INOM
EXAMENSARBETE SAMHÄLLSBYGGNAD,
AVANCERAD NIVÅ, 30 HP ,
STOCKHOLM SVERIGE 2020
Can We Plan for Social
Sustainability?
A Study of Stora Sköndal, Stockholm
ERIKA SVENSSON
Abstract
The foundation Stora Sköndal is currently planning a city development programme with a focus on creation of a modern, socially sustainable urban district. The programme is called “Framtidens Stora Sköndal”. With close collaboration with the city planning office in Stockholm and with the aim to contribute to the goals that the City of Stockholm has set for a development of a coherent and socially sustainable city, the foundation aims to build “an inclusive area, characterized by empathy and an open-minded attitude” where people from different backgrounds, different origins, with different economical, physical, and psychological abilities can meet and live together.
The programme plan encompasses new housing for approximately 10,000 additional dwellers and thousands of new workplaces. It also includes for example, six character areas and six principles for urban planning that have been developed for the programme to support the goals of creating a socially sustainable urban district of Sköndal. The programme is planned to be implemented by 2035 hence, within this study it will not be possible to draw any conclusions on the final result. Rather, this study is a descriptive study that discusses theory, visions, programme documents and the process behind the programme and the different actors involved.
The study has showed that the programme for Framtidens Stora Sköndal has a potential to deliver at least some part of the visions and goals they aiming at. However, the process and the implantation of a socially sustainable district can meet challenges along the way. The individuals have been shown to play an important role in the development and implementation of the programme. Furthermore, the steering effects of economy seems to trump even strong ideas and visions. Politics are other factors that have been showed being a game changer.
Key Words: social sustainability, Stora Sköndal, social capital, urban planning, knowledge transfer, process, cohesion, community stability, safety, place identity, accessibility, well-being
Sammanfattning
Kan vi planera för social hållbarhet?: En studie om Stora Sköndal, Stockholm.
Stiftelsen Stora Sköndal planerar och utvecklar för närvarande ett program för urban stadsutveckling med fokus på att skapa en modern, socialt hållbart stadsdel. Programmet heter ’Framtidens Stora Sköndal’. Med nära samarbete med stadsplaneringskontoret i Stockholm och med målet att bidra till Stockholms stads mål för att skapa en enad stad som är socialt hållbar, vill stiftelsen bygga ”ett inkluderande område som kännetecknas av empati och en öppensinnad attityd ”där människor med olika bakgrund, olika ursprung, med olika ekonomiska, fysiska och psykologiska förmågor kan mötas och leva tillsammans.
Programplanen omfattar nya bostäder för cirka 10 000 ytterligare invånare och tusentals nya arbetsplatser. Den inkluderar till exempel sex karaktärområden och sex principer för stadsplanering som har utvecklats inom programmet för att stödja målen med att göra Sköndal till en socialt hållbart stadsdel. Programmet är planerat att vara klart år 2035, varför det inom ramarna för denna studie inte kommer vara möjligt att dra några slutsatser om det slutgiltiga resultatet. Snarare är denna studie en beskrivande studie som diskuterar teori, visioner, programdokument och processen bakom programmet och de olika inblandade aktörerna.
representerar de olika aktörerna involverade i planprocessen och implementeringen har visat sig spela en avgörande roll i utvecklingen och genomförandet av programmet. Processen och implementeringen av det socialt hållbart distriktet pågår under en väldigt lång period och det finns många utmaningar längs med vägen. Ekonomins förutsättningar och styrande effekter trumfar även starka idéer och visioner. Politik är en annan faktor som har visat sig påverka betydande delar av programmet utifrån hur det initialt beslutades utformas.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my gratitude to all who, in different ways, have supported me during this period of research and writing.
First, I would sincerely like to thank my supervisor Maria Håkansson, who has been an amazing supervisor that throughout the hole working process have supported me in my work. She has been a constructive and supporting discussion partner, always contributing with interesting feedback, insights and guidance.
Many thanks to the interviewees who been so helpful and generous with their time answering my questions and sharing their views and understandings. Their knowledge and insights have been of great value for my work.
Also many thanks to dear Andrea Saleh and James Fenske, I am so thankful for their valuable support and contribution to my degree project.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 7
1.1 Social sustainability and urban planning... 8
1.2 The Commission for a Socially Sustainable Stockholm and the vision set for year 2040. ... 9
1.3 Framtidens Stora Sköndal - a vision for a socially sustainable urban district ... 9
1.4 The Foundation Stora Sköndal ... 12
1.5 Research aim and questions ... 13
1.6 Delimitations ... 13
2. Social sustainability and planning ... 14
2.1 The global perspective on social sustainability ... 14
2.2 Social sustainability and its different dimensions in the urban context. ... 14
2.3 Social Sustainability and the role of Social Capital ... 16
2.4 Social sustainability in urban planning practices in a Swedish context: From theoretical framework to practical politics and implementation ... 17
2.5 Social sustainability in Stockholm ... 19
2.5.1 Suggestions for the living and urban environment of Stockholm ... 19
2.5.2 Stockholm - a mosaic of success and failures ... 20
3. Theoretical framework. ... 23
3.1.1 The theme of Social Cohesion ... 23
3.1.2 The theme of Community stability ... 24
3.1.3 The theme of Place identity. ... 25
3.1.4 The theme of Accessibility ... 25
3.1.5 The process... 26
4. Methodology ... 26
4.1 Research approach and purpose ... 27
4.2 Data collection ... 27
4.2.1 Desk research... 28
4.2.2 Semi-structured interviews ... 31
4.3 On-line survey ... 34
4.4 Unstructured field observations ... 35
4.5 Analysis... 35
5. Case study: Framtidens Stora Sköndal and social sustainability ... 36
5.1 Sköndal – today’s physical environment ... 36
5.1.2 Lilla Sköndal ... 40
5.1.3 (South) West area ‘the Old district’ of Sköndals... 42
5.2 The case ’Framtidens Stora Sköndal’ ... 43
5.3 The programme for Stora Sköndal – approved documents ... 45
5.4 The process behind the programme: ... 46
5.5 The six character-areas of Stora Sköndal ... 47
5.6 The six principles for the urban construction ... 48
5.7 Area specific characters of Stora Sköndal – enhancing social sustainability ... 50
5.8 Focus on social and ecological functions for public places ... 52
5.9 Mobility ... 53
5.10 The 4 M-houses ... 54
5.11 The Culture strategy - a way to create social sustainability in Sköndal ... 55
5.12 Child consequence analysis ... 55
5.13 Social consequence analysis ... 56
6. Results and Analysis – Social sustainability in Stora Sköndal ... 57
6.1 Analytic framework: how to understand Stora Sköndal’s vision and programme from a socially sustainable, urban planning viewpoint ... 57
6.2 Social Cohesion ... 58
6.3 Place identity and community stability ... 62
6.4 The child and the youth perspective... 65
6.5 Safety ... 66
6.6 Accessibility ... 67
6.7 The Process - how to go from vision to a lived environment with social sustainability. ... 69
7. Discussion ... 76
7.1 The process – the planned and the possible outcomes ... 76
7.2 The lonely player ... 78
7.3 Youth, the silent group in the planning process ... 79
7.4 Connecting social dimension to territorial dimension to create ‘everyday rubbing’ ... 80
7.5 The future ... 82
7.6 Framtidens Sköndal - a step away from monoculture, but still not ... 83
7.7 Summarizing conclusions... 83
7.8 Limitations, priorities and recommendations for further research ... 86
8. References ... 88
List of Abbreviations
DHS – Delegationen för hållbara städer – the Delegation for sustainable cities CSSS – The Commission for a Socially Sustainable Stockholm
List of organizations, authorities and reports
Swedish names are followed by an English translationDelegationen för hållbara städer (DHS) – the Delegation for sustainable cities
Kommissionen för ett socialt hållbart Stockholm – The Commission for a Socially Sustainable Stockholm
Kommissionen för ett socialt hållbart Malmö – the Commission For a Socially Sustainable Malmö. Boverket – National Board of Housing, Building and Planning
Social hållbarhet i stadsutveckling? Uppföljning av tio projekt i Svenska städer. – Social sustainability in urban planning? Monitoring of 10 projects in Swedish cities.
Kan social kapital byggas in i våra bostadsområden och därmed förbättra invånarnas upplevda och mentala hälsa? - Can social capital be ´built into’ our living areas and thereby improve the residents’ perceived and mental health?
Stadsbyggnadskontoret- The city planning office
Från delad till enad stad. Översiktsplanering för social hållbarhet. – From a split to a united city - Comprehensive planning for social sustainability
Skillnadernas Stockholm – Stockholm of Differences
1.
Introduction
Stockholm is a fast-growing city that has increased its number of residents every year since the 1980’s. During the last decade alone, it grew with 152 000 inhabitants, which corresponds to nearly half of the population of Sweden’s third largest city, Malmö. For the coming decade (2019-2028), the number of inhabitants is expected to grow with a further 141 000 persons (Tillväxt- och regionplaneförvaltningen. 2019). Hence, urbanisation has been intensified and this trend is predicted to continue for the foreseeable future. Parallel to the urbanisation trend, there is a trend of higher life expectancy1 and a migration influx. Consequently, Stockholm has a big population of elderly people to take care of and a significant number of non-Swedish born residents. In Stockholm, 25 percent of residents are born in another country, whereas in Sweden as a whole the average of non-Swedish born residents is 19 percent (SCB 2019). A significant variety of ethnicities are therefore represented throughout the country, especially in the region of greater Stockholm and in other lager cities. With the rapid urbanisation trend, changing demographic patterns and a housing shortage, come urban challenges and tensions. Stockholm and other Swedish cities are facing a severe housing shortage, high costs for housing and insufficient affordable housing. Thus, it is difficult for many people to get a decent and secure place to call home. Challenges within the urban context are many. For example, it is, and will become even more difficult to recruit staff to work within the elderly care sector. Researchers also agree that the integration of migrants and the creation of a coherent city are other complex challenges (Nilsson 2016, Dahlin 2016).
The global and national trends and challenges presented above, together with Swedish housing policies are some explanations for the residential segregation that exists in Stockholm (and other cities in Sweden). It has become a fact that residential areas often consist of either a concentration of low-income people, or a concentration of middleclass and high-low-income residents. Furthermore, residential racial concentration is a common phenomenon in Sweden (SCB 2018). Different residential areas consist of either a majority of ethnic Swedes or a majority of non-Swedish born residents.
Hence, the willingness and capacity to deal with the demographic and ethnic diversity and the cultural differences that exist among and between the residents of Stockholm will be crucial for how Stockholm will be able to create a socially sustainable city for the present and the future to come (Abrahamsson. 2013. p. 11).
The concept of sustainability has gained political momentum in Sweden and the discussions and ways of implementations for socially sustainable cities have been prioritised by local and national politicians during the last decade (see more details in section 1.1 and 1.2).
This is a study of the residential district Sköndal in southern Stockholm and its urban development project called Framtidens Stora Sköndal (see section1.3) with high ambitions to create a socially sustainable district in line with the sustainability ambitions of the city of Stockholm. This chapter will introduce the reader to the concept of social sustainability in an urban planning context in general and in specific present how the developers of Framtidens Stora Sköndal i.e. the Foundation Stora
Sköndal, have approached and interpreted the concept within the context of the city of Stockholm. Lastly, the problem formulation for this report will be presented.
1.1
Social sustainability and urban planning
Depending on where and how one lives, the qualities that a place offers to its residents such as; distance to work-places, public transport, recreation, schools, amenities, nature and attractive places, the quality of life of residents will be affected in different ways.
During the last decades, sustainability issues have gained importance in the political discourse as central factors to work with for our societies in general, and in specific within urban planning. Since the UN-member states in 2015 signed the Agenda 2030 agreement the three dimensions of sustainability, i.e. ecological, economic and social sustainability, have gained even more acknowledgement among politicians, organisations, civil actors and people in general. This has been visible in Sweden, not least in the area of urban planning where the concept of social sustainability often is in focus. The concept is neither absolute nor constant, hence, it varies depending on time and space as well as, the current context and discourse of each place. It comes with many descriptions and it is often diffusely defined, which makes it complicated to describe, understand and work with (Legeby et al. 2015 p. 9).
Despite this, or maybe because of this, national and local politicians in Sweden have produced several reports and guidelines to improve knowledge and different methods on how to understand the concept of social sustainability in the urban context, how to put it into practise and how to build socially sustainable societies. One example of that is that in March 2011, the Swedish Government appointed the ‘Delegation for sustainable cities’ to work with urban sustainability issues. The assignment extends until May 2022 and the overarching goals for urban planning in Sweden are formulated like this:
“Sustainable cities are inclusive and accessible urban environments that offer all people an attractive and green living environment. Proximity makes it easy to live your everyday life and to make your way with sustainable transport such as walking and cycling. A holistic approach to planning together with smart solutions contributes to cities where people can live climate smart, healthy and safe.”(Hållbar stad 2020)
One of the commission’s explicit assignments is to work for “strengthening the social dimension in sustainable urban development” (Regeringen 2011).
1.2
The Commission for a Socially Sustainable Stockholm and the vision set for year
2040.
In 2015 the city of Stockholm established the Commission for a Socially Sustainable Stockholm (hereinafter CSSS) with the aim to analyse the different living conditions in the municipalities within Stockholm county and to give recommendations and actions for how to create an equal and socially sustainable city. In practice, this implies that the CSSS shall provide Stockholm city with a toolbox for monitoring and budgeting in a fashion so that societal resources are used in a way that more residents can realize their lives and ambitions through studies and/or work. Focus shall be on social sustainability, within the frames “set up” by nature. The local economy shall be the toolbox that creates the socially sustainable society desired for Stockholm (Bremberg et al. 2015. p. 9).
The commission’s work, which shall be based on scientific grounds and be performed in collaboration with “independent researchers”, resulted in several reports within the following four focus areas:
• Upbringing & education • Label & livelihood
• Living & urban environment • Democracy & safety
From the myriad reports produced by the CSSS, I have selected three to work with for my research. The most relevant findings from them are presented and discussed in section 2.5.
‘Vision 2040 - A Stockholm for Everyone’ is a document presenting the vision for how Stockholm should be by 2040, where all parts of the vision have a focus on sustainability. All committees and corporate boards within the city's organization are commissioned to work in the direction of the vision. The document was approved in 2015 (Stockholm stad 2015).
1.3
Framtidens Stora Sköndal - a vision for a socially sustainable urban district
7 kilometres south of Stockholm city lies the district of Sköndal. The district is home to around 10,000 residents (Stockholms stad 2018a) and it is located between the heavily trafficked highways 73 (Nynäsvägen) and 229, the Flaten nature reserve and the lake Drevviken. A significant portion of the land area within the Sköndal district is owned by the Foundation Stora Sköndal. This area is called ‘Stora Sköndal’ (see Figure 01) and is approximately 84 hectares in size (Stiftelsen Stora Sköndal 2020a).
Figure 01 Left map shows parts of Stockholm and its southern suburbs. The red lines marks the district of Sköndal, surrounded by highway 73 to the west and 229 to the and north. The eastern side of Sköndal is adjacent to the nature reserve Flaten, and the southern part meets the waterfront of lake Drevviken. Right map shows the Sköndal district and the programme area of Stora Sköndal i.e. the case study area for this thesis work. Source: Adopted from Google maps. 2020 and Stiftelsen Stora Sköndal. (2016).
The vision that the project Framtidens Stora Sköndal is based on is the desire from the foundation to make a place and a space where the urban challenges that Stockholm is facing today can be met. Challenges addressed in the vision
are; lack of housing, providing good communication and ecological sustainability. Stora Sköndal aims to “be an inclusive area, characterized by empathy and an open-minded attitude There is an explicit ambition to be an important actor when it comes to reaching the goals that have been defined by the City of Stockholm. Hence, Stora Sköndal aims to create a united, equal and accessible city that facilitates meetings between people and to be a role model for planning with a focus on social sustainability.” where people from different backgrounds, different origins, with different economical, physical, and psychological abilities can meet and live together. (Stora Sköndal. Vision., Landskapslaget et al. 2019a).
Figure 03 Factsheet 1 presents the urban planning goals formulated by the Foundation Stora Sköndal. To do so, The Foundation Stora Sköndal’s objective is “to work for a socially sustainable area where schools, health care, nature, dwellings, workplaces and associations offer togetherness and safety” (ibid). As mentioned above there are some clear connections between the foundation’s vision and developing plans for creating a socially sustainable district of Stora Sköndal and the general visions made by the city of Stockholm and the guiding documents made by the CSSS.
Factsheet 1
Urban planning goals for Framtidens Stora Sköndal social sustainability implicates that:
• The urban district is built to be inclusive. Why there will be both rental and private housing options. “There will be room for everyone here”.
• The district will be built with a variation of architecture & form that aims to emit openness & being welcoming. It shall also facilitate meetings through multifunctional places such as the innovative M-house that is both a garage and a meeting place.
• The district is environmental friendly. The area has great natural resource that shall be taken care of in the best way. The district shall provide minimal environmental impact and characterized by biological diversity where the beautiful nature and the city district melt together in a natural way. • The district implements new technics to improve
1.4
The Foundation Stora Sköndal
The actor behind this urban planning project with high ambitions of building a socially sustainable urban region in Stockholm is a non-profit
organization that was founded in 1898 in Gävle, with the purpose to educate deacons. Since 1905 it has been based in Sköndal in Stockholm.
At Stora Sköndal’s webpage, they introduce themselves as “a foundation that without profit works with; support, care, welfare, education and research. We work for making it possible for individuals to grow and develop from within their own unique conditions.” (Stora Sköndal 2020b). Today they host and give support to a range of people through their services and activities, such as elderly care, preschool, unaccompanied refugee children, neurologic rehabilitation, a university and people with disabilities (ibid). Their work is done without profit and within a diaconal philosophy i.e. to serve people without expecting anything in return.
In the area of Stora Sköndal, (where the foundation and the majority of their activities are based) there are many old buildings that require maintenance and restoration. The foundation also wishes to expand and grow with their activities within psychiatry, education, research, elderly care etc. These are all expensive undertakings, and to be able to expand and restore, the foundation has decided to sell off some of their land.
Figure 04 Factsheet 2 Key words and goals for the programme ‘Framtidens Stora Sköndal’
By doing so, Stora Sköndal visualizes the possibilities to expand and diversify their ongoing work in the area. Through the planned densification and investments in the area, the foundation foresees expansion, development and improvement of their undertakings at the same time as they can be an important actor and role model of how a socially sustainable area can look. (Landskapslaget et al. 2019a. p. 7., Stora Sköndal. Vision)
.
Factsheet 2
Key words for Framtidens Stora Sköndal:
• Inclusion – possibilities for togetherness & belonging. • Variation – diversity in
architecture, activities, housing & in external environment.
• Environmental consciousness – to plan, construct & manage the area with as little as possible environmental impact. Urban planning goals:
1. Let new streets, places and buildings mirror the focus on diversity and variation.
2. Let the nature and the water in the unique environment be prominent in the cityscape. 3. Be able to provide both rental
and tenant-owned dwellings to meet different needs.
Figure 05 Image of Stora Sköndal, located south of Stockholm city2 Source: Stiftelsen Stora Sköndal
1.5
Research aim and questions
There is a need to understand the definition of social sustainability within the built environment in the Swedish context and how the concept is connected to planning practise and implementation so that it can function as a tool for creating sustainable cities. Authorities on different levels (national as well as local) and researchers are producing a growing number of reports and analyses on the subject. The main question is if the national and the bigger cities’ local policy-work, aiming to create social sustainability, actually generate more socially sustainable cities. Hence, the aim of this study is to investigate if the implementations planned for Stora Sköndal can contribute to a more socially sustainable district and thereby to a more sustainable Stockholm.
To find answers to this overarching query, the following research questions are applied:
1) What factors are claimed both by theory and policy to contribute to social sustainability? 2) How are the visions for Stora Sköndal interpreted and applied in the urban planning process,
related to a social sustainability framework?
3) Who are the actors and what role have they played?
4) Are there any long-term strategies to secure social sustainability in the implementation phase of the plan?
1.6
Delimitations
When I refer to the concept of social sustainability, I refer to it in an urban planning context. I have chosen to look at the concept mainly from a contemporary Swedish and Stockholm based perspective. Though the programme for Stora Sköndal is merely in its initial phase and a lot is yet to be done before the district is finalized and the answer on whether the foundations goals are achieved or not will not be included in this study. Rather, this study will be a descriptive study who discusses theory,
visions, programme documents and the process behind the programme and the different actors involved.
2.
Social sustainability and planning
This chapter presents different international and Swedish views on knowledge about social sustainability within urban planning from theoretical and policy perspectives. This forms part of my theoretical framework, and together with material on my case, stands for the foundation of this research report.
2.1
The global perspective on social sustainability
With the mission from the General Assembly of the United Nations to create “a global agenda for change” the World Commission on Environment and Development, under the lead of the former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, wrote the “Brundtland report” ‘Our Common Future’. It was published in 1987. Social sustainability was not mentioned as a specific concept for sustainability. Rather a range of sustainability issues including economic, social and ecological aspects were all discussed under the umbrella-concept of sustainability and how our actions and priorities in the present affect future generations: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987). However, social issues related to the urban context were addressed also by then. For example, when claiming “that unbalanced growth is increasing interregional disparities and creating economic and social imbalances that can have serious consequences in terms of national unity and political stability” (ibid). Similar unwanted consequences are addressed by the CSSS as well (see following sections).
In the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the UN includes cities and communities as one out of 17 specific goals to focus on. UN’s sustainable development goal number 11, ‘Sustainable Cities and Communities’ focuses on the importance of creating sustainable cities in a context of rapid urbanisation and when two thirds of the world population is expected to live in urban spaces by the year 2050. In the UN’s presentation of what a sustainable city is, they refer to “creating career and business opportunities, safe and affordable housing, and building resilient societies and economies. It involves investment in public transport, creating green public spaces, and improving urban planning and management in participatory and inclusive ways.” (UNDP. 2020).
2.2
Social sustainability and its different dimensions in the urban context.
The concept of social sustainability is multi-dimensional and encompasses layers of complex concepts such as; health, safety, inclusiveness, social network, liveability, well-being and so on (Abrahamsson. 2013, Dempsey et al. 2011).
disparities of the concept are the main motivation of Dempsey et al. to “explore the definition of social sustainability within the urban context” (Dempsey et al. 2011). In their study they mainly use British urban references and mainly focus on the two following dimensions in their discussion: “equitable access and the sustainability of the community itself”. (ibid).
Their study resulted in a definition of five dimensions of collective aspects that affect the urban social life at community level. The authors consider these important as determinations of life quality on a local neighbourhood scale. The five dimensions are:
• Social interaction/social networks in the community
• Participation in collective groups and networks in the community • Community stability
• Pride/sense of place • Safety and security
Other researchers that have scrutinized the concept and meanings of social sustainability are included in the research network “Social Sustainability and Social Disintegration in Scandinavian Cities”. Under the flag of the network, Hans Abrahamsson (2013) discusses how the meaning of the concept “just and social sustainability in a Swedish, urban context can be understood”. He presents how globalisation is affecting Scandinavian countries and how geographical poverty is changing due to globalisation and migration flows. This change creates social tensions that are visible on the local level in Swedish cities. “A global South starts to grow side by side with a global North, without territorial borders” (Abrahamsson 2013). However, Abrahamsson sees possibilities in these globalisation trends and migration flows. Possibilities in the sense of opportunities for Nordic countries to create a fair and socially sustainable North, including migrations from the global South. At the same time as he sees potentials, he underlines the risks that can come with growing income and health gaps among the residents in cities, gaps that can grow to social conflicts (ibid p. 2).
Hence, the concept of social sustainability does not have an universal meaning, rather it is to be defined and interpreted depending on the specific social context it ought to be evaluated and understood in. (ibid p. 6). Abrahamsson connects the concepts of safety, development and justice, to social sustainability and argues that these three concepts are the pillars that social sustainability is based on. As illustrated in Figure 06 conditions for social sustainability spring from a society that provides the three concepts of safety, development and justice to its residents.
Figure 06 Abrahamsson’s triangle showing the three pillars that he argues social sustainability are based on. Source: Abrahamsson (2013) p. 13)
Social equity i.e. social inclusiveness and possibilities to perceive societal belonging are important ingredients for a socially sustainable society. Social equity is a concept that encompasses non-discriminatory possibilities for its residents when it comes to economic social and political participation.
2.3
Social Sustainability and the role of Social Capital
health. Hence, presence of amenities and services at a local level are significant but according to the report, the importance of network, a sense of belonging and social, relations are even more important. Other things the report presents as important factors that have effects on the residents’ health condition are the “local climate, the norms and the degree of trust and safety that exists in the area” (ibid).
In Emmelin and Eriksson’s report, five (5) central issues with scientific support were presented as important for the creation of socially sustainable cities. The explicit goal of the report and the Malmö commission’s work is to understand how to decrease the different health conditions that residents in Malmö have. To do so, the commission focuses on “social determinants for health and un-health […] examples of determinants are the early childhood years, school, unemployment, income, participation in the society, living environment, segregation and alienation” (Emmelin & Eriksson 2012).
The five suggestions are; “Facilitate social interactions by providing third spaces for interactions, Invest in attractive green- and recreational areas, Meet the need of safety, Improve the reputation of exposed areas, Create a balance between interconnecting and bridging social capital” e.g. create inclusive environments where cohesion between different kind of people is encouraged (Emmelin M. & Eriksson 2012., Dahlin Å. 2016). The different suggestions of how to create social sustainability in Malmö can all be recognized in the recommendations made by CSSS and in the different theories on social sustainability. All suggestions fit into one or more of the theoretical themes that I have created as an analytical framework presented in chapter 3.
