Sustainability Profile for Urban Districts in Copenhagen

Abstract

The paper concerns the development of sustainability profiles for districts in Copenhagen. This work is currently being carried out by the Danish Building Research Institute, the Technical University of Copenhagen, and the municipality of Copenhagen. The aim of the project is to develop a first model for sustainability profiles for districts in Copenhagen that includes environmental, social and environmental indicators. The work is strongly inspired by the Dutch model 'DPL' (Dutch acronym for Duurzaamheid Prestatie voor een Locatie, 'Sustainability-Profile for Districts'), which has been quite successful in the Netherlands. The developer of DPL, IVAM Environmental Research, is consultant for the project. The concept of DPL is that the tool ".. assesses in a clear and transparent way the spatial plan for a district on sustainability, based on the information from the urban plan. It so helps urban designers to creatively improve the sustainable performance of a district" (Kortman et al, 2001). Compared to other tools for assessing urban sustainability, DPL represents a simple and flexible approach. The idea is to use a limited number of indicators based on already collected data. Once the data-collection has been completed, it is easy to repeat it, hence enabling a continuous monitoring of the district. The flexibility of DPL is that it accepts the use of alternative data if the requested data are not available, and also allows new indicators to be included, if they are of special interest of the municipality. This allows a DPL-assessment to be carried out rather smoothly, and thus increase the use amongst municipalities. The DPL-assessment does not provide any 'scientific' correctness, but must be seen as a model open for interpretations and discussions of the local sustainability. Applying the model on urban districts in Copenhagen has implied some changes of indicators. This has, however, also enabled an elaboration of profiles for all 10 districts in Copenhagen, an instant benchmarking between the districts, and comparative analysis of the indicators. The paper will discuss and argue for the choice of model in relation to general experiences on using tools for assessment of urban sustainability, and describe the chosen indicators. The experiences and results derived from the profiles so far will be discussed, as well as strengths, weaknesses and possible improvements of the model. Finally, potential uses of the tool will be considered in relation to ongoing projects and planning initiatives in Copenhagen.

Full text

1
Sustainability Profile for Urban Districts in Copenhagen
Paper for 'Sustainable Cities and Regions: Enabling Vision or Empty Talk?', Örebro University, Sweden,
March 11-13 2009
Jesper Ole Jensen, Senior Researcher, MSc, PhD., Danish Building Research Institute
Tel: +45 45 86 55 33, Teldir.: +45 99 40 23 58, Email: joj@sbi.dk
Keywords
Sustainability profile, urban districts, tool, DPL, data, sustainability assessment
Abstract
The paper concerns the development of sustainability profiles for districts in Copenhagen. This work is
currently being carried out by the Danish Building Research Institute, the Technical University of
Copenhagen, and the municipality of Copenhagen. The aim of the project is to develop a first model for
sustainability profiles for districts in Copenhagen that includes environmental, social and environmental
indicators. The work is strongly inspired by the Dutch model 'DPL' (Dutch acronym for Duurzaamheid
Prestatie voor een Locatie, ‘Sustainability-Profile for Districts’), which has been quite successful in the
Netherlands. The developer of DPL, IVAM Environmental Research, is consultant for the project.
The concept of DPL is that the tool ".. assesses in a clear and transparent way the spatial plan for a
district on sustainability, based on the information from the urban plan. It so helps urban designers to
creatively improve the sustainable performance of a district" (Kortman et al, 2001). Compared to other tools
for assessing urban sustainability, DPL represents a simple and flexible approach. The idea is to use a
limited number of indicators based on already collected data. Once the data-collection has been completed,
it is easy to repeat it, hence enabling a continuous monitoring of the district. The flexibility of DPL is that it
accepts the use of alternative data if the requested data are not available, and also allows new indicators to
be included, if they are of special interest of the municipality. This allows a DPL-assessment to be carried out
rather smoothly, and thus increase the use amongst municipalities. The DPL-assessment does not provide
any 'scientific' correctness, but must be seen as a model open for interpretations and discussions of the local
sustainability.
Applying the model on urban districts in Copenhagen has implied some changes of indicators. This has,
however, also enabled an elaboration of profiles for all 10 districts in Copenhagen, an instant benchmarking
between the districts, and comparative analysis of the indicators.
The paper will discuss and argue for the choice of model in relation to general experiences on using tools
for assessment of urban sustainability, and describe the chosen indicators. The experiences and results
derived from the profiles so far will be discussed, as well as strengths, weaknesses and possible
improvements of the model. Finally, potential uses of the tool will be considered in relation to ongoing
projects and planning initiatives in Copenhagen.
Introduction
This paper describes a tool for assessing the sustainability of different urban districts in Copenhagen, in
terms of 'sustainability profiles' for each district, which has been developed on the basis of the Dutch DPL-
tool.
Many municipalities have developed and launched various indicator systems to monitor sustainable
development on a city level (see Devuyst et al., 2001 for several examples). On the level of urban districts,
methods and initiatives are fewer. Different types of models and approaches to assess and measure urban
sustainable developed on a local level include a wide array from models like the British 'BRE Sustainability
Checklist for Developments' or the US assessment method Smart Scorecard (Fleissig & Jacobsen, 2002),
which are mainly used for planners to assess and improve new urban developments, to bottom-up models,
where indicators and concepts for urban areas are developed by local actors in collaboration with planners
or scientists. The DPL-Copenhagen tool can be seen as somewhere in between these approaches, as a top-
down tool to hopefully generate a bottom-up process. It is the aim that the model should be used by the
municipality to create dialogue and debate with citizens, businesses and environmental organizations on

