Leading mid-sized EU cities in post-carbon transitions: towards a preliminary typology

Full text

Sustainability 2015, 7, 1-x manuscripts; doi:10.3390/su70x000x
sustainability
ISSN 2071-1050
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
Leading mid-sized EU cities in post-carbon transitions: towards
a preliminary typology
Ross Beveridge 1,*, Monica Ridgway 2,, Kristine Kern3,, Cristian Stroia4,, Noriko Fujiwara5,,
Stéphane Dupas6,, and Till Sterzel7
1 Leibniz Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning (IRS), Flakenstraße 28-31
D - 15537 Erkner, Germany; E-Mail: Ross.Beveridge@irs-net.de;
2 Ecologic Institute, Pfalzburger Str. 43, 10717 Berlin, Germany; E-Mail:
monica.ridgway@ecologic.eu
3 Leibniz Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning (IRS), Flakenstraße 28-31
D - 15537 Erkner, Germany; E-Mail: Kristine.Kern@irs-net.de;
4 Centre for European Policy Studies, Place du Congres 1, Brussels 1000, Belgium; E-Mail:
cristian.stroia@ceps.eu
5 Centre for European Policy Studies, Place du Congres 1, Brussels 1000, Belgium; E-Mail:
noriko.fujiwara@ceps.eu
6 Energy Cities, 2, chemin de Palente, FR-25000 Besançon, France; E-Mail:
stephane.dupas@energy-cities.eu
7 climate-babel, Lindenstrasse 11, 14467 Potsdam, Deutschland; E-Mail: till@climate-babel.org
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: Ross.Beveridge@irs-net.de;
Tel.: +49 (0)33-62793-243.
Academic Editor:
Received: / Accepted: / Published:
Abstract:
Adopting an explorative approach, this article seeks to advance understanding of how
leading mid-sized cities are undergoing transitions towards post-carbon futures in the EU.
The paper develops a preliminary typology of mid-sized cities in post-carbon transitions,
profiling five exemplary city types according to a combination of their sustainability
characteristics. The profiled cities have been pre-selected to provide reasonable geographic
distribution within the EU, and show the influence of different contextual factors:
population size, local political autonomy and economic wealth: (1) Malmö (Sweden); (2)
Bristol (UK); (3) Freiburg (Germany); (4) Vitoria-Gasteiz (Spain); and Ljubljana
OPEN ACCESS

Sustainability 2015, 7 2
(Slovenia). Conceptually, transitions are viewed as the outcome of the specificities of a
place and broader (regional, national, transnational) dynamics in a range of dimensions
(climate, economic, political-discursive) over a period of time. The progress of these cities
in transition is evaluated qualitatively in environmental, social and economic terms. It is
hoped that developing knowledge on generic urban types may aid in establishing which
mid-sized cities are peers for the transfer of successful mitigation practices. This is
especially important for disseminating and scaling up effective practices across European
cities under different contextual conditions and with limited funding.
Keywords: urban sustainability; energy transitions; post-carbon city; Malmö; Bristol;
Freiburg; Vitoria-Gasteiz; Ljubljana
1. Introduction: Low-carbon transitions, contextual factors and mid-sized cities
Adopting a largely qualitative and explorative approach, this paper seeks to advance understanding
of how leading mid-sized cities are undergoing transitions towards post-carbon futures in the EU.
Information on practices and actual performance is combined with data on contextual factors to
characterize profiles of five exemplary city types and develop a preliminary typology which helps
identify commonalities and differences. The profiled leading cities have been pre-selected to provide
reasonable geographic distribution within the EU and show how different contextual factors, such as
socio-economic, developmental and biophysical factors, will influence performances of mid-sized
cities. To meet these objectives, we have chosen mid-sized (100,000 – 500,000) European Green
Capital Award finalists from the following cities: (1) Malmö (Sweden); (2) Bristol (UK); (3) Freiburg
(Germany); (4) Vitoria-Gasteiz (Spain); and (5) Ljubljana (Slovenia).
Cities are vital to dealing with climate change both generally, in the sense that transformation,
particularly decarbonization, must be achieved in urban areas1, and in specific cases, in terms of
certain cities developing innovative responses2 and certain types of other cities being able to learn from
them. The paper reports on ongoing results from the EU-Funded research project POCACITO (Post
Carbon Cities of Tomorrow). Within the POCACITO project, the concept of “post-carbon cities” is
used to signify “a rupture in the carbon-dependent urban system, which has led to high levels of
anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and the establishment of new types of cities that are low carbon as
well as environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. The term “post-carbon” emphasizes
the process of transformation, a shift in paradigm, which is necessary to respond to the multiple
challenges of climate change, ecosystem degradation, social equity and economic pressures” [3] (8).
By developing a preliminary typology to structure the analysis across similar types of cities, this paper
aims to help address a deficit in the literature regarding knowledge and indicative examples of urban
sustainability transitions per city type.
1 Since the perceived failure of nation states to deal with climate change, e.g. at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change
Conference in Copenhagen, there is a sense that change is more practicable at the urban level [1].
2 In fact, many cities have adopted measures in advance of and of a more ambitious nature than the national level – and as
such they influence national and even EU policy e.g. London, Rotterdam, Munich, and Stockholm [2].

Sustainability 2015, 7 3
Recent research on urban climate governance has devoted much attention to the importance of
transnational and internal networks for learning and the transfer of expertise, policy and best practices
[4-6]. Networks are an integral feature of urban sustainability [7], be they internal or external, local,
regional, national or transnational in form. However, despite this proliferation of learning
opportunities, overall achievements in low-carbon transitions and urban sustainability remain unclear
[8] (p. 150).
This can be explained in a number of ways. First, it should never be forgotten – as it sometimes is
in the literature – that transitions are contingent, political as well as technological and economic [9].
They are thus unpredictable. Second, transitions are fundamentally complex, defined by constraints
and limitations, as well as opportunities and obligations. Urban climate governance is shaped by
multiple and overlapping processes, by a range of actors, organizations and scales [5]. Cities can only
do so much autonomously. Achieving urban post-carbon transitions requires dealing with a varying
combination of constraints, as well as opportunities.
Many constraints are generic, even if the particular ways in which they are combined vary from city
to city. In a literature review and study of 38 cities’ involvement in climate action worldwide, Martins
and Ferriera [10] (46) conclude that the following general categories of constraints on action at the
urban level are apparent: resources and capacity, knowledge and information, institutions and
governance. Constraints are not always endogenous to a city, even if they are always locally
observable. A lack of financial revenue at the urban level may result in part from the national context
in which cities are embedded, e.g. wider national taxation frameworks in the UK, which result in a
concentration of tax revenue at the center. Understanding transitions to post-carbon cities requires an
analysis of the relationships between urban contexts themselves, internal dynamics, such as the actions
undertaken and the overall performance of cities in moving to a post-carbon system, and the external
dynamics from the EU to the national and the sub-national levels, e.g. EU-agreed and binding emission
reduction goals (40% below the 1990 level by 2030).
To better identify the importance of contextual factors in influencing cities’ performance in post-
carbon transitions, this paper will focus on mid-sized cities which amount to between 100,000 and
500,000 cities across the world. Many existing studies focus on iconic cities or capitals above 500,000
inhabitants such as London, Paris, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Berlin or Zürich.
However, there are far more cities which have less than 500,000 inhabitants, and even in centrally-
organized countries like France or Sweden, the majority of people still live in cities of less than
500,000 inhabitants. There is also more variety among cities between 100, 000 and 500,000
inhabitants. Further, although the vast majority of cities and towns have less than 100,000 inhabitants,
only a very low percentage of these small cities (such as Växjö in Sweden) have become known as
sustainability pioneers. Thus, a focus on mid-sized cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants is highly
relevant to understanding the low-carbon transition in Europe, and developing a typology is important
to capture the diversity of mid-sized cities (in terms of population size, wealth and economic structure,
for instance).
A recent UN [11] (53) report also argues that the preponderance of mid-sized cities globally
provides perhaps the best opportunity to make cities more sustainable; the implication being that
change is more achievable financially, socially and materially at this urban scale of urban form than at
that of smaller and larger cities. Within this context, means of improving ‘matchmaking’ between mid-

Sustainability 2015, 7 4
sized cities, helping them find practices and general approaches attuned to their particular contexts of
action is of paramount importance. Ultimately, cities have unique histories, but at the same time they
share systemic and contextual features. Hence, very different cities can share very particular
characteristics. For this reason, it could be “valuable to discern the particular drivers and mechanisms
that contribute towards shifting evolutionary trajectories towards more sustainable ends” [12] (313). It
is hoped that developing knowledge on generic urban types may aid in establishing which mid-sized
cities are peers for the transfer of successful mitigation practices. Hence, the paper develops a
preliminary non-comprehensive typology of mid-sized cities in post-carbon transitions, profiling five
exemplary city types according to a combination of their sustainability (social, environmental and
economic) characteristics. This may be especially important for disseminating and scaling up effective
practices across European cities under different contextual conditions and with limited funding.
The paper has the following structure. Section two provides an overview of urban and sustainability
typologies. Section three profiles and discusses the five types of mid-sized leading cities, outlining
selection criteria, an introductory conceptual approach to urban post-carbon transitions and the
preliminary typology. Section four reflects critically on the typology and offers ways forward for
future research.
2. Urban and sustainability typologies
The term “typology” is still rather ambiguous and used in various ways. According Lang [13],
typologies are the categorization of different types, or “construct[s] of a product or a process that serve
as generic model[s] of way of thinking.” Due to the diversity of European mid-sized cities, it is clear
that many different types of cities and performance profiles are present. A typology, or categorization,
of various city types can help identify commonalities and differences across urban contexts and lead to
more meaningful benchmarking (see also Zoeteman, Zande, and Smeets [14]). The following therefore
briefly summarizes the state of the art in international and European urban sustainability benchmarking
and typologies that can serve as a baseline for further elaborating on the context, activities, and post-
carbon performance of mid-sized EU cities.
In the field of urban sustainability, the benchmarking, or ranking3, of cities according to various
aspects (i.e., sustainability, liveability, innovativeness, etc.) has gained much popularity in Europe and
worldwide. Some of the most notable rankings for European cities include the European Energy
Award, European Green Capital Award, European Green City Index, European Soot-free City
Ranking, RES Champions League, and the Urban Ecosystem Europe, all of which have their own
methodological characteristics and limitations [16]. Although benchmarking is a potentially useful
instrument to identify (and start a public debate about) a city’s strengths, weaknesses, and strategies for
future development, much attention has focused entirely on the ranks themselves rather than
interpreting what they mean for urban policy [15]. Moreover, the methods and indicators used by city
rankings often do not control for the diverse contextual conditions and are frequently non-transparent,
3 According to Giffinger and Gudrun [15], city rankings comprise at least two cities, are structured in a hierarchical,
ascending/descending order, which is based on a combination of at least two indicators.

Sustainability 2015, 7 5
which undermines the fairness and meaningfulness of comparisons. In fact, Venkatesh (2014) [17]
notes that it may be necessary to tailor the indicators collected according to the city type.
The adequacy, normalization, aggregation, and weighting of indicators used by different
benchmarks are, furthermore, subjects of much debate [16, 17]. Benchmarks also overlook the
interrelatedness of indicators, meaning that an improvement/decline in one area could be offset or
reinforced by an improvement/decline in another area, which is not immediately apparent after
aggregation despite being highly relevant for policymaking [16, 17]. Although it is difficult to address
all the methodological issues of benchmarking, using typologies to structure an analysis across similar
types of cities would improve the usefulness of the instrument [14, 16, 17]. Nevertheless, none of the
European city rankings mentioned above apply a city typology to benchmark performance [16]. Doing
so would minimize differences within group comparisons and make it easier to identify structural
(dis)similarities in sustainable city transitions [14, 16, 17] and thereby facilitate more targeted policy
design and transferability of good practices [18-20].4
Although not yet included in prominent EU ranking methodologies, much research has focused on
creating a typology of EU cities, which could aid in the analysis of post-carbon transitions across
varying urban contexts. Of the assortment of European urban typologies reviewed, the typology
developed in the State of European Cities Report is, as of yet, the most suitable in terms of providing a
baseline categorization of a large selection of cities to assess the different types of post-carbon
transitions. Many of the EU city typologies are based on limited factors, such as land cover,5
population density,6 and functional areas [24], which make them less relevant for benchmarking the
sustainability of EU cities as they do not consider important socio-economic and environmental
baseline conditions. A series of typologies established under the ESPON 2013 program are slightly
more descriptive, including a typology of the sectoral structure of European cities (percentage share of
agriculture, manufacturing, industry and energy, construction, trade and transport, finance and business
services, and other services) as well as common types of metropolitan macroregions 7 based on
demography, economic structure and labor market data [25, 26]. In order to provide a more balanced
assessment of sustainability, Zoeteman, Zande, and Smeets [14] very recently published a preliminary
typology of cities based on 87 indicators. However, these city types are based on 58 European Green
Capital Award applicants and therefore not representative of EU cities as a whole. Recognizing the
complexity of comparing diverse cities, the EEA’s European Topic Centre on Urban, Land and Soil
Systems is currently developing a new European city typology according to city socio-economic,
environmental and geographic characteristics with the objective to improve the analysis of urban
sustainability [27]. Information about these typologies, however, is not yet available.
Using data from the Urban Audit (2001 and 2004 datasets, respectively), the typologies developed
for the First and Second State of European Cities Reports [28, 29] employ a broad set of indicators to
4 See also Giffinger, Haindlmaier, and Strohmayer [21], who develop a typology of European small and middle-sized cities
to benchmark their performance according to “smart” city indicators
5 For example, the Urban Morphological Zones (UMZ) developed by the EEA [22]
6 Degree of urbanisation (DEGURBA) developed by Eurostat[23]
7 These types include: 1) Monocentric service centres surrounded by regional hinterland with labour market problems, 2)
Central service centres surrounded by industrialised regional hinterlands, 3) Small service centres surrounded by mountain
areas, 4) Polycentric metropolis in polycentric regions, 5) National growth poles surrounded by industrialised areas, 6)
Restructuring cities in problem areas, 7) National growth poles surrounded by traditional rural areas, 8) Smaller cities in
peripheral areas, 9) Other macroregions – capital cities, 10) Other macroregions – non-capital cities

Sustainability 2015, 7 6
cluster EU cities into different, mutually exclusive “city types.” The first report develops thirteen city
groupings based on 15 indicators, which cover aspects such as size, economic structure, economic
performance and competitiveness. However, the categorization is mainly based on measures of
economic criteria, thereby limiting the amount of context it could provide for analyzing post-carbon
transitions. With a sample size of 329 cities (EU, Swiss and Norwegian), the subsequent State of
European Cities Report [29] uses a set of 21 indicators to group EU cities into four basic “city types”
and nine sub-types (see Table 1). The revised typology leads to a greater distinction between the core
urban areas of the European economy and the outlying cities of Western Europe as well as the non-
capital cities of Central Europe [29]. Due to the inclusion of demographic, economic, social, as well as
environmental aspects, this appears to be the most relevant typology of EU cities for the purposes of
this paper.8
In the following, we use the city types developed by the State of European Cities Report as well as
publicly available data to provide context for a qualitative profiling of the selected mid-sized cities.
Through this approach, we aim to reflect on the usefulness of the city types, further inform city
benchmarking, and propose a structure for comparatively analyzing cities in post-carbon transitions on
which future research could expand. Following RWI et al. [29] the five types of mid-sized cities with
populations between 100,000 and 500,000 are “Regional Service Centre”; “Regional Innovation
Centre”; “Regional Centre with Growing Population”; “National Capital and Metropolis”; “Leading
European Capital and Metropolis” (see Table 1).
8 Nevertheless, significant limitations remain - the authors note that there is a considerable degree of simplification that
comes with categorising the cities and therefore advocate caution when applying the city types. Furthermore, labels could
be misleading for “borderline cases,” which do not adhere to the group average values across all variables.

Table 1. EU City Types and selected mid-sized cities.
EU C ITY TYPE
DESCRIP TIO N O F EU CITY TYPE
LIST OF CITIES WIT H SE LEC TED HIGH PERFOR MING CITY IN BO LD
“Regional Service
Centre”
 76 ities providing highly specialised services, particularly from the financial and
business service sector, public administration, health and education
 Research centres for hi-tech industries and hubs of IT services
 Overall economic output (GDP) per inhabitant, patent intensity and entrepreneurial
activity are lower than in the highest-ranking urban centres, yet still above national
averages
Aalborg , Aix-en-Provence, Amiens, Arnhem, Belfast, Bergen, Besançon, Birmingham,
Bonn, Bordeaux, Bradford, Breda, Brescia, Caen, Cardiff, Charleroi, Clermont-Ferrand,
Cork, Coventry, Dijon, Eindhoven, Enschede, Exeter, Funchal, Galway, Gent, Gravesham,
Grenoble, Göteborg, Irakleio, Kingston-upon-Hull, Lausanne, Le Havre, Leeuwarden,
Leicester, Lens - Liévin, Lille, Limerick, Limoges, Lincoln, Liverpool, Liège, Malmö,
Manchester, Marseille, Metz, Montpellier, Nancy, Nantes, Napoli, Newcastle upon Tyne,
Nice, Nottingham, Oporto, Orléans, Palermo, Poitiers, Portsmouth, Reims, Rennes,
Rotterdam, Rouen, Saint-Etienne, Sheffield, Stevenage, Stoke-on-trent, Strasbourg,
Tilburg, Toulon, Toulouse, Tours, Utrecht, Wirral, Wolverhampton, Worcester, s'
Gravenhage
“Leading
European Capital
and Metropolis”
 24 metropolises that represent the highest urban concentration of GDP per head
 Account for the largest number of (national) patent applications per population and
the largest share of new businesses
 Centres of specialised service industries aimed at national or international markets
 Ports of entry for international migrants
Amsterdam, Bremen, Bristol, Bruxelles/Brussel, Dublin, Düsseldorf, Edinburgh, Frankfurt
am Main, Glasgow, Hamburg, Hannover, Helsinki, Köln, København, London,
Luxembourg, Milano, München, Nürnberg, Oslo, Paris, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Wien
“Regional
Innovation
Centre”
 51 cities, mainly from Germany and Italy, which are characterised by a particularly
dynamic entrepreneurial and research activity
 Ageing resident population
 Overall economic output (GDP) per inhabitant, patent intensity and entrepreneurial
activity are lower than in the highest-ranking urban centres, yet still above national
averages
Aberdeen, Ancona, Augsburg, Bari, Bielefeld, Bochum, Bologna, Brugge, Cagliari,
Cambridge, Cremona, Darmstadt, Dortmund, Erfurt, Firenze, Freiburg im Breisgau,
Genova, Genève, Graz, Göttingen, Halle an der Saale, Heerlen, Karlsruhe, Kiel, Koblenz,
Leipzig, Magdeburg, Mainz, Modena, Moers, Mönchengladbach, Mülheim a.d.Ruhr,
Oulu, Padova, Pescara, Plzen, Regensburg, Saarbrücken, Schwerin, Torino, Trento, Trier,
Trieste, Turku, Venezia, Verona, Vigo, Volos, Wiesbaden, Wuppertal, Zürich
“Regional Centre
with Growing
Population”
 24 cities from Western (Austria, Germany, the Netherlands) and Southern Europe
(Greece and Spain)
 Among the Regional Centres, this is the most dynamic group in terms of city growth,
particularly due to in-migration, but also because of birth surpluses.
 Employment in public services, health and education combined accounts for a
relatively high share (33% compared to 28% in all cities) of the total labour force
 Overall economic output (GDP) per inhabitant, patent intensity and entrepreneurial
activity are lower than in the highest-ranking urban centres, yet still above national
averages
Alicante/Alacant, Bilbao, Dresden, Gijón, Groningen, Innsbruck, L'Hospitalet de
Llobregat, Las Palmas, Linz, Logroño, Málaga, Nijmegen, Oviedo, Palma di Mallorca,
Pamplona/Iruña, Potsdam, Salzburg, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Santander, Sevilla,
Thessaloniki, Valencia, Valladolid, Vitoria/Gasteiz
“National Capital
and Metropolis”
 28 cities, which are large economic centres of national importance and/or capital cities
 Account for the largest number of (national) patent applications per population and
the largest share of new businesses
 Centres of specialised service industries aimed at national or international markets
 Ports of entry for international migrants
Antwerpen, Athina, Barcelona, Berlin, Bern, Bratislava, Bucuresti, Budapest, Essen,
Gdańsk, Kraków, Leeds, Lefkosia, Lisboa, Ljubljana, Lyon, Łódz, Madrid, Poznan, Praha,
Riga, Roma, Sofia, Tallinn, Valletta, Vilnius,Warszawa, Wrocław
Source: Adapted from RWI et al. (2010)

