by Norbert Gestring, Hans-Norbert Mayer, Walter Siebel

The ecological reorganisation of cities and society involves more than just the introduction of a different technology, it also involves the need for a different way of life. Using the example of the different strategies of ecological living, it is shown that ecologically based behavioural requirements can come into conflict with central political values, promises of urban emancipation and the dominant mission statement of housing. The article is based on a recently completed research project funded by the VW Foundation.

The modern urban way of life, as it has typically developed in Western Europe and North America, is a triumph over man's dependence on nature. Ways of life appear all the more urban the less they are dictated by the rhythms of nature and the less they are dependent on natural physical conditions. But the domination of nature and the urban way of life as an expression of independence from nature produce consequences that call into question the continued existence of humanity itself. This way of life, it seems, is destroying its own foundations. Nature, on which the city is built as the most artificial of all worlds, can no longer withstand it.

At present, 20 per cent of the world's population consumes almost four-fifths of the world's income. If all 5.6 and soon 10 billion people were to live like this narrow upper class, the earth would not be able to cope. If it is true that three planets of the Earth type would be necessary as sources of resources and landfills (Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker) in order to allow all people on this planet to live according to Western European and North American patterns, then this way of life is the main problem. It cannot be universalised. As a result, it also loses its humane, emancipatory content and turns out to be a privilege based on domination.

If we do not want to maintain the extreme inequality that prevails in the world today by force, there is only one way out of the ecological problem: a change in the lifestyle of the western, urbanised consumer household towards an image of the right life that is acceptable and practicable for everyone. Only this would be a sustainable way of life.

What must this way of life be like, and is there a must dictated by nature that can be discovered by the natural sciences, such as biology? The most common justification for the necessity of an ecological policy is the reference to the threat of catastrophe. But the ecological catastrophe only threatens a nature that admits human life, not nature itself. Nature will continue to exist, only in a form in which human life would no longer be possible. And nature - if it existed as a subject - would probably not care whether humans exist on earth or not. The interest in the diversity of nature is also an anthropocentric one, since humans develop their own wealth at the same time as nature, since this wealth is itself the man-made wealth of nature, because diversity is an insurance policy against disasters and because a diverse nature is more responsive and flexible, i.e. can cope with more people. In short, it is not about the preservation of nature per se, but about a historically determined nature, the nature in which human life is possible. The ecological question is the thoroughly anthropocentric question of preserving a natural environment that is compatible with humanity. There is no such natural order from which unquestionable maxims of right action can be derived - unquestionable because it can be justified beyond human subjectivity and beyond interests.

Although the portent of ecological catastrophe has set negative limits to the further development of this culture, it does not provide any positive indications as to which other culture humanity should survive in with dignity. The answer to the question of ecological survival can at best be given by natural science in the negative: at least not in this way. But how to proceed remains a question of the image of the right life, of political and social values, i.e. of culture. This is the first reason why the question of the future image of ecologically responsible living cannot be answered by natural science alone.

The second reason is that there is no human environment that is not a human-designed environment. Man as a deficient being must work on nature. An environment in which man can survive is always cultivated nature. As such, it has an effect on man, and as such it requires continuous human labour in order to preserve its condition as a human-friendly nature. This has far-reaching consequences. Decisions are never made solely about an environment worth living in, but always also about the people who can and want to live in this environment - and whom this environment requires in order to cultivate it. With every decision about an environment worth living in, a decision is also made about a way of living and working. For example, once certain quantities of radioactive waste have been released into the world, future generations will be forced to adopt at least some of our physical and technical knowledge and live accordingly for thousands of years.

In the ecological system of relationships between humans and the environment, both poles are the product of human history and are therefore variable in principle. The possibilities this opens up can only be judged according to standards that are orientated towards an image of the desired and not an image of natural life. Whether more butterflies, domestic cats or songbirds should live in our cities, and whether people should live as farmers, nuclear engineers or critics, no natural science can take this decision away from politics and thus from the debate about the image of the right life. The only thing that is clear is that it will be a different picture, i.e. the requirements of a sustainable way of life may come into conflict with the positive values of our current way of life.

Many people are aware that private households must also contribute to an ecological conversion and that changes are also required in everyday living. The ecological awareness of the problem is high, but the everyday practice of living falls far short of this. The reasons for this gap between insight and action lie - in addition to unfavourable framework conditions - in the fact that ecologically based behavioural requirements can come into conflict with central political values (social justice, women's emancipation), with urban emancipation hopes (individual autonomy, relief from work) and with the image of proper living (detached house on the outskirts of town). This thesis is explained using three approaches to ecological living: the urban planning approach is aimed at a different settlement structure, the social approach at a change in lifestyle and the technical approach at a different urban and building technology.

