![Histogram comparing responses to question, "Which of these would you say best describes your current lifestyle?", between the case study and averages for England [74].](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359660348/figure/fig1/AS:1144083888250882@1649782263977/Histogram-comparing-responses-to-question-Which-of-these-would-you-say-best-describes_Q320.jpg)
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Oreskovic, L.; Gupta, R.
Enabling Sustainable Lifestyles in
New Urban Areas: Evaluation of an
Eco-Development Case Study in the
UK. Sustainability 2022,14, 4143.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074143
Academic Editors: Zdravko Trivic,
Siu-Kit (Eddie) Lau, Vesna Kosori´c,
Abel Tablada, Miljana Horvat,
Milena Vukmirovi´c,
Silvia Domingo-Irigoyen,
Marija Todorovi´c, Jérôme H. Kaempf,
Kosa Goli´c and Ana Peric
Received: 15 February 2022
Accepted: 22 March 2022
Published: 31 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Enabling Sustainable Lifestyles in New Urban Areas:
Evaluation of an Eco-Development Case Study in the UK
Luka Oreskovic * and Rajat Gupta
Low Carbon Building Research Group, Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development, School of Architecture,
Oxford Brookes University, Headington Campus, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK; rgupta@brookes.ac.uk
*Correspondence: 16113647@brookes.ac.uk
Abstract:
This study evaluated the actual environmental behaviours in an eco-development case
study in the UK, which was designed to enable more sustainable lifestyles. Data analysis was
based on the resident responses to a development-wide questionnaire survey (n= 89), household
interviews (n= 12) and waste measurements. Reported energy- and water-saving behaviours were
fairly common. The mean waste recycling rates (45% to 60%) were similar to local and national
averages, and were below the target of 80%. The mean rates of purchasing organic food (37%),
growing food (31%) and meat consumption (in 36% of all meals) indicated that the food behaviours
were not more pro-environmental. Car-based modes of transportation were used for 71% of all the
reported trips on average, which was higher than the national average, and the target of 55%. Despite
these reported behaviours, most of the residents regarded their new lifestyles as more sustainable.
This was related to the notion of energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies, rather than changes
in behaviour. The findings of this study and similar studies indicated that enabling environmental
behaviours in new developments is challenging. New policies need to be more holistic and support
the delivery of not only well-performing buildings, but also developments that make sustainable
urban living a reality.
Keywords:
eco-development; sustainable neighbourhood; net zero carbon urban design; environ-
mental behaviour; sustainable lifestyle
1. Introduction
1.1. Policy Context
Preventing the worst impacts of climate change requires dramatic strengthening of
national policies [
1
]. Given the climate emergency, the UK Government committed to a
net-zero economy target for 2050 [
2
]. Household lifestyle/behavioural changes will play
an essential role in meeting the national [
3
] and global climate goals [
4
]. The proposed
national pathway to net zero requires reducing demand (between 10% and 40%) for the
key carbon-intensive behaviours: driving, household waste and the intake of meat and
dairy [
3
]. In this context, it is critical to identify and introduce effective strategies that can
encourage such behavioural changes [5].
It is believed that human behaviour is shaped by external factors (such as physical
settings) and personal factors (such as attitudes, norms and habits) [
6
]. The impact of
personal factors seems to dominate over contextual factors in household consumption-
based emissions [
7
]. Among a large number of models of consumer behaviour [
8
], for
instance, the Theory of Planned Behaviour [
9
] fairly successfully explains travel mode
choices, waste recycling, water use and meat consumption, where the balance between
costs and benefits is a determining factor. Although shaping environmental behaviours
with external factors seems to have been less systematically examined [
10
], this approach
is still deemed more effective than altering personal values and attitudes [
11
]. Regarding
human settlements, new urbanising areas are thought to offer the greatest carbon-reduction
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074143 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 2 of 18
potential, as their physical characteristics are not yet locked in [
12
]. Hence, spatial and
urban planning are increasingly being regarded as important demand-side strategies for
reducing carbon emissions [13,14].
Planning has been given a central role in the UK’s sustainable development and in miti-
gating climate change [
15
,
16
]. The Government’s vision for new sustainable neighbourhood-
scale developments was demonstrated in the former eco-towns [
17
] and the current garden
towns and villages [
18
] housing schemes. However, both schemes were criticised for allow-
ing low-density developments on greenfield sites, which was associated with urban sprawl
and other issues [
19
–
23
]. The National Planning Policy Frameworks [
24
–
26
] were deemed
insufficient in ensuring that the dramatic action needed to support the net-zero economy
goal was demonstrated in local and neighbourhood plans [27,28].
1.2. Eco-Developments
Over the last two decades, an increasing number of urban eco-developments ad-
dressing sustainability and environmental challenges have been planned and delivered
worldwide [
29
]. Despite their growth in numbers, due to the lack of policy drivers and
market demand for more sustainable housing, the eco-developments have mostly been
delivered as one-off demonstration projects [
30
–
32
]. The developments have varied in
spatial scale, from small housing projects to eco-cities. The neighbourhood scale is deemed
particularly suitable for combining urban design and new technologies [
14
], offering the
potential to respond to and reinvent locality [
33
,
34
], benefitting from economies of scale [
35
]
and generating new learning [36].
Eco-developments can utilise different sustainable planning principles, urban systems
and technological measures in addressing their design objectives [
37
–
42
]. The recurrent
design approach prioritises implementing energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies,
which reduce emissions intrinsically, minimise resident involvement and do not require
changes in lifestyle or personal values [
43
,
44
]. Achieving further carbon reductions by
providing bicycle lanes, urban gardens and other on-site measures that could enable or
limit household environmental behaviours is considered far less certain [45].
2. Literature Review
This section presents a literature review regarding the evaluation of environmental
behaviours in eco-developments. The significance of eco-developments really depends
on the extent to which the design aims have been achieved during the occupation (in-use)
stage [
42
]. However, actual environmental behaviours are rarely evaluated against the
design aspirations in new developments. The evaluation of the outcomes of neighbourhood-
scale planning is not mandatory in current policy. In addition, the advantages of under-
standing the impacts of local planning can be overshadowed by concerns in regard to the
time, costs, needed expertise, data availability and exposure of potentially poor results [
46
].
The in-use evaluations of eco-developments tend to focus on the energy and carbon
performance of case study buildings [
47
–
50
]. However, it is argued that the scope of
evaluations should expand from building performance to household lifestyles. Due to the
Jevons paradox [
51
] and other behavioural factors, energy efficiency alone is insufficient
for achieving reductions in overall energy demand and in household footprints [52].
Available studies that evaluated actual environmental behaviours, and the impact of
the implemented design measures in eco-developments, are briefly presented in Table 1.
The selection captured housing developments and neighbourhoods, excluding evaluations
of city-scale eco-developments, such as Tianjin in China [
53
]. Evidence from the selected
studies should be interpreted with caution, due to the possible biases associated with the
self-selection of the participants, social desirability, stakeholder’s involvement in the study
and non-academic sources [54,55].
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 3 of 18
Table 1.
An overview of key findings about actual environmental behaviours and the impact of the
implemented measures in the evaluated eco-development case studies.
Study Development Name, Location and Size Key Findings
[56]
BedZED
UK
100 dwellings
About 10% lower ecological footprint due to more energy-efficient
dwellings. Compared to those in conventional housing, residents seemed
to drive and compost less, and grow less food. Proximity to the subway
station and discouragement of on-site parking probably contributed to
the reduced car use.