3. Profiling major types of mid-sized cities in post-carbon transitions
3.1. Criteria for selection
The selection of mid-sized cities was based on the following criteria: The selected cities should (1)
provide a geographic coverage of Europe and allow for preliminary insights on the importance of
different city types and contextual factors generally; (2) be recognized as high performers, with
particular reference to the European Green Capital Award; (3) have readily available and accessible
data.
The leading green cities analyzed in this study represent different regions in Europe: Nordic
countries, Britain and Ireland, Continental Europe, Southern Europe and Central and Eastern Europe.
(1) Malmö: in the Nordic countries, the density of high performing cities is very high (see, for
example, European Green City Index developed by Siemens); (2) Bristol: cities in the UK (and
Ireland) where smaller and mid-sized cities, such as Leicester, have long been engaged sustainability
initiatives despite the centralized political system; (3) Freiburg: cities in Continental Europe where the
most prominent high performing green cities are located, from Nantes to Amsterdam, Freiburg, Zürich
and Graz; (4) Vitoria-Gasteiz: in Southern Europe, cities started sustainability initiatives later than
cities in the Nordic countries and in the UK (e.g. LA21 initiatives), although a few larger cities, such
as Barcelona, have developed into European leaders; and (5) Ljubljana: cities in Central and Eastern
Europe where high performing green cities are still an exception.
The selection of cities is based primarily on data from the European Green Capital Award,
particularly the data on the award finalists. Since its introduction (2010), 20 cities have become
finalists. Copenhagen and Oslo have been among the finalists twice and Bristol even three times.
Among the 20 finalists for the award, six cities are located in Northern Europe (three Swedish, one
Danish, one Norwegian, and one Icelandic city); two cities in the UK; nine cities in Continental
Europe (six German, one French, one Dutch, and one Belgium city); two cities in Southern Europe
(both located in Spain); and one city in Central and Eastern Europe (located in Slovenia). This means
that 85% of the finalists can be found in Northwestern and Continental Europe, while only a few
finalists are located in Southern Europe (Spain) (10%) or in Central and Eastern Europe (5%). All of
the finalists are university cities, 60% are harbor cities, and 35% are capital cities (except Ljubljana all
these capital cities are Nordic or Benelux cities).
15% of the finalists are cities with above 1,000,000 million inhabitants (Brussels, Hamburg,
Barcelona), 25% have between 500,000 and 1,000,000 inhabitants (Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm,
Glasgow, and Amsterdam), and 60% between 100,000 and 500,000 inhabitants (Malmö, Bristol,
Nantes, Freiburg, Münster, Nuremberg, Frankfurt, Essen, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Ljublana, Reykjavik,
Nijmegen, and Umeå). It can be concluded that the majority of cities which applied for the award and
made it to the final round are mid-sized cities below 500,000 inhabitants. On this basis, we assessed
the following five cities: (1) Malmö (Sweden); (2) Bristol (UK); (3) Freiburg (Germany); (4) Vitoria-
Gasteiz (Spain); and (5) Ljubljana (Slovenia).

Sustainability 2015, 7 2
3.1. Malmö: from deindustrializing to knowledge-based sustainable city
Context: Malmö, a low-lying coastal city in Southwest Sweden, is, with around 302,000
inhabitants, Sweden’s third largest city. Around 615, 000 people live in the metro region of Greater
Malmö, and the Öresund region is one of the most innovative regions in Europe. Malmö has become
an important city for business because around 30 companies moved their headquarters to the city and
generated around 2,300 jobs. With 31% of its inhabitants born abroad and an average age of 36 years,
Malmö is also a very international and young Swedish city. The city has a considerable degree of
autonomy due to the highly decentralized political system (see, for example, the Swedish Local
Government Act), the financial capacities of Swedish municipalities [30] and other contextual factors,
such as the percentage of homes owned by Swedish cities (in Malmö 37%).
Strategy: Historically, Malmö identifies itself as an industrial city, home to Kockum’s Shipyard.
After the collapse of the industry, Malmö lost 27,000 jobs and the unemployment rate increased to
25%. The city underwent drastic transitions in the late 1980s and early 1990s and started to reinvent
itself based on the new vision of a knowledge and sustainable city. This transition included major
infrastructure projects, in particular, the transformation of the Western Harbour area, the establishment
of Malmö University (with around 12,000 students) in 1998, and the Öresund Bridge in 2000. Today,
the dominant sectors in Malmö are business services, commerce, health care and social services, and
education. Malmö introduced its first Environmental Plan in 1990, followed by the Project ‘Malmö
2000’ and the ‘Vision Malmö 2015’ (1995). The new Masterplan (2012) is a long-term approach with
the vision to develop Malmö into a sustainable and attractive city. Malmö aims for a 40% reduction in
CO2 emissions by 2020 using 1990 as baseline year. In contrast to other comparable cities, Malmö
addresses the challenges of climate change and sustainability simultaneously, i.e. Malmö’s climate
change policy is embedded in its sustainability strategy. This approach acknowledges social
sustainability as an equal priority and also includes a communication strategy. This combination of
climate change and sustainability seems to be one of the key factors for Malmö’s development and
relative success.
Main achievements: Malmö has become internationally renowned for its pilot project in the
Western Harbour, which was transformed from a largely industrial shipyard into an area for
sustainable living. Policy-makers, led by Malmö’s ambitious mayor Ilmar Reepalu (1994-2013), opted
for an ecological approach to planning and environmental sustainability, supported by many actors
including the newly established Malmö University. Malmö has won several awards, such as the
European Commission’s 2012 RegioStars Award for integrated sustainable development strategies,
Idébanken’s 2011 prize for long-term efforts to become a sustainable city, and WWF’s 2011 Earth
Hour Capital Award [31]. In 2012/13, Malmö became a finalist for the European Green Capital
Award. The city has been active in urban transportation (expanding bike paths and increasing the
number of people cycling in the city) and undertaken sustainable housing projects in disadvantaged
districts (e.g. Augustenborg).