The urban planning approach focuses on the settlement structure and thus on the issues of location and land consumption. Suburbanisation is at the centre of the criticism. Living in the countryside is therefore not ecological living, not only because the detached house is a land guzzler and an energy guzzler, but also because of the traffic that the resulting settlement structures generate. The urban planning approach emphasises the ecological rationality of the compact city with high building density and mixed use. The implementation of the urban planning strategy is hardly conceivable without considerable political resistance, as it not only conflicts with tangible economic interests, but would also come into conflict with subjective value orientations.

One factor in land consumption is the growing individual consumption of living space. The increase to an average of almost 40 m² per capita in the old Federal Republic has two main causes. The first is the trend towards individualisation, which is reflected, among other things, in the trend towards ever smaller households. The second is related to the specific way in which needs are satisfied in our society, namely through the individual purchase and private consumption of goods and services. Both social developments, the individualisation of lifestyles and the privatisation of the satisfaction of needs, stand in the way of the ecologically sensible promotion of residential and house communities and the space-saving organisation of residential functions in communal facilities. But the urban planning approach is not only fighting against hedonistic consumerism and metropolitan isolation. It runs the risk of coming into conflict with the emancipatory hopes of individuals for autonomy and self-development, which underpin the trends towards individualisation and privatisation.

The extent to which the increasing consumption of living space is reflected in the consumption of landscape and open spaces is determined by the building density. As the most popular form of housing in Germany, the single-family house, especially the detached single-family house, has driven suburbanisation. A restrictive land use policy that would only allow high-density forms of housing construction would meet with resistance from those social groups who want to realise the dream of a single-family home. Under the current living conditions in cities, this dream has obvious reasons for families with small children. But an ecological urban policy would not only go against these highly plausible housing desires in a particular life situation, but also against the fantasies of independence, appropriation and identification that many people associate with home ownership.

A further difficulty in realising the urban planning approach lies in the housing market. The social conflicts in the cities resulting from immigration, competing uses and unequal distribution have so far been defused politically, not least by the growth of the cities into the countryside. This applies to the migration of the middle classes to the suburbs as well as social housing on the outskirts of the city. An ecological strategy that would restrict the volume of new construction in order to limit land consumption would have negative distributional effects in three respects under the current conditions. Firstly, it would reject the legitimate claim of the lower income groups to improve their housing situation and permanently cement their inadequate supply of housing. Secondly, in view of further immigration, the supply of housing in the narrowest market segment, that of low-cost rental flats, would have to deteriorate in absolute terms. And thirdly, the demand from high-income households with purchasing power for more living space would be concentrated in the existing housing stock, which would exacerbate the social displacement effects in certain neighbourhoods. A consistent land use policy would therefore primarily affect the weakest members of society. However, it cannot be the purpose of ecological urban redevelopment to solve environmental problems at the expense of social justice.

The social strategy relies entirely on changes in the behaviour of residents. According to this definition of the problem, ecological living can by no means be reduced to the installation of technology, but requires a reorientation of the entire way of life, both inside and outside the home. The engine of renewal would therefore be a change in social values in which ecology plays a key role.

The social approach emphasises the positive aspects, the benefits of ecological living, whereby the widespread need for a toxin-free home and a living environment that is safe for children and close to nature can be taken up. From this perspective, the benefits of an ecological lifestyle include not only experiences of nature and health, but also social contact, personal responsibility and creative leisure activities - in short, ecological living can become a building block for self-realisation.

The strength of the social approach, namely the realisation that ecological living is essentially a question of lifestyle, is at the same time the Achilles heel of this strategy. What some may see as a building block for self-realisation may be perceived by others as an additional burden, an onerous obligation or even an encroachment on individual autonomy in the private sphere. Handling a waste separation system, maintaining a communal plant purification system, avoiding chemicals in the household and garden all require extra work, knowledge and self-discipline. However, these behavioural requirements of ecological living can conflict with women's interests in being freed from seminar paper in favour of academic appointments and self-determined activities in their free time. In view of the usual division of labour in the household, it is not unlikely that the ecologically justified extra work in the home will be imposed on the woman. On the other hand, these behavioural demands can come into conflict with the central promises of urbanisation to reduce the burden of work and obligations. The rubbish chute, electricity from the socket, hot running water, the nursing home and the answering machine - this technical and social apparatus of the city is also associated with the old emancipatory hope of a realm of freedom beyond the realm of necessity. The careful sorting of different types of waste, the maintenance of tenants' gardens, participation in self-administration, planning participation and self-help in modernisation are certainly all steps towards making one's city one's own and thus one's home. But there is also the opposite image, the city as a guarantor of anonymity, as a machine for relieving work and responsibility, as a place where one can live independence from nature, neighbours and relatives. And measured against this liberating content of urbanity, democratisation, appropriation and ecology can be perceived as an imposition.

The technical approach attempts to achieve ecological renewal primarily through the technical optimisation of housing construction. Advanced urban and building technology is intended to noticeably reduce the wasteful use of resources and the impact on nature without residents having to change their behaviour or even accept any loss of comfort. The technically orientated strategy concentrates on those ecological fields of action that can be influenced by upgrading and retrofitting buildings. Energy saving measures therefore take centre stage. The focus here is not on insight and voluntary behavioural change, as the aim is precisely to avoid behavioural demands on residents. This is done either by restricting the measures to less behaviourally relevant technologies and measures (installation of thermal insulation, use of solar energy, effective heating systems, etc.) or with 'intelligent' solutions that function independently of behavioural changes (e.g. automatic ventilation). Such an approach also appears more pragmatic because it is easier to control politically. This is because the use of certain building materials and standardised technologies can be directly influenced by the classic control media of politics, i.e. by law and money.

The technical approach is associated with hopes of rapid and effective environmental relief, which is comparatively easy to implement politically and at the same time achievable without a change in behaviour. However, these hopes are not very realistic. Firstly, because the necessary technical conversion and equipping of houses is expensive. However, if society's financial resources are to be redirected in the direction of ecology, there must already be a widespread ecological awareness among the population of the need for such measures, otherwise such a policy will not gain majority support. Secondly, the attempt to limit oneself to behaviour-neutral technologies is either illusory or leads to a limitation of the ecological effects. As a consequence, the technical approach also changes everyday living, for example through regulation. The more perfect the technical solutions, the more restrictive the requirements for the way we live become. Although behavioural changes are not propagated, they are de facto enforced by restricting alternative actions - for example in zoned floor plans or automatic ventilation systems.

In addition, the ecological effect of the use of technology stands and falls with the complementary behaviour of the residents. It proves to be an illusion to want to design building technology independently of the ability and willingness of the residents to co-operate. Environmentally conscious behaviour can not only increase the efficiency of ecological technology but, conversely, wrong behaviour can also destroy its success. This applies to the conservatory, which is used as a living space and is also heated, as well as to the well-insulated house, which is permanently ventilated during the heating period via a bottom-hung window. The technical approach thus encounters similar, albeit less obvious, contradictions to the social approach.

Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that the environmentally friendly and energy-saving equipment of a building has a relieving function and can lead to unrestrained consumption behaviour. One of the most serious objections to the technical approach is therefore that ecological technologies as they are used in today's eco-houses and estates, namely as additional installations to the usual standard of living, perhaps have a similar effect to the catalytic converter in a car: as the sole maxim for action, they ultimately obstruct the path to more fundamental solutions to environmental problems because they stabilise a wrong way of living and settling.

There is no doubt that a combination of the urban planning, social and technical approach would be best. A change in lifestyle, optimised building technology and a denser settlement structure are the central, indispensable elements of ecological urban redevelopment. However, if one realises the various levels of conflict associated with the three strategies, it will come as no surprise if more questions remain unanswered than answers can be given. In view of the urgency of the problem, it is not possible to wait for a silver bullet; all conceivable solutions must be tried.

In addition to other legal and financial orientation data, ecological restructuring requires the organisation of learning processes. Learning to change behaviour is innovative learning. Innovative learning takes place through concrete experience, through use, through processing and in social interaction. It requires responsibility, i.e. room for manoeuvre and therefore also the opportunity to make mistakes. The processes of planning, building and use must be organised in such a way that they open up opportunities for the development of such learning environments; the municipal level in particular offers the possibility of establishing the necessary direct on-site relationships.

The authors
The authors are members of the urban research working group currently focussing on: Service society, housing sociology, urban ecology, social structure of cities, planning theory : Dr Norbert Gestring (38), studied social sciences in Göttingen and Bremen. From 1989 to 1992 he was a research assistant at the University of Bremen. Since then he has been a research assistant and lecturer at the Institute of Sociology at the University of Oldenburg. Prof Dr Walter Siebel (57), has been Professor of Sociology at the University of Oldenburg since 1975 and was Scientific Director of the International Building Exhibition Emscher-Park from 1989 to 1995. Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Norbert Mayer (38), studied spatial planning in Erlangen and Oldenburg. From 1985 to 1992 he worked as a freelancer in urban and regional planning, and since 1992 he has been a research assistant at the Institute of Sociology at the University of Oldenburg.