evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Hammarby Sjöstad — Stockholm's Closed-Loop Brownfield District, With Self-Reported Savings and a Rebound Caveat

Sweden · Stockholm · See the Sweden profile · See the Stockholm profile

Top 63% 62/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Stockholm redeveloped a former industrial harbour into a district of ~25,000 residents around an integrated energy–water–waste 'eco-cycle' targeting half the impact of 1990s districts; reviews report sizeable savings but against non-matched baselines.

Hammarby Sjöstad — Stockholm's Closed-Loop Brownfield District, With Self-Reported Savings and a Rebound Caveat

Details

Promoter
City of Stockholm (Hammarby Sjöstad project, with Fortum, Stockholm Water and the waste utility)
Period
1990s–present
Keywords
urban regeneration, circular infrastructure, district energy, waste

Description

Hammarby Sjöstad is a former industrial and harbour area of Stockholm redeveloped from the 1990s with an explicit design target: half the environmental impact of comparable districts built in the early 1990s. The city, the energy company, the water utility and the waste utility jointly designed the 'Hammarby Model', in which waste heat from treated wastewater, energy from combustible waste and biogas from sludge feed back into district heating, cooling and cooking, and an automated vacuum system collects waste.
Reported results: a literature review summarises reductions of roