Soc Indic Res (2008) 87:211–221

DOI 10.1007/s11205-007-9165-8

Sustainable Housing in the Urban Context: International

Sustainable Development Indicator Sets and Housing

Nessa Winston Æ Montserrat Pareja Eastaway

Accepted: 7 July 2007 / Published online: 4 August 2007

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract Housing, an essential aspect of quality of life, is also significant for sustainable
development (SD). All of the major international statements on SD refer to housing or
settlement strategies. However, indicator sets derived from these statements often fail to
include good indicators of sustainable housing. This article outlines the conceptualisation
of SD and housing from the international statements. It proceeds by describing the
international indicator sets which have been constructed based on these policy statements.
International organisations such as the United Nations Commission on Sustainable
Development (UNCSD), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) and the European Union (EU) have all produced indicator sets. However, this
article contends that housing is an underdeveloped indicator and calls for more attention to
be paid to the importance of aspects of housing for SD and the measurement of progress
towards it via social indicators.

Keywords Housing
Indicators
Sustainable development
Sustainability indicators

Urban sustainability indicators
Housing and the environment
Quality of life

1 Introduction

Sustainable development (SD) is increasingly linked with the concepts of quality of life,
well-being and liveability (Michalos 1997; Moore and Scott 2005; Low Choy, 2004, 2005).
Housing is an essential component of both quality of life and SD. For example, quality of

N. Winston (&)
School of Applied Social Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Republic of Ireland
e-mail: [email protected]

M. Pareja Eastaway
Escola d’Empresarials, Departament de Teoria Econòmica, Universitat de Barcelona, Avinguda
Diagonal, 696. 3 planta, Barcelona, 08034, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

123
212 N. Winston, M. Pareja Eastaway

life depends on various aspects of the location of one’s home such as residing in a clean
and secure area with access to natural resources such as green space and/or water. Simi-
larly, the condition of the home is essential for quality of life, including structural and
design elements such as damp-proofing, sound-proofing, and energy efficiency. As will be
shown below, housing is linked to sustainability in a number of important ways. For
example, various aspects of the location, construction, design, management/maintenance
and use of housing can have significant negative effects on the environment (Tosics 2004;
Winston 2007). However, housing is one of the more neglected aspects of sustainability
and the availability of housing indicators in international SD indicator sets is extremely
limited, despite relatively advanced SD policies which refer to the importance of housing
(UNCED 1992; WCED 1987).
There is an extensive debate about the meaning of SD (Carley and Christie 1992;
Redclift 1987; Jacobs 1995; O’Riordan and Voisey 1998). The most frequently cited
definition of SD was produced by the World Commission on Environment and Develop-
ment (WCED or the Brundtland Commission), which defined it as development that meets
‘the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs’ (WCED 1987, p. 8). Its vision of SD entailed economic, social and
environmental pillars, a model which some have extended by adding an institutional or
governance pillar (e.g. Pareja-Eastaway and Stoa 2004; UNCED 1992). This model is now
one of the most common models of SD (Hodge 1997), utilised by many sustainable
housing researchers (e.g. Tosics 2004; Winston 2007), and it is the definition which is
employed here.
This article is particularly concerned with sustainable development indicators in the
urban context. MacLaren (1996) outlines key characteristics of urban sustainability: inter-
generational equity; intra-generational equity (including social equity, geographical equity
and equity in governance); protection of the natural environment (living within its carrying
capacity); minimal use of non-renewable resources; economic vitality and diversity;
community self-reliance; individual well-being; and satisfaction with basic human needs.
Hodge (1997, p. 8) argues that the ‘concept of sustainability has at its core a value set that
is best described as a parallel care and respect for the ecosystem and people within it—not
one or the other, not one more than the other but both together as one’. Furthermore, he
contends that the aim of achieving sustainability is ‘to maintain or improve human and
eco-system well-being’ (Hodge 1997, p. 9).
With regard to housing, WCED called for ‘explicit settlement strategies to guide the
process of urbanisation, taking the pressure off the largest urban centres and building up
smaller towns and cities, more closely integrating them with their rural hinterlands’
(WCED 1987, p. 32). Subsequently, at the first UN Earth Summit on Environment and
Development held in Rio in 1992, the UN produced its global action plan for SD in the
form of the ‘Agenda 21 protocol’ (UNCED 1992). Agenda 21 is a charter of 27 basic
principles for sustainable development covering rights and responsibilities of states and
their citizens. While it is the most prominent and influential guiding document for sus-
tainable development, it is a non-binding agreement. Employing the WCED definition of
SD, Agenda 21 added an institutional pillar to the environmental, economic and social
pillars outlined in report of the WCED. Some of the programme areas it identified include:
providing adequate shelter for all; the improvement of human settlement management; the
promotion of sustainable land-use planning and management; promoting sustainable
energy use and transport systems in human settlements; and promoting sustainable con-
struction industry activities.

