Sustainable communities are promoted as a desirable policy goal and, in particular, local authorities are encouraged to contribute to climate change mitigation through urban planning. Furthermore, recent research takes a broad perspective on the environmental sustainability of urban areas and considers the environmental impact of all consumption. A focus group study was conducted in Finland for the purpose of examining how increased environmental awareness influences urban land use. The 32 participants of three focus groups were professionals of urban planning and environmental sustainability, at both a municipal and a state level. The main finding was that urban planning is viewed as being unable to support environmental sustainability in the broader sense. In general, the participants did not see a connection between urban structure and sustainable lifestyles and only the influence of planning on housing and daily journeys was recognised. Three main reasons for this were identified. Firstly, environmental sustainability in its broader definition is seen as too complex for urban planners to influence alone. Secondly, the dominance of short-term economic issues in decision-making and the lack of co-operation from other stakeholders to achieve environmental aims demotivate land use planners. Thirdly, the prioritisation of urban density may overrule alternative means of promoting environmental sustainability, such as the encouragement of sustainable suburban or non-urban lifestyles.

The increasing awareness of the urban environment's contribution to climate change and other environmental problems has brought about a myriad of commercially available schemes that aim to mitigate detrimental impacts on the environment. These schemes, or rating tools, provide a convenient way to benchmark the eco-efficiency of buildings and, more recently, neighbourhood developments. Furthermore, acting beyond regulatory requirements has become a business strategy for many stakeholders within the construction industry. In general, these tools assess the eco-efficiency of neighbourhoods based on different criteria including urban density, connectivity, site ecology, energy efficiency and water management. The rating tools are often marketed globally. However, different regions of the world vary greatly in terms of climate, legislative, cultural, or ecological conditions, to name but a few examples. For the sake of consistency, factoring in regional variations when implementing the rating tools would be essential. In Finland, some of the criteria included in the tools are already accounted for at the regulatory level, and do not therefore lead to additional eco-efficiency. Meanwhile, other criteria may be impossible to meet due to local conditions. The purpose of this research is to pinpoint prospective issues in implementing international environmental sustainability rating systems in Finland in the context of new residential developments. The results of the study show that some of the mandatory requirements of the referenced international certifications may be unfeasible in Finland. In addition, it may not always be possible to meet some evaluation criteria due to local conditions and irrelevance to local environmental goals.

The purpose of this paper is to compare, from an urban planning perspective, the choice between combined heat and power (CHP) and a ground-source heat pump (HP) as the energy systems of a new residential area in the light of the uncertainty related to the assessments. There has been a strong push globally for CHP due to its climate mitigation potential compared to separate production, and consequently it is often prioritized in planning without questioning. However, the uncertainties in assessing the emissions from CHP and alternative options in a certain planning situation make it very difficult to give robust decision guidelines. In addition, even the order of magnitude of the climate impact of a certain plan is actually difficult to assess robustly. With a case study of the new residential development of Härmälänranta in Tampere, Finland, we show how strongly the uncertainties related to (1) utilizing average or marginal electricity as the reference; (2) assigning emissions intensities for the production; and (3) allocating the emissions from CHP to heat and electricity affect the results and lead to varying decision guidelines. We also depict how a rather rarely utilized method in assigning the emissions from CHP is the most robust for planning support.