2
how efforts should be prioritized and organized. Also, the model could be used to stimulate the political
debate on sustainable urban development in the municipality. The main purpose of the tool is to quantify
environmental, social and economic sustainability for an urban district (figure 1), based on the selection of
few central and easy accessible indicators.
There are various reasons for developing
a tool to assess sustainability of urban
districts:
 Urban districts are different, also in
Copenhagen. Sustainability indicators
closer to the citizens are needed to
better understand the sustainability in
context. The urban scale for cities like
Copenhagen (500.000 inhabitants) is
too large to use only one green
account a municipal level.
 The municipality could differentiate
and target its politics on sustainability
in relation to the various
characteristics of the districts
 Many environmental and social
initiatives are taking place on a local
scale, including area-based urban
renewal and Agenda-21 activities
(each district in Copenhagen has its
own Agenda 21-center). For these
purposes a quantification and visualisation of the local sustainability is useful. Although the quantification
is to a large extent subjective and constructed (through the choice and weighting of indicators), it is a
way to manage sustainable issues in a practical way, and avoid that sustainability just becomes 'empty
talk' and fluffy visions.
The DPL-Copenhagen tool exists now in a preliminary version. The paper will describe the concept of the
tool, the profiles and discuss possible uses of the profiles.
Background
Theoretical perspectives
Urban sustainability is becoming an increasingly important element in the policies for European cities, and as
a consequence a large number of different tools are being developed by researchers, consultants, ngo’s,
national and international bodies (Devuyst, 2001; Jensen and Elle, 2007). From a theoretical point of view it
is relevant to ask why we need tools to assess sustainable development, and what we might use the tools
for. Current theories in the field of Ecological Modernisation, Governance and New Public Management offer
social and institutional explanations for this development. From these theories we can outline different
purposes for the tools:
Making environmental issues calculable and integrating sustainability into politics: An important feature of
sustainability assessment tools is about making environmental issues calculable – “what gets measured gets
managed”. Assessment tools ideally focus on how substance flows could be better managed and controlled,
integrating both technical and social aspects. Instruments as LCAs and environmental performance
indicators are examples of this modernisation-process (Spaargaren 2000). The large focus on indicators,
benchmarks and quantitative goals is a way to make sustainable development manageable for the existing
political and administrative systems. The integration of sustainable qualities into existing institutions
demands transformation into manageable entities, making sustainability a possible object for defining
measurable goals, quotas, norms and green taxes (Van Tatenhove & Leroy 2003; Elle et al. 2003). It both
represents an 'ecological modernisation' of the public institutions, as well as the new conditions that
sustainable development has to adhere to. We can see the 'tool-ification' and 'normalisation' of sustainability
as dominant trends in sustainable urban development; sustainability is increasingly being defined through
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4
Environmental score
Economic score
Social score
Municipal average
Figure 1.The principal aim for the DPL-Copenhagen model to measure
sustainability on local level