123
Sustainable Housing in the Urban Context 213

This article examines the key international SD indicator sets to assess the extent to
which they include housing indicators. It investigates whether or not these housing indi-
cators have environmental, economic and social dimensions. Finally, the article describes
what might be considered the current ‘best practice’ with regard to sustainable housing
indicator selection. Some important characteristics of sustainable housing include: sus-
tainable land-use planning; resisting scattered settlements; housing close to employment
and public transport; higher residential densities; sustainable construction; high standards
of energy efficiency in use of dwellings; housing availability, affordability and quality;
access to green space, and a high quality residential environment (Winston 2007).
Many SD indicator sets are derived from conceptual models. Hodge (1997) reviewed 29
different approaches to modelling the ‘human ecosystem interface’ with the aim of
developing a conceptual framework for assessing progress towards sustainability. He
classified the models as follows: (1) the common ‘social-economic-environmental’ model,
(2) models from economic literature, (3) stress and stress response models, (4) general
ecological models, (5) additional models from the SD literature, (6) Agenda 21, (7) mis-
cellaneous models from regional analysis, watershed analysis, carrying capacity, aboriginal
development, and quality of life (Hodge 1997, p. 8). Outlining the advantages and dis-
advantages of each, he proposed a new framework consisting of four indicator domains:
ecosystem, interaction between people and the ecosystem; well being of people; and
synthesis (Hodge 1997). Others classify frameworks for developing sustainability indica-
tors as follows: domain based (e.g. economy); goal-based (economic prosperity; quality of
life); sectoral frameworks (e.g. housing); issue based (urban sprawl); causal (condition-
stress-response); capital approach (stocks and flows of natural, financial, produced assets
and human capital) and combination frameworks (MacLaren 1996; Stevens 2005). Within
any of these frameworks, different approaches may be adopted for the construction of
indicators. One is to develop a single, composite index, the second is to develop an
indicator set, while the third uses the notion of ‘capital stock’ as a unifying concept to
select indicators. As none of the international organisations has adopted the index approach
and indicator sets are most common, they are the focus of this article. While there have
been interesting attempts to measure SD at local (city, regional) and national levels (Hass
et al. 2002; Hodge 1997; MacLaren 1996; Stevens 2005, Wheeler 2004), this article
focuses on international indicator sets, as regional approaches are most appropriate for a
co-ordinated approach to sustainable development.

2 The Importance of Housing for Sustainable Development Indicator Sets

Housing is one of the most important public policies affecting urban development and, as
such, it has a significant potential to contribute to sustainability (Tosics 2004). Various
aspects of housing construction, design, use and demolition can have significant impacts on
the environment (Huby 1998). First, the extent of land used for constructing housing as
well as its type and location will determine the impact on environmental resources such as
wildlife, landscape, and amenity value. Building on land which has previously been used
for industry or housing (brown-field) is considered more sustainable than green-field
developments. Higher density developments are more sustainable than low density
developments as they use less land and are more likely to sustain services such as public
transport, education, employment and commercial facilities. In addition, construction
consumes a considerable amount of valuable environmental resources such as wood,

