Sustainability in Small States: Luxembourg as a Post-suburban Space Under Growth Pressure in Need of a Cross-National Sustainability

  • Constance Carr


A vast literature on urban sustainable development and sustainability recounts local place-based actions as best practices, and not seldom rests on examples in Europe. Not seldom, however, these recipe-oriented instructions overlook specific sociopolitical and economic conditions that would hinder policy transfer of sustainability initiatives. Also, while the maxim small is beautiful is repeated, rarely are the network of spaces and flows that constitute those small places considered. Small states exemplify this situation and contradiction. This chapter presents the case of post-suburban Luxembourg—a small sovereign state—that under growth pressure has developed an urban morphology that is profoundly dependent on international, cross-borders flows. It is a place where policy-makers need to rethink the orthodoxies of sustainability and find new ways to address these challenges.


Small states Post-suburban Cross-border sustainability Luxembourg 

Further Reading

  1. Affolderbach, J. 2013. Negotiating Border Regions. Retail Development in Luxembourg and the Greater Region. In Theorizing Borders, ed. P. Gilles, H. Koff, C. Maganda, and C. Schulz. Brussels: P. I. E. Lang.Google Scholar
  2. Affolderbach, J., and C. Carr. 2016. Blending Scales of Governance: Land-Use Policies and Practices in the Small State of Luxembourg. Regional Studies 50 (6): 944–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, T.J., and C. Minca. 2013. Nazi Spatial Theory: The Dark Geographies of Carl Schmitt and Walter Christaller. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (3): 669–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, T., and M. Hesse. 2010. Internationalisierung und Steuerung internationaler Wohnungsmärkte–das Beispiel Luxemburg. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 5 (6): 403–415.Google Scholar
  5. Born, B., and M. Purcell. 2006. Avoiding the Local Trap, Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 (2): 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burdack, J., and M. Hesse. 2007. Suburbanisation, Suburbia and “Zwischenstadt”: Perspectives of Research and Policy. In Territorial Cohesion, ed. D. Scholich, 81–100. Berlin: German Annual of Spatial Research and Policy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carr, C. 2013. Discourse Yes, Implementation Maybe: An Immobility and Paralysis of Sustainable Development Policy. European Planning Studies 22 (9): 1824–1840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, C., and J. Affolderbach. 2014. Rescaling Sustainability? Local Opportunities and Scalar Contradictions. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 19 (6): 567–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, C., and E. McDonough. 2016. Integrative Planning of Post-Suburban Growth in the Glatt Valley (Switzerland). Raumforschung und Raumordnung. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carr, C., T. Becker, E. Evrard, B. Nienaber, U. Roos, E. McDonough, M. Hesse, and R. Krueger. 2015. Raising Sustainability/Mobilising Sustainability: Why European Sustainable Urban Development Initiatives Are Slow to Materialise/Territorial Cohesion as a Vehicle of Sustainability/Sustainable Urban Development and the Challenge of Global Air Transport Nodes and Spatial Integration/Distorted Density: Where Developers and Non-Governmental Organizations on Sustainable Urban Development Agree/Overcoming Politics with Markets? The Co-production of Sustainable Development in Urban and Regional Planning. Planning Theory & Practice 16 (1): 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charmes, E., and R. Keil. 2015. The Politics of Post-Suburban Densification in Canada and France. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39 (3): 581–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doerr, J., and C. Carr. 2014. Dreizig Jahre Transformation und trotzdem noch ganz am Anfang? Der Wandel in Beckerich von der Agenda 21 zur Transition Town. Planung Neu Denken 3: 1–7.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. 2011. Demography Report 2010. Luxembourg: Eurostat.Google Scholar
  14. Frey, W. 2011. Freiburg Green City: Approaches to Sustainable Urban Development. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
  15. Hesse, M. 2016. On Borrowed Size, Flawed Urbanisation and Emerging Enclave Spaces: The Exceptional Urbanism of Luxembourg. Luxembourg European Urban and Regional Studies 23 (4): 541–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keil, R., and J.D. Addie. 2015. It’s Not Going to Be Suburban, It’s Going to Be All Urban: Assembling Post-suburbia in the Toronto and Chicago Regions. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39 (5): 892–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knox, P.L., and H. Mayer. 2009. Small Town Sustainability: Economic, Social, and Environmental Innovation. Basel: Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krueger, R., and D. Gibbs, eds. 2007. The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. McCann, E., and K. Ward. 2010. Relationality/Territoriality: Toward a Conception of Cities in the World. Geoforum 41: 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McLean, B.L., and T. Borén. 2015. Barriers to Implementing Sustainability Locally: A Case Study of Policy Immobilities. Local Environment 20 (12): 1489–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newman, P. 2014. Rediscovering Compact Cities for Sustainable Development. In Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities: Strategies, Methods and Outlook, ed. D.A. Mazmann and H. Blanco. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Niedermeyer, M., and P. Moll. 2007. SaarLorLux – Vom Montandreieck Zur “Großregion”. In 50 Jahre Saarland Im Wandel, ed. H.P.P. Dörrenbächer, O. Kühne, and J.M.M. Wagner, 297–321. Saarbrücken: IfLiS.Google Scholar
  23. Peck, J., and N. Theodore. 2001. Exporting Workfare/Importing Welfare-to-Work: Exploring the Politics of Third Way Policy Transfer. Political Geography 20 (4): 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Phelps, N.A., and A.M. Wood. 2011. The New Post-Suburban Politics? Urban Studies 48 (12): 2591–2610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rowe, P.G. 1991. Making a Middle Landscape. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rydin, Y. 2010. Governing for Sustainable Urban Development. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  27. Sieverts, T. 2003. Cities Without Cities: An Interpretation of the Zwischenstadt. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Temenos, C., and E. McCann. 2012. The Local Politics of Policy Mobility: Learning, Persuasion, and the Production of a Municipal Sustainability Fix. Environment and Planning A 44 (6): 1389–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vidal, M., and M. Niedermeyer. 2011. Le Développement Territorial et sa Dimension Transfrontalière: Expériences Du Luxembourg et de la Grande Région. In Raumordnung in Luxemburg / Aménagement Du Territoire Au Luxembourg, ed. T. Chilla and C. Schulz, 296–316. Luxembourg: Binsfeld.Google Scholar
  30. Wachsmuth, D. 2014. City as Ideology: Reconciling the Explosion of the City Form with the Tenacity of the City Concept. Environment and Planning D 32 (1): 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wachsmuth, D., D.A. Cohen, and H. Angelo. 2016. Expand the Frontiers of Urban Sustainability. Nature 536: 391–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wheeler, S.M., and T. Beatley. 2008. Sustainable Urban Development Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constance Carr
    • 1
  1. 1.Geography and Spatial PlanningUniversity of LuxembourgEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations