Thesis Sustainable Affordable Housing S

SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING - AN INDICATOR ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
SUSTAINABLE
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
1
S123764 MASTER THESIS DTU FEBRUARY 2022
Acknowledgements
Thanks to my dad and my dear friend, Nina. Thanks to Per
Sieverts Nielsen for supervision and an inspirational course on
sustainable indicators.
2
SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
- AN INDICATOR ASSESSMENT TOOL
FOR THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
GRADUATE THESIS
THE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK (DTU)
Student Nanna-Rose Reinewald K. Broch

Architectural Engineering
DTU Building Department
Student ID s123764
Supervisor Per Sieverts Nielsen
Senior Researcher
DTU Management
Hand in date 22/2-2022
Credits 35 ECTS
No. pages 114
3
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 6 3.3 Theoretical synthesis 46

DANSK RESUME 7 3.3.1 Essential concepts of SAH 46
3.3.2 Figure: Context of SAH 48
NAVIGATION 8 3.3.3 Figure: Concepts of SAH 48
Glosary 8
Abbreviations 8 4 CASE STUDY 50
Reading and print 9 4.1 Case context
4.1.1 Reports on housing and sustainability in DK 54
CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS 10 4.1.2 Prior assessments on affordable housing
in the City of Copenhagen 56
1 INTRODUCTION 12
1.1 Problem context 16 4.2 Selecting indicators 58
1.1.1 The global sustainable agenda 16 4.2.1 Indicator selection criteria 58
1.1.2 Measuring sustainable progress 16 4.2.2 Potential indicators 59
1.1.3 A sustainable challenge: Urbanization & 4.2.3 Evaluation and final selection 61
un-affordability 17
4.3 Framework description 62
1.2 Problem framing 18 4.3.1 Vision and scope 62
1.3 Research questions 19 4.3.2 Framework type 63
2 METHODOLOGY 18 4.4 Indicator assessment 64

2.1 Scope 24 4.4.1 Description 64
2.1.1 Thesis context 24 4.4.2 Summerization of results 66
2.1.2 Why a case study? 25 4.4.3 Index A - Pendling 68
2.1.3 Working proces 25 4.4.4 Index B - Low income groups 71
4.4.5 Index C1 - Housing costs vs income 76
2.2 Research Design 26 4.4.6 Index C2 - Tenure neutrality 80
2.3 Literature search 28 4.4.7 Index D1 - Housing provision for low
2.4 Theoretical synthesis 30 income groups 84
2.4.1 Main concepts of SAH 30 4.4.8 Index D2 - Tenures 88
2.4.2 Sub concepts of SAH 30 4.4.9 Index E1 - Small apartments 90
4.4.10 Index E2 - Housing occupancy 92
2.5 Case analysis 32 4.4.11 Index F - Crime and safety 94
2.5.1 Good practice reporting 32
2.5.2 Good practice indicators 33 5 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION 100
2.5.3 Indicator assessment 34 5.1 Indicator results 102
5.1.1 Housing stock and housing layout 102
3 THEORY 36 5.1.2 Mobility, community, comfort and health 104
3.1 Sustainability as theoretical concept 40 5.1.3 Low income groups and housing 105
3.1.1 Components of sustainability 40 5.1.4 Environmental costs 105
3.1.2 Social-economic intersection 40 5.1.5 Concluding remarks on results 106
5.2 Indicator assessment methodology 108
3.2 Sustainable affordable housing 41 5.3 SAH and urban planning 109
3.2.1 Housing and indicators 41 5.4 Conclusion 110
3.2.2 Affordable housing and equity 41
3.2.3 Indicators on SAH: Journal articles 42 REFERENCES 114
3.2.4 Indicators on SAH: Organisational tools 44
5
ABSTRACT
The City of Copenhagen has formulated a vision for hous- The indicator assessment results are than analysed to assess
ing affordability in context of the Sustainable Development whether progress is made towards ensuring SAH in the CIty
Goals (SDG's) presented by the United Nations. However, no of Copenhagen. The results show that 9/18 indicators show
indicator assesment tool has been developed for measuring movement away from sustainability, 7/18 indicators show
whether progress is being made towards ensuring sustain- progress towards sustainability, 1/18 indicators show a stag-
able affordable housing (SAH). An indicator assessment tool nant development, and 1/18 indicators is inconclusive due to
is a recognized method for both scientific inquiry and policy data insufficience.
development within measuring progress towards sustainable
development. Therefore, the research objective of this thesis On this basis it is discussed how the indicator assessment
is to develop an indicator assessment tool for SAH to the results can guide the formulation of urban sustainable de-
case of the City of Copenhagen. Furthermore, an assessment velopment goals in the City of Copenhagen. From the limited
is made of whether the City of Copenhagen is progressing to- indicator results it is concluded, that housing in the City of
wards sustainability. This is done by completing the following Copenhagen is connected by good quality transport to good
investigations: quality communities and has a physical standard, that sup-
ports human comfort and health. Furthermore, the satisfac-
The terminologies presented in academic research on the tion of its tenants on safety is increasing.
subject of sustainability and its components are presented. However, housing in the City of Copenhagen is not reflect-
Hereby, affordable housing is positioned as a sectoral aspect ing the diversity of the population by income in the housing
of urban sustainable development. From the theoretical field stock, housing layout, and housing costs. None of the indica-
the thesis presents the theoretical concepts essential to SAH. tors are contextualized to the environmental costs of housing
They are: Location Affordability, Housing Quality, Environmen- which should be prioritized in future studies to improve the
tal Housing Costs, and Housing Satisfaction. tool.
Concluding a theoretical synthesis, SAH is characterized by
reflecting the diversity of a population in both housing stock, In conclusion, the indicator assessment provides a limited
housing quality, and housing costs, it is connected by good insight in the concepts that affects SAH. Further assessments
quality transport to good quality communities and has a are needed to guide the formulation of future sustainable
physical standard, that supports human comfort and health. goals for the City of Copenhagen. Nevertheless, the developed
Furthermore, it should be contextualized to its environmental indicator assessment tool provides a methodological basis
costs and the satisfaction of relevant target groups. for discussing how the concepts of SAH are interdependent.
Furthermore, it elucidates that trade-offs must be made
The essential concepts of SAH are then applied in a trend between affordability and the physical quality of the built
analysis of the City of Copenhagen. Theory presented by Ma- environment.
claren (1996) and Garett & Lataweic (2015) is applied to select

and prioritize indicators. Applying these criteria results in the
following indicators for the assessment of SAH in the City of
Copenhagen:
'Pendling distance', 'Working versus dwelling citizens', 'People
at risk of poverty', 'Homelessness’, ‘Allocations’, 'Price-to-in-
come ratio', 'Price-to-rent ratio', 'Social housing rent-to-in-
come ratio', 'Consumption versus income', 'Housing expenses
versus income', 'Provision of housing for low income groups',
'Occupancy length', 'Occupancy status', 'Tenures' 'Small apart-
ments', and 'Crime and safety versus housing prices’.
6
DANSK RESUME
Københavns Kommune har formuleret visionen om at sikre

betalelige boliger til alle indkomstgrupper i kontekst af de Hernæst analyseres vurderingsværktøjets resultater til at
globale bæredygtighedsmål (Sustinable Development Goals/ vurdere, om hvorvidt udviklingen for betalelige boliger går i
SDG's) præsenteret af de Forenede Nationer. Imidlertid en bæredygtig retning i Københavns Kommune. Resultaterne
findes der ikke et bæredygtighedsværktøj (Indicator Assess- viser, at 9/18 indikatorer viser ubæredygtige tendenser, 7/18
ment Tool) til at vurdere, om hvorvidt udviklingen indenfor indikatorer viser bæredygtige tendenser, 1/18 indikatorer viser
betalelige boliger er bæredygtig i Københavns Kommune. Et en stillestående udvikling og 1/18 indikatorer peger på behovet
bæredygtighedsværktøj er en anerkendt metode til videnska- for bedre dataindsamling.
belig undersøgelse og politisk målsætning. Derfor er formålet
med dette speciale at udvikle et bæredygtighedsværktøj På baggrund af dette diskuterer specialet, hvordan bæredyg-
for bæredygtige, betalelige boliger (sustainable affordable tighedsvurderingsværktøjets resultater kan guide fremtidige
housing/SAH) samt foretage en undersøgelse af, om hvor- bæredygtige urbane mål for Københavns Kommune. Fra de
vidt Københavns Kommune udvikler sig i en mere bæredygtig begrænsede resultater konkluderes det, at boliger i Køben-
retning indenfor emnet. Dette gør specialet gennem følgende havns Kommune er forbundet af transport i god kvalitet til
undersøgelser: nabolag i god kvalitet og har en fysisk standard som under-
støtter komfort og sundhed. Derudover stiger beboertilfred-
Terminologier præsenteret i akademisk forskning indefor sheden i forhold til generel tryghed.
emnet bæredygtighed og dets komponenter præsenteres. Imidlertid reflekterer boligerne i Københavns Kommune
Herigennem positioneres begrebet 'betalelige boliger' i kon- ikke diversiteten af befolkningen efter indkomst i hverken
tekst af bæredygtig urban udvikling. Fra det samlede teore- boligmassen, boligplanløsninger eller boligpriser. Ingen af
tiske felt præsenterer afhandlingen de teoretiske koncepter, indikatorerne medregner klimaomkostninger, hvilket derfor
som er essentielle for at vurdere om boliger er billige og skal prioriteres i fremtidige studier til at optimere værktøjet
bæredygtige. Koncepterne er: 'Beliggenhed', 'Boligkvalitet', præsenteret i specialet.
'Klimaomkostninger' og 'Boligtilfredshed'.
På baggrund af specialets teoretisk synthese kan bæredygtige, Herfra kan det konkluderes at bæredygtighedsvurdingsværk-
betalelige boliger karakteriseres på følgende måde: tøjet giver et indblik i nogle af de områder som influerer
Bæredygtige, betalelige boliger er karakteriseret ved at de bæredygtige, betalelige boliger. Yderligere vurderinger er nød-
reflekterer diversiteten af en befolkning i både boligmasse, vendige for at vejlede Københavns Kommune i at formulere
-kvalitet og -omkostninger. De er forbundet af transport i god fremtidige mål for bæredygtige, betalelige boliger. Ikke desto
kvalitet til nabolag i god kvalitet og har en fysisk standard mindre kan det udviklede bæredygtighedsvurdingsværktøj
som understøtter menneskelig komfort og sundhed. Deru- anvendes som metodisk basis til at diskutere, hvordan urbane
dover skal boligens betalelighed altid kontekstualiseres til kli- planlægningsaspekter er indbyrdes afhængige.
maomkostninger og tilfredsheden hos relevante målgrupper. Derudover belyser værktøjet at det er nødvendigt at foretage
afvejninger mellem betalelighed og kvaliteten af det byggede
De essentielle teoretiske koncepter for bæredygtige, betale- miljø.
lige boliger anvendes hernæst i en trendanalyse af Køben-
havns Kommune. Indikatorer udvælges og prioriteres i over-
ensstemmelse med teori præsenteret af Maclaren (1996) og
Garett & Lataweic (2015). Efter at have anvendt denne teori er
de endelige indikatorer som følger:
'Pendling distance', 'Erhvervstilknyttede versus beboere', 'Folk i
risiko for fattigdom', 'Hjemløse’, ‘Bolighenvisninger’, 'Pris-til-in-
dkomst ratio', 'Pris-til-husleje ratio', 'Almene boliger husle-
je-til-indkomst ratio', 'Forbrug versus indkomst, 'Boligudgifter
versus indkomst', 'Boliger til lavindkomstgrypper', 'Opholdstid
i boliger, 'Belægningsstatus', 'Ejerformer', 'Små lejligheder', og
'Kriminalitet og tryghed versus boligpriser’.
7
NAVIGATION
GLOSARY
AHD Affordable Housing Database
BBR The Danish Building and Housing Register
(Bygning- og Boligregisteret)
BC Brundtland Commission
BPST The Danish Housing and Planning Agency
(Bolig- og Planstyrelsen)
BR Brundtland Report
CPH Copenhagen
EC European Commission
EP European Parliament
EU European Union
SILC Statistics on Income and Living Conditions
GDP Gross Domestic Product
NSA Neighborhood Assessment Tool
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development
SAH Sustainable Affordable Housing
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UN United Nations
WSO World Summit Outcome
WCED The World Commission on Environment and
Development
QoL Quality of life
ABBREVIATIONS
Av. Average
App. Approximately
Excl. Exclusive
Incl. Inclusive
No. Number of
8
READING AND PRINT
Tables in appendixes are continued across a two page
spread. Layout and in text references to figures and tables
are designed for a two page spread. Therefore, the report has
a layout which is best read in A4, portrait, two page spread,
printed on both sides.
9
CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS
Housing Sustainable indicator

Housing is defined as living spaces; a rigid casing that enclos- A sustainable indicator is used to measure or evaluate a
es and protects a space where people live. Housing is often particular characteristic of interest. A combination of several
categorized by household type (eg. house, flat or detached) indicators can constitute a sustainable indicator framework or
use (eg, vacancy or full-year), or by tenure status (eg. renter or tool (Gudmundsson, 2016).
owner) (Peiser, 2015). According to Gudmundsson et al. (2016) the terminology for
sustainable indicator components are presented as follows:
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an analysis completed on Indicator
the whole life cycle of a system or product that is the object An indicator is a variable or a combination of variables which
of study. It covers a broad range of life cycle impacts from is selected to represent a certain issue of interest
which it attempts to perform a quantitative assessment on
sustainability. The focus of LCA has mainly been on the envi- Parameter (Variable)
ronmental impacts and has demonstrated to be an import- A parameter is a measurable value. Indicators are by defini-
ant assessment tool in the environmental regulation in many tion variables. However, not all variables are indicators, unless
parts of the world (Hauschild, 2018). they are selected to represent a certain issue of interest
Social housing (DK) Unit (Measurement scale)

In Danish ‘Almene Boliger’. A type of non-profit housing where A unit is the way in which an indicator or variable is mea-
the rent is only cost-related. Social housing organs are gov- sured. Units are often categorised as: Nominal, ordinal,
erned by democratic resident organizations (Lejerbo, 2021). interval, or ratio. They can be scientific units or customized to
specific contexts
Sustainability
The Brundtland Commission defines sustainable development Value
as: “[...] the development that meets the needs of the present A value is the magnitude of a parameter or indicator. It is rep-
without compromising the ability of future generations to resented by a number, figure, symbol, etc.
meet their own needs.” (WCED, 1987, §3.27).
Index (Composite Indicator/Aggregate)
Sustainable development Indexes combines multiple indicators or parameters
According to Maclaren (1996) the meanings of ‘sustainable (Ibid., 2016, pp. 140-141).
urban development’ and ‘urban sustainability’ are two close
terms often used interchangeably in literature. They should be
distinguished by that ‘sustainability’ describes an ideal set of

conditions that persists over time, whereas the word ‘devel-
opment’ implies a process by which an ideal is sought to be
accomplished: sustainability (Ibid.).
10
Sustinable indicator 'tool' versus 'framework'
An 'indicator assessment tool' and 'sustainable indicator
framework' refers to a combination of indicators that evaluate
a particular characteristic of interest (Gudmundsson, 2016).
Often ‘tool’ is used in a practice oriented context and ‘frame-
work’ in a theoretical context (Garett and Lataweic, 2015).
Sustainable reporting
The act of reporting assessments on progress towards or
away from sustainability (MacLaren, 1996).
Quality of life (QoL)

A broad concept which adresses an individual’s perception of
their personal situation in both physical, social, mental and
spiritual dimensions. The definition on QoL from the World
Health Organisation (WHO) Quality of Life Group (1997) is:
“Individuals’ perception of their position in life in the context
of the culture and value systems in which they live and in
relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns”
(Ibid., p. 1).
'Wellbeing' versus 'comfort'

Wellbeing is a term used in psychologically or spiritually
oriented perspectives related to the concepts of happiness,
positive experiences or ideas, life satisfaction, pleasure,
and prosperity. It covers aspects such as awareness of the
physical condition, stress reduction and self-responsibility.
The strategies for achieving well-being help people reach new
ways of understanding and controlling their lives, both in an
individual and a collective scope.
Comfort is a synonym of ‘well-being’, but often used as a
more holistic sense representing relief, ease and transcen-
dence. It is closely aassociated with the nature of nursing
care (Pinto et al., 2016).
11
12345
INTRODUCTION
1
INTRODUCTION
12
INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the problem context and framing and the research objectives and
questions. This is done in order to contextualise the problem field, and the specific focus
and relevance of the report.
Additionally, a clarification of concepts is presented, along with a walk through of the
report structuce and the report proces. This is done in order to make the report logic and
structure transperent and understandable to the reader.
Problem context
blabla
Urban trends
This section presents theory on urban sustainable development in brief, describing the
main trends and challenges for cities in relation to socioeconomic aspects of housing.
Furthermore definitions on essential aspects are presented. This section is included to give
the reader a contextual understanding of the importance of assessing sustainability in the
context of housing. Furthermore, this section is used for analyzing the quality of the exist-
ing frameworks on sustainability of housing, and how a new one can be constructed.
13
S123764 MASTER THESIS DTU FEBRUARY 2022 12345
Photo: Åboulevarden, Copenhagen NV. January 2019. Owned by author.
14
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER CONTENT
Chapter 1. 'Introduction' presents the problem context, the

problem framing and the research questions. This is done in
order to contextualise the focus and relevance of the thesis.
15
12345
1.1 PROBLEM CONTEXT
1.1.1 THE GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE AGENDA 1.1.2 MEASURING SUSTAINABLE PROGRESS

Origin of the term 'sustainability' Sustainable reporting: a method to measure progress
In the late nineteenth century the idea of sustainable devel- Sustainable indicators are the backbone for monitoring prog-
opment emerged in the observation of an ecological crisis as ress towards sustainability in sustainable reporting (Garrett
the result of rapid industrialization and urbanization world- and Latawiec, 2015). Maclaren (1996) defines urban sustain-
wide (Shirazi & Keivani, 2019). The Brundtland Report ‘Our ability reporting as:
Common Future’ from 1987, completed by The World Com- “a tool for informing local government, as well as individuals,
mission on Environment and Development (WCED) was a po- businesses, and other organizations, about the progress that
litical turning point that caused sustainable development to they are making towards achieving urban sustainability” (Ibid.,
become mainstream globally (Shirazi & Keivani, 2019; Wheeler, p. 184).
2013). The purpose of the the Brundtland Report was to pro- A sustainability framework is determined by certain goals for
pose long term strategies for achieving sustainable develop- sustainable development from which a combined analysis of
ment in order for the international community to formulate the indicators assesses a sustainable performance. Such a
goals and their means for achievement to deal effectively framework assess the effectiveness of actions and policies
with environmental concerns caused by industrialization and at moving systems towards a more sustainable state. Sus-
urbanization such as ecological degradation, social inequality, tainable indicators can either clarify goals, describe trends,
and economic injustice (WCED, 1987). analyse conditions, analyse project development, or evaluate
alternative strategies towards sustainability (MacLaren, 1996).
Global goals for sustainable development
In 2015 the UN presents 17 Sustainable Development Goals Challenges with sustainable reporting
(SDG’s) in the report ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Sustainable indicators reflect what is considered essential in
Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1’ (UN, 2015). sustainable development since it is the primary tool inform-
The SDGs constitutes goals and targets for achieving global ing governments and businesses to assess their sustainable
sustainable development in relation to social, environmental, development (Maclaren, 1996). However, different political
cultural, and political parameters. The SDGs are guided by the sectors present different points of view about sustainabili-
principles of the UN Charter, grounded in the Universal Decla- ty in relation to social, environmental, cultural, and political
ration of Human Rights (UDHR) and builds upon the outcomes issues, and in different locations. Rigorous data collecting and
and learnings from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) analysis causes an ambiguity of the sustainable development
and the World Summit Outcome (WSO) from 2005. The SDG’s comprehension and definition. Consequently, this results
are divided into 169 targets which elaborate on different in different measuring methods making it a challeging to
objectives for achievements on sustainable development. progress towards a collective definition of sustainability (de
Target and goals combined intends to stimulate political and Azevedo & Silva, 2010).
governmental action from 2015-2030 in areas considered of According to Tanguay et al. (2010) sustainable development
critical importance for humanity and the planet by the UN should not be redefined when adapted to a particular context.
Member States (UN, 2015). In the revised UN-report ‘Report of Instead, it should be consistent with that of the Brundland
the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Develop- Report (1987) by reflecting the economic, social and environ-
ment Goal Indicators’ sustainable indicators supplement each mental components as well as the overlaps between them.
SDG-target to assist the measurement of progress towards The objectives of the framework should reflect both specific
sustainability (UN, 2016). Nations around the world - including factors for the local context and the need to homogenize the
Denmark - has committed to fulfill the SDG’s by 2030. The indicators to allow for comparison. Additionally, it is not suffi-
SDG’s should be viewed as guidelines for governments and cient to base a framework on previously established objec-
always be adapted to a local or national context (Rambøll & tives and selection criteria (Tanguay et al., 2010). An indicator
DAC, 2019). assessment tool is a recognized method for both scientific
inquiry and policy development within measuring progress
towards sustainable development (Ibid.; Maclaren, 1996).
16
INTRODUCTION
1.1.3 A SUSTAINABLE CHALLENGE: URBANIZATION & UN-AFFORDABILITY
Urban growth and sustainability and cultural heritage. It states: “Make cities inclusive, safe,
The rapid rate of urbanizational growth is one of the most resilient and sustainable.” (UN, 2015, p. 21). The first target in
dominant trends of the 20th century. More than half of the SDG 11 states: "By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate,
world’s population is urban dwellers (Hopwood & Mellor, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade
2006). Cities Climate Leadership Group (2019) estimates that slums." (Ibid., p. 21). For a complete list of all targets and indi-
another 2.5 billion people will live in urban areas by 2025. cators included in SDG 11 see Appendix A, p. 8.
Cities and urban areas contain the greatest concentrations of
economic and residential activities, and such areas are where Un-affordability of housing in the City of Copenhagen
most emissions, waste, and pollution are produced. Cities are The rapid urbanization has also contributed to increasing
also where the highest share of consumption occurs (Camag- housing affordability challenges in the City of Copenhagen in
ni, 2017) and where the sharpest contrasts are found between Denmark (Turk, 2021). In Denmark, the Danish State provides
rich and poor (Yeganeh et al., 2018). This makes cities an ideal the general guidelines for urban planning. The municipalities
melting pot for testing sustainable solutions (Hopwood & are the smallest governmental entities and they have the
Mellor, 2006) as well as withholding a big potential for pro- responsibility to translate the national guidelines and visions
gressing on the sustainability agenda. Many cities have taken into physical urban planning through municipal and local
up the ambition of working towards sustainability (Shirazi & plans (KK, 2021). Hence, municipal and local urban policies
Keivani, 2019). can regulate the spatial distribution of housing and their ten-
ures through urban planning measures (Turk, 2021).
A result of urban growth: unaffordability of housing In the most recent municipal plan presented by the City of
The rapid urbanization increases housing affordability Copenhagen in 2019 the municipality recognizes the lack of
challenges in both developed and developing countries. An affordable housing as a central problem in their urban plan-
increasing share of low income earners cannot afford to buy ning policy (KK, 2019.a). The City of Copenhagen state, that it
or rent housing in the central cities (Chan & Adabre, 2019). aims to: “[...] create mixed and diverse residential areas with
Hence, lower income citizens have to move to less central housing for all Copenhageners” (Ibid., p. 53). In the report ‘The
areas in urban commuting zones or areas with less adequate City of Copenhagen’s action plan for the sustainable devel-
housing (Turk, 2021). opment goals’ from 2018 the City of Copenhagen presents
The process of citizens being priced out of an area is known visions for sustainable development in context of the UN
as gentrification (Yeganeh et al., 2018). The term refers to the sustainable agenda (KK, 2018.a). Here, the City of Copenhagen
process of replacement of an existing population by wealthier states: "Housing must be available to everyone and for every-
people than the existing one (Glass, 1964). Gentrification is one. More housing is not enough; equally important is that the
recognized to be a widespread phenomenon in large cities all city has housing for all price levels" (Ibid., p. 30).
over the world including: London, San Francisco, New York,
Toronto, Sydney, in urban centers in Southern and Eastern Reports have been developed to measure whether the City of
Europe as well as in major centers in Asia and Latin Ameri- Copenhagen progresses towards providing more affordable
ca (Larsen & Hansen, 2008). Factors discussed in literature housing eg. the reports: 'Demography, housing needs and
that can cause gentrification are various. Some examples price development in the City of Copenhagen, analysis with
are urban climate adaption also known as ‘greening’, building focus on current and future developments' (CE, 2018) and
renovation and transformation, social mix policies, real estate 'Analysis of accessibility in the housing market in Copenhagen'
competition, capital investment, and a growing gap between (KK, 2018.b). However, none of the reports position affordable
the supply and demand of housing (Hansen & Larsen, 2008). housing in context of the sustainable agenda nor present
the methodology of a sustainable indicator assessment tool.
Adequate and affordable housing central to sustainability Therefore, the research objective of this thesis is to develop
UN recognizes the right to adequate and affordable hous- an indicator assessment tool for sustainable affordable hous-
ing as an essential aspect of sustainable development. SGD ing (SAH) to the case of the City of Copenhagen.
11 deal with different aspects of the sustainability of cities
including: Housing, transport, urban spaces, natural disasters,
17
12345
1.2 PROBLEM FRAMING
In context of the UN sustainable agenda the City of Copenha-

gen has set goals for reaching sustainable development. One
sustainable vision is to ensure affordable housing in order to
create diverse residential areas with housing for all Copenha-
geners (KK, 2019.a). The City of Copenhagen wants to progress
towards a more sustainable and equal city by ensuring that
housing is available to everyone and for everyone (KK, 2018.a).
The City of Copenhagen has formulated sustainable visions

for housing affordability, but no indicator assesment tool
has been developed for measuring whether progress is being
made towards ensuring sustainable affordable housing (SAH).
An indicator assessment tool is a recognized method for both
scientific inquiry and policy development within measuring
progress towards sustainable development. Therefore, the
research objective of this thesis is to develop an indicator
assessment tool for SAH to the case of the City of Copenha-
gen. From a case analysis an assessment is made on whether
progress is being made towards ensuring SAH. Finally, it is
discussed how the indicator assessment tool can guide the
formulation of urban sustainable development goals in the
City of Copenhagen and in general.
18
INTRODUCTION
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In order to meet the research objective the following ques-

tions are answered. They are divided in three parts following
the chronological structure of this thesis:
Theory
1. How does the theoretical field of sustainable affordable
housing (SAH) define the essential concepts of SAH?
Case Study
2. How can the essential concepts from the theoretical field
of SAH be applied as an indicator assessment tool to assess
SAH in the City of Copenhagen?
3. Would it be possible to conclude whether progress is being

made towards ensuring SAH in the City of Copenhagen and
how?
Discussion
4. How can the indicator assessment tool on SAH in the City
of Copenhagen guide the formulation of urban sustainable
development goals in the City of Copenhagen and in general?
19
12345
METHODOLOGY
2
20
METHODOLOGY SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING - AN INDICATOR ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
21
Photo: Bellahøj Houses, Copenhagen. January 2022. Owned by author.
22
METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER CONTENT
This chapter presents the methodological approach of the

thesis:
Section 2.1 'Scope' presents the thesis context in terms of

philosofy of science, personal sensemaking and bias, the field
of study context, and relevant prior study activities. Finally,
the thesis working proces is described in brief.
Section 2.2 'Research design' presents the research design of

the thesis in order to guide the reader through the structure
of the report.
Section 2.3 'Theory' describes the methodology of the litera-

ture search.
Section 2.4 ‘Theoretical sythesis’ describes how the essential

concepts of SAH are synthesized from the collected theory.
Section 2.4 ‘Case study’ presents the methodology of the cat-

egorisation and selection of indicators. It presents theory on
good practice reporting and describes how data is processed
in the indicator assessment.
23
12345
2.1 SCOPE
2.1.1 THESIS CONTEXT

Philosofy of science
This thesis is written in accordance with the social construc- The thesis context and scope originates from the natural
tivistic philosophy of science. Social constructivism is the be- and engineering science tradition which involves deductive
lief that no objective reality exists since the reality is socially systems where empirical generalisations are hierarchically
constructed (Egholm, 2014). As a consequence problems are ordered according to theories or models (Wengenvorth, 2004).
'wicked' and neither definitive nor objective solutions exist to However, a combined inductive and deductive methodology
problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973). The thesis is operating in the has been present in completing the thesis. The selection,
social constructivism in the sense that it applies theory based processing and relation of theory and empiri has been con-
on empirical generalisations in a real-life context in a case stant and dialectical throughout the working proces (Boolsen,
study on the City of Copenhagen. This underpins the social 2019). Hence, the theoretical body is developed in an analyti-
constructivist belief that one can only obtain context-depen- cal movement between induction and deduction, empiricism
dent knowledge, since no objective reality can be grasped and theory. The data is qualitatively analyzed for causes and
(Egholm, 2014). relations and applied both as a starting point for the applied
theory and in relation with it (Ibid.).
Personal sensemaking and bias The working proces is illustrated in Figure 2.1.A. The circles to
The sensemaking of the studied phenomenon in this thesis the right visualize the iterative movements within each chap-
has been continous in an iterative process until the finalisa- ter. The arrows between the chapters illustrate how knowl-
tion. After three years of architectural practice and five years edge is obtained when working on each part and how they
of engineering student practice my tacit knowledge have inform each other. Essentially, the iterative proces scarpens
influenced my percieving of the study context and where to the problem definition and research questions over time.
look for answers. It has been influenced by my own expec-
tations, my previous studies and professional and personal Prior study activities relevant to the thesis
experiences. All factors have influenced the thesis scope and Literature review
chosen literature (Wengenvorth, 2004). As a result, aspects of The report 'Academic literature search on urban develop-
housing aligned with my prior studies have been investigated ment in Copenhagen' was completed as a special course at
rather than others. For example physical aspects of housing DTU Management in 2020 under the same supervisor as on
have been prioritized over economic ones. this thesis, Per Sieverts Nielsen. The methodology applied for
the literature review (Okoli, 2019) has inspired the literature
Field of study context search methodology in this thesis. Furthermore, the prior
This thesis is written at the Technical University of Denmark search of literature within a simular research field have made
(DTU). I am a student from the DTU Building Department, the literature search less time consuming. The full report can
Architectural Engineering, and the thesis is written under be found as in Appendix G.1 p. 88.
DTU Management, Department of Technology, Management
and Economics, with Per Sieverts Nielsen as supervisor. He Geographical analysis of construction projects in CPH
is specialised in Energy Economics and System Analysis at The report 'Geographical analysis of construction projects in
the Sustainability Division. Therefore, the thesis is focused on the City of Copenhagen 2000-2020' was completed at the
sustainable development in an urban context with a specific DTU course '30530 Geographic information systems' in 2020.
focus on the build environment. It views sustainability from The report was not developed as a preliminary study for this
a system perspective and investigates the framed problem project. However, some aspects of applying GIS in urban plan-
through a broad synthesis including multidisciplinary re- ning and the potential of geographical representation of data
search. from the Danish Building and Housing Register (BBR) are dis-
cussed in Section 5.1 Discussion (p. 104). Therefore, the report
is included for further reading (See Appendix G.2 p. 110).
24
METHODOLOGY
2.1.2 WHY A CASE STUDY? 2.1.3 WORKING PROCES
According to Bent Flyvbjerg (2019) a case study gives a con- The thesis is limited by a time frame of app. 980 working
text dependent knowledge which is a necessity to scientific hours (35 ECTS). The thesis working proces has evolved
research. It is important due to its relation to real situations chronologically as visualised in Figure 2.1.A.
and its complex detailing. Adversely, if research has a great As visible in the diagram all included activities have been
distance to the studied subject or object and lacks concrete completed in an iterative working proces. The thesis started
feedback this can result in an ineffective learning process. out with a focus on a quality assessment of existing tools
This can lead to an academic dead end where the research's for assessing SAH. The quality assessment was completed in
utility becomes unclear and untested. The case study is an the search for an indicator assessment tool suited for a case
effective research method to avoid this tendency (Ibid.). study on the City of Copenhagen (Activities 2. and 3.). How-
In context of this thesis the strength of the case study is that ever, the progression of the thesis and the growing knowl-
it fosters a nuanced understanding of the studied phenome- edge on the subject of SAH reveiled that the tool should be
non within its real-life context. As argued by Flyvbjerg (2019) a developed specifically for the City the Copenhagen (Activity 4.
strategic selection of a case can increase generalizability. An and 5.).
analysis of a case on sustainability measurement can address
some broader aspects of the challenges in setting goals for
urban sustainable development. Additionally, it is relevant to
analyse a smaller govermental context of sustainable goals in
order to understand and discuss the appliance and relevance
of indicator assessment tools in general.
CHAPTER ACTIVITY
TIME
Problem definition and research questions #1
Theory 1. Theory search, reading, and selection
2. Search for existing tools to measure SAH iteration
Theoretical 3. Quality assessment of existing tools

synthesis
4. Essential concepts for SAH based on theoretical field iteration
5. Selection of indicators based on theory on reporting and indicators
Case 6. Data collection

study
7. Selection of indicators based on data availability and reliability iteration
8. Data processesing and results
Problem definition and research questions #2
Methodology
Discussion
Conclusion, introduction, abstract etc.
FIGURE 2.1.A - Thesis writing working proces. Time is illustrated vertically with an arrow progressing downwards. Each box
represents a working fase in chapters (Eg. theory, theoretical analysis, etc.) which is worked on chronologically. To the right,
iteration circles illustrates how working on one chapter informs the other chapters over time. 'Activity' describes the activities
completed within each chapter.
25
2.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
The research design of the thesis is structured around three

main parts: 'Theory', 'Case study' and 'Discussion'. The parts
and their sections can be decribed in the following way:
Theory
Included theory presents essential definitions on sustainable 3.3 Theoretical synthesis
development, sustainable affordable housing (SAH) and sus- All theory on SAH is combined to complete a theoretical syn-
tainable reporting in the following order: thesis. The concepts essential to SAH are described and rep-
resented in a diagram. Hence, this section seeks to answer
3.1 Sustainability and its components the following research question:
Sustainability and its components must be defined as a
contextual basis in order to position SAH and describe the 1. How does the theoretical field of sustainable affordable
scope of the final indicator assessment tool for the City of housing (SAH) define the essential concepts of SAH?
Copenhagen. The term 'affordable' is closely tied to the term
'equitability' and socio-economic aspects of sustainability.
Therefore, theory is included on these subjects in relation to
sustainable reporting.
3.2 Sustainable affordable housing (SAH)

Theory on SAH is included to position SAH in relation to urban
sustainable development. Existing indicator assessment tools
on SAH are presented in order to position SAH in relation
to sustainable reporting. Firstly, this includes four journal
articles that presents system criteria and indicators on SAH.
Secondly, this includes organisational tools on housing from
EU and OECD.
In conclusion, section 3.1 and 3.2 seeks to answer the follow-

ing work questions:
A. What is the international sustainable agenda defined by the

UN?
B. How does academic research define the term sustainability

and its components?
C. How does academic research define 'affordability' and 'af-

fordable housing' in relation to sustainability?
D. What existing indicator assessment tools present indicators

to measure and assess sustainable affordable housing (SAH)?
26
METHODOLOGY
Case study Discussion
In the case study the indicator assessment tool on SAH for In the discussion the indicator results and the framework
the City of Copenhagen is created and an indicator assess- scope are discussed in order to answer the final research
ment is completed: question:
4.1 Creating an indicator assessment tool for SAH in the City

4. How can the indicator assessment tool on SAH in the City
of Copenhagen
of Copenhagen guide the formulation of urban sustainable
An indicator assessment tool on SAH for the City of Copen-
development goals in the City of Copenhagen and in general?
hagen is created by applying the methodology of sustain-
able reporting and indicators. Firstly, the vision, scope of the
framework is defined. Secondly, all indicators on SAH are
categorised and selected based on theory. Hence, the section
seeks to answer the following research question:
2. How can the essential concepts from the theoretical field

of SAH be applied as an indicator assessment tool to assess
SAH in the City of Copenhagen?
4.2 Indicator assessment

The case analysis presents 9 indexes consisting of 18 indica-
tors that assess SAH in the City of Copenhagen from 2000-
2021.
In combination, the indicator results answer the following
research question:
3. Would it be possible to conclude whether progress is being

made towards ensuring SAH in the City of Copenhagen and
how?
27
123456
2.3 LITERATURE SEARCH
The literature search is inspired by the methodological ap- Secondly, literature is included that describes 'sustainability'
proach of a literature review described by Okoli (2015) 'Eight- and its components. The literature should be contextualised
Step Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review by a common definition of sustainability. As argued by Tan-
Work' which is a methodology guide that synthesizes studies guay et al. (2010) literature that is founded in the Brundtland
(ibid.). Since a full literature review is not custom in a thesis Report (1987) is chosen.
at DTU only the preliminary steps of a review are included in
the literature search. This includes: ‘Purpose’ and ‘Practical Thirdly, literature is included that describes 'affordability' of
Screen’ (ibid., p. 883, 1.4). Following Okoli's (2015) structure, housing, 'equitability' in context of housing, or 'socio-eco-
the literature search can be described in the following way: nomic' aspects of housing all in context of sustainable urban
development.
Purpose
The literature search is intended to provide a contextual Figure 2.3.A visualises the literature search divided by content
overview of the specific research area in question both to the and subject. The chronological order illustrates how one
reader and writer of this thesis. Hence, the purpose is to bring subject informs another. 'Sustainability as a theoretical term
a relevant research question into focus. Finally, the purpose is hence the theoretical basis for 'Sustainable housing' and so
is to answer the specific research questions presented in forth.
Section 1.3 on p. 19.
Language
Practical Screen Only Danish and English written studies is included due to my
The practical screen includes describing the selection and language skills.
exclusion of literature. The following criteria is applied in ac-
cordance with Arlene Fink’s (2015) guide to practical screening Research type and field
(ibid., pp. 55-56): The thesis includes conferences papers, journal articles, and
reports. The literature search is completed through the da-
Content tabase DTU Findit which is an open Library Services Platform
The included literature is limited to that which is relevant to available to DTU staff and students (Findit, 2021).
the research questions. Firstly, this includes literature on the The scope of the thesis is not limited to include research
methodology of 'Sustainable Indicator Frameworks' or 'Indi- within a specific field of study. However, research that covers
cator Assessment Tools'. Indicator assessment tools allow a broad synthesis within technical or architectural fields of
systematic approach to the assessment of sustainability. knowledge is prioritized.
28
METHODOLOGY
Grey Literature Date of publication and duration of data collection:
'Grey literature' is literature not peer-reviewed (Okoli, 2015). Most current research is prioritized above older research.
Some grey literature is included in the case analysis. This However, this does not apply to the case of MacLaren (1996).
includes reports developed for local policy purposes (eg. KK,
2019.a). However, the grey literature is applied to guide the Geographical scope - Global, national, or local:
contextualisation of the indicator assessment tool and as According to several of the included papers (eg. Tanguay et al.,
selection criteria for relevance and comparability. Hence, it is 2015; Chan & Adabre, 2019) limited studies exist on indicator
not included anywhere as a theoretical foundation. assessment tools for housing sustainability in general. Fur-
thermore, tools assessing socio-economic aspects of housing
Authors and 'equitability' are even more scarce (ibid.). Therefore,
The thesis is not restricted to include literature by specific literature with both global, national, and local geographical
authors. However, MacLaren (1996), Gudmundson et al. (2011) scopes are included in the search. However, literature with a
and Okoli (2015) are introduced by the thesis supervisor. focus on EU member states is prioritised for comparability.
Furthermore, the work of MacLaren (1996) is mentioned in This is due to the political criteria for obtaining membership
several papers as a good methodological basis for sustainable in EU eg. institutional stability, democracy, human rights, pro-
reporting (eg. Garrett and Latawiec, 2015; Tanguay et al., 2010). tection of minorities, etc. (EU, 2022).
Additionally, literature presented in the DTU course '42274
Sustainable Development Indicators and Sustainable Urban
Development' from 2019/2020 (DTU, 2022) can be considered
a knowledge basis for the thesis scope and literature search.
WORK QUESTION RESEARCH SUBJECT RESEARCH CONCEPTS
A. What is the interna- 'Sustainability' as a theoretical term Political context and origin
tional sustainable agenda
defined by UN? Definitions on sustainability
Components and 'dimensions'
B. How does academic
research define the term
sustainability and its
components?
C. How does academic ‘Sustainable housing’ and ‘affordable housing’ Positioning ‘housing’ in urban SD context
research define 'afford-
ability' and 'affordable ‘Affordable housing’ in urban SD context
housing' in relation to
sustainability? ‘Equitability’ as a sustainable dimension Challenges with defining social aspects
Equitability versus equality
Intersecting social and economic dimensions
Sustainable reporting and indicators Sustainable measurements and standardization

Theory versus practice, indicator tool appliance
D. What existing Indi- Indicator assessment tool’s on SAH Tools to measure and asses SAH
cator assessment tool’s
presents indicators to Danish reports on housing Reports on SAH in DK or the City of CPH
measure and assess
sustainable affordable
housing?
FIGURE 2.3.A - Relation between the thesis literature search and work questions.
The figure visualizes how the literature search is completed within different research subjects (middle) and concepts (right) in
order to answer the work questions (left). SD is an abbreiviation for 'sustainable development'.
29
123456
2.4 THEORETICAL SYNTHESIS
2.4.1 MAIN CONCEPTS OF SAH 2.4.2 SUB CONCEPTS OF SAH

System criteria in journal articles Indicators in journal articles
Main concepts are conceptualised from the collected theoret- All existing indicators on SAH presented in the journal articles
ical field. The system criteria for SAH identified by Chan and Chan & Adabre (2019), Nuuter et al. (2015), Mulliner et al.
Adabre (2019) is applied as a base for defining the main con- (2016) and Cooper et al. (2019) are listed within each main
cepts. Hereafter, the system criteria presented in the journal concept. Sub concepts for SAH are derrived by categorising
articles Chan & Adabre (2019), Cooper et al. (2019), Mulliner & the indicators by common traits.
Maliene (2016; 2013), and Nuuter et al. (2015) are combined to
describe each concept. Finally, the theory presented in sec- Comparing and categorising indicators
tion '3.1 Sustainbility as a theoretical concept' and '3.3 Sus- Some indicators measure the same aspects of SAH, but are
tainable housing' is included to describe each main concept named differently. Therefore, the Grounded Theory 'Open
of SAH more elaborate. Coding' (Boolsen, 2020) is applied to create simular names for
each indicator based on phenomena characteristics. For all
open coding translations of indicators in journal articles, see
Appendix F.2 p. 72. Likewise, some indicators are comparable,
but have different scopes, concists of different indicator com-
ponents or focus on different dimensions of sustainability.
Therefore, all indicators are categorised by indicator assess-
ment in the following way:
‘Component’ according to definitions Gudmundsson et al.
(2016), ‘Dimensions’ according to definitions by Azevedo &
Silva (2010) and Du et al. (2019), and ‘Scope’ according to defi-
nitions by Mittal et al. (2019). Furthermore, the indicators are
categorised according to their framework source for naviga-
tional purposes. For the full list of indicators see Appendix B
pp. 10-13. The Grounded Theory coding applied to categorise
indicators can be described in the following way:
30
METHODOLOGY
Grounded Theory Coding
Grounded Theory (GT) introduces the methodological prin-
ciples of systematic research coding. The coding allows for
theoretical subjects to be destilled from the complete re-
search field and the development of new theory (Okoli, 2015).
The GT-coding techinques 'Open' and 'Selective' coding are
described by Boolsen (2019) in the following way:
Open Coding
Open Coding describes the procedure of capturing the core
information in the collected theory and establishing catego-
ries of phenomena characteristics from it.
Selective Coding
Selective Coding refers to the procedure of selecting different
interdependent relations that is specially important to the
problem in question (ibid., pp. 309-335, 5).
The GT-procedures 'Open Coding' and 'Selective Coding' are

applied to categorize and order the included theory under
each main concept of SAH and synthesise sub concepts.
Categories of phenomena characteristics are established from
the presented indicators by selecting different interdependent
relations.
31
12345
2.5 CASE ANALYSIS
2.5.1 GOOD PRACTICE REPORTING

Maclaren's (1996) '9 steps in good sustainable reporting' (Ibid.,
pp.188-199) are applied as guidelines for selecting the appro-
priate indicators from the full list of SAH indicators and to
define the scope of the final indicator assessment tool for the
City of Copenhagen. They are described in the following way:
1) Vision 7) Collect data and analyse results

Define the urban sustainability goals for which the sustain- Collect and process data, and assess whether progress is
able indicator are needed. being made towards achieving sustainability.
2) Scope 8) Present sustainable report

Define the audience and the purpose of the sustainable in- Describe each sustainable indicator, why it is important,
dicator both the format of presentation, the amount, and the historical trends or changes. Present an evaluation of whether
temporal and spatial bounds. the development is moving towards or away from sustainabil-
ity.
3) Appropriateness of framework
Choose an appropriate framework amongst the following 9) Assess Indicator Performance
frameworks: Determine whether the indicators are performing adequate-
ly in measuring what they were meant to measure (Ibid., pp.
Domain-Based is based on the three dimensions of sustain- 188-199).
ability and identifies indicators for each.
Goal-Based has indicators based on sustainability goals for a
unit either for each or a combinations of goals.
Sectoral has indicators for a sector over which local govern-
ments typically are responsible, eg. housing or transportation.
Issue-Based is based on key issues in a community, eg. edu-
cation.
Causal includes the notion of cause and effect relationships.
Combination combines two or more of the other types.
4) Indicator selection criteria

Examinate the selection criteria according to their scientif-
ic validity, responsiveness to change, relavance to potential
users, data accurancy and accessability, comparability with
indicators developed in other relevant jurisdictions, cost-ef-
fectiveness, attractiveness to the media, and unambiguous-
ness.
5) Identify potential indicators

Include experts to identify potential indicators or by refering
to sustainability reports produced by other jurisdictions.
6) Evaluate and select final set

Assess each of the potential sustainable indicators against
the ‘Selection criteria’ and the ‘Appropriateness of framework’.
32
THEORY
2.5.3 GOOD PRACTICE INDICATORS
Garrett and Latawiec (2015) key characteristics of good prac- MacLaren's (1996) description of good practice sustainable
tice sustainable indicators are also applied as guidelines for indicators is also applied as guideline for selecting indicators
selecting the appropriate indicators. They are: and scoping the indicator assessment tool for the City of Co-
penhagen. They can be described in the foloowing way:
Simple Integrating
Sustainable indicators should be simple for communicational Sustainable indicators must expose linkages amongst differ-
purposes, but be used in combinations that capture complex ent dimensions of sustainability.
and holistic information about a system.
Forward-looking
Measurable Sustainable indicators must measure progress towards
Sustainable indicators should be quantifiable. achieving sustainability.
Feasible Distributional
Sustainable indicators should be able to be collected within Sustainable indicators must measure both intergenerational
the capacity of the organizations or individuals involved in the and intragenerational equity, hence take into account the dis-
creation. tributive effects within a population or geographic region.
Flexible Based on multidisciplinary input

It should be possible to develop sustainable indicators if new Since sustainability is such a “[…] value-laden and con-
data becomes available. text-sensitive concept” (Ibid., p. 187) it makes sense to seek
input on sustinable indicators from a broad range of stake-
Dynamic holders (Ibid., pp. 186-187).
Sustainable indicators should capture changes over time to
capture trends, non-linearities and causal processes within
a system in order to assess intergenerational aspects of sus-
tainability such as well being.
User-inspired
Sustainable indicator properties should align with the goals
of its users, that should be concerned with progress towards
sustainability (Ibid, p. 18).
Futhermore, sustainable indicators should always be trans-

parent on assumptions and assisted by adequate contextual-
ization and methodology since they only provide an indication
of conditions or problems (Ibid.).
33
123456
2.5.1 INDICATOR ASSESSMENT
A case analysis is completed on the City of Copenhagen When applying linear regression for modelling trends it is nec-
based on the final list of selected indicators. The case anal- essary to assess the quality of the regression. The correla-
ysis contains an indicator assessment presenting 9 indexes tion coefficient (R2) measures the degree of linear relation
consisting of 18 indicators. Each indicator is presented with between x and y. The correlation imply that the model might
the minimum requirements for presenting indicators accord- fail to detect non-linear relationships. Hence, it quantifies the
ing to MacLaren (1996). This includes the aim, context and strength of the linear relation between the two (Brockhoff et
parameters, results and indexing. The aim should describe al., 2018). Microsoft Excel can calculate the correlation coeffi-
the meaning of each indicator. The context and parameters cient with the command:
should cover why the indicator is important and link it to
historical trends or changes. The results and indexing should RSQ([known_ys], [known_xs])
provide an evaluation of whether the indicator is showing
movement towards or away from sustainability (Ibid.). Results linkages
The linkages amongst the presented indicator results also are
Data selection presented in an summerization in order to assess integrative
The data selected based on validity and availability. Hence, aspects of sustainability (MacLaren, 1996). Additionally, the
open data sources recognized by Danish govermental institu- linkages between the indicators are discussed in Section 5.1
tions are selected. This includes: Statistics Denmark, Finance p. 104. As argued by MacLaren (1996) the discussion includes
Denmark, The Danish Housing and Planning Agency (BPST), some recommendations for improving the collection of data.
and reports published by the City of Copenhagen.
Data processing
All data is processed in Microsoft Excel. Calculations for each
indicator are specified in the noted appendixes.
Data models
Each indicator should assess whether trends are moving away
from or towards sustainability. Hence, mathematical linear
trend models are applied.
According to Brockhoff et al. (2018) linear regression is a rec-
ognized and simple model for engineering applications. Linear
regression is the method of finding the most approriate linear

model given some input variables (Ibid.).
Most indicators in this thesis are expressed in the relation be-
tween indexes or ratios over time. Hence, the input (x) is time
and the output (y) is the index or ratio. The linear regression
is y=ax+b where a is the slope coefficient and b is where y
equals zero. Microsoft Excel can calculate linear regression
with the command:
linest([known_ys], [known_xs], [const], [stats])
Applying a dataset of known input (eg. x=time) and output

(eg. y=ratio) the best model can be calculated from linear
regression.
34
METHODOLOGY SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING - AN INDICATOR ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
35
12345
36
3 THEORY
THEORY SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING - AN INDICATOR ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
37
Photo: Bispebjerg, Copenhagen. Maj 2021. Owned by author.
38
THEORY
CHAPTER CONTENT
This chapter presents the theoretical terms and concepts rel-

evant for describing how affordable housing is positioned in
context of sustainability. The theory is applied to define the
essential concepts of SAH and to scope the indicator assess-
ment tool for the City of Copenhagen.
Section 3.1 'Sustainability as theoretical concept’ presents

theory on the theoretical components of sustainability. This is
done in order to position affordable housing in relation to the
term 'equitability'.
Section 3.2 'Theory on sustainable affordable housing' pres-

ents theory on sustainable housing and links the terms 'af-
fordable housing' and 'equitability'. Furthermore, it presents
four journal articles that present indicator assessment tools
on SAH. Additionally, organisational tools by EU and OECD
presenting indicators on housing are presented.
Section 3.4 'Theoretical synthesis' synthesize theory from 3.2

and 3.3 to define the essential concepts of SAH. The section
seeks to define the system criteria for a theoretical indicator
assessment tool on SAH in a non-specified context based on
the collected theory.
39
12345
3.1 SUSTAINABILITY AS THEORETICAL CONCEPT
3.1.1 COMPONENTS OF SUSTAINABILITY 3.1.3 SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INTERSECTION

The Brundtland Report highlights the three fundamental Equitability as sustainable dimension
components of sustainable development as: Environmental Demsey et al. (2011) and Hopwood et al. (2005) argue that
protection, economic growth, and social equity (Shah, 2008). the concept 'equitability' is embedded within the UN defini-
Today, most indicator assessment tools for sustainable de- tion of sustainable development in its focus on: “[…] meeting
velopment are structured around this tripartite categorization the needs of present as well as future generations” (WCED,
(Shirazi & Keivani, 2019; Atanda, 2019). Du et al. (2020) defines 1987, 43) and in the assurance that sustainable development
the three intersecting dimensions as: should secure: “[…] that those poor get their fair share of the
resources required to sustain that [economic] growth” (WCED,
Livability 1987, §3) (Dempsey et al., 2011, p. 1).
The term ‘Livability’ covers the intersection between the
environment with the social dimensions of sustainability. It Equity deals with the active measures to affect outcomes to
is concerned with the intertwining of human activity and the achieving fairness (Wiles and Kobayashi, 2009). According to
diversity of urban life or can refer to the concept of Quality of Demsey et al. (2011) the concept ‘equitability’ has its foun-
Life (QoL) (Tanguay, 2010). dation in different interpretations of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’.
It deals with the distribution of resources and equality of
Viability condition (ibid.). Demsey et al. (2011) relates the concept ‘eq-
The term ‘Viability’ covers the intersection of the economic uitability’ to the practice of inclusion by stating, that: “[…] an
and environmental dimensions. It is concerned with natural equitable society is one in which there are no ‘exclusionary’
resources and the maintenance of economic growth. Sus- or discriminatory practices hindering individuals from partic-
tainable development is focused on preserving productive ipating economically, socially and politically in society” (Ibid.,
capacity and utility. p. 192). Racism and ageism is an example of social exclusion
and areas of deprivation an example of geographical exclusion
Equitability (ibid.).
Equitability covers the intersection of the economic and
social dimensions of sustainability and is concerned with the Giddings et al. (2002) define equitability in context of sustain-
balances between economic and social aspects (Du et al., able development as constituting the following five principles
2020, p. 2). in combination:
Figure 3.1.A illustrates the dimensions of sustainability. (i) Futurity: Inter-generational equity
Giving regard for the needs of future generations
(ii) Social justice: Intra-generational equity

ENVIRONMENTAL
Social justice covering all present humans regardless of class,
gender, race, etc.
LIVABLE VIABLE
(iii) Transfrontier responsibility: Geographical equity
Where people live and their access to resources
SUSTAINABILITY
(iv) Procedural equity: People treated openly and fairly

SOCIAL ECONOMIC
How people are able to shape their futures
EQUITABLE
(v) Inter-species equity: Importance of biodiversity

Recognizing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem
integrity (Giddings et al., 2002, p. 194).
FIGURE 3.1.A: Main dimensions of sustainability and their
relations visualized with overlapping circles. Reprinted from
‘Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use
of local indicators’, by Tanguay et al., 2010, Elsevier, p. 408.
40
THEORY
3.2 SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
3.2.1 HOUSING AND INDICATORS 3.2.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND EQUITY

Housing: a sectoral aspect of urban sustainability Equitability and affordable housing
In context of sustainable reporting ‘housing’ is viewed as a Shama & Motlak (2019) recognizes sustainable housing as
sectoral issue within sustainable development (Maclaren, having multiple functions within both physical and social
1996). According to Winston & Pareja-Eastaway (2008) and systems in areas as affordability, social and cultural equity,
Mittal et al. (2019) housing is an essential component of both economics, health, and neighborhood environment. Dempsey
QoL and sustainable development. Housing is linked to a vast et al. (2011) highlights access to decent housing both in phys-
number of sustainability issues. It is often divided in assess- ical form and in governmental provision as a meaure of social
ment by ‘geographical scope’ and ‘building life cycle phase’ equity.
(Winston & Pareja-Eastaway, 2008). According to Winston & According to Stone (2006) ‘affordable housing’ are relating
Pareja-Eastaway (2008) the geographical scope is both re- social and economic aspects of housing. If wanting to assess
ferring to governmental entities, eg. national or regional, and whether housing is affordable one should always ask the fol-
whether housing is assessed as a single housing unit or in lowing questions: “Affordable to whom? On what standard of
spatial distribution, eg. at community or household level. affordability? For how long?” and “[...] meeting what physical
standard?” (ibid., p. 153).
Challenges with the quality of housing indicators According to Mulliner et al. (2013) comparisons of housing ex-
According to Winston & Pareja-Eastaway (2008) both OECD penditure and household income is the most common way to
and EU are acknowledged internationally for developing sus- define affordable housing. However, the definition has been
tainable indicators on housing, but more attention needs to subjected to criticism by several authors since it excludes
be paid to the measurement of progress in social indicators. housing quality (ibid.).
According to Borges et al. (2020) the planning for sustainable
urban development is increasingly carried out through the Linkages between housing and communities
use of Neighborhood Assesment Tools (NSA’s). NSA’s provide Sustainable housing and comminuties are interdependent.
guidance on how to work towards sustainable urban devel- Dempsey et al. (2011) and Mulliner et al. (2011) argue, that the
opment through specific indicators. According to Borges et al. ‘sustainability of a community’ is fundamental to the concept
(2020) NSA’s are based in a “[...] rationalist planning paradigm of social equity. According to Mulliner et al. (2013) sustainable
and technocratic view on sustainability” (p. 1) which risk fore- communities are defined as: ‘‘places where people want to
closing the debate on what sustainable development should live and work, now and in the future’’ and “[...] they should be
mean for its local context. According to Pedro et al. (2019) active, inclusive and safe, well run, environmentally sensitive,
and Szibbo (2016) the biggest challenges of NSA’s are a lack of well designed and built, well connected, thriving, well served
consensus on sustainability concepts, an incoherent distri- and fair for everyone” (p. 271). According to Dempsey et al.
bution of criteria between the frameworks and the need to (2011) various theorists suggest that a sustainable community
widen the scope by considering more socio-economic factors requires long-term residents in order to be sustainable.
to include the equity pillar of sustainability.
41
12345
3.2.3 INDICATORS ON SAH: JOURNAL ARTICLES

Included studies Assess to a good quality education is also essential since it
Chan & Adabre (2019), Cooper et al. (2019), Mulliner et al. affects an individual’s future prospects and QoL. For home
(2016) and Nuuter et al. (2015) all present indicator assess- buyers the presence of shops and leisure enhances the
ment tools on SAH. All studies analyze, categorize, aggregate, attractiveness of a housing location. Access to child care is
and weight existing indicators on sustainability of housing important due to commuting costs and the side effects of
with a specific focus on affordability or the combination of a parents’ ability to go out to work. Access to open green
social and economic aspects of housing. The studies and their space where people can participate in activities that support
conclusions are described in brief: a physically healthy lifestyle is important. Such facilities may
also contribute to increased social interaction and cohe-
Mulliner et al. (2016; 2013)
sion in the neighborhood. Finaly, housing must meet certain
Mulliner et al. (2013) and Mulliner et al. (2016) propose an
quality standards which should be adabted to the governental
assessment method of housing affordability that: “[...] draws
housing context. Making improvements to the energy effi-
closer links with sustainability by considering economic, so-
ciency of housing can provide ongoing economic benefits for
cial and environmental criteria that impact on a household’s
households and waste should be minimised to protect the
quality of life” (Ibid., p. 164). Both studies present the same
environment (Ibid.; Mulliner & Maleine, 2011). For a full list of
and following indicators as essential for assessing SAH:
all indicators see Appendix F.1 p. 72.
• House prices in relation to income

Cooper et al. 2019
• Rental costs in relation to income
Cooper et al. (2019) present a framework for the assessment
• Interest rates and mortgage availability
of housing affordability at city level in the UK. The aim of the
• Availability of private and social rented accommodation
paper is to identify KPI’s to: “[...] manage asset management
• Availability of affordable homeownership products
sustainably in a built environment context” (Ibid., p. 508).
• Safety (Crime)
Cooper et al. (2019) present the following five categories as
• Access to employment
essential for assessing SAH:
• Access to public transport services
• Access to good quality schools
• Comfort (eg. heating, crowding, noise, security)
• Access to shops
• Running cost (eg. bills, taxes)
• Access to health services
• Adaptability (eg. layout, potential for adaptation)
• Access to child care
• Maintenance costs (eg. repairs, Life Cycle Analysis (LCA))
• Access to leisure
• Community (eg. length of tenancy) (Ibid., p. 518)
• Access to open green public space
For a full list of all indicators see Appendix F.1 p. 72.