123
214 N. Winston, M. Pareja Eastaway

minerals, energy, and water. Many of the hardwoods used in housing are consumed at the
expense of tropical forests and this contributes to deforestation, leading to a deterioration
of soil conditions, increased greenhouse gas production, and a reduction in biodiversity.
Similarly, paints and chemicals used for treating timber can have toxic effects on land,
water and air. Some insulation, air conditioning and refrigeration materials contain CFCs
which can damage the ozone layer if they leak (Huby 1998).
The use of housing entails the consumption of energy and water as well as the pro-
duction of waste, all of which can be reduced depending on the design of housing and its
facilities (Edwards and Torrent 2000). The introduction of the Energy Rating Certificate,
whereby homes must have an energy rating before they can be sold, has the potential to
make significant improvements in the thermal efficiency of new and existing buildings.
Another aspect of the way housing is used relates to the location of a house, which affects
the extent to which residents use public transport. Housing located at a distance from
public transport is more likely to result in a higher level of car use compared with that
which is located close to good public transport. Finally, the demolition of housing involves
the production of waste, some of which is potentially toxic. Given the importance of all
these aspects of housing for sustainable development, it is essential that it be included in
sustainability indicators sets.
The effects of the environmental impacts associated with housing may be worst for
lower income groups (Huby 1998). Poorer households have less choice of environment and
may be concentrated in areas of dereliction, with considerable air and noise pollution, and
limited access to quality green space. In addition, they are less likely to be able to afford to
undertake energy efficiency improvements to their homes without financial support. These
environmental factors may detract from the quality of life of poorer households and have a
negative impact on their physical and mental health.

3 The Nature and Quality of Sustainability Indicators

Urban sustainability indicators have been defined as ‘bellwether tests of sustainability and
reflect on something basic and fundamental to the long term economic, social or envi-
ronmental health of a community over generations’ (Sustainable Seattle 1995, p. 4).
Michalos (1997) contends that no single set of indicators is adequate to monitor sustain-
ability. Those that have been developed have been described as inadequate, especially
those which attempt to capture the social aspect of sustainable development (UNCSD
1996; Hodge 1997; Atkinson et al. 1997). In addition, there is a real difficulty in cross-
country comparability as different countries employ different definitions of SD (Hass et al.
2002). Where there are opposing views, indicators become contested as people seek to use
indicators to confirm their view of SD (Astleithner et al. 2004, p. 21).
Sustainability indicators must be: (a) integrating, in that they attempt to portray linkages
among the economic, environmental and social dimensions (e.g. the cost of recycling taps
into both economic and environmental aspects; (b) forward looking, for example trend
indicators which are linked to targets and thresholds that define intermediate and final steps
towards goals; (c) distributional, as they are required for inter and intra-generational equity
to account for the distribution of social, economic and environmental conditions in the
population or across regions; (d) developed with input from multiple stakeholders—the
most influential, valid and reliable social indicators have been those developed with input
from a wide range of participants (MacLaren 1996).

123
Sustainable Housing in the Urban Context 215

An international working group on indicators, led by the International Institute for

Sustainable Development, devised the ‘‘Bellagio principles’’ to identify progress towards
SD. These principles include having: a guiding vision and goals; an holistic perspective;
essential elements (equity and disparity within the current population and between present
and future generations, dealing with such concerns as resource use, over-consumption,
poverty, human rights and access to services); adequate scope (time horizon long enough to
capture both human and ecosystem timescales and space to include local and distant
impacts on people and ecosystems); practical focus (standardising to ensure comparabil-
ity); openness (data and methods available to all); effective communication; broad par-
ticipation; ongoing assessment; and institutional capacity (Hardi and Zdan 1997). To these
principles we can add the following criteria for quality indicators: availability of time-
series data; ability to aggregate data; sensitivity to small changes; and reliability (Hardi and
Zdan 1997).

4 The Emergence of International Sustainable Development Indicator Sets

Following the publication of the report of the WCED, the first UN Earth Summit in Rio in
1992 urged countries to construct indicators of sustainable development. Since then,
considerable work has been undertaken in this area by a range of international and national
organisations. Table 1 outlines the key dates and events in the development of urban
sustainability indicators.
The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) was the first
international organisation to publish a set of indicators in 1996. Subsequently, these were
tested in 22 countries with a revised set of themes and indicators produced in 2001. The
housing related indicators are: floor area per person; population of urban formal and
informal settlements; distance travelled per capita by mode of transport; and intensity of
energy use. The earlier version contained an indicator of affordable housing (the ratio of
average house price to average industrial wage) but this was dropped from the revised
edition (UNCSD 1996). The very limited nature of this set may be attributed to the fact that
it was not designed specifically for developed countries. The revised UNCSD themes were
the starting point for many countries in their national indicator sets (Hass et al. 2002).

