2. Theoretical framework

The concept of residential segregation refers to the spatial separation of two or more social groups within a given geographic area, such as a metropolitan area or city (Timberlake & Ignatov 2014). Segregation can refer both to segregation processes, typically at the urban scale, and the spatial patterns that emerge as a result (Gregory et al. 2009). In urban studies, the concept of residential segregation typically refers to the geographical separation of population groups into different neighbourhoods, distinguishable by their socio-economic or ethnic characteristics. As a result, certain population groups may be overrepresented in certain areas of a city and underrepresented in others (see e.g. Massey & Denton, 1988).

The study’s theoretical framework draws together a number of concepts that fall under the overarching principles of social sustainability and social justice. The key concepts underlying the research questions explored in this study are: 1) Social mix as a tool against urban segregation; 2) Public participation; and 3) Inclusive built environments.

As will be discussed, these concepts are closely linked to each other, as well as to broader notions of social sustainability and social justice in urban contexts.

The concept of social sustainability provides a crucial framework for understanding and addressing the social dimensions of urban development. According to Colantonio (2009), it took until the 1990s for the social aspects of the urban sustainability agenda to be considered seriously. Around this time, environmentalist and economist John Elkington highlighted what he termed the ‘triple bottom line’, with economy, environment and society identified as the three basic concepts of sustainability (McKenzie, 2004).

Despite Elkington’s inclusion of ‘the social’ in his framework, several scholars argue this aspect has not received attention on a par with the other two dimensions. Moreover, although discussions and research concerning social sustainability has increased significantly since the 1990s, the concept remains somewhat nebulous (Colantonio & Dixon, 2011). Broadly speaking, the notion of social sustainability blends more traditional (and concrete) areas of social policy – such as income distribution, poverty reduction and livelihoods – with emerging (and more intangible) aspects such as wellbeing, happiness and sense of place (Table 3).

As illustrated in Table 3, equity, participation and social mixing, which are the core themes for framing this study, are considered as fundamental dimensions of social sustainability. It should be noted that these concepts are also basic components for how scholars have conceptualised social justice (Fainstein, 2014; Fraser, 2008; Sachs, 1999). The notion of social justice in cities has been defined by Susan Fainstein as being constituted by three main dimensions: equity, diversity and democracy. These three dimensions, which are deeply interconnected and, as it will be discussed, occasionally conflictual, provide a framework for linking the key topics explored in this study: social mix/segregation, public participation, and inclusive built environments (see Figure 2).

Fainstein (2014) defines diversity as a complex concept that can refer either to the urban landscape’s variety (housing, public spaces and multifunctionality) or social mix in terms of class, ethnicity or gender. The relationship between the first dimensions of social justice, diversity, and social justice as a broader concept is, however, not straightforward. For instance, Florida (2003) has pointed to urban diversity as a means of stimulating creativity and attracting artists, hipsters and tech workers (i.e. the creative class), which in turn brings economic growth. It is, though, important to explore this ‘search for diversity’ with a critical eye.

More recently, Florida himself recognises he was misguided in emphasising the importance of attracting the creative class to cities. In many places, the rise of the creative class has put pressure on housing markets while generating economic growth  for the already rich. This in turn has displaced the poor and working classes, often working against urban diversity and leading to social exclusion and gentrification issues (Peck, 2005).

In exploring diversity in the context of Nordic cities, this report examines national- and local- (municipality) level strategies, policies and plans aimed at counteracting segregation and fostering social mixing. A variety of approaches are spotlighted in the case studies – while some have achieved positive outcomes, others have proved to be more controversial and contested. In order to better understand the diversity of outcomes arising from social mixing strategies, it is important to unpack the concept of social mixing and how it is rhetorically embedded in policies and plans combating segregation.

As previously mentioned, segregation describes a situation whereby a particular group is overrepresented within an urban area relative to, for example, the city or region as a whole (Arbaci, 2019; Van Kempen & Şule Özüekren, 1998). Such spatial concentration may concern both disadvantaged and better-off social groups, often leading to a distinction being made between ‘bad’ segregation – which de-segregation or social mix policies are usually targeted at – and ‘good’ segregation (Musterd, 2020). In this respect, there is a vast body of literature taking a critical stance on social mixing policies. One of the key arguments made is that such strategies are generally one-sided (Alves, 2022). In other words, social mixing policies usually aim to introduce middle-income residents into disadvantaged areas, rather than vice versa (Fallov & Birk, 2022; Rosol, 2015). One prominent example of this is the Danish ‘Ghetto Strategy’ explored in chapters 3 and 4. Relatedly, social mixing strategies are often premised on the notion that concentrations of poor people are a problem, while concentrations of the well-off are not.

