See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284836763

The paradox of the sustainable city: definitions and examples

Article  in  Environment Development and Sustainability · November 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s10668-014-9604-z

CITATIONS READS

59 10,223

2 authors:

Abbas M. Hassan Hyowon Lee

Al-Azhar University Chonnam National University
10 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   196 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

IoT and Urbanism View project

Special Issue on "Security and Privacy in Big Data-enabled Smart Cities: Opportunities and Challenges" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abbas M. Hassan on 03 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environ Dev Sustain
DOI 10.1007/s10668-014-9604-z

The paradox of the sustainable city: definitions

and examples

Abbas M. Hassan • Hyowon Lee

Received: 20 May 2014 / Accepted: 12 November 2014

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract It is well known that sustainability has become a much needed target, espe-
cially considering the recent rapid urban sprawl and the subsequent exacerbation of social,
environmental, and economic problems. Thus, many studies have been conducted to define
sustainability and the sustainable city. However, many of these definitions suggest a range
of contradictions, implying that the achievement of sustainability is elusive. The problem
lies in setting unreasonable definitions of sustainability and in the various contradictions to
these definitions, making sustainability seemingly unattainable. Hence, some models of
cities are emerging that are labeled as sustainable cities; among these are the ‘‘zero-carbon
city’’ and the ‘‘ubiquitous eco-city’’ (‘‘U-eco-city’’). This study reviews the history and
definitions of sustainability, in order to acknowledge the contradictions inherent in these
concepts. It also briefly presents the compact city, the zero-carbon eco-city, and the U-eco-
city by determining their individual pros and cons and highlighting where there are any
conflicts with the principles of sustainability. The aim of the study was to adjust the use of
sustainability as a terminology in the field of urban sustainable development and to
demonstrate the extent to which we use marketing names for eco-cities without compliance
with sustainable dimensions. The study will also discuss the key sustainability pillar
required for a project to be kept sustainable. The study concludes that the use of the term
‘‘sustainable city’’ may limit the potential for further enhancing sustainability in future
projects; using the term ‘‘transition toward the sustainable city’’ may be more accurate and
more effective. The results show that reducing energy consumption through efficient use,
and relying on renewable energies, will be the keys to reaching urban sustainability. The
study also finds that recent tyranny in the name of ecology will not result in real

A. M. Hassan  H. Lee (&)

School of Architecture, Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbongro, Bukgu, Gwangju 500-757,
Republic of Korea
e-mail: leehw@jnu.ac.kr
A. M. Hassan
e-mail: arch_abbas2002@yahoo.com

A. M. Hassan
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Al-Azhar University, Qena, Egypt

123
 A. M. Hassan, H. Lee

sustainability. Although the free eco-city and the u-eco-city are considered advanced
models, their limitations are related more to the economic and social aspects than to the
compact city, which clearly reflected the pillars of sustainability, despite its being an
outdated model.

Keywords Sustainable city  Transition into sustainability  Zero-carbon city 

Compact city  Ubiquitous eco-city

1 Introduction

The theory of sustainability has a long history; its roots can be traced back at least to the
1800s. During the 19th century, individual attempts were made to focus on a range of
sustainability issues, although urban sustainability was not an issue at that stage as urban
expansion developed at a later period. Appendix 1 shows a timeline of some of the key
people and events leading to an awareness for the need to strive for sustainability from
1800s to 2000. The major concern is the unsustainable nature of cities and the problems
resulting from urban sprawl. These issues have motivated planners, geographers, and
governments to seek appropriate solutions to the environmental, economic, and social
problems through sustainable developments.
The environment became an international issue in 1972, with the UN Conference on the
human environment, held in Stockholm (Rasoolimanesh et al. 2012). Progress on devel-
oping the concepts of sustainable development has been rapid since the 1980s, after the UN
established the World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED) in
1987, initiated by the Norwegian Prime Minister at that time, Brundtland (White and Lee
2009). As a result of the Brundtland report, a conference dubbed ‘‘Earth Summit’’ was held
in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. Three major agreements were adopted from the Brundtland
Report: Agenda 21—a global plan of action to promote sustainable development for
human settlements through the twenty-first century (Oldenhuizing et al. 2013; Rasoolim-
anesh et al. 2012); and two legally binding conventions, the Convention on Climate
Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. In 1996, Habitat-II was an attempt to
apply Agenda-21 to the field of urbanization. One year later, the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development held its fifth session on April 1997, which was also known as
‘‘Rio ?5.’’ Several success stories have been reported on Rio ?5, and the World Summit
on Sustainable Development, which was also known as ‘‘Rio ?10,’’ was consequently held
in June 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Many definitions have been offered and used for the terms ‘‘Sustainability’’ and
‘‘Sustainable development.’’ According to the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of the term
‘‘Sustain’’ is ‘‘To keep up or keep going; Endure; to keep in existence; Maintain; Capable
of being sustained’’ (Hornby 1995). The WCED, which is known as the Brundtland
commission of 1987, provides a definition of sustainability as ‘‘A process of change in
which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of tech-
nological development, and institutional changes are made consistent with future as well as
present needs’’ (WCED 1987). In the Earth charter, sustainability implies that peoples of
the earth are responsible to one another to the greater community of life and to future
generations. The National Council of Architecture Registration Boards (NCARB) in 2001
defined sustainability as ‘‘a state in which interdependent nature, economic and social

123
The paradox of the sustainable city

systems prosper today without compromising their future prosperity’’ (The National
Council of Architecture Registration Boards (NCARB) 2001). UN defined sustainability as
‘‘Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs’’ (Abdul-Kadir and Jamaludin 2013; Burnett 2007; Egger 2006;
Komnitsas 2011; Premalatha et al. 2013; Rai 2012). According to the Hannover principles
(McDonough 1992), sustainability means ‘‘The conception and realization of ecologically,
economically and ethically sensitive and responsible expression as a part of the evolving
matrix of nature.’’ Robert C. Gilman defined sustainability as ‘‘Think of it extending the
golden role over time, so that you do unto future generations as you would have them do
unto you’’ (Gilman 2013). WCED defined sustainable development as ‘‘the development or
growth which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs’’ (Alshuwaikhat and Nkwenti 2002; Borgonovi and
Compagni 2013; Kusakabe 2013). Berke and Manta (1999) described sustainable devel-
opment as a dynamic process connecting local and global concerns, as well as linking local
social, economic, and ecological issues, to fairly cater for the current and future genera-
tions’ needs (Berke and Manta 1999). Sustainable development has therefore been defined
through several sources and in various ways.
Sustainability and sustainable development concepts are not static or finite processes,
but are actually changeable and complex (Zheng et al. 2014), and involve an ongoing
process to meet the changes in the form of production processes and ecological systems
(Pickett et al. 2013). Now, most processes in the urban life may be linked to sustainability
(Sonne 2009). The complicated nature of the concept of sustainability prompted the UK
government to officially use the Brundtland definition of ‘‘Sustainable development’’ as ‘‘a
better quality of life’’ (Choi and Ahn 2013).
In this study, we attempt to determine the extent to which the ambiguity of sustain-
ability notions impact on the impetus to create sustainable cities. Three types of cities are
presented and assessed according to the sustainability pillars. The comparative approach
may help us to realize the deviation from sustainable dimensions in some developments
and indicate better directions for the decision makers. In the next section, the sustainability
pillars are discussed and a definition of the sustainable city is given. The section will also
discuss ways in which these can be balanced to create sustainable development. Three
types of cities that are widely known in the urban planning field will be discussed in terms
of their efforts toward sustainability.

