EVALUATION OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY IN

SPECIFIC SECTORS IN LATVIA

KRISTINE ABOLINA1∗ and ANDIS ZILANS2

1
Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Latvia, Riga, LV 1014, Latvia;
2
Mezaparks Neighbourhood Association, Riga, Latvia
(∗ author for correspondence, e-mail: aab.kristine@apollo.lv; fax: +371-7332704; tel.: +371-7518014)

(Received 26 July 2001; accepted 19 June 2002)

Abstract. In Latvia, the concept of sustainability is only slowly gaining recognition. An analysis of
Development Plans prepared by the four largest cities of Latvia indicates that sustainability is presented
as one of the guiding principles. However, a comparison of Development Plan policies against the urban
sustainability issues reveals a great deal of ambiguity and contradiction.
At the municipal level, planners and politicians lack indicators to gauge whether the long-term goals of
Development Plans and the principles of sustainable development are being achieved. As a consequence,
the broad public is deprived of the opportunity to assess for itself the process of development in relation to
Development Plan policies, thus limiting accountability in development decision-making. Relevant statistical
data collected on a regular basis are required to create sustainability indicators reflecting sustainability issues,
to supplement and replace existing statistical compilations pertaining almost exclusively to economic growth
and consumption. Development and utilisation of sustainability indicators can be an effective instrument for
promoting the values of sustainable development amongst politicians, planners and the broad public and for
enhancing accountability in decision-making.

Key words: accountability, decision-making, green space, sustainability indicators, sustainable

development, transportation policy, urban planning and development.

1. Introduction

Planning and development of expanding urban areas throughout the world is a

complex decision-making process having a direct impact on human health and
the environment both locally and globally. Global environmental problems such
as depletion of the ozone layer, global warming resulting from the production
of greenhouse gases, and loss of biodiversity find their roots to a large degree
in the cumulative process of global industrialisation, urbanisation and increasing
consumption.
The new paradigm of sustainable development has been formulated in an
attempt to reorient and focus thinking towards a style of individual and commu-
nity living, resource consumption and economic development that allows for a
balanced co-evolution of the economic, physical and social environments while
living within the carrying limits of the supporting ecosystems (World Conservation
Union/UNEP/WWF, 1991).

Environment, Development and Sustainability 4: 299–314, 2002.

© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
300 K. ABOLINA AND A. ZILANS

The challenge of sustainable development is that there is no simple way to

model and to predict the interaction of individuals, societies and natural systems.
Therefore, policies aiming at sustainable development cannot be based on precise
models.

Policies need to be flexible in two directions. Flexibility is needed over space, since prob-
lem perception, values and interaction patterns are strongly shaped by culture and vary across
Europe. Flexibility is also needed over time since precise forecasting is basically impossible. The
consequences of this basic need for flexibility are:

– Sustainability is a general idea that must be interpreted concretely in specific contexts;

– Sustainability cannot be achieved by a command and control approach since there are no adequate
causal models;
– Sustainability can only be approached through a practical management process that includes
permanent learning (Schleicher-Tappeser and Strati, 1999: 49).

This paper evaluates the sustainability of urban planning in four cities in Latvia
and analyses the opportunities that exist for decision-makers, urban planners and
the broad public to monitor, assess and learn from urban planning practices and
development trends using indicators. It is argued that sustainability indicators can
be an effective management tool for creating greater accountability in urban plan-
ning decision-making and for enlivening sustainable development. Specifically, this
paper focusses on the themes of urban green space and transportation.

2. Sustainable development in Latvia

According to Chapter 28 of the Rio Declaration, local authorities in each country

should undertake a consultative process with their populations and achieve a con-
sensus on a ‘Local Agenda 21’ for the community. Subsequently, local authority
programmes, policies, laws and regulations to achieve Local Agenda 21 objectives
should be assessed and modified, based on local programmes adopted (United
Nations, 1992). Although Latvia has signed and ratified the Rio Declaration,
Local Agenda 21 have not been prepared by any of the largest cities in
Latvia.
One of the characteristic features of cities in Latvia is that in lieu of Local
Agenda 21, environmental strategies and action plans have been developed that
attempt to also include the broader aspects of sustainable development. This phe-
nomenon finds its roots in the fact that initiators of the Local Agenda 21 process,
typically municipal Environmental Departments, to date, have not received strong
political support. Thus, meaningful input from other municipal sectors and stake-
holders in the community has been limited. Consequently, not only has community
consensus not been achieved but integration of environmental, social and economic
development issues in municipal policies is limited.
In accord with the principle of subsidiarity (Schleicher-Tappeser and Strati, 1999:
71) and the popular rallying call of sustainable development “think globally, act
 EVALUATION OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY 301

locally”, enlivening of sustainability is ultimately the responsibility of the local

government, which in Latvia is often less open to and has the least capacity to meet
the challenges of sustainability. Local politics in Latvia are tainted by political
patronage and vested interest. At the municipal level, experts (planners) frequently
have their ‘hands tied’ regarding promoting and implementing best urban practices
to address complex planning issues. Either it is not practical to go against “political
winds” or political decisions are simply made contrary to adopted planning policies
and measures. Compounding matters further is the fact that adverse global impacts
resulting from local activities are frequently not self-evident, having no immediate
readily apparent impact on human health and the environment locally and thus are
not priority issues amongst planners, politicians and the broad public. Similarly,
the sum of many individual planning decisions, that alone, do not have immediate
local consequences to the environment and the quality of urban life, in the longer
term have an adverse impact on the urban system. In this milieu, in Latvia, urban
planning practices that have been tried and shown to be unsustainable in the long
term in urban areas of industrialised countries are frequently being repeated. In
Latvia, sustainable development, as a value, even if expounded in planning doc-
uments, is ultimately rarely considered during the sector-based decision-making
process.

3. Study methods

The sustainability of transportation and green space policies in the Development

Plans of four of the seven national level cities in Latvia (Table I) – Riga, Jelgava,
Jurmala, and Rezekne – were analysed by comparing policies against urban
development issues. Municipal Development Plans were analysed, since, unlike
Environmental Policy and Action Plans, they reflect development priorities in all
municipal sectors. In addition, existing opportunities to monitor and assess the
implementation of Development Plan policies were investigated. The following
publications and sources of information were reviewed:
• Development Plan implementation reports;
• indicators published in statistical bulletins;
• indicators used by municipal departments.

4. Selected sustainability issues

4.1. Transportation

The transportation sector was selected for analysis, as it has a large impact on
resource consumption (energy, land area) in urban areas and, consequently, it is
one of the sectors where the integration of economic, environmental and social
302 K. ABOLINA AND A. ZILANS
TABLE I. Evaluation of the Development Plans in relation to transportation and green space issues.
Issues Riga Jelgava Jurmala Rezekne
788 283 inh. 70 918 inh. 58 993 inh. 40 095 inh.
307.20 km2 60.30 km2 115.48 km2 17.48 km2
Sustainable development Plan principle Plan goal Plan goal Not mentioned
Transportation
Improvement of conditions Policy, planning Measures Planning studies Planning studies
for pedestrians studies
Promotion of bicycle use Policy, planning Measures Planning studies Planning studies
studies
Development of public Planning studies Measures Planning studies Planning studies
transportation
Construction of by-passes No policy Measures Measures Measures
to reduce transit traffic
volumes in the city
Construction of new roads, Measures Measures Measures Measures
bridges
Construction of parking Planning studies Measures Planning studies No policy
lots in the city centre
Green space
Area of green space Will be reduced Will be reduced Will be reduced Changes
not shown
Area of family gardens Will be reduced Will be reduced Will be reduced Changes
not shown
Integration of green space Policy Measures No policy Policy
structure through the
creation of green corridors
Enhancement of biological Policy Measures Policy Policy
diversity
Policy – general policy statement in support of issue; Measures – specific action(s) proposed at a specific location;
Planning studies – further planning studies are proposed to define issue.

aspects of development is particularly important. Transportation typically is one

of the largest sources of carbon dioxide emissions and a substantial contributor to
total nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen monoxide emissions, as well as a major cause
of high noise levels. Automobile-related infrastructure occupies a sizeable part of
the limited public and private space of a city. In relation to the social realm, the
transportation solutions selected influence the degree to which residents have access
to their city (White, 1994; Whitelegg, 1993). Studies show that from the perspective
of sustainability, the most effective method, from a technical and from an economic
standpoint, of addressing urban transport problems (congestion, air pollution etc.)
is to improve public transportation and not to widen existing roads nor build new
roads and bridges (HELCOM PITF, 1999).
Development Plan policies were analysed against the following transportation
issues:
• improvement of conditions for pedestrians;
• promotion of bicycle use;
• development of public transportation;
• construction of by-passes to reduce transit traffic volumes in the city;
 EVALUATION OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY 303

• construction of new roads;

• construction of new automobile parking facilities in the city centre.