[45]
13 case studies
UK
27–303 dwellings
Responses suggested that energy- and water-saving behaviours were
more frequent. However, households owned more cars and composted
less compared to national averages.
[57]Derwenthorpe UK
500 dwellings
About 10% lower carbon footprint due to more energy-efficient
dwellings. Higher car usage was associated with the end-of-town
location of the site. Waste facilities appear insufficient. Provided
measures had a marginal impact on food behaviours.
[58,59]
Adamstown
Ireland
1126 dwellings
Many design measures commonly found in eco-developments were
lacking. Resident dissatisfaction with the lack of basic on-site facilities.
Two-thirds of residents used a car for commuting, despite the good
public transportation links in the vicinity.
[60,61]
Vauban
Germany
2000 dwellings
Parking being limited to only one communal zone and multiple public
transportation options contributed to the significant increase in car-free
households and bicycle use. Other on-site measures were welcomed, but
residents continued with fairly common everyday practices.
[44,62–65]
Hammarby
Sweden
11000 dwellings
Multiple on-site amenities and public transportation options contributed
to achieving the 20% car-use-rate target. Households opposed proposals
for limited parking and did not behave more pro-environmentally in
regard to waste, water and dwelling energy use compared to households
in other areas of the city.
Differences in the local contexts, design intents, assessment criteria and research
methods made it difficult to effectively compare the findings of the presented studies.
Although some eco-developments achieved the set targets for car-use reduction, most of
the studies reported that the actual household behaviours were not more sustainable, as
anticipated. The lack of lifestyle changes in Vauban and Hammarby developments was
attributed to the top-down planning approach, which excluded residents from the planning
process, assuming that the provided design measures would be accepted and used as
envisioned. In the BedZED and Derwenthorpe studies, it was argued that a more significant
reduction in household footprints would require broader sustainability measures, which
would reduce the environmental impacts of household behaviours occurring beyond the
small sites of the eco-developments.
Due to the small number of rigorous evaluations, the potential of eco-developments in
encouraging pro-environmental behaviours is still not well understood. Considering the
urbanisation trend and the vital role of behavioural change in meeting climate objectives,
more empirical evidence about actual behaviours and achieved carbon emission reduc-
tions is urgently needed. In response to this context, this study evaluated environmental
behaviours in an eco-development case study in the UK, which was designed to enable
more sustainable lifestyles. Compared to other evaluations of eco-developments, which are
often focused on particular behaviours or on estimating footprints, this study presents a
more systematic analysis of a broad range of behaviours regarding energy, water, waste,
food and transportation.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 4 of 18
3. Methods
3.1. Case Study
The case study development encompassed the initial two completed phases of a
planned four-phase town extension. The two phases consisted of 157 dwellings, mainly
terraced houses. The development was designed to become an exemplar of sustainable
living. Consequently, it aspired to achieve a wide range of ambitious environmental design
targets in regard to dwelling performance and household behaviours. Table 2presents the
design targets related to the environmental criteria of interest in this study.
Table 2. Case study design targets per environmental criterion.
Criterion Design Targets
Energy Mean energy use of 75.4 kWh/m2/year per dwelling.
Waste 80% household waste diverted from landfill by 2020.
Transportation 45% of trips by non-car means by 2016.
Food Increased consumption of low-impact foods.
In order to achieve the targeted energy performance, dwellings were provided with
highly energy-efficient fabric, appliances, in-built lights and heating systems. Households
were provided with smart energy monitors providing real-time information about energy
use and generation. Direct connections to roof-mounted photovoltaic (PV) panels allowed
households the opportunity to yield benefits from the generated energy. Regarding trans-
portation, waste and food behaviours, it was hoped that the provided on-site facilities and
amenities would make it easy for households to behave more pro-environmentally.
Setting an 80% target rate for recycled and composted waste could be regarded as quite
ambitious, considering the district’s mean rate of 55% [
66
]. Apart from the conventional
kerbside bins and communal recycling bins, households were provided with kitchen and
garden compost bins. In addition, the local authorities provided support by holding
informational stands during major community events.
The planned provision of low-impact foods in on-site shops, via large allotments,
community orchards and other edible landscape was sidelined in the actual delivery. At the
time of the survey, opening on-site shops was still not feasible due to the small development
scale; the planned edibles were substituted by decorative plants, while the allotments were
significantly downsized and still under construction.
Provided only with a primary school and a small office building, the development’s
households depended on the services in the surrounding urban area. The provided trans-
portation measures included a bus line to the town centre (with further train and bus
services), discounted bus tickets, an on-site folding-bike rental service, an electric car club,
private electric car chargers and limited parking for the households in flats and all visitors.
The existing road infrastructure offered detached bicycle lanes for only about half of the
distance to the town centre.
3.2. Methods
Similar to evaluations presented earlier in Table 1, this study was based on a case
study. Although this limited the generalizability of the findings, the case study approach
can allow studying contextualised and complex phenomena, such as eco-developments,
from multiple aspects and in greater depth [67,68].
In order to capture household behaviours, a development-wide questionnaire survey
was conducted. The results from the first part of the questionnaire, which used the Building
Use Evaluation method [
69
], are not presented here. This text focuses on the responses to
the second part of the bespoke questionnaire named Lifestyle Evaluation, developed by
the authors of this paper. The questionnaire sample can be found in Appendix A.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 5 of 18
The Lifestyle Evaluation questionnaire was divided into five main topics: household
background, energy and water use, waste recycling, food choices and transportation. The
questionnaire was designed to be concise, spanning only two A4 pages, with the aim of
encouraging resident participation and maximising the response rate. The design combined
categorical questions, six- and seven-point Likert scales and matrix questions, and provided
some space for qualitative comments. Environmental behaviours were addressed with
questions about the frequency of behaviours, the usage of the provided on-site measures
and the perceived impact of the measures on behaviours. In order to contextualise the
results, the majority of the questions were adopted from questionnaires used in national
and local surveys or in studies of similar eco-developments.
The survey was conducted over a period of ~3.5 months, in 2018. Using a door-to-door
approach, the authors of this paper approached all the households in the development,
offering voluntary participation in the survey. Each interested household was offered to
take up to two self-administered questionnaires for two adults, to be completed without
the presence of the authors. Completed questionnaires were then physically collected in
agreement with the residents, typically two or three weeks after the questionnaires were
handed out.
The survey results showed that the questionnaires were completed by 63 households
living in houses (49% of all houses), and by only one household living in a flat, from a total
of 28 flats in the case study development. In order to make the study findings more robust,
the response from the household living in a flat was removed from the final household
sample. The sample was considered representative of the case study development in terms
of the house typology and development phase. However, households from social housing
were slightly underrepresented (12% less). As two adults completed the questionnaires in
26 households, the final sample consisted of 89 questionnaires. From now on, the resident
sample (n= 89) that completed the questionnaire will be referred to in this text as ‘residents’.
All the households that completed the questionnaire were also offered the opportunity
to participate in a semi-structured interview, as a part of a wider evaluation focused on
dwelling performance. As a result, out of 63 households, 12 households agreed to be
interviewed. This text reported the responses to questions about household behaviours in
regard to smart energy monitors and solar PV panels.