Sustainability 2015, 7 3
Table 2. Malmö Profile.
3.3. Bristol (UK): policy entrepreneurialism, local activism and green business
Context: Bristol was winner of the European Green Capital Award 2015, commended by the jury
for its transport and energy investment plans in particular. Bristol is a growing city with a population
of 430,300 and is the major city of South West England. It has experienced general economic
prosperity in recent years, despite the economic and financial crisis. Its economic strengths are in
advanced manufacturing, aerospace and, increasingly, in knowledge sectors and the green economy
[39]. Bristol has recently gained political formal autonomy by way of an elected City Mayor
(supported through public referendum in 2012) and the combining of local authorities. Although this
has not resulted in a substantial decentralization of formal powers within the highly centralized UK
political system, it has provided opportunities to stimulate the local economy and heighten focus on
urban sustainability. The elected mayor can access a new economic fund supported by the local
9 Eurostat [32]
10 Eurostat [33]
11 GDP at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions; Eurostat [34]
12 GDP in PPS: EU28 = 100; Eurostat [34]
13 GDP at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions; Eurostat [34]
14 Figures for 2008, Eurostat [35]
15 See European Union Committee of the Regions [36]
16 Covenant of Mayors [37]
17 Covenant of Mayors [38]
Country: Sweden
City: Malmo
Population 9
(2012)
9,482,855
Population
(2011)10
302,835*(cities and greater
cities)
615,721(larger urban zone)
GDP €/capita
(2011)11
GDP per capita
in PPS12 (2013)
40,800
127
GDP €/capita
(2011)13
35,100 (NUTS 3 region)
Region
Nordic Countries
City’s physical
geography
Location
 A port town situated in the Skane Region in South West Sweden and the wider
Oresund Region incorporating southern Sweden and Eastern Denmark.
Climate14
 Oceanic climate, with 4.7 hours of sunshine per day
 Average temperate: warmest month is 18.2°C; coldest month is -1.7°C
 Annual rainfall: 697 litre/m²
Political
Autonomy15
 Decentralised unitary state with three recognised levels of governance: central,
county and municipal.
 Municipalities have mandatory administrative powers in the fields of:
 Transport, Social Welfare, Economic Development, Education, Planning and
Building, Health Protection, Environment (environmental protection, water and
sewage, refuse and waste management)
 Voluntary responsibilities include: Energy and Housing
CO2 Reduction
Targets
 40% reduction CO2 emissions by 2020 using 1990 as baseline year16
 GHG reduction of 92% in the Transport sector and 8% for Local Electricity by 202017

Sustainability 2015, 7 4
retention of business tax rates to fund, for example, transport improvements. Nonetheless, capacity to
instigate change is low in comparison to Swedish cities and, in particular, German cities.
Strategy: The first elected mayor, George Ferguson (2012- ), has acted as a “policy entrepreneur”
[40] promoting sustainability and the city’s potential in the field, emphasizing the economic and social
benefits of urban sustainability, such as addressing energy poverty [41]. However, this can be seen as a
continuation of the city council’s proactive approach to environmental issues. Although Bristol has no
statutory responsibility for controlling the energy mix of the city, it is attempting to increase renewable
energy generation under its Sustainable Energy Action Plan (SEAP) (2012) through the construction of
wind turbines in the Avonmouth area [42]. There is a strong sense of localism and the city is also home
to many green organizations (Soil Association and Sustrans) and a growing green economy. There is,
then, a bottom-up dimension to transition as well, with civil society and market actors promoting
change.
Main achievements: The main foci have been on the areas of transport (especially promoting
cycling), energy and the green economy. Bristol is a signatory to the Covenant of Mayors and has set
ambitious targets to reduce energy use by 30% and CO2 emissions by 40% by 2020 (from 2005
baseline). The city has undertaken a wide range of strategic initiatives, chief among them being the
Bristol Climate Protection and Sustainable Energy Strategy, the Local Transport Plan to 2026 and
initiatives centered on liveability and health, which have been recognized by the 2014 International
Making Cities Liveable Lewis Mumford Award. At the center of the city’s financial commitment to
sustainability is transport and energy. Bristol has committed €500m for transport improvements up to
2015 and €300m for energy efficiency and renewable energy up to 2020. In Bristol, domestic energy
use has been reduced by 16% (2005 to 2010), and the energy efficiency of housing has been improved
by 25 % (2000/2001 to 2011). The green and knowledge economy has been another major focus with
plans to create 17,000 new jobs through the new Bristol Quarter Enterprise Zone in the areas of low
carbon, creative and digital industries by 2030 [42]. Following in the footsteps of the original
Transition Town, Totnes, in 2012 Bristol created the UK’s first city-wide local currency, the Bristol
Pound, which promotes local sustainability as money generated from interest rates are reinvested in
city initiatives.

Sustainability 2015, 7 5
Table 3. Bristol Profile.
3.4. Freiburg (Continental Europe): from anti-nuclear roots to high-tech solar energy
Context: Freiburg has a population of 229,144 inhabitants and lies in the southwest corner of
Germany, in the Black Forest region, near the borders with France (towards the West) and Switzerland
(in the South). The city is an urban district (“Kreisfreie”), enjoying relative political autonomy at the
intermediate level between the state (“Länder”) and municipal (“Gemeinden”) levels in the federal
political of Germany. The elected Lord Mayor was the first mayor from the Green Party to be elected
in a city larger than 100,000 inhabitants. Freiburg was one of the first cities in Germany to establish an
Environmental Protection Office. The city was a European Green Capital Award Finalist in 2009 and
named German Federal Capital for Climate Protection in 2010.
Strategy: Often called the solar capital of Germany because of its engaged solar policy, the city of
Freiburg is also highly active in transport initiatives, sustainable housing districts (in particular the
Vauban and Rieselfeld districts) and shows a comprehensive approach to sustainability. In 2014, the
Municipal Council resolved to reduce CO2 emissions by 29% by 2020 and at least 50% by 2030 (1992
18Eurostat [32]
19 Eurostat [33]
20 GDP at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions; Eurostat [34]
21 GDP in PPS: EU28 = 100; Eurostat [34]
22 GDP at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions; Eurostat [34]
23 Figures for 2008, Eurostat [35]
24 See European Union Committee of the Regions [36]
25 Covenant of Mayors [37]
26 Covenant of Mayors [38]
Country: United Kingdom
City: Bristol
Population 18
(2012)
63,495,303
Population
(2012)19
430,300 (cities and greater
cities)
898,800 (larger urban zone)
GDP €/capita
(2011)20
GDP per capita
in PPS21 (2013)
28,200
109
GDP €/capita
(2011)22
29, 400 (NUTS 3 region)
Region
United Kingdom and Ireland
City’s physical
geography
Location
 A port town situated on the river Avon and Severn Estuary in south-west England.
Climate23
 Oceanic climate, with 4 hours of sunshine per day (2004)
 Average temperate: warmest month is 17°C; coldest month is 4°C
 Annual rainfall: 852.60 litre/m²
Political
Autonomy24
 The UK is a unitary state with devolved powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland and relatively centralised local government financing system in England.
 There are two local levels of government in England: County Council and District
Council.
 County Councils are responsible for providing schools, social services, and public
transport services
 District Councils are responsible for local services, including council housing, gyms
and leisure facilities, local planning, recycling and refuse collection.
CO2 Reduction
Targets
 29% reduction CO2 emissions by 2020 using 1992 as baseline year25
 GHG reduction of 100% in the Transport sector26

Sustainability 2015, 7 6
baseline) and to set itself the long-term goal of climate neutrality by 2050. The city has also long been
involved in transnational networks (e.g. Energy Cities, ICLEI, Climate Alliance). The story of
sustainable policies in Freiburg starts in the mid-1970s [43]. At the time, there were plans to set up a
new nuclear power station near Freiburg, in Whyl. This project was confronted with widespread
resistance from the population including farmers, wine growers and students [44]. Protests prevented
the nuclear power plant from being built and are seen as instrumental to the development of
environmental politics and the strength of the Green Party in Germany [45]. Shortly after the nuclear
power plant debate the institute of solar energy systems was set up in Freiburg. Today, the Fraunhofer-
Institut for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) is one of the largest institutes of this kind. Dieter Salomon
[46], the current mayor of Freiburg, states that the city was involved in local sustainable energy
strategy much earlier than many other cities, with energy saving and renewable energy issues being
prominent in the 1970s and laying the basis for the broader engagement with climate change which
emerged in the decades afterwards. Overall, the transition can be seen as being bottom-up with a broad
coalition of societal actors promoting environmental issues and the city government responding with
ambitious policy measures centered on energy saving, new technology, and renewable energy sources
[47].
Main achievements: Freiburg is an internationally recognized leader in post-carbon transitions. It
became a member of the Covenant of Mayors as early as 2007 and has an approved and monitored
Sustainable Energy Action Plan (SEAP). The city receives annually around 25,000 “business visitors”
from around 45 nations on account of the environmental policy approach [48]. According to the city
administration, the green economy and environment research sectors employ around 12,000 people in
2,000 business units and generates €650 million added value to the city. The solar economy provides
2,000 jobs in 100 business units (around 3-4 times as much as in the rest of Germany) [48]. Over 50%
of the city’s electricity is generated from combined heat and power plants. The CO2 balance from
2012, monitored by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IFEU), showed a global CO2
reduction of 25.1 % between 1992 and 2012 [49]. In the transport and mobility sector, there has been
an increase in the share of low-carbon transportation modes. The share of biking in the total volume of
inner-city traffic rose from 15% to 27% between 1982 and 1999, while, in the same period the share of
public transport rose from 11% to 18%, and the percentage of trips made by car fell from 38% to 32%.
Freiburg currently has a low density of cars, with only 428 vehicles per 1,000 residents [48]. City-led
campaigns targeting local stakeholders and citizens have been conducted in order to raise awareness of
post-carbon opportunities and possibilities e.g. “Freiburg‘s CO2 Diet”, “200 Families Climate Project”
and the “Climate Club” [48].