4.2. Green space

The preservation of green space and biological diversity is another aspect of urban
Development Plans that can be used to gauge a city’s commitment to sustainability.
Although the type and amount of ‘green and blue’ natural areas in any urban area
is dependent on the geographic location and a community’s aesthetic appreciation
and values (Porteous, 1996), preservation of biological diversity is integral to the
concept of sustainability, whereby balanced co-evolution between social, economic
and environmental development dimensions is sought. In relation to this theme, at
the simplest level, Development Plans can be analysed with respect to proposed
changes (both in type and the degree) in the green structure (forests, parks, gardens,
pasture, city squares, greenbelts along waterways, family gardens).
The Development Plans were analysed against the following green space policy
issues:
• preservation of the green space;
• preservation of family gardens;
• enhancement of biological diversity;
• integration of the green space structure through the creation of green corridors.

5. Analysis of Development Plans in the context of sustainability

Table I summarises the results of the analysis of Development Plans (Jelgava City
Council, 1999; Jurmala City Council, 1995; Rezekne City Council, 1997; Riga City
Council, 1995) in relation to development issues. The Development Plans for the
cities of Riga, Jurmala and Jelgava include sustainable development as one of the
Plan principles or goals. The Development Plan for Rezekne does not explicitly
contain reference to sustainable development but, in terms of sector policies, the
Plan addresses many of the key aspects of urban sustainability.

5.1. Transportation

5.1.1. Riga
A contradictory feature of the City of Riga Development Plan is that policies deal-
ing with automobile infrastructure are elaborated in considerable detail, including
alternative locations for a bridge(s) and a network of right-of-ways through the
city reserved for new high-speed roads. No such specific and detailed measures
are presented for public transportation, pedestrians and cyclists even though all are
defined as being city development priorities. Further planning studies are proposed
for these latter issues. Consequently, during the life of the Riga Development Plan
304 K. ABOLINA AND A. ZILANS

it is more likely that the already precisely defined, but less sustainable policies will
have the support of decision-makers.

5.1.2. Jelgava
The Development Plan for Jelgava defines both general city-wide measures for
improving conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists and site-specific actions, includ-
ing precisely defined routes for bicycle paths. Policies pertaining to public trans-
portation are specific and include preservation of existing routes and improving
the quality of services through the development of better bus stops located closer
to users and the coordination of different route schedules. Completion of the city
by-pass is a measure proposed to divert transit traffic away from the city centre.
However, at the same time new automobile parking facilities are planned in the city
centre.

5.1.3. Jurmala
The City of Jurmala Development Plan indicates that pedestrians and cyclists are a
priority and proposes to develop a network of pedestrian and bicycle paths and
bicycle parking facilities upon completion of further studies. Maintenance and
development of the public transportation system is defined as a priority but fur-
ther planning studies are required to define measures. A city by-pass road is defined
as a priority measure. Development of a plan for additional automobile parking
facilities is also proposed.

5.1.4. Rezekne
The Development Plan for Rezekne proposes that opportunities to improve
the public transportation system and conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists
should be investigated further. Specific measures are proposed for the construc-
tion of a new city by-pass and new roads to better link the existing city road
network.

5.1.5. Discussion
In relation to transportation, all of the Development Plans analysed have policies to
promote effective public transportation. However, all of the analysed Development
Plans, except for Jelgava, propose the construction of new roads and all, except
for Rezekne, advocate construction of new automobile parking facilities in the city
centre, which does not discourage use of the private automobile. Even though all of
the Development Plans explicitly or implicitly state that sustainable development
is one of the guiding principles of city development, taken together the proposed
transportation policies are contradictory in relation to urban sustainability, with
some policies supporting urban sustainable development, but others working against
sustainability.
Furthermore, whereas the policies that are supportive of urban sustainabil-
ity are formulated in general terms or state that further planning studies are
 EVALUATION OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY 305

required to define specific policy measures, the policies that do not promote urban
sustainability (construction of new roads and parking in the city centre), in most
cases, are formulated as clearly defined measures. Consequently, within the life-
time of the Development Plans, these “unsustainable policies” are more likely to
be implemented first leaving implementation of the “more sustainable policies”
for a later date. Ultimately, development in the transportation sector is not likely
to be in accord with sustainable development as expounded by the Development
Plans.