2.4
Social sustainability in urban planning practices in a Swedish context: From
theoretical framework to practical politics and implementation
Social sustainability in the context of urban planning in Sweden has been given more attention during the last decade. Political initiatives on both national and local city levels around the country have been given priority to work with the concept. It is not only the several delegations for socially sustainable cities mentioned in earlier chapters that are working with these issues. Other examples are project supports that have been given to different construction projects with the aim of enhancing sustainability questions and how to work with it. For example, during the period of 2009-2014, the Delegation for Sustainable Cities (hereinafter DHS) are financially supporting (via the so-called DHS-support) up to 98 projects with the aim to promote sustainable urban planning. To understand how these projects in practice have approached the concept of social sustainability, Boverket, the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning decides to follow up ten (10) of the projects3. They do that via a report written by Eva Gustavsson and Ingemar Elander. In Gustavsson and Elander’s report to Boverket, they are linking the practical work done with the ten projects to scientific discussions on social sustainability. Based on the result, they have made a model of analysis. In their report “Social sustainability in urban planning? Monitoring of ten projects in Swedish cities”, they present several examples of how social sustainability has been approached and implemented as “practical policy” within urban projects (Elander & Gustavsson 2014. p. 41). Gustavsson and Elander use a theoretical framework in the form of a sustainability-pyramid (Figure 07) to frame the concept of social sustainability. The pyramid is a result of an earlier study on sustainability and urban planning projects
that the pair performed in 2013. (Gustavsson & Elander. 2013). The ideas behind social sustainability and the sustainability pyramid are presented by the researchers as “a vision and a comprehensive value that can be specified in different directions and with different focus”. This idea is in line with what earlier have been stated in this report that the meaning and content of social sustainability can varies and differ from time to time, and between places. The pyramid also shows that social sustainability as interpreted by Gustavsson and Elander is closely related to actual goals and action implementations for urban planning.
Figure 07 shows the “sustainability pyramid: From vision and values to goals, actions and indicators” Adopted from Elander and Gustavsson (2013)
According to Gustavsson and Elander’s report, the financial support from Boverket and DHS made it possible for the involved project partners to staff-increase their projects in the housing areas. The report also states that the DHS-support has contributed to a “strengthening of management with coordinating and/or communication skills”. These persons have been given important roles for outreach, coordination, strategic work and communication. As a general understanding presented by the authors of the report, it seems like the projects supported by Boverket should have been realized even without the funding, but more as traditional construction projects and not with focus on sustainability. Hence, the support served as a catalyst to enhance the sustainability aspects selected for each of the project and additionally, the projects have been well documented and disseminated at “conferences, exhibitions and at other events” (ibid . 42-43) and in this way served as branding and knowledge sharing.
conclusions found from this project was that socially related goals within urban planning must not stay on a policy level, but rather, through clear leadership be implemented in urban development projects. (Dahlin 2016 p. 10)
2.5
Social sustainability in Stockholm
Even though the three reports written for the CSSS, selected for this research, are written within the same time period and for the same specific town, i.e. Stockholm, it is clear that also the authors of these reports have had difficulties to define the concept of social sustainability. However, one thing that is identified as important for the context of Stockholm is the importance of Stockholm being a cohesive city4. The goal with a socially sustainable Stockholm is that the city’s amenities and services shall be able to provide all residents with possibilities to develop, based on their individual conditions. (Löfvenius 2016. p. 9). Goals with similar meaning can be found in the document ‘Vision 2040’ where it is stated that differences in living conditions between urban districts and groups shall be reduced and that public amenities and services shall be extended and better distributed throughout Stockholm (Stockholms stad. 2015).
2.5.1
Suggestions for the living and urban environment of Stockholm
In the report ‘From a split to a united city’ the author Åsa Dahlin claims that “urban planning shall contribute to, equal living conditions throughout the entire city and increase trust and social capital. It is important to meet the need of good housing for everyone and to create well-designed and safe public spaces, such as squares, streets and parks. It also concerns the ability to plan for accessibility to workplaces, public transport, schools, and other societal services, recreation, sport, and a vibrant cultural life.” However, Dahlin outlines two specific, two challenges that obstruct social sustainability in Stockholm, they are the lack of housing and the spatial segregation, often in combination with ethnic segregation (Dahlin 2016. p. 4).
Dahlin’s report also specifies some potential opportunities with urban planning and how it can be a tool to strengthen social sustainability in Stockholm by “reinforcing social value-creation”, on a short and long term basis. For example, special profile projects are suggested to strengthen specific vulnerable areas and Dahlin suggests that a proactive analytical model for Social Value Creation (SVA) shall be used throughout the planning processes in Stockholm. Other concrete actions she suggests with the aim to make Stockholm socially sustainable are related to knowledge development and sharing between researchers, municipalities and other actors involved in the urban planning process. She claims that knowledge transfer from “good examples” of projects with a focus on social sustainability are important for inspiration and learning (ibid p.p. 32-34).
Getting back to the issue of social and spatial segregation in Stockholm, Dahlin underlines this societal phenomenon as a severe problem for the city and its residents. She points at an investigation performed by ‘the Delegation for sustainable cities’ that claims, “this kind of segregation increases the risk of creating intolerance and antagonism between groups if they do not meet in the city”. According to the same investigation, socio-economically weak households tend to be concentrated in less attractive areas, which leads to even further “isolation, marginalisation and stigmatisation” (ibid p. 13). It is clear that segregation is considered as the main problem and rootcause of many of the existing
societal challenges the city is confronting (further examples of these challenges will be highlighted in the chapters). To break the trend of segregated areas, Dahlin suggests investments to upgrade the marginalised districts. This can include investments that are either physical (built environment) or social, i.e. support for activities that strengthen the creation of local social capital.
Furthermore, Dahlin suggests that planning should avoid creating areas with monocultures. The reasoning behind this is that different groups of people ought to meet and interact within an area, district or city, to avoid marginalisation and stigmatisation between groups. In Dahlin’s report, she often returns to the issue of spatial segregation as a severe challenge that can put future stability and wealth in Stockholm at stake. In the vision document, when presented how Stockholm looks like in 2040, the current situation and challenges with segregation and some groups being marginalized is turned into an asset and advantage for the city. Hence, the vision states that in the future, “Stockholm offers unique possibilities for people with different backgrounds to meet & extend experiences” and that people’s personal differences and different experiences are expected to be considered as assets both in cultural and work life (Stockholms stad. 2015).
In order to create a socially sustainable city, urban form is often considered an important tool to work with. The streets are presented as important places for interaction in the local context. Architecture, urban constructions and the flow of people in an area are important to enable the desired social processes in a district. The location of the buildings in relation to the streets, placement of entrances etc. Other aspects that urban planning shall enhance, according Dahlin’s report for CSSS is the childe- and equity perspective and the city shall make sure that all districts will have equally good access to greenery, water and a clean city (Dahlin 2016 p. 28).
As a tool to counteract on stigmatisation of areas and different individuals and groups, Dahlin suggests that the urban form shall be designed and shaped such as it promotes the development of social capital, and that shall be done by promoting different kind of interactions among people (ibid p 28).
2.5.2
Stockholm - a mosaic of success and failures
The report ‘Stockholm of Differences’ portrays an image of Stockholm as a growing, successful city that offers many opportunities for its residents. At the same time, it reveals an image of a city with increasing differences and with exposed socioeconomically weak groups – a polarised city where the spatial and ethnic segregation is very strong. To scrutinise the different living conditions of residents of Stockholm, the report is divided into the following five chapters; wellbeing & health, upbringing & education, work & provision, living & urban environment, democracy & safety (Bremberg et al. 2015). The patterns of the different living conditions among the residents are a recurring issue throughout all the themes of the chapters, where statistics almost always show a clear relationships between residential areas and the residents’ socioeconomic status. Hence, the spatial segregation affects all residents of Stockholm, in one way or another. Typical examples from the statistics analysed by Bremberg et al. (2015) shows data from different districts of Stockholm, often comparing some of the wealthiest districts with some of the poorest5. As illustrated in Figure 08 and Figure 09 the statistics from Stockholm County Council on public health, show that both self-estimated bad health rather than good health and for example, caries damage in children are strongly related to the social and spatial segregation that exists in Stockholm. Hence, there is a strong correlation between where one
lives and one’s actual and perceived health. Other behaviours and patterns in the society that vary significantly between the different districts are for example, life expectancy (that differs eight years between a person who resides in the upper-class district of Östermalm from a person residing in Skärholmen6), level of education, income level, level of employment etc. Löfvenius highlights that there is a correlation between areas where residents have a low sense of trust, and lower socioeconomic status; “Districts with low levels of trust also have lower socioeconomic conditions and vice versa” (Löfvenius. 2016. p. 9). This phenomenon is illustrated in Table 01, that shows the turnout of national elections from some districts in Stockholm. The highest number of voters compared to the lowest, differs by over 42%. Ålsten and Södra Ängby represent areas of Stockholm with the highest average income and also noted the highest turnout in the elections while Rinkeby and Husby represent areas with some of the lowest average incomes and lowest results election turnout (ibid p.p. 17-27).
Figure 08 (the left image) shows the percentage of three-year-olds with caries damaged teeth divided by district. A color scheme presents the statistics for the respective years between 2006 and 2014.
Figure 09 (the right image) shows the percentage of selfestimated bad health rather than good health for women and men respectively. Both images show how the statistics are divided by district within Stockholm (Adopted from Bremberg et al. 2015).
Table 01 shows the two Stockholm districts with the highest and lowest turnouts in national elections in 2010 and 2014. The column on the right shows the average income the age group 20- 64 from each district. (Adopted from Bremberg et al. 2015, Stockholms stad 2018c-f)
6 Östermalm is commonly known for being one of the most exclusive urban districts of Stockholm. Skärholmen represents one of the districts with high percentage of unemployment and foreign-born residents and in the comprehensive plan, it is appointed as one out of four focus areas where the city specially will focus on urban planning, housing construction and social sustainability (Stockholms stad. 2018g, Stockholms stad. 2017).
District Turnout in 2014 Turnout in 2010 Difference Average income (in SEK, 2017)
Rinkeby 51,7% 49,8% 1,9% 213 200
Husby 56,7% 55,2% -1,5% 240 400
Södra Ängby 94,0% 94,1% -0,1% 843 400
Bremberg et al. (2015) explain that there is an understanding among researchers that a divided city limits the possibilities in life for many of the city’s residents. Hence the goal with achieving social sustainability in Stockholm is that all ‘Stockholmers’ shall be given opportunities for self-fulfilment, based on individual conditions. The ultimate goal of social sustainability in Stockholm is to achieve well-being among the residents. In concrete terms, the Commission for a Socially Sustainable Stockholm claims that it is about how the city government, via preschools and schools, can smooth out differences among the residents. When it comes to children, the report mentions the importance of giving equal opportunities so they can reach the national knowledge goals. Other examples are that the city “shall ensure basic individual rights such as the right to work and the right to housing, affordable housing and that all residents of Stockholm have the right to a vibrant and safe local environment […] and accessibility” (Bremberg et al. 2015. p.p. 5-9). Furthermore, the city emphasizes the importance of people’s right and ability to participate and have influence, as important cornerstones for the creation of trust and safety. As illustrated in Figure 10, the three goal areas; self-fulfilment, solidarity and safety are important components within the society to achieve strengthening of social sustainability. Together, the goal areas are meant to create the wellbeing among all residents that Stockholm city so desires. Figure 10 shows the goal areas that the CSSS presents for increased social sustainability. (Adopted from Bremberg et al. 2015. p. 10)
Löfvenius approaches the issue of participation by discussing the importance of trust among people and to societal institutions. She claims that without trust there is no incentive to participate and be involved in societal changes. Research also shows civil society to have an important impact on people and their ability to trust and their willingness to participate. However, participation and civil society engagement have changed in their nature - from membership-driven associations towards engagement in loose networks and movements advocating single question issues. Hence, Löfvenius recommends for the city to do an in-depth analysis of what kind of actors are supported and how the city can be more flexible and adapt to the new patterns of behaviour. The aim is to understand how the city reaches out to different actors and how there can be a better balance among the actors representing civil society, social movements and networks that are supported by the city. Löfvenius therefore suggests that the city shall promote and create equal opportunities for local civil society organisations. Furthermore, she addresses a special need for support to citizen-driven meeting-places in vulnerable areas. (Löfvenius 2016. p. 8-10)
Stockholm by 2040 as a city that gives all residents equal conditions and that the reduced social gaps have made Stockholm into a ‘good example-city’ (Stockholms stad. 2015). Bremberg´s report looks at the connections between urban qualities and socioeconomic index, i.e. what kind of qualities of an area affect the end price for an apartment. A local investigation made for the city of Stockholm points at the tendency that people with high income and higher education tend to choose places of living in highly dense districts with more urban qualities. The study shows that one driver of demand when it comes to the attractiveness of a location is what kind of amenities and other qualities important for everyday life that are within a walkable distance from home. The same study also shows that the most socioeconomically vulnerable residents live in districts with less urban qualities. (ibid pp 60-62, Spacescape and Evidens. 2012.)
In Spacescape and Evidens’ report, Sköndal is given as an example of an older suburban area where urban qualities, such as accessible amenities, is low at the same time as the socioeconomic status is at a medium or high level compared to other areas of Stockholm (Bremberg et al. 2015. p. 61). This is explained by the assumption that many of the house owners likely can afford a car and therefore are less affected by larger distances and lack of access to amenities and public transport. Yet another factor that is highlighted in Bremberg’s report as contributing to housing segregation is the change of housing stock in Stockholm. The proportion of tenant-owned apartments in Stockholm has since the 1980s, gone from being around 25 % of the total housing stock to around 50%. At the same time as the population has increased significantly (see chapter 1) the number of rental apartments has decreased. For Example, during the period from 1998 to 2014, the number of rental apartments was reduced by 69,000 units (ibid p. 61).
3.
Theoretical framework.
After scrutinizing the chosen theories on social sustainability in urban planning I have made a thematic summary based on five themes. Each theme includes key elements outlined in the chosen reference theories and literature, as important for the creation of socially sustainable cities. The five theoretical themes are summarized and explained below, together with features closely related to the respective theme. The first four themes relate to how humans react and act if different things are in place. For example, public spaces, closeness to amenities and nature, connectivity, work opportunities etc. The fifth theme ‘the process’, however, differs a bit from the other themes. Hence, it concerns more the working process behind urban development project aiming at creating social sustainability.
3.1.1
The theme of Social Cohesion
In the theme of ‘social cohesion’, the key concepts are; sustainability of communities, social networks, interaction, inclusiveness, provision of a variety of social opportunities, social belonging, non-discriminatory possibilities.
referred to as social capital. Social capital is divided into three variations; bonding, bridging and linking. Bonding is explained as the strengthening of cohesion among people with similar backgrounds. Linking social capital refers to the connections that occur between people representing different power positions. (Löfvenius 2016. p.p. 22-23). The variant that Wallman Lundåsen & Trägårdh articulated as especially important for the “geographically segregated city of Stockholm” is bridging social capital. Hence, the authors refer to the isolating effects of housing segregation in the city and that it is important to create places and contexts where people with different backgrounds, that normally do not interact, meet and build networks (ibid. p. 22).
The networks research referred to as important for the creation of social capital can be both weak and strong. On a community level, the research finds that both the weak and strong networks are important within neighbourhoods when it comes to building social capital and providing “a variety of social opportunities” (Skjaeveland et al., 1996 via Dempsey et al. 2011. p. 295). Furthermore, Dempsey et al. claims that neighbourhoods with strong social networks also can contribute to “feelings of safety and sense of well-being” (ibid. p. 295). Hence, the spillover effects of social capital are important in several ways and the effects are also in line with what the CSSS and the Vision 2040 outline as key elements and desirable goals for Stockholm and its residents.
Other urban features that can work in favour of social cohesion and interaction, according to Dempsey et al. (2011) are density and land-use mix. The researchers claim that these two features of an urban landscape encourage more participation among the residents and that the activities are more likely to be of a diverse nature (ibid p.p. 295-296). Density and land-use mix are also features that are explicitly outlined and elaborated with the aim of supporting the creation of social sustainability in the district Stora Sköndal (see chapter 5).
Brandon C Bouchillon refers to Putnam’s study that shows that in, virtually advanced countries there is a growing lack of trust among people in societies that have an “increase in ethnic and social heterogeneity”(Putnam, 2007, p. 147 via Bouchillion 2014). Further Bounchillion research have shown that people not only tend to trust less in the societies where diversity has increased, they also tend to engage less in civic groups and volunteering is less frequent. Rather people stick closely to their own group (2014). More diversity in a social network have showed to undermine social trust among people in their neighbourhoods. However, Bouchillion (2014) claim that there is one exception to this and it is among youth 16-25-year-olds where studies have shown that socialising with “diverse others had a significant, positive influence on trust”. Why Bounchillion suggests, “youth may provide the best opportunity breaking the cycle” of multicultural societies that undermine social cohesion.
3.1.2 The theme of Community stability
In the theme of ‘community stability’, the key concepts are; safety, security due to social networks, (perceived) safety and well-being, anticipation of work and income, education and health, stay. Another factor that Dempsey et al. (2011) relate to social sustainability is stability within communities. This is achieved when residents stay in the same area for a long time. The effect of community stability is that it creates “a place where people want to live, inhabit, and work in today but also in the future” (Abrahamsson 2013. p. 10). It is about the feeling of belonging and trust, it is about the relationships between the dwellers. It is important to have a society and inhabitants with social capital and with social cohesion (ibid p. 9).
closely related to the issue of community attachment and place identity. Researchers argue that the perceived safety in an area is important for the community, how residents interact with each other, the feeling of well-being and the willingness to stay in the area, and in this way creates a neighbourhood with residents that are happy, proud and prone to stay in the area for a long period of life. (Dempsey et al. 2011, Barton et al. 2013). Other factors that researchers bring up related to community stability are what Abrahamsson et al. (2013) call safety and development. Hence, two out of Abrahamson’s three main concepts presented in chapter 2.3 fall, in this report, under the theme of community stability. Abrahamsson et al. explain their contemporary definition of safety (discussed in an urban context) as something that concerns anticipation of e.g. work and income. The definition of development relates to economic growth in general and more specifically to possibilities for education, life quality and public health. Even though these are factors that generally are not regulated or controlled at a community level but rather on a city or national level, they are important to mention as factors that affect the community stability also on the local scale. This argument can be reinforced by the statistics from the CSSS presented in section 2.5. regarding significant differences in health, trust and political engagement in districts of Stockholm with low and high socioeconomic populations.
3.1.3 The theme of Place identity.
In the theme of ‘place identity’, the key concepts are; pride, sense of place, well-being, stay.
Dempsey et al. (2011) have identified the factor of place identity, the sense of pride and belonging to a physical place – as an important element for the creation of social sustainability. The authors argue that it both concerns a sense of belonging to the physical environment and to the “people who inhabit it” and that a carefully chosen design of spaces and buildings (e.g. land-marks) can play an important role to the local place identity and the attachment its residents have, (or do not have) to it. When the researchers refer to the “socio-spatial connections within” an area, they refer to it as the “sense of community” that exists i.e. the common norms and the neighbourhood-specific culture. The common norms and cultures of a place can vary significantly between areas within the same city.
3.1.4
The theme of Accessibility
In the theme of ‘accessibility’, the key concepts are; connectivity, closeness to key services, walking and biking routes, schools, public transport, social justice i.e. accessibility to culture, public space and opportunities of self-fulfilment and development.
Yet another thing that researchers agree on as being important when territorial and social dimensions are to be coupled in a district, is the issue of accessibility. Values such as closeness to key services such as schools, day-care, public transport, walking and biking routes are important in a local community. (Barton et al. 2003). The CSSS highlights, in particular, the importance of public space in the form of places for meetings. Based on the recommendations from the researchers Wallman Lundåsen & Trägårdh (2015) the city of Stockholm “should support the creation of places where meetings can take place and networks take form” (p. 27). As examples of places that can serve this purpose, the researchers mention Folkets hus7 or parks. Further, they underline that it is especially
important to provide support and to facilitate meetings and interactions among residents in districts with many new residents and in the more vulnerable districts of Stockholm (ibid p.p. 27-28).