4. Results
4.1. Household Background
The majority of the residents reported holding a degree or higher qualification (63%),
which was significantly higher than the average for England [
70
]. The higher levels
of education found in this study, and higher levels of occupation [
45
] and income [
57
]
reported in other eco-developments, indicated higher socio-economic backgrounds for the
households in the eco-developments. Residents have chosen to move to the development
primarily due to the characteristics of the dwellings (78%), followed by the development’s
eco-credentials (46%), potential energy and water savings (43%), and, lastly, the access
to work (37%) and family or friends (23%). In other eco-developments, the architectural
characteristics of the development were similarly regarded as most important by the
households [45,60,62,71].
Studies have indicated that environmental attitudes were not associated with house-
hold consumption [
72
] or carbon footprints [
57
]. However, gathering insights about en-
vironmental attitudes in eco-developments could indicate if such locations attract more
eco-minded households. When compared to national averages, the residents’ responses
to three questions about environmental attitudes demonstrated only an increase in the
awareness about the personal impact on climate change (Table 3), which was weakly asso-
ciated with higher education levels (r
s
= 0.30, p= 0.009). In a similar notion, in two other
eco-development studies, households appeared to be slightly more knowledgeable but not
more concerned about the environment [45,73].
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 6 of 18
Table 3.
Results from the Mann–Whitney test comparing scores from three environmental attitude
questions between the case study and averages for England [74].
Question Mann–Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-Tailed)
Which of these would you say best
describes your current lifestyle? 3917.50 8768.50 −0.311 0.756
I need more information on what I
could do to be more
environmentally (eco) friendly.
3719.00 8669.00 −1.298 0.194
I do not believe my everyday
behaviour and lifestyle contribute to
climate change
3162.00 6732.00 −2.801 0.005
As seen in Table 3and Figure 1, the residents’ perceived occurrence of eco-friendly
behaviours did not significantly differ from the national averages. Contrastingly, more than
two-thirds (70%) of the residents saw their new lifestyles as more eco-friendly than before
(Figure 2). The perception of having a more eco-friendly lifestyle was weakly associated
with feeling more cautious in using energy (
τc
= 0.36, p< 0.001) and in recycling waste
(
τc= 0.34,
p= 0.002), with noticing lower electricity bills (r
s
=
−
0.24, p= 0.038) and with
the use of major appliances in order to exploit the PV electricity (rs=−0.22, p= 0.045).
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19
characteristics of the development were similarly regarded as most important by the
households [45,60,62,71].
Studies have indicated that environmental attitudes were not associated with house-
hold consumption [72] or carbon footprints [57]. However, gathering insights about envi-
ronmental attitudes in eco-developments could indicate if such locations attract more eco-
minded households. When compared to national averages, the residents’ responses to
three questions about environmental attitudes demonstrated only an increase in the
awareness about the personal impact on climate change (Table 3), which was weakly as-
sociated with higher education levels (rs = 0.30, p = 0.009). In a similar notion, in two other
eco-development studies, households appeared to be slightly more knowledgeable but
not more concerned about the environment [45,73].
Table 3. Results from the Mann–Whitney test comparing scores from three environmental attitude
questions between the case study and averages for England [74].
Question Mann–Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Which of these would you say best
describes your current lifestyle? 3917.50 8768.50 −0.311 0.756
I need more information on what I could
do to be more environmentally (eco)
friendly.
3719.00 8669.00 −1.298 0.194
I do not believe my everyday behaviour
and lifestyle contribute to climate change 3162.00 6732.00 −2.801 0.005
As seen in Table 3 and Figure 1, the residents’ perceived occurrence of eco-friendly
behaviours did not significantly differ from the national averages. Contrastingly, more
than two-thirds (70%) of the residents saw their new lifestyles as more eco-friendly than
before (Figure 2). The perception of having a more eco-friendly lifestyle was weakly asso-
ciated with feeling more cautious in using energy (τc = 0.36, p < 0.001) and in recycling
waste (τc = 0.34, p = 0.002), with noticing lower electricity bills (rs = −0.24, p = 0.038) and
with the use of major appliances in order to exploit the PV electricity (rs = −0.22, p = 0.045).
Figure 1. Histogram comparing responses to question, “Which of these would you say best de-
scribes your current lifestyle?”, between the case study and averages for England [74].
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Don’t do
anything
Do one or
two things
Do quite a
few things
Eco-friendly
in most things
Eco-friendly
in everything
Don’t know
Case study England 2009 England 2007
Figure 1.
Histogram comparing responses to question, “Which of these would you say best describes
your current lifestyle?”, between the case study and averages for England [74].
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19
Figure 2. Histogram comparing responses to questions, “Living in the new development has
changed my lifestyle” and “Since living in the new development my lifestyle has been more eco-
friendly”.
4.2. Energy and Water Behaviours
As observed in Table 4, statistical analysis suggested that the responses to three ques-
tions about common energy- and water-saving behaviours were not significantly differ-
ent, compared to the national averages [74].
Table 4. Results from the Mann–Whitney U test comparing scores for three questions about energy-
and water-saving behaviours between the case study and the averages for England [74].
Question Mann–Whitney U Wilcoxon
W
Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
How frequently do you wash clothes at 40
degrees or less? 3868.50 7438.50 −0.714 0.475
How frequently do you personally leave the
lights on when you are not in the room? 4173.00 9223.00 −0.079 0.937
How frequently do you make an effort to cut
down on water usage at home? 3662.50 7232.50 −0.537 0.591
More than two-thirds of the residents (72%) reported that living in their new home
made them feel more cautious in using energy. This was slightly higher than the rate re-
ported in 13 other eco-developments [45]. This difference was attributed to a more wide-
spread provision of energy-efficient features in the case study dwellings. About a third
(36%) of the residents felt more cautious in using energy due to the provided smart energy
monitors. Interestingly, all of the 12 interviewed households regarded the monitor as not
useful. For the majority of the interviewees, the devices frequently malfunctioned and of-
ten showed values that appeared illogical.
Most of the residents (83%) reported frequently using the washing machine, dish-
washer and tumble dryer when PV electricity was generated. During the interviews,
households reported being cautious in using major appliances only during the daytime.
However, they would not postpone their routine of washing clothes if the sky appeared
to be overcast and energy generation was probably marginal. Only half of the interview-
ees reported using the in-built timer, mainly for delaying the start of the dishwasher be-
fore going to work.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Strongly
disagree
Tend to
disagree
Neither agree
or disagree
Tend to agree Strongly agree
Lifestyle is changed Lifestyle is more eco-friendly
Figure 2.
Histogram comparing responses to questions, “Living in the new development has changed
my lifestyle” and “Since living in the new development my lifestyle has been more eco-friendly”.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 7 of 18
4.2. Energy and Water Behaviours
As observed in Table 4, statistical analysis suggested that the responses to three
questions about common energy- and water-saving behaviours were not significantly
different, compared to the national averages [74].
Table 4.
Results from the Mann–Whitney U test comparing scores for three questions about energy-
and water-saving behaviours between the case study and the averages for England [74].
Question Mann–Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-Tailed)
How frequently do you wash clothes at
40 degrees or less? 3868.50 7438.50 −0.714 0.475
How frequently do you personally leave the
lights on when you are not in the room? 4173.00 9223.00 −0.079 0.937
How frequently do you make an effort to cut
down on water usage at home? 3662.50 7232.50 −0.537 0.591
More than two-thirds of the residents (72%) reported that living in their new home
made them feel more cautious in using energy. This was slightly higher than the rate
reported in 13 other eco-developments [
45
]. This difference was attributed to a more
widespread provision of energy-efficient features in the case study dwellings. About a
third (36%) of the residents felt more cautious in using energy due to the provided smart
energy monitors. Interestingly, all of the 12 interviewed households regarded the monitor
as not useful. For the majority of the interviewees, the devices frequently malfunctioned
and often showed values that appeared illogical.