5.2. Green space

5.2.1. Riga
The Riga Development Plan recognises the important role of green space in
creating a healthy city environment. The Plan defines the various functions of
green space including ecological, recreational, health, educational and city image.
However, even though the merits of urban green space are flagged, the Plan does not
include any specific measures for the preservation, maintenance and enhancement
of the quality of green space in the city. The Development Plan for Riga proposes
the integration of the “green and blue” structure in a unified system, but does not
specify measures that should be implemented to achieve this goal. In Riga, in 1995,
family gardens accounted for almost 11% of green space or 5% of total area of the
city (Riga City Council, 1995: 36). However, family gardens are designated as a
temporary form of land use, thus opening the door for the rezoning and development
of this green space.

5.2.2. Jelgava
The Jelgava Development Plan emphasises that the landscape is an important
aspect of development and is closely tied with the social environment. Creation
of green corridors is proposed not only to support ecosystem and environmen-
tal functions but also to create a social space for pedestrians. Specific measures
are also proposed to help preserve biological diversity and to protect water-
ways. Part of the existing family allotment gardens will be rezoned to low-
density housing. Implementation of the Plan is expected to result in 0.5–3.0%
of the administrative area of Jelgava being rezoned from green space to another
land use.

5.2.3. Jurmala
The Development Plan of Jurmala recognises the need to preserve the city’s green
space and biological diversity particularly in those areas associated with the Gulf
of Riga shoreline sand dune belt. However, the Development Plan proposes to
develop some of the existing green space for low-density residential development
with a zoning “Pine Park”. Together with the reduction of the area of family gardens,
an overall decrease in the area of green space will result.
306 K. ABOLINA AND A. ZILANS

5.2.4. Rezekne
The City of Rezekne Development Plan states that the preservation, renewal and
development of green space are a priority to ensure a healthy urban environment
for residents. The Plan indicates that presently undeveloped territories could be
developed into new green space or a combination of green space and development.
The local forested area, city parks and squares and the shoreline of the Rezekne
River are to be better managed and recreational and social functions will be devel-
oped and expanded. Greenery will be developed along major roadways, around
industrial zones and adjacent to residential development to enhance the living envi-
ronment for residents and to limit the migration of contaminants. Family allotment
gardens are to be maintained and developed solely with the resources of owners or
renters.

5.2.5. Discussion
All of the Development Plans of the cities studied recognise the importance of urban
green space but in reality they do not advocate substantive policies to protect and
manage existing green space. Consequently, the quantity and quality of green space
is likely to suffer, as will the overall urban sustainability. Most of the cities studied
have policies in their Development Plans to promote integration of green space and
to enhance biological diversity. However, rarely are the policy proposals anything
more than general statements of intent. Only Jelgava proposes specific measures in
this regard.
One of the unique aspects of green space in the cities of Latvia is the relatively
large land area devoted to family garden plots. For the least affluent segment of
urban residents, the family gardens are an important source of produce for per-
sonal consumption and, for some, is a supplementary source of income. In reality,
decision-makers do not recognise family gardens as a valuable asset in their present
functional form nor are alternative green space functions considered viable for
existing garden areas.
In all the cities studied, the decrease in the area of green space will to a large
extent take place on account of a reduction of the area of family gardens and low-
density residential development. The Development Plans for Jelgava and Jurmala
anticipate a reduction in the area of green space whereas the Plans for Riga and
Rezekne do not indicate whether a decrease in the area of green space is anticipated,
but it is most probable that a reduction will occur.
Typically, in Latvia, the green space designation in Development Plans allows
green space to be developed, for example, for recreational use. However, since
recreational infrastructure such as arenas and other sports facilities are considered
recreational uses of land, it is likely that some of the existing green space will be
intensively developed, diminishing the natural and functional value of individual
parcels of green space. In real terms, this means that the total area of city green
space will be reduced, but as rezoning is not required, the incremental impact of
this type of activity will not be reflected in statistics as a decrease in the total area
of city green space.
 EVALUATION OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY 307