3
the tools and standards used, and increasingly being integrated in the production scheme of “traditional”
policy.
Managing new actor relations: Ecological Modernisation suggests, along with theories on Governance and
on New Public Management that new institutional arrangements are emerging. In traditional politics,
challenges as to sustainable development would have been met with increasing regulation and new laws.
For several reasons, this model is not valid any more. Instead, challenges are increasingly met through the
authorities’ collaboration with the civil society as well as the market. Authorities increasingly pursue its policy
through voluntary agreements and partnerships, but for this use a number of voluntary 'rules' has to be
invented that the partnerships can accept (Boström, 2003). The implementation of tools and Environmental
Management Systems can be viewed as communication tools, both internally within the organization and to
communicate with actors outside the municipality (von Malmborg, 2003). Methods for defining and
quantifying sustainability therefore become parts of defining local 'story lines' and 'discourse coalitions'
(Hajer, 1998).
From these theoretical perspectives we can argue that the reasons for developing assessment tools and
methods for urban sustainability is not only related to a ‘commons sense’ understanding of measuring and
mapping sustainability issues, but is also embedded in new types of policies based on voluntary stakeholder
involvement and collaboration, calls for sustainability policies to be evaluated etc.
Experiences from practical use of tools
From the studies carried out in the PETUS project (Practical Evaluation Tools for Urban Sustainability,
www.petus.eu.com
) on how sustainable assessment tools are used in different European cities, it is however
clear that the practical world does not always follow the theoretical expectations (Jensen & Elle, 2007). One
of the main conclusions from the PETUS studies is that assessment tools are mainly used in projects already
defined as sustainable. In almost all cases we studied where tools were used, the project or policy was
already declared sustainable, meaning that a number of sustainability initiatives had already bee decided.
Applying the tool in these projects therefore had limited influence of increasing the sustainability of the
project, but could instead be seen as a part of the ‘green branding of the project. This makes it difficult to
assess the tools’ actual influence on the project and questions the role of the tool: is the tool used to improve
the sustainability, or is it a way to say that the project is sustainable? Ideally, tools for sustainability should be
applied to any project, and by using the tools, the projects and policies should become more sustainable.
This is the logic behind the EIA- and SEA-procedures, which are used on all project of a certain volume, but
when it comes to the voluntary sustainability tools, most tends to be used where sustainability is already on
the agenda.
Another central observations is that the tools are often being used few times, and tools and methods that
are beings used on a regular basis are rare. In many cases it is a single actor who introduces and drives the
use of a tool in a sustainability project. This might be actors that have an expertise or experience using a
tool, or actors (individuals or institutions) that have developed a tool themselves. Typically, the tool is not an
integrated part of the client's or municipality's practice, and that these persons are hired as external
consultants to carry out a sustainability analysis. This means that learning about the tool, building
competences and establishing an ownership to the tool is typically embedded at the consultant, and not at
the client or the municipality, who therefore often sees the use of the tool as an extra cost.
Moreover, it is very often that predefined tools are strongly adapted to the context, and used only in parts.
Such flexibility is generally a necessity (due to contextual differences, data access etc.), but may be a
problem if the aim is to compare and benchmark different cases. However, the adaption of tools to certain
projects and context's is a part of the learning process, and in many cases this leads to developing new
versions of predefined tools, based on problems applying the existing tools on a specific case. There are
several examples on users who have been working in a process of applying an existing tool on a specific
case ends, and adapting it to the specific context, ends up defining a new tool (or new versions of the
existing tool) based in this experience. This illustrates that to some extent, to become a skilled user of a tool
and feel ownership to it, you have to develop the tool yourself. At least, when looking at examples from
successful uses of tools, this is a near conclusion.
A main reason for the very flexible and adaptive use of tools is related to data problems: Generally data
on sustainability are limited, and in some cases not accessible – or too expensive to collect. As many tools
require a large number of data, the practical use necessarily has to be flexible. The often encountered
problem of data accessibility is also a reason for not using assessment tools, as the lack of data either
makes the tools difficult or expensive to use, or has a limited basis for comparison. Other reasons amongst

4
potential users (municipal planners, departments, clients, building owners etc.) for not using tools relates to
lack of knowledge of the tool or to a skeptic of the advantage or using the tool. Finally, many potential users
think that the tools lack legitimacy, reliability and transparency
DPL in Copenhagen
The experiences and observations discussed above have strongly influenced our view on why the Dutch
model DPL (Dutch acronym for Duurzaamheid Prestatie voor een Locatie, ‘Sustainability-Profile for Districts’)
could be suitable to adapt to Copenhagen. The concept of DPL is that the tool ".. assesses in a clear and
transparent way the spatial plan for a district on sustainability, based on the information from the urban plan.
It so helps urban designers to creatively improve the sustainable performance of a district" (Kortman et al,
2001). Compared to other tools for assessing urban sustainability, DPL represents a relative simple and
flexible approach. The idea is to use a limited number of indicators based on already collected data, which
are often accessible in the municipal registers. From these data, environmental, social and economic profiles
for the district are calculated. If data are not available, the model allows alternative methods for a 'best
estimate' on the indicator. It also allows new indicators to be included, if they are of special interest of the
municipality. These features make DPL flexible for the users, but also allows for a broader interpretation of
what should be included in 'sustainable districts'.
Once the data-collection has been completed, it is easy to repeat it, hence enabling a continuous
monitoring of the district. This allows a DPL-assessment to be carried out rather smoothly and thus possible
increase the use amongst municipalities. The DPL-assessment does not provide any 'scientific' correctness,
but must be seen as a model open for interpretations and discussions of the local sustainability. The DPL-
tool represents a step away from the scientifically based models, aiming at a objectively 'correct' answer to
the question of sustainability, towards a more open, pragmatic and flexible approach, where the aim is to
communicate and discuss sustainability at a local level, more than delivering one correct answer. From a
long record of sustainability assessments of different types of districts, the Dutch DPL-tool provides
sustainability benchmarks within certain types of urban districts (high-rise, mixed areas, low-dense etc.), and
thereby making the sustainability comparison and benchmarking more relevant for the actual area being
assessed.
Due to the apparent success in the Netherlands and the concept of DPL that avoids many pitfalls of the
existing tools for assessing sustainability, it was decided to test and 'translate' the DPL-tool to a Danish
context. The work of developing a model for sustainability assessment of urban districts in Copenhagen
began with a wish to test and transfer the DPL tool to Copenhagen. This work was carried out in
collaboration between the Danish Building Research Institute, the department for Environmental Protection
in the municipality of Copenhagen, IVAM Environmental Research (developers of DPL) and the Technical
university of Denmark, and financially supported by the Fund for Urban Ecology in Copenhagen. The project
included 1. A test of the DPL–model on two districts in Copenhagen, 2. An adaptation of the indicators to the
context of Copenhagen, 3. Testing the adapted model in selected areas, with comments from local users.
Choice of indicators
First step was to examine the data availability in Copenhagen for the indicators used in the DPL model. It
turned out to be very difficult to provide the necessary data and carry out a test of DPL. Therefore it was
decided to moderate the choice of indicators, so that data for all indicators would be available for the districts
in Copenhagen, and so that the data were all considered relevant by the project partners. Therefore, some
differences exist between the indicators used in the original DPL and the ones used in the DPL-Copenhagen
model. The indicators were in some cases changed due to lack of data and lack of relevance (or both). For
instance, it was decided not to include the indicators 'odour' and 'internet access' due to lack of relevance,
compared to other issues. Other indicators were regarded highly relevant, for instance 'waste collection, 'air
pollution' and 'traffic security' – however, in Copenhagen, data for these issues are not available on a district
level. Finally, we decided to add other indicators which were not included in the DPL-model, which our data
allowed us to do, for instance the directly measured energy consumption in different types of buildings (from
a database on the Energy-labelling of buildings). The main parts of the data were available in the existing
registers in the statistical office in Copenhagen, others were collected in the municipal administration, and
others from websites.

