Luleå – Promoting Urban Sustainability in the Arctic

The Link Between Urban Density and Sustainability

July 12, 2017UncategorizedLeave a Comment

The city center in Luleå, Sweden, is a tree-lined pedestrian- and bicycle-only thoroughfare lined with shops and restaurants. The city buildings are, with few exceptions, only a few stories tall. At the periphery stand a few apartment buildings, each four to five stories tall, and most in the same iconic colorful batten on board construction as the houses in the surrounding neighborhood. On a weekday, the city hums with life: commuters headed to work on city buses, shoppers with their pull-behind wheeled carts, young parents following toddlers on stride bikes, and a gaggle of middle-school-aged girls headed to the beach. Gingerbread rooflines and lush green spaces throughout and surrounding the city lend a quiet storybook charm to the city.

Luleå is a low-density city, and many of the city’s residents live in neighborhoods well beyond the city center. The sprawl of Luleå is partly due to the topography—the coastal city encompasses a number of islands and peninsulas and has developed around the numerous inlets and lakes, but increasing the density of the city center would decrease the breadth of sprawl and concentrate a greater percentage of the population in the city. Would increasing the density of Luleå’s city center, however, decrease the quality of life for the city’s residents? Does an increase in density necessarily decrease green space, community space, or other spaces that contribute to the well-being of a city’s residents? These are important questions to consider, as density is a key quality for sustainability in terms of resource use in urban centers, but excessively high density or poorly managed density can negatively impact the health and social sustainability of a city.

Poorly managed density leads to overcrowding. There may be a minimum threshold of square footage of dwelling space per person required to not be considered overcrowded, but generally overcrowding is linked to management and perception. Population density in a stadium is not perceived as problematic, but a much lower level of density feels intolerable in highway traffic. The perception and tolerance for density or overcrowding is informed in part by cultural factors: levels of acceptable density are perceived differently in Kolkata and Stockholm. Overcrowding can be thought of as the stress experienced because of too high a population density in a given set of circumstances (Kutner 2016). Overcrowding, rather than population density, can lead to increased tension between residents and sometimes result in violence. From a management perspective, overcrowding is the result of inadequate management and provision of resources such as water, electricity, and housing.

In Jakarta, Indonesia, high population density has led to overcrowding because of inadequate infrastructure (IRIN 2010; Hamer 2014). Without sufficient clean water sources, adequate roads and transportation networks, or sewage treatment, the quality of life for residents is extremely low, and the city has been ranked as one of the worst in Asia for ease of doing business. Recent efforts to improve transportation through increased rail transit has thus far been stymied by lack of funding and poor coordination between levels of government (Hamer 2014).

High-density, low-rise development is the ideal for urban layouts, striking a balance between efficiency and quality of life, but small dwelling units are required to adequately increase urban density (Patel 2011). High-density development increases the efficiency with which municipal services can be provided, creates economies of scale, and preserves the surrounding natural environment. High-density urban development is also a prerequisite for effective public transportation networks, an important component for achieving urban sustainability. A 1977 study by Boris S. Pushkarev and Jeffery M. Zupan shows that public transit works best where residential density exceeds 4200 persons per square mile.

High-rise buildings and vertical cities (high-rise buildings with other self-contained municipal functions such as water treatment and power generation) offer one potential solution to increase density in cities and maximize efficiency in transportation, infrastructure, and service provision. But high-rise living is not without its drawbacks. First, not everyone is interested in this type of lifestyle- young, single men are generally the most amenable to the idea. Second, high-rise living can present some health challenges: children’s physical development may be stifled by the constraints of available play facilities; respiratory infections are more prevalent among women and children living in high-rise buildings; and high density developments can have a negative influence on mental health by reducing community interaction and increasing tensions (Wong 1998; Young 1976).

Population growth, migration, and urbanization in Arctic cities mimics global urbanization trends. With two-thirds of the world’s population predicted to live in cities by the year 2050 (UN 2014), it’s important to consider urban density and management to increase sustainability, improve quality of life, and decrease the negative effects of overcrowding.

Arctic Cities on the Move: Adapting to Environmental Changes through Relocation

July 7, 2017Uncategorized1 Comment

At the edge of town, a brand new playground sits unused, the swings perfectly still. The park is eerily quiet, with only a distant excavator piercing the silence. A lone Arctic Hare looks at me before bounding off. A few white wildflowers are blooming along the edges of the wide crushed gravel paths, but otherwise there’s not much in the way of life here. Each of the park’s quadrants are buffered by a low wall made of wire cages containing bits of brick and concrete rubble. Benches are made from the same. Beyond these rubble walls sit a row of vacant brick buildings, the windows removed, and a menagerie of plumbing fixtures on the lawn. These buildings are destined to become nothing but rubble like that which forms this park. A pair of blue banners boast “decommissioning for continued mining” in Swedish and English. Kiruna, Sweden, is slowly packing up and moving the whole city three kilometers east because of destabilization due to iron mining.

*These houses too are destined to become nothing but the rubble that fills the wire cages in the foreground. Photo by the author.*

Kiruna is one of many Arctic cities that has chosen relocation as an adaptation to environmental changes. Whether primary human activity, secondary effects of anthropogenic climate change, or other natural phenomena, environmental changes in the Arctic often present cities with limited means of adaptation other than relocation.

In Kiruna, the nearby iron mine is both the lifeblood and the angel of death for the city. The iron ore runs deep, and inconveniently right under the current city center. The choice between ceasing mining and adapting to the destabilization hardly seemed like a choice. While tourism is booming here north of the Arctic circle, this is first and foremost a mining town, and if not for the mine, Kiruna would not exist at all. And so the city is moving. The most vulnerable buildings have already been removed, and just outside of town, a handful of historic buildings sit on trailers, having been liberated from their foundations, and await relocation to the new city site. Eventually the whole city center will be relocated, and buildings that the town has identified as historically or culturally important—the clock tower, the cathedral, iconic “inkwell” houses—will be moved to the new site, while less important buildings such as the 1960s-era brick buildings built as company housing will be dismantled. LKAB, the state-owned mining company, is required by Swedish mining law to replace any housing that is destroyed due to the mine, and so new housing will be built in the new city.

*The Kiruna iron mine in the background, and debris from deconstructed city buildings in the foreground. Photo by the author.*

Signs around town proclaim that Kiruna is a “City on the Move!” Tour guides who take visitors deep into the iron mine paint a rosy picture of the development of the new city, and indeed the architectural renderings imagine a modern city that reflects that cultural history and the Arctic identity of the city. But walking among the piles of debris, with signs of destruction everywhere, it’s hard not to wonder about what will be lost. While Kiruna adapts to an environmental catastrophe of its own making, it is not the only Arctic city to turn to relocation as a means for adapting to a changing environment.

In 1649, the town of Luleå, Sweden, was moved from its original site because of decreasing sea level. Post-glacial rebound, the process by which land rises after being freed of the weight of a glacier, caused the effective decrease in ocean levels leaving the bay too shallow for ships to enter. These days the old city site, now referred to as Gammelstad (meaning old town), is an UNESCO World Heritage Site and visited mostly by tourists and for special events. The modern city of Luleå still relies heavily on shipping, and continues to face the same challenge of post-glacial rebound and decreasing sea levels as in the past. Old timers remember islands that were previously accessible only by boat, but are now separated instead by mud bars, allowing people to wade between the smaller islands. The municipality of Luleå plans to deepen the port to allow bigger ships, but even if not for this multi-billion kronor project, the city would have to continuously dredge the harbor just to continue to allow ships that are currently using the port. Modern technology that makes dredging an option means that for now, Luleå won’t have to resort to relocation as the only method to preserve the city’s viability.

*A row of wooden church cottages lead to the cathedral in Gammelstad, Luleå. Photo by the author.*

While in Kiruna, the decision has been made to continue the activity that necessitates relocation, and in Luleå alternative measures can be used to adapt to environmental changes, coastal and island towns in the Arctic such as Shishmaref, Alaska, have fewer options and much less influence over the changes that affect their towns. Sea level rise threatens to overtake the barrier island on which Shishmaref is located. Investing in sea walls and coastal barriers help mitigate the effects of rising sea levels in the short-term but in the long-term, leaving is the only viable choice. While climate refugees in Louisiana and the Carteret Islands were resettled in other communities, the village of Shishmaref plans to relocate the whole town. Relocating a whole community may help preserve some community social networks, but comes at no small price. The relocation of Shishmaref will cost an estimated US$180 million, and so far the source of that funding is uncertain. Shishmaref is one of 31 villages that the Arctic Institute estimates will need to be relocated on account of rising sea levels due to climate change.

The residents of Shishmaref voted 89 to 78 in favor of relocation, with opinions largely split among age groups. While some voted against the move because of trepidation of the new site that was chosen, many of the older residents see the island as their home, and though they might retain their families, neighbors, and social networks in the move, the places that have framed their lives- their house, the school, the land itself- would be lost. It’s hard to tell whether relocating an entire town helps to preserve social capital more effectively than resettling individual residents. Relocating an entire town or city is an extreme measure for adapting to environmental changes but as climate change progresses causing thawing permafrost and rising sea levels, many Arctic cities will face few options other than to pack up and leave.

The Importance of Public Transportation for Sustainability in Arctic Cities

June 26, 2017June 26, 2017Uncategorized1 Comment

Public transportation is an important contributing factor to urban sustainability. Effective transportation networks that incorporate public transit help lower a city’s per capita carbon footprint, and make cities more livable by easing commute and transportation needs and increasing accessibility. But the mere presence of public transportation—the number of buses, trains, trolleys, and trams available—does not paint a complete picture. The Sustainable Cities Institute names five principles of sustainability for municipal transportation: accessibility; affordability; connectivity; holistic transportation and land use planning; and planning with the environment in mind.

Holistic transportation, land use planning, and planning with the environment in mind means that transportation systems include many elements including streets, sidewalks or pedestrian networks, transit, bicycle routes, plus private and public fleets. Those elements interface effectively with both the physical geography and commercial and residential development, and account for other environmental factors such as seasonal trends and extreme weather.