6. Assessment of urban sustainability and

implementation of Development Plans

6.1. Legislative compliance

The “Law on Territory Development Planning (1998)” requires that municipal

governments prepare and publish a report every year on the implementation of
Development Plans. Of the four cities analysed, only Jurmala has regularly pre-
pared and published Development Plan implementation reports as required by
the law. The implementation reports prepared by the city of Jurmala briefly (two
pages) highlight the main features of the implementation of Development Plan
policy. Development trends are described qualitatively although generally not
quantified.

6.2. Indicators to assess urban sustainability

6.2.1. Indicators
Indicators are pieces of information that highlight what is happening in a large sys-
tem. They are small windows that provide a glimpse of the “big picture”. Indicators
should simplify complex phenomena into quantifiable measures that can be readily
communicated (Delft van, 1998). Sustainability indicators combine environmental,
economic and social indicators and their mutual relationships. To create indicators
data must be collected as part of a monitoring process in which repetitive measure-
ments of coherent parameters yields information on changes in time. The data must
be collected by comparable methods, according to previously set time schedules
and places.
Regardless of whether cities define sustainability as a policy goal of development
or not, it is essential that sustainability indicators are compiled that reflect the new
reality of urban development. The indicators selected should in a simple and clear
manner inform decision-makers, planners and the broad public regarding the sus-
tainability of urban development. Planners need indicators in order to learn about
and to assess the existing development trends and to be able to quantify argu-
ments for planning and development policies and development proposals. For the
broad public, indicators are a means by which to better understand the development
processes and trends in their city in the context of sustainable development and
are a basis for informed input to the planning and decision-making process. For
decision-makers, indicators can be an essential accounting system for tracking
developing trends including the impact of policy measures. Furthermore, indica-
tors can serve as a useful feedback instrument for raising a sense of responsibility
amongst decision-makers.

6.2.2. Assessment results

In order to determine what opportunities exist to monitor and assess imple-
mentation of urban sustainability and Development Plans, in the context of
308 K. ABOLINA AND A. ZILANS

sustainability, relevant statistical bulletins were reviewed for indicators on the