5
Original DPL-model Adapted DPL-model for Copenhagen
basis
data
Basis information: Inhabitants, number of dwellings,
total surface, length of roads.
Basis information: Inhabitants, number of dwellings,
total surface etc.
Environmental indicators
1 and 2: Materials and energy
3. Areal disposal
4. Rainwater treatment (deleted)
5. Soil pollution
6. Waste collection
7. Air pollution
Housing
1. Heat consumption per inhabitant (kWh / person)
2. Housing consumption pr. inhabitant (m2 / person)
Transport
3. Car ownership per 1.000 inhabitants
4. Shared cars per 1.000 inhabitants
5. % of inhabitants working within city limits
6. Share of households with noise load (+ 68dB)
Companies and institutions
7. Energy efficiency in shops and offices (kWh / m2)
8. % companies members of the Copenhagen
Environmental Network
Citizens
9. Share of population registered as 'Climate citizens',
an internet-based forum for commitments to private
climate initiatives
Social indicators
8. Noise pollution
9. Odour pollution
10. Social security
11. Traffic security
12. Industrial health threads
13. Quality of public service
14. Access to public transport
15. Public parks and gardens
16. Water
17. Urban quality
18. Residential quality (deleted)
19. Social cohesion
Urban qualities
10. Facilities for restaurants, hotels and culture (m2)
11. Facilities for sports (m2)
12. Recreational areas (green and blue)
Housing
13. % affordable housing (< 5.000 DKr. (800 €) in
rent per month)
14. % dwellings with installation needs
Social qualities
15. Mixed housing ownership in the district
16. Unemployment rate amongst workforce
Economic
indicators
20. Local workplaces
21. Type of local companies
22. Sustainable companies
23. Mix of functions in the area
24. Flexibility in the area
25. IT infrastructure in the area
17. Average household income
18. Education level amongst citizens
19. Number of workplaces per citizen
20. Prices on houses and flats (sales-prices per. m2)
Table 1. The original indicators in the DPL-model, and the indicators selected for the adapted DPL-Copenhagen model.
Different types of indicators
The adapted DPL-model for Copenhagen includes a differentiation of the indicators. While some indicators
can be seen as positive urban qualities, including social and economic objectives that create progress and
momentum in the city, other indicators describe the environmental status on selected topics (energy
consumption, transport, etc.). Finally, other indicators describe the potential for change as counter-action to
the negative environmental consequences, such as environmental certification of companies, Agenda 21
actions, or to register as climate citizens. This breakdown is based on the DSR methodology (Driving forces,
State and Response), developed by the OECD in 1993 (OECD, 1993). Figure 2 illustrates examples on how
the DSR-principle could be used to describe different types of indicators in an urban context urban include