Sustainability 2015, 7 7
Table 4. Freiburg Profile.
3.5. Vitoria-Gasteiz (Southern Europe): environmentally-sensitive spatial planning, citizen
involvement and green growth
Context: The city of Vitoria-Gasteiz, located in the north of Spain and capital of the Autonomous
Community of the Basque Country, was the first medium-sized and Southern European city awarded
the European Green Capital Award for its long-established commitment to promoting sustainability.
Since 2003, the city has seen a population increase of 8.4%, with the total population of the urban area
reaching 242,223 in 2012 [33]. Although still negatively affected by the economic downturn, the city’s
unemployment rate is much less than the national average. In Spain, a large amount of power resides
with the Autonomous Communities, who determine the responsibilities of municipalities [36]Relative
to their EU counterparts, local authorities in Spain have a high degree of fiscal autonomy, yet the
Autonomous Communities are responsible for the majority of expenditures. Larger municipalities
(>50,000 inhabitants), as in the case of Vitoria-Gasteiz, are responsible for environmental protection
and public transport [50].
27Eurostat [32]
28 Eurostat [33]
29 GDP at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions; Eurostat [34]
30 GDP in PPS: EU28 = 100; Eurostat [34]
31 GDP at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions; Eurostat [34]
32 Figures for 2008, Eurostat [35]
33 See European Union Committee of the Regions [36]
34 Covenant of Mayors [37]
35 Covenant of Mayors [38]
Country: Germany
City: Freiburg
Population 27
(2012)
81,843,743
Population
(2012)28
229,144 (cities and greater
cities)
640,226 (larger urban zone)
GDP €/capita
(2011)29
GDP per capita
in PPS30 (2013)
31,900
122
GDP €/capita
(2011)31
31, 300 (NUTS 3 region)
Region
Continental Europe
City’s physical
geography
Location
 A University town in the south west of Germany, within the Black Forest region,
close to the borders with France and Switzerland.
Climate32
 4.68 hours of sunshine per day
 Average temperate: warmest month is 19.6°C; coldest month is 1.8°C
 Annual rainfall: 847 litre/m²
Political
Autonomy33
 Germany is a federal state, with power relatively decentralized across the federal,
state (Land), intermediary (cities with over 100,000 population) (Kreis) and
municipality levels.
 Intermediary level mandatory responsibilities include: district spatial planning,
nature and landscape protection, social welfare, household waste collection and
disposal.
 Municipalities mandatory responsibilities include: town planning, construction
affairs, green areas, urban development and regeneration.
CO2 Reduction
Targets
 29% reduction CO2 emissions by 2020 using 1992 as baseline year34
 GHG reduction of 100% in the Transport sector35

Sustainability 2015, 7 8
Strategy: As the first Spanish city to sign the Aalborg Charter and design a local Agenda 21 [51],
Vitoria-Gasteiz is renowned for its long-term commitment to the environment and well-planned
growth, which has become part of its cultural identity [52]. Already in the 1980s, Mayor José Ángel
Cuerda – together with the support of all political parties – established the Environmental Studies
Center (CEA), an interdisciplinary public organization that helped lay the groundwork for sustainable
initiatives in Vitoria-Gasteiz [51]. By involving civic organizations (schools, community and
professional associations), citizens, and the industry in initiatives, the city also supports a bottom-up
approach to environmental protection, which has led to a high level of public commitment to
sustainability. Furthermore, with the aim to foster a sense of ‘belonging’ in a green community,
Vitoria-Gasteiz takes a citizen-centric approach to its post-carbon transition.
The flagship project of the city is the Green Belt, which is a semi-natural area surrounding the city
that evolved over the last 20 years with considerable effort to reclaim and partially recover degraded
areas (gravel pits, drained wetlands and burnt ground) and transform them into green and blue areas.
As set out in its long term vision, “Climate Change Prevention Strategy 2006-2012,” Vitoria-Gasteiz
aims to become a carbon neutral emission zone. The city signed the “Covenant of Mayors” in 2009,
committing to a 25.7% reduction in total CO2 equivalent emissions by 2020 (56% of emissions
associated with the activity of the City Council) and a 90% reduction by 2050 using 2006 as the
baseline year [53] (33). The CO2 emissions reduction strategy is primarily based on energy efficiency
(buildings, mobility and municipal services) and renewable energy. In 2010, GHG emissions were
equivalent to 3.26 t CO2eq/inhabitant, a 10.4% decrease from 2008 [54].
Main achievements: Despite this growth and an expansion of the urban territory, planners have
increased the density of the built environment, successfully minimizing spread in the environmentally
sensitive areas to the south of the city. Some 81% of the population live within 1,500m of the city
center, and 95% have access to basic services such as education, health and cultural facilities within
500 m, everything thus being within easy reach [53]. The abundance of green space and the compact
city model has helped walking being the most used choice of transportation (53.6% in 2011) and a
steady increase in other sustainable modes [55]. Shops revenues have increased over the years, owing
to the 25% of the streets reserved for pedestrian use [56]. Although still the second most used mode of
transportation (28.3%), private vehicle usage decreased considerably (29.3%) from 2006-2011 [57].
Furthermore, Vitoria-Gasteiz has successfully involved the business sector in the drive towards a
sustainable environment, which enabled the city to remain prosperous in the crisis-torn economic
situation. With an unemployment of 10.9% (2011) – half the national average – the high standard of
living and the reputation as a green city has attracted big business and residents alike. Firms occupy
more than 9.5 million m2 of the municipality, and the Jundiz business park is one of the largest
industrial areas in the north of Spain [53] (15). It is also a major innovation center, attracting a wide
range of companies to its technology park and research centers, some of which focus on alternative
energy research and electric vehicle development [53] (19-20).

Sustainability 2015, 7 9
Table 5. Vitoria-Gasteiz Profile.
3.6. Ljubljana (Central and Eastern Europe): city center renewal, sustainable transportation and
living standards
Context: Named the capital of Slovenia in 1991, Ljubljana is the country’s most important
economic, political, administrative, and cultural center. The 280,607 inhabitants (in 2012) make up
13.7 % of the country’s population. Economically speaking, it is by far the most developed region in
the country with a GDP per capita of 24,660 € [58] (9), 42.3% higher than the Slovenian average (in
2009). The economic and urban restructuring that occurred in the 1990’s helped Ljubljana become one
36Eurostat [32]
37 Eurostat [33]
38 GDP at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions; Eurostat [34]
39 GDP in PPS: EU28 = 100; Eurostat[34]
40 GDP at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions; Eurostat [34]
41 Figures for 2008, Eurostat [35]
42 European Green Capital 2012 Report, p. 16 European Green Capital 2012 Report, p. 16
43 See European Union Committee of the Regions [36]
44 Covenant of Mayors [37]
Country: Spain
City: Vitoria-Gasteiz
Population 36
(2012)
2,055,496
Population
(2012)37
242,223 (cities and greater
cities)
268,950 (larger urban zone)
GDP €/capita
(2011)38
GDP per capita
in PPS39 (2013)
22,700
94
GDP €/capita
(2011)40
35,200 (NUTS 3 region)
Region
Southern Europe
City’s physical
geography
Location
 Located in the north of Spain and is the capital of the Autonomous Community of
the Basque Country
Climate41
 The urban territory lies in a region that encounters intense climate variations due
to its placement in a transition zone between the Atlantic and Mediterranean
climates42
 5.21 hours of sunshine per day
 Average temperate: warmest month is 18.9°C; coldest month is 4.6°C
 Annual rainfall: 885.5 litre/m²
Political
Autonomy43
 In Spain, local powers largely depend on State or autonomic law and may differ
largely across Autonomous Communities.
 Local authorities also have a high degree of fiscal autonomy. Autonomous
Communities, however, are responsible for the majority of expenditures
 Responsibilities devolved to municipalities include: public safety, traffic
management, management of parks and garden, urban policies, cultural heritage,
protection of public health, social services, promotion of social reinsertion,
cultural activities, participation in the design of education programs and facilities.
 Municipalities >50.000 inhabitants are also responsible for: environmental
protection, urban public transport, markets and public parks, waste treatment,
civil protection, social service allowances.
CO2 Reduction
Targets
 25.7% reduction in total CO2 equivalent emissions by 2020 using 2006 as baseline
year (90% by 2050)44
 Strategy primarily based on energy efficiency (buildings, mobility and municipal
services) and renewable energy

Sustainability 2015, 7 10
of the most competitive urban areas in Central Europe [59]. Municipalities in Slovenia have a
moderate level of fiscal autonomy controlling only 14% of total local tax revenues and are dependent
on revenues from personal income tax redistributed by the central government [60].
Strategy: Over the last 15 years, Ljubljana has taken measures towards a post-carbon
transformation, particularly in areas such as public transport and the pedestrianization of the city center
[61]. The basis for the city’s development is the Vision 2025, adopted in 2007, through which eco-
innovation and sustainable development is ensured and ambitious goals are put forth by the city
authorities. Between 2007 and 2013, more than 650 projects were implemented to improve the quality
of life in the city [62] (13). As a signatory of the Covenant of Mayors, Ljubljana commits to achieving
an overall CO2 emissions reduction target of 21% using 2008 as the baseline year, an equivalent of 1.9
tonnes CO2/capita. This translates into an estimated emission reduction of 24% in the transport sector,
65% for local heating/cooling and 4% for local electricity by 2020 [58]. The long-term targets are
more ambitious, reaching for a 50-80% reduction of emissions by 2050 compared to 2008.
The most important sustainable-oriented strategic projects in Ljubljana are the Urban Master Plan,
Environmental Protection Program, Sustainable Mobility Plan, Sustainable Energy Action Plan
(SEAP) and the Electromobility Strategy. 83% of all city development is directed towards renewal of
existing developed areas and brownfields, which helps increase city density. Furthermore, in
cooperation with the state, Ljubljana plans to invest 50 million euro to increase flood safety [63].
Main achievements: Ljubljana has undertaken ambitious steps to support the transition away from
heavy car traffic to pedestrian and cycling networks, which is one of the biggest problems in the city
and surrounding region due to the gap between the distribution of jobs and places of residence
[58](13). These include closing a section of the main transport artery – the Slovenska Street – and
renovating the city center as well as encouraging public participation in initiatives, such as the Civitas
Elan project, which aim to reduce car use and make public transport, walking, and cycling more
attractive [64]. An analysis of traffic patterns between 1994 and 2013 showed a reduction of private
car usage in favor of pedestrian and bicycle usage.
Ljubljana also created an extensive urban ecological zone – almost three quarters of Ljubljana’s
surface area now consists of green spaces, with 16.5% designated as Natura 2000 areas. Between 2008
and 2012, the city created 40 ha of new parks on formerly degraded areas. The city has also made
progress in decreasing waste and increasing its share of renewable energy sources. Although still
higher than the national average, municipal waste generated (domestic and commercial) has decreased
by 8.9% (a total of 115,737,000t) since 2010. Moreover, the total power from renewable sources,
particularly solar power plants, increased by more than 50% each year from 2008-2012 – the share of
renewable energy in the final energy consumption amounted to 13.5% in 2012 [62] (35).