themes of transportation and green space. The statistical sources consulted included:
• Latvia’s Regions in Figures (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2000a);
• Environmental Indicators in Latvia 1999 (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia,
2000b);
• Macroeconomic Portrait of Latvia’s regions (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia,
2000c);
• Statistical Yearbook of Latvia 2000 (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2000d);
• Riga in Figures 1999 (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2000e);
• Latvian State of the Environment Report ’98 (Ministry of Environmental
Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia and
Environmental Consulting and Monitoring Centre, 2000).
Additionally, relevant municipal departments in each of the four cities were con-
sulted regarding the availability of indicators in the themes of transportation and
green space. Table II summarises the indicators included in statistical publications
and available with municipal departments.
The review of published indicators relevant to analysed issues reveals a significant
imbalance in the distribution of indicators. As transportation is directly related to
economic activity, and thus can be more readily expressed quantitatively, there are
a greater number of related indicators. For green space issues, only indicators on
the issues of green space area and the conservation of biological diversity were
identified.
Regularly tabulated indicators available in municipal departments are largely
those appearing in statistical bulletins. This indicates that to a degree the driving
force behind data and indicator collection at the municipal level is the legislative
requirement to annually report on certain aspects of municipal development to the
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. Additional indicators collected by municipal-
ities are mainly related to the issues of public transportation, green space area and
biodiversity.
The indicators available in municipal planning departments and statistical bul-
letins are so narrow and specific in definition that together they are no more than
unrelated items in an inventory list of municipal assets and services offered by the
municipality. None of the indicators in the statistical bulletins and those compiled
by municipal departments show performance, that is, illustrate development trends
against set policies or standards. Only in Riga and Jelgava do the Transportation
Departments monitor the implementation of sector Plans. Generally, no aspect of
city development policy or theme of sustainability is adequately illuminated by the
available indicators.
From the available indicators on transportation it is not possible to draw a
meaningful conclusion regarding modal split – the means by which residents of
the city travel (e.g. private automobile, public transportation, bicycle, by foot).
Similarly, knowledge of the number of automobile parking spaces is important
for the development of a sustainable urban transportation policy, since automobile
 EVALUATION OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY
TABLE II. Available indicators for analysed issues.
Relevant indicators in regularly published
bulletins (available for all analysed cities)
Issue: sustainable development
No data
Improvement of conditions for pedestrians
• Persons killed or injured in road traffic accidents
by status of participation in traffic
• Road traffic accidents by locality
Promotion of bicycle use
• Persons killed or injured in road traffic accidents
by status of participation in traffic
Development of public transportation
• Passenger turnover
• Passenger carried by tram and trolley-bus
• Length of trolley-bus lines, number of
trolley-buses and their utilisation
• Length of tramlines, number of tramcars
and their utilisation
• Passenger traffic: urban bus lines
Construction of by-passes to reduce transit traffic volumes in the city
No data
Construction of new roads and bridges
• Total length of streets, tunnels and embankments
– Of which hard surfaced
Construction of parking lots in the city centre
No data
Additional indicators available for analysed transportation issues
No data
309
Indicators of municipal institutions
(collected at least once every two years)
No data
No data
No data
Jurmala
• Monthly public transportation rider-ship
• Number of public transportation routes
• Length of public transportation routes
• Public transportation route timetables
• Public transportation tariffs
Rezekne
• Number of public transportation routes
(buses, taxis, route taxis):
– Number of route trips planned
– Number of route trips completed
– Rider-ship
– Number of kilometres driven
– Fees collected from passengers
• Funding by the municipality of public
transportation
• Number of route buses
• Cost of one trip with public transportation
• Number of routes
• Total length of routes in kilometres
Riga
• Public transportation rider-ship
Riga
• Road surface type register
• Road technical pass
Rezekne
• Road length, width and type of surface
Riga
• Road surface type register
• Road technical pass
Rezekne
• Area of the municipal land covered by
automobile parking facilities
Jelgava
• Implementation of the Traffic Strategy
(whether individual tasks are implemented/
not implemented)
310 K. ABOLINA AND A. ZILANS
TABLE II. (Continued)
Relevant indicators in regularly published Indicators of municipal institutions
bulletins (available for all analysed cities) (collected at least once every two years)
Riga
• Traffic flow measurements (prior to repairs and
other circumstances)
• Implementation of the Traffic Strategy (whether
individual tasks are implemented/not
implemented and why not)
Area of green space
• Urban land – total area, of which: Jurmala
– Greenery and woodland area • Area of forests
– Public gardens, parks and greenery • Area of forests rezoned
– Area cut and stock volume by cities Rezekne
and districts • Area of green space
Riga
• Transformed forest land
Area of family gardens
No data No data
Integration of green space structure through the creation of green corridors
No data No data
Enhancement of biological diversity
• Structure of current expenditures on Jelgava
environmental protection by cities and districts • Number of heritage trees
– Of which for land recultivation Jurmala
– Of which for forest regeneration • Forests
• Hazardous substances emitted into atmosphere – Volume cut in forests
from stationary sources on average per hectare (main harvest and thinning)
of urban land, by selected towns and cities – Reforested land
• Hazardous substances neutralised or emitted into – Supplementary planting
atmosphere from stationary air pollution sources – Area burned by forest fires
by cities and districts • Greenery
• Hazardous substances neutralised or emitted into – Number of cut trees (by species)
atmosphere from stationary air pollution sources Riga
by selected towns and cities • Area of protected territories
• Emissions from stationary air pollution sources by • Forests
cities and districts and by polluting substances – Volume cut in forests
• Emissions from boiler-houses into atmosphere (main harvest and thinning)
by cities and districts – Reforested land
• Air quality (data available for Riga) – Supplementary planting
• Ozone (data available for Riga) – Area burned by forest fires
• Precipitation acidity (data available for Riga) • Greenery
• Water discharge into surface waters – Volume cut from greenery
by cities and districts – Other data that is not regularly compiled
• Permanent water pollution by cities and districts
Additional indicators available for analysed green space issues
No data Jelgava
• Finances allocated to the up-keep of greenery
• Other data that is not regularly compiled
Jurmala
• Other data that is not regularly compiled
Rezekne
• Finances allocated to the up-keep of greenery
No data – data does not exist.
 EVALUATION OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY 311

parking space numbers impact on the intensity of urban automobile traffic and
influence public transportation rider-ship. Taken together, the available indicators
on transportation issues illuminate only separate aspects of urban mobility from
which it is difficult to get a clear insight regarding existing conditions, the main
problems and their evolution over time. It is not possible to learn from existing
policy mistakes.
With respect to urban green space, the available indicators do not reflect the most
visible problems associated with urban development, namely the reduction of the
area of green space, cutting down of individual trees and tree clusters, reduction in
biological diversity, as well as a qualitative change in the green structure, for exam-
ple, parks and squares are transformed to underground parking lots and replaced
with potted shrubs and flowers. Changes in the area of green space are in practice
difficult to assess because of the broad definition of green space and the small scale
at which zoning maps are prepared. For instance, in Riga, for the period 1998–1999,
a number of previously grassed areas and small squares have been transformed to
parking lots but the available data indicate an unchanging total area of green space.
The biological diversity is very pertinent to the assessment of sustainability
because it shows the impact of human economic activity on the natural environment
and thus is close to one of the roots of environmental problems. However, the avail-
able indicators show only pressure but do not reflect other causes for the reduction
of biological diversity, such as the reduction in the area of individual green areas
(an indicator showing the average size of green areas would reflect this) and the
cutting of individual trees. The condition or ‘state’ of green space is not reflected at
all by the available indicators. For example, in Riga, the number of trees cut down
annually is not tabulated. Even though tree-cutting projects are approved on the
basis of the specific number of trees to be removed, when cut, the number of cubic
metres of wood harvested is counted, not the number of trees.

7. Conclusions

An analysis of the Development Plans prepared by four of the largest cities of Latvia
indicates that sustainability is embodied as one of the guiding principles. However,
a review of development policies against specific urban sustainability issues in the
themes of transportation and green space reveals a great deal of ambiguity and con-
tradiction. Although most of the sustainability issues considered in this paper are
recognised as being important aspects of development in all of the cities studied,
rarely do the Development Plans define specific policies and measures in support
of the defined priorities. Even when particular aspects of development are recog-
nised by the Plans as being important for urban sustainability (e.g. preservation
of green space), not infrequently implementation of the Development Plan nev-
ertheless is expected to diminish this aspect and, consequently, impact negatively
on overall urban sustainability. On the other hand, aspects of urban development
312 K. ABOLINA AND A. ZILANS

that are typically considered as ‘non-sustainable’ (e.g. construction of new auto-

mobile infrastructure – roads, parking facilities) are addressed in the Development
Plans of most of the cities studied in terms of clearly defined measures. Ultimately,
it is these measures that will be preferentially implemented resulting in the city
development that is less sustainable. Only if sustainability issues are formulated
as clearly defined policy measures with precise implementation schedules can the
process of enlivening urban sustainability start in earnest.
Based on the review of published statistical bulletins and consultations with rel-
evant municipal departments, available development indicators in the transporta-
tion and green space sectors are not adequate to monitor the sustainability of urban
development, as they do not illustrate changes over time of vital aspects of the urban
system. On the basis of the undertaken analysis, it can be concluded that decision-
makers, planners and the broad public have few and inadequate indicators with
which to gauge the sustainability of urban development. As a consequence, urban
planners and the broad public are unable to quantitatively assess for themselves
the process of urban development in their city in relation to existing Development
Plan policies, thus diminishing the importance of the Development Plans and other
planning processes.
In effect, the current situation in Latvia does not encourage decision-makers to be
consequent in their decision-making against the backdrop of Development Plan and
sustainability policies. The shortage of indicators that are relevant to the existing
planning context detracts from meaningful discussion on urban development issues
of real importance and in the long term, opportunities to create a more sustainable
city are hindered. As decision-makers, urban planners and the broad public in Latvia
have limited exposure to urban sustainability issues through the mass media, it is
even more critical that relevant indicators, that shed light on the trends in urban
development and the impacts of development over time, are regularly compiled
and made public. Urban sustainability indicators can be an effective management
tool to promote accountability in decision-making and sustainable development in
Latvia.