6
various types of indicators in the DPL-Copenhagen model, to illustrate the different meanings they have for
urban sustainability, and to generate ideas on how indicators might influence each other.
Driving forces
Examples on themes for urban
development and qualities
State
Examples on indicators for urban
sustainability
Responses
(urban sustainability politics)
Economic urban growth
Attractive urban qualities
More wealthy citizens Increased energy consumption in
buildings
Energy-renovation of buildings
Create local employment
Higher mobility amongst citizens Increasing car-ownership Investments in public transport and
sustainable transport modes
Demand for more housing space Increased traffic, noise and pollution Encourage shared cars
Encourage individual climate initiatives
Agenda 21
Less affordable housing
Segregation Create affordable housing
New service industries substituting old
production industries
Less pollution of soil, air and water Environmental certification of industries
Figure 2. A differentiation between indicators: Examples on driving forces, state and responses in relation to sustainable urban
development.
Weighting and calculation of values
The DPL-Copenhagen assessment of urban districts’ sustainability is relative, i.e. the districts are only
assessed in relation to the city on average. In the model all indicators are turned into indexes, where a score
on for instance 1,2 means that the indicator scores 20% better than Copenhagen in average. The index-
calculation in our opinion makes the numbers in the model more transparent than a model where each score
is calculated. The disadvantage with this method is it can be difficult to manage large variations between the
districts, especially when a high number for an indicator has to be transformed to a low score – or the
reverse, a low number has to be transformed to a high score. It also means that a low score might not be
very sustainable on an absolute measure (for instance measuring the ecological footprint of the district), or
even compared to districts in other municipalities. However, it might be possible also to include absolute
measures on sustainability in the profiles, for instance calculation of the ecological space or the ecological
footprint for the districts.
Presentation of the sustainability profiles
Copenhagen holds app. 500.000 inhabitants and is divided in 10 urban districts (figure 3). The districts vary
between 36.000 and 71.000 inhabitants and from 380 ha in space for the smallest (Nørrebro) to 1900
hectares for the largest (Amager Vest).

7
Figure 3. Map of the 10 districts in the Municipality of Copenhagen (the white area in the middle is the municipality of Frederiksberg).
Figure 4 shows the result of calculating the environmental profiles for the ten districts in Copenhagen.
Correspondingly, social and economic profiles for the districts have been developed (see appendix 1). The
following will however mainly focus on the environmental profiles, and a first interpretation of the profiles in
relation to the different characteristics of the districts.

8
Environmental profiles
1,00
0,87
0,95
1,21
1,09
0,94
0,87
0,90
0,99
1,08
0,98
1,00
0,80
0,91
1,10
1,02
1,03
0,96
1,05
1,06
1,06
1,00
0,91
0,96
1,37
1,29
0,88
0,76
0,80
1,07
0,98
0,97
1,00
1,31
1,59
1,15
1,74
0,64
0,54
0,37
0,54
0,50
1,10
1,00
1,09
1,01
1,03
1,02
0,90
0,88
0,93
0,97
1,02
1,04
1,00
0,83
1,29
0,86
0,87
0,93
0,75
1,67
0,67
2,10
1,30
1,00
0,92
0,99
1,13
0,98
0,99
1,02
1,30
1,42
1,30
1,30
1,0
0,9
0,3
1,6
1,7
2,2
0,3
0,1
0,4
1,6
1,6
1,0
1,0
1,2
1,3
1,1
1,1
0,6
0,7
0,7
1,1
0,80,99
024681012
Copenhagen total
Indre by
Østerbro
Nørrebro
Vesterbro/Kongens Enghave
Valby
Vanløse
Brønshøj-Husum
Bispebjerg
Amager Øst
Amager Vest
1. Heat consumption in housing per inhabitant 2. Housing consumption, m2/inhb.
3. Car ownership per. Inhb. 4. Shared cars per. 1.000 inhb.
5. Share employed inside city limits 6. Dwellings beyond noise limit (68 dB)
7. Energy consumption in offices and trade (kWh/m2) 8. % of industries in Environmental Network Copenhagen
9. Share of 'Climate Citizens'
Figure 4. Environmental profiles for the ten districts in Copenhagen. The higher score, the better
environmental performance compared to the city average, and vice versa.
The profiles indicate that there are large differences between the sustainability of the ten districts. The
overall scores, with 9 as reference for the city average, ranges from around seven as the lowest (Vanløse) to
eleven as the highest (Vesterbro/Kgs. Enghave). Moreover, we see that the districts that have an overall
high score, scores high on most of the indicators (and not just one or two). The districts with the overall
highest scores, Nørrebro and Vesterbro/Kongens Enghave have high scores on most indicators, and only
falls beyond city average on number of dwellings with noise problems (indicator 6) and partly in energy
efficiency for officers and shops (indicator 7). This suggests that there might be some structural connections
between the type of district and the environmental score. The districts with the highest scores (Amager Øst,
Nørrebro, Vesterbro/Kongens Enghave) are all dominated by multi-storey-buildings, built around 1850-1900,
for the working class in the emerging industrial city. Today, these areas are to a large degree occupied by
younger people, students and low-income groups, especially for Nørrebro and Vesterbro. The indicators
show that the housing consumption is low (gives a high environmental score), the heating consumption per
inhabitant is low, the car ownership is low, and at the same time the action-orientated environmental
indicators (numbers of 'Climate citizens', shared cars and companies joined the environmental network of
Copenhagen) are all high.
The districts with the lowest environmental scores (Vanløse, Brønshøj-Husum and Bispebjerg) were all
included in the Municipality around 1900 to absorb the expanding population from the rest of the city, and
they were subsequently planned and built with mainly social housing estates and single-family houses. The
environmental performance of these districts generally have the opposite situation than the highest-scoring
districts: The consumption of heat and housing space per inhabitant is generally high, so is the car-
ownership, as well as the proportion of people working inside the city limits (indicating longer commuting
distances). At the same time, they score low on all of the action-oriented indicators.
The low-scoring and high-scoring districts have in common that there is an apparent connection between
the indicators on 'environmental state' and on 'response' – low consumption corresponds to low action in the
low-scoring district, and vice versa for the high-scoring. For other districts, however, the connection is
apparently different. For instance, the district Østerbro scores generally low on the 'environmental state'-
indicators (due to a high consumption of heating and housing space, as well as a high car-ownership) – but