Most of the residents (83%) reported frequently using the washing machine, dish-
washer and tumble dryer when PV electricity was generated. During the interviews,
households reported being cautious in using major appliances only during the daytime.
However, they would not postpone their routine of washing clothes if the sky appeared to
be overcast and energy generation was probably marginal. Only half of the interviewees
reported using the in-built timer, mainly for delaying the start of the dishwasher before
going to work.
4.3. Waste Behaviours
Most of the residents (88%) reported frequently using general recycling, glass recycling
and food waste bins. The garden compost bin and kitchen bins were frequently used by
significantly fewer residents (57%). As seen in Figure 3, more residents reported regularly
recycling and composting compared to the national averages [
74
], and to households in
13 other eco-developments [
45
]. In DEFRA’s report, “always”, “very often” and “often”
votes were aggregated to represent behaviour that could be considered as regular.
More than two-thirds of the residents (70%) felt that the on-site waste facilities encour-
aged them to recycle. It could be argued that households who regularly used more types
of recycling bins showed higher attentiveness to recycling. Statistical analysis showed
that the number of different recycling bin types used was weakly associated with all three
environmental attitude variables (rs= 0.3, p< 0.05).
To complement the results of the questionnaire, annual results for weight-based waste
monitoring focused on the development site were sourced from the local authorities. As
observed in Table 5, the annual results over a three-year period did not demonstrate a clear
trend. However, in contrast to reported behaviours, the results indicated that the actual
rates were relatively similar to the national (45%) and district averages (55%) [
75
], and
significantly lower than the set target of 80%.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 8 of 18
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
4.3. Waste Behaviours
Most of the residents (88%) reported frequently using general recycling, glass recy-
cling and food waste bins. The garden compost bin and kitchen bins were frequently used
by significantly fewer residents (57%). As seen in Figure 3, more residents reported regu-
larly recycling and composting compared to the national averages [74], and to households
in 13 other eco-developments [45]. In DEFRA’s report, “always”, “very often” and “often”
votes were aggregated to represent behaviour that could be considered as regular.
Figure 3. Comparing rates of regular recycling and composting between the case study, national
averages [74] and the mean response for 13 other eco-developments [45].
More than two-thirds of the residents (70%) felt that the on-site waste facilities en-
couraged them to recycle. It could be argued that households who regularly used more
types of recycling bins showed higher attentiveness to recycling. Statistical analysis
showed that the number of different recycling bin types used was weakly associated with
all three environmental attitude variables (rs = 0.3, p < 0.05).
To complement the results of the questionnaire, annual results for weight-based
waste monitoring focused on the development site were sourced from the local authori-
ties. As observed in Table 5, the annual results over a three-year period did not demon-
strate a clear trend. However, in contrast to reported behaviours, the results indicated that
the actual rates were relatively similar to the national (45%) and district averages (55%)
[75], and significantly lower than the set target of 80%.
Table 5. Annual waste arising for the eco-development from measurements taken over three con-
secutive years. Data provided by the local authorities.
Period Organic
Waste (kg)
Dry Recycling
(kg)
Residual
Waste (kg)
Total Waste
(kg)
Organic
Waste
Dry
Recycling
Total
Organic/Dry
2017/18 16,790 13,190 36,660 66,640 25% 20% 45%
2018/19 19,190 22,020 50,280 91,490 21% 24% 45%
2019/20 33,600 39,035 48,060 120,695 28% 32% 60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
General recycling Composting Glass recycling
Case study England 13 eco-developments
Figure 3.
Comparing rates of regular recycling and composting between the case study, national
averages [74] and the mean response for 13 other eco-developments [45].
Table 5.
Annual waste arising for the eco-development from measurements taken over three consecu-
tive years. Data provided by the local authorities.
Period Organic
Waste (kg) Dry Recycling
(kg)
Residual
Waste (kg)
Total Waste
(kg)
Organic
Waste
Dry
Recycling Total
Organic/Dry
2017/18 16,790 13,190 36,660 66,640 25% 20% 45%
2018/19 19,190 22,020 50,280 91,490 21% 24% 45%
2019/20 33,600 39,035 48,060 120,695 28% 32% 60%
4.4. Food Behaviours
The responses about the frequency of low-impact food behaviours are shown in
Figure 4. About a third of the residents reported regularly buying organic food (37%) and
growing food in their gardens (31%), which were similar rates compared to the national
averages [
74
,
76
] and averages for Ireland [
77
]. Only 15% of the residents reported regularly
visiting farmers’ markets. The number of different low-impact food behaviours in which
residents had engaged was weakly associated with higher education levels (r
s
= 0.23,
p= 0.48), and with eating less meat (rs= 0.22, p= 0.47).
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
4.4. Food Behaviours
The responses about the frequency of low-impact food behaviours are shown in Fig-
ure 4. About a third of the residents reported regularly buying organic food (37%) and
growing food in their gardens (31%), which were similar rates compared to the national
averages [74,76] and averages for Ireland [77]. Only 15% of the residents reported regu-
larly visiting farmers’ markets. The number of different low-impact food behaviours in
which residents had engaged was weakly associated with higher education levels (rs =
0.23, p = 0.48), and with eating less meat (rs = 0.22, p = 0.47).
The residents had included meat in 36% of all weekly meals, on average. This was
similar to the rate reported by households living in conventional housing and in the Der-
wenthorpe eco-development, and it was higher than the rates in the BedZED and Lancas-
ter Cohousing eco-developments [57].
Figure 4. Rates of low-impact food behaviours.
4.5. Transportation Behaviours
Based on residents’ responses, the mean rate of using a car-based mode of transpor-
tation was 71% (Figure 5). This was higher than the national average (62%) [78] and the
set target for 2016 (55%). Car-based modes included all car, van and motorcycle driver or
passenger trips. Eco-modes of transportation included walking, cycling, public transpor-
tation trips and deliveries. Figure 5 also shows that business and non-education escort
trips were the most car-dependent (around 90%), followed by grocery shopping and trips
for visiting friends (around 80%). The residents were slightly more car-dependent than
the wider population for every category of trip purpose apart for leisure trips. This par-
ticularly applied to grocery shopping and education-escort trips, where a 1.3 and 1.7 times
higher car-use rate was reported, respectively.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Shopping organic food
Growing a small vegetable patch
Shopping at farmers market
Growing a large vegetable patch
Using food delivery
Growing vegetables in a green house
Figure 4. Rates of low-impact food behaviours.
The residents had included meat in 36% of all weekly meals, on average. This was
similar to the rate reported by households living in conventional housing and in the
Derwenthorpe eco-development, and it was higher than the rates in the BedZED and
Lancaster Cohousing eco-developments [57].
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 9 of 18
4.5. Transportation Behaviours
Based on residents’ responses, the mean rate of using a car-based mode of transporta-
tion was 71% (Figure 5). This was higher than the national average (62%) [
78
] and the
set target for 2016 (55%). Car-based modes included all car, van and motorcycle driver or
passenger trips. Eco-modes of transportation included walking, cycling, public transporta-
tion trips and deliveries. Figure 5also shows that business and non-education escort trips
were the most car-dependent (around 90%), followed by grocery shopping and trips for
visiting friends (around 80%). The residents were slightly more car-dependent than the
wider population for every category of trip purpose apart for leisure trips. This particularly
applied to grocery shopping and education-escort trips, where a 1.3 and 1.7 times higher
car-use rate was reported, respectively.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
Figure 5. Transportation mode ratios, by trip purpose.
For commuting trips, the most popular types of eco-mode were public transportation
(51%), followed by combining public transportation with cycling (20%), walking (21%)
and just cycling (9%). For residents who regularly used eco-modes of transportation, the
local bus to town was considered the most important measure (88%), followed by train
and bus services located in the town centre (58%) and walking routes (46%). Bicycle
routes, e-car clubs, electric car chargers and bike rental facilities were deemed the least
important measures (<23%).
Data analysis suggested that the residents tended to walk less and use cars and public
transportation more, compared to households living in the local town [79] and to the na-
tional averages [78]. This result was expected, due to the development’s edge-of-town lo-
cation. Compared to households in 13 other eco-developments [45], 9% more residents in
the case study development preferred using cars for commuting over greener alternatives.
Analysis of the responses regarding the final trip destinations showed that the local
town (<3-mile radius) was the final destination for about a bit more than a third of all the
reported trips (37%). Close to half of the trips (45%) ended in the wider region (4- to 50-
mile radius), while 12% of the trips were taken to destinations further than 50 miles away
(Figure 6). The results also suggested that the town was the most attractive destination for
grocery shopping (~90% of all trips), and the least attractive destination for work, business
and other leisure activities (<25% of all trips). The local town was more than two times
less attractive for work and leisure activities for the case study residents, compared to the
households living in the town itself [79]. This significant difference was partly attributed
to the inclusion of minors in the town’s survey, and the higher share of older adults living
in the town [80]. As indicated in Figure 7, the Chi-square test suggested that, for commut-
ing trips, residents favoured car-based modes for reaching destinations located in the
wider region (4- to 50-mile radius) but not for longer or shorter trips (X2 (2, N = 68) = 10.61,
p = 0.005).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Car-based
mode
Car and/or
eco mode
Eco mode
Figure 5. Transportation mode ratios, by trip purpose.
For commuting trips, the most popular types of eco-mode were public transportation
(51%), followed by combining public transportation with cycling (20%), walking (21%)
and just cycling (9%). For residents who regularly used eco-modes of transportation, the
local bus to town was considered the most important measure (88%), followed by train
and bus services located in the town centre (58%) and walking routes (46%). Bicycle routes,
e-car clubs, electric car chargers and bike rental facilities were deemed the least important
measures (<23%).
Data analysis suggested that the residents tended to walk less and use cars and public
transportation more, compared to households living in the local town [
79
] and to the
national averages [
78
]. This result was expected, due to the development’s edge-of-town
location. Compared to households in 13 other eco-developments [
45
], 9% more residents in
the case study development preferred using cars for commuting over greener alternatives.
Analysis of the responses regarding the final trip destinations showed that the local
town (<3-mile radius) was the final destination for about a bit more than a third of all
the reported trips (37%). Close to half of the trips (45%) ended in the wider region (4- to
50-mile radius), while 12% of the trips were taken to destinations further than 50 miles away
(Figure 6). The results also suggested that the town was the most attractive destination for
grocery shopping (~90% of all trips), and the least attractive destination for work, business
and other leisure activities (<25% of all trips). The local town was more than two times
less attractive for work and leisure activities for the case study residents, compared to the
households living in the town itself [
79
]. This significant difference was partly attributed to
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 10 of 18
the inclusion of minors in the town’s survey, and the higher share of older adults living in
the town [
80
]. As indicated in Figure 7, the Chi-square test suggested that, for commuting
trips, residents favoured car-based modes for reaching destinations located in the wider
region (4- to 50-mile radius) but not for longer or shorter trips (X
2
(2, N= 68) = 10.61,
p= 0.005).
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Figure 6. Destination ranges of trips, by trip purpose.
Figure 7. Ratios of transportation modes for commuting trips, according to the destination ranges.
The results also showed that the households owned 1.4 cars on average, which was
similar to the average for the local town, and slightly more than the national average.
Owning a car seemed to be necessary in the case study development, as only one surveyed
household (2%) was car-free. The households seemed to own more cars and drive more
miles per occupant (5550 miles/year) on average, compared to households in other new
eco-developments [57]. The increased car dependency noted in the case study and in Der-
wenthorpe was probably related to their edge-of-town locations.
5. Discussion
The results of the data analysis suggested that the captured energy and water saving,
waste recycling and low-impact food behaviours were similar, while the transportation
behaviours were less environmental compared to the national averages. Contrastingly,
more than two-thirds of the residents perceived their new lifestyles as more eco-friendly,
and felt more cautious in recycling waste and using energy in their homes. Similarly to in
the study about Derwenthorpe [71], this perception was attributed to the intrinsic effect
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
> 50 miles
> 3 miles (outside town)
4–50 miles (region)
< 50 miles (town and
region)
< 3 miles (town)
Figure 6. Destination ranges of trips, by trip purpose.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Figure 6. Destination ranges of trips, by trip purpose.
Figure 7. Ratios of transportation modes for commuting trips, according to the destination ranges.
The results also showed that the households owned 1.4 cars on average, which was
similar to the average for the local town, and slightly more than the national average.
Owning a car seemed to be necessary in the case study development, as only one surveyed
household (2%) was car-free. The households seemed to own more cars and drive more
miles per occupant (5550 miles/year) on average, compared to households in other new
eco-developments [57]. The increased car dependency noted in the case study and in Der-
wenthorpe was probably related to their edge-of-town locations.
5. Discussion
The results of the data analysis suggested that the captured energy and water saving,
waste recycling and low-impact food behaviours were similar, while the transportation
behaviours were less environmental compared to the national averages. Contrastingly,
more than two-thirds of the residents perceived their new lifestyles as more eco-friendly,
and felt more cautious in recycling waste and using energy in their homes. Similarly to in
the study about Derwenthorpe [71], this perception was attributed to the intrinsic effect
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
> 50 miles
> 3 miles (outside town)
4–50 miles (region)
< 50 miles (town and
region)
< 3 miles (town)
Figure 7. Ratios of transportation modes for commuting trips, according to the destination ranges.
The results also showed that the households owned 1.4 cars on average, which was
similar to the average for the local town, and slightly more than the national average.
Owning a car seemed to be necessary in the case study development, as only one surveyed
household (2%) was car-free. The households seemed to own more cars and drive more
miles per occupant (5550 miles/year) on average, compared to households in other new
eco-developments [
57
]. The increased car dependency noted in the case study and in
Derwenthorpe was probably related to their edge-of-town locations.
5. Discussion
The results of the data analysis suggested that the captured energy and water saving,
waste recycling and low-impact food behaviours were similar, while the transportation
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 11 of 18
behaviours were less environmental compared to the national averages. Contrastingly,
more than two-thirds of the residents perceived their new lifestyles as more eco-friendly,
and felt more cautious in recycling waste and using energy in their homes. Similarly to in
the study about Derwenthorpe [
71
], this perception was attributed to the intrinsic effect of
dwelling energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies, rather than to significant changes
in behaviour.
Although waste recycling appeared to be more widespread, the measured waste
recycling rates were relatively similar to local and national averages. Reaching the targeted
rate of 80% will probably require introducing additional measures proven effective in
past waste-reduction initiatives [
33
,
81
,
82
]. The findings of this study demonstrated the
importance of complementing household feedback with actual waste measurements, which
offer a more robust view of the achieved waste performance [
83
]. Due to the challenges
associated with monitoring waste at the development scale [
81
], waste behaviours in
eco-developments will probably remain not well understood.