2 Sustainability pillars and their interrelations

It is well known that economic, social, and environmental dimensions are considered the
major pillars for sustainability (Abdul-Kadir and Jamaludin 2013; Zheng et al. 2014). The
International Council of Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB)
developed a model that expresses sustainable features. Figure 1 illustrates how traditional
engineering will be broadened when environmental demands are considered. The eco-
nomic and sociocultural issues are presented in the global context, together with the
environmental issues (Cibworld 2014). The comprehensive sustainable object, regardless
of scale (city, neighborhood, or even a dwelling), is able to maintain a balance between
these pillars. In China for example, Shanghai is ranked the top economic city among all
Chinese cities, but it still an unsustainable city due to imbalanced development in terms of
socio-ecological factors (Jiang and Shen 2010; Pow and Neo 2013). Therefore, achieving
sustainability requires work on the three dimensions of economy, environment, and

123
 A. M. Hassan, H. Lee

Fig. 1 Requirements and pillars for sustainability, from the micro level to global level (Cibworld 2014,
modified by the authors)

Table 1 Measures and criteria for social sustainability (Authors)

Agreement among scholars Criteria considered

Complete consensus
Semi-consensus
Non-consensus (individual
principles)
Social equity; access to facilities and amenities; safety and security; social
interactions
Health of the inhabitants; education; pride and sense of place; affordable
housing; satisfaction with the neighborhood
Democracy; human rights; social homogeneity; cultural heritage; attractive
public realm

society. In fact, societal aspects are often overlooked in the fast-paced life of contemporary
society. Thus, we stress this pillar in the following section.
Social sustainability is based on two major concepts: social equity and sustainability of
community. Social equity means equal distribution of services, facilities, and resources in a
given area, to ensure accessibility for all settlers to these facilities, regardless of the
number of job opportunities, the level of education, access to transportation, quality of
health, or available housing within the neighborhood. On the other hand, sustainability of
community is related to the ability of society to sustain itself, which includes the social
interaction between inhabitants, level of trust across the community, and the ability of
residents to gather, discuss, and make decisions with local authorities. It also refers to
community stability, which promotes pride, safety, security, and a sense of the place
among inhabitants (Dempsey et al. 2012).
Many studies have attempted to set criteria for the measurement of social sustainability.
Sharifi and Murayama (2013) studied the criteria approved by 11 scholars and research
centers to achieve social sustainability and listed them in their study. Herein, we refor-
mulate these principles and divide them into three types: those that have complete con-
sensus among scholars, partial agreement among scholars, and non-consensus among
scholars. Table 1 shows the sustainable social principles, which have been approved by the
11 scholars between 1999 and 2011.
The implementation of ‘‘urban sustainability’’ requires interaction between three
environments: the eco-physical, the social, and the economic environments. Some of the
positive and negative externalities have been generated by this interaction. Figure 2 shows
a list of the external effects derived from the interaction between the three environments

123
The paradox of the sustainable city

Fig. 2 Positive and negative external effects in the interaction between the different environments in a city
(Authors, based on Camagni et al. 1998)

and that contribute to making sustainability a complicated idea. However, sustainability is

generated by energy because it is equally important as an environmental and economic
determinant. Governments therefore need to pay more attention to using renewable and
efficient energies to save funds for providing environmental and social amenities, as shown
in Fig. 2. If the sum of all positive external effects is greater than the sum of all the
negative external effects, the city would become a sustainable city (Camagni et al. 1998).

3 Purpose of sustainable city

The Italian architect, Giancarlo di Carlo, stated that, ‘‘Once we produced to consume, now
we consume to produce.’’ Theodoridou et al. (2012) believe that the sustainable city, which
is a self-sufficient city, can restore us to the first condition of ‘‘producing to consume’’
(Hawkes 1995). The notion of the sustainable city has emerged as a political initiative in
response to the degradation that occurred in the urban environment throughout the twen-
tieth century. Therefore, the issues related to the planning and management of human
settlements were the top priority of the United Nations conference held in Stockholm in
1972; the United Nations established the center for human settlements in 1978 to promote
and support sustainable trends in urban and rural communities (Saha and Paterson 2008).
Now, the sustainable city or utopian city reaches beyond the scale of the individual
building and extends to the entire city (White and Lee 2009).
The UN sustainable city program has defined the sustainable city as one that is able to
retain the supply of natural resources while achieving economic, physical, and social
progress, and remaining safe against the environmental risks that can undermine any
development achievement.

123
 A. M. Hassan, H. Lee

According to the British architect Richard Rogers, the sustainable city is a city that
meets social, cultural, environmental, and political needs, alongside economic and physical
objectives, while ensuring equitable access to all services by residents, without draining the
resources of other cities and the region (Rogers 1997). Murrain (1993) defined the sus-
tainable city as a town where, in terms of the structure of the town’s layout, the individuals
have the right of choice, but never at the expense of the other citizens, to determine the
outcome of their daily lives (Oktay 2012).
It is worth mentioning that the terms ‘‘urban sustainability’’ and ‘‘sustainable urban
development’’ are closely related and are almost used as alternatives, the proper distinction
being that urban sustainability expresses the preferable conditions that continue to survive
within the urban area. However, ‘‘sustainable urban development’’ refers to the strategies and
processes that drive the progress in the field of sustainability (Maclaren 1996). Therefore,
definitions of sustainable development are numerous and varied because of the pluralism of
approaches and strategies (Fowke and Prasad 1996). While the term ‘‘sustainable urbani-
zation’’ is broader than previous terms, it refers to local and global sustainability (Roy 2009).
The sustainable city is located in an intermediate stage between sustainability and sustainable
development. Burnett (2007) declared that the sustainable city is organized so as to enable all
its citizens to meet their own needs and to enhance their well-being without damaging the
natural world or endangering the living conditions of other people, now or in the future.
Tony Dominski proposed three stages that are required to transition into the sustainable
city, termed the ‘‘3 Rs’’: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle (Dominski 1992). It seems that the 3
Rs imply an ecological purpose. Dominski proclaimed that achieving the sustainable city
takes a long time and passes through several generations. As is well known, the various
zones differ in physical and climatic features, economic resources, ecological structure,
and inhabitants’ desires and needs. Therefore, a singular definition for the sustainable city
does not exist, which becomes an obstacle to the creation of the sustainable city. Despite
these differences, the shared goal among these definitions is to avoid large, automobile-
based and single-land-use areas and to instead encourage diversity that supports walk-
ability (Blassingame 1998).
It seems that the definition of the sustainable city is as diversified as that of sustain-
ability. Some definitions appear to be over-elaborate and contradict the natural laws.
Therefore, in the next section, we attempt to explore the most common initiatives toward
the sustainable city. The compact city, ubiquitous eco-city, and zero-carbon eco-city are
analyzed by identifying their advantages and disadvantages; hence, they will be evaluated
in the light of the three foundations of sustainability.