Table 1 Key dates in the development of urban sustainability indicators

Year Development

1992 Agenda 21 (Rio Declaration on Environment and Development) calls for the construction of
indicators
1996 UNCSD initial set of indicators
1999 European Common Indicators Project established
2000 European system of social indicators
2001 UNCSD revised core indicators
2001 EU Sustainable Development Strategy
2003 European Common Indicators report
2004 Aalborg + 10 targets for the sustainability of European Cities and Towns
2005 EU sustainable development indicators
2006 Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy

123
216 N. Winston, M. Pareja Eastaway

At European level, the first major initiative was the European Common Indicators
(ECI) project, which was established in 1999 to monitor and evaluate sustainability in
European Cities and Towns. Participation in the ECI project is voluntary and in 2003
there were 144 signatories, representing 22 countries but only 42 urban areas provided
data for the assessment phase of the project (Tarzia 2003). In 2003, its working group
on sustainability indicators produced a report which included some relevant indicators:
satisfaction with housing availability, affordability and standards; accessibility of
council housing; urbanized or artificially modelled land (size of artificially modelled
area as a percentage of the total municipal area); derelict or contaminated land (m2);
intensity of use (number of inhabitants per km2 of the area classified as ‘urbanised
land’); new development [new building on Greenfield sites and new building on con-
taminated or derelict areas (Brownfield) compared to total area (%)]; restoration of
urban areas (renovation and conversion of derelict buildings—total number, total of m2
of each floor); redevelopment of derelict areas for new uses, including public open
spaces (area in m2); cleansing of contaminated land (area in m2); local mobility and
passenger transportation; and noise pollution. These indicators cover each of the
environmental, economic and social dimensions although the social indicators are
relatively limited.
In the late 1990s, a cross-national European project began which aimed to monitor
and assess welfare development and social change in Europe, part of which involved the
construction of the European System of Social Indicators (EUSI) (Berger-Schmitt 2001;
Berger-Schmitt and Noll 2000). This system currently covers the EU15 but is being
extended to include the EU25. The study adopts the WCED multidimensional (eco-
nomic, social and environmental) approach to SD but extends it considerably from a
conceptual point of view. It draws on the World Bank’s 4 capital approach (physical,
social, human and natural) (World Bank 1997) and the OECD’s Pressure-State-
Response model for environmental indicators (OECD 1998). However, the creators of
EUSI argue that there are inevitable assumptions made about causality in these models,
which are problematic (Berger-Schmitt and Noll 2000, p. 23). In addition, they argue
that the links between the economic, social and environmental dimensions are not
addressed sufficiently. The EUSI framework links sustainability to other welfare con-
cepts such as social cohesion, social exclusion, social capital and quality of life, as
outlined in Fig. 1. Quality of life is central to the model, including the improvement of
objective living conditions and the enhancement of subjective well-being. Their defi-
nition of quality of life is a broad one incorporating both social cohesion and sus-
tainability. Social cohesion is considered essential because its counterpart, exclusion, is
associated with economic, social and/political deprivation. Sustainability is intrinsically
linked to both quality of life and social cohesion, with the emphasis on preserving
natural, human and social capital for current and future generations. Both social
cohesion and sustainability are concerned with the goals of attaining equal opportunities
and promoting social capital, hence social cohesion comes under sustainability in the
model. Social capital is envisaged as enhancing quality of life as it refers to informal
relations between individuals, membership of voluntary associations, feelings of
belonging, trust, and solidarity. Finally, the preservation of both human and natural
capital enhances the objective living conditions of individuals, and hence, their quality
of life (Berger-Schmitt and Noll 2000).
In the EUSI model, housing is one of a number of life domains, the others include:
population, households and family; labour market and working conditions; education and