The positive connotations of social mixing are also largely built on the assumption that heightened spatial proximity leads to greater social proximity – in other words, the closer different social groups live to each other, the more they interact. In reality, there is little evidence that mixing people of different incomes, ethnicity or occupation leads to better social cohesion. Rather, various research has documented social frictions, avoidance, racial rejection and even so-called ‘white flight’, usually involving white middle-class residents leaving areas they perceive as hosting an overly high concentration of people from other ethnic backgrounds (Musterd, 2022).

Furthermore, social mixing policies have often been described as state-led ‘gentrification by stealth’ (Bridge, 2012), leading to forced displacement of vulnerable groups. Another critique is that social mixing policies seek to address the symptoms of inequality, and its cause. In this respect, social mixing does not generate sufficient upward social mobility for the least advantaged, as this also requires structural changes in economic conditions, job and educational opportunities, and access to affordable housing (Musterd, 2022).

On the other hand, scholars have provided more positive perspectives on tenure mixing and inclusionary housing policies (Alves, 2019). Inclusionary housing policies use planning restrictions to ensure affordable housing is included in otherwise market-rate projects (Granath Hansson, 2019). For instance, a specific percentage of affordable housing may be required in a new development (Calavita & Mallach, 2009). It should be noted that inclusionary housing policies are usually targeted at lower-income people, and so may be regarded as an alternative to public housing interventions (Granath Hansson, 2019).

Various examples of inclusionary housing policies can be found in the Nordic countries. In Denmark, the Planning and Building Act grants municipalities the power to stipulate that up to 25% of the housing stock in new developments be not-for-profit (Granath Hansson et al., 2024). In Norway, by contrast, such regulations do not exist (Cavicchia, 2023). In Sweden, inclusionary housing policy centres around developing rental housing that is affordable to low- to mid-income households, and in doing so fostering social diversity. Each project includes a given proportion of housing (ranging from 20% to 100%) to which reduced rents are applied for a period of 15 years (Granath Hansson et al., 2024).

In Finland, the City of Helsinki has applied a policy of tenure mixing since the mid-1960s in order to prevent the emergence spatial segregation. While this policy appears to have helped slow down the segregation process, it has not been able to prevent it altogether (Vaattovaara et al., 2018). Kemppainen (2017) highlights a key perspective that sets the Finnish tenure mixing debate apart from the discussion in Europe more broadly – namely, that Finnish tenure mixing policies are applied to neighbourhoods in the planning and construction phase, rather than through renovation afterwards, which is the most common approach elsewhere. Tenure mixing may therefore have different implications depending on when and how it is implemented.

As all of the above suggests, ensuring urban diversity requires a multifaceted approach that not only encompasses the social, economic and spatial aspects of segregation, but critically evaluates the underlying assumptions and potential consequences of intervention strategies.

The second dimension of social justice, democracy, is described by Fainstein (2010) as the capacity of citizens to make decisions that are in both their own and the public’s interests. The basic condition for democratic processes is a redistribution of power, without which there cannot be a redistribution of benefits. In this respect, there is a greater likelihood of more resourceful citizens taking part in participatory processes, as it will be discussed in Chapter 5.

While this implies a move towards democracy, it may not necessarily lead to more equitable decisions. Citizen participation increases policy-makers’ awareness, but rarely has transformative power, as it usually concerns small-scale programmes. According to Fraser (2009), parity of participation is the normative core of integration between redistribution and recognition. Thus, if all members of society are to participate in democratic processes as peers, equal distribution of material resources and opportunities for achieving social esteem is essential.

The increased emphasis on grassroots citizen participation in urban planning since the turn of the millennium has largely been driven by critiques of traditional top-down approaches, particularly those employed in large-scale projects that tended to overlook the needs and desires of local communities (Legacy, 2017). Previously, planning was mainly conducted at the drawing board and focused on the city as a whole rather than the specific needs of its inhabitants.