4 Cities on the way to sustainability

In this section, two cutting-edge types of cities that have flourished recently in some
countries will be evaluated, along with a third more traditional type that has a long history,
to determine whether or not these concepts are compatible with the essential meaning of
sustainability. The compact city, the zero-carbon eco-city, and the ubiquitous eco-city will
be assessed according to the sustainability pillars.

4.1 Compact city

In 1973, George Dantzig and Thomas L. Saaty coined the term ‘‘compact city’’; this term
propagated in the 1980s and 1990s as a backlash against postwar urban planning, which

123
The paradox of the sustainable city

impacted negatively on the economic, environmental, and sociocultural aspects of com-

munities. The criteria for the compact city can be summarized in the following points
(Scheurer 2007): (a) The compact city must encompass a minimum density, ranging from
40 to 80 residential units per net hectare, with height ranging from two to four storeys,
which makes a community more efficient and interactive. (b) Multi-functionality through
land use is needed for compactness, which guarantees social cohesion and decreases
motorization. (c) The residential developments need to be constructed in nodes, which
contain accommodation, employment, and daily facilities, to maximize the mutual share
between activities. (d) Harmony between the spatial structure and public transit system is
considered an advantage of the compact city. (e) The aim of the compact city is to shorten
the car trip by increasing the densities and employing mixed use in urban patterns (Du-
jardin et al. 2014; Howley et al. 2009; Lau 2013). The reduction in car speed and number
of parking spaces contributes to create an attractive public open space, where meeting and
interaction are encouraged over the function of circulation. In fact, the compactness can be
traced back to the medieval city, where pedestrians and walking were encouraged
regardless the existence of motorized vehicles (Oktay 2012). However, the compact city
theory is still encouraged. In Norway, 13 of the largest cities (Oslo, Bærum, Drammen,
Sarpsborg, Fredrikstad, Porsgrunn, Skien, Kristiansand, Sandnes, Stavanger, Bergen,
Trondheim, and Tromsø) are subject to a rehabilitation process aiming at converting to
compact cities from 2008 to 2014 (Hofstad 2012).

4.1.1 Challenges of the compact city theory

While the benefits of the compact city as a theory remain undisputed, other theories have
been proposed (Kühn 2003). Nevertheless, implementing this idea in existing city involves
a number of obstacles related to the historic and cultural areas, in addition to the pro-
hibitive costs involved in replacing the infrastructure to accept a higher density.
The compact city theory has been criticized because it does not interpret planners’
invitations to decentralize and does not consider its causes and effects (Oktay 2012). The
compact city does not consider the shortages of livable environments within the city and
the reasons why suburbs began to grow outside of the city. Indeed, the majority of people
residing in compact areas look forward to leaving the high-density zones to live in lower-
density zones, with a clean, pure, and quiet environment (Howley et al. 2009).
Some scholars urge that the compact city does not guarantee the provision of sufficient
green spaces within the city (Ståhle 2010), and thus, it is considered the anti-theory of a
green city. Also, because cities are disparate in density, form, structure, and location, the
compact city theory may be suitable for some cities, but it may fail in other cities (Oktay
2012). However, the important question is how to apply the compact city in an innovative
and effective manner that can be adapted by all cities, regardless of their form, structure, or
even location.
The ultra-compact city may impact negatively on the residents due to the absence of
privacy and greenery and can increase both noise and congestion (Lehmann 2010). In this
context, Howley et al. (2009) posed a similar question: How should compact, high-density
areas be configured alongside a better quality of life? This question urges planners to set
policy for achieving a dual goal: Urban sustainability derived from a compact pattern, and
livability derived from lower-density areas, offering greenery, and a quiet and clean
environment. Therefore, the compact theory could be liberated from referring only to an
urban form, to become a promising process for a sustainable and livable urbanity (Neuman
2005).

123
 A. M. Hassan, H. Lee

4.2 The ubiquitous eco-city

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have a significant impact on many

aspects of life. For example, ICTs are used for the surveillance of children and the
elderly who suffer from Alzheimer disease, where ubiquitous technologies such as
CCTV and wireless networks (ITU-T 2013) are utilized to help them anytime and
anywhere. Notably, ICTs are being used in urban development during the twenty-first
century, in order to improve the quality of life. Since the 1990s, Mark Weiser has
submitted a Ubiquitous Computing project at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Centre in
the USA (HoLee et al. 2008), based on ICTs that facilitate access between services,
goods, and people, in order to ameliorate the urban development in the city, region, or
even within a broader scale.
The U-city is a built environment where any citizen can use any service anywhere
and anytime through ICT devices (Lee et al. 2008). In order to effectively deal with the
various disasters that can occur in a city, critical decisions should be made in a timely
manner through the efficient cooperation of single individuals or groups or by the real-
time computation of data relevant to the decision (Jung et al. 2009). Therefore, ICT
development is needed to create the E-city and the U-city. The ubiquitous city is a
heuristic term based on ICT technologies embedded in the urban design. The term has
been used in urban planning in some modern cities in specific countries such as the
Republic of Korea.
After the 1997 Asian financial crisis (Yigitcanlar and Lee 2013), the Republic of
Korea adopted national strategies for urban development based on knowledge, through
the agenda of Cyber Korea, E-Korea, and U-Korea (HoLee et al. 2008). The U-Korea
agenda advocates generating a new sustainable urban form, where any resident can
utilize any service at any place, at any time, through the assistance of ubiquitous
computing (Jung et al. 2009) and ICTs embedded in the city infrastructure. Korean
U-eco-cities projects began in 2008, through the Hwaseong Dongtan pilot project
(Inaba 2012; Kim et al. 2009; Lindfield and Steinberg 2012), and now number 64
projects throughout Korea. Figure 3 shows the location and status of U-eco-cities inside
the Republic of Korea. These projects have been implemented through coordination
between the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime, and Ministry of Public
Administration and Security and have been boosted by some Korean technology
companies, including Korean Telecom, Samsung, and LG (Kim et al. 2009; Yigitcanlar
and Lee 2013).
In U-eco-cities, U-eco-technologies (U-eco-Ts) provide dwellers with quality envi-
ronmental resources and save energy through the use of an automatic water–air pol-
lution monitor system. The system is based on a smart grid for electricity and water
distribution for energy conservation and recycled water supply (Yigitcanlar and Lee
2013). U-eco-Ts also conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through
providing residents with smart cards to rationalize their energy consumption and use
sustainable transportation. Smart cards include the eco-mileage cards that are currently
used in Seoul. Green credit cards are also used for shipping of eco-friendly products,
where credits can be recovered for cash, or discounts afforded on utility bills. The
Ministry of Environment, and some companies such as Samsung Electronics and Hy-
undai Motors, encourage people to use green cards and offer discounts for buying eco-
friendly equipment and hybrid cars.