123
Sustainable Housing in the Urban Context 217

Fig. 1 Conceptual framework for the European System of Social Indicators. Source: Berger-Schmitt and
Noll 2000:43

vocational training; income, standard of living and consumption patterns; health; crime and
public safety; and total life situation. Each life domain contains the following dimensions:
• The improvement of objective living conditions
• The enhancement of subjective well-being
• The reduction of disparities, inequalities and social exclusion, promotion of equal
opportunities
• Strengthening social connections and ties—social capital
• Preserving natural capital
• Preservation of human capital (Berger-Schmitt and Noll 2000).
The housing indicators are outlined in Table 2. While this indicator set is still being
refined, it has a number of strengths. First, it has a strong conceptual foundation.
Second, it covers a range of measures of each of the social, economic and environ-
mental dimensions including: tenure; affordability; facilities in the residential area such
as public transport; subjective evaluation of housing conditions and the residential area;
regional disparities in housing conditions; income related inequalities in housing con-
ditions; type of accommodation; environmental quality of the residential area; area used
for settlement (per capita); and energy consumption. The indicator set meets many of
the criteria for quality indicators: scientific validity; reliability; guiding vision; holistic
perspective; broad range of conditions; relevance; essential elements; an emphasis on
inequality and distributional issues; adequate scope; responsive to change; compara-
bility; easily understood; unambiguous; practical focus; openness; inputs from key
stakeholders including the consumer.

123
218 N. Winston, M. Pareja Eastaway

Table 2 European System of Social Indicators—goal and measurement dimensions

Goal dimensions Measurement dimensions

Availability of dwellings Relative size of dwelling stock

Size of dwelling Rooms per person and living space per person (under
preparation)
Amenities Availability of flushing toilet, bath/shower; central heating;
balcony, terrace/garden
State of repair of dwelling Dwellings in deficient state of repair
Tenure status Percentage of owners
Type of accommodation Households living in one-family house/in a large apartment
house
Affordability of housing Burden of housing costs; average rent/qm in ppp (under
preparation); average rental burden
Facilities in residential area Accessibility of shops; public transport; family doctor
Environmental quality of residential Noise pollution; air pollution; accessibility of green space
area
Public safety Crime in residential area
Subjective evaluation of housing Shortage of space; high burden of housing costs; satisfaction
conditions with housing situation
Subjective evaluation of the Subjective safety in the residential area, Satisfaction with
residential area neighbourhood
Regional disparities in housing Regional disparities in availability of amenities and rental
conditions burden
Income related inequality of housing Income related inequality in: dwelling size; availability of
conditions amenities; and tenure status.
Homelessness (data not currently Percentage of homeless people
available)
Poor housing conditions Overcrowded dwellings; lack of basic amenities
Area used for settlement Built up land per inhabitant (under prep)
Energy consumption Use of environment-friendly energy sources for heating; energy
consumption for space heating; energy loss per building
(under prep); insulation of housing stock (under prep)
Preferences related to dwelling Need for own room per household member; need for a garden,
balcony or terrace; preference for a one family house (data
currently not available)
Preferences related to residential area Preference for living in rural/urban area
(data currently not available)

Source: http://www.gesis.org/en/social_monitoring/social_indicators/Data/EUSI/index.htm

In 2005 the EU produced indicators based on its 2001 SD strategy (European Commission/
Eurostat 2005).1 The housing related indicators are: adequacy of housing conditions or access
to decent housing (data which it argues are required but with which there are problems of

1
In 1998, the European Commission highlighted the importance of evaluating local sustainability and
monitoring progress on Local Agenda 21 (COM 1998, 605). In 2001, it published the European Sustainable
Development Strategy (Gothenberg Strategy) (based on WCED definition) and the 6th Environment Action
Programme, including a theme on urban environment indicators. This was done to build on the Lisbon
Agenda which failed to include an environmental dimension, and which had given rise to structural indi-
cators, none of which was dedicated to housing. The EU published a list of guiding principles for sustainable
development in 2005 and, in 2006, a renewed Sustainable Development Strategy building on its original
strategy (European Council 2006 DOC 10117/06)

123
Sustainable Housing in the Urban Context 219

definition, availability and/or quality); proportion living in households considering they