Sustainability 2015, 7 11
Table 6. Ljubljana Profile.
3.7. Discussion: constraints and resources in city types
This section reflects on the city types, tracing out what is distinctive about their post-carbon
transitions and what similarities are apparent between the cities. In doing so, the section asks what the
profiles tell us about the emerging types of post-carbon cities, and the constraints and opportunities
shaping them. In particular, we return to the insights of Martins and Ferriera [10] who conclude that
the main constraints on action at the urban level are: resources and capacity, knowledge and
information, institutions and governance. The city types are roughly considered in relation to these
categories. Given the preliminary nature of our profiles, the discussion is exploratory and preliminary,
intended to provide inspiration for future research in the area. In the case of each city, the section
45Eurostat [32]
46 Eurostat [33]
47 GDP at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions; Eurostat [34]
48 GDP in PPS: EU28 = 100; Eurostat[34]
49 GDP at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions; Eurostat [34]
50 City of Ljubljana – - Profile, Development Projects and Investments Office, 2011, p. 6
51 Figures for 2008, Eurostat [35]
52 See European Union Committee of the Regions [36]
53 Covenant of Mayors [37]
54 Municipality of Ljubljana [65]
Country: Slovenia
City: Ljubljana
Population 45
(2012)
2,055,496
Population
(2012)46
280,607 (cities and greater
cities)
536,484 (larger urban zone)
GDP €/capita
(2011)47
GDP per capita
in PPS48 (2013)
17,600
82
GDP €/capita
(2011)49
24,600 (NUTS 3 region)
Region
Central & Eastern Europe
City’s physical
geography
Location
 Situated on a natural crossroad from Central Europe to the Mediterranean, to the
Balkan Peninsula, and to the Pannonian Basin 50
Climate51
 Central continental climate
 5 hours of sunshine per day
 Average temperate: warmest month is 21.4°C; coldest month is 2,5°C
 Annual rainfall: 1,490 litre/m²
Political
Autonomy52
 State authorities supervise the legality of the work of local community authorities
 Local authorities have a moderate level of fiscal autonomy controlling only 14% of
total local tax revenues and are dependent on transfers from the central
government.
 Responsibilities devolved to municipalities include: education, primary health
care, family and youth assistance, social welfare, housing, urban planning, spatial
planning, water and sewage, environmental protection, culture (libraries), sport
and leisure, promotion of agriculture, economic development of the municipality.
 In some cases, urban municipalities have additional responsibilities of urban
transport and urban development
CO2 Reduction
Targets
 21% reduction CO2 emissions by 2020 using 2008 as baseline year (50-80% by 2050)53
 GHG reduction of 24% in the Transport sector, 65% for Local Heating/Cooling and
4% for Local Electricity by 202054

Sustainability 2015, 7 12
considers what is distinctive about each of these cities, why they might be of interest to other cities and
which types of city in particular.
Malmö: A ‘Regional Service Centre’, Malmö has transformed its economy from industry to service
and knowledge sectors. The key question that arises when we consider Malmö is how did the city
embark on such an ambitious and high profile move to sustainability in the context of economic crisis,
social problems and deindustrialization? The city is not what might be termed a typical Nordic
sustainability leader – it has neither the economic wealth nor the long tradition of environmental
activity of Copenhagen, for instance. Hence, it is overcoming deficits in resources and capacity, as
well as knowledge and information. In very general terms, it is achieving this through developments in
the sphere of governance. Within the Swedish national context, Malmö has benefited greatly from
national sustainability and regeneration funding programs. Thus, the national context has been pivotal
in the city’s attempts to reinvent itself, assisting it in overcoming its own economic constraints. It
might also be added that the regional context (the economically strong Öresund region) and the
proximity to the economic and environmental leader, Copenhagen, has also been beneficial. Within the
city, the leadership role played by the municipality has been also been crucial in making sustainability
a central component of socio-economic restructuring towards the knowledge society. Furthermore, the
city has successfully presented itself internationally as an urban sustainability leader, embedding itself
in regional, national and international networks. This is why Malmö is (already) of interest to a wide
range of city types, e.g. other deindustrializing cities in other parts of Europe/ the World.
Bristol: A ‘Leading European Capital and Metropolis’, Bristol has a strong economic base, a
growing population and a broad coalition of actors promoting sustainability. In general terms, the city
is not constrained by resources and capacity, knowledge and information. Rather, it is a strong
example of how cities can be entrepreneurial in sustainability despite the restricted autonomy afforded
by the UK political system. The relative alignment of “green” business and citizen groups and the
city’s administration appears crucial to the transition. The city’s transition is instructive to other cities
in centralized political contexts and in terms of its city administration reacting to and incorporating
societal pressure for increased action on sustainability. As in Freiburg, the city administration has
responded to societal actors pressing for more sustainability, with a distinctive emphasis on localness.
The ongoing transition has been accompanied by general economic growth and a particular growth in
the so-called green economy. Bristol does not have a long-established record in sustainability like
Freiburg nor quite the level of performance, but like the other cities assessed here, it combines high
level of city administration activity/ intervention and strenuous publicity work to place sustainability
on the urban agenda and city on the European sustainability agenda.
Freiburg: A ‘Regional Innovation Centre’, the city is something of an archetype of a prosperous,
‘green’ high performing mid-sized Continental European city. Freiburg has long been seen as an
example of how economic development can be combined with environmental ambitions. The city
might be considered to enjoy a very favorable context of action in that it is a relatively wealthy city in
a relatively wealthy nation. Hence, it has resources and capacity. It also has relative knowledge and
information, given the strength of the high-tech knowledge economy. The institutional and governance
context is also comparatively favorable in that Freiburg enjoys a fair degree of political autonomy.
Perhaps a difference between Freiburg and other, wealthy, but less environmentally-concerned cities is
the broad coalition of actors involved in the post-carbon transition – from green activists, (even)

Sustainability 2015, 7 13
conservative politicians and high-tech businesses. While undeniably being a model for other wealthy
mid-sized cities (and cities of other sizes generally), its inherent wealth casts doubt on the usefulness
of poorer cities seeing it as a Leitbild in terms of its overall transition narrative. It is a city defined by
an unusually ‘green’ political constellation, not found in many other parts of the world. Nevertheless,
its harnessing of solar energy makes it of interest to southern European countries.
Vitoria-Gasteiz: A ‘Regional Centre with Growing Population’, Vitoria-Gasteiz is a good example
of how cities are attempting to align social, environmental, and economic objectives to enhance their
regional standing despite having less financial resources at the national and local level compared to its
counterparts in wealthier countries. As the first Spanish city to sign the Aalborg Charter and design a
local Agenda 21[51], Vitoria-Gasteiz demonstrates the importance of strong political leadership. By
emphasizing a high amount of public participation in initiatives (including education programs for
children), the city is able to mold a cultural identity based on sustainability, which further supports its
post-carbon transition. This is complemented by the relatively high municipal fiscal autonomy and
capacity in areas such as spatial planning, environmental protection, and urban transport. By curtailing
unsustainable sprawl and increasing density, the city is able to protect the natural environment,
encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport (demonstrated by the majority of trips now being
undertaken by foot), and increase street revenues and therefore the local economy. The population
density also allows the city to provide citizens better access to amenities in a relatively more efficient
manner, which also increases quality of life and attracts new residents and companies. Vitoria-Gasteiz
capitalizes on its strong history of mechanical and metallurgy industries (still the city’s main
industries) [66], and is now attracting green innovation to its technology park and research centers;
which help build a more diverse economy. This enabled the city to be more economically resilient
compared to other Spanish cities during the economic crisis.
Ljubljana: A ‘National Capital and Metropolis’, Ljubljana is an example of a capital that has
yet to become a ‘Leading European Capital and Metropolis’ in terms of economic influence, but has
nevertheless made recent strides to improve its sustainability. With the lowest national and local GDP
per capita out of the selected high performing cities, Ljubljana provides an example of a city that has
embarked on a post-carbon transition despite significant economic and structural constraints (e.g.,
aging infrastructure and population) as well as a moderate level of fiscal autonomy. As in several other
Central and Eastern European cities in this category of city type (Berlin, Bratislava, Bucharest,
Budapest, Kraków, Gdańsk, Łódz, Poznan, Prague, Riga, Sofia, Tallinn, Vilnius, Warsaw, Wrocław),
Ljubljana underwent significant economic and urban restructuring in the 1990’s [59] and only began
tackling issues of sustainability within the last 15 years. Although the city does not have a deep-seated
history of sustainability as in the case of many of the other high performing cities, substantial progress
has been made over a short period of time to pedestrianize the city center, provide convenient and
accessible public transportation, and revitalize deteriorated brownfields into useful public and private
spaces. These initiatives encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, support the quality
of life for elderly inhabitants, attract younger residents to the city center, and revitalize the economy of
underdeveloped areas. Moreover, faced with high levels of annual rainfall, the city also demonstrates
resilience in terms of flood management. Ljubljana can therefore serve as an example as to how to
include social and environmental goals in economic restructuring plans as well as innovative measures
in terms of climate adaptation.

