Next Article in Journal
Sustainability Reporting: An Approach to Get the Right Mix of Theory and Practicality for Local Actors
Previous Article in Journal
Correction: Kanie, N., et al. Integration and Diffusion in Sustainable Development Goals: Learning from the Past, Looking into the Future. Sustainability 2014, 6, 1761–1775
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sustainability 2014, 6(6), 3124-3144; doi:10.3390/su6063124

Understanding the Geographies of Transport and Cultural Heritage: Comparing Two Urban Development Programs in Oslo

2,†,* , 2,†
Institute of Transport Economics, Gaustadalléen 21, 0349 Oslo, Norway
Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, Storgata 2, 0105 Oslo, Norway
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 18 March 2014 / Revised: 14 May 2014 / Accepted: 15 May 2014 / Published: 26 May 2014
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [927 KB, uploaded 24 February 2015]   |  


This paper elaborates on how policies and strategies for sustainable urban development can be understood and shows how development programs can be strategically important and flexible tools in the creation of the modern city. We examine two typical contemporary cases for urban development, inner city/waterfront and modernistic suburbs, using the two areas of transport and cultural heritage as prisms to explore divergences or convergences between the two programs, and ask: How come two urban development programs within the same city turn out so differently? By comparing these programs, urban development trends relating to entrepreneurialism are highlighted. There are clear differences between the two programs under study, and the paper tries to grasp their internal logic in order to shed light on their strengths and weaknesses. While the city center program has much to do with realizing the commercial potential of the area and strengthening sustainable transport through large-scale changes in infrastructure, such means seem to be outside the scope of the suburban program. Meanwhile, cultural heritage is interwoven with entrepreneurial projection-strategies in the city center, whereas heritage sites and projects are used more as a means for social cohesion in the suburb. The paper concludes that the programs vary in the two policy fields in accordance with the institutionalized and anticipated potential of the urban areas in question. View Full-Text
Keywords: sustainable transport; cultural heritage; urban development program; entrepreneurialism sustainable transport; cultural heritage; urban development program; entrepreneurialism

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 3.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Tønnesen, A.; Larsen, K.; Skrede, J.; Nenseth, V. Understanding the Geographies of Transport and Cultural Heritage: Comparing Two Urban Development Programs in Oslo. Sustainability 2014, 6, 3124-3144.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top