References

Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia: 2000a, Latvia’s Regions in Figures. Statistical Bulletin, Riga, Latvia.
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia: 2000b, Environmental Indicators in Latvia 1999. Statistical Bulletin,
Riga, Latvia.
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia: 2000c, Macroeconomic Portrait of Latvia’s Regions. Statistical Bulletin,
Riga, Latvia.
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia: 2000d, Statistical Yearbook of Latvia 2000, Riga, Latvia.
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia: 2000e, Riga in Figures 1999. Statistical Bulletin, Riga, Latvia.
Delft van, Y.: 1998, ‘An introduction to indicators and monitoring’, in Advanced Study Course on Indicators
for Sustainable Urban Development. Proceedings of the Advanced Study Course, 5–12th July 1997, Delft,
The Netherlands, International Institute for the Urban Environment, pp. 74–78.
Holmberg, J. and Karlsson, S.: 1995, ‘On designing socio-ecological indicators’, in J. Holmberg (ed.),
Socio-Ecological Principles and Indicators for Sustainability, Institute of Physical Resource Theory,
Goteborg.
 EVALUATION OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY 313

HABITAT: 1996, An Urbanizing World: Global Report on Human Settlements, 1996, Oxford University
Press.
HELCOM PITF: 1999, Transport Sector Investment Decision-Making in the Baltic Sea Region, Research and
Development Project # 298 25 161, The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York.
Jelgava City Council: 1999, Jelgava Land Use Plan, Jelgava City Council, Jelgava, Latvia (in Latvian).
Jurmala City Council: 1995, Development Plan of Jurmala, Jurmala City Council, Jurmala, Latvia
(in Latvian).
Law on Territory Development Planning: 1998, Latvijas Vestnesis 30.10.98, Nr.322/325 (in Latvian).
Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia and Environmental
Consulting and Monitoring Centre: 2000, Latvian State of the Environment Report ’98, Gandrs Ltd.,
Latvia.
Rezekne City Council: 1997, Development Plan of Rezekne, Rezekne City Council, Rezekne (in Latvian).
Riga City Council: 1995, City of Riga Official Plan (1995–2005), vol. I, Jana seta, Riga (in Latvian).
Schleicher-Tappeser, R. and Strati, F.: 1999, ‘Sustainability – a new paradigm for research?’, in M. Catizzone
(ed.), From Ecosystem Research to Sustainable Development: Towards a New Paradigm for Ecosystem
Research, Ecosystem Research Report No 26; European Commission, Directorate-General Science,
Research and Development, Brussels, pp. 45–58.
White, R.R.: 1994, Urban Environmental Management: Environmental Change and Urban Design, John
Wiley & Sons Ltd., England.
Whitelegg, J.: 1993, Transport for a Sustainable Future: The Case Study for Europe, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd., England.
World Conservation Union, UN Environment Programme, World Wide Fund for Nature: 1991, Caring for
the Earth. IUCP/UNEP/WWF, Gland.

Discussions were held with the following individuals

• Land Use Development Planning Centre Director Aigars Kuskis

• Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development, Construction
Department, Head of Urban Section Lolita Cace
• Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development, Regional
Development Department, Head of Archives Mara Selecka
• Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, Statistics Methodology and Organisation
Section Assistant Head Janis Linde
• City of Jelgava Landscape Architect Andrejs Lomakins
• City of Jelgava Environmental Protection Service, Head, Anita Stabulniece
• City of Jelgava Economic Development Section, Transportation Specialist
Ms. Ermane
• City of Jelgava Press Secretary Iveta Surma
• City of Jelgava Architect Inita Dzalbe
• City of Jurmala Head Planner Mara Kalvane
• City of Jurmala Environmental Protection Section Head Rita Knutina
• City of Jurmala Transportation Section Head Maris Demme
• City of Rezekne Landuse Planning Head Specialist Ilvija Pastare
• City of Rezekne Works Board Head Voldemars Platacis
• City of Rezekne Gardener Diana Antonova
• City of Rezekne Ecologist Ilona Stankevica
• City of Rezekne Economic Section Head Lidija Stripkane
314 K. ABOLINA AND A. ZILANS

• City of Riga Transportation Department Assistant Head Olita Sproge

• City of Riga Environment Department Nature Protection Section Head Arta
Dubava
• City of Riga City Planning Section former Head Andris Roze
• City of Riga City Planning Section Technician Inguss Vircavs
• City of Riga City Planning Section Planner Sandra Treija.