Sustainability 2015, 7 14
Cities may be constrained in some categories, but the leading types outlined above have utilized or
developed strengths in the other areas to overcome them. Malmö has taken advantage of economic
funding opportunities in Sweden, a country with generally strong economic performance, to overcome
its own economic weaknesses and political decentralization to re-define itself. Bristol is attempting to
overcome a lack of political autonomy through the city administration building on economic strengths
and societal coalition engaged in sustainability. Through political leadership and the involvement of
the public, Vitoria-Gasteiz has created a cultural identity of being “green”, which supports its
transformation despite economic constraints and attracts new residents and business. After a decade of
economic restructuring, Ljubljana is rapidly transforming and revitalizing its spaces to be more
sustainable, inclusive, and accessible, as well as economically prosperous. Freiburg is, in a sense, an
exception as it appears not to be overtly constrained in the categories identified as crucial by Martins
and Ferriera [10]: resources and capacity, knowledge and information, institutions and governance. Of
course, this is not to say that the city is not constrained in these areas. Rather, Freiburg appears to have
relatively large capacity for action in sustainability due to generally favorable contextual factors.
4. Conclusions
The aim of this article was to profile five leading mid-sized cities in different EU regions. By
providing a basic structure for assessing sustainability in cities, this preliminary research is intended to
be used to compare other mid-sized cities of similar types (i.e. with similar contextual characteristics).
The analysis has been based on readily available data sources, and hence the analytical structure
adopted here could be utilized to conduct research on other examples or other city types in the EU.
Given the explorative approach and preliminary results in this article, much work remains. Researchers
may want to develop and test the approach adopted here by comparing data and transition narratives
within the same EU city type, as identified in Table 1, e.g. comparing Malmö with Newcastle upon
Tyne, or Vitoria-Gasteiz with Potsdam. The aim in doing so would be to further develop and refine
city profiles as well as trace out commonalities and differences between city types.
Going further, research may seek to focus on the geographical patterns within the groups and their
explanatory significance for transitions, transfer and learning. A quick glance over these economic
types reveals a number of puzzles in sustainability terms. For instance, within the “Leading European
capital & Metropolis” group we find most of the acknowledged sustainability leaders and most of these
are in Northern and Western Europe (Bristol, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam). But what of cities
such as Milan – can it be seen as an exception or a potential leader in its own geographic context? And
what of the cluster of Italian cities (Triest, Firenze, Torino, Trento) in the ‘Regional Innovation Center’
group – what links can be drawn between them and those cities in other parts of Europe (Freiburg,
Graz, Turku, Heerlen)? Similarly, there is a cluster of Spanish cities in the group ‘Regional Center
with Growing Population’ (Victoria-Gasteiz, Alicante, Bilbao, Las Palmas, Valencia, Malaga), which
might suggest that Victoria-Gasteiz may provide some kind of solid basis for further comparison.
There may be very few grounds for comparing Ljubljana with some of the other ‘National Capital &
Metropolises’, such Berlin and Rome, but comparison to other central and Eastern cities in the group

Sustainability 2015, 7 15
may be fruitful (e.g. Bratislava, Warschawa, Talinn, Krakow, Gdansk). Finally, researchers might
probe the similarities and difference between high performing ‘Regional Service Centers’ in different
geographical areas, such as and Nantes.
Ultimately, the article has attempted to advance knowledge of how post-carbon transitions are
occurring in mid-sized cities. It has evaluated indicative examples of five particular types of high
performing city. The justification for this has been that a more nuanced, context-concerned approach is
needed when assessing transitions, and that a typology or grouping of cities with similar attributes is
one way in which this can be better achieved. Ultimately, comparisons are fairer within, and not
across, city types due to great variation in contextual factors, such as wealth, climate, and population
size. Hence, future research in the field should seek to account for contextual factors as a first step.
Research on post-carbon transitions could focus on the progress or maturity of transitions within city
types. This would also give insight into whether the city types chosen are useful or if further
modification is necessary (as factors are dynamic and cities will move from different city types as they
develop).
The aim here has not been to develop a comprehensive typology, though this study provides
pointers as to how this might be done. For instance, in order to be more representative, the approach
taken by Zoeteman, Zande, and Smeets [14] should be expanded to include a larger set of cities in the
EU and not just applicants to the European Green Capital Award. As Zoeteman, Zande, and Smeets’
[14] preliminary typology focuses on sustainability, it might be interesting to compare the groupings of
cities with the city types developed by the Second State of European Cities Report. An analysis of this
manner could shed light on key factors that influence the sustainability of a city as well as how
typologies can change over time. In general, to achieve this comparable data, particularly on
performance (e.g. on GHG emissions) in sustainability would be needed, more detailed research on the
conditions of transitions in individual cities would have to be conducted, perhaps in the form of case
studies, which might better delineate how transitions have (or have not) emerged in particular cities,
what is driving and constraining them and what similar types of cities might learn from them. The
following questions might guide the development of typologies: What types of urban context exist?
What do cities do to achieve the post-carbon transition? What kind of strategies in what types of cities?
What combination of context variables promote or constrain actions and performance in these types?
Which sets of actions in which contexts are the most effective? By addressing such questions,
researchers will ensure that the typology elucidates the complex inter-relationships between context,
action and performance, which shape urban post-carbon transitions.
Acknowledgments
This work on this article was funded within the EU-Funded research project POCACITO (Post
Carbon Cities of Tomorrow).
The authors would like to thank Felix Döhler for his involvement in related research within the
project and his comments on a draft of this article.

Sustainability 2015, 7 16
Author Contributions
Ross Beveridge conceived jointly of the structure and design of the paper, wrote the abstract and
introduction (section 1), contributed to section 3 (Bristol profile, general editing of profiles, tables and
discussion) and the conclusion.
Monica Ridgway conceived jointly of the structure and design of the paper, wrote section 2,
contributed to section 3 (editing the Vitoria-Gasteiz (3.5) and Ljubljana (3.6) profiles, tables and
discussion) and the conclusion.
Kristine Kern conceived jointly of the structure and design of the paper, wrote section 3.1. and 3.2
Malmö profile.
Cristian Stroia and Noriko Fujiwara drafted the Vitoria-Gasteiz (3.5) and Ljubljana (3.6) profiles
and provided general inputs.
Stéphane Dupas drafted the Freiburg profile and general inputs (3.4).
Till Sterzel provided city data for section 3 and general inputs.
Conflicts of Interest
“The authors declare no conflict of interest”.
References
1. Hoffmann, M., Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response
after Kyoto; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011.
2. Kern, K., Climate Governance in the EU Multi-level System: The Role of Cities, In Multilevel
Environmental Governance: Managing Water and Climate Change in Europe and North
America; J. Meadowcroft, I. Weibust,. Edward Elgar, 2013.
3. Ridgway, M.; Knoblauch, D.; Eriksson, E.; Ljungkvist, H.; Harris, S.; Breil, M.; Baloue, S.;
Weingartner, K. Common Approach Framework Document, Deliverable for the POCACITO
project, 2014. Available online:
http://pocacito.eu/sites/default/files/D1_2_Common_Approach_Framework_Document_0.pdf
4. Taylor, P.; De Rudder, B.; Saey, P.; Witlox, F. (eds.) Cities in Globalization. Practices, Policies
and Theories; Routledge: London and New York, 2007.
5. Kern, K.; Bulkeley, H. Cities, Europeanization and Multi-level Governance: Governing Climate
Change through Transnational Municipal Networks. JCMS: Journal of Common Market
Studies 2009, 47: 309-332.
6. Taylor, P. Transition Towns and World Cities: Towards Green Networks of Cites. Local
Environment 2012, 17 (4), 495-508.
7. Bulkeley, H.; Betsill, M. Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and the ‘urban’
politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 2005, 14 (1), 42–63.
8. Bulkeley, H.; Betsill, M. Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics.
2013, 22: 136-154.