123
The paradox of the sustainable city

Fig. 3 Korean u-eco-city agenda (Yigitcanlar and Lee 2013)

In Yeosu U-eco-city, local authorities provide residents with U-bikes, where ICT
embedded bicycles enhance green transport within the city, while undermining bike thefts.
The infrastructure of Jeju city allows people to use electric cars for a cleaner environment.
Nowadays, televideo-based conference technologies, such as Skype or FaceTime, can
guarantee affordable communications between businesses or global groups, and can reduce
time, trip costs, carbon emissions, etc.
U-eco-technologies also allow foreigners to receive instant, easy and trustworthy
guidance and minimize the dependency on private or public transport modes. Now, many
corners of Seoul, Busan, and Incheon U-eco-cities are equipped with smart guide services
through quick response codes. The virtual store established by Homeplus (a Korean dis-
count store retail chain) in Jamsil subway station in Seoul, a good example of a smart
service, is considered an innovative idea based on ubiquitous and ICT technologies. The
columns and walls of Jamsil subway station are able to be rolled up or down and display
virtual Homeplus products on digital advertising columns and walls, showing products that
are similar to those customers would see in actual shops. This shop can thus vigorously
minimize the physical space of the traditional shop, avoiding shopping trips and unnec-
essary freight, while decreasing motorcar dependency.
Urban technologies are undoubtedly essential for improving the economic and envi-
ronmental dimensions of cities (Bolay and Kern 2011; Inaba 2012; Kim et al. 2009).
Notwithstanding, some challenges remain that hinder the wide application of knowledge in
sustainable urban areas, especially the aspect relevant to the societal dimension.

123
 A. M. Hassan, H. Lee

4.2.1 Challenges to the ubiquitous eco-city

Regarding U-eco-cities, proclaimed that telecommunications cannot be a substitute for vis-

à-vis interaction in the city (Gaspar and Glaeser 1998) since the linkages between people
through televideo conferences cannot meet psychological and social needs, which can only
be acquired through face-to-face meeting. ubiquitous eco-cities therefore cannot support
the social pillar of sustainability, notwithstanding all the advances in communication
technologies.
The cost of providing the infrastructure for U-eco-cities is prohibitive, and U-eco-
housing is not affordable for all social classes; this hinders the possibility of social equity.
In addition, all profits are actually reaped by the private sector, not by the government or
the citizens (Yigitcanlar and Lee 2013). Moreover, unemployment will result from the
replacement of human workers with ICT technologies, jeopardizing the possibility of
sustainable development or creating opportunities for employment.

4.3 The zero-carbon eco-city

A trend toward the sustainable city is the zero-carbon eco-city. The term ‘‘eco-city’’ was
coined by Richard Register in 1987 in his book entitled ‘‘Ecocity Berkeley: Building cities
for a healthy future’’ (Kolte et al. 2013). The eco-city attempts to use passive and active
devices that reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide or green house gases (GHG) to zero,
and generate clean and renewable energy. Hence, this type of city contributes to improving
the quality of life. Figure 4 shows the dissemination of eco-cities around the world.

Fig. 4 Some of the eco-cities throughout the world, among which is Masdar city in the UAE (http://www.
bioregional.us/)

123
The paradox of the sustainable city

Masdar city in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is considered one of the few models
throughout the world (Elchalakani et al. 2013; Grêt-Regamey et al. 2013; Reiche 2010;
Sgouridis and Kennedy 2010) that attempts to explore renewable energy, avoid the
dependency on fossil fuel, and create a zero-carbon eco-city (Whitehead 2010). Masdar
city lies at Latitude 24280 N and Longitude 54220 E, is within a hot zone where the
maximum average temperature exceeds 40 C, and is distinguished by sunny weather
and irregular rainfall (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2013). Thus, in Masdar city, Foster and
Partners focused on using passive means derived from the layout of traditional compact
Arab cities, such as diagonal street orientation (Northeast/Southwest), courtyards, wind-
catchers, window blinds, shaded colonnades, and mixed land-use (Hassan et al. 2013).
These means were integrated with renewable-energy-based active tools and new tech-
nologies such as a PV power plant, concentrated solar power, wind turbines, geothermal
technologies, and internal transportation based on electric light rapid transit or personal
rapid transit (Masdarconnect 2013), in addition to waste management, to create the
zero-carbon city.
Electric rapid transit will be navigated in underground tunnels to transport persons to a
number of destinations remote from traffic congestion and to provide better traffic safety
(Arthur 2012). Although the estimated construction cost of Masdar city is USD24 billion
(Nader 2009; Premalatha et al. 2013), its outcomes may be questionable, as shown in the
discussion on challenges.

4.3.1 Obstacles to the free carbon city

The high cost of zero-carbon cities (Yigitcanlar and Lee 2013), alongside the uncer-
tainties related to the ability of achieving waste-free cities (according to the second law
of thermodynamics,1 Premalatha et al. (2013) confirm it is impossible to create a waste-
free city), will undermine its implementation over a wide spectrum, or it will become
exclusive to those countries that have significant wealth, such as UAE. In China for
example, eco-cities are targeted for specific citizens, such as future developers, highly
educated inhabitants, and high-tech corporations, to live comfortably and safely. Hence,
they can increase GDP and generate novel technologies (Caprotti 2014). Therefore, the
challenge becomes how to create an affordable and sustainable city without eliminating
the use of the automobile and how to implement this in existing cities, regardless of a
city’s age. These challenges will form questions that will be at the center of this study
and will be addressed later.

5 Assessment of the ‘‘sustainable city’’ label

The wide variety of sustainability definitions shows that sustainability is a complex issue
and may even be an elusive target. Therefore, we first need to restrain our definition
regarding sustainability in general and urban sustainability in particular. Establishing a
plausible definition will help to focus on sub-targets that lead to the sustainable city as an

1
‘‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics decrees it impossible to have any organism or machine operating
at 100 % efficiency. Hence, it is impossible to operate any system, whether it is engaged in production or
pollution control, without some waste of energy or materials’’ (Premalatha et al. 2013, p. 665).