Efforts to involve citizens in local development are often framed as social sustainability initiatives. Participatory planning, like other social sustainability policies, encompasses the democratic process of planning as well as its tangible outcomes, including the physical infrastructure of the city, accessibility concerns, community cohesion and a sense of place identity. The discourse on participatory approaches in planning should not be oversimplified, however, as it concerns a spectrum of practices that range from mere tokenism to genuine empowerment.

Arnstein’s (1969) ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ delineates three distinct levels of public involvement:

The case study cities in Chapter 5 exemplify the hurdles associated with integrating various levels of public involvement, as well as the complexities of ensuring representation from diverse social groups in participatory processes. These challenges underscore the difficulty of transcending public participation as a mere symbolic gesture and actually achieving a more equitable redistribution of power, as advocated by Fainstein. As shown in Chapter 5, the importance of implementing diverse, innovative participation methods at the local level – which often go beyond the minimum requirements set by national regulations – is widely acknowledged in Nordic cities.

Fainstein’s (2010) third dimension of social justice, equity, refers to the appropriate distribution of material and non-material benefits. This implies public policy should not disproportionately benefit those who are already advantaged. Thus, in cases of injustice, public policy should seek to mitigate inequalities by prioritising redistribution – for example, economic restructuring and reorganising the division of labour (Fraser, 2009).

Drawing on Fainstein’s conceptualisation of equity, this study explores policy and practices aimed at creating ‘inclusive built environments’, understood here as places where urban infrastructure – including public spaces, housing and transportation – have been planned and designed so as to promote social inclusion. In this context, social inclusion translates to equitable access (in Fainstein’s terms) for diverse social groups.

Ever since Jane Jacobs’s seminal book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Jacobs, 1961), scholars and practitioners have discussed the ways in which the physical urban environment, urban design and urban form can affect social life (Mouratidis & Poortinga, 2020). Various strategies and initiatives – such as universal design, inclusive design, design for all and age-friendly environments – have been applied when designing the built environment in order to incorporate the widest range of users (Heylighen et al., 2017).

In the Nordic countries, there has been an increased focus on such concepts in recent years. National governments have implemented substantial action plans to ensure equal opportunities and accessibility, with a particular emphasis on innovation and extending efforts to urban planning, transportation and digital accessibility (Bendixen & Benktzon, 2015). When it comes to the principle of universal design, the gender aspects of creating inclusive urban spaces deserve particular attention. For example, Kern (2020) explores how urban spaces are often shaped by patriarchal norms and power dynamics, resulting in spaces that may feel unsafe or unwelcoming not only for women but groups such as LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, and ethnic minorities.

More recently, the scholarly focus has increasingly extended beyond how the physical environment affects urban vitality and livelihoods, encompassing health and social cohesion impacts, as well as dynamics such as spatial segregation, exclusion, displacement and gentrification (Anguelovski et al., 2018; Bardaka et al., 2018; Davidson & Lees, 2010). Here, architecture and urban design can present clear obstacles to vulnerable social groups wishing to access particular spaces (Schindler, 2014). For example, while greening interventions can improve vitality, livelihood and health conditions, it can also lead to green gentrification (Anguelovski et al., 2018). Chapter 6 explores the strategies, plans, policies and approaches adopted by those Nordic cities attempting to create more inclusive physical living environments, highlighting in particular issues related to public spaces, citizen engagement, housing and transportation, and engaging diverse population groups.

To conclude, while creating urban environments that prioritise equitable access, meaningful citizen participation and social diversity is crucial, meeting these objectives is not without challenges. Policies aimed at social mixing, for instance, often reflect one-sided approaches that address the symptoms of inequality, rather than the root causes. Similarly, participatory planning must move beyond tokenism if it is to ensure democratic decision-making processes that are inclusive of all social groups.

Additi0nally, the built environment plays a pivotal role in shaping social inclusion, influencing everything from access to public spaces to providing a sense belonging. As the study’s case studies illustrate, Nordic cities provide valuable examples of both innovative and contested practices, underlining the potential of urban design to foster inclusivity while highlighting the complexities of addressing diverse needs in rapidly changing urban landscapes.

Ultimately, the pursuit of social sustainability and social justice in urban contexts requires a multifaceted, context-sensitive approach. Addressing structural inequalities, ensuring equitable resources distribution and fostering meaningful engagement with diverse communities are all essential to the achievement of more inclusive, just cities. With this in mind, it is hoped the report can contribute to a deeper understanding of the relevant challenges and opportunities.