The reported food behaviours were rather conventional. This was expected, consider-
ing that the planned on-site measures were not really delivered. However, just providing
opportunities to purchase and grow low-impact foods in on-site shops and gardens seems
to have a limited effect on household food behaviours [
56
,
57
,
60
,
84
]. An increase in low-
impact food behaviours probably requires the introduction of additional measures that
might influence personal factors shaping food purchasing [
85
] and urban gardening [
86
],
which is beyond the current scope of housing developers. In this context, it is not surpris-
ing that reducing household food footprints is often not prioritized in eco-developments.
Nonetheless, defining aspirational targets for low-impact food behaviours would probably
motivate housing developers to test different measures, evaluate the outcomes and generate
new learning.
The increased car-dependency in the case study development was attributed to the
selection of on-site infrastructure, the small development scale lacking basic amenities, the
development’s edge-of town location and household lifestyles. On one hand, providing a
bus line to town and private electric car chargers is commendable. The former supported
many residents in moving away from frequent driving. The latter is thought to increase
willingness to buy an electric car [
87
]. On the other hand, the modal shift potential with
car club and bike rental services is thought to be limited [
88
,
89
]. In addition, the limited
parking space resulted in parking in undesignated areas in the case study, as well as in
other eco-developments [
56
,
57
]. The reported transportation behaviours in the case study
and Derwenthorpe developments indicated that the edge-of-town location hindered the
frequent use of eco-modes of transportation for reaching basic amenities in the surrounding
urban area. Lastly, the younger and more educated households attracted to the case study
eco-development were expected to have higher numbers of car trips [
90
], which was further
amplified by the scarcity of work and leisure options offered in the local town.
Evaluations of low-carbon and eco-developments demonstrated significant reductions
in dwelling energy use and resulting carbon emissions. Achieving additional reductions
from changes in transportation, waste and food behaviours appears to be far more chal-
lenging. The significantly lower household footprints reported in intentional housing
communities [
91
] support the argument that the transition to more sustainable lifestyles
might demand a shift from a top-down to a more community-based model of housing
delivery [92], and a change in personal values [93].
Given the urgency of climate change, growing interest in delivering sustainable urban
areas will drive the need to evaluate the emissions associated with household lifestyles, not
only with dwelling use [
52
]. Therefore, more holistic evaluations are needed to provide
more empirical evidence about the effectiveness of different design measures in reducing
emissions, and to build the knowledge base. Narrowing the reoccurring gap between
the aspired-to and actual lifestyles in new developments would result in stronger carbon
reductions associated with multiple sectors of the economy, not just the building sector.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 12 of 18
This would be in line with the whole-system thinking that the UK Government has been
adopting for meeting the net-zero economy target [94].
6. Conclusions
This study evaluated the actual household environmental behaviours of households
living in a case study eco-development in the UK, designed to enable more sustainable
lifestyles. The data analysis was based on resident responses to a development-wide ques-
tionnaire survey (n= 89), household interviews (n= 12) and provided waste measurements.
Increased cautiousness in using energy was reflected in the use of major appliances, while
other energy- and water-saving behaviours were fairly conventional. The actual waste
recycling rates measured over three years (45% to 60%) were similar to local and national
averages, and well below the 80% target. The rates of purchasing organic food (37%),
growing food (31%) and meat consumption (in 36% of all meals) indicated that the food
behaviours were not more pro-environmental. Car-based modes of transportation were
used for 71% of all the reported trips on average, which was higher than the national aver-
age and the set target of 55%. In contrast to the reported behaviours, most of the residents
considered their new lifestyles as more eco-friendly, which was related to the notion of
energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies, rather than to changes in behaviour.
Overall, the case study development should be commended for integrating a wide
range of sustainability measures and for the ambitious aim to enable more sustainable
lifestyles. However, the findings of this study suggested that the provided measures (which
are recurrently used across eco-developments) were not effective in achieving this aim
in the given urban context. More systematic evaluations of environmental behaviours
in urban areas are urgently needed, to improve understanding about the effectiveness of
different housing delivery models and design measures.
Expanding urban zones offers an opportunity to integrate high levels of energy effi-
ciency and the latest technologies, but also to shape environmental behaviours and achieve
further reductions in carbon emissions. Evidence from this study and other scarce studies
of eco-developments suggests that enabling environmental behaviours is challenging. New
government policies need to be more holistic and support the delivery of not only well-
performing dwellings, but also new developments that make sustainable urban living a
reality. The forthcoming local plans and housing programmes could be more ambitious,
integrating performance requirements that capture carbon-intensive household behaviours,
rather than just the building performance. Setting quantifiable performance targets and
requiring ongoing performance monitoring seem to be essential for motivating developers
to actually deliver the promised design measures.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, L.O. and R.G.; methodology, L.O. and R.G.; software,
L.O.; validation, L.O.; formal analysis, L.O.; investigation, L.O.; resources, R.G.; data curation, L.O.;
writing—original draft preparation, L.O.; writing—review and editing, L.O. and R.G.; visualization,
L.O.; supervision, R.G.; project administration, L.O.; funding acquisition, R.G. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The study was funded by Oxford Brookes University 150 year PhD studentship.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Oxford Brookes University Research Ethics Committee (UREC)
(protocol code: 181178, date of approval: 6 April 2018).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments:
We would like to express our gratitude to all the residents who participated in
the survey and interviews. We would also like to thank the developer and the design team for the
provided information about the design of the case study development.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 13 of 18
Appendix A
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19
Appendix A
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 14 of 18
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 15 of 18
References
1.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Emissions Gap Report 2020—Exclusive Summary; United Nations Environment
Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2020.
2.
DBEIS (Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy). UK Becomes First Major Economy to Pass Net Zero Emissions
Law-GOV.UK. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-becomes-first-major-economy-to-pass-net-zero-
emissions-law (accessed on 14 February 2022).
3.
CCC (Committee on Climate Change). The Sixth Carbon Budget: The UK’s Path to Net Zero. Committee on Climate Change Copy-
right. 2020. Available online: https://www.biee.org/meeting/the-sixth- carbon-budget-the-uks-path- to-net-zero/ (accessed on
14 February 2022).
4.
IEA (International Energy Agency). Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector; IEA Publications: Paris, France, 2021.
5.
Carmichael, R.; Dobson, R.; Greaves, J.; Whitmarsh, L. How Behaviour Change Will Unlock Net-Zero; Energy Research Partnership:
Birmingham, UK, 2021.
6. Stern, P.C. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000,56, 407–424. [CrossRef]
7.
Minx, J.; Baiocchi, G.; Wiedmann, T.; Barrett, J.; Creutzig, F.; Feng, K.; Förster, M.; Pichler, P.P.; Weisz, H.; Hubacek, K. Carbon
footprints of cities and other human settlements in the UK. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013,8, 035039. [CrossRef]
8.
Jackson, T. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change; A Report to the
Sustainable Development Research Network; Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey: Surrey, BC, Canada, 2005;
ISBN 0958-305X.
9. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991,50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
10.
Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol.
2009,29, 309–317. [CrossRef]
11.
Geller, E.S. The Challenge of Increasing Proenvironment Behavior. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology; John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 525–540. ISBN 0-471-40594-9.
12.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change; Working Group III
Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Summary for Policymakers; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016; p. 656. [CrossRef]
13.