9
scores high on the 'response'-indicators, 'shared cars' and 'climate citizens', which in the overall
environmental score to some extent compensates for the negative effects of the consumption. For some
districts certain local environmental initiatives influence the overall score. One example is the district Valby,
where the local Agenda 21-center has focused their environmental initiatives on the local shops and
industries, including attempts to make them members of the Copenhagen Green Network, a municipal-based
network between 'green' industries. This effort is visible in the environmental score for Valby that has more
than twice as many members amongst local industries than the average of Copenhagen, and therefore
scores high on this indicator, although the other indicators are far from impressive.
Some of these characteristics correspond well to our prejudgement of the various districts: Nørrebro and
Vesterbro are for the young and educated people with limited economic resources seeking urban
experiences, whereas Østerbro is occupied by more well-off people with political correctness (the 'café latte -
segment'). In the districts in the fringes of Copenhagen municipality there are many single-family houses and
better access to green areas than in the rest of the city, which typically make the districts attractive for
families with double income, who have the economic capacity to buy a house and to use cars for their daily
transport etc.
Sustainability: Urban density or lifestyle?
From an analytical perspective it is tempting to compare the districts on various indicators. One example is
the discussion on density and sustainability on an urban scale. In discussions and perceptions on the
sustainable city, density is often regarded as a central parameter. However, recent research from
consumption studies (Jensen, 2008; Gram-Hanssen, 2003) shows that life-style and related parameters
such as income and the use of housing space are central parameters for consumption of energy. The
question is, whether such parameters also corresponds the variations of a district level, or whether the urban
density has a larger influence. For an initial test on this question we have taken the urban density for each
district and compared to four indicators from our model: Heating consumption per resident, housing
consumption per resident, car ownership per resident and household income (figure 5).
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
Copenhagen total Indre by Østerbro Nørrebro Vesterbro/Kongens
Enghave
Valby Vanløse Brønshøj-Husum Bispebjerg Amager Øst Amager Vest
Index, Copenhagne total = 1
Heat consumption per person in dwellings Car ownership Urban density Household income Housing space consumption (m2 / person)
Figure 5. Index for urban density, heat consumption, car ownership and household income in the ten districts in Copenhagen.
As seen in the figure, there is – in line with the consumption studies – apparently a strong correlation
between the districts on income, housing consumption, heating consumption and car ownership. The relation

10
to urban density is more ambiguous: For the districts with the highest densities, we would (due to better
proximity to services and public transport, and less heat looses from houses) expect a higher sustainability,
and less consumption. For some districts, this connection apparently holds – as argued before, the two
former working-class districts Nørrebro and Vesterbro which are now dominated by low-income groups have
high densities and low consumption scores, whereas districts with a more suburban character (Vanløse and
Brønshøj-Husum) are low on density and high on consumption scores.
There are, however, exceptions. One example is the district 'Indre By ('Inner City'), which has the second-
highest density, but has high consumption rates on housing, heating and car ownership; the heat
consumption per. inhabitant is the largest in the municipality (app. 8000 kWh / person / year), so is the
housing consumption (72 m2/person), which indicates a high consumption of electricity. In spite of the high
density to all kinds of servicers and urban qualities (for instance, more than third of the workforce work on an
address within the district), the car ownership is surprisingly high (194 per 1.000 inhabitants, or 10% more
than for the city as average). Here, consumption dynamics, including a high household income, apparently
overrules the sustainability qualities of the dense city, as this district is attractive for well-educated and high-
income households. This raises the question whether developing sustainable and attractive districts is
possible, if it attracts wealthy residents who want large houses, consumer electronics and cars, no matter the
proximity of urban qualities.
Using the assessment tool in an urban regeneration process
Another way of using the sustainability profiles is in relation to area-based initiatives, as for instance urban
regeneration. Here, the profiles might help to identify goals, discuss the identity of the area, and to spark
discussions on means and goals for the regeneration process. For this purpose, the tool is currently being
tested in three areas where urban area-based regeneration is taking place and where sustainability is highly
prioritised (Sundholmsvej in Amager Vest, Gl. Valby in Valby and Albertslund Syd in the municipality of
Albertslund).
A main challenge in this is the limited data access on the local level, combined with high ambitions to
establish measurable goals and indicators for the urban regeneration; whereas social and economic
measures are well-developed even on local scale, environmental data are more than scarce. Nevertheless,
planners and administrators being responsible for the urban regeneration might be ambitious on formulating
measurable goals for the renewal, to justify the sustainability efforts and the public investments. For
instance, data on energy use in the districts’ buildings is highly desired, but this can be very difficult to
access, because the energy providers are not able or motivated to deliver the data, or because they have
been privatised and have no public obligations. Also, the urban regeneration programme might not have the
necessary financial resources to pay for the data. In the DPL-Copenhagen model we have used data from
Energy Labelling of buildings, which include data for a number of buildings in the area and therefore gives an
indication of the energy use for buildings in the area, but not an exact measure. As the planners might
request documentation for the energy use, or CO2-emissions before and after the regeneration process,
these data might not be regarded as being sufficient. As the energy use in building is determined by a
number of other factors that the initiatives in the urban regeneration programme (for instance local
demographic and economic changes), it might be very ‘risky’ to use reductions in energy consumption or
CO2-emissions as goals for the regeneration, especially as the finances for building refurbishment are
limited. Therefore, using the ‘Driving Forces, State and Response’-distinction between indicators as
discussed previously, we advocate for not solely using ‘state’-oriented indicators, but urge the need to
develop ‘response’-orientated measures and indicators on a local level, that are more closely related to the
actual influence of the urban regeneration.
Challenges and development
The presented version is the first attempt to develop a sustainability profile for the urban districts in
Copenhagen. Therefore, the model can be improved in many ways.
- The choice of indicators could be improved: For instance there presently no indicators on access to
public transport in the districts although we know that this is an important factor for the use of transport
mode. Also, we know the car ownership, but not how much people actually drive in their cars. Finally, we
would like data on cycle transport, which accounts for app. 1/3 of all transport in Copenhagen, and is an
important political goal to develop as well.