123
 Table 2 Advantages and disadvantages of three types of modern cities, and to what extent they comply with the sustainable pillars (the Authors)
Initiative/ Advantages
theory
123
The compact The compact city shortens the motorized
city trips, and hence saves energy, and
mitigates carbon emission
Mixed land-use inherent in the compact
city makes it more liveable and
interactive
Compact cities are safer than suburbs or
gated communities
The medium-to-high population densities
that distinguish compact cities afford a
feasible service by public transportation
The urban pattern of compact city is
adaptable thermally with arid hot and
cold regions (Hassan and Lee 2014)
The ICT embedded bicycles can boost green
ubiquitous transportation and health fitness, and
eco-city reduce bike thefts
The U-eco-city uses ICTs embedded in
the city infrastructure to offer services
anytime and everywhere
The zero- It uses all tools to achieve a free carbon
carbon city zone, depending on electric rapid transit,
energy generated from PV, solar panels,
etc
Challenges
Remodeling the historic areas or city by compact
theory may contradict the archeological nature of
the city, or interfere with the laws of historic
preservation
The majority of compact cities suffer from lack of
greenery and privacy, in addition to the increase in
noise, especially in over-compact cities
Regenerating the city in the non-compact areas needs
rehabilitation of infrastructure networks, at
prohibitive cost
The compact pattern would be intolerable if the
dependence on private car did not decreased
Some people believe that telecommunication may
promote social linkages. Nevertheless,
telecommunications cannot be a substitute for vis-
à-vis interactions
The U-eco-city automatically leads to undermining
the employment rate, due to depending on ICT
technologies, instead of human workers
The infrastructure of the U-eco-city is of prohibitive
cost
Implementation of such kind of cities is expensive,
so developing countries cannot carry them out on
their lands
This kind of city is intended to serve a special class
of community (rich, highly educated
citizens…etc.)
The ability of achieving the free waste city or zero-
carbon city is still questionable
Conflicts with sustainability pillars
Lack of green and open areas may discourage people to
interact and do outdoor activities
It does not strengthen social linkages (face-to-face
communication)
It does not provide more employment, due to depending
on telecommunication technologies much more, than
on human labor
The U-eco-city is based on ICTs, which require a specific
infrastructure, and thus it cannot be afforded for
developing countries. It does not adapt to the economic
dimensions
It does not advocate social equity, it just serves a specific
class of the community, regardless of the others; thus it
looks like gated communities, but on a larger scale
This kind of city does not comply with the economic
dimension, because it is mostly based on high-tech
Masdar city cost is about 24 billion US $
A. M. Hassan, H. Lee
The paradox of the sustainable city

end goal. Unfortunately, very difficult targets have already been set through the use of
marketing names such as the zero-carbon eco-city, which is considered a pipe dream by
Premalatha et al. (2013) and is questionable according to many critics. Thus, the term ‘‘The
city of transition into sustainability’’ seems more reasonable and rational than ‘‘The sus-
tainable city.’’
The approach of comparing between the compact city, the free carbon eco-city,
and the ubiquitous eco-city in terms of how each meets the goals of the pillars of
sustainability may help the decision makers and planners to review their strategies if
they intend to transform current cities into sustainable cities. Table 2 shows that the
updated initiatives, such as the zero-carbon eco-city and the ubiquitous eco-city,
may be a long way from the sustainable city compared to the idea of a compact
city, due to the discrepancy with one or two of the pillars of sustainable urban
development.
Cutting-edge technologies and brandable terminologies of new cities are not sufficient
to guarantee the development of sustainable cities. Table 2 shows that cities such as the
‘‘zero-carbon eco-city’’ and ‘‘ubiquitous eco-city’’ are limited if judged according to
whether they meet the goals of the pillars of sustainability, making them far removed from
the true concept of a sustainable city, especially from economic and social viewpoints.
While the compact city is not an innovative theory, it does involve significantly more pros
than cons, and is compatible with the conditions of developing and developed countries
(global theory).

6 Discussion and conclusion

The issue of sustainability is undoubtedly very urgent to protect the global environment,
both today and in the future. Over 1,580 scientists from around the world disagreed with
Dominski’s view that a long time is available to transit to a sustainable city (Blassingame
1998); they declared that only a very few decades remain to avert city hazards, and a
solution needs to be found as soon as possible. Thus, planners and decision makers have
focused on technology as the only solution that can save time and rescue the urban
environment from its critical situation. Hence, initiatives such as the free carbon eco-city
and U-eco-city have been adopted. In this study, we assessed these attempts according to
the pillars of sustainability.
Based on the review, if we believe that human beings are part of the ecological
system, human behaviors must be assessed in terms of how they respect the environ-
mental system. All people should deal peacefully with nature according to its potentials
and not according to the possibilities afforded by modern technologies. Hence, nature
can provide a better life for the current and future generations. The dangerous problems
which are threatening our planet today were not apparent to our predecessors because
they were living somewhat in harmony within nature’s needs. People are invited to
reduce their use of modern technologies that attempt to forcibly control or destroy the
environment; they also need to abandon their greed for profit from the consumption
culture at the expense of nature. For example, a business dealing with spare parts
consumes more energy and produces more pollutants than other light businesses, and
thus needs to make more drastic changes. The Centennial Bulb which is the longest

123
 A. M. Hassan, H. Lee

burning light bulb in history (112 years of illumination) is considered proof of the
possibility of an alternative to businesses based on rapid consumption (Centennial Bulb,
2014). We can define sustainable development as the degree to which growth can be
achieved based on nature’s gifts and potentials, without destroying nature and allowing
nature to sustain itself, that enables residents to improve their social linkages and
economies without compromising the next generations’ ability to survive. It is worth
mentioning that in the case of aggression expressed by people against the ecological
system, extra procedures need to be followed to mitigate the negative outcomes
resulting from this aggression in order to restore the first condition of the environment
and guarantee the right of next generations to meet their needs.
Although three main dimensions of sustainability have been selected here, sustainability
is actually a complicated issue that varies among several disciplines in terms of the aim of
human well-being and maintaining the Earth’s biological foundations (Salonen and Åhl-
berg 2013; Pickett et al. 2013). In this context, the sustainable city addresses a mixture of
social, economic, and environmental criteria. Stirling (1999) sees that the mutual pillars of
sustainability are non-measurable and Pow and Neo (2013) suggests that achieving equal
progress, or balancing all these aspects, is still a difficult mission. Furthermore, the gen-
eralization of a specific design or planning for the sustainable city is considered an irra-
tional belief (White and Lee 2009) due to the variation in economic, geographic, and
demographic prospects between one location and another. The sustainable city therefore
operates on principles that differ to the typical city of the past (Whitehead 2003); until
now, no consensus has been reached on the definition of the sustainable city (Kolte et al.
2013). The advocates for the free carbon eco-city and the U-eco-cities have underestimated
the pillars of sustainability, especially the economic and societal dimensions. Pow and Neo
(2013), proclaimed that the concept of ‘‘eco-city’’ including the free carbon or ubiquitous
eco-city is still a contentious notion; critics see that it is a physical form determined by
planners and decision makers in the absence of social participation by the inhabitants
themselves. Others believe that the eco-city faces difficulties related to economic costs and
political issues.
A number of contradictions are shown in the proposed definitions of sustainability. The
UN sustainable city program for instance defined the sustainable city as being surrounded
with natural resources to cater for the residents’ needs, without needing to import further
resources beyond those available in the city region. Richard G. Rogers also proclaimed that
the sustainable city is an open and vulnerable system (Theodoridou et al. 2012), and we
must acknowledge an indivisible planet, by keeping natural resources available regionally
or globally, while attempting to conserve its own resources (Egger 2006). Actually, the
critics deem this an exaggerated definition (Roy 2009), because a city per se cannot live
efficiently without importing non-renewable resources from outside, nor exporting waste
materials; from an ecological point of view, cities are therefore considered inherently
unsustainable (Camagni et al. 1998; Dou et al. 2013). It is well known that cities are now
the habitat for most of the planet’s people; the people in these cities are therefore able to
accelerate the climate change problems, or cause their decline. In other words, cities
themselves cannot be sustainable, but at least they can contribute to the transition into
sustainability (Burnett 2007).
Urban sustainability is a place-dependent notion (Pow and Neo 2013). Therefore,
we should not generalize the strategies or copy a specific prototype from one place
to another. We also must prevent the transmission of problems between places. The
zone of Inner Mongolia in China for instance has a rich natural environment and
culture, but is also a habitat of coalmines that impact negatively on Mongolia due

123
The paradox of the sustainable city

to the burning of coal and conversion into electricity. Electricity derived from coal
may be transmitted to China or other regions, and the environmental and ecological
problems remain in Mongolia; thus, the GHG should be accounted for by the
consumer, not only by the producer, especially when goods or services are con-
sumed in a different region, away from the production zone (Paloheimo and Salmi
2013). This process typically takes place in the u-eco-city which pledges to provide
goods and services to consumers anytime and everywhere. Thus, the sustainable city
should introduce proper solutions rather than import the accumulated problems from
one specific place to another, or shift them on to the next generation (Rasoolim-
anesh et al. 2012; Whitehead 2010).
This study indicates that viewing the economy as a pillar of sustainability and reducing
energy consumption in particular are the main approaches toward sustainability. Social and
environmental amenities cannot be achieved without funding; the average human life span
is expected to increase in the near future, and social sustainability must therefore provide
facilities for the elderly, as well as pay concern to adults and children. Undoubtedly, the
social facilities need financial provision. The economic approach based on saving energy
through efficient use and renewable energies, as shown in Fig. 2, can enhance environ-
mental aspects, as well as provide suitable funds for the improvement of social and
environmental facilities.
The study infers that reducing energy consumption through efficient use, and
relying on renewable energies, will be the keys to achieving urban sustainability.
Raymond A. Rogers believes that urban sustainability has a significant ethical
dimension (Pow and Neo 2013; Rogers 2000). This study therefore concludes that
the recent tyranny in the name of ecology cannot lead us to real sustainability.
Although the free eco-city and the u-eco-city are considered advanced models, they
have more limitations related to economic and societal aspects than the compact
city, which showed a clear compliance toward the pillars of sustainability as shown
in Table 2. However, using the compact pattern without a solution to the problem of
dependence on private cars may result in a claustrophobic city that may be more
unsustainable than previous cities.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by a Grant (14RDRP-B076574-01-000000) from

Regional Development Research Program funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of
Korean government.

Conflict of interest None.

Appendix 1

See Fig. 5.

123

1. Bronson Alcott 1799-1888, a
father of transcendentalism, laid
the foundation for
contemporary sustainability.
3. Ralph Waldo Emerson
(1803–82) Transcendentalist, he
shared an appreciation for the
importance of human equality.
5. Henry David Thoreau
(1817/62), Writer, supported the
abolition of slavery, and
advocated non-violent resistance
7. George Ripley founded
“Brook Farm” in 1841, and was
interested in social equity..
9. Founding of the Sierra Club
1893 by John Muir & Robert
Underwood Johnson.
11. Senator Gaylord Nelson
(1916/05) contributed to setting
the idea of Earth Day.
Ribl f
13. Gro Harlem Brundtland
(1939 – ) Headed the
Brundtland Commission
from (1983 – 1986).
15. Lester Brown (1934 - )
Author, studies transition to
environmental sustainability &
measures global progress.
17. A Sand County Almanac,
published posthumously in
1949.
19. Silent Spring, published in
1962.
21. First United Nations
Conference on the Human
Environment, held in
Stockholm, Sweden - 1972
23. World Commission on
Environment & Development.
Commissioned in 1983 by the
UN, and known as the
Brundtland Commission.
Thi t blihd i
25. The President’s Council on
Sustainable Development
(PCSD) –1993. Their report,
published in 1987, stressed the
importance of international
cooperation.
Fig. 5 Timeline of some of the key people and events leading to sustainability (Authors)
123
A. M. Hassan, H. Lee
1800 2. George Ripley (1802 – 80),
Transcendentalist Club, a founder of
Unitarian theology, was interested in
social sustainability and equity.
4. Margaret Fuller (1810 – 1850), of the
Transcendentalist Club, was fond of
nature and Women’s Rights Movement.
6. John Muir (1838 – 1914) Naturalist,
Writer, & Philosopher. He advocated
the balance of nature and humanity.
Founder of The
1850 8. Aldo Leopold (1887/48) Writer,
Philosopher, & Environmentalist. He
was fond of wildlife management, and
proposed that community may include
non-human elements, such as animals.
1900 10. Rachel Carson (1907/64) Naturalist,
she challenged the widespread use of
pesticides and fertilizers, in her book
Silent Spring.
12 .William D. Ruckelshaus (1932 / ).
contemporary sustainability
Assistant Attorney General, he
continues to work for environmental
protection.
14. Wes Jackson (1936 – ). He conducts
studies around sustainable agricultural
practices that protect soils.
16. Al Gore (1949 - ) Politician. He
advocates fueling the sustainability
revolution through awareness.
1950
Timeline of the people & events leading to
18. Eric Schlosser (1959 - ) Journalist.
He examined the global influence of the
United States fast food industry.
20. First Earth Day, celebrated by over
20 million people, April 22, 1970.
22. Loise Marie Gibbs (1952 –) &
Community of Love Canal, NY,
declared a state of emergency due to
buried toxic waste discovery – 1978.
24. Second United Nations Conference
on the Human Environment, called the
Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janiero,
Brazil – 1992.
2000 26. Third United Nations Conference
on the Human Environment, called the
World Summit, held in Johannesburg.
The paradox of the sustainable city

