco-
Town program 1997-2006." Journal of Environmental Management 90(3): 1544-1556.
van Timmeren, A. (2006). Autonomie & Heteronomie. Integratie en verduurzaming van essentiële
stromen in de gebouwde omgeving. Delft, Delft University of Technology. Ph.D Thesis.
van Timmeren, A. (2007). "The sustainable implant: Decentralised sanitation and energy reuse
(Desaer) in the built environment." Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management 7(1):
22-37.
van Timmeren, A., Röling W and Kaptein, M, (2004). Sustainable Implant and EVA Centre, Culemborg;
a hub for Sustainable Development. Plea2004 - the 21th Conference on Passive and Low Energy
Architecture. , Eindhoven, The Netherlands 19-22.
Verhaagen, H. 2011. Personal communication 06 April 2011.