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a development approach that focuses on land use around a transit hub or within a transit corridor. The Sustainable Cities Institute describes TOD as characterized by mixed use land, moderate to high density, pedestrian-oriented, reduced parking, and multiple transportation choices. The definition may be relatively new, but the fundamental idea of development built around transportation is ancient. Cities have always sprung up alongside rivers not only for the water source for personal and commercial consumption, but especially as modes of transportation for people and cargo, facilitating trade. The oldest known human civilization, Mesopotamia, developed in a river valley, along with settlements along the Nile, the Indus, and the Yellow Rivers. In the U.S., historically industrial cities like Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Cincinnati, Ohio, are clustered around rivers.

Though an ancient idea, TOD responds to modern calls for sustainable urban development in response to climate change, increased urbanization and demand for walkable cities, rising energy prices, and increased road congestion with increasing urban density. TOD can address some of the environmental, social, and economic challenges in implementing sustainable transportation networks including fuel sources including fossil fuels and resultant greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable energy; funding challenges; commuting costs; and human health.

Anchorage City Bus “People Mover” (photo credit: Mel Green)

In May 2017, Arctic PIRE researchers travelled to Anchorage, AK, where many civic and community leaders expressed that one significant sustainability challenge that the city faces is a poor relationship between the physical layout of the city and the transit network. The city is low density, sprawled over quite a large area, and was not developed around a transit corridor, nor has the transit network been adequately developed to connect the city. This has resulted in reliance on personal automobiles, low ridership on city buses, and poor accessibility for those who rely entirely on public transportation. The bus system was also not particularly accessible to tourists- as visitors, the system seemed labyrinthine and service was too infrequent to be functional for our needs. Forthcoming changes to the system (planned for October 2017) promise a more sustainable transit system with streamlined service, bus stops in closer proximity to people and jobs, and increased frequency of routes particularly during weekday commutes.

Some cities in Sweden’s Arctic demonstrate more sustainable transportation systems. At a national level, Sweden has committed to a fossil-fuel independent public bus fleet by 2030, already resulting in a 43% decrease in public bus emissions between 2007 and 2014 (Xylia and Semida 2017). These gains have been more pronounced in southern counties, while in the northernmost counties of Norrbotten and Västerbotten, buses still rely overwhelmingly on fossil fuels. At a municipal level, both Umeå (in Västerbotten) and Luleå (in Norrbotten) are making strides towards decreasing their bus emissions. Umeå has recently begun transitioning their bus fleet to battery-powered buses, a move that has been a proof-of-concept of the suitability of battery-powered vehicles for cold environments. Luleå’s intent to limit the environmental impact of transportation in spite of continued growth, part of its aspirational sustainable development plan “Vision 2050,” is illustrated in the growing fleet of biogas buses.

Luleå city bus, with real time information posted at bus stop

In addition to high efficiency vehicles, alternative fuel, and TOD, Luleå is also building its sustainable transportation network through demand management, traffic calming, and connectivity between multiple forms of transportation. Systems that use real-time data to provide information for planners on ridership and help manage demand while also providing riders accurate information on bus timetables, routes, and arrival times. Restricted access for vehicles in the city center, designated lanes for bikes and buses, and narrowed city streets act as traffic calming measures keeping the city center pleasant and accessible for workers and residents. The transit hub in the city center is a stop on nearly all local bus routes, and is immediately adjacent to the pedestrian and bicycle thoroughfare. Bicycle parking is plentiful near bus stops, city buses are equipped with bike racks, and regional buses allow bicycles as cargo. A central bus station serves both local and regional buses and is located across the street from the train station, thus providing seamless connectivity for those traveling to and from areas outside the city. These connections, along with a city that has protected pedestrian and bicycle networks, means that individuals can travel easily using a combination of walking, biking, buses, and trains.

Urban transportations that increase affordability, accessibility, and connectivity, while incorporating good land use planning and environmental considerations significantly contribute to urban sustainability. As Arctic cities grapple with increasing urbanization, migration, climate change, and economic challenges, sustainable transportation systems can decrease environmental impact while increasing social and economic sustainability.

Resources

Beim, Michal, and Martin Haag. 2011. Public Transport as a Key Factor of Urban Sustainability: A Case Study of Freiburg. Badania Fizjograficzne. R. II—Seria D—Gosrodarka Przestrzennia. January: 7-20.

Buzási, Attila, and Má Csete. 2015. Sustainability indicators in assessing urban transport systems. Periodica Polytechnica.Transportation Engineering 43, (3): 138-145.

Kennedy, Christopher, Eric Miller, Amer Shalaby, Heather Maclean, and Jesse Coleman. 2005. The Four Pillars of Sustainable Urban Transportation. Transport Reviews 25 (4): 393-414.

National League of Cities: Sustainable Cities Institute http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/topics/transportation

Nilsen, Thomas. 2017. Umeå paves the way for green electric bus revolution. The Independent Barents Observer. June 13. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ecology/2017/06/umea-paves-way-green-electric-bus-revolution

Xylia, Maria, and Semida Silveira. 2017. On the road to fossil-free public transport: The case of Swedish bus fleets. Energy Policy 100 (January): 397-412.