• Quality of housing in area
• Energy efficiency of housing in area
Nuuter et al. (2015)
• Waste management in area (Mulliner et al., 2016, p. 149)
Nuuter et al. (2015) presents a framework to assess the sus-
tainability of the Estonian housing market. The study presents
According to Mulliner et al. (2016) the relation between hous-
the following six categories as essential for assessing SAH:
ing costs and income is the principal determinant of housing
affordability. Furthermore, households should be able to af-
• General economics (eg. GDP per capita, Inflation rate)
ford the ongoing costs of owning housing. Affordable hous-
• Housing stock (eg. share of social housing)
ing should be diverse and sufficient in range and reflect the
• Housing affordability (eg. housing price to income)
social mix of the population. Households located in areas with
• Population and social conditions (eg. income distribution)
high crime levels may have extra costs on security and safety
• Housing quality (eg. crowding rates, size)
measures and negative effects on health why low crime
• Environmental quality (eg. health care index, noise, pollu-
levels are essential. Longer commuting distances to jobs will
tion) (Ibid., p. 645).
have negative impacts on both income and the environment.
For a full list of all indicators see Appendix F.1 p. 72.
Therefore, assess to jobs and public transport are essential.
42
THEORY
Chan & Adabre (2019)
Chan & Adabre (2019) completes a classification of the limited Quality Related includes indicators on quality performance
studies on 'critical success criteria' for performance measure- measures of the housing facility. Quality can be achieved by
ment of sustainable affordable housing projects. They include meeting both quality related to materials, equipment and
studies on built asset management and studies on the man- technology and perceptional quality related to human expec-
agerial aspects of planning and construction of new housing. experience and QoL (ibid., pp. 119-121).
Chan & Adabre (2019) defines critical success criteria as: For a full list of all indicators under each category see Appen-
“the set of principles or standards through which judgement dix F.1 p. 72.
[on progress towards sustainability] can be made whereas
critical success factors are the set of circumstances, facts or
influences which affect/contribute to the results or critical
success criteria” (Ibid., p. 113). In conclusion, the study results
in the following six categories of indicators which are consid-
ered essential criteria for SAH:
Household Satisfaction includes indicators on the housing

end users' satisfaction with the functionality, maintainability
and safety performance of the housing facility. Functional-
ity correlates with the housing facility's fitness for purpose.
Additionally, residential satisfaction is closely tied to the
satisfaction with neighborhood safety and quality.
Stakeholder Satisfaction includes indicators on the satisfac-

tion of manegial aspects of housing planning and construc-
tion. An indicator example is: 'reduced occurrence of dispute
and litigation'.
Housing Operating Cost includes indicators on reduced life-

cycle cost and the environmental performance of the housing
facility. Energy efficient housing uses minimum energy with-
out impacting residents' health. Improving energy efficiency of
housing minimizes environmental effects while also reducing
energy associated costs.
Time Measurement is an important measure of affordable

housing. Examples on indicators are 'time spent by low-in-
come earners waiting before being allocated' or 'take-up rate
of housing'.
Location Affordability Cost includes indicators on public sec-

tor expenditures on housing management, housing prices or
rental costs in relation to income, commuting cost from the
location of housing to essential facilities. SAH should measure
'location affordability', that is taking into consideration both
costs of housing, and transportation or accessibility.
43
12345
3.2.4 INDICATORS ON SAH: ORGANISATIONAL TOOLS

According to SAH Winston & Pareja-Eastaway (2008) EU and
OECD are recognized in literature for their development of
indicators on SAH. They present the following tools that
adresses housing as a specific issue within sustainable devel-
opment:
European Union indicators on sustainable housing OECD indicators on sustainable housing

An EU intiative for better statistical reporting on inequali- The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
ties of wealth and income in the EU member states is the opment (OECD) is recognized by EU and UN as an essen-
‘European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions’ tial stakeholder in measuring sustainability and well being
(EU-SILC, 2018). (EU, 2014). OECD is an international organisation that works
with governments, policy makers, and citizens to establish
EU-SILC evidence based on international standards to a wide range
The EU-SILC is a household-oriented statistical database. It of social, economic, and environmental challenges (OECD,
aims at collecting cross-sectional and multidimensional data 2021.a). OECD frameworks that assess the sustainability of
on income, poverty, social exclusion, and living conditions. It housing includes the ‘Affordable Housing Database’ (AHD) and
covers aspects such as housing, labour, health, demography, ‘Better Life Index’ (BLI):
education, and deprivation. The data is used by EU to analyse
multidimensional phenomena of poverty and social exclusion Better Life Index (BLI)
(EU, 2018). ‘Housing’ is included under the categories ‘Poverty’ The OECD BLI evaluates well being and social progress within
and ‘Social exclusion’. All EU-SILC indicators on housing are 11 key aspects of sustainability. This includes: Housing, jobs,
listed in Appendix F.3 p. 84. education, environment, civic engagement, health and life
satisfaction, and income. Each aspect is evaluated based on
QoL-indicators several statistical indicators (EU, 2014). OECD presents three
The ‘Quality-of-Life(QoL)-indicators’ is an online publication indicators on housing to measure the sustainability of well
with statistics on measures of QoL in the EU member states. being within housing. The indicators are listed in Appendix F.3
The publication presents nine categories of statistical data. p. 84.
According to the EU (2021.a) QoL is often constrained by
material conditions since economic resources provide the Affordable Housing Database (AHD)
means for shaping an individual’s well-being. Therefore, ma- The OECD AHD measures the access to good quality afford-
terial living conditions such as housing provide a framework able housing in OECD countries and the EU member states. It
to measure the potential of households to achieve well-being has the purpose to strengthen the knowledge base for policy
(Eurostat, 2021.a). All QoL-indicators on housing are listed in evaluation (OECD, 2021.c). OECD presents three sets of indica-
Appendix F.3 p. 84. tors to measure the sustainability of housing affordability. The
indicators are listed in Appendix F.3 p. 84.
Other Eurostat indicators on housing
The project ‘The European economy since the start of the
millennium — a statistical portrait’ shows how the EU mem-
ber states have evolved through statistical data in an eco-
nomic perspective since 2000. One chapter informs about
the main developments in household income and spendings.
It has five specific indicators on housing. The indicators are
listed in Appendix F.3 p. 84.
44
45
12345
3.3 THEORETICAL SYNTHESIS
3.3.1 ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS OF SAH

Main categories I) Location Affordability
The Critical System Criteria (CSC) for SAH identified by Chan ‘Location Affordability’ assess equality of condition as the
and Adabre (2019) is applied as a base for defining the main access to resources specific to a dwelling location. This is an
concepts of SAH. The concepts are alterated in the following example of what Giddings et al. (2002) define as ‘Geograph-
way: ical Equity’. Location affordability answers the question of:
“Equitable in what geographical context?” and "Affordable
Satisfaction to whom?" as considered essential to housing affordability
Firstly, ‘Stakeholder Satisfaction’ is joined with ‘Tenant Satis- by Stone (2006). Grouping indicators by common traits the
faction’ into the category ‘Satisfaction’. As argued by Shama following sub categories I-IV within location affordability are
and Motlak (2019) a challenge is the varying contextualization found:
of indicators guided by the addressed life cycle phase. Hence,
the category 'Satisfaction' reflects the satisfaction of the rele- I.I) Mobility & Community
vant target group depending on the assessed life cycle phase. Housing is only affordable if it is connected to a sustainable
community (Demsey et al., 2011; Mulliner et al., 2016). Indi-
Location affordability cators in 'Mobility & Community' measure the access to and
Secondly, according to Chan & Adabre (2019) 'location afford- the quality of the community linked to the dwelling location.
ability' considers both costs associated with housing and Access can be measured in either distance, time or monetary
accessibility. Since time can be considered a measure of both value (Mulliner et al, 2013;2016). Examples of indicators are:
cost and access to housing (eg. waiting time on housing lists) ‘Access to and quality of public green space’ and ‘Congestion
time measurement’ is included under 'location affordability'. levels’. The most essential local amenities that should be
considered when assessing SAH are: Education, child care,
Environmental costs public green space, health care, jobs, and transportation
Thirdly, 'Housing Operating Cost' is named 'Environmen- (Mulliner & Maleine, 2011).
tal Costs'. Indicators in this category focus on the reduced
lifecycle cost and the environmental performance of hous- I.II) General economics
ing. Therefore, all phases of the building life cycle should be The global and national economic situation have an essential
included. impact on the monetary costs linked a dwelling (Nuuter et
al., 2015). Hence, SAH should be contextualised to its eco-
The resulting main categories are then: ‘Location Affordabili- nomic conditions. Examples of indicators are: ‘Inflation Rate’,
ty’, ‘Environmental Cost’, 'Satisfaction’ and ‘Housing Quality’. 'Housing prices', and ‘Mortgage Availability’.
Sub categories I.III) Population

All indicators presented in the journal articles Chan & Adabre ‘Population’ includes all indicators assessing population char-
(2019), Nuuter et al. (2015), Mulliner et al. (2016; 2013) and acterics which is essential to understand the social context
Cooper et al. (2019) are categorized under each main concept of measurement (Nuuter et al., 2015). It specifies on what
described above. The same applies to indicators presented measures 'inclusiveness' is assessed in the population, eg.
in the organisational tools from EU and OECD. Sub concepts income, gender, etnicity, etc. (Demsey et al, 2011). An example
within each main concept is derrived by grouping indicators of an indicator is ‘Inequality of Income Distribution’.
according common traits. For a full list of all indicators see
Appendix B p. 10. I.IV) Housing costs and income relation
'Housing costs and income relation' is the principal category
Including all presented theory the essential concepts of SAH of indicators assessing housing affordability (Mulliner et al.,
are decribed in the following way: 2016). Indicator examples are: ‘Housing Price to Income’ or
'Profitability of housing ownership'.
46
THEORY
IV) Satisfaction
I.V Housing stock ‘Satisfaction’ assesses the experience or perception of peo-
In order for housing to reflect the needs of the population it ples position in relation to housing (Chan & Adabre, 2019).
must be diverse and sufficient in range (Mulliner et al., 2016). Satisfaction is recognized as an essential measure of QoL by
Hence, indicators in the category 'Housing stock' describes EU (2016). Indicators in this category reflects the satisfaction
the availability and distribution of different types of accom- of the relevant target group which depends on the assessed
modation. An example of an indicator is 'Social Rental Stock'. life cycle phase (Shama and Motlak, 2019).
II) Environmental Cost IV.I) Tenants

‘Environmental Cost’ assess the life cycle costs of a dwelling ‘Tenants’ includes indicators assessing tenant satisfaction
over time. The associated costs can both be a measure of with all other concepts described, eg. satisfaction with 'hous-
environmental and economic viability (Demsey et al., 2011). ing expenses' or satisfaction with 'accces to jobs'.
‘Environmental Cost’ ask the question of: “Affordable for how
long?” as asked by (Stone, 2006). It assesses system integrity IV.II) Other
of a dwelling over time, what Giddings et al. (2002) describe ‘Other’ includes other relevant groups satisfaction depending
as ‘Interspecies equity’ and ‘Inter-generational equity’. Exam- on the assessed context. Eg. if planning or construction as-
ples of indicators are: ‘Carbon capture and storage’ or ‘Biodi- pects of housing is included the satisfaction of collaborating
versity protection’, and ‘Energy efficiency of house’. stakeholders could be assessed (Chan & Adabre, 2019).
III) Quality
‘Quality’ assess the equality of housing conditions on the
standard of living and adequacy of housing. It covers layout,
materials, equipment and technology that affects human
experience and QoL (Chan and Adabre, 2019). Hence, it seeks
to answer the question of: “Affordable at what standard?” as
asked by Stone (2006). It has the following sub categories
I-II:
III.I) Layout
'Layout’ includes indicators assessing the physical layout of
space. It assesses housing quality on the effeciency and fit-
ness of space. Examples of indicators are: ‘Flexibility (Adapt-
ability)’ and ‘Size of dwelling’.
III.II) Comfort and Health

‘Comfort & Health’ includes indicators that assess factors
influencing human psychological and/or physical well being
and health. Examples of indicators are: ‘Air infiltration’, and
‘Crime rates’.
47
12345
3.3.2 FIGURE: CONTEXT OF SAH 3.3.3 FIGURE: CONCEPTS OF SAH

Figure 3.3.A and Figure 3.3.B visualises the context which Figure 3.3.C visualises the essential concepts to cover when
must be defined when creating an indicator assessment tool assessing SAH. In other words, it describes the system crite-
on SAH. This includes the geographical assessment levels ria for an indicator assessment tool. The combined indicators
and the included life cycle phases of a building (Winston & should seek to cover all aspects.
Pareja-Eastaway, 2008).
In conclusion, SAH can be characterized in the following way:
Sustainable affordable housing (SAH) is characterized by re-

flecting the diversity of a population in an geographical area
both in types of housing accommodation and housing costs.
SAH is connected to good quality transport and communities,
have a physical standard that supports human comfort and
health and have an effecient layout of space. Furthermore,
SAH should be contextualised to its environment costs and
the satisfaction of relevant target groups.
HOUSEHOLD NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OR MUNICIPAL REGIONAL OR NATIONAL
FIGURE 3.3.A - GEOGRAPHICAL ASSESSMENT LEVELS

The typical geographical assessment levels of a building are: Household, neighborhood, city or municipal, regional or national.
Source: Visualised interpretation of the geographical assessment levels defined by Winston & Pareja-Eastaway, 2008.
MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION
PRODUCTION DESIGN
PLANNING
SECOND LIFE
MATERIAL
EXSTRACTION
USE
MAINTANANCE
DEMOLITION
END-OF-LIFE
FIGURE 3.3.B - BUILDING LIFE CYCLE PHASES

The typical life cycle phases of a building are: Material extraction, construction, design, management and planning, use, mainte-
nance, and end-of life (demolition or second life) (Winston & Pareja-Eastaway, 2008).
Source: Adapted from ‘Introduction to LCA on buildings’, by Energistyrelsen (2015), Elsevier, p. 5, Figur 2: ‘Typical phases of a
building life cycle: Product phase, building construction phase, use phase, end-of-life and second life'.
48
THEORY
I. LOCATION AFFORDABILITY
I.I MOBILITY & I.II GENERAL

COMMUNITY ECONOMICS
I.III POPULATION I.IV HOUSING COSTS I.V HOUSING STOCK

& INCOME RELATION
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS III. QUALITY
III.I LAYOUT III.II COMFORT & HEALTH
IV. SATISFACTION
IV.I TENANTS IV.II OTHER
FIGURE 3.3.C - ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS OF SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The essential concepts to cover when assessing sustainable affordable housing (SAH) in an indicator assessment tool.
49
12345
4 CASE STUDY
50
CASE STUDY
51
Photo: Sankt Hans Torv, Copenhagen. January 2018. Owned by author.
52
CASE STUDY
CHAPTER CONTENT
This chapter presents a case study on SAH in the City of

Copenhagen.
Section 4.1 'Case Context' presents a contextualisation of

the selected urban area. As argued by MacLaren (1996) and
Garrett and Latawiec (2015) in order to make the indicator
assessment tool on SAH for the City of Copenhagen compa-
rable and relevant it must be in line with the current practice
and build upon on prior research. Therefore, reports ordered
by the City of Copenhagen for urban planning perspectives on
the subject of housing affordability are presented. Additional-
ly, the urban planning goals and visions on SAH in City of Co-
penhagen are presented. Finally, the existing reports assess-
ing SAH in a Danish context applying the SDG's are presented
for comparability and relevance.
Section 4.2 'Selecting indicators' presents the indicator

selection for the assessment of SAH in the City of Copenha-
gen. MacLaren’s (1996) steps for good practice sustainable
reporting are applied for the selection proces. Initially, the
selection process concludes in a potential list of indicators
for assessment. Finally, the potential indicators are evaluated
and selected for a final list.
Section 4.3 'Framework description' describes the final

framework scope based on the included indicators.
Section 4.4 'Indicator Assessment' present the indicators on

SAH and their results.
53
12345
4.1 CASE CONTEXT
4.1.1 REPORTS ON HOUSING & SUSTAINABILITY IN A DANISH CONTEXT

Reports on housing in the City of Copenhagen ‘The City of Copenhagen Municipal Plan’ (2019)
Visions and political goals and guidelines for urban planning In the City of Copenhagen Municipal Plan (2019) the City of
are presented in municipal plan proposals. The most recent Copenhagen presents goals for urban development. The goals
municipal plan for the City of Copenhagen is from 2019 (KK, are similar to the ones presented in the sustainability report
2019.a). from 2018 (KK, 2018.a).
Sustainability goals and visions on housing affordability are For all goals presented in the City of Copenhagen Municipal
presented in context of the global SGD's in the report ‘The Plan 2019 within housing see Appendix F.2 pp. 82-83. The
Capital of Sustainable Development’ (KK, 2018.a). goals and most central visions on housing are presented in
Table 4.1.A.
‘The Capital of Sustainable Development’ (2018)
The publication ‘The Capital of Sustainable Development
TABLE 4.1.A: SELECTED GOALS AND VISIONS ON HOUSING
- The City of Copenhagen’s Action Plan for the SDGs’ (KK,
THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN MUNICIPAL PLAN 2019
2018.b) presents the City of Copenhagen’s contribution to the
All goals on housing
realization of the SDGs and a plan for the strategies towards
reaching sustainable development. Aspects of housing are • To create space for 100,000 new Copenhageners before
2031
assessed in context of SDG 10 and SDG 11.
• Social housing should constitute 20% of the existing
housing mass and 25% of the new build housing mass
In Goal 10 the City of Copenhagen describes how they aim • Create 12,000 student housing before 2031
at creating a more equal society by ensuring citizens having
• To create 1,800 new housing units for citizens with spe-
access to housing. The City of Copenhagen states: "In our cial needs before 2031
efforts to create a more equal society, ensuring citizens have
access to housing is particularly important. One of the City of Selected visions on housing
Copenhagen’s priorities is to ensure that there are homes in
• To create mixed and diverse residential areas with hous-
all price ranges so that Copenhagen does not turn into a city ing for all Copenhageners
exclusively for the wealthy" (KK, 2018.a, p. 30). • Take initiative to secure student housing guarantee in
collaboration with the surrounding municipalities
In Goal 11 it is described how the city aims at creating a more • To secure variation in housing size and types in the dif-
ferent city parts also in new development housing
equal and diverse society by ensuring citizens having access
• Institutions and facilities should be located in and near
to affordable housing. A main priority is to work together with the residential areas, and new urban areas should re-
ceive the right service expansion in step with the demo-
social housing associations. This collaboration is essential to graphic development
find effective solutions to housing challenges eg. the con-

• The quality of the city's buildings should be worthy of
struction of new housing for low-to-middle income citizens preservation and buildings be maintained
(KK, 2018.a). The City of Copenhagen states: "With more Source: KK, 2019.a, p. 53
Copenhageners also come more different Copenhageners.
With greater diversity, however, people may form into groups
or be left behind. Copenhageners should not all be alike, but
they should all have equal opportunities, and the sense of
solidarity that exists in our city is one of its cornerstones."
[...] "Housing must be available to everyone and for everyone.
More housing is not enough; equally important is that the city
has housing for all price levels" (Ibid., p. 30).
For all sustainable visions and measures for Goal 10 and Goal
11 presented in the report see Appendix F.2 pp. 80-81.
54
CASE STUDY
Danish reports on housing Reports from OECD on housing in Copenhagen
The reports ‘Our Goals’ (2030-panelet, 2020) and ‘Baseline for The OECD presents the project ‘How well is the life in your
the Global SGDs in Denmark’ (Rambøl & DAC, 2019) provide region?’ as an approach to measuring well being at regional
insights on data accessability and housing policy priorities on levels. The most recent report on Denmark is from 2016. It
a national level. measures different dimensions on well being by comparing
the cities: Esbjerg, Odense, Aalborg, Aarhus and Copenhagen.
‘Our Goals’ (2020) The report presents the following indicators:
The report ‘Our Goals’ (In Danish ‘Vores Mål’) from 2020 pres-
ents 197 proposals for Danish measurements for the global • ‘Housing Cost’
SGDs. The measurements supplement the UN indicators. The • ‘Proportion of tenant occupied housing’
aim is to measure the status for reaching sustainable devel- • ‘Rooms per person’
opment in Denmark (2030-panelet, 2020). For a complete list • ‘Square metres per person’
of indicators presented in context of housing see Appendix F.2
pp. 74-77. Copenhagen is assessed within the boundaries of the Mu-
nicipal Region to include the commuting zone. Three out of
‘Baseline for the Global SGDs in Denmark’ (2019) four indicators assess the Copenhagen performance except
The report ‘Baseline for the Global SGD’s in Denmark, Goal 11: ‘Square metres per person’ which is excluded due to data
Sustainable Cities and Communities’ (2019) presents Danish limitations (OECD, 2016).
indicators for the SDG 11. The aim is to develop a methodology
for establishing baselines for the remaining 16 SDGs in Den- In the project ‘Regions and Cities at a Glance 2018’ the OECD
mark. The project description states that: “[…] Denmark has assesses the sustainability of the Copenhagen housing. The
no slums or unsuitable housing conditions to any significant indicator presented is: ‘Rooms per person’ (OECD, 2018).
extent [...]” (Ibid., p. 28). Therefore, the indicators included
focus on housing costs and on marginalized or disadvantaged The OECD ‘Regional Well Being Database’ explores the well
groups in the residential market (Rambøll & DAC, 2019). For being of regions within the OECD countries. Copenhagen per-
the complete list of indicators presented in the report on see formance within ‘Housing’ is assessed through the indicator
Appendix F.2 p. 78. ‘Rooms per person’. It presents the same data as the report
from 2016 (OECD, 2021.d). For all OECD indicators assessing
housing in the Surrounding area of Copenhagen see Appendix
F.2 p. 79.
55
12345
4.1.2 PRIOR ASSESSMENTS ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN COPENHAGEN

The report ‘Housing demand and housing prices’ by Copenha- Trend: Lack of small housing units
gen Economics (2018) analyse the driving factors on the City The housing prices have been growing for the past 25 years
of Copenhagen housing market from 2000-2018. The report except for the years 2006-2012 due to the financial crisis.
was ordered by the City of Copenhagen for urban planning One of the main drivers for the high price growth is the limit-
perspectives and strategies prior to the 2019 municipal plan ed amount of small housing units. There has been a growth in
(Ibid.). the amount of single and young student dwellers in the city.
Apart from the direct price effect caused by the high demand
In the report ‘Analysis of the availability of the housing market and limited provision the smaller housing units also cause
in Copenhagen’ (2018) the Finance Administration in the City a ‘spill-over’ effect on other types of housing. This is often
of Copenhagen analyses the availability of housing in the City caused by new homeowners buying a small unit, paid for from
of Copenhagen. The report was also preparatory to the Co- outside capital. A capital gain is then obtained by selling the
penhagen Municipal Plan (KK, 2018.b). dwelling which is taken to the purchase of a larger one. This
accumulation of capital gains causes the price development
In short, the reports presents the following housing trends on the small units to capitalize on the price on the larger
and cause and effect relations for housing affordability in the ones (CE, 2018; KK, 2018.b).
City of Copenhagen: Parental purchase has also been growing because the income
levels in high income groups have been rising. This combined
Trend: Demographic pressure with low interest rates has caused additional rising prices on
The demographic pressure is rising in the City of Copenha- bigger housing from 2000 and onwards (CE, 2018). Figure 4.1.A
gen due to newcomers and migration both international and visualizes the mechanisms of the typical housing career in the
national. The provision of housing has been low in comparison City of Copenhagen.
to the demographic pressure. The underlining factors for the
demographic pressure are: Education, employment growth,
and preferences for closeness to social networks and ‘livabili-
ty’. Furthermore, an increased focus on providing housing and
better communities for families with children have caused
more to stay (CE, 2018).
OTHER OWNERSHIP MODELS

EG. SOCIAL HOUSING
ACCESS TO MARKET SMALL FLATS MEDIUM APARTMENTS BIG APARTMENTS & FAMILY HOUSES OTHER MARKETS
PARENTAL
PURCHASE
FIGURE 4.1.A - HOUSING CAREER ILLUSTRATION

The figure visualizes the housing career in the City of Copenhagen described by Copenhagen Economics (2018, p. 43). Students
or newly employed are entering the housing owner market either from the purchase of small units or through parental purchas-
es. Since the amount of housing are limited and the amount of singles and students have been increasing, this has contributed
to rising housing prices in the City of Copenhagen.
Source: Intertreped depiction of Copenhagen Economics (2018) 'Boligbehov og boligprisudvikling i Københavns Kommune', Figure:
'Boligkarriere illustration', p. 43.
56
CASE STUDY
Trend: Increasing housing costs
In general it is not more expensive to live in an average
owner-occupied home in the City of Copenhagen in 2017
compared to 2000. The housing burden for the average Co-
penhagener is slightly lower in 2017 than in 2000. Housing
costs including repayments on loans have increased be-
tween 2000-2017. Therefore, is has become more difficult for
families without wealth assets to buy housing in the City of
Copenhagen (KK, 2018.b).
Trend: Shortage in rental housing

According to Copenhagen Economics (2018) other types
of housing ownership eg. public housing have had a price
relieving effect. However, a majority of private rental housing
takes place through closed systems often through friends or
owner acquaintances. In addition to rent increases, there is a
tendency for private rental housing converted into cooperative
housing. Moreover, older rental homes are being renovated or
transformed which contributes to rising prices (KK, 2018.b).
Trend: Longer waiting lists for social housing

The waiting lists for social housing have become longer.
However, low income and vulnerable citizens can be assigned
housing via public housing allocation. This helps to increase
accessibility for special groups and contribute to a socially
diverse city (KK, 2018.b).
Trend: Large housing development

A historical number of housing was constructed in the City of
Copenhagen in 2017 mostly private rent and owner-occiupied
housing. This trend is expected to be supplemented by social
housing which is under development due to a specification in
the local plan stating that 25% social housing should be build
in all new development plots (KK, 2018.b).
Large areas are available for development for new hous-
ing. However, the planned development plots are not built
immediately. One explanation for this development is that
the City of Copenhagen is characterized by a number of large
landowners. The land owners can sell the housing at a higher
price if they become available over a number of years rather
than being offered on the same time (KK, 2018.b).
57
12345
4.2 SELECTING INDICATORS
4.2.1 INDICATOR SELECTION CRITERIA

MacLaren's (1996) indicator selection criteria are applied as
guidelines for selecting the appropriate indicators from the
full list of SAH indicators (See Appendix B, pp. 10-11):
A. Validity C. Cost-effective
First and foremost, indicators are sought to be both scientifi- Time limitation is an essential component of developing
cally valid, responsive to change, and unambiguous within the indicators. Therefore, data availability and the estimated data
defined scope. Indicators presented by Chan & Adabre (2019), processing time is included as selection criteria. A qualitative
Cooper et al. (2019), Nuuter et al. (2015), and Mulliner et al. assessment is made on whether the combination of indica-
(2016; 2013) are considered valid. The indicator assessment tors are realistic within the time frame of the report writing.
tools have a clearly defined sustainability context and meth- Also, the complexity of the assessment method is included,
odology (Tanguay et al., 2010). The indicator assessment tools eg. how many indicator components (definitions by Gud-
are based on multidisciplinary input, expose linkages across mundsson et al., 2016) one indicator contains.
different dimensions of sustainability, are foreward looking,
and consider distributional effects. All factors are essential to D. Based on accurate and accessible data
the validity of good practice sustainable indicators (MacLaren, Indicators are included if data is collected from data sources
1996). recognised by the Danish Goverment. Furthermore, sources
that have free and public online access are prioritized.
According to Winston & Pareja-Eastaway (2008) OECD and EU
are recognized in scholary literature for housing indicators, E. Relevant and understandable to target group
but controversy exist in literature on the quality (Ibid.). There- Since the indicator assessment tool should align with the
fore, they are not included as a validity criteria. However, de- goals of its users (Garrett and Latawiec, 2015) political goals
scriptions of indicators presented by EU and OECD are includ- and visions presented by the City of Copenhagen in context
ed for the indicators also presented in the journal articles. of housing are included as selection criteria. This includes
the goals and measures presented in the reports ‘Capital of
According to Borges et al. (2020), Pedro et al. (2019) and. sustainable Development’ (2018) and ‘The City of Copenhagen
Szibbo (2016) NSA’s needs to be further developed to be Municipal Plan’ (2019).
sufficient tools, as they are guided by a "rationalist planning Additionally, the indicators are presented in an easy under-
paradigm and technocratic view on sustainability" (Borges standable language for communicational purposes. Calcula-
et al., 2020, p. 1) and lack of consensus on the sustainability tions and data-tables are placed in appendixes.
definition and concepts (ibid.). Therefore, NSA's in the context

of this study are not considered. F. Representative of a broad range of conditions
As argued by Tanguay et al. (2010) an Indicator assessment
B. Comparable tool should be consistent with the definitions of the Brundt-
The indicators need to be comparable with indicators devel- land Report (1987) by reflecting the economic, social and
oped in other relevant jurisdictions. To make the framework environmental components as well as the overlaps between
comparable it must be in line with the current practice, and them. Hence, the final list of indicators are sought to cover all
build upon on prior research. Indicators contained in the sustainable dimensions and their intersections and the SAH
reports 2020-panelet (2020), Rambøll & DAC (2019) or OECD concepts (Ibid., pp. 50-51).
(2016; 2018) are considered comparable, since the sustainable
indicators are selected based on feedback from a broad range For a list of all indicators and their catgorisations see Appen-
of stakeholders (Maclaren, 1996) and uses the SDG's as a dix B, pp. 10-11.
common sustainability reference in a Danish context.
58
CASE STUDY
4.2.2 POTENTIAL INDICATORS
The potential indicators are identified by applying the selec- Table 4.2.A on p. 60 presents the potential list of indica-
tion criteria A, B, C, and E. Inclusion and exclusion points are tors after applying selection criteria A, B, C, and E. The table
given according to the following system: only includes indicators with one or none exclusion criteria
and two or more inclusion criteria. The potential indicators
A. Valid presented are suggestive. This implies, that the concrete
Indicators included in two of the references Chan & Adabre indicators presented eg. 'Assess to and quality of transport
(2019), Cooper et al. (2019), Nuuter et al. (2015), and Mulliner services' should be adapted to relevant local conditions and
et al. (2016; 2013) are assigned an inclusion point for validity. available data in the final list. Furthermore, the selection cri-
teria should be considered guiding not obsolete.
B. Comparable
Indicators already assessed in one of the reports 2020-pan-
elet (2020), Rambøll & DAC (2019) or OECD (2016; 2018) are
given an inclusion point for comparability. If none, an exclu-
sion point is given.
C. Processing
Indicators with a complex assessment process either due to
the scientific complexity or data availability are given an ex-
clusion point. Indicators with a simple assessment proces are
given an inclusion point.
E. Relevant
Indicators relevant to the municipal goals formulated by the
City of Copenhagen in either of the two reports ‘Capital of
sustainable Development’ (2018) or ‘The City of Copenhagen
Municipal Plan’ (2019) are given an inclusion point for rele-
vance. Since the City of Copenhagen does not present indica-
tors on SAH a qualitative assessment is made on whether the
indicators are relevant to the visions and goals formulated by
the City of Copenhagen.
Selection criteria 'D. Based on accurate and accessible data'

is not applied in the first selection round, due to the time
limitation of having to research all potential indicators. Sec-
tion criteria 'F. Representative of a broad range of conditions'
is applied as the last step in combining all indicators for the
final list.
59
12345
TABLE 4.2.A: POTENTIAL INDICATORS AFTER APPLYING SELECTION CRITERIA A, B, C, & E
NO. INDICATORS DIVIDED BY CONCEPTS OF SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCLUSION EXCLUSION
I. Location Affordability
I.I Mobility & Community
1 Access to and quality of transport services B, E C
2 Access and quality of employment B, E C
3 Access to and quality of open green public space B, E C
4 Commuting Cost B, E -
5 Traffic index (Congestion) A, E B
I.II General Economics
-
I.III Population
8 Inequality of income distribution A, E B
9 Population in or at risk of poverty A, B, E -
10 Unemployment/employment rate B, E -
I.IV Housing Costs & Income Relation
11 Housing cost overburden B, E -
12 Housing price to income (Affordability Index) A, B, E -
13 Housing rent to income (Profitability of Housing Index) A, E B
14 Household expendicure A, E B
15 Real adjusted gross disposable income of household A, B, E -
I.V Housing Stock
16 Private ownership rate (shortage of rental housing) A, E B
17 Social Rental Stock B B
II Environmental Cost
18 Eco-Performance (LCA) B, E C
19 Waste Management B, E C
20 Electricity costs A, E B
21 Heating costs A, E B
III Housing Quality
III.I Layout
22 Average household size A, E -
23 Overcrowding rate B B
III.II Comfort & Health
24 Crime rates A, B, D -
25 Disability design B, E C
26 Noise A, E B
27 Pollution, grime B, E -
28 Vernacular architecture B, E -
IV Satisfaction
IV.I Tenants
29 Satisfaction with safety A, B, E -
Note: Main categories of SAH marked dark grey and sub categories light grey.
60
CASE STUDY
4.2.3 EVALUATION & FINAL SELECTION
In order to select a final set of indicators Maclaren’s (1996)
selection criteria 'D. Based on accurate and accessible data'
and 'F. Representative of a broad range of conditions' are
applied. The resulting indicators within each SAH concept are
the following:
I. Location Affordability/ I.I Mobility & Communities I. Location Affordability/ I.V Housing stock
As evident from from indicators 1-5 in Table 4.2.A most stud- The provision of housing for low income groups in the housing
ies prioritize assess to and the quality of transport, employ- stock is assessed in the following indexes: Index D1 'housing
ment and green space. However, no data was found on the for low income groups' including the indicators: (D1.1) social
access to green space in the City of Copenhagen. Therefore, a housing, (D1.2) student housing. Furthermore, the tenure
combination of indicator 1 and 2 is chosen: 'Index A Pendling' distribution is assessed in Index D2 including indicators (D2.1)
aims to asses 'the access to and quality of employment and Private ownership rate and (D2.2) Tenure types.
transport' through the indicators (A.1) 'Pendling distance' and
(A.2) 'Working vs. dwelling citizens'. II. Environment Cost
Environmental costs associated with housing expenses is
I. Location Affordability/ I.II General economics assessed in Index C2 'Tenure neutrality' on electricity, main-
As visible in Table 4.2.A no indicators are included in this tanance, and heating. However, the indicator only assesses
category after applying the selection criteria. However, the expenses and not consumption.
indicator 'Housing prices' is assessed in relation to income in
the 'income price relation' category. III. Housing Quality / III.I Layout
Different people have different needs and preferences for
I. Location Affordability/ I.III Population space needed for living. Therefore, the indicator 'Area per
‘Population’ contains indicators on the socio-demographic person' is not included (Table 4.2.A indicator 22). Instead, the
measures of which 'inclusiveness' is assessed. In this indi- provision of small apartments is assessed (Index E1) since the
cator tool the population is assessed on income, 'socio-eco- lack of small housing is one of the main drivers for the high
nomic group by employment' and 'family types'. price growth in the City of Copenhagen (KK, 2018.a; CE, 2019).
As visible in table 4.2.A the indicator 'Risk of Poverty' has It is important to assess whether space for living are fitting
most inclusion criteria. It is selected long with inequality of peoples living conditions since the City of Copenhagen is in
income distribution in 'Index B: Low income groups' contain- shortage of housing (CE, 2018). Therefore, occupancy length
ing the indicators: (B.1) People in risk of poverty, (B.2) Home- and status is included (Index E2).
lessness, and (B.3) Allocations.
III. Housing Quality / III.I Comfort & Health
I. Location Affordability/ I.IV Housing Costs & Income Relation Indicators are included on crime since this is the indicator
The City of Copenhagen's vision to create housing that is with most inclusion criteria.
affordable to all is considered relevant to all indicators in the
‘Income Price relation’ category in Tabel 4.2.A. Hence, all indi- IV. Satisfaction / IV.I Tenant Satisfaction
cators are assigned inclusion criteria E. Combining indicators Feeling of safety is included in combination with an assess-
11-15 in tabel 4.2.A the following indexes are created: ment of crime as this is the only indicator with the category
Index C1 'Housing costs and income' including the indicators: Satisfaction after applying the selection criteria.
(C1.1) Housing price-to-income, (C1.2) Housing price-to-rent,
and (C1.3) Social housing-rent-to-income The final list of indexes within each category of SAH and their
Index C2 'Tenure neutrality' with indicators (C2.1) Av. con- components are presented on p. 64.
sumption vs. median income and (C2.2) Housing expenses vs Appendix C pp. 14-15 presents the potential and final list of
income. indicators.
61
12345
4.3 FRAMEWORK DESCRIPTION
4.3.1 VISION & SCOPE

Goal Assessment type
The goal of the indicator assessment tool is to assess wheth- Within each indicator the City of Copenhagen is compared
er progress is being made towards sustainable development to its own development up until the most recent year of
for affordable housing in the City of Copenhagen from 2000- available data. The essential concepts of SAH described at pp.
2021. 46-47 are applied to assess whether urban trends are moving
The assessment of affordability focus on the population in the away or towards sustainability. Hence, the assessment type
City of Copenhagen. This includes both people connected to is primarily trend spotting (MacLaren, 1996). Four years of
the city by employment and/or by dwelling location. continous data is selected as the minimum amount of data
points in a row to conclude on a trend.
Target group
The main target group is scholars interested in the sustain- Results
able indicator assessment methodology within housing and Each indicator is assessed on a three point scale of its rela-
urban planning. The secondary target group is employees tion to sustainable development: Towards (+); Away from (-)
working in the governental institution the City of Copenhagen or Stagnant (0). If data is insufficient the indicator is assigned
(Københavns Kommune) involved in urban planning. (x). None of the indicators are weighted. Instead the results
are discussed in Section 4.1 pp. 102-107.
Spatial bounds
The spatial bound of the tool is the municipality border of the Geographical assessment level
City of Copenhagen. However, boundries of the Capital Region The assessment focuses on the geographical scales: ‘National
and the City District of Copenhagen is included in some in- or Regional' (Denmark, The Capital Region), 'Municipal’ (The
dicators either due to unavailable data or the assessment of City of Copenhagen), and ‘Community’ (Copenhagen by city
distributional effects and moving patterns. The spatial bounds parts). Household level is not included, since data is not avail-
of the City of Copenhagen, the City District of Copenhagen able on housing costs at household level. See Figure 4.3.A for
and the Capital Region are visible in Figure 4.4.A, 4.4.B, and the geographical assessment levels.
4.4.C on p. 65. For a full list of all geographical divisions by
municipalities see Appendix D pp. 16-17. Building life cycle phases
The assessment focuses on the building life cycle phases:
Timely bound 'Use, Maintanance' and 'Construction, Design, Planning'. See
The framework needs to be dynamic to capture changes over Figure 4.3.B for the included building life cycle phases.
time in order to assess intergenerational aspects of sus-
tainability (MacLaren, 1996). Hence, the assessment is made

from 2000 to 2021. Since the global financial crisis between
2007-2009 caused a subsequent dive in the economy and the
housing prices (Dam et al., 2011) data is sought to cover both
sides. Hence, the selected period is 2000-2021.
HOUSEHOLD COMMUNITY MUNICIPAL (CITY) REGIONAL OR NATIONAL
FIGURE 4.3.A - INCLUDED GEOGRAPHICAL ASSESSMENT LEVELS

The included geographical assessment levels in the indicator assessment tool on SAH for the City of Copenhagen are: Communi-
ty, Municipal (City), and Regional or National.
62
CASE STUDY
4.3.2 FRAMEWORK TYPE
Goal- and issue-based
The indicator assessment tool is a 'Combination Framework' The framework is partly goal-based since it takes into ac-
as it combines several different types of frameworks present- count the City of Copenhagen sustainability visions within
ed by Maclaren (1996): housing presented in the following reports: ‘Copenhagen
Municipal Plan’ (KK, 2019.a) and ‘The Capital of Sustain-
Domain based able Development’ (KK, 2018.a). In this context it should be
The framework is partly domain-based because it seeks to stressed that the framework is not developed to report on
integrate all dimensions of sustainability. Embedded in the the specific goals presented by the City of Copenhagen on
term 'affordability' is the link between social and econom- housing. Rather, it is developed to contextualise the City of
ic aspects of sustainable development also known as the Copenhagen's vision of creating an equal and diverse city by
equitable dimension (Stone, 2006; Du et al., 2020). Therefore, ensuring sustainable affordable housing.
social and economic aspects are more well defined than en- The framework is partly issue-based since assess to afford-
vironmental aspects. Hence, the framework does not assess able and adequate housing is a specific sustainability issue
inter-genetational equity or inter-species equity. However, it central to the UN SDG 11 (UN, 2015, Appendix A).
seeks to assess intra-generational equity, geographical equity
and procedural equity as according to definitions by Giddings
et al. (2002) (see p. 40).
Sector based
The framework is partly sectoral since indicators are con-
cerned with housing as a specific sector of governance.
CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN
PLANNING
MATERIAL
PRODUCTION
SECOND LIFE
MATERIAL
EXSTRACTION
USE
MAINTANANCE
DEMOLITION
END-OF-LIFE
FIGURE 4.3.B - INCLUDED BUILDING LIFE CYCLE PHASES

Included phases of the building life cycle in the indicator assessment tool on SAH for the City of Copenhagen are: 'Use, main-
tanance' and 'construction, design, planning'.
63
12345
4.4 INDICATOR ASSESSMENT
4.4.1 DESCRIPTION
This section presents an indicator assessment on SAH in
the City of Copenhagen. It contains 9 indexes consisting of
18 indicators. Each indicator is presented with the minimum
requirements according to Maclaren (1996, p. 199):
• Aim: A description of the indicator and its aim towards

sustainability
• Context and parameters: A description of the indicator
context, why it is important, its components, and basic
assumptions
• Data collection: A description of the collected data
• Results: A presentation of the results
• Indexing: A contextualization of trends over time for the
indicator and an assessment of whether it is developing
towards sustainability (+), away from sustainability (-), is
stagnant (0) or has unsufficient data (x)
Table 4.4.A presents all indexes and the final scores.
TABLE 4.4.A: TOTAL INDEXES AND SCORES ON SAH IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2000-2021
INDEX NO. INDICATOR SCORE SAH CONCEPTS
Index A - Pendling A.1 Pendling distance (+) Mobility &

Community
A.2 Working vs. dwelling citizens (+)
Index B - Low income groups B.1 Risk of poverty (-) Population
B.2 Homelessness (+)
B.3 Allocations (x)
Index C1 - Housing costs and C1.1 Price-to-income ratio (-) Housing Costs & In-
income come Relation,
C1.2 Price-to-rent ratio (+) Population,
Environmental Costs,
C1.3 Social housing rent-to-income (-) General Economics

Index C2 - Tenure neutrality C2.1 Consumption vs median income (+)
C2.2 Housing overburden rate (-)

Index D1 - Housing provision D1.1 New build social housing (-) Housing Stock
for low income groups
D1.1 Student housing vs students (0)
Index D2 - Tenures (-)
Index E1 - Small apartments (-) Layout
Index E2 - Occupancy E2.1 Occupancy length (-)
E2.2 Occupancy status (-)
Index F - Crime and safety versus F.1 Crime (+) Comfort & Health,
housing prices Satisfaction
F.2 Safety (+)
Total scores Progress towards sustainability (7/18) (+) = 38.9 %

Movement away from sustainability (9/18) (-) = 50.0 %
Stagnant development (1/18) (0) = 5.6 %
Insufficient data (1/18) (x) = 5.6 %
64
CASE STUDY
FIGURE 4.4.B: THE MUNICIPAL REGION BY MUNICIPALITIES
Geographical divisions of the Municpal Region: The City of
Copenhagen (blue), The surrounding area of Copenhagen
FIGURE 4.4.A: DENMARK & THE MUNICIPAL REGION (light grey), and The City District of Copenhagen (dark grey
A map of Denmark (grey) and the Municpal Region (blue). and blue), the District North Zealand (white).
Source: Kortforsyningen, 2022. Source: Kortforsyningen, 2022.
NORDHAVN
BISPEBJERG
BRØNSHØJ
ØSTERBRO
NØRREBRO
VANLØSE
INNER
CPH
AMAGER
EAST
VESTERBRO
VALBY
AMAGER WEST
4 KM
FIGURE 4.4.C - THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN BY CITY PARTS

Geographical divisions of the City of Copenhagen by city
N parts.
Source: Kortforsyningen, 2022.
65
12345
4.4.2 SUMMERIZATION OF RESULTS
In summerization, the main results and scores for each indi- Indicator C1.3: The collected data on the social housing rent-
cator on SAH in the City of Copenhagen are the following: to-income ratio shows a decrease for the 5. (median), 4. and
3 deciles. The social housing rent-to-income ratio is increas-
Index A - Pendling ing for the 1. and 2 deciles. Since social housing is aimed at
Indicator A.1: The results on pendling distance indicate that providing affordable housing to the lowest income groups
more people pendle <10 km from 2012-2019 and less people indicator C1.3 is assigned score (-).
pendle >10-30 km and >30 km from 2006-2019. Indicator A.1
is assigned score (+). Index C2 - Tenure neutrality
Indicator C2.1: The results indicate that a bigger share of the
Indicator A.2: The share of people both dwelling and working median income is disposable over time if assuming a Munici-
in the City of Copenhagen is increasing. The share of in-pend- pal Region average consumption. Hence, the purchasing pow-
lers is decreasing. Indicator A.2 is assigned score (+). er of households is increasing and indicator C2.1 scores (+).
Index B - Low income groups Indicator C2.2: The results show that the share of housing ex-
Indicator B.1: The results on people at risk of poverty indi- penses out the total average consumption is increasing over
cate that the economic segregation is increasing over time. time. The housing overburden rate at 40 % will be reached in
Furthermore, the income gap between the City of Copenha- the near future. Indicator C2.2 is assigned score (-).
gen and the rest of Denmark is widening. Additionally, the
trend results indicate a potential moving pattern of people on Index D1 - Housing provision for low income groups
monetary welfare support from the City District of Copenha- Indicator D1.1: The results indicate that the share of new build
gen to the Surrounding District of Copenhagen. Indicator B.1 is social housing units out of all new build housing decreases
assigned score (-). from 2013-2021. Indicator D1.1 is assigned score (-).
Indicator B.2: The results on homelessness show that the Indicator D1.2: The results indicate that there has been an
share of homeless people out of the total population is de- increase in student housing compared to the number of stu-
creasing from 2013-2019. Indicator B.2 is assigned score (+). dents from 2016-2021. However, it would take over 100 years
before 50% of all students could be offered student housing
Indicator B.3: The results on allocations in the Municipal Re- with the current development. Index D1.2 scores (0).
gion indicate that the share of people out of the toal popu-
lation being offered allocations is constant from 2015-2020. Index D2 - Tenures

However, no data exist on either the requirements for being The results on tenures indicates that the share of the
offered allocation housing by the municipal nor the utilization. non-profit tenures is more or less constant with a minor
Indicator B.3 is assigned score (x) for insufficient data. decrease (0.1% per year 2010-2021). The share of only-profit
tenures is increasing with 1.0% per year from 2016-2021. Indi-
Index C1 - Housing costs and income cator D2 is assigned score (-).
Indicator C1.1: The results indicate that the price-to-income
ratio is increasing from 2009-2019. Indicator C1.1 is assigned Index E1 - Small apartments
score (-). The results for small apartments indicate that the share of
small apartments out of all apartments are decreasing from
Indicator C1.2: The collected data on the housing price-to- 2010-2021. If comparing the number of singles in City of
rent development from 2015-2021 indicates that the prof- Copenhagen to the amount of small apartments the gap is
itability of housing ownership is decreasing for the private widening from 2017-2021. Indicator E1.1 is assigned score (-).
rental market. Indicator C1.2 is assigned score (+).
66
CASE STUDY
Index E2 - Occupancy Overall assessment of SAH
Indicator E2.1: The share of housing occupied below five In conclusion the City of Copenhagen scores:
years is increasing 0.3 % per year from 2016-2020. Hence,
the results indicate that the living conditions in an increasing • 7/18 (+) which accounts for 38.9 % of all indicators
amount of housing does not fit the tenants' living conditions. • 9/18 (-) which accounts for 50.0 % of all indicators
Indicator E2.1 is assigned score (-). • 1/18 (0) which accounts for 5.6 % of all indicators
• 1/18 (x) which accounts for 5.6 % of all indicators
Indicator E2.2: The results for occupancy status show that the
share of unoccupied housing is increasing 0.2 % per year from The results for each indicator is presented in depth on the
2016-2021. This indicates that the share of housing either following pages. All calculation and datasets are available in
unavailable or unattractive to tenants are increasing. Indicator the according appendixes.
D1.2 is assigned score (-). Figure 4.4.D visualises all indicator scores in a spider diagram.
Index F - Crime and safety versus housing prices

Indicator F.1: The trend results on crime in the City of Co-
penhagen indicate that crime is decreasing in all city parts.
The trend results further indicates that the more the housing
prices increase so does the reported crime. Indicator F.1 is
assigned score (+).
Indicator F.2: The trend results on people feeling unsafe

indicate that the share of the population feeling unsafe is
decreasing between 2018-2021. The trend results further indi-
cates that the more the housing prices increase so does the
share of people feeling safe. Indicator F.2 scores (+).
A.1 Pendli ng distance

A.2 Working v s d welling
F.2 S afety
(+) citizens
B.1 People at ri sk of
F.1 Crime
poverty
(0)
E.2.2 Occupancy status B.2 Homelessness
(-)
E2.1 Occupancy length B.3 Allocations
C1.1 Price-to-income
E1 Small apartments
ratio
D2 Tenures C1.2 Pri ce-to-rent ratio
D1.2 Student housing vs C1.3 Social housing rent-

students to-income ratio
D1.1 New build social C2.1 Consumption v s
housing income
Sustainable score C2.2 Housing overburden
rate
Insufficient data
FIGURE 4.4.D
SUMMERIZATION OF SUSTAINABLE SCORES ON SAH FOR THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2000-2021
(+) indicates progress towards sustainability, (0) a stagnant development and (-) movement away from sustainability.
67
12345
4.4.3 INDEX A - PENDLING

Aim Data collection
Index A assesses whether the pendling distance and the share Indicator A.1 - Pendling distance
of people both working and dwelling in the City of Copenha- Data is available through DST in the period 2008-2019 on no.
gen increases or decreases over time. If the pendling distance people by pendling length in eight intervals per year in the
decrease and the share of people both working and dwelling City of Copenhagen. Therefore, 2008 is set as base year. The
increase this indicates progress towards sustainability. intervals include: No pendling, 5 km, >5-10 km, >10-20 km,
>20-30, >30-40 km,>40-50 km, and >50 km.
Context and parameters
A sustainable community is one where people dwell close The data only includes the population in the City of Copenha-
to local amenties such as job opportunities (Mulliner et al., gen who are employed, why the total number of pendlers are
2016). Pendling shorter distances to work is associated with lower than the actual number of residents. Since the City of
lower costs eg. time spend on pendling, monetary cost of Copenhagen is app. 10 km across and is considered a bikeable
transport, or emmited emmisions (Chan & Adabre, 2019). distance why intervals below 10 km are handled collectively.
Additionally, more people working and residing in the same Intervals >10-30 km are joined and intervals >30 km.
area contributes to better neighborhood livability and social
coherence (Mulliner and Maleine, 2011). Indicator A.2 - Working vs dwelling citizens
Data on the relation between working and residing citizens in
Indicator A.1 - 'Pendling distance' assess the relation between the City of Copenhagen is available from 2008-2019 through
the population in the City of Copenhagen and their pendling Statistics Denmark on out-pendlers, in-pendlers and the pop-
distances to work from their dwelling. Hence, if more peo- ulation both working and dwelling in the City of Copenhagen.
ple have to pendle shorter distances to work over time this
indicates increasing affordability of housing and progress
towards sustainability. 10 km is assumed a distance that can
be reached by bike in the City of Copenhagen.
Indicator A.2 'Working vs. dwelling citizens' assess how big a
share of the residents in the City of Copenhagen that has a
job within the city borders. If the share increase this indicates
better neighborhood livability and social coherence in the City
of Copenhagen.
In-pendlers and out-pendlers are also assessed to contextu-

alise the results. In-pendlers are people living in other munic-
ipalities working inside the CIty of Copenhagen. Out-pendlers
are the population living the City of Copenhagen, but working
in other municipalities. If the amount of in-pendlers increase
this can indicate that the quality of 'mobility and communi-
ty' aspects (eg. assess to schools and open green space) are
increasing in the surrounding area relative to the City of Co-
penhagen. In-pendlers can also be an indication of people not
affording housing in the City of Copenhagen why they com-
mute to work from other areas. If the amount of out-pendlers
increase this can indicate that the 'access to and quality of
jobs' are decreasing in the City of Copenhagen relative to the
surrounding areas. Out-pendlers can also be an indication of
people living in the city to enjoy the benefits specific to it eg.
cultural activities, but working elsewhere.
68
CASE STUDY
Results
Detailed data and calculations for Index A can be found in The most current linear model for pendlers commuting
Appendix E.1, pp. 18-23. >30 km (Appendix E.1, Figure 3.1.3, Trend H) shows that the
trend is flat. However, the correlation coefficient is 0.35 why
Indicator A.1 - Pendling distance the model is very uncertain. In fact, if compared to a linear
Assessing the results in Table 4.4.B and Figure 4.4.E the share model for the full period from 2008-2019 the linear trend is
of the population commuting <10 km is decreasing with 0.5% decreasing with 0.1 % per year (R2=0.47). In conclusion, the
per year from 2008-2012 according to the linear model in share of pendlers travelling over 30 km is decreasing. How-
'Trend A'. However, the most current linear model for 'Trend B' ever, it should be noted that the trend model is uncertain
shows an increase of 0.3 % per year from 2012-2019. (Appendix E.1, Figure 3.1.4, Trend I).
Assessing the results for the population pendling between

10-30 km (Appendix E.1, Figure E.1.2, Trend E) the most cur-
rent linear model shows that the share is decreasing 0.2 %
per year from 2016-2019.
TABLE 4.4.B: RESULTS INDICATOR A.1 - PENDLING DISTANCE IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
INDICATOR CONDITIONS AVERAGE 2008-2019 [NO.]