Creutzig, F.; Fernandez, B.; Haberl, H.; Khosla, R.; Mulugetta, Y.; Seto, K.C. Beyond Technology: Demand-Side Solutions for
Climate Change Mitigation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016,41, 173–198. [CrossRef]
14. Newton, P. Low-carbon precincts for low-carbon living. Carbon Manag. 2014,5, 5–8. [CrossRef]
15.
HMG (Her Majesty Government). Securing the Future. Delivering UK Sustainable Development Strategy; The Stationery Office:
Norwich, UK, 2005.
16.
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government). Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change; Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office: Norwich, UK, 2007.
17.
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government). Planning Policy Statement: Eco-Towns; Communities and Local
Government Publications: London, UK, 2009.
18.
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government). Locally-Led Garden Villages, Towns and Cities; Department for
Communities and Local Government: London, UK, 2016.
19.
Morris, E.S. Down with ECO-towns! Up with ECO-communities. Or Is There a Need for Model Eco-towns? A Review of the
2009–2010 Eco-town Proposals in Britain. In Eco-City Planning: Policies, Practice and Design; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2011; ISBN 978-94-007-0383-4.
20.
Manns, J. Eco-towns, New Labour and Sustainable Residential Development. People Place Policy Online
2008
,2, 132–139. [CrossRef]
21.
Rose, S. A Town Called Eco: What Notions of Sustainable Development do the Government’s Proposed Eco-Towns Embody? CSERGE
Working Paper EDM No. 09-05. 2009. Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/obitstream/10419/48807/1/601514467.pdf
(accessed on 14 February 2022).
22.
TNH (Transport for New Homes). Garden Villages and Garden Towns: Visions and Reality. 2020. Available online: https:
//www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/the-project/garden-villages- and-garden-towns/ (accessed on 14 February 2022).
23.
Smart Growth, UK. Garden Towns & Villages: Unwanted, Unnecessary and Unsustainable. 2017. Available online: https:
//smartgrowthuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Garden_Communities_Report_2020.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2022).
24.
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government). National Planning Policy Framework; Department for Communities
and Local Government: London, UK, 2012.
25.
MHCLG (Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government). National Planning Policy Framework; Ministry of Housing,
Communities and Local Government: London, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-1-5286-1033-9.
26.
MHCLG (Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government). National Planning Policy Framework; Ministry of Housing,
Communities and Local Government: London, UK, 2021.
27.
CSE (Centre for Sustainable Energy). TCPA (Town and Country Planning Association); Response to National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and National Model Design Code (NMDC) Consultation. 2021. Available online: https://www.cse.org.uk/
downloads/file/nppf-consultation-submission-march-2021.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2022).
28.
CSE (Centre for Sustainable Energy). Neighbourhood Planning in a Climate Emergency; Centre for Sustainable Energy: Bristol, UK, 2020.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 16 of 18
29.
Joss, S.; Tomozeiu, D.; Cowley, R. Eco-Cities: A Global Survey 2011; University of Westminster International Eco-Cities Initiative
Copyright© University of Westminster All: Westminster, UK, 2011; ISBN 9780957052703.
30.
Bayulken, B.; Huisingh, D. Are lessons from eco-towns helping planners make more effective progress in transforming cities into
sustainable urban systems: A literature review (part 2 of 2). J. Clean. Prod. 2015,109, 152–165. [CrossRef]
31.
Townshend, T. Why Aren’t We Building More Sustainable Residential Neighbourhoods in the UK. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan.
2007
,
2, 222–238. [CrossRef]
32.
Williams, K.; Dair, C. What Is Stopping Sustainable Building in England? Barriers Experienced by Stakeholders in Delivering
Sustainable Developments. Sustain. Dev. 2007,15, 135–147. [CrossRef]
33. Barton, H. Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2000; ISBN 1853835129.
34. Gibberd, J.T. Neighbourhood facilities for sustainability. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2013,179, 225–234. [CrossRef]
35. Codoban, N.; Kennedy, C.A. Metabolism of Neighborhoods. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2008,134, 21–31. [CrossRef]
36.
Fitzgerald, J.; Lenhart, J. Eco-districts: Can they accelerate urban climate planning? Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy
2015
,34, 364–380.
[CrossRef]
37. Falk, N.; Carley, M. Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods: Building Communities that Last; Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York, UK, 2012.
38.
Thomson, G.; Matan, A.; Newman, P. A Review of International Low Carbon Precincts to Identify Pathways for Mainstreaming
Sustainable Urbanism in Australia. In Proceedings of the SOAC Conference 2013 Proceedings, 26–29 November 2013; State of
Australian Cities Research Network: Sydney, Australia, 2013.
39. Codispoti, O. Sustainable urban forms: Eco-neighbourhoods in Europe. J. Urban. 2021, 1–26. [CrossRef]
40.
Pullen, S.; Zillante, G.; Arman, M.; Lou, W.; Zuo, J.; Chileshe, N. A Case Study Analysis of Sustainable and Affordable Housing.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 2015.
41. Fraker, H. The Hidden Potential of Sustainable Neighborhoods: Lessons from Low-Carbon Communities; Island Press: Washington, DC,
USA, 2013; ISBN 9781610914093.
42.
Joss, S. Eco-cities: The mainstreaming of urban sustainability—Key characteristics and driving factors. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan.
2011,6, 268–285. [CrossRef]
43. Lovell, H. Framing sustainable housing as a solution to climate change. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2004,6, 35–55. [CrossRef]
44.
Rutherford, J. Infrastructure Integration and Eco-City Futures: Permeability and Politics of the Closed Loop of Hammarby Sjöstad.
In Redeploying Urban Infrastructure; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Italy, 2020; Volume 2010, ISBN 9783030178871.
45.
Williams, K.; Dair, C.; Lindsay, M. Neighbourhood Design and Sustainable Lifestyles. In Dimensions of the Sustainable City 2;
Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 183–214.
46.
Seasons, M. Indicators and core area planning: Applications in Canada’s mid-sized cities. Plan. Pract. Res.
2003
,18, 63–80.
[CrossRef]
47.
Wingfield, J.; Bell, M.; Miles-Shenton, D.; South, T.; Lowe, B. Evaluating the Impact of an Enhanced Energy Performance Standard on
Load-Bearing Masonry Domestic Construction Understanding the Gap between Designed and Real Performance: Lessons from Stamford
Brook. Project Report; Department for Communities and Local Government: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-1-4098-2891-4.
48.
BSRIA (Building Services Research and Information Association). Hanham Hall Monitoring and Evaluation; Summary Report
October 2015; BSRIA Limited: Bracknell, UK, 2015.
49.
Lowe, R.; Altamirano, H. Innovate UK Building Performance Evaluation. One Brighton—Ongoing Monitoring. Phase 2: In-Use
Performance & Post Occupancy Evaluation; University College London: London, UK, 2014.
50.
EST (Energy Saving Trust). Energy Efficiency Best Practice in Housing. The Hockerton Housing Project; Energy Saving Trust: London,
UK, 2004.
51.
Sorrell, S. Jevons’ Paradox revisited: The evidence for backfire from improved energy efficiency. Energy Policy
2009
,37, 1456–1469.
[CrossRef]
52.
Vale, B.; Vale, R. Domestic energy use, lifestyles and POE: Past lessons for current problems. Build. Res. Inf.
2010
,38, 578–588.
[CrossRef]
53.
Flynn, A.; Yu, L.; Feindt, P.; Chen, C. Eco-cities, governance and sustainable lifestyles: The case of the Sino-Singapore Tianjin
Eco-City. Habitat Int. 2016,53, 78–86. [CrossRef]
54.
Gatersleben, B.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environ.