References

Abdul-Kadir, S., & Jamaludin, M. (2013). Universal design as a significant component for sustainable life
and social development. Journal of Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 180.
Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Nkwenti, D. I. (2002). Developing sustainable cities in arid regions. Cities, 19(2),
85–94.
Arthur, L. (2012). Masdar City: A model of urban environmental sustainability. 77 SOCI SCICS. pp. 77–82.
Berke, P., Manta, M. (1999). Planning for sustainable development: Measuring progress in plans. Lincoln
Institute of Land policy (Working Paper): p. 3.
Blassingame, L. (1998). Sustainable cities: Oxymoron, utopia, or inevitability? The Social Science Journal,
35(1), 6.
Bolay, J., & Kern, A. (2011). Technology and cities: What type of development is appropriate for cities of
the south? Urban Technology, 18(3), 25–43.
Borgonovi, E., & Compagni, A. (2013). Sustaining universal health coverage: The interaction of social,
political, and economic sustainability. Value in Health, 6, s34.
Burnett, J. (2007). City buildings-Eco-labels and shades of green! Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 29.
Caetano, M., Araújo, J. B., & Amaral, D. C. (2012). A framework for the application of eco-efficiency to the
technology development process. Technology Management and Innovation, 7(2), 29.
Camagni, R., Capello, R., & Nijkamp, P. (1998). Analysis towards sustainable city policy: An economy-
environment technology nexus. Ecological Economics, 24, 116.
Caprotti, F. (2014). Critical research on eco-cities? A walk through the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City,
China. Cities, 36, 10–17.
Choi, H. S., & Ahn, K. H. (2013). Assessing the sustenance and evolution of social and cultural contexts
within sustainable urban development, using as a case the MAC in South Korea. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 6, 51.
Cibworld (2014). CIB pro-active approach priority theme 1—sustainable construction CIB: News on CIB
and Sustainable Construction. Online access: \http://cibworld.xs4all.nl/dl/ib/9903/pages/pro1.
html#anchor413919[. Accessed 09 Jan 2014.
Dempsey, N., Brown, C., & Bramley, G. (2012). The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities?
The influence of density on social sustainability. Journal of Progress in Planning, 77, 94.
Dominski, T. (1992). The three stage evolution of eco-cities: Reduce, reuse, recycle. In A. Walter, et al.
(Eds.), Sustainable cities (pp. 16–18). Los Angeles: Eco-Home Media.
Dou, X., Li, S., & Wang, J. (2013). Ecological strategy of city sustainable development. APCBEE Procedia,
5, 429–430.
Dujardin, S., Marique, A. F., & Tellerb, J. (2014). Spatial planning as a driver of change in mobility and
residentialenergy consumption. Journal of Energy and Buildings, 68, 779–785.
Egger, S. (2006). Determining a sustainable city model. Environmental Modelling and Software, 21, 1236.
Elchalakani, M., Aly, T., & Abu-Aisheh, E. (2013). Sustainable concrete with high volume GGBFS to build
Masdar City in the UAE. CASE Studies in Construction Materials,. doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2013.11.001.
Fowke, R., & Prasad, D. (1996). Sustainable development cities and local government. Australian Planner,
33, 61–66.
Gaspar, J., & Glaeser, E. L. (1998). Information technology and the future of cities. Urban Economics, 43,
136–156.
Gilman, R. (2013). The dynamic planetary context for intentional communities. Social Sciences Directory,
2(3), 2–31.
Grêt-Regamey, A., Celio, E., Klein, T. M., & Hayek, U. W. (2013). Understanding ecosystem services
trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 109, 107–116.
Hassan, A. M., Hyowon, L., Yoo, U. (2013). Reviving the cultural heritage of Arabian–Islamic cities by new
technological tools: From Islamic Cairo into Masdar City. Creative Renaissance, the 7th conference
international forum on urbanism (IFOU); College of planning and design, National Cheng Kung
University, Taiwan, Oct. 7–11, 2013. CD, ISBN: 9789860382396, pp. 342–351.
Hassan, A. M., & Lee, H. (2014). A theoretical approach to the design of sustainable dwellings in hot dry
zones: A Toshka case study. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 40, 251–262.
Hawkes, D. (1995). Towards the sustainable city. Renewable Energy, 6(3), 348.
Hofstad, H. (2012). Compact city development: High ideals and emerging practices. European Journal of
Spatial Development; 49. Available Online: http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereed%
20articles/refereed49.pdf; access date: may, 30th, 2014.
HoLee, S., Hoon, H. J., Taik, L. Y., et al. (2008). Towards ubiquitous city: Concept, planning, and expe-
riences in the Republic of Korea. In T. Yigitcanlar, K. Velibeyoglu, & S. Baum (Eds.), Knowledge-