A.1 Pendling <10 Km 247,009
Pendling
Distance Pendling 10-30 Km 71,853
Pendling >30 52,207
Total population 564,242
LINEAR TRENDS TREND/Y [%] CORRELATION [R2]

Pendlers <10 Km/Pop TREND A: 2008-2012 -0.5 0.81
TREND B: 2012-2019 0.3 0.94
Pendlers 10-30 Km/Pop. TREND E: 2016-2019 -0.2 0.96
FIGURE 4.4.E
PENDLING <10 KM/TOTAL POPULATION IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2008-2019
0.450.44
TREND A TREND B
RELATION [:]
0.42 0.430.41
0.4
2009
2017
2010
2019
2016
2008
2018
2014
2011
2012
2013
2015
TIME [YEAR]
Note: For full data table and calculations see Appendix E.1 pp. 18-23.
Data source(s): Statistics Denmark, 2021. AFSTA3: Employed by work area, socio economic status, sex and pendling distance.
Available at www.statistikbanken.dk
69
12345
Indexing
Indicator A.2 - Working vs dwelling citizens Based on the results on pendling distances progress is made
Assessesing the results in Table 4.4.C and Figure 4.4.F the towards sustainability since more people pendle <10 km from
share of people both working and living in the City of Co- 2012-2019 and less people pendle >10-30 km from 2006-
penhagen (blue line) is increasing with 0.4 % per year from 2019. Indicator A.1 is assigned score (+).
2012-2019 according to the linear model for 'Trend A'. The
share of out-pendlers is also increasing according to the Based on the results on the population both working and
linear model for 'Trend B' from 2010-2019 with 0.1 % per year dwelling in the City of Copenhagen progress is made towards
(yellow line). According to the linear model for 'Trend C' the sustainability since the share increases. In conclusion, Indi-
share of in-pendlers are decreasing with 0.3 % per year from cator A.2 is assigned index score (+).
2008-2019 (grey line). The results indicates that the share of out-pendlers increase
and the share of in-pendlers decrease. More data is need-
ed to interpret the results for in-pendlers and out-pendlers
since the factors motivating the in- and out-pendling pat-
terns are speculative.
TABLE 4.4.C: RESULTS INDICATOR A - PENDLING DISTANCE IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN

A.2 Working and dwelling 191,281 ²
Working vs
dwelling Out-pendlers 117,419
In-pendlers 179,789
² ²
LINEAR TRENDS TREND/Y [%] CORRELATION [R ]2
Working and dwelling TREND A: 2008-2019 -0.3 0.96

Out-pendlers TREND B: 2012-2019 0.3 0.96
²
In-pendlers TREND C: 2010-2019 0.1 0.87
²
FIGURE 4.4.F
POPULATION BY WORKING AND DWELLING RELATION/TOTAL POPULATION IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2008-2019
0.6
TREND C
0.5
RELATION [:]
0.4
TREND A
0.3
TREND B
0.2
Dwelling and working

Outpendlers
0.1
Inpendlers
0
2009
2016
2008
2018
2014
2011
2012
2013
2015
2017
2010
2019
TIME [YEAR]
Data source(s): Statistics Denmark, 2021. PEND100. RAS310. PEND101. Available at statistikbanken.dk
70
CASE STUDY
4.4.4 INDEX B - LOW INCOME GROUPS
Aim
Index B assesses the development of low income groups in B.2 - Homeless population
the City of Copenhagen. The aim of the indicator is to assess Homelessness is a direct measure of whether people are
whether the share of financially vulnerable citizens increase excluded from the housing market. In Denmark, homeless
over time. people include rough sleepers and people living in temporary
accommodation (VIVE, 2019). Indicator B.3 assesses whether
Context and parameters the share of homeless people decrease or increase over time.
Low income groups are at risk of exclusion from the hous-
ing market and/or living under unsatisfactory conditions B.3 - Allocations
(EU-SILC, 2020.e). 'Low income groups' is assessed in three The share of housing allocations is assessed on two parame-
indicators: (B.1) The specific Danish groups that are at risk of ters: the amount of people offered allocations from an exter-
poverty according to the EU definition, (B.2) People who are nal waiting list and offered Municipal allocations. The no. peo-
homeless, and (B.3) Offered allocations: ple on the external waiting list is an estimate of the demand
of social housing from all types of citizens, since anyone can
Indicator B.1 - Risk of Poverty be signed up. The offered Municipal allocations reflect the
According to EU (2020) 'people at risk of poverty' are those provision of housing for vulnerable citizens (Transport- og
living in a household with an equivalized disposable income Boligministeriet, 2018). However, currently no data is available
below 60% of the national median equivalised disposable on the criteria for being allocated by the municipal. Addition-
income after social transfers (EU-SILC, 2020.e). Therfore, indi- ally, it should be noted that the Danish Municipalities do not
cator B.1 assesses whether the share of the population below necessarily allocate people to social housing units (Ibid.).
this poverty limit increase or decrease over time. The number of allocations on the external waiting list is as-
It should be noted, that in Denmark 60 % of the national sessed as the relative demand of social housing for the total
median equivalised disposable income is not an indication population. The number of allocations from the Municipal is
of people being extremely poor eg. not affording food or assessed as the relative demand of social housing for vulner-
permanent shelter (Rambøll & DAC, 2019). However, it can be able citizens.
considered an indication of the development for economic
segregation across the population. In order to contextualise Data collection
the development within the City of Copenhagen it is com- Indicator B.1 - Risk of Poverty
pared to the poverty development in Denmark. Data on income is available through Statistics Denmark from
2000-2019. Data on the no. people by socio-economic status
The specific Danish socio-economic groups that are at risk is available from 2000-2019 though Statistics Denmark for the
of poverty are specified. It is analysed whether the share of City District of Copenhagen and for the Surrounding area of
these groups increase or decrease over time in the City of Copenhagen.
Copenhagen.
Indicator B.3 - Homeless population
Since the proces of gentrification can force people with less Data is available through VIVE (2019) in 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015,
financial ressources to move out of an area (Dempsey et al., 2017, 2019 (every second year) on the total number of home-
2011) the results are compared to the Surrounding Area of Co- less people in the City of Copenhagen.
penhagen for possible moving patterns. Therefore, a decrease
in the share of groups in risk of poverty in the City of Copen- Indicator B2.2 - Allocations
hagen is not necessarily an indication of social mobility within Data is available for offered housing allocations per year by
the population, but rather people moving out of the city to type of allocation through Landsbyggefonden (2021) from
the surrounding areas. 2014-2020 for the Municipal Region. The following allocations
types are included: External waiting list, Municipal allocations,
Total allocations. See Appendix E.2, Table E.2.D for excluded
allocation types.
71
12345
Results
Detailed data and calculations for Index B can be found in Data on the socio-economic composition of low income
Appendix E.2 pp. 24-33. families in Denmark shows that the five groups accounting
for the biggest share of people earning below the EU poverty
Indicator B1.1: Risk of poverty limit are: 'Others Un-employed', 'Students', 'People on wel-
According to the linear model for 'Trend A' (Table 4.4.D and fare support (Kontanthjælp)', 'Temporarily un-employed', and
Figure 4.4.G) an increasing share of the total population in 'Un-employed' (See Appendix E.2, Figure E.2.B). Additionally,
the City of Copenhagen is at risk of poverty according to the according to numbers on the socio-economic groups that has
EU definition. If compared to the linear model for 'Trend B' the lowest income in the City of Copenhagen are the same
for the entire population in Denmark the models have sim- groups in the same order (See Appendix E.2, Figure E.2.C).
ilar trends. However, the trend in the City of Copenhagen is However, students are not assessed in this indicator. Instead,
increasing 0.02 % more per year than for Denmark. Hence, students are assessed in indicator D2 on pp. 84-86. On this
the economic segregation is increasing over time and the gap basis, the four socio-economic groups that are considered in
between the City of Copenhagen and the rest of Denmark highest risk of poverty in the City of Copenhagen are: 'Others
widening. Un-employed', 'People on Welfare Support (Kontanthjælp)',
'Temporarily un-employed', and 'Un-employed'.
TABLE 4.4.D: RESULTS INDICATOR B.1 - RISK OF POVERTY

B.1 People at 'risk of poverty' in Denmark 638,932 638932
EU defini-
tion: 'Risk Total population in Denmark 5,369,175
of poverty' ²
People at 'risk of poverty' in the City of CPH 117,593
Total population in the City of Copenhagen 518,030

People at risk of poverty in the City of CPH TREND A: 2000-2019 0.24 0.84
People at risk of poverty in Denmark TREND B: 2000-2019 0.22 0.94
²
FIGURE 4.4.G
PEOPLE WITH DISPOSABLE INCOME <60% OF THE NATIONAL MEDIAN DISPOSABLE INCOME/TOTAL POPULATION IN THE CITY OF
COPENHAGEN 2000-2019
30
SHARE OF TOTAL POPULATION [%]
Denmark
The City of Copenhagen
25
TREND A
15 20
TREND B
5 10 0
2007
2000
2009
2006
2008
2004
2001
2002
2003
2005
2012
2013
2015
2017
2010
2019
2016
2018
2014
2011
TIME [YEAR]
Data source(s): Statistics Denmark, 2021. FOR12P: Population in low income families by income level, municipality and time.
SOGN10: Population 1st of January after parish. FOLK1A: Population the 1st in quantile after area, sex, age and civil status.
72
CASE STUDY
Assessing the linear model for 'Trend A' (Table 4.4.E and Fig-
ure 4.4.H) the share of low income groups in the City District
of Copenhagen is decreasing 0.1 % per year. According to the
linear model for 'Trend B' the share of low income groups in
the surrounding area of Copenhagen is increasing over time.
This could indicate gentrification. However, both trends have
a correlation coeffient that indicates a high level of uncertain-
ty. If looking at the composition of low income groups (See
appendix E.2, Figure E.2.E and Figure E.2.F) the models could
indicate a moving pattern of people on Welfare Support from
the City District of Copenhagen to the surrounding area of
Copenhagen. Nevertheless, no clear conclusion can be made
on possible moving pattern based on this data.
TABLE 4.4.E: RESULTS INDICATOR B.1 - RISK OF POVERTY
INDICATOR CONDITIONS AV. 2000-2019 [NO.]

B.2 City District of Low income groups 154,882
Danish Copenhagen
groups Total population 571,962
in risk of
poverty Surrounding area of Low income groups 79,536
Copenhagen

TREND A: 2010-2019 -0.09 0.67
TREND B: 2010-2019 0.11 0.64
FIGURE 4.4.H
GROUPS IN RISK OF POVERTY/TOTAL POPULATION IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2000-2019
0.15
Ci ty District of Copenhagen
Surroundi ng area of Copenhagen
0.13
TREND A
RELATION [:]
0.09 0.11
TREND B
0.07
0.05
2001
2000
2009
2010
2006
2016
2008
2018
2004
2014
2002
2003
2005
2012
2013
2015
2007
2017
2011
2019
TIME [YEAR]
Data source(s): Statistics Denmark, 2021. FOR12P, INDKP104, FU06, IFOR11P. Available at www.statistikbanken.dk. Landsbyggefon-
den (2021) Huslejestatistik 2015, Huslejestatistik 2017, Huslejestatistik 2018, Huslejestatistik 2019. Available at www.lbf.dk. VIVE
(2019) Hjemløshed i Danmark 2019, National kortlægning, Viden til Velfærd, Det nationale Analyse og Forskningscenter til Velfærd.
Available at www.vive.dk.
73
12345
Indicator B.2: Homelessness

As visible in Table 4.4.F and Figure 4.4.I the share of homeless
people decrease by 0.02 % in the City of Copenhagen from
2013-2019 according to the linear model 'Trend A' (See Appen-
dix E.2, Figure E.2.G).
TABLE 4.4.F: RESULTS INDICATOR B.2 - HOMELESS POPULATION IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN

B.2 Homeless population 1,511
Homeless
population Total population 571,962
LINEAR TRENDS TREND/Y [%] CORRELATION [R2] EXTRAPOLATION [Y]

TREND: 2013-2019 -0.02 0.99 y=0 => x=16.5
FIGURE 4.4.I
HOMELESS PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2009-2019
1600
HOMELESS PEOPLE [NO.]
1450 1500 1550
1400
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
TIME [YEAR]
Note: Data is only available every second year (2009-2019). See Appendix E.2 p. 32. Data source(s): FOLK1A: Population the 1st in
quantile after area, sex, age and civil status. Data on homelessness is obtained through VIVE (2019): Hjemløshed i Danmark 2019,
National kortlægning. Viden til Velfærd. Det nationale Analyse og Forskningscenter til Velfærd. Available at www.vive.dk
74
CASE STUDY
Indexing
Indicator B.3: Allocations Since the economic segregation is increasing over time and
Assessing the results in Table 4.4.G and Figure 4.4.J the share the gap between the City of Copenhagen and the rest of Den-
of all types of offered allocations in relation to the total mark widening indicator B.1 is assigned a index score (-). The
population (total offered allocations, offered allocations from share of people in risk of poverty are decreasing in the City
the external waiting list and offered municipal allocations) is District of Copenhagen and increasing in the surrounding area
constant from 2015-2020 according to the linear model for of Copenhagen. This could indicate gentrification, but more
Trend A, B and C. data is needed to conclude on a moving pattern.
There has been a decrease in the share of homeless people

from 2009-2019 why indicator B.2 is assigned index score (+).
The share of offered allocations out of the total population

is constant from 2015-2020. However, no data is available on
the utilization or the number of people on the waiting lists.
Hence, indicator B.3 is assigned score (x) for insufficient data.
TABLE 4.4.G: RESULTS INDICATOR B.3 - HOUSING ALLOCATIONS IN THE MUNICIPAL REGION

B.3 Total allocations 20,561
Housing
allocations Municipal allocations 6,477
in the
Municipal External wait. list 8,065
Region

TREND A: 2015-2020 Total offered allocations 0.0 0.62
TREND B: 2015-2020 Offered allocations external wait. list 0.0 0.62
TREND C: 2015-2020 Offered municipal allocations 0.0 0.68
FIGURE 4.4.J
OFFERED ALLOCATIONS BY TYPE/TOTAL POPULATION IN THE MUNICIPAL REGION 2014-2020
0.02
Offered Municipal allocations

Total offered allocations
Offered allocations external wai ting list
0.015
Offered Municipal allocations

TREND A
RELATION [:]
0.01 0.005
TREND B
TREND C
0
2015
2017
2019
2016
2018
2014
2020
TIME [YEAR]
Note: See Appendix E.2 p. 33 for further details. Data source(s): Landsbyggefonden, 2021. Anvisninger i den almene boligsektor
2020, 2021:1; 2019, 2020:1; 2018, 2019:1; 2017, 2018:1; 2015, 2016:1; 2014, 2015:1. Landsbyggefonden, LBF, Analyser, Statistikker og
analyser, Temastatistikker. Available at www.lbf.dk. Data on population: Statistics Denmark, 2021. FOLK1A.
75
12345
4.4.5 INDEX C1 - HOUSING COSTS VERSUS INCOME

Aim Data collection
Index C1 assesses how the prices on owner occupied and Owner-occupied housing prices
rental housing have developed over time and compares it Data on owner-occupied housing prices is available through
to the income development by deciles in the City of Co- Finance Danmark from 2000 to 2021 in the City of Co-
penhagen. The aim of the indicator is to assess whether the penhagen. Data is included for Single Family Housing and
financial burden of dwelling increases or decreases over time Owner-Occupied Apartments both measured in cost per
in the City of Copenhagen. Additionally, it aims to asses the squaremeter as a yearly average. Only housing prices within
profitability of house ownership. the regular market is included excluding family transfer.
Context and parameters Rental housing prices

According to OECD (2021) assessing housing prices should Data on rental housing prices is available through the Danish
both include ratios of price-to-rent and price-to-income. Housing and Planning Agency (BPST) from 2015 to 2021 in the
The price-to-income ratio is the price index in relation to the City of Copenhagen. Hence, 2015 is set as base year. Data is
income index. The price-to-rent ratio is the price index divid- included for Private Rental Flats, Social Housing, and Private
ed by the rent index. It can be considered a measure of the Rental Housing (ex. flats) all measured in cost per squareme-
profitability of house ownership for rental (OECD, 2021). ter (DKK/m2) as a yearly average based on four quantiles.
The ratio development over time is an indication of whether Income levels

development is moving away or towards housing affordability. Data on income is available through Statistics Denmark from
If the price-to-income ratio is increasing it is an indication 2000-2019 in ten deciles in equivalent disposable income in
that housing becomes less affordable. If the price-to-rent the City of Copenhagen.
ratio is increasing it is an indication that housing profitability
is rising (OECD, 2021.c).
The income development is assessed in deciles in equivalent

disposable income. Divided by deciles is ranking the popu-
lation according to the size of their income into ten equal
groups (DST, 2017.b). The equivalized disposable income is the
income amount after taxes and expenditures weighted using
an equivalent scale making it possible to compare income
across family types (DST, 2017.a).

According to Statistics Denmark (2017.b) the average income
within the decile groups should largely coincide with the
adjacent deciles. However, this does not apply in the first and
tenth decile. Few people with very low or very high incomes
can affect the average income in these deciles significant-
ly (Ibid.). For the housing-to-income ratio the income in ten
deciles is included for contextualisation. The median income
(5. decile) is the only decile compared to housing prices since
the housing price is an average.
The housing rent-to-income for private rental housing and
social housing is assessed. If the rent-to-income ratio is
increasing this indicates an increasing financial burden over
time. The rent for social housing is particularly interesting
since it is intended to be affordable to the lower income
groups (Lejerbo, 2019).
76
CASE STUDY
Results
Detailed data and calculations for Indicator C1 can be found Assessing the linear model for 'Trend A' (Red line, 5. decile) in
in Appendix E.3 pp. 34-45. Figure 4.4.K the housing price-to-income ratio is increasing by
7.2 % per year from 2009-2019. If assessing the housing price-
Indicator C1.1 - Price-to-income ratio to-income ratio 2011-2019 the trend is increasing 8.6 % per
Assessing the results for the price-to-income ratio visible in year (See Appendix E.3, Diagram E.3.B). Both trends indicate
Tabel 4.4.5.A and Figure 4.4.K there is a clear correlation be- growing un-affordability of housing: the gap between the me-
tween the financial crisis 2008 and a decline in the ratio from dian disposable income and the average housing price (owner
2006-2012 for all deciles accept the 1st decile. Furthermore, occupied apartments) is increasing over time.
the 1st decile fluctuates significantly as described by Sta- Figure 4.4.K shows that the gap between income and housing
titics Denmark (2017.b). This may be caused by large variatons prices increase for all deciles from 2012-2019.
in the income levels for students and self-employed (See The ratio for all deciles peak in 2018. From 2018-2019 the ratio
Appendix E.3 - Diagram E.3.H, orange and yellow line) and the is decreasing. However, assessing the housing price index
number of students in the City District of Copenhagen which as visible in Appendix E.3 Figure E.3.C the housing prices in-
is increasing substantially from 2000-2019 (See Appendix E.3 crease again from 2019-2021. This could indicate a continous
Diagram E.3.I, red line). increase in the housing price-to-income ratio from 2019-2021.
TABLE 4.4.H: RESULTS INDICATOR C1.2 - HOUSING PRICE-TO-RENT RATIO IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
INDICATOR CONDITIONS AV. 2000-2021 [DKK/M2] CONDITIONS AV. 2000-2021 [DKK/Y]

C1.1 Owner occupied apartments price 27,007 Income 1. decile 47,257
Housing
price-to- Single family houses price 25,552 Income median 170,295
income
Income 10. decile 479,489

TREND A: 2009-2021 Median income (red) 7.2 0.91
FIGURE 4.4.K
HOUSING PRICE-TO-INCOME RATIO BY DECILES IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0
1. decile
2. decile
3. decile
4. decile
5. decile (median)
6. decile
RATIO [:]
7. decile
8. decile
9. decile
10. decile
1.5
1.3
TREND A
1.0
2000
2009
2006
2008
2004
2002
2003
2005
2012
2013
2015
2007
2017
2001
2011
2010
2019
2016
2018
2014
TIME [YEAR]
Note: Housing price-to-income ratio is based on prices for owner occupied housing. For full data table and calculations see
Appendix E.3 pp. 36-37.
Data source(s): (Income) Statistics Denmark, 2021. Statistikbanken. INDKP105. Available at: www.statistikbanken.dk.
(Housing prices) Finans Danmark, 2021. Boligstatistik, BM010, København. Available at: www.rkr.statistikbank.dk
77
12345
Indicator C1.2 - Price-to-rent ratio Indicator C1.3 - Social housing rent-to-income

Assessing the price-to-rent ratio (Table 4.4.I and Figure 4.4.L) Assessing the results in Table 4.4.J and Figure 4.4.M the linear
based on the price index for for owner occupied apartments model for 'Trend A' (purple) the social housing rent-to-income
from 2015-2021 the ratio for social housing is increasing with ratio for 1st decile is increasing from 2015-2020 with 1.1 % per
6.6 % per year according to the linear model (R2=0.94). This year. According to the linear model for 'Trend B' (brown) the
is indicating a growing gap between social housing and the social housing rent-to-income ratio for 2. decile is increasing
housing prices for the private market. The trend is confirming, from 2015-2020 with 2.2 % per year. The linear trends for 3rd
that the social housing is less profitable than the owner oc- and 4th deciles both indicates a decrease in the socioal hous-
cupied housing market. This is the intention of social housing. ing rent-to-income (green and blue line). The social housing
rent-to-income is also decreasing for the median income (See
Assesing the price-to-rent ratio for 'Private rental housing' Appendix E.3 Figure E.3.E).
(Figure 4.4.L Trend B) the ratio is increasing with 1.6% per year If assessing the rent-to-income ratio for the private rental
according to the linear model from 2015-2021, which also housing the ratio is increasing for the median income (Appen-
indicates less profitability of housing. However, it should be dix E.3 - Figures E.3.D and E.3.E).
noted that the linear trend is uncertain (R2=0.43). Indexing
TABLE 4.4.I: RESULTS INDICATOR C1.2 - HOUSING PRICE-TO-RENT RATIO IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
INDICATOR CONDITIONS AV. 2015-2021 [DKK/M2]

C1.2 Owner occupied apartment price 39,273
Housing
price-to- Private rental housing rent 1,065
rent
Social housing rent 894

TREND A: 2015-2021 Social housing 6.6 0.94
TREND B: 2015-2021 Private rental housing 1.6 0.43
FIGURE 4.4.L Soci al Housing

HOUSING PRICE-TO-RENT RATIO IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2015-2021
Private Rental Housing
1.5
Soci al Housing
Private Rental Housing
1.4
1.3
TREND A
RATIO [:]
1.2
TREND B
1.1 1.0
2019
2016
2018
2015
2017
2021
2020
TIME [YEAR]
Note: Based on the housing prices for owner occupied flats. For further details see Appendix E.3 p. 40.
Data source: (Housing rent) BPST, 2021. Bolig og planstyrelsen. Boligstatistik. Huslejestatistik. (Housing prices) Finans Danmark,
2021. Boligstatistik, BM010, København. Available at: www.rkr.statistikbank.dk
78
CASE STUDY
In conclusion, the collected data on housing prices and in- Data on the rent-to-income ratio for the private rental marked
come by deciles shows movement away from sustinability in shows an increase for the median income. This indicates, that
the price-to-income ratio for the median income (5. decile). In the financial burden of rental housing is increasing.
conclusion, indicator C1.1 is assigned score (-). The collected data on the social housing rent-to-income ratio
The collected data on the housing price-to-rent development shows a decrease for the median income, the 4th, and the 3rd
from 2015-2021 indicates that the profitability of housing decile. However, the rent-to-income ratio is increasing for the
ownership is decreasing for the private rental market. Hence, 1st and 2nd deciles. Since social housing is aimed at providing
indicator C1.2 is assigned score (+). affordable housing to the lowest income groups indicator C1.3
is assigned score (-).
TABLE 4.4.J: RESULTS INDICATOR C1.3 - SOCIAL HOUSING RENT-TO-INCOME RATIO IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
INDICATOR CONDITIONS AV. INCOME 2015-2020 [DKK/Y] AV. RENT 2015-2020 [DKK/M2]
C1.3 1. decile 50,864 Social housing 888
Housing
rent-to- 2. decile 118,423
income
ratio 3. decile 149,175
4. decile 177,858

TREND A: 2015-2020 1. decile 1.1 0.24
TREND B: 2015-2020 2. decile 2.2 0.81
TREND C: 2015-2020 3. decile -2.0 0.93
TREND D: 2015-2020 4. decile -4.6 0.97
FIGURE 4.4.M
SOCIAL HOUSING RENT-TO-INCOME RATIO IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN FOR THE FOUR LOWER DECILES 2015-2020
1.2
TREND B
1.1
TREND A
1.0
TREND C
RATIO [:]
0.9
TREND D
0.8
1. decile
0.7
2. decile
3. decile
4. decile
0.6
2018
2015
2017
2019
2020
2016
TIME [YEAR]
Note: For further details see Appendix E.3 pp. 38-39.

Data source: (Housing rent) BPST, 2021. Bolig og planstyrelsen. Boligstatistik. Huslejestatistik. (Income) Statistics Denmark, 2021.
IFOR32. Available at statistikbanken.dk
79
12345
4.4.6 INDICATOR C2 - TENURE NEUTRALITY

Aim Data collection
Indicator C2 assesses the relation between household dis- Total average consumption
posable income and household expenditures in the City of Data on consumption is only available on regional levels.
Copenhagen from 2000-2020. The aim of the indicator is to Therefore, The Municipal Region is selected as geographical
assess whether the purchasing power of households are in- area. Data is available from 2007-2019 in money spend per av-
creasing or decreasing over time. erage household. According to DST (2021) the average number
of people per household in the Municipal Region is 2.1 person
Context and parameters from 2007-2020. All data on income levels are measured per
The relationship between household income and housing person. Hence, the average consumption is divided by 2.1 for
expenses is also called tenure neutrality (Eurofound, 2016). comparison.
According to Eurostat (2020) tenure neutrality reflects the
purchasing power of households and their ability to invest in Housing expenses
goods and services or save for the future. Following the expenses available in the total consumption
list in Statistics Denmark the following is related directly to
Indicator C2 focuses on how big a percentage of the house- housing costs: Rent, Rental value of housing, Maintenance,
hold’s income in the CIty of Copenhagen is spend on housing Water supply, and Electricity. Data is available from 2007-2019
expenses and if there is an overall trend when assessing the in the Municipal Region.
correlation between the two parameters. If the economic
margin of households is increasing over time this indicates Income
development towards housing affordability. Relation 1:1 Data on income is assessed in ten deciles in equivalent dis-
between av. consumption and median disposable income is posable income from 2007-2019. Available data from Statis-
'tenure neutrality'. tics Denmark from 2000-2019 for the City of Copenhagen.
According to EU (2019) household expenditure is the amount

of consumption made by households to meet their everyday
needs. This includes food, clothing, rent, energy, transport,
durable goods, health costs, leisure, and miscellaneous
services. According to EU-SILC (2021.c) housing expenses
includes: Mortgage repayment or rent, insurance and service
charges eg. sewage removal, regular maintenance, repairs
and other charges. The housing expenses should not exceed

40% of the total consumption. This limit is called the 'hous-
ing overburden rate'. Therefore, two different parameters are
included to assess tenure neutrality:
• Indicator C2.1: The total average consumption per person

• related to median income
• Indicator C2.2: The housing overburden rate
80
CASE STUDY
Results
Detailed data and calculations for Indicator C2 can be found
in Appendix E.4 pp. 46-49.
C2.1 Consumption versus income

Assessing the results in Table 4.4.K and Figure 4.4.N accord-
ing to the linear model for 'Trend B' the relation between the
median income and the av. consumption is decreasing from
2013-2019 with 2.1% per year (R2=0.81). Hence, a bigger share
of the income is disposable over time for the population in
the City of Copenhagen if assuming a Municipal Region aver-
age consumption. The relation between the median income
and the av. consumption has already reached 'tenure neutrali-
ty' (relation 1:1) in 2007.
TABLE 4.4.K: RESULTS INDICATOR C2.1 - CONSUMPTION VERSUS INCOME
INDICATOR CONDITIONS AV. 2007-2019 [DKK/PERS]

C2.1 Median income The City of Copenhagen 184,846
Consump-
tion versus Average consumption The Municipal Region 159,499
income
TREND A: 2013-2020 -2.1 0.81
FIGURE 4.4.N
MEDIAN INCOME IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN/AVERAGE CONSUMPTION IN THE MUNICIPALITY REGION 2007-2019
1
0.9
TREND A
0.8
RELATION [:]
0.7
0.60.5
2012
2013
2015
2017
2011
2010
2019
2016
2018
2014
2007
2009
2008
TIME [YEAR]
Note: For further details see Appendix E.4 pp. 46-47. Data source(s): Statistics Denmark, 2021. IIFOR32: Average Equivalent
Disposable Income by Decile and Municipality. FU07: Consumption by consumption group, region and price unit. Available at:
statistikbanken.dk.
81
12345
C2.2 Housing overburden rate

When assessing the housing related exspenses in Table 4.4.L
and Figure 4.4.O the share of housing expenses out the total
av. consumption is increasing over time. According to linear
model for 'Trend B' (blue) the housing expenses/av. consump-
tion increases with 0.5% per year. This is mainly caused by the
calculated rental value (orange line, Trend D, Figure 4.4.P, p.
83) if assessing the housing expenses by type. Explorating the
model the housing overburden rate will be reached in 2028(').
Indexing
Based on the results on the relation between the average
consumption in the Municipal Region and median income in
the City of Copenhagen progress is moving towards more sus-
tainability: The purchasing power of households is increasing.
This gives score (+).
Based on the results on the housing overburden rate in the

Municipal Region it will be reached in the near future. There-
fore, indicator C2.2 is assigned score (-).
82
CASE STUDY
TABLE 4.4.L: RESULTS INDICATOR C2.2 - HOUSING OVERBURDEN RATE
INDICATOR CONDITIONS AV. 2007-2020 [DKK/HOUSEHOLD]

C2.2 Av. consumption 335,471
Housing
overbur- Calculated rental value 32,446
den rate
Actual rent 40,523
Electricity, gas, other 4,983
Water supply 9,470
Maintenance 22,331

TREND B: 2007-2019 Expenses vs. consumption 0.5 0.87 y=0.4 => x=21.0(')
TREND C: 2007-2021 Calculated rental value 0.6 0.94
TREND D: 2015-2021 Actual rent 0.4 0.48
TREND E: 2010-2020 Electricity, gas, other -0.1 0.62
TREND F: 2007-2020 Water supply 0.0 0.23 ²
TREND G: 2007-2020 Maintenance -0.1 0.55
FIGURE 4.4.O
HOUSING EXPENSES/AVERAGE CONSUMPTION IN THE MUNICIPALITY REGION 2007-2019
²
0.50
HOUSING OVERBURDEN RATE (40%)

0.40
RELATION [:]
²
TREND B
0.30
²
0.20
2007
2011
2009
2010
2019
2016
2008
2018
2014
2012
2013
2015
2017
² TIME [YEAR]
FIGURE 4.4.P
HOUSING EXPENSES BY TYPE/AVERAGE CONSUMPTION IN THE MUNICIPALITY REGION 2007-2020
0.16
Actual rent
Calculated rental value TREND C
Housing maintenance
Water supply and other services
0.12
Electricity, gas and other fuels

TREND D
RELATION [:]
0.08
TREND E
0.04
TREND F
TREND G
0
2009
2010
2019
2016
2008
2018
2014
2012
2013
2015
2007
2017
2011
2020
TIME [YEAR]
Note: For further details see Appendix E.4 pp. 48-49. Data source(s): Statistics Denmark, 2021. IIFOR32: Average Equivalent
Disposable Income by Decile and Municipality. FU07: Consumption by consumption group, region and price unit. Available at:
statistikbanken.dk.
83
12345
4.4.7 INDEX D1 - HOUSING PROVISION FOR LOW INCOME GROUPS