suffer from noise and other pollution; land use change by category (required but problems of
definition, data availability/quality); car share of inland passenger transport; access to public
transport (required but problems of definition, availability and/or quality). This list is rela-
tively weak in that most of the indicators are environmental.
Another European initiative is the Aalborg targets (2004) for progress towards a range
of sustainable development goals in urban areas. These are derived from the Aalborg
Charter (1994), produced following the publication of Agenda 21, which aims to encourage
urban local authorities to create a vision of sustainable development. At European level,
the 1994 Aalborg Charter is important in understanding what LA21 has come to mean.
Produced at a European Conference on Sustainable Cities and Towns, the Charter outlines
basic values and options for sustainable development in European urban areas. These
options included encouraging local authorities to create a vision of the sustainable com-
munity and monitoring and evaluation their LA21 activities. Of central importance to
housing is the commitment to a ‘strategic role for urban planning and design in addressing
environmental, social, economic, health and cultural issues for the benefit of all’. This
entails commitments to:
• Re-use and regenerate derelict or disadvantaged areas
• Avoid urban sprawl, achieving appropriate urban densities and prioritising Brownfield
site over Greenfield site development
• Ensure mixed use of buildings and developments, with a good balance of jobs, housing
and services giving priority to residential use in city centres
• Ensuring appropriate conservation, renovation and use/re-use of urban cultural heritage
• Apply requirements for sustainable design and construction and promote high quality
architecture and building technologies.
The targets are relatively limited in that they focus on the environmental aspect of
sustainable housing.
The OECD has invested considerable effort in the preparation of SD indicators (OECD
2000, 2001). However, there are no housing indicators in its proposed set despite the fact
that a 1982 list of OECD social indicators included a number of housing measures such as
housing conditions, accessibility to services, and environmental nuisances (OECD 1982, p.
13). From the available documentation, it is not clear why these were excluded from the
SD indicators. Despite some limitations, that 1982 social indicator set has been referred to
as the ‘most serious and sustained effort to systemically identify a set of indicators which
has broad applicability, reasonably comprehensive coverage, and feasibility (Scott et al.
1996, p. 90). Hence, they could have been considered useful for the social pillar of their SD
indicators.

5 Conclusion

The work of international organisations such as the UNCSD, OECD and EU is contributing
to the development of indicators and there are now a large number of them available.
Despite the fact that housing has significant potential to contribute to sustainability, this
article has shown that there is considerable scope for the improvement of housing indi-
cators as some of these sets fail to include any housing measures, for example the OECD.
Others include housing indicators but these are very limited when applied to first world

123
220 N. Winston, M. Pareja Eastaway

countries, e.g. UNCSD. While not designed specifically as a SD indicator set, the EUSI set
captures many of the important dimensions of sustainable housing—economic, social and
environmental. It links sustainability to other important welfare concepts such as social
cohesion, and quality of life. In addition, it meets many of the criteria for good sustain-
ability indicators outlined by MacLaren (1996) and Hardi and Zdan (1997) including:
scientific validity; reliability; guiding vision; holistic perspective; broad range of condi-
tions; relevance; essential elements; emphasis on inequality and distributional issues;
adequate scope; responsive to change; comparability; easily understood; unambiguous;
practical focus; openness; inputs from key stakeholders, including the consumer. However,
it could be improved by having more indicators on sustainable construction practices and
land use planning.
Creating indicators is difficult, time consuming, and expensive. Most importantly, it
involves political commitment and, as Stephens (2005, p. 6) points out, their selection is a
political act. Without political commitment to act on them, the development of indicators is
a symbolic exercise (Wheeler 2004, p. 92). The European Commission has stated that it is
open to ‘developing new indicators and improving the quality of the existing indicators’
(Commission of the European Communities 2005, p. 8). The EU SD indicator set is
relatively weak as there is little emphasis on the social or economic aspects of sustainable
housing. Given the importance of various aspects of housing for SD, such as its location,
design and use, the EU and other international organisations should incorporate housing
related indicators in their SD indicator sets. In devising these indicators, they could refer to
the work of the EUSI group and its on-going work in this area.

References

Aalborg Charter (1994). Retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://www.aalborgplus10.dk/