11
- A module for calculating CO2-emissions on a local scale could possibly be developed, if input on
transport could be improved, which also would mean that the energy infrastructure (production mode)
would become visible
- Indicators on waste production and treatment should be included, but no data are available on district
level at the moment
- The present districts with app. 50.000 inhabitants and 900 hectares are rather large areas, with large
internal differences between neighbourhoods within the district. Therefore, applying the assessment on
smaller districts or neighbourhoods would appeal more to a local identity.
It is also a challenge for the DPL-Copenhagen tool to be integrated and used in the municipal administration,
and to get linked to other initiatives on sustainability currently being taken in the Municipality. Some of these
initiatives include:
- Official urban planning documents as the Municipal plan and Municipal Planning Strategy, where
sustainability is an important theme. These documents are developed by the Economic Department, and
therefore naturally call for collaboration with the Environmental Protection Department. The first steps to
introduce the DPL-Copenhagen tool to the Economic Department has been well received, and there are
plans to develop this further
- Development plans for sustainable neighbourhoods: There are currently different plans for developing
sustainable neighbourhoods on brownfield area (for instance Carlsberg and Nordhavnen). The Economic
Department has developed its own tool for environmental assessment of suggestions for development
plans of such new areas. Therefore, a connection to the DPL-Copenhagen's assessment of existing
urban areas should be developed to ensure consistency between the methods and indicators selected
- Urban regeneration initiatives: Policies for urban regeneration are increasingly focusing on coordination
between different initiatives, on mapping and monitoring of neighbourhoods, and on environmental
sustainability. Thus, there is a potential to integrate the Copenhagen DPL-tool with these politics.
- Environmental strategies and documents, for instance the 'Eco-Metropole' (an environmental vision for
Copenhagen, describing 11 distinctive environmental goals for Copenhagen in the year of 2015), the
annual Green Accounting for Copenhagen (selected environmental indicators on City level), Dogme
2000 (a collaboration between Danish and Swedish municipalities on committing the municipality on
measurable environmental goals) and a number of other initiatives.
In order to maintain its actuality and relevance the tools should orientate its benchmarks and indicators
towards existing goals and benchmarks in municipal, national and international regulation. For instance, the
DPL-tool has recently been updated: the indicator on internet access has been removed as almost all
households have internet access today, and goals for recent building regulation have been included. In the
DPL-Copenhagen model we have also tried to include goals from current regulation and policies on
sustainability. This is however not an easy task. In the municipality of Copenhagen there are more than 240
environmental goals formulated in different planning documents, policies, sector plans etc. Naturally it is not
possible to include all goals in the DPL-Copenhagen model. Moreover, for several goals formulated in
sustainable policies there are no data available on district level. For instance, in the ‘Eco-Metropole’ one of
the 20 goals is ‘keeping streets clean’, but the measurable goal for this is very vague, and no data on district
level exists. Increasing bicycling in Copenhagen is another highly prioritised goal (the Copenhagen
municipality has an ambition of becoming the leading bicycle city in the world and has formulated a bicycle
policy), but there are no data for this on district level. Therefore, integrating the DPL-Copenhagen tool in the
existing policies in the existing municipal policies will require an increased use of sustainability indicators and
generation of data in the municipal policies and administration.

