Summing up, the interviewees generally consider that the development of public transport services in Oslo have been largely favorable, seen from a sustainability perspective, but less so in the county of Akershus. Road construction has had some positive local environmental effects appreciated by the interviewees, in particular in the municipality of Oslo, but has at the same time increased the road capacity in such a way that a continual, environmentally unsustainable growth in car traffic will be facilitated. Facilitation of bike travel has had very low ambitions, a fact regretted by several interviewees.
As emphasized by Dahl, transport infrastructure development and transport policies pursued in the region have been responsive to the sustainability challenges to a far lesser extent than has the spatial urban development. Torheim too considers that the sustainability goals have been followed to a higher extent within land use policy than within transport policy. Dahl thinks the policies within these two sectors pull in different directions – towards as well as away from the sustainability targets.
Politicians in Oslo as well as Akershus have repeatedly adopted the goal that the growth in transport is to take place as public transport. But this is not the way that things have developed, according to Dahl. At least, the result we can see is a great increase in (car) traffic. ‘So here they talk and say a number of positive things and do something quite different.’ Although some things develop in a positive direction, there are too many that don’t. Dahl thinks that the idea of creating an Oslo Package 3 is obviously reasonable, but in Dahl’s view, the contents of the package are not good.
The good thing is that toll revenues can now be used to cover operational costs of public transport. But according to Dahl, it is a ‘completely wrong thing to go for some of the large road projects. Everybody knows that, but no-one will admit it. So we know that it will be this way. And there will be more car traffic.’
something that is less ecologically sustainable in order to provide preconditions for a later more environmentally sound practice. Jensen considers that combating poverty is a precondition for a transition to environmentally sustainable practices but does not, however, say anything about how this translates into the context of the affluent Oslo region.
Schlaupitz has a similar perspective when he talks about the global dimension of social equity. However, Schlaupitz also talks about reducing resource consumption among inhabitants in rich countries.
Schlaupitz is also one of the three Oslo interviewees who state that the concept of sustainable development includes an environmental dimension as well as social and economical dimensions. Schlaupitz, Madsen and Torheim all talk about an
integration of environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainability. As the only Oslo interviewee, Torheim states that his institution (the Ministry of the Environment) has an official definition of sustainability. The conceptions of these three interviewees represents a broad view on sustainability including the interests of population groups suffering from existing environmental problems in cities.
Two of the Oslo interviewees, Brendemoen and Knut O. Gabestad (the latter being Director of the Agency for Road and Transport in the municipality of Oslo) speak of sustainability mainly in economical terms. Interestingly, both these interviewees are civil servants in transportation sector agencies. Gabestad interprets sustainable development as facilitating that future generations can be better off and conceives environmental sustainability as a side-condition in relation to a basic objective of economic growth. Brendemoen thinks the notion of sustainability basically means that you can go on doing the things that you do, if not eternally, then at least for a long time. The concept includes the possibility of mitigation measures and invention of new solutions. If you exploit a resource, this is acceptable as long as you manage to find a new resource that can substitute for the first one. Brendemoen emphasizes that her personal interpretation of sustainability may differ from the interpretations among other people in the Ministry of Transport, where there is no official ‘canon’
interpretation. Brendemoen’s interpretation of the general concept of sustainability is in line with what has been termed a ‘(moderately) weak sustainability’ (Tengstrøm, 1999:8), as distinct from ‘very weak’. ‘(moderately) strong’ and ‘very strong’
sustainability. Her use of the concept has also much in common with an ecological modernization view. In terms of interests, she represents the developed countries and those interests generally favored by an ecological modernization perspective.
The remaining two interviewees say very little about the concept of sustainability, apart from pointing at efficient use of resources as one of its components.
As can be seen from the above, there is no single dominant perspective among the Oslo interviewees as regards the interpretation of the concept of sustainable development. Several of the Oslo interviewees focus on utilizing resources
efficiently in a long-term perspective. One of the interviewees talks a lot about the conditions of people in the south, however without reflecting on what the
vulnerability of these people might mean in terms of global distribution. Another interviewee talks quite a lot about the social dimension. Even though two of the interviewees focus on economical issues – one of them especially eager to promote growth - the competitiveness of cities is not mentioned. It should still be borne in mind that the perspective of politicians from the municipalities outside Oslo is
missing, as the only politician from outside Oslo included among our interviewees represents the county of Akershus and not any of the separate municipalities.
Sustainability challenges and goals
The interviewees express diverging views as regards what elements of urban development are most important to address (e.g. the building stock, the transport infrastructure, or the green structure) in response to sustainability challenges and which goals should be given priority. Yet, all the Oslo interviewees mention both building stock and transport infrastructure as main issues in sustainable urban spatial development. Energy use and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are in focus in all interviews, and all of the interviewees have the understanding that densification is a relevant strategy for reducing car travel. As Torheim puts it: minimizing land consumption and transport are main principles in order to reduce pollution and emissions.
Several interviewees talk about public transport services and limiting car driving.
Reducing the amount of transport and changing the shares of different modes are emphasized. Jensen recommends that urban development should be located to areas close to public transport nodes in order to promote this mode of travel. As the only one among the interviewees Brendemoen points at vehicles based on renewable or environmentally friendly energy as a measure to obtain sustainable mobility.
None of the Oslo interviewees focuses solely on the building stock. Contrary to the Copenhagen interviewees, where no-one focuses on the green structure, in Oslo three of the interviewees, Madsen, Horntvedt and Elvestuen, talk about this. Madsen mentions how the city should have room for green outdoor areas and public access to the river. Horntvedt is concerned about protecting intra-urban green areas, historical buildings and built environments. Elvestuen points at protecting the Marka areas as well as increasing biodiversity within the urban area demarcation.
Gabestad, Torheim and Madsen talk about economical aspects. The city should be attractive to live in and to visit, Torheim says, and assumes that this will increase the city’s economic competitiveness. According to Gabestad, one should obtain an urban development that creates economic growth while keeping the need for transport constant or reducing it. Madsen states that a relatively high density and good public transport accessibility contributes to the economic viability of development projects.
As the only Oslo interviewees Madsen and de Vibe emphasize social sustainability.
Madsen talks about an integration of environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainability in an urban development project like Nydalen. As a representative for a private contractor Madsen is not blind to the economical perspectives and says that an integration of dwellings, workplaces and service facilities also makes a project more economically favorable to the developers.
De Vibe mentions the concerns of future generations as important, and specifically dissociates herself from interpretations giving higher priority to esthetic
considerations than to the conditions for future inhabitants of the planet. Besides this, de Vibe mentions social cohesion as an equally important concern, understood as a balanced social, age-wise and socioeconomic composition of inhabitants, i.e. to avoid segregation.
None of the Oslo interviewees mentions a car free city and none of them specifically mentions economic growth or the question of whether growth can be decoupled from
environmental degradation. However, as can be seen from the list of interviewees the Oslo interviewees do not include mayors from local municipalities, which means that the perspectives from these are missing.
Three of the Oslo interviewees, Gabestad, Torheim and Madsen, can be said to represent a broad view on the requirements of a sustainable urban development where economical aspects and competitiveness are included. This, however, does not mean that these interviewees have no understanding of environmental aspects. A majority of the Oslo interviewees focus mostly on environmental issues as the key challenges to address in order to secure a more sustainable urban development.