Another way of looking at accessibility is presented by Abrahamsson when he discusses accessibility via the concept of justice in the urban context. He then refers to the importance of acknowledging culture and political influence as well as the distribution of material and immaterial means (Abrahamsson 2013. p 7). Social justice, he argues, concerns a just distribution of resources and the possibilities for each individual (regardless of age, ethnicity or income), to use them. It is about access to public space, transport, water, cultural activities, amenities and so forth (ibid. p. 9) and an access that supports each individual in their everyday life. Accessibility in the form of accessible possibilities for each individual is also what the CSSS is focusing on when talking about the importance for the city to make it possible for each individual to build self-fulfilment.
3.1.5 The process
In the theme of ‘the process’, the key concepts are short and long-term strategies.
The fifths theoretical themes is slightly different than the four other. This one, concerns the process behind urban development for social sustainability, i.e. strategies on short and long-term to support urban development enhancing social sustainability. It mainly concerns two kind of processes; the plan process and the dialogue process. Results from research done by Erlander and Gustavsson show that the many parallel and partly interwoven processes complicates the actual work and also the possibility to evaluate the results. Hence it is difficult to know which parts of the different processes contributed to what result. Furthermore, the “parallel projects reinforcing each other” (Elander and Gustavsson. p.p. 1-6. 2014) which complicates the evaluation aspects even more. The argument that parallel projects can reinforce each other can be related to what the CSSS says concerning knowledge transfer and the importance to update and chare contemporary knowledge and lessons learned among other actors involve in similar projects to strengthen each individual project but also the total outcome on for example, a city level.
As another part of the process, the research couple underlines the importance of the participatory processes and the inclusion of dwellers and workers in the developing area, it is important to anchor the ideas and work of the project plans (ibid p. 15).
4.
Methodology
To better understand in which context the visions for Framtidens Stora Sköndal exist, and what the prospects are to go from vision to urban planning implementation of social sustainability, I have studied literature and theories concerning social sustainability for sustainable urban planning. Three reports from the Commission for a Socially Sustainable Stockholm (CSSS) have been selected. For this report I will specially consider two of them from the focus area ‘Living & urban environment’ and one from the focus area ‘Democracy & safety’, produced by the CSSS during 2015-2017. Hence, they particularly elaborate questions concerning social sustainability in our built environment as well as, how to create social capital and trust on a local level. Together with Vision 2040 made by the City of
Stockholm and selected theories they will form part of the theoretical framework and bring an understanding of how the concept of social sustainability is interpreted among steering politicians and how the city aims to work with the concept in practice. The three reports are: ‘From a split to a united city - Comprehensive planning for social sustainability’, ‘Stockholm of Differences’ and ‘City in collaboration. The city of Stockholm and civil society’ (Bremberg et al. 2015, Dahlin 2016, Löfvenius 2016).
To better understand the local and contemporary context I have conducted field studies and analysed local and social media related to Sköndal. Several unstructured field observations have been conducted during the period of February-March, June and August.
Interviews have been conducted and policy documents studied to get an insight and better understanding of how social sustainability issues have been handled in practice within the programme for Framtidens Stora Sköndal and to understand how the different actors involved in the process have worked with the programme and what their experiences are.
The main objective of this was to identify specific values for social sustainability in urban planning in the Swedish context in general, and in Stockholm and the project Framtidens Stora Sköndal in specific, not least to get an insight into the working process from vision to implementation.
The study is a descriptive study who discusses theory, visions, programme documents and the process behind the programme and the different actors involved. Here follows a description of how I approached the different methods together with an explanation of why I chose the specific methods for this research.
4.1
Research approach and purpose
The choice of research topic came from my interest in urban societies and how urban planning impacts people’s everyday lives. As explained in the introduction and background chapters, a lot of political effort has been invested in defining and finding out how to create socially sustainable cities. The programme of Framtidens Stora Sköndal has an explicit aim of contributing to the goals of the city of Stockholm and of building a socially sustainable city. The case of Framtidens Stora Sköndal is, in its current form, a quite unique urban planning project where a private landowner with high ambitions for social sustainability plays an important role together with the city of Stockholm, and I intend to provide insights on the case that might lead to new learnings and questions on the topic.
Social sustainability within urban planning can be understood as a buzzword, frequently being used but with less actual meaning and impact. It is a normative concept, that like a chameleon, changes meaning depending on when in time and where in place it is being used. In line with what the CSSS and Dahlin highlight as important, the purpose of this research is to create awareness and knowledge on the topic of social sustainability within the Swedish urban planning context, using the learnings and insights from the case of Framtidens Stora Sköndal.
4.2
Data collection
been conducted; A Facebook survey with residents in Sköndal was made; and unstructured field observations done on bike and by walking the area of Sköndal and the planning area of Stora Sköndal. The methods complement each other regarding their strengths and limitations. The desk research has been vital for understanding the details of the programme, the visions for the area and the theories supporting them, whereas the interviews, the survey and the field observations have been important for the collection of primary data and to bring place-specific and contextual understanding for this report (O’Leary 2014. p. 201).
4.2.1
Desk research
A desk study has been conducted with the aim of gaining an overview and deeper understanding of the plans for the case study area of Stora Sköndal and the key actors involved in the urban planning programme called Framtidens Stora Sköndal. Both primary and secondary sources have been used. To select reading material the search engines KTH Primo, Google Scholar and Scopus have mainly been used. To further assure an effective search for information and previous research on the topic, I used keywords I have found earlier in the process. In the next step, I read subtitles and abstracts to select relevant literature to include in my research.
The primary data comes mainly from the two key actors; “The Foundation Stora Sköndal” i.e. the land and project owners, and the City planning office in Stockholm. The documents from the planning office are public and accessible on their web page. Hence, I have scrutinised primary data from the City Planning Office in Stockholm e.g. official planning documents concerning the urban development projects in Stora Sköndal. Other important documents I have studied are the vision documents made by the Foundation Stora Sköndal, strategy and guiding documents made by the Commission for a Socially Sustainable Stockholm (CSSS) and Vision 2040 that is a document presenting the vison of how Stockholm shall be by year 2040. An overview of the most important primary data documents are presented in Table 02, together with a short document description. Among the many different documents that have been written by the CSSS, I have selected three. The reports that were selected are the ones I considered most relevant for this report and the topic of socially sustainability and urban planning.
As secondary data, I have used previous studies and articles on urban planning projects with the aim of reinforcing social sustainability and theories concerning social sustainability within urban planning. Literature used in previous research is mainly from Swedish contexts.
Table 02 Overview of the primary data sources used for the desk study. The documents are colour-coded depending on the organisation they come from.
Documents from Stockholm City’s planning office Documents from CSSS
Documents from the Foundation Stora Sköndal Documents from the City of Stockholm Primary sources
Title – Original/
English Type of document Document Description
Author & Date of publication Program för Stora Sköndal del 1 av 3. Godkännandedok-ument Approved document (by the City Planning Office, City of
Stockholm)
The programme examines the suitability of existing urban development plans & shall serve as a support for