12
References
Boström M (2003) Environmental Organisations in New Forms of Political Participation: Ecological
Modernisation and the Making of Voluntary Rules. Environmental Values 12(2).
Bulkeley H & Mol APJ (2003) Participation and Environmental Governance: Consensus, Ambivalence and
Debate. Environmental Values 12(2).
Deakin M, Huovila P, Rao S, Sunnikka M, Vreeker, R (2002) The assessment of sustainable urban
development. Building Research & Information (2002) 30(2) pp. 95-10
Devuyst D, Hens L, De Lannoy W (eds) (2001) How Green Is the City?: Sustainability Assessment and the
Management of Urban Environments. Columbia University Press.
Elle M, Nielsen SB, Jensen JO & Hoffmann B (2004): The seven challenges of Sustainable Cities. In: Zanon
B (ed.): Sustainable Urban Infrastructure. Approaches – solutions – methods. Proceedings from the Cost 8
final Conference. Trento, Italy, November 2003. Temi Editrice, Trento.
Fleissig, W. & Jacobsen , V. (2002). Smart scorecard for development projects. Developed in Collaboration
with the Congress for New Urbanism and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 2002
Gram-Hanssen, K., 2003. Boligers energiforbrug – sociale og tekniske forklaringer på forskelle [Energy use
in dwellings – social and technical explanations on differences]. Hørsholm: Danish National building
Research Institute.
Hajer MA (1995): The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Clearendon Press. Oxford.
Jensen, J. O. & Elle, M. (2007).Exploring the Use of Tools for Urban Sustainability in European Cities.
Indoor and Built Environment. 2007; vol. 16, nr. 3, s. 235-247
Jensen, J. O. (2008) Measuring consumption in households: interpretations and strategies. Ecological
Economics. 2008; vol. 68, nr. 1-2, s. 353-361
Kortman, J., H. van Ewijk, P. van Konijnenburg, R. Lanting, A. de Groot-van Dam, R.
Kleefman and F. Timmermans. 2001. Duurzaamheidsprofiel van een locatie, Ontwikkeling en
test van het DPL instrument versie 1.0. IVAM Environmental Research, TNO - Building and
Construction Research and TNO - Environment, Energy and Process Innovation. Amsterdam,
Delft.
OECD (1993) OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews. A Synthesis Report by
the Group on the State of the Environment. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Paris.
PETUS project: Practical Evaluation Tools for Urban Sustainability. Located at: www.petus.eu.com
Spaargaren G (2000) Ecological Modernisation theory and Domestic Consumption. Environmental Policy
and Planning, 2(4), 323-35
Van Tatenhove JPM & Leroy P (2003): Environment and participation in a context of Political modernisation.
In Environmental Values 12(2).
Von Malmborg, F. (2003). Environmental Management Systems: What is in it for Local Authorities? Journal
of Environmental Policy and Planning. Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2003, 3-21.

13
Appendix 1: Social and economic profiles for urban districts in Copenhagen
Social profiles
1,00
5,95
0,42
0,34
1,36
0,21
0,19
0,17
0,29
0,28
1,18
1,00
0,52
2,19
0,59
0,91
1,16
1,85
0,61
0,45
0,76
0,78
1,00
0,91
0,54
0,27
0,49
0,47
0,78
1,10
1,00
0,86
2,05
1,00
0,83
0,76
1,03
0,78
1,06
0,95
1,69
1,59
0,69
0,81
1,00
0,81
0,93
0,67
0,85
1,29
1,51
2,76
1,19
0,90
1,41
1,00
0,75
1,27
1,35
1,32
1,60
0,88
0,41
0,98
1,49
2,54
1,00
1,02
1,06
0,85
0,82
1,10
1,27
1,25
0,89
1,08
1,03
024681012
Copenhagen total
Indre By
Østerbro
Nørrebro
Vesterbro/Kgs Enghave
Valby
Vanløse
Brønshøj-Husum
Bispebjerg
Amager Øst
Amager Vest
10. Floor area for restaurants, hotels and culture 11. Floor area for sports
12. Green and blue areas 13. Affordable housing (share of rented space < 5.000 DKr./month)
14. Share of outdated flats 15. Mix og housing ownership
16. Unemployment rate
Economic profiles
1,00
1,26
1,09
0,86
0,93
1,01
1,11
1,06
1,11
0,95
0,99
1,00
1,45
1,28
1,14
1,09
0,77
0,88
0,64
0,76
0,76
0,83
1,00
3,78
1,02
0,51
1,18
0,60
0,34
0,31
0,68
0,51
0,72
1,00
1,15
1,09
0,91
1,05
0,94
0,88
0,88
0,94
1,09
1,09
0123456789
Copenhagen total
Indre by
Østerbro
Nørrebro
Vesterbro/Kongens Enghave
Valby
Vanløse
Brønshøj-Husum
Bispebjerg
Amager Øst
Amager Vest
17. Aveage household income 18. Share of population with bachelor or master degree
19. Number of workplaces per inhabitant 20. Sales prices on houses and flats