123
 A. M. Hassan, H. Lee

based urban development: Planning and applications in the information Era (pp. 148–169). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global, Information Science Reference.
Hornby, A. S. (1995). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (5th ed., p. 1205). UK:
Oxford university press.
Howley, P., Scott, M., & Redmond, D. (2009). An examination of residential preferences for less sustainable
housing: Exploring future mobility among Dublin central city residents. Cities, 26, 1–8.
Inaba, J. (2012). Adaptation: Architecture, technology, and the city. ISBN: 0615738737, 9780615738734.
p. 7. Available Online at: http://www.inaba.us/project/adaptation-architecture-technology-and-city.
Accessed 26th March 2014.
ITU-T (2013). Smart cities—Seoul: A case study. ITU-T Technology Watch Report. Available Online:
http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itut/oth/23/01/T23010000190001PDFE.pdf. Accessed 26th March 2014.
Jiang, Y., Shen, J. (2010). Measuring the urban competitiveness of Chinese cities in. Cities. 27, 312.
Jung, H. S., Jeong, C. S., Lee, Y. W., et al. (2009). An intelligent ubiquitous middleware for U-City:
SmartUM. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 25, 375–388.
Kim, Y. M., Kim, H. S., Moon, S. Y., et al. (2009). Ubiquitous eco-city planning in Korea. A Project for the
Realization of Ecological City Planning and Ubiquitous Network Society. REAL CORP 2009: CITIES
3.0—Smart, Sustainable, Integrative. Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Urban Planning,
Region al Development and Information Society, 22–25th, April, 2009; pp. 925–930. Catalonia, Spain.
Available Online at: \http://programm.corp.at/cdrom2009/papers2009/CORP2009_174.pdf[. Acces-
sed 26th March 2014.
Kolte, S., Kandya, A., Lakhtaria, K., et al. (2013). Evolving sustainable cities through the fabric of tech-
nological transformation. Procedia Engineering, 51, 480–486.
Komnitsas, K. A. (2011). Potential of geopolymer technology towards green buildings and sustainable cities.
Procedia Engineering, 21, 1023.
Kühn, M. (2003). Greenbelt and green heart: Separating and integrating landscapes in European city regions.
Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 19–27.
Kusakabe, E. (2013). Advancing sustainable development at the local level: The case of Machizukuri in
Japanese cities. Progress in Planning, 80, 2.
Lau, J. C. Y. (2013). Sustainable urban transport planning and the commuting patterns of poor workers in a
historic inner city in Guangzhou, China. Habitat International Journal, 39, 119–127.
Lehmann, S. (2010). The principles of green urbanism: Transforming the city for sustainability. London:
Earthscan.
Lindfield, M., Steinberg, F. (2012). Green cities. Asian Development Bank, p. 86. Available Online at:
http://www10.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2012/10650.pdf. Accessed 26th March 2014.
Maclaren, V. W. (1996). Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of the American Planning Association,
62(2), 185. Available also Online at \http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975684[. Accessed 26th
Jan 2013.
Masdarconnect (2013). Exploring Masdar city, Available at : \http://www.masdarconnect.com/userfiles/
files/Exploring-Masdar-City-Site-Tour-Booklet.pdf[. Accessed 12 Aug 2013.
McDonough, W. (1992). The hannover principles: Design for sustainability. Prepared for EXPO 2000, The
World’s Fair. Hannover, Germany. Available Online at: \http://www.mcdonough.com/wp-content/
uploads/2013/03/Hannover-Principles-1992.pdf[. Accessed 19th July 2014.
Murrain, P. (1993). Urban expansion: Look back and learn. In R. Hayward & McGlynn (Eds.), Making
better places: Urban design now (pp. 83–94). Oxford: Butterworth.
Nader, S. (2009). Paths to a low-carbon economy—the Masdar example. Energy Procedia, 1, 3951–3958.
Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, 11–26.
doi:10.1177/0739456X04270466.
Oktay, D. (2012). Human sustainable urbanism: In pursuit of ecological and social–cultural sustainability.
Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 19.
Oldenhuizing, J., Kraker, J., & Valkering, P. (2013). Design of a quality-of-life monitor to promote learning
in a multi-actor network for sustainable urban development. Cleaner Production, 49, 74.
Paloheimo, E., & Salmi, O. (2013). Evaluating the carbon emissions of the low carbon city: A novel
approach for consumer based allocation. Cities, 30, 238.
Pickett, S. T. A., Boone, C. G., McGrath, B. P., et al. (2013). Ecological science and transformation to the
sustainable city. Cities, 32, s13.
Pow, C. P., & Neo, H. (2013). Seeing red over green: Contesting urban sustainabilities in China. Urban
Studies, 50(11), 2256–2274.
Premalatha, M., Tauseef, S. M., Abbasi, T., et al. (2013). The promise and the performance of the world’s
first two zero carbon eco-cities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 660–669.
Rai, P. T. (2012). Townships for sustainable cities. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 37, 419.

123
The paradox of the sustainable city

Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Badarulzaman, N., & Jaafar, M. (2012). City development strategies (CDS) and
sustainable urbanization in developing world. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 626.
Reiche, D. (2010). Renewable energy policies in the Gulf countries: A case study of the carbon-neutral
‘‘Masdar City’’ in Abu Dhabi. Energy Policy, 38, 378–382.
Rogers, R. (1997). Cities for a small planet (p. 26). London: Faber and Faber Limited.
Rogers, R. A. (2000). The usury debate, the sustainability debate and the call for a moral economy.
Ecological Economics, 35, 157–171.
Roy, M. (2009). Planning for sustainable urbanisation in fast growing cities: Mitigation and adaptation
issues addressed in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Habitat International, 33, 278.
Saha, D., & Paterson, R. G. (2008). Local government efforts to promote the ‘‘Three Es’’ of sustainable
development: Survey in medium to large Cities in the United States. Planning Education and
Research, 28, 21.
Salonen, A. O., & Åhlberg, M. (2013). Obstacles to sustainable living in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 8, 54.
Scheurer, J. (2007). Compact city policy: How Europe rediscovered its history and met resistance.
2005–2007 the urban reinventors Journal, issue 2. celebration of urbanity. Available online at: \http://
www.urbanreinventors.net/2/scheurer/scheurer-urbanreinventors.pdf[. Accessed 17th Feb 2014.
Sgouridis, S., & Kennedy, S. (2010). Tangible and fungible energy: Hybrid energy market and currency
system for total energy management. A Masdar City case study. Energy Policy, 38, 1749–1758.
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2013). Changes in the traditional urban form and the social sustainability of
contemporary cities: A case study of Iranian cities. Habitat International, 38, 127.
Sonne, W. (2009). Dwelling in the metropolis: Reformed urban blocks 1890–1940 as a model for the
sustainable compact city. Progress in Planning, 72, 55.
Ståhle, A. (2010). More green space in a denser city: Critical relations between user experience and urban
form. Urban Design International Journal, 15(1), 47–67.
Stirling, A. (1999). The appraisal of sustainability: Some problems and possible responses. Local Envi-
ronment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 4(2), 111–135.
The National Council of Architecture Registration Boards (NCARB) (2001). Sustainable design. First
edition, Washington, USA: (NCARB), the National Council of Architecture Registration Boards, 2001,
pp. 3–21.
Theodoridou, I., Papadopoulos, A. M., & Hegger, M. (2012). A feasibility evaluation tool for sustainable
cities—A case study for Greece. Energy Policy, 44, 209.
WCED. (1987). Our common future. London: Oxford University Press. 46.
White, L., & Lee, G. J. (2009). Operational research and sustainable development: Tackling the social
dimension. European Journal of Operational Research, 193, 683.
Whitehead, M. (2003). (Re)Analysing the sustainable city: Nature, urbanisation and the regulation of socio-
environmental relations in the UK. Urban Studies Journal, 40(7), 1186. Available also online at
\http://usj.sagepub.com/content/40/7/1183[. Accessed 27th Jan 2014.
Whitehead, I. (2010). Models of Sustainability? A Comparative Analysis of Ideal City Planning in Saltaire
and Masdar City. GEO View: Online Undergraduate Review of Geography and Environmental Studies.
ISSN: 1448-6482.
Yigitcanlar, T., & Lee, S. (2013). Korean ubiquitous-eco-city: A smart-sustainable urban form or a branding
hoax? Technological Forecasting and Social Change Journal,. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.034.
Zheng, H. W., Shen, G. Q., & Wang, H. (2014). A review of recent studies on sustainable urban renewal.
Habitat International, 41, 273.

123
View publication stats