Aim Data collection
Index D1 assesses the share of new build social housing out New build social housing
of all new build housing and the provision of student housing Data is available through Statistics Denmark from 2006-2021
compared to the number of students in the City of Copenha- for all new build housing units in quantiles both submitted
gen from 2006-2021. The aim is to assess the housing provi- and comitted in the City of Copenhagen. The amount of sub-
sion for low income groups. mitted housing is not corrected for delays in the data sheet.
Data specific to social housing is available through BPST from
Context and parameters 2000-2021 for all new build social housing both submitted
In a Danish context social housing includes student housing, and comitted in the City of Copenhagen.
elderly housing, and family housing (BPST, 2021). Social hous-
ing is characterized by being owned by non-profit housing Student housing
associations and are typically assigned via waiting lists (Lejer- Data is available through Statistics Denmark from 2000-2021
bo, 2019). Therefore, the typical rent in social housing is lower for the population in the CIty of Copenhagen by employment
than the rest of the market (KK, 2018.a). type where 'students' is a category. Data on student housing
out of the total housing in the City of Copenhagen is available
No data was found for the share of social housing units in from 2010-2020.
the existing housing stock. Therefore, the provision of social
housing is assessed as the number of new build social hous- Results
ing units out of the total new build housing units. Addition- Detailed data and calculations for Index D1 can be found in
ally, the City of Copenhagen has introduced a change in the Appendix E.5 pp. 50-53.
Municipal Plan from 2015 (KK, 2015) stating that 25% of new
build housing should be social housing. Indicator D1.1 - New build social housing
As visible in Table 4.4.M and Figure 4.4.Q large variations
In Statistics Denmark (2021, IFOR32) students are categorised exists for submitted new build housing when compared year
as a socio-economic group by income. According to Indicator to year. Therefore, the trend analysis is completed for the
B.1 students are one out of the five lowest income groups accumulated submitted new build housing.
in the CIty of Copenhagen and in Denmark. Therefore, the As visible in Figure 4.4.R the linear model for 'Trend A' shows
relation between students and student housing is assessed. that the share of new build housing increases with 1.8 % per
Additionally, students moving to the City of Copenhagen is year between 2006-2013. The model for 'Trend B' shows a
considered a housing trend (See Appendix E.3, Diagram E.3.I) decrease of 1.2 % per year from 2013-2020.
that also contributes to unaffordability of housing (CE, 2018). According to Statistics Denmark (DST, 2021, BYGV33) the
numbers on total new build housing are higher in 2017 and
It should be noted that students may aquire other types of 2018 than noted. Therefore, the share of new build social
housing than student housing. Since different sizes of stu- housing is potentially decreasing more than 1.2 % per year
dents units are available (1-6 rooms) it is assumed that one from 2013-2020.
room equals one student. Hence, a 2-room student housing If comparing the submitted social housing with the commit-
unit equals two students etc. ed social housing a delay of four years can be derrived (See
appendix E.5 Figure E.5.A and E.5.B pp. 50-51). The data on
commited social housing hence predicts a continous decrease
four years from 2019.
84
CASE STUDY
TABLE 4.4.M: RESULTS INDICATOR D1.1 - NEW BUILD SOCIAL HOUSING IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
INDICATOR CONDITIONS AV. 2006-2020 [NO./Y] TOTAL BUILD 2006-2020

D1.1 Submitted new build social housing 331 5,293
New build
social Submitted new build total housing 3,293 52,684
housing
TREND A: 2006-2013 1.8 0.98
TREND B: 2013-2020 -1.2 0.96
FIGURE 4.4.Q
SUBMITTED NEW BUILD HOUSING (TOTAL) AND SUBMITTED NEW BUILD SOCIAL HOUSING IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
Submitted new build housi ng

6000
NEW BUILD HOUSING UNITS [NO./Y]
Submitted new build social housing

0 2000 4000
2007
2009
2006
2008
2011
2012
2013
2015
2017
2010
2019
2016
2018
2014
2020
TIME [YEAR]
FIGURE 4.4.R
TOTAL SUBMITTED NEW BUILD HOUSING/SUBMITTED SOCIAL HOUSING IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2006-2020
0.20
0.15
TREND B
TREND A
RELATION [:]
0.05 0.10 0.00
2007
2009
2017
2010
2019
2006
2016
2008
2018
2014
2011
2012
2013
2015
2020
TIME [YEAR]
Data source(s): Statistics Denmark, 2021. BYGV33. Available at www.statistikbanken.dk. Bolig- og Planstyrelsen (BPST), 2021. Nye
Almene Boliger. Statistik. Available at: www.boligstat.dk.
85
12345
Indexing
Indicator D1.2 Student housing The results on the share of new build housing out of the
As visible in Table 4.4.N and Figure 4.4.S the linear mod- total new build housing shows an increase of 1.8 % per year
els shows that the relation between student housing and between 2006-2013 and decrease of 1.2 % per year from 2013-
students are decreasing from 2010-2016 with 0.6 % per year 2020. This indicates movement towards housing affordabil-
(Trend A) and increasing from 2016-2021 with 0.3% (Trend B). ity from 2006-2013 and the opposite from 2013-2020. Since
If 'Trend B' is extrapolated 50% of all students would be pro- 2013-2020 is the must current indicator D1.1 is assigned index
vided with student housing in year 2142('). score (-).
If looking at Figure E.5.C in Appendix E.5 p. 52 this develop- There has been an increase in the relation between student
ment is most likely caused by the number of students flatten- housing and students frin 2016-2021, but since it would take
ing. a very long time to cover the demand D1.2 is assigned index
score (0). It should be noted that the City of Copenhagen
goal on providing 12,000 new student units before 2031 will
be reached in year 2033 if assuming one student equals one
room (See Appendix E.5, Figure E.5.D, p. 53).
TABLE 4.4.N: RESULTS INDICATOR D1.2 - PROVISION OF STUDENT HOUSING IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
INDICATOR CONDITIONS STUD. [NO.] STUD. HOUSING [NO.]

D1.3 Average 2010-2016 72699 9129
Student
housing Average 2016-2021 82996 9971
provision

TREND A: Student housing/students 2010-2016 -0.6 0.98
TREND B: Student housing/students 2016-2021 0.3 0.84 y=0.5 => x=2142(')
FIGURE 4.4.S
STUDENTS/STUDENT HOUSING IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2010-2021
0.15
TREND A
TREND B
0.10
RELATION [:]
0.05 0.00
2017
2011
2010
2019
2020
2016
2018
2014
2012
2013
2015
2021
TIME [YEAR]
Data source(s): Statistics Denmark, 2021. Statistikbanken. BOL102. RAS209. Available at: www.statistikbanken.dk.
86
CASE STUDY
87
12345
4.4.8 INDEX D2 - TENURES

Aim
Index D2 assesses the development of housing tenures in Results
the City of Copenhagen from 2010-2020. It assesses how the Detailed data and calculations for Indicator D2 can be found
distribution of tenure types have changed over time. It aims in Appendix E.6 pp. 54-55.
to assess whether the share of non-profit and only-profit
tenures increase or decrease. Looking at the results in Table 4.4.O and Figure 4.4.T the share
of housing owned by social housing organisations is more
Context and parameters or less constant on 20 % of the total housing mass with a
Tenure is the condition under which land or buildings are held decrease of 0.1 % per year from 2010-2021 (grey line, Trend C).
or occupied (Nuuter et al., 2015). According to OECD (2022) Assessing the share of private company tenures (yellow line,
the housing tenure distribution can describe how wealth in Trend D) the share increases with 0.6% per year from 2010-
build assets shifts between public authority, the private mar- 2021 according to the linear model. If the private company
ket, and private individuals. tenure share is assessed from 2016-2021 the share increase
with 1.0 % per year according to the linear model (Appendix
Social housing organisation tenures have a non-profit agenda E.6, Figure E.6.B, p. 55).
(Lejerbo, 2021). An increase in non-profit tenures is consid-
ered an indication of more affordability of housing. Indexing
Private company tenures consider housing as an economic The results on tenure types indicates that the share of the
investment (Nuuter et al., 2015). Hence, housing owned by non-profit tenures is more or less constant with a minor de-
private companies has capital gain as the goal. On this basis, crease (0.1% per year 2010-2021). The share of private compa-
an increase in housing owned by private companies is consid- ny tenures is increasing. This indicates that a growing part of
ered movement away from housing affordability since the risk the housing mass in the City of Copenhagen is considered an
of economic speculation increases. economic good. Furthermore, the share of housing owned by
private companies is the only tenure type which is increasing.
Data collection. This happens at the expense of all other tenure types, but
Furthermore, the following data can be found for tenure types primarily Private Housing Cooperatives which decrease with
in Danish Statics from 2010-2021: 'Private individuals (inc I/S)', 0.3% per year according to Trend A (purple line). Indicator D2.2
'Social housing companies', 'A/S, ApS and other companies', is assigned score (-).
'Private cooperative housing associations', and 'Public author-
ity'.
88
CASE STUDY
TABLE 4.4.O: RESULTS ON INDEX D2 - TENURES
INDEX CONDITIONS AV. 2010-2021 [NO.]

D.2 Ten- Private housing cooperatives 95,521
ures
Private individuals (incl. I/S) 81,183
Social housing organisations 58,914
Private companies, Aps, A/S 33,551
Other or not registered 20,371
Public authority 3,258

TREND A: 2010-2021 Private housing cooperatives -0.3 0.80
TREND B: 2010-2021 Private individuals (incl. I/S) 0.0 0.50

TREND C: 2010-2021 Social Housing Organisations -0.1 0.63
TREND D: 2010-2021 Private companies, Aps, A/S 0.6 0.63
²
TREND E: 2010-2021 Other or not registered -0.1 0.93
TREND F: 2010-2021 Public authority -0.1 0.82
²
FIGURE 4.4.T
HOUSING BY TYPE OF TENURE/TOTAL HOUSING IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2010-2021
0.4
TREND A
²
0.3
TREND B
²
TREND C
RELATION [:]
0.2
Private individuals (incl. I/S)

Social housing organisations
Private companies, A/S, ApS
Private housing cooperatives
Public authority
Other or not registered TREND D
0.1
TREND E
TREND F
0.0
2012
2013
2015
2017
2011
2021
2010
2019
2020
2016
2018
2014
TIME [YEAR]
Data source(s): Statistics Denmark, 2021. Statistikbanken. BOL102. Boliger efter beboertype, område, ejerforhold og tid. Available
at: www.statistikbanken.dk.
89
12345
4.4.9 INDEX E1 - SMALL APARTMENTS

Aim Results
Index E assesses the share of small apartments out of all Detailed data and calculations for Index E1 can be found in
apartments and compares it to the share of singles in the Appendix E.7 pp. 56-61.
City of Copenhagen. The aim is to asses whether the share of
small apartments increase or decrease over time. Assessing the results in Table 4.4.P and Figure 4.4.U the linear
models for 'Trend B' and 'Tend H' indicate the share of 2-room
Context and parameters (green) and 50-74 m2 apartments (yellow) is both decreasing
According to CE (2018) one of the main drivers for the high 0.3 % per year from 2010-2021 in the City of Copenhagen.
housing price growth in the City of Copenhagne is the limited According to the linear model for 'Trend A' (orange) the share
amount of small housing units. For people who do not have of ≤50 m2 flats are more or less constant from 2017-2021
capital assets or gains from the sale of another unit the (+0.02% per year). The model for 'Trend G' (red) indicates that
smallest apartments are the cheapest entry to the owner-oc- the share of 1-room increase with 0.1% per year from 2018-
cupied housing market. Therefore, it is essential to analyse 2021.
the provision of the smallest housing units. If compared to all apartments by size all other types are
increasing according to the linear trends except for ≥150 m2
Firstly, the provision of small housing is assessed by number and ≥6-rooms which are more or less contant (See Appendix
of rooms and area. Both measures are included since the E.7 Table Figure E.8.A and E.8.B). 50-74 m2 and 2-room apart-
floor plan may vary across housing types. ments accounts for the biggest share of all apartments (app.
The demand on small apartments is simplified as the popula- 45-40 % of the market on average from 2010-2021).
tion categorised as the family type 'Single'. It should be noted
that the number of singles is a very rough estimate of the de- The share of singles out of family types are decreasing over
mand: this comparison includes the assumption that singles time with 0.6% per year (See Appendix E.7 Figure E.8.C, p. 69).
prefer living reclusively and to live in the smallest housing However, comparing the number of singles to the number
units on the market. of small apartments over time as visible in Figure 4.4.V the
coverage decrease from 2017-2021 by 0.8 % per year. This is
Data collection properly caused by the constant share of singles from 2017
Apartments by size and onwards (See Appendix E.7, Figure E.8.C, blue line). This
Data is available through Statistics Denmark from 2010-2021 indicates that more singles will have to buy bigger housing,
for apartments by number of rooms and area in the City of move to another municipality or live in other family constel-
Copenhagen. Hence, 2010 is set as base year. The available lations.
intervals are: (area) <50 m2, 50-74 m2, 75-99 m2, 100-124 m2,
>100 m2, (rooms) 1-room, 2-room, 3-room, 4-room, 5-room, Indexing
and ≥6-room. Only data for the housing type 'apartment' is Since the share of small apartments is decreasing for 3/4 of
included. the smallest apartment types by room and area on the mar-
ket indicator E1 is assigned score (-).
Population by family type
Data is available through Statistics Denmarkin from 2000-
2021 for the family types: Singles, Married, Couples (exl. mar-
ried), and Other family constellations.
90
CASE STUDY
TABLE 4.4.P: RESULTS INDEX E1 - SMALL APARTMENTS IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2010-2021
INDEX CONDITIONS AV. HOUSING [NO.] CONDITIONS AV. POPULATION [NO.]

E1 Small <50 m2 24,860 Singles 152,768
apart-
ments 50-74 m2 116,664 Total population 292,726
Total flats by m2 261,582
1-room 30,763
2-rooms 108,504
Total flats by room 307,585

<50 m 2
TREND A: 2017-2021 -0.02 0.91
50-74 m 2
TREND B: 2010-2021 -0.35 0.93
1-room TREND G: 2018-2021 0.14 0.95
2-rooms TREND H: 2010-2021 -0.29 1.00
Small apartments/Singles TREND M: 2010-2017 1.08 0.99
TREND N: 2017-2021 -0.80 0.96
FIGURE 4.4.U
SMALL APARTMENTS/TOTAL APARTMENTS IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2010-2021
0.5
TREND B: 2010-2021
0.4
TREND H: 2010-2021
50 m2
1-room
0.3
50-74 m2
RELATION [:]
2-room
0.2
TREND G: 2018-2021
0.1
TREND A: 2017-2021
0
2014
2011
2012
2013
2015
2017
2010
2019
2020
2016
2018
2021
TIME [YEAR]
FIGURE 4.4.V
SMALL APARTMENTS/SINGLES IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2010-2021
0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05
RELATION [:]
TREND N
TREND M
2010
2019
2016
2018
2014
2012
2013
2015
2017
2011
2021
2020
TIME [YEAR]
Note: See Appendix E.7 pp. 56-61 for further details. Data source(s): Statistics Denmark, 2021. Statistikbanken. BOL101: BOL101:
Dwellings by region, type of resident, use, tenure, ownership and year of construction. RAS209: Population by area, education,
socio-economic status, age and sex.. FAM100N: Households and families. Available at: www.statistikbanken.dk.
91
12345
4.4.10 INDEX E2 - HOUSING OCCUPANCY

Aim Data collection
Indicator E2 assesses the average time of housing occupancy Data is available through Statistics Denmark on the length of
and the share on un-occupied housing in the City of Copen- housing occupancy from 2010-2020 in the following inter-
hagen over time. The aim of the indicator is to assess whether vals: Under 1 year, 1-2 years, 2-3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years,
the housing conditions fit the tenants' living conditions or if 10-15 years, 15-20 years, 20-30 years, 30-40 years, 40 year or
the housing for other reasons is unused. more, and Unregistered. Data on occupancy status is avail-
able through Statistics Denmark on the share of un-occupied
Context and parameters and occupied housing from 2010-2021. It should be noted
According to EU (2020.b) the time tenants occiupies a dwell- that data included on housing occupancy length and status is
ing is an indication of whether the housing conditions fit the updated by homeowners in The Building and Housing Regis-
tenants' needs. Hence, the proportion of the population that ter (BBR). This can cause off-sets in data time of registration
has changed dwelling within the last five years is an indica- (Statistics Denmark, 2021, BOL103).
tion of unmatching housing conditions. According to Dempsey
et al. (2011) various theorists suggest that a sustainable Results
community requires long-term residents in order to be sus- Detailed data and calculations for Indicator E2 can be found
tainable due to community coherence. Therefore, if the share in Appendix E.8 pp. 62-63.
of tenants living less than five years in the same dwelling
increase this indicates movement away from sustainability. D2.1 Occupancy length
Assessing Figure 4.4.W the occupancy length from 2010-2020
In Denmark landlords can provide a time-limited rental of in the City of Copenhagen housing occupied under five years
housing for a two year period. They can do so if they can doc- is increasing with 0.3 % per year from 2016-2020 according to
ument an adequate reason, eg. if they are stationed or wish the linear model for 'Trend A'. Comparing the numbers from
to transform or renovate their housing (Lejeloven.dk, 2021). 2016-2020 for housing occupied between 0-2 years and >2-5
Therefore, both housing occupancy in intervals >2-5 years years the correlation is 0.95. Hence, the rule of time-limited
and 0-2 years are assessed. If the share of housing occupied rental does not seem to influence the results.
below two years is increasing this can be an indication of an
increasing amount of time-limited rental. D2.2 Occupancy status
Assessing Figure 4.4.X the share of unoccupied housing in-
In Denmark, housing is registered as unoccupied if it has no creases with 0.2 % per year from 2016-2020 according to the
person registered at the address (EU, 2010). The vacancy may linear model for 'Trend D'.
be due to demolition or the housing being for sale or rent, or

lying empty and unused (EU, 2020.b). Indexing
The share of unoccupied housing is considered an estimate of The share of housing occupied below five years is increasing
whether housing is either unavailable or unattractive to ten- 0.3 % per year from 2016-2020. Hence, the results for housing
ants. Since the City of Copenhagen suffer from housing short- occupancy length indicates that the living conditions in an
age (CE, 2018) if the share of unoccupied housing increases increasing amount of housing does not fit the tenants' living
this is indicates movement away from sustainability. conditions for longer than five years. In conclusion, indicator
E2.1 is assigned score (-).
The results for occupancy status show that the share of un-
occupied housing is increasing 0.2 % per year from 2016-2021.
This indicates that the share of housing either unavailable or
unattractive to tenants are increasing. Hence, indicator D1.2 is
assigned score (-).
92
CASE STUDY
TABLE 4.4.Q: RESULTS INDEX E2 - HOUSING OCCUPANCY LENGTH & STATUS

E2.1 Oc- Housing occupied 0-5 years 24,520
cupancy
length Housing occupied >2-5 years 10,515
Housing occupied 0-2 years 13,237
Total vacated housing 34,829
E2.2 Oc- Un-occupied housing 15,072
cupancy
status Total housing by occupancy status 307,870

TREND A: 2016-2020 Housing occupied 0-5 years 0.3 0.82
TREND B: 2016-2020 Housing occupied >2-5 years 0.2 0.87
TREND C: 2016-2020 Housing occupied 0-2 years 0.1 0.73
Correlation between 0-5 years and >2-5 years 0.95
TREND D: 2016-2020 Unoccupied housing 0.2 0.87
FIGURE 4.4.W
HOUSING BY OCCUPANCY LENGTH/TOTAL HOUSING IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2010-2020
0.1
0-2 years
>2-5 years
0.08
0-5 years TREND A

0.06
RELATION [:]
TREND B
0.04
TREND C
0.02
0
2012
2013
2015
2017
2011
2010
2019
2020
2016
2018
2014
TIME [YEAR]
FIGURE 4.4.X
UNOCCUPIED HOUSING/TOTAL HOUSING IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2010-2020
0.080.06
TREND D
RELATION [:]
0.02 0.04 0.00
2012
2013
2015
2017
2011
2010
2019
2020
2016
2018
2014
TIME [YEAR]
Note: See Appendix E.8 pp. 62-63 for further details. Data source(s): Statistics Denmark, 2021. Statistikbanken. BOL101: Dwell-
ings by region, type of resident, use, tenure, ownership and year of construction. FLYBOT: Vacated homes by area, rooms, length
of stay before moving out and time.
93
12345
4.4.11 INDEX F - CRIME AND SAFETY

Aim Results
Index F assesses whether the share of people feeling un- Detailed data and calculations for Index F can be found in
safe and the no. reported crimes per 1000 inhabitants have Appendix E.9 pp. 64-71.
increased or decreased over time in the City of Copenhagen.
Additionally, safety and crime are contextualized to the hous- Indicator F.1 - Reported crime
ing price development in the city parts in the City of Copen- Assessing Figure 4.4.Y the average number of reported crimes
hagen by postnumber. per 1000 inhabitants is decreasing in the City of Copenhagen
from 2016-2020 according to the linear model (Trend A). How-
Context and parameters ever, most recent data from 2021 indicates, that crime levels
The city parts in the City of Copenhagen by postnumbers are: are increasing from 2020-2021. If assessing each city part iso-
Inner City, Christianshavn, Vesterbro, Østerbro, Inner nørrebro, lated (See Appendix E.9, Figure E.9.F, p. 70) the reported crime
Outer Nørrebro, Amager East, Amager West, Bispebjerg, Kon- decrease for all city parts according to the linear models in
gens Enghave, Valby, Brønshøj, and Vanløse. No specifications selected years between 2009-2020. However, for all city parts
are yet available for the city part Nordhavn. the crime rates increase from 2020-2021, but no conclusion
can be made on a trend. It should be noted that various com-
Crime is assessed as the number of reported crime per 1000 bined yearly intevals were apply to describe the trends for
inhabitants. Only crime towards civilians are included. This each city part (See Appendix E.9, pp. 70-71).
includes physical assaults, theft, and buglary.
Safety is assessed as the subjective feeling of safety of the Comparing the city parts to each other (Table 4.4.R) shows a
population. Hence, the parameter is expressed as the share positive correlation (0.74) between housing prices and crime.
of the population responding in a survey whether they feel In other words, the higher prices the higher crime. Figure
unsafe or safe in their neighborhood. 4.4.Z visualises the results on the correlation between hous-
ing prices and reported crime (Trend B).
Safety and crime is compared to the housing prices by city
parts to assess whether there is a correlation between the
parameters. Low levels of crime and high levels of safety are
asssociated with good neighborhood livability (Mulliner et al.,
2016) and has a positive infuence on citizens' mental health
(Eurostat, 2017).
Data collection
Data on crime and safety by city part in the City of Copenha-
gen is available through 'The Safety Survey' produced by the
City of Copenhagen in 2009 and all years between 2014-2021.
On average app. 4000 number of people have responded (0.6
% of the population in 2022). Data on housing prices by city
districts are available through Finans Danmark (2021) from
year 2000-2021.
94
CASE STUDY
TABLE 4.4.R: RESULTS INDICATOR F.1 - AVERAGE CRIME AND HOUSING PRICES IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2009-2021
INDICATOR POSTNUMBER CITY PART AV. CRIME [NO.] AV. HOUSING PRICE [DKK]
F.1 Crime 2700 Brønshøj Brønshøj 30 25,757
vs. housing
prices 2300 CPH S Amager West, East 63 33,745
2400 CPH NV Bispebjerg 34 29,678
2100 CPH Ø Østerbro 33 40,923
2450 CPH SV Kongens Enghave 38 35,007
2720 Vanløse Vanløse 30 29,483
2200 CPH N Inner, Outer Nørrebro 85 37,786
2500 Valby Valby 37 30,739
1500-1799 CPH V Vesterbro 123 41,530
1000-1499 CPH K Inner City, Christianshavn 334 45,997
Average correlation (av. housing prices, av. crime) 0.74
LINEAR TRENDS TREND/Y CORRELATION [R2]

TREND A: 2016-2021 -10.6 [NO.] 0.73
TREND B: 2009-2021 0.012 [CRIME/DKK] 0.54
FIGURE 4.4.Y
AVERAGE REPORTED CRIME PER 1000 INHABITANTS IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
100 200 300 400
AVERAGE [NO.]
TREND A
0
2015
2017
2021
2009
2019
2020
2016
2018
2014
TIME [YEAR]
FIGURE 4.4.Z
AVERAGE REPORTED CRIME PER 1000 INHABITANTS/HOUSING PRICE BY CITY PART IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2009-2021
REPORTED CRIME PER 1000 INHABITANTS [NO.]
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
CPH K
TREND B
CPH V
CPH NV CPH N
Vanløse CPH S
Valby CPH SV CPH Ø
Brønshøj
0
30000
40000
50000
25000
35000
45000
HOUSING PRICE [DKK/M2]
Note: No data is available from 2008-2013. For full data table, calculations and graphs see Appendix E.9 pp. 66-71.
Data source(s): The City of Copenhagen, 2021. Københavns Kommunes Tryghedsundersøgelse 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019; 2020;
2021. All available at www.tryghedundersogelsen.kk.dk.
95
12345
Indexing
Indicator F.2 - People feeling unsafe The reported crime is decreasing in the City of Copenhagen
The linear model on 'Trend A' from 2018-2020 in Figure 4.4.Æ on average. Hence, the indicator is assigned score (+). How-
shows a decrease of 1.3 % per year in the share of people ever, it should be noted that the most recent data from 2021
feeling unsafe in the City of Copenhagen. If assessing each shows an increase in reported crime, but no conclusion can
city part isolated (See Appendix E.9, Figure E.9.G, p. 71) the be made on a trend.
share of people feeling unsafe decrease for Outer Nørrebro, A clear negative correlation is found between housing prices
Valby, Inner City, and Østerbro. The share of people feeling and crime: The more the housing prices increase the more
unsafe is increasing for people living in Brønshøj, Kongens En- crime is reported.
ghave, Amager east, and Vanløse. No trends can be found for
either Bispebjerg, Inner Nørrebro and Amager West. It should The share of people feeling unsafe in the City of Copenhagen
be noted that various yearly intevals were apply to describe is decreasing on average. The indicator is assigned score (+).
trend for each city part. A clear positive correlation is found between housing afford-
ability and people feeling unsafe. Hence, the share of people
Comparing the city parts to each other (Table 4.4.S) the av- feeling unsafe decrease with housing prices.
erage correlation between housing prices and people feeling
unsafe in the City of Copenhagen shows a negative correla-
tion. In other words, the higher prices the lower share of
people feeling unsafe. Figure 4.4.Ø visualises the results on
the correlation between housing prices and the share of the
population feeling unsafe (Trend B).
96
CASE STUDY
TABLE 4.4.S: AVERAGE PEOPLE FEELING UNSAFE AND HOUSING PRICES IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2009-2021
INDICATOR POSTNUMBER CITY PART AV. PEOPLE FEELING UNSAFE [%] AV. HOUSING PRICE [DKK]
F.2 Safety 2720 Vanløse Vanløse 6.1 29,483
versus hous-
ing prices 2700 Brønshøj Brønshøj 13 25,757
2400 CPH NV Bispebjerg 16.9 29,678
1000-1499 CPH K Inner City, Christianshavn 6.3 45,997
2450 CPH SV Kongens Enghave 7.5 35,007
2100 CPH Ø Østerbro 4.4 40,923
1500-1799 CPH V Vesterbro 6.8 41,530
2200 CPH N Inner, Outer Nørrebro 11.9 37,786
2300 CPH S Amager West, East 6.8 33,745
2500 Valby Valby 9.8 30,739
Average correlation (av. housing prices, av. people feeling unsafe) -0.57
LINEAR TRENDS TREND/Y CORRELATION [R2]

TREND A: 2018-2021 -1.26 [%] 0.70
TREND B: 2009-2021 -0.0003 [%/DKK] 0.32
FIGURE 4.4.Æ
POPULATION FEELING UNSAFE/TOTAL POPULATION IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN
4.0 8.0 12.0
TREND A
SHARE [%]
0.0
2009
2019
2020
2016
2018
2014
2015
2017
2021
TIME [YEAR]
FIGURE 4.4.Ø
POPULATION FEELING UNSAFE/HOUSING PRICE BY CITY PART IN THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN 2009-2021
20.0
POPULATION FEELING UNSAFE [%]
CPH NV
15.0
Brønshøj
CPH N
TREND B
10.0
Valby
CPH NV CPH V
Vanløse CPH K
CPH S
5.0
CPH Ø
0.0
5000
15000
20000
30000
40000
50000
0
10000
25000
35000
45000
HOUSING PRICE [DKK/M2]
Note: No data is available from 2008-2013. For full data table, calculations and graphs see Appendix E.9 pp. 68-70.
Data source(s): The Copenhagen Municipality, 2021. Københavns Kommunes Tryghedsundersøgelse 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019;
2020; 2021. All available at www.tryghedundersogelsen.kk.dk.
97
98
5 DISCUSSION
& CONCLUSION
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
99
Photo: The National Bank, Copenhagen. December, 2019. Owned by author.
100
CHAPTER CONTENT
This chapter presents a discussion on this thesis:
Section 5.1 'Indicator results' discuss the indicator results.
Section 5.2 'Indicator assessment methodology' discuss the

applied indicator assessment methodology.
Section 5.3 'SAH and urban planning' discusses some per-

spectival aspects of indicator asessment tools on SAH in
relation to urban planning and sustainable goals in general.
Section 5.3 presents the thesis conclusion.
101
12345
5.1 INDICATOR RESULTS
5.1.1 HOUSING STOCK & HOUSING LAYOUT

Housing prices versus income Housing expenses and housing loans
At the center of the indicator results on SAH in the City of The results in indicator C2.2 show that housing expenses are
Copenhagen is the increasing price-to-income ratio (indicator acounting for an increasing share of the total average con-
C1.1): Less people can afford to buy housing over time. This in- sumption. According to the linear trend on p. 82 the housing
dicates an increasing need for initiaives to establish more af- overburden rate of 40% will be reached in 2028. According to
fordable housing if the City of Copenhagen wants to succeed the EU definition (EU-SILC, 2021.c) this means, that the finan-
on its vision to be affordable to everyone (KK, 2018). cial capacity for households to invest in goods and services is
The results on people at risk of poverty show that the eco- reaching a critical level in a very short number of years.
nomic segregation across the population both in the City of
Copenhagen and in Denmark is increasing over time. This es- The increasing housing burden is primarily caused by the cal-
sentially means, that the City of Copenhagen needs to create culated rental value and the actual rent which both increases
not just a bigger share of affordable housing, but an increased over time. Presenting numbers on the actual housing expens-
share of affordable housing to low-income groups over time if es spend by housing owners is complex, since it depends on
it has to reflect the diversity of the population by income. several aspects. It depends on the loan type, whether the
Additionally, the results in Indicator D3.2 show that a growing interest rates are fixed or flexible, and how long the repay-
share of the housing mass is owned by private companies. As ment is running. However, the calculated rental value of 5.4 %
a result, the share of housing with a non-profit profile is de- of the public estimated housing price (DST, 2017.c) acts as an
creasing. This makes it harder for the municipality to regulate indicator for the actual housing expenses that housing owners
land since it is increasingly conditioned by free market terms. pay even though the value itself is fictive. According to the
calculated rented value housing owners pay an increasing
amount of housing expenses over time.
With the growing housing-price-to-income ratio obtaining a

housing loan has also been inaccessible to an increasing part
of the population. The debt factor is the relation between
the loan amount and the loaners yearly income before taxes
minus debts. When obtaining a housing loan in Denmark in
growth areas such as Copenhagen the debt factor has been
at relation 3.5 since 2016 (Finanstilsynet, 2016). Hence, with a
flat relation and an increasing gap between income and hous-
ing prices, it has become harder to obtain a loan. Additionally,

the amount of debt per person in Denmark has also increased
from 2015-2020 (Statistics Denmark, FORMUE7, 2021) making
it even harder to obtain a housing loan.
When comparing the results on price-to-income ratio (Indi-

cator C1.1) and housing expenses and consumption (Indicator
C2.1) it can be argued, that the results are interdependent.
When the price-to-income ratio increases it is implicit, that
a bigger share of our consumption is spend on housing if the
consumption-to-income ratio is either constant or decreasing
over time. Hence, it can be argued that price-to-income and
housing overburden rate should not have individual sustain-
ability scores to avoid double connotation.
102
Social housing Housing size
According to the results in indicator D1.1 the share of new The results for housing size (Indicator E.1) show that the
build social housing out of all new build housing peaked in share of small apartments are decreasing over time.
2013 at a 18.1 % share and has been decreasing from 2013- The minimum requirement on new build housing was
2021. Hence, the planning law which was introduced in 2015 changed in 2019 from 95 m2 on average for all new build
in the City of Copenhagen local plan, which gives the possi- housing and a minimum for 75 m2 for a single unit to only ac-
bility to require a minimum share of public housing of 25% in count for 50% of the total new build housing (KK, 2019). It is
new build housing (KK, 2015) seems to have had a decreasing too soon to conclude on the effect of this change in the local
effect on share of new build social housing. The reasons for plan. As we have seen in the data on new build social hous-
the development can not be derrived from the data included ing (Indicator D1.1) the comparison between submitted and
in the indicator. However, a possible explaination is that the comitted housing shows a delay of four years (Appendix E.5,
negotiations completed with developers for the new con- pp. 50-51). Possibly, we will be seeing an increase in smaller
struction plots has ended on agreements at a much lower apartments 4-5 years from 2019 and onwards. However, no
percentage share of social housing than 25%. conclusion can currently be made on whether the change in
the local plan have had an effect.
Student housing and small apartments
The results in indicator D1.2 show that the share of students According to Copenhagen Economics (2018) another explana-
out of the total population has been decreasing from 2017 tion for the decreasing amount of small apartments can be
and onwards. It is possible, that this puts a damper on the the merging of smaller units into bigger ones. If looking at the
parental purchase and the need for smaller housing units share of the family types in the City of Copenhagen (Appendix
which both are identified as drivers for growing housing pric- E.8, Figure E.8.C, p. 66) the share of 'Other family constella-
es (CE, 2018; KK, 2018.a). However, since the share of singles tions' are increasing from 2010-2019. This could indicate, that
in the City of Copenhagen increases over time (Indicator E.1) the population is increasingly finding alternative ways to live
and the fact that the small apartments are the cheapest together as a result of housing shortage.
entry to the housing market (CE, 2018) the provision of small As recognized by Cooper et al. (2019) the flexibility of housing
housing units are still key to providing affordable housing. or the potential for adaptation is an important part of assess-
ing the quality of housing. If data was available on merging
Students are the main immigrating group and also a low transformations it would elucidate how much of the de-
income group (Indicator B.1). Hence, strategies on student crease in small units that is caused by merging transforma-
housing are essential in counteracting un-affordability in the tion and what is caused by the sizing of new build housing.
City of Copenhagen. The results in indicator D1.2 show that it Additionally, the data would provide insights on what part of
would take more than 100 years before half of the students the housing mass that potentially can be reversed back into
could be offered student housing. This indicates that the cur- smaller units and fit different life stages of its inhabitants
rent development is more or less stagnant. However the City over time.
of Copenhagen has stressed the importance of the collabora-
tion with the surrounding municipal why future studies could
focus on the provision of student housing here.
103
12345
5.1.2 MOBILITY, COMMUNITY & HOUSING COMFORT AND HEALTH

Pendling and affordability
The quality of and access to transport have as big impact on It is difficult to compare data on housing prices at city part
the affordability of housing (Mulliner and Maleine, 2011). The level and expose linkages to housing quality such as eg.
less commuting time and distance to the central business grime, noise and view to green. Modelling tools such as GIS
district make the housing prices increase (Bruckner, 2011). (Geographical Information Systems) provide the means for
Hence, investments in better transport to cheaper housing comparing both the quality of a neighborhood and mobility
areas is an alternative strategy to improving affordability. aspects with housing prices eg. access to schools, day care
Indicator A.1 assesses the pendling distance over time. The re- and cultural activities, pollution and noise levels simultane-
sults show that the average pendling distance is decreasing in ously. However, in Denmark data on housing prices are not
the City of Copenhagen. However, the indicator would reflect available on a household level at a systematic level due to
affordability of housing better if it included data on commut- personal data legislations. Furthermore, the proces of format-
ing time, costs and transport modes. This would provide an ing the current Danish building data registered in BBR into GIS
insigt in the efficiency of transport combied with the environ- software is a challenge. Still GIS holds a potential for future
mental effects. urban planning. It is already increasingly used in eg. urban
An example of alternative models to compensate for com- flooding assessments (Broch, N. R., 2019; see Appendix G.2).
muting costs of living far away from your job location is cur-
rently presented in the Municipality of Høje Taastrup west of
Copenhagen. Here, people can get a refund of transport costs
if they are recieving monetary welfare support and have to
pendle more than 24 km (Høje Taastrup Kommune, 2022).
Quality of the build environment and housing prices

The access to and quality of the surrounding community have
an impact on the affordability of housing. Currently data on
housing prices is only available as averages at city part level
by postnumbers. When assessing an geographical area at
this size it is difficult to conclude on the correlation between
prices and the quality of the environment.
Index F is an example of an assessment on the correlation
between safety and crime versus housing prices. Overall, the
results show the following correlation: the higher prices the

more people feel safe and the higher prices the more crime.
An example of the results on city part level is the result for
Vanløse. They show, that the least people feel unsafe com-
pared to housing price (Figure 4.4.Ø, p. 97). Hence, an indica-
tor that assesses the relation between the quality of the build
environment and housing prices can provide an insight on the
trade-offs made based on your dwelling location.
This is an example of how peoples' access to ressources can
be assessed based on their dwelling location. If the housing
prices decrease the urban trade-offs are most likely made
in either increasing levels of heavy traffic, grime, pollution,
distance to the city center, lower quality of schools and day
care, etc.
104
5.1.3 LOW INCOME GROUPS AND HOUSING 5.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
The allocation system is essential in providing housing for The created indicator assessment tool for the City of Copen-
vulnerable citizens (Transport og boligministeriet, 2018). hagen seeks to be domain-based and integrate all dimensions
However, as assessed in indicator B.3 the data on allocations of sustainability. However, social and economic aspects of
needs to be more transparent. Currently the requirements sustainability are more well defined than environmental as-
for admission of the municipal allocation list and the actual pects. In order to assess inter-species equity and recognizing
utilization rate of all allocated housing are non-transperent. the importance of ecosystem integrity the framework should
This makes it hard to assess both the demand and provision be contextualised to environmental aspects of sustainable
of housing to vulnerable groups. Furthermore, the fact that development (Giddings et al., 2002).
the utilization degree is not included in the data makes it
difficult to assess whether housing is affordable and suitable Some included indicators currently embed environmental
to vulnerable groups. aspects. Indicator A.1 'Pendling distance' embeds a focus on
The City of Copenhagen has disadvantaged people as a cen- reducing longer transport distances. This can be related to
tral aspect of their sustainability goals within social inclusion, the reducement of transport emissions.
eg. with its focus on people with disabilities (KK, 2019.a, p. Indicator C2.2 'Housing expenses' includes measures on costs
53). Therefore, it would be beneficial for the City of Copenha- spend on water, electricity and heating. It would be benefitial
gen to provide better data on municipal allocations. Currently to contextualise the results to the actual consumption.
data is only available at regional levels. If presenting data on
a municipal level it would be possible to analyse potential An example of housing affordability conflicting with environ-
moving patterns and geographical displacements. mental costs is durability. Durable buildings last for a long
time, but the construction costs are high. Hence, the housing
According to numbers on the socio-economic groups that has that can last for 100 years is more environmentally sustain-
the lowest income levels in the City of Copenhagen (Appen- able, but the price higher due to the construction costs.
dix E.2, Diagram E.2.C) 'efterløn', 'førtidspensionister' and On the other hand, when building housing at high quality with
'folkepentionister' are the next groups in line of low income durable materials there is a minor need for maintanance or
groups. Since elderly housing is a specific type of housing in renovation over time. Since renovation also can cause housing
the Danish housing stock it could be interesting to look at the prices to increase considering affordability over a longer time-
provision and demand of elderly housing in future studies. span is essential.
Additionally, the share of elderly people will continue to grow
according to population projections by Statistics Denmark
(DST, 2022).
105
12345
5.1.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON RESULTS

Index scores In conclusion, the critical success criteria (the demographic
Overall the combined indicator assessment shows movement composition of the population, the general economic condi-
away from sustainability on SAH in the City of Copenhagen in tions and the relation between housings costs and income)
50.0 % of the indicators and progress towards sustainability in describe affordable housing. Contextualising the critical suc-
38.9% of the indicators. ces criteria to the critical success factors (the acces to good
quality transport and communities, a well planned housing
The results show that the relation between the income index stock, housing at a quality that supports comfort and health,
and housing price index are increasing (Indicator C1.1) and with low environmental costs and high satisfaction) describes
the economic segregation across the population is increasing sustainable affordable housing.
(Indicator B.1). Hence, the preconditions for creating equal
conditions for people's access to ressources based on income Combined assessment
is moving away from sustainability (Demsey et al., 2011). A If the City of Copenhagen is assigned scores in the critical
bigger share of the population can not obtain housing at a success factor indicators which they can directly influence
certain standard. the results are the following:
The indicator assessment is focused on the City of Copen- The results show movement away from sustainability on
hagen as a governmental entity. Therefore, it makes sense to the provision of social housing, student housing, and small
categorise the indicators to reflect govermental responsibility apartments, housing occupancy status and occupancy length.
areas. Hereby, the index scores would reflect the urban plan- The results on housing allocations shows a stagnant develop-
ning aspects that are of direct influence by the municipality. ment and the need for better data. The results show progress
When formulating sustainable goals the scoring would better towards sustainability on crime, safety, and pendling.
reflect the effect of urban planning initiatives.
The final indicator assessment in this thesis provides in-
Success 'criteria' versus success 'factors' sights to some of the aspects that affects SAH in the City
Chan & Adabre (2019) defines the 'critical success criteria' as of Copenhagen. From the limited indicator results it can be
the set of principles through which judgement on progress concluded that housing in the City of Copenhagen is connect-
towards sustainability can be made. As visible in Diagram 6.1.A ed by good quality transport to good quality communities and
(top grey box) indicators included in 'Population', 'General eco- has a physical standard that supports human comfort and
nomics' and 'Housing Costs & Income Relation' can be seen health. Furthermore, the satisfaction of its tenants on safety
as conditionary indicators or critital success criteria. These is increasing.
indicators describe housing affordability isolated from other However, housing in the City of Copenhagen is not reflect-
aspects of sustainable housing. In the case of the City of ing the diversity of the population by income in the housing
Copenhagen the critical succes criteria can not be influenced stock, housing layout, and housing costs. None of the indica-
directly. tors are contextualized to the environmental costs of housing.
Chan and Adabre (2019) defines 'critical success factors' as

the set of influences which affect the criteria. Hence, physical
planning indicators (middle grey box) can be seen as factors
contributing to the overall criteria of housing affordability. In
the case of the City of Copenhagen, the critical success fac-
tors can be directly influenced by the municipality.
The contextual indicators (bottom grey box) are also contrib-

uting to the overall criteria of sustainability, but not directly
affecting affordability. Hence, they are named contextual
indicators.
106
CRITICAL SUCCESS CRITERIA
LOCATION AFFORDABILITY
§ €
GENERAL HOUSING COSTS

POPULATION ECONOMICS & INCOME RELATION
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS: URBAN PLANNING INDICATORS
MOBILITY & HOUSING STOCK

COMMUNITY
QUALITY
LAYOUT COMFORT & HEALTH
CRITICAL SUCCES FACTORS: CONTEXTUAL INDICATORS
ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS SATISFACTION
TENANTS OTHER
FIGURE 5.1.A - ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS OF SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DIVIDED BY CRITERIA AND FACTORS
The essential concepts to cover when assessing SAH when creating an indicator assessment tool. The concepts are divided by
critical succes criteria which describes affordable housing: (Population, General Economics, Housing costs and income relation)
and by critical succes factors which in combination with the criteria describes sustainable affordable housing: (Mobility and
community, Housing Stock, Housing quality by Layout and Comfort and health, Environmental Costs, and Satisfaction of Tenants
and Other). 'Urban planning indicators' (middle) can be influenced directly by a municipal governmental entity in Denmark.
107
12345
5.2 INDICATOR ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Trendlines Selection criteria: Relevance

Four continous data points were chosen as the minimum data Indicators relevant to the municipal goals formulated by the
to conclude on a trend in this indicator assessment. However, City of Copenhagen in either of the two reports ‘Capital of
if more data points were selected several indicators would sustainable Development’ (2018) and ‘The City of Copenha-
not have sufficient data to complete a trend analysis. Eg. the gen Municipal Plan’ (2019) are given an inclusion point for
housing overburden rate in Indicator C2.2 (p. 83) no trend relevance. Since the City of Copenhagen does not present
could be concluded for the development for the actual rent indicators on SAH, but rather visions and goals, a qualitative
nor for the share of people feeling safe in Indicator F.2 (p. 97). assessment is made on whether indicators are relevant when
Some spotted trends within one indicator have different se- completing the selection. Hence, most indicators are catego-
lected periods of assessments eg. indicator E1 on small apart- rised as 'relevant' because the City of Copenhagen presents
ments (p. 90): Housing by number of rooms have a trend for unspecific visions for affordable housing.
the full period for to parameters, four years for one parameter In order to formulate better goals for housing affordability it is
and five years for one parameter. It could be argued, that it essential to specify the specific composition of the popu-
would be more precise to conclude on the same period for all lation which housing is created for and within what spatial
parameters. However, the reason for chosing this model was boundary SAH should be provided. Only then can goals be
to limit the uncertainty expressed in the correlation coef- specified on how the housing market should reflect diversity
ficient R2 of the models. Alternatively, future studies could and where.
provide more sophisicated models than linear ones if they are
more precise. Future studies on SAH on the City of Copenhagen
When assessing the type of framework that is presented
Selection criteria: Processing time and data availability in this thesis it is partly domain-based, sectoral- and goal-
The existing tools on SAH all present different sustainable based. Hence, the only type of framework that it is not ac-
system criteria. This is caused by the multiplicity of sus- cording to MacLaren (1996) is a cause and effect framework.
tainable domains prioritized and the different geographical Hence, future studies should be focused adressing cause
assessment levels. As a result the tools present different and effect relations between the different concepts of SAH.
definitions of SAH. Literature presenting different definitions This analysis could be linked to the historical trends of urban
on sustinability is a common problem recognized by literature planning initiatives in the City of Copenhagen.
in the standization of indicators (de Azevedo & Silva, 2010; The journal articles Nuuter et al. (2015), Cooper et al. (2019),
Tanguay et al., 2010). Mulliner et al. (2016) and Chan & Adabre (2019) applies the
methodology 'multi-criteria decision making' (MCDM) to ag-
The essential concepts of SAH presented on Figure 3.3.C p. 49 gregate and weight indicators on SAH. Hence, future studies
is a theoretical synthesis of the four journal articles Nuuter et could be focused on how the MCDM method could be applied
al. (2015), Cooper et al. (2019), Mulliner et al. (2016) and Chan to urban planning aspects of housing affordability in the City
& Adabre (2019). It seeks to present a consistent theoretical of Copenhagen. The method could provide the basis for dis-
basis for SAH. cussing prioritization of urban planning aspects.
Applying the theoretical basis for SAH is a challenge in prac-
tice. The constraints of accessibility of data ends up being the
most dominant selection criteria. Therefore, the geographical
assessment level is the biggest challenge in case of the stan-
dization completed in this thesis.
This also explains why the concrete indicator definitions pre-
sented by OECD and EU are essential even though the tools'
system criteria are not included for validity: EU and OECD are
the only ones presenting examples on how to calculate indi-
cators. Even though several studies argue that the method-
ology applied in the EU and OECD tools has deficient meth-
odology (Winston & Pareja-Eastaway, 2008) they are currently
still presenting the most rigoruos data on national levels on
sustainable affordable housing measures.
108
5.3 SAH AND URBAN PLANNING
Challenges of prioritization in urban planning The City of Copenhagen: An inclusive city?

The challenge of assessing SAH is that it is linked to a If the City of Copenhagen wants to make an inclusive city
vast number of urban planning aspects: The quality of its that offers housing that reflects the diversity of the pop-
local community, the access to and quality of transport, ulation (KK, 2019.a) it must consider the fact that livability
the housing stock composition, the demographics of the projects, eg. like the greening of Sønder Bouldevard, creates
population, the comfort and health of its users, the econo- problem shifting in the form of un-affordability. Therefore,
my, and the satisfaction of its users, owners, and creaters. creating more attractive urban spaces can make the city ex-
Hence, it does not make sense to assess affordable housing clusive to low income groups due to gentrification.
only by comparing housing costs and income. It is in the in-
terrelation with other aspects of sustainable urban develop- The question of whether the City of Copenhagen is progress-
ment that an assessment can be made on whether progress ing towards more 'inclusiveness' in the form of more SAH is a
is made towards sustainability. Housing can be affordable, question of how well the city makes trade offs between the
but not sustainable. Eg. affordable housing that does not quality of the build environment, the livability of its commu-
have access to a good community or does not have a good nities, the environmental costs - while making housing prices
construction quality is unsustainable. increase as little as possible. Alternatively, models that may
The more attractive an urban area is the higher the housing circumvent the current market rules can help redeem the
prices are (Bruckner, 2011). Hence, supporting better com- current growing economic inequality of housing eg. social
munities and better quality housing with lower environmen- housing. However, the City of Copenhagen must define what
tal costs makes housing less affordable. This is why making it means to become 'a city for all' in order to measure wheth-
housing more sustainable is a matter of prioritization. er progress is made towards sustainability.
An example of urban problem shifting in Copenhagen Geographical equity

Problem shifting is the process where solutions that solve a Gentrification is not recognized as an un-sustainable trend
targeted problem create another problem somewhere else by the UN and EU. According to the UN SDG 11 people should
in the systems of processes (Hauschild, 2018). have the right to obtain adequate and affordable housing if
A concrete example of urban problem shifting in the City of cities or nations seeks to create sustainable cities (UN, 2016,
Copenhagen is the greeening of Sønder Bouldevard: p. 21). However, SDG 11 does not specify anything about geo-
An open green space was created to replace a heavy traffic graphical equity which describes where people live and their
road at Sønder Bouldevard from 2004-2006. The space access to resources (Giddings et al., 2002).
is daily used by up to 2,200 people and annually 36,000 If affordable and adequate housing should be assessible to
citizens receive a health benefit from using the facilities. all income groups most people can find both adequate and
Additionally, the local shops have been thriving. However, affordable housing in the surroundning area of Copenhagen.
property prices in the area as a whole have risen by 351 However, the City of Copenhagen has formulated sustain-
million DKK from 2006-2020 (Danske Arkitektvirksomheder, able goals which applies to the urban development within its
2020). Hence, the value creation for the City of Copenhagen municipal borders. Therefore, gentrification can be defined as
(eg. in taxes and branding value) and for housing owners has an unsustainable trend if looking at the City of Copenhagen
been immense. But the affordability of the area has been isolated as a geographical entity.
reduced due to gentrification. In fact, the housing prices This examplifies how a smaller govermental context of
in Vesterbro has increased the most compared to all other sustainable goals can be applied to discuss the relevance of
city parts in the City of Copenhagen since year 2000 (Broch, indicator assessment tools in general: The appliance of the
2020, see Appendix G.2, p. 123). indicator assessment tool on the case of the City of Copen-
hagen highlights the importance of the distributional effects
when assessing SAH. When asseing SAH the two most intrin-
sic conditions that must be defined are: the spatial limits for
the assessment and the socio-economic composition of the
population that housing are provided for.
109
12345
5.4 CONCLUSION
The thesis concludes that the following concepts are essen- The results on housing allocations shows the need for better
tial to cover when assessing sustainable affordable housing data and the results on the provision of student housing
(SAH) according to the theoretical field: Location affordability, shows a stagnant development.
housing quality, environmental costs, and satisfaction. 'Loca-
tion affordability' assesses the access to resources specific to From the indicator results it can be concluded that a growing
a dwelling location. It includes indicators on population char- amount of people cannot afford to buy and rent housing and
acteristics, general economic conditions, the quality of and an increasing amount of peoples consumption is spend on
access to communities, the availability and distribution of the housing expenses. Furthermore, the share of people in risk of
housing stock, and the relation between housing costs and poverty is increasing. These criteria indicate that un-afford-
income. 'Environmental costs' assesses the system integrity in ability of housing is increasing in the City of Copenhagen.
environmental and economic viability of a dwelling over time. Housing in the City of Copenhagen is connected by good
'Housing quality' assesses the standard of living and adequacy quality transport to good quality communities and has a
of housing. 'Satisfaction' assesses the satisfaction of relevant physical standard that supports human comfort and health.
target groups determined by the assessed life cycle phase eg. Furthermore, the satisfaction of its tenants on safety is in-
users, builders or owners. creasing. However, housing in the City of Copenhagen is not
reflecting the diversity of the population by income in the
In conclusion SAH as a whole is characterized by reflecting housing stock, housing layout, and housing costs. None of the
the diversity of a population in both housing stock, housing indicators are contextualized to the environmental costs of
quality, and housing costs. SAH is well connected by good housing.
quality transport to good quality communities and has a
physical standard that supports human comfort and health. The indicator assessment provides a limited insight in the
Furthermore, it should be contextualized to its environmental concepts that affects SAH. Therefore, further assessments
costs and the satisfaction of relevant target groups. are needed to guide the formulation of future sustainable
goals for the City of Copenhagen. Nevertheless, the developed
The developed indicator assessment tool on SAH can be ap- indicator assessment tool provides a methodological basis
plied to the case of the City of Copenhagen by a reduction of for discussing how the concepts of SAH are interdependent.
convergent indicators in existing tools, that are completed in Furthermore, it elucidate that trade-offs must be made in
accordance with good practice reporting (eg. Maclaren, 1996; order to prioritize sustainable goals on affordable housing and
Garrett and Latawiec, 2015). The thesis has argued that the reduce problem shifting in urban planning.
final selection of indicators should combine indicators that
are: Valid, comparable, cost-effective, based on accurate and Future studies on SAH in the City of Copenhagen should fo-
accessable data, relevant, understandable to its target group, cus on assessing the cause and effect relations between the
and representative of a broad range of conditions. essential concepts of SAH and concrete urban planning initia-
tives. A primary focus should also be to include indicators on
Applying these criteria the combined indicator assessment on environmental costs of housing. Finally, future studies should
SAH in the City of Copenhagen consists of nine indexes and focus on the aggregation and weighting of indicators on SAH.
18 indicators. 50.0 % of the indicators shows movement away This could provide a basis for discussing the prioritization of
from sustainability, 38.9% progress towards sustainability, urban planning aspects in relation to affordable housing.
5.6% a stagnant development, and 5.6% data insuficience.
The results show movement away from sustainability on 'new Finally, it can be concluded that the presented local tool
build social housing', 'small apartments', 'occupancy length highlights the importance of considering the distributional
and status', 'tenures', 'price-to-income ratio', 'housing over- effects and geographical equity when formulating goals on
burden rate', 'the social housing rent-to-income ratio', and sustainability: the spatial limits for the assessment and the
'people in risk of poverty'. The results show progress towards ideal composition of the population that housing is provided
sustainability on 'crime and safety', 'pendling distance', 'work- for must be defined in order to assess sustainable affordable
ing vs. dwelling citizens', 'homelessness', 'consumption vs. housing.
income', and 'price-to-rent ratio'.
110
111
12345
REFERENCES
112
REFERENCES
113
12345
REFERENCES
LINKS
Lejerbo, 2021 DTU, 2021
Lejerbo, 2021. Boligsøgende. Hvad er en almen bolig. Avail- Technical University of Denmark. About DTU Findit. Avail-
able at https://www.lejerbo.dk/boligsoegende/spoerg- able at https://findit.dtu.dk/en/about/introduction [Accessed
smaal-og-svar/hvad-er-en-almen-bolig [Assessed 17.02.22]. 17.02.22]
BPST, 2021 EC, 2021.a

BPST, 2021. Bolig- og Planstyrelsen. Statistik. Available at European Commission. (2021). International Cooperation and
https://www.boligstat.dk/ [Assessed 22.10.21]. Development. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/internation-
al-partnerships/sustainable-development-goals_en [Accessed
Danske Arkitektvirksomheder, 2020 22.09.21].
Danske Arkitektvirksomheder. (2020). Arkitektur med værdi.
Cases. Sønder Bouldevard. Available at https://www.danske- EU, 2022
ark.dk/content/sonder-boulevard [Accessed 18.02.22]. European Union. 2022. European Commission. European
Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations. Enlarge-
DST, 2022 ment. Glossary. Accession criteria. Available at https://ec.eu-
Statistics Denmark. (2022). Forside. Find statistik. Nyheder, ropa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/enlargement-policy/
analyser og publikationer. Nyt fra Danmarks Statistik. Mar- glossary/accession-criteria_en [Accessed 17.02.22].
kant flere ældre i fremtiden. Available at https://www.dst.dk/
da/Statistik/nyheder-analyser-publ/nyt/NytHtml?cid=26827 EU, 2021
[Accessed 21.02.22]. European Union. (EU, 201) About. Countries. Member States.
Denmark. https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/coun-
DST, 2017.a tries/member-countries/denmark_da [Accessed 21.10.20].
Danmarks Statistik. Juli 2017. Ækvivaleret disponibel ind-
komst. Available at https://www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/SingleFiles/ Eurostat, 2021.a
GetArchiveFile.aspx?fi=8722154520&fo=0&ext=velfaerd [Ac- European Commission, 2021. Eurostat. Quality of life indica-
cessed 20.09.21]. tors. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-ex-
plained/index.php?title=Quality_of_life_indicators [Accessed
DST, 2017.b 22.09.21]
Danmarks Statistik. September 2017. Privatøkonomi og
Velfærd. Decilgrupper og decilgrænser. Available at https:// Eurostat, 2021.b
www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/SingleFiles/GetArchiveFile.aspx?fi=ar- European Commission, 2021. Eurostat. Access to microdata.