default.aspx?m=2&i=336
Astleithner, F., Hamedinger, A., Holman, N., & Rydin, Y. (2004). Institutions and indicators—the
discourse about indicators in the context of sustainability. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 19, 7–24.
Atkinson, G., Dubourg, R., Hamilton, K., Munasinghe, M., Pearce, D., & Young, C. (1997).
Measuring sustainable development: Macroeconomics and the environment. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Berger-Schmitt, R. (2001). Dimensions, indicators and time series in a European system of social
indicators by example. (EuReporting Working Paper No. 16. Mannheim: ZUMA).
Berger-Schmitt, R., & Noll, H. (2000). Conceptual framework and structure of a European system
of social indicators. (EuReporting Working Paper No. 9. Mannheim: ZUMA).
Carley, M., & Christie, I. (1992). Managing sustainable development. London: Earthscan.
COM (1998). 605 Communication on sustainable urban development in the European union: A
framework for action.
Commission of the European Communities (2005). Sustainable development indicators to monitor the
implementation of the EU sustainable development strategy. Communication from Commissioner
Almunia to members of the European Commission. Brussels 9/2/05.SEC (2005) 161 final.
Retrieved January 23, 2007 from http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/docs/sec2005_0161_en.pdf
Edwards, B., & Turrent, D. (Eds.). (2000). Sustainable housing: Principles and practice. Oxon: E
and FN Spon.
European Commission/Eurostat (2005). Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe.
Sustainable development indicators for the European union: 1990–2005. Brussels: European
Commission and Eurostat.
European Council (2006). Renewed sustainable development strategy. DOC 10117/06.
Hardi, P., & Zdan, T. (Eds.). (1997). Assessing sustainable development principles in practice.
Winnipeg: The International Institute for Sustainable Development.

123
Sustainable Housing in the Urban Context 221

Hass, J. L., Brunvoll, F., & Hoie, H. (2002). Overview of sustainable development indicators used
by national and international agencies. OECD Statistics Working Papers 2002/2, OECD Pub-
lishing. DOI 10.1787/838562874641.
Hodge, T. (1997). Towards a conceptual framework for assessing progress toward sustainability.
Social Indicators Research, 40, 5–98.
Huby, M. (1998). Social policy and the environment. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Jacobs, M. (1995). Sustainable development, capital substitution and economic humility: A
response to Beckerman. Environmental Values, 4, 57–68.
Low Choy, D. (2004). The regional open space paradox. Queensland Planner, 44(3), 12–15.
Low Choy, D. (2005). Achieving the vision: the role of environmental infrastructure in the
achievement of a sustainable and liveable region. Queensland Planner, 45(2), 4–17.
MacLaren, V. (1996). Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of the American Planning Associa-
tion, 62, 184–201.
Michalos, A. (1997). Combining social, economic and environmental indicators to measure sus-
tainable human well-being. Social Indicators Research, 41, 1–4.
Moore, N., & Scott, M. (Eds.). (2005). Renewing urban communities: Environment, citizenship and
sustainability in Ireland. Aldershot: Ashgate.
OECD (1982). The OECD list of social indicators. Paris: OECD.
OECD (1998, October) Sustainable development indicators. Proceedings of an OECD expert
workshop, Paris.
OECD (2000). Towards sustainable development: Indicators to measure progress. (Proceedings of
an OECD Conference, Rome).
OECD (2001). OECD Environmental Indicators: Towards Sustainable Development. Paris: OECD.
O’Riordan, T., & Voisey, H. (1998). The transition to sustainability: The politics of agenda 21.
London: Earthscan.
Pareja-Eastaway, M., & Stoa, E. (2004). Dimensions of housing and urban sustainability. Journal
of Housing and the Built Environment, 19, 1–5.
Redclift, M. (1987). Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. London: Routledge.
Scott, S., Nolan, B., & Fahey, T. (1996). Formulating environmental and social indicators for
sustainable development. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute.
Stephens, C. (2005). Measuring sustainable development. OECD Statistics brief. September 2005.
No. 10. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Sustainable Seattle Coalition (1995). Sustainable Seattle indicators of sustainable community.
Seattle: Sustainable Seattle.
Tarzia, V. (Ed.). (2003). European common indicators: Towards a local sustainability profile.
Retrieved May 11, 2002, from Ambiente Italia Research Institute web site:
http://www.sustainble-cities.org/indicators/
Tosics, I. (2004). European urban development: Sustainability and the role of housing. Journal of
Housing and the Built Environment, 19, 67–90.
UNCED (1992). Agenda 21. New York: UN.
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (1996). Indicators of sustainable
development: Framework and methodologies. New York: UN.
Wheeler, S. (2004). Planning for sustainability: Creating liveable, equitable, and ecological
communities. London: Routledge.
Winston, N. (2007). From boom to bust? An assessment of the impact of sustainable development
policies on housing in the Republic of Ireland. Local Environment, 12(1), 57–71.
World Bank (1997). Expanding the measures of wealth: Indicators of environmentally sustainable
development. Environmentally sustainable development studies and monographs series, No. 17,
Washington DC.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.