Behav. 2002,34, 335–362. [CrossRef]
55.
Femenias, P.; Kadefors, A.; Eden, M. The Demonstration Project as ‘Tool’ for Client Driven Innovation: Exploring the Potential
From a Swedish Perspective. In Proceedings of the Proceedings from the CIB Conference Changing Roles, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 3–4 October 2009.
56.
Bioregional. Seven Years On. The Impact of the UK ’ s Best Known Eco-Village and Its Residents; BioRegional Development Group:
Surrey, UK, 2009.
57.
Quilgars, D.; Dyke, A.; Wallace, A.; West, S. Making a Sustainable Community: Life in Derwenthorpe, York, 2012–2018; Joseph
Rowntree Foundation: York, UK, 2019.
58.
Amarach Research. Adamstown Residents Survey. A Presentation Prepared For South Dublin County Council; Amarach Research:
Dublin, Ireland, 2009.
59.
Hunt, D.V.L.; Lombardi, D.R.; Jefferson, I.; Rogers, C.D.F.; Butler, D.; Memon, F.A. Appraising infrastructure for new towns in
Ireland. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Urban Des. Plan. 2012,165, 103–121. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 17 of 18
60.
Freytag, T.; Gössling, S.; Mössner, S. Living the green city: Freiburg’s Solarsiedlung between narratives and practices of sustainable
urban development. Local Environ. 2014,19, 644–659. [CrossRef]
61.
Nobis, C. The impact of car-free housing districts on mobility behaviour—Case study. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ.
2003
,67, 701–710.
[CrossRef]
62.
Vestbro, D.U. Conflicting perspectives in the development of Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm. In Rebuilding the City Managing
the Built Environment and Remediation of Brownfields; Vestbro, D.U., Ed.; The Baltic University Press: Upsala, Sweden, 2007;
pp. 1277–1279.
63.
Mahzouni, A. The “Policy Mix” for Sustainable Urban Transition: The city district of Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm. Environ.
Policy Gov. 2015,25, 288–302. [CrossRef]
64.
Green, A. Hållbar Energianvändning i Svensk Stadsplanering: Från Visioner till Uppföljning av Hammarby Sjöstad och Västra
Hamnen. Ph.D. Thesie, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 2006.
65.
Pandis Iverot, S.; Brandt, N. The development of a sustainable urban district in Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden? Environ.
Dev. Sustain. 2011,13, 1043–1064. [CrossRef]
66.
DEFRA (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs). Statistics on Waste Managed by Local Authorities in England in 2019/20;
A National Statistics Publication: London, UK, 2021.
67. Flyvbjerg, B. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq. 2006,12, 219–245. [CrossRef]
68.
Yin, R.K. Applications of Case Study Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; ISBN 9781412989169.
69.
Leaman, A. BUS Occupant Survey Method: Details for Licensees. 2011. Available online: https://www.usablebuildings.co.uk/
BUSMethodology.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2022).
70.
ONS (Office for National Statistics). Census: Qualifications and Students, Local Authorities in England and Wales; Office for National
Statistics: Newport, UK; Titchfield, UK; London, UK, 2011.
71.
Quilgars, D.; Dyke, A.; Tunstall, R.; West, S. A Sustainable Community? Life at Derwenthorpe 2012–2015; Joseph Rowntree
Foundation: York, UK, 2015.
72.
Newton, P.; Meyer, D. Exploring the attitudes-action gap in household resource consumption: Does “Environmental Lifestyle”
segmentation align with consumer behaviour? Sustainability 2013,5, 1211–1233. [CrossRef]
73.
Hostetler, M.; Noiseux, K. Are green residential developments attracting environmentally savvy homeowners? Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2010,94, 234–243. [CrossRef]
74.
DEFRA (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs). Public Attitudes and Behaviours towards the Environment-Tracker
Survey. Final Report to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs; Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs:
London, UK, 2009.
75.
DEFRA (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs). Local Authority Collected Waste Statistics—Local Authority Data
2019–2020; A National Statistics Publication: London, UK, 2021.
76. OTB (Organic Trade Board). A Fresh Look at the Organic Consumer; Organic Trade Board: Andover, MA, USA, 2015.
77.
DAFM (Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine). Bord Bia Organic Consumer Research Study; Ipsos MRBI: Dublin, Ireland, 2014.
78.
DT (Department for Transport). National Travel Survey; Table NT0409; Average Number of Trips (Trip Rates) by Purpose and Main
Mode; Department for Transport: London, UK, 2017.
79.
OCC (Oxfordshire County Council). Travel Behaviour Demonstration Project. Travel Behaviour Survey Summery of Results. Au-
tumn/Winter 2010/2011; Oxfordshire County Council: Oxford, UK, 2011.
80.
OCC (Oxfordshire County Council). 2011 Census Summary. 2014. Available online: www.oxford.gov.uk/districtdatapublications
(accessed on 14 February 2022).
81. WRAP. Increasing Recycling in Urban Areas; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2018.
82.
Phillips, P.S.; Tudor, T.; Bird, H.; Bates, M. A critical review of a key Waste Strategy Initiative in England: Zero Waste Places
Projects 2008-2009. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011,55, 335–343. [CrossRef]
83.
Read, M.; Gregory, M.K.; Phillips, P.S. An evaluation of four key methods for monitoring household waste prevention campaigns
in the UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009,54, 9–20. [CrossRef]
84.
Wang, M.C.; MacLeod, K.E.; Steadman, C.; Williams, L.; Bowie, S.L.; Herd, D.; Luluquisen, M.; Woo, M. Is the Opening of a
Neighborhood Full-Service Grocery Store Followed by a Change in the Food Behavior of Residents? J. Hunger Environ. Nutr.
2007,2, 3–18. [CrossRef]
85.
Guido, G. Behind Ethical Consumption: Purchasing Motives and Marketing Strategies for Organic Food Products, Non-GMOs, Bio-Fuels;
Peter Lang: Bern, Switzerland, 2009; ISBN 978-3-0343-0095-7.
86.
Evers, A.; Hodgson, N.L. Food choices and local food access among Perth’s community gardeners. Local Environ.
2011
,16,
585–602. [CrossRef]
87.
Patt, A.; Aplyn, D.; Weyrich, P.; van Vliet, O. Availability of private charging infrastructure influences readiness to buy electric
cars. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019,125, 1–7. [CrossRef]
88. Fishman, E.; Washington, S.; Haworth, N. Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature. Transp. Rev. 2013,33, 148–165. [CrossRef]
89.
Bonsall, P. Car Share and Car Clubs: Potential Impacts. Final Report for DTLR and the Motorists Forum; Institute for Transport Studies,
University of Leeds: Leeds, UK, 2002.
90.
Hanson, S.; Hanson, P. The Travel-Activity Patterns of Urban Residents: Dimensions and Relationships to Sociodemographic
Characteristics. Econ. Geogr. 1981,57, 332–347. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 4143 18 of 18
91.
Daly, M. Quantifying the environmental impact of ecovillages and co-housing communities: A systematic literature review. Local
Environ. 2017,22, 1358–1377. [CrossRef]
92.
Willett, J. Eco Towns, Complexity and Understanding. In Proceedings of the Regional Studies Annual International Conference,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK, 17 April 2011; pp. 1–14.
93.
Smith, A. Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag.
2007
,19,
427–450. [CrossRef]
94.
CST (Council for Science and Technology). Achieving Net Zero Carbon Emissions through a Whole Systems Approach: CST Report;
Council for Science and Technology: London, UK, 2020.