bejde-loen-og-indkomst&fo=deciler--pdf&ext={2} [Accessed European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions.
15.09.21]. Methodology. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis-
tics-explained/index.php?title=EU_statistics_on_income_and_
DST, 2017.c living_conditions_(EU-SILC)_methodology [Accessed 18.09.21].
Danmarks Statistik. Juli 2017. Privatøkonomi og Velfærd. Leje-
værdi af egen bolig. Available at https://www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/ Eurostat, 2021.c
SingleFiles/GetArchiveFile.aspx?fi=3431754515&fo=0&ext=vel- European Commission, 2021. Eurostat. European Economy.
faerd [Accessed 08.02.22]. A Statistical Portrait - Data 2000-2019. Available at https://
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/digpub/european_economy/
DTU, 2022 [Accessed 21.09.21].
Technical university of Denmark. 2021. Kursusbasen.
42274 Sustainable Development Indicators and Sustain-
able Urban Development. Available at https://kurser.dtu.
dk/course/2019-2020/42274?menulanguage=en [Accessed
17.02.22].
114
REFERENCES
Eurostat, 2021.d EU-SILC, 2021.e
European Commission, 2021. Eurostat. Regions and cities. My European Commission, 2021. Eurostat. EU statistics on
Region. Hovedstaden (DK01). Available at income and living conditions (EU-SILC). People at risk of pov-
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/RCI/myregion/#?reg=D- erty. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-ex-
K01&ind=18-2_nama_10r_2gdp [Accessed 21.10.21]. plained/index.php?title=People_at_risk_of_poverty_or_social_
exclusion [Assessed 24.11.21].
EU-SILC, 2021.a
European Commission, 2021. Eurostat. EU statistics on in- Finans Danmark, 2021
come and living conditions (EU-SILC). Methodology. Housing Finans Danmark. (2021). Boligstatistik. Boligmarkedsstatistik-
conditions. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis- ken. Boligstatistik, BM010, København. Available at: www.rkr.
tics-explained/index.php?title=EU_statistics_on_income_and_ statistikbank.dk [Accessed 21.02.22].
living_conditions_(EU-SILC)_methodology_-_housing_condi-
Finanstilsynet, 2016
tions [Accessed 18.09.21].
Finanstilsynet. Nyheder og presse. Pressemedelelser. 2016.
Vejledning om kreditvurdering ved belåning af boliger i
EU-SILC, 2021.b
vækstområder mv. Available at https://www.finanstilsynet.
European Commission, 2021. Eurostat. EU statistics on in-
dk/nyheder-og-presse/pressemeddelelser/2016/presse-
come and living conditions (EU-SILC). Methodology. Housing
medddelelse-vejledning-om-forsigtighed-i-kreditvuder-
deprivation. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis-
ing-ved-belaaning-010216 [Accessed 21.02.22].
tics-explained/index.php?title=EU_statistics_on_income_and_
living_conditions_(EU-SILC)_methodology_-_housing_depriva-
Høje Taastrup Kommune, 2022
tion [Accessed 18.09.21].
Høje Taastrup Kommune. (2022). Forside. Ledighed og job.
Dagpenge. Befordringsgodtgørelse. Available at https://www.
EU-SILC, 2021.c
htk.dk/Ledighed-og-job/Dagpenge/Befordringsgodtgoerelse
European Commission, 2021. Eurostat. EU statistics on in-
[Accessed 21.02.22].
come and living conditions (EU-SILC). Methodology. Economic
Strain Linked to Dwelling. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/
IFHP, 2021
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_statistics_
International Federation of Housing and Planning. The Social
on_income_and_living_conditions_(EU-SILC)_methodology_-_
City Index. https://www.ifhp.org/social-cities-index [Accessed
economic_strain_linked_to_dwelling [Accessed 18.09.20].
21.10.21].
EU-SILC, 2021.d
KK, 2022
European Commission, 2021. Eurostat. EU statistics on
Københavns Kommune. (2022). Politik. Politikker og indsatser.
income and living conditions (EU-SILC). Methodology. Envi-
Bolig, byggeri og byliv. Byplanlægning. Available at https://
ronment of the dwelling. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/
www.kk.dk/politik/politikker-og-indsatser/bolig-byggeri-og-
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_statistics_
byliv/byplanlaegning [Accessed 21.02.22]
on_income_and_living_conditions_(EU-SILC)_methodology_-_
environment_of_the_dwelling [Accessed 18.09.20].
KK, 2020.a
The City of Copenhagen. 2020. Copenhagen welcomes the UN
EU-SILC, 2021.e
SDG’S. Available at https://international.kk.dk/artikel/copen-
European Commission, 2021. Eurostat. EU statistics on
hagen-welcomes-un-sdgs [Accessed 23.09.21].
income and living conditions (EU-SILC). Methodology. 2012
Housing Conditions. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
KK, 2021.d
statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_statistics_on_in-
Københavns Kommune. Specialboliger. Available at https://
come_and_living_conditions_(EU-SILC)_methodology_-_2012_
www.kk.dk/specialboliger [Accessed 23.09.21]
housing_conditions [Accessed 18.09.21].
115
12345
Kortforsyningen, 2022 OECD, 2018

Kortforsyningen, 2021. Administrative grænser, Regionsgræns- The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
er, Kommunegrænser, Opstillingskredse. Available at sdfekort. opment. Regions and Cities at a Glance 2018 – Denmark.
dk/spatialmap [Assessed 10.02.22]. Available at https://www.oecd.org/regional/DENMARK-Re-
gions-and-Cities-2018.pdf [Accessed 21.10.21].
Lejeloven.dk, 2022
Lejeloven. Udlejer. Regler for tidsbegrænset leje. Available at WHO, 2020
https://www.lejeloven.dk/udlejer/tidsbegraensning [Accessed The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
22.02.2022]. ment. World Health Organisation, 2020, Millennium Develop-
ment Goals (MDGs). Available at https://www.who.int/topics/
OECD, 2022 millennium_development_goals/en/ [Accessed 17.09.21].
OECD. Affordable Housing Database. HM1.3 Housing Tenures.
Available at https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-3-Housing- WUC, 2020
tenures.pdf [Accessed 21.02.2022]. World Urban Campaign. News. ‘IFHP: Show Me the Numbers
for Social Cities. https://www.worldurbancampaign.org/ifhp-
OECD, 2021.a show-me-numbers-social-cities [Accessed 21.10.21].
Housing prices (indicator). doi: 10.1787/63008438-en. Available
at www.data.oecd.org/price/housing-prices.htm [Accessed on UN, 2020
15.09.21]. The United Nations. Member States. Denmark. https://sustain-
abledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/denmark [Accessed
OECD, 2021.b 21.10.21].
Homeless population. OECD Affordable Housing Database (in-
dicator). Available at www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Home-
less-population.pdf [Accessed on 15.09.21].
OECD, 2021.a
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment. About. Available at http://www.oecd.org/about/ [Ac-
cessed 18.09.21].
OECD, 2021.b

ment. Better Life Index. Housing. Available at http://www.
oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/housing/ [Accessed 18.09.21].
OECD, 2021.c
ment. Affordable Housing Database. Available at https://www.
oecd.org/social/affordable-housing-database/ [Accessed
18.09.21].
OECD, 2020.d
ment. Regional Well Being. Copenhagen. Housing. https://www.
oecdregionalwellbeing.org/DK01.html [Accessed 21.10.21].
116
REFERENCES
JOURNAL ARTICLES
Atanda, 2019 Cooper et al., 2019
Atanda, Jubril Olakitan. (2019). Developing a social sustain- Cooper, Justine; Lee, Angela & Jones, Keith. (2019). Sustainable
ability assessment framework. Sustainable Cities and Society built asset management performance indicators and attri-
44 (2019) pp. 237–252. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. butes, A UK social housing case study example. International
scs.2018.09.023. Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation. Vol. 38 No. 3,
2020 pp. 508-522. Emerald Publishing Limited. DOI 10.1108/
Abdullahi & Pradhan, 2017 IJBPA-08-2019-0069.
Abdullahi, Saleh and Pradhan, Biswajeet. (2017). Sustainable
Urban Development. In Pradhan, B. (ed.). Spatial Modeling and de Azevedo & Silva, 2010
Assessment of Urban Form. Springer International Publishing de Azevedo, Maciel Silva & Silva, Rêgo. (2010). Definition of In-
AG. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-54217-1_2. dicators for Sustainable Social Housing: in Search of a Model.
Int. Journal for Housing Science, Vol.34, No.2. pp. 79-92.
Arrow et al., 2012
Arrow, K. J., Dasgupta, P., & Goulder, L. H., et al. (2012). Sus- Dempsey et al., 2011
tainability and the measurement of wealth. Environment Dempsey, Nicola; Bramley, Glen; Power, Sinéad & Brown, Caro-
and Development Economics, 17(03), 317–353. DOI:10.1017/ line. (2011). The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development:
S1355770X12000137. Defining Urban Social Sustainability. Sustainable Development.
Sust. Dev. 19, 289–300 (2011). Published online 26 May 2009
Borges et al., 2020 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/
Borges, L. A., Hammami, F., and Wangel, J. (2020). Reviewing sd.417.
Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools through Criti-
cal Heritage Studies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1605. doi:10.3390/ Du et al., 2020
su12041605. Available at https://www.mdpi.com/2071- Du, Mengbing, Zhao, Mengxue & Fu, Yang. (2020). Revisit-
1050/12/4/1605/htm [Accessed 08.02.22]. ing urban sustainability from access to jobs: Assessment of
economic gain versus loss of social equity. Environmental
Boyer et al., 2016 Impact Assessment Review 85/106456. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.
Boyer, R., Peterson, N., Arora, P. and Caldwell, K. (2016). Five org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106456
Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way
Forward. Sustainability, 8(9), p. 878. Available at: https://doi. Giddings et al., 2002
org/10.3390/su8090878 [Accessed 25.09.21]. Giddings, Bob; Hopwood, Bill & O’Brien, Geoff. (2002). Environ-
ment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sus-
Camagni, 2017 tainable development. Sustainable Development. Sust. Dev. 10,
Camagni, Roberto. (2017). Sustainable Urban Development: 187–196 (2002). Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.
Definition and Reasons for a Research Programme. In Capello, interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/sd.199.
R. (ed.). Seminal Studies in Regional and Urban Economics.
Springer International Publishing AG. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319- Haqi, 2016
57807-1_13. Haqi, Faruq Ibnul. (2016). Sustainable Urban Development and
Social Sustainability in the Urban Context. EMARA Indone-
Chan & Adabre, 2019 sian Journal of Architecture. Vol 2 No 1. ISSN 2460-7878. DOI:
Chan, Albert P.C. & Adabre, Michael Atafo. (2019). Bridging the https://doi.org/10.29080/eija.v2i1.15.
gap between sustainable housing and affordable housing: The
required critical success criteria (CSC). Elsevier Ltd. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.01.029.
117
12345
Larsen & Hansen, 2008 Peiser, 2015

Larsen, H. G., & Lund Hansen, A. (2008). Gentrification-Gen- Peiser, Richard. (2015). Real Estate Development. International
tle or Traumatic? Urban Renewal Policies and Socioeconomic Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition,
Transformations in Copenhagen. Urban Studies, 45(12), 2429- Volume 20, pp. 12-19. Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-
2448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098008097101 . 0-08-097086-8.74034-7.
Lee & Jung, 2019 Pinto et al., 2016

Lee, K. & Jung, H. (2019). Dynamic semantic network analysis Pinto, Sara; Fumincelli, Laís; Mazzo, Alessandra; Caldei-
for identifying the concept and scope of social sustainability. ra, Sílvia & Martins, José Carlos. (2016). Review. Comfort,
Journal of Cleaner Production, 233, pp.1510–1524. Available well-being and quality of life: Discussion of the differenc-
at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.390 [Accessed es and similarities among the concepts. Porto Biomedical
25.09.20]. Journal. 2017;2(1):6–12. Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
pbj.2016.11.003.
Helmich, 2017
Hellmich, Simon Niklas. (2017). What is Socioeconom- Pullen et al., 2010;
ics? An Overview of Theories, Methods, and Themes in Pullen, Stephen; Arman, Michael; Zillante, George; Zuo, Jian;
the Field. Forum for Social Economics. 46:1, 3-25, DOI: Chileshe, Nicholas & Wilson, Lou. (2010). Developing an As-
10.1080/07360932.2014.999696. sessment Framework for Affordable and Sustainable Housing.
Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies University
Hopwood & Mellor, 2007 of South Australia. Australasian Journal of Construction Eco-
Hopwood, Bill & Mellor, Mary. (2007). Visioning the Sustain- nomics and Building 10. 48-64. DOI: 10.5130/ajceb.v10i1/2.1587.
able City. Capitalism Nature Socialism. 18:4, 75-89. DOI:
10.1080/10455750701705096. Rittel & Webber, 1973
Rittel, H. W. J.; Webber, M. M. 1973, Dilemmas in a General
Maclaren, 1996 Theory of Planning, Policy Sciences, Volume 4, Issue 2, s. 155-
Virginia W. Maclaren. (1996). Urban Sustainability Reporting. 169.
Journal of the American Planning Associndicator assessment
toolion, 62:2, 184-202, DOI: 10.1080/01944369608975684 Shirazi and Keivani, 2017
Shirazi M. and Keivani, R. (2017). Critical reflections on the
Mulliner et al., 2013 theory and practice of social sustainability in the built envi-
Mulliner, E.; Smallbone, K.; Maliene, V. (2013). An assessment ronment: A meta-analysis. Local Environment 22(12): 1526–
of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria 1545. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1379476 .
decision making method. Omega, 2013, 41, 270–279. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2012.05.002 Szibbo, 2016
Nicola Szibbo (2016) Lessons for LEED® for Neighborhood
Mulliner et al., 2016 Development, Social Equity, and Affordable Housing, Journal
Mulliner, E.; Malys, N.; Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of the American Planning Associndicator assessment toolion,
of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing 82:1, 37-49, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2015.1110709.
affordability. Omega, 2016, 59, 146–156. Available at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013. Tanguay et al., 2010
Tanguay, Georges A.; Rajaonson, Juste; Lefebvre, Jean-Fran-
Nuuter et al., 2015 cois & Lanoie, Paul. (2010). Measuring the sustainability of
Nuuter, Tiina; Lill, Irene; Tupenaite, Laura. (2015). Comparison cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecological
of housing market sustainability in European countries based Indicators 10 (2010) pp. 407–418. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.
on multiple criteria assessment. Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi. ecolind.2009.07.013.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.022 [Accessed 02.11.21].
118
REFERENCES
CONFERENCE PAPERS
Tupernaite et al., 2017 Shama & Motlak, 2019
Tupenaite, Laura; Lill, Irene; Geipele, Ineta; & Naimaviciene, Shama, Zaineb Salman and Motlak, Jamal Baqir. 2019. Indi-
Jurga. (2017). Ranking of Sustainability Indicators for Assess- cators for Sustainable Housing. IOP Conf. Series: Materials
ment of the New Housing Development Projects: Case of the Science and Engineering 518 (2019) 022009 doi:10.1088/1757-
Baltic States. Resources, 2017, 6, 55; doi:10.3390/resourc- 899X/518/2/022009.
es6040055.
Mulliner & Maliene, 2011
Tupernaite et al., 2018 Mulliner, Emma & Maliene, Vida. (2011). Criteria for sustainable
Tupenaite, Laura; Kaklauskas, Arturas; Lill, Irene; Geipele, Housing Affordability. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
Ineta; Naimaviciene, Jurga; Kanapeckiene, Loreta & Kauskale, 2011. Environmental Engineering, The 8th International Confer-
Linda. 2018. Sustainability Assessment of the New Residen- ence May 19–20, 2011, Vilnius, Lithuania. ISSN 2029-7092.
tial Projects in the Baltic States: A Multiple Criteria Approach.
Sustainability, 2018, 10, 1387; doi:10.3390/su10051387.
Turk, 2021
Suheyla Turk. (2021). Affordable housing production for low
income groups by land use zoning plans in harbor areas of
Copenhagen, Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 9:1,
233-256, DOI: 10.1080/21650020.2021.1914150.
Wengenroth, 2004
Wengenroth, U. (2004). Managing Engineering complexity: A
Historical Perspective, Munich Center for the History of Sci-
ence and Technology. Available at: http://esd.mit.edu/sympo-
sium/pdfs/papers/wengenroth.pdf [Accessed 11-05-2015].
Wiles and Kobayashi, 2009

Wiles, J. and Kobayashi, A. (2009). Equity. International En-
cyclopedia of Human Geography. pp. 580-585. Elsevier. DOI:
10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00944-5
Winston & Pareja-Eastaway, 2008

Pareja-Eastaway, M. and Winston, E. (2008). Dimensions of
housing and urban sustainability. Journal of Housing and the
Built Environment 19(1): 1–5. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-007-9165-8
Winston, 2007
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.
Yeganeh et al., 2018

Yeganeh, A.J.; Hall, R.P.; Pearce, A.R. & Hankey, S. (2018). A
social equity analysis of the US public transportation system
based on job accessibility. J. Transp. Land Use 11, 1039–1056.
DOI: 10.5198/jtlu.2018.1370.
119
12345
BOOKS AND BOOK CHAPTERS

Boolsen, 2019 Gudmundsson et al., 2016
Boolsen, M. W. (2019) Grounded theory. In: Brinkmann, S. & Gudmundsson, H.; Hall, R.P.; Marsden, G., and Zietsman, J.
Tanggaard, L. (eds.). Kvalitative metoder: en grundbog. Hans 2016. Sustainable Transportation. Indicators, Frameworks, and
Reitzels Forlag. ISBN: 9788741252551. Performance Management. Springer.
Brockhoff et al., 2018 Glass, 1964

Per B. Brockhoff, Jan K. Møller, Elisabeth W. Andersen Peder Glass, Ruth. (1964). London: Aspects of Change, Report num-
Bacher, Lasse E. Christiansen. (2018). Introduction to Statis- ber 3. Centre for Urban Studies. MacGibbon & Kee.
tics at DTU, 2018 Fall. Available at https://02402.compute.dtu.
dk/enotes/book-IntroStatistics [Accessed 18.02.22]. Shah, 2008
Shah, M.M. (2008). Sustainable Development. In Jørgensen, S.
Brueckner, 2011 and Fath, B. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Ecology. Elsevier. pp. 3443-
Brueckner, Jan K. (2011). Lectures on Urban Economics. The 3446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00633-9
MIT Press Cambridge. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Shirazi and Keivani, 2019
Clark, 2004 Shirazi, M. and Keivani, R. (2019). Urban Social Sustainability.
Clark, Eric. (2004). The Order and Simplicity of Gentrification: Theory, Policy and Practice. 1st edition. Routledge.
A Political Challenge. In: Lees, Loretta; Slater, Tom; & Wyly,
Elvin (eds.). The Gentrification Reader. Routledge. pp. 24-30. Wheeler, 2013
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203392089_chapter_16. Wheeler, Stephen M. (2013). Planning for Sustainability: Cre-
ating Livable, Equitable and Ecological Communities. London:
Egholm, 2014 Routledge.
Egholm, L. (2014). Videnskabsteori. Perspektiver på or-
ganisationer og samfund. Hans Reitzels Forlag. ISBN:
9788741256566.
Flyvbjerg, 2019
Flyvbjerg, Bent. (2019). Fem misforståelser om casestudiet. In:
Brinkmann, S. & Tanggaard, L. (eds.) Kvalitative metoder: en
grundbog. Hans Reitzels Forlag. ISBN: 9788741252551.
Whitehead, 2011
Whitehead, M. (2011). The sustainable city: An obituary? On
the future for and prospects of sustainable urbanism. In:
Flint, J. and Raco, M. (eds). The Future of Sustainable Cities:
Critical Reflections. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 29–46.
Garett & Latawiec, 2015

Garrett, Rachael and Latawiec, Agnieszka E. (2015). What
Are Sustainability Indicators For? In: Latawiec, Agnieszka E.
& Agol, Dorice (eds.). Sustainable Indicators In Practice. De
Gruyter. pp. 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110450507.
120
REFERENCES
REPORTS
2030-Panelet, 2020 Eurostat, 2017
2030-Panelet. (2020). Vores Mål. Gør verdens mål til vores Eurostat. (2017). Final report of the expert group on quality of
mål. 197 danske målepunkter for en mere bæredygtig verden. life indicators. 2017 edition. European Union. Publications Of-
Available at https://www.voresmaal.dk/ [Accessed 22.09.21]. fice of the European Union. Luxembourg. Available at https://
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/7870049/7960327/KS-FT-
BC, 1987 17-004-EN-N.pdf/f29171db-e1a9-4af6-9e96-730e7e11e02f
The Brundtland Commission. (1987). Report of the World [Accessed 22.09.20].
Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common
Future. United Nations. Available at https://www.are.admin.ch/ EU, 2009
are/en/home/sustainabledevelopment/international-cooper- Council of the European Union. (2009). 2009 Review of the
ation/2030agenda/un-_-milestones-in-sustainable-develop- EU Sustainable Development Strategy - Presidency Re-
ment/1987-- brundtland-report.html [Accessed 22-09-21]. port. Available at https://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/
srv?l=EN&f=ST%2016818%202009%20INIT [Accessed 25.09.21].
C40, 2019
The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Ministry of Foreign EU, 2017
Affairs of Denmark, Department for Green Diplomacy. 2020. Atkinson, Manthony B.; Guio, Anne-Cathrine and Marlier, Eric.
Meeting in the Council for Development Policy 10 June. Agen- Monitoring social inclusion in Europe. 2017 edition. European
da item 2. Presentation Programme for Committee. 10 October Union. Publications Office of the European Union, 2017. Lux-
2019. Available at https://um.dk/~/media/um/english-site/doc- embourg. doi:10 2785/60152. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/
uments/danida/about-danida/danida%20transparency/docu- eurostat/documents/3217494/8031566/KS-05-14-075-EN-N.
ments/council%20for%20development%20policy/2020/02%20 pdf/c3a33007-6cf2-4d86-9b9e-d39fd3e5420c [Accessed
c40.pdf?la=en [Accessed 02.10.21]. 22.09.21].
Copenhagen Economics, 2018 EU, 2010

Copenhagen Economics. (2018). Demografi, Boligbehov og European Union. (2010). Housing Statistics in the European
Prisudvikling i Københavns Kommune, Analyse med fokus Union 2010. The Hague: Ministry of the Interior and King-
på den nuværende og fremtidige udvikling. Københavns dom Relations. Edited by Kees Dol and Marietta Haffner. OTB
Kommune. 12. otober 2018. Available at https://www.copen- Research Institute for the Built Environment, Delft University
hageneconomics.com/dyn/resources/Publication/publica- of Technology. Available at http://www.iut.nu/wp-content/
tionPDF/0/480/1551181589/demografi-boligbehov-og-bolig- uploads/2017/07/Housing-Affordability-Housing-Statistics.pdf
prisudvikling-i-koebenhavns-kommune-221118.pdf [Accessed [Accessed 21.02.22].
08.02.22].
KK, 2019.a
Eurofound, 2016 The City of Copenhagen. (2019). Københavns Kommuneplan
Eurofound. (2016). Inadequate housing in Europe: Costs and 2019. Verdensby med ansvar. Available at https://kp19.kk.dk/
consequences. Publications Office of the European Union, sites/kp19.kk.dk/files/kommuneplan_19_endelig_07.pdf [Ac-
Luxembourg. Available at https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ cessed 23.09.21].
da/publications/report/2016/quality-of-life-social-policies/
inadequate-housing-in-europe-costs-and-consequences KK, 2019.b
[Accessed 19.10.20]. The City of Copenhagen. (2019). Analyse af almene boliger i
København. Center for Byudvikling, Økonomiforvaltningen.
Available at https://kp19.kk.dk/artikel/analyse-af-almene-boli-
ger [Accessed 09.11.21].
121
KK, 2018.a Rambøll & DAC, 2019
The City of Copenhagen. (2018). The Capital of Stainable Rambøll Management Consulting and The Danish Architec-
Development. The City of Copenhagen’s Action Plan for the ture Centre. (2019). Baseline for the Global Goals in Den-
Sustainable Development Goals. The City of Copenhagen mark-Baseline report. Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Com-
Department of Finance. Available at https://international. munities. Available at https://ramboll.com/-/media/files/rm/
kk.dk/sites/international.kk.dk/files/the_capital_of_sustain- baseline-for-sdgs.pdf?la=en [Accessed 22.09.21].
able_development_sustainable_development_goals_2018.pdf
[Accessed 25.09.21]. UN, 2015
United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World, The 2030
KK, 2018.b Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. Available at
The City of Copenhagen. 2018. Analyse af tilgængeligheden på https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformin-
boligmarkedet i København. Økonomiforvaltningen. Available gourworld [Accessed 22.09.21]
at https://planinfo.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/sites/default/files/
media/ publikation/analyse_af_tilgaengeligheden_paa_boli- UN, 2016
gmarkedet_i_koebenhavn_koebenhavns_kommune_2018.pdf United Nations, Economic and Social Council. (2016). Report
[Accessed 29-11-19] of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable De-
velopment Goal Indicators. E/CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1. Available at
KK, 2014 http://ggim.un.org/knowledgebase/Attachment1333.aspx?At-
The City of Copenhagen. (2014). Analyse af bosætning i Køben- tachmentType=1 [Accessed 22.09.21].
havn 2014. Available at https:// forsoegspuljen.almennet.dk/
media/560352/analyse-af-bosaetning-i-koebenhavn-web.pdf VIVE, 2019
[Accessed 28-11-19] Lars Benjaminsen. (2019). Hjemløshed i Danmark 2019.
National kortlægning. VIVE. Viden til Velfærd. Det Natio-
McGuinn et al., 2020 nale Forsknings- og Analysecenter for Velfærd. e-ISBN:
McGuinn, Jennifer; Fries-Tersch, Elena; Jones, Matthew.; 978-87-7119-686-3. Available at https://www.vive.dk/media/
Crepaldi, Chiara; Masso, Märt; Kadarik, Ingel; Samek, Lodovi- pure/14218/3352843 [Accessed 21.02.22].
ci Manuela; Drufuca, Serena; Gancheva, Mariya; and Geny,
Brittni. (2020). Social sustainability. Study for the Committee WHO, 1997
on Employment and Social Affairs. Policy Department for World Health Organization. (1997). WHOQOL: Measuring
Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies. European Quality of Life. World Health Organization, Division of Mental
Parliament. Luxembourg. Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse. Geneva. Available
at https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/63482/
OECD, 2016 WHO_MSA_MNH_PSF_97.4.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Ac-

OECD. (2016). Well-being in Danish Cities. OECD Publishing. cessed 06.10.21].
Paris. DOI:https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265240-en. Avail-
able at http://www.oecd.org/denmark/bytopic/regionalruralan-
durbandevelopment/ [Accessed 21.10.21].
OECD, 2012
OECD. (2012). Redefining “Urban”: A New Way to Mea-
sure Metropolitan Areas. Available at http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264174108-en [Accessed 21.10.21].
122
123

Thesis Sustainable Affordable Housing S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Sustainable Affordable Housing S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING - AN INDICATOR ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN

Student Nanna-Rose Reinewald K. Broch

No. pages 114

ABSTRACT 6 3.3 Theoretical synthesis 46

2 METHODOLOGY 18 4.4 Indicator assessment 64

claren (1996) and Garett & Lataweic (2015) is applied to select

Københavns Kommune har formuleret visionen om at sikre

Housing Sustainable indicator

Social housing (DK) Unit (Measurement scale)

distinguished by that ‘sustainability’ describes an ideal set of

Quality of life (QoL)

'Wellbeing' versus 'comfort'

Photo: Åboulevarden, Copenhagen NV. January 2019. Owned by author.

Chapter 1. 'Introduction' presents the problem context, the

1.1 PROBLEM CONTEXT

1.1.1 THE GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE AGENDA 1.1.2 MEASURING SUSTAINABLE PROGRESS

1.2 PROBLEM FRAMING

In context of the UN sustainable agenda the City of Copenha-

The City of Copenhagen has formulated sustainable visions

In order to meet the research objective the following ques-

3. Would it be possible to conclude whether progress is being

Photo: Bellahøj Houses, Copenhagen. January 2022. Owned by author.

This chapter presents the methodological approach of the

Section 2.1 'Scope' presents the thesis context in terms of

Section 2.2 'Research design' presents the research design of

Section 2.3 'Theory' describes the methodology of the litera-

Section 2.4 ‘Theoretical sythesis’ describes how the essential

Section 2.4 ‘Case study’ presents the methodology of the cat-

2.1.1 THESIS CONTEXT

Theoretical 3. Quality assessment of existing tools

Case 6. Data collection

Conclusion, introduction, abstract etc.

The research design of the thesis is structured around three

3.2 Sustainable affordable housing (SAH)

In conclusion, section 3.1 and 3.2 seeks to answer the follow-

A. What is the international sustainable agenda defined by the

B. How does academic research define the term sustainability

C. How does academic research define 'affordability' and 'af-

D. What existing indicator assessment tools present indicators

4.1 Creating an indicator assessment tool for SAH in the City

2. How can the essential concepts from the theoretical field

4.2 Indicator assessment

3. Would it be possible to conclude whether progress is being

2.3 LITERATURE SEARCH

WORK QUESTION RESEARCH SUBJECT RESEARCH CONCEPTS

Sustainable reporting and indicators Sustainable measurements and standardization

2.4 THEORETICAL SYNTHESIS

2.4.1 MAIN CONCEPTS OF SAH 2.4.2 SUB CONCEPTS OF SAH

The GT-procedures 'Open Coding' and 'Selective Coding' are

2.5 CASE ANALYSIS

2.5.1 GOOD PRACTICE REPORTING

1) Vision 7) Collect data and analyse results

2) Scope 8) Present sustainable report

4) Indicator selection criteria

5) Identify potential indicators

6) Evaluate and select final set

Flexible Based on multidisciplinary input

Futhermore, sustainable indicators should always be trans-

2.5.1 INDICATOR ASSESSMENT

regression is the method of finding the most approriate linear

linest([known_ys], [known_xs], [const], [stats])

Applying a dataset of known input (eg. x=time) and output

Photo: Bispebjerg, Copenhagen. Maj 2021. Owned by author.