Sustainability 2015, 7 17
9. Meadowcroft, J. What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and
long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences 2009, 42, 4, 323-340
10. Martins, R.D.A.; Ferreira, L.C. Opportunities and constraints for local and subnational climate
change policy in urban areas: insights from diverse contexts. Int. J. Global Environmental
Issues 2011, 11, 1, 37–53.
11. United Nations Organization. World Economic and Social Survey. Available online:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2843WESS2013.pdf (24 May 2015)
12. Bai, X.M.; Roberts B.H; Chen J. Urban Sustainability Experiments in Asia: Patterns and
Pathways. Environmental Science and Policy 2010, 13(4): 312-325.
13. Lang, J. T. Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and Products. Routledge: London/ New
York, UK/USA, 2005. Available online:
http://books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Y2CuwgnXgCcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Lang,+
Jon+T.+Urban+design:+A+typology+of+procedures+and+products.+Routledge,+2005.&ots=v
kw6vMyE8e&sig=ZCmFo4E7I5Yl5MSzAHC5-Sv1cn0 (accessed on 24 May 2015).
14. Zoeteman, B.C.J.; Van der Zande, M.; Smeets, R. Integrated Sustainability Monitoring of 58 EU-
Cities, 2015. Available online:
“https://pure.uvt.nl/portal/files/5783555/15123_EU_cities_study_Sustainability_Monitoring_fi
nal_met_Triodos.pdf. (accessed on 24 May 2015).
15. Giffinger, R.; Haindlmaier, G. Smart Cities Ranking: An Effective Instrument for the Positioning
of the Cities? 2010. Available online: http://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2099/8550 (accessed
on 24 May 2015).
16. Meijering, J.; Kern, K.; Tobi, H. Identifying the methodological characteristics of European green
cityrankings. Ecological Indicators 2014, 43: 132-142.
17. Venkatesh, G. A Critique of the European Green City Index. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management 2014, 57, 3, 317–28.
18. Keirstead, J. Benchmarking Urban Energy Efficiency in the UK. Energy Policy 2013, 63: 575–87.
19. Saldivar-Sali, A. A Global Typology of Cities: Classification Tree Analysis of Urban Resource
Consumption. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010. Available online:
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/61558 (accessed on 24 May 2015)
20. Creutzig, F.; Baiocchi, G; Bierkandt, R.; Pichler, P-P.; Seto, K. 2015. Global Typology of Urban
Energy Use and Potentials for an Urbanization Mitigation Wedge. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 201315545.
21. Giffinger, R.; Haindlmaier, G.; Strohmayer, F. Typology of Cities. PLEEC Project Deliverable,
2014. Available online:
http://www.pleecproject.eu/downloads/Reports/Work%20Package%202/pleec_d2_2_final.pdf.
(accessed on 24 May 2015).
22. European Environment Agency (EEA). Available online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/data/urban-morphological-zones-2006-1 (accessed on 24 May 2015).
23. Eurostat. Degree of urbanization. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/degree-of-
urbanisation/overview (accessed on 24 May).
24. Eurostat. Territorial Typologies for European Cities and metropolitan regions. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

Sustainability 2015, 7 18
explained/index.php/Territorial_typologies_for_European_cities_and_metropolitan_regions
(accessed on 24 May 2015).
25. Böhme, K.; Hanell, T.; Pflanz, K.; Zillmer, S.; Niemi, P. ESPON Typology Compilation. ESPON
2013. Available online:
http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ScientificPlatform/TypologyCom
pilation/fir-090615.pdf. (accessed on 24 May 2015).
26. Lennert, M.; Van Hamme, G.; Patris, C.; Smetkowski, M.; Ploszaj, A. FOCI Future Orientation
for Cities. ESPON Programme 2010. Available online: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-
00734406/document (accessed on 24 May 2015).
27. European Environment Agency (EEA). City typology and urban sustainability. Available online:
http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/etc-urban-land-and-soil-systems/library/1.8.3.2-city-typology-
and-urban-sustainability (accessed on 24 May 2015).
28. European Commission (EC). State of European Cities Report - Adding Value to the European
Urban Audit. 2007. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/urban/stateofcities_2007.pdf.
(accessed on 24 May 2015).
29. RWI, Difu, NEA, and PRAC. Second State of European Cities Report. RWI Projektberichte, 2010.
Available online: http://www.rwi-essen.de/media/content/pages/publikationen/rwi-
projektberichte/PB_Second-State-of-European-Cities-Report.pdf. (accessed on 24 May 2015).
30. Lidström, A. Party-dominated Subnational Democracy under Challenge? In: The Oxford Handbook
of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe; Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2011.
31. Lenhart, J.; Bouteligier, S.; MOL, A.; Kern, K. Cities as learning organisations in climate policy:
the case of Malmö. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 2014, 1, 89-106.
32. Eurostat. Population. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/population-demography-migration-
projections/population-data/database (accessed on 24 May 2015).
33. Eurostat. Population. Available online:
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=urb_cpop1&lang=en (accessed on 24
May 2015).
34. Eurostat. GDP. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=te
c00114 (accessed on 24 May).
35. Eurostat. Climate. Available online:
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=urb_cenv&lang=en (accessed on 24
May 2015).
36. European Union Committee of the Regions. Division of Powers. Available online:
https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/countries/MembersNLP/Slovenia/Pages/default.asp
x (accessed on 24 May 2015).
37. Covenant of Mayors. Signatories. Available online:
http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/about/signatories_en.html?city_id=387&seap (accessed on
24 May 2015).

Sustainability 2015, 7 19
38. Covenant of Mayors. Sustainable Action Plans (SEAPS). Available online:
http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/actions/sustainable-energy-action-plans_en.html (accessed on
24 May).
39. Sawday, A. What makes Bristol the UK’s Green Capital? The Guardian. Available online:
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/bristol-uk-green-capital (accessed 24 May
2015).
40. Kingdon, J. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Boston: Little. Brown, 1984.
41. Bristol City Council. Bristol’s Energy Boost. Available online:
http://www.bristol.gov.uk/press/bristols-energy-boost-multi-million-pound-green-deal-
powerful-project (accessed on 24 May 2015).
42. Henley, J. Bristol revels in role as a green European capital. The Guardian. Available online:
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/bristol-green-european-capital (accessed on
24 May)
43. Dresel, T. Video interview by John Wilson within the Solar Village. 2005. Available online:
http://www.thesolarvillage.com/solarvillage.cfm (accessed on 24 May 2015).
44. Barkan, S. Strategic, tactical and organizational dilemmas of the protest movement against nuclear
power. Social Problems 1979, 27: 19 – 37
45. Roland, R.; Rucht, D. (eds.) Die sozialen Bewegungen in Deutschland seit 1945; Campus:
Frankfurt, 2008.
46. Salomon, D. Video interview. ICLEI Café Conversation at ICLEI World Congress 2009. Available
online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw6yXi8Amn4 (accessed on 24 May 2015).
47. Hopwood, D. Blueprint for sustainability? What lessons can we learn from Freiburg’s inclusive
approach to sustainable development? ReFocus, May/June 2007.
48. Green City Freiburg. Available online: http://www.freiburg.de/pb/site/Freiburg/get/640887/GC-
Brosch%C3%BCre_D-2014.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2015).
49. Klimaschutzbilanz, Freiburg. Available online: http://www.freiburg.de/pb/,Lde/774776.html
(accessed on 24 May 2015).
50. European Union Committee of the Regions. Spain Profile. Available online:
https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/countries/MembersLP/Spain/Pages/default.aspx
(accessed on 24 May 2015)
51. Beatley, T. Green Cities of Europe: Global Lessons on Green Urbanism. Island Press, Washington
D.C. USA, 2012.
52. Orive, L.; Dios Lema, R. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain: From urban greenbelt to Regional Green
Infrastructure. In Green Cities of Europe, Global Lessons on Green Urbanism; T. Beatley, Ed.;
Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, Washington D.C. USA, 2012, pp. 155-180
53. European Commission (EC). 2012. Vitoria-Gasteiz - European Green Capital 2012; Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
54. Agència d’Ecologia Urbana de Barcelona (BCNecologia). 2010. Plan de Lucha contra el Cambio
Climatico de Vitoria-Gasteiz (2010-2020)
55. Gainza, X.; Etxano, I. Planificando la movilidad en Vitoria-Gasteiz: Actuaciones innovadoras
frente a limitaciones estructurales, Departamento de Economia Aplicada, Universidad de Pais
Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea UPV/EGU, 2014.

Sustainability 2015, 7 20
56. Szambelan, P. Greening the cities – a cost, or an investment? Environment and Energy Affairs,
European Public Affairs, 2013. Available online: http://bit.ly/1ezBT6U (accessed on 24 May
2015).
57. Barrencua, X.; Gandariasbeitia, I. Movilidad sostenible en Vitoria-Gasteiz : innovacion desde un
modelo de movilidad integral y participativo, Estudio Tematico de Casos Innobasque
“Ecoinnovacion”, Agencia Vasca de la Innovación, 2014.
58. City of Ljubljana. 2011. City of Ljubljana – Profile; Development Projects and Investments Office,
Ljubljana.
59. Pichler-Milanović, N.; Lamovšek, A. Urban Land Use Management in Ljubljana: From
Competitiveness to Sustainability-or Vice Versa? Available online:
http://www.corp.at/archive/CORP2010_212.pdf. (accessed online 24 May 2015).
60. European Union Committee of the Regions. Division of Powers - Division of Powers. Available
online: https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/default.aspx. (accessed on 24 May
2015).
61. European Commission (EC), Jury Report. 2014. - European Green Capital Award 2016. Available
online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/applying-for-the-award/2016-
applicants/ (accessed on 24 May 2015).
62. European Commission (EC). Expert Panel – Technical Assessment Synopsis Report, European
Green Capital Award 2016. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/EGCA-
2016-Technical-Assessment-Synopsis-Report_F01.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2015).
63. European Commission. European Green Capital Award. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/Indicator_1_Ljubljana_20163.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2015).
64. Civitas Elan. Innovative cities-Before and after Civitas. Available online:
www.ljubljana.si/file/1266788/civitas_elan_final_brochure_final.pdf (24 May 2015).
65. . Municipality of Ljubljana. 2011. Local Energy Concept, Department for Environmental
Protection
66. Alonso, A. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Peer Review Visit. Adaptation Strategies for European Cities, a project
of the DG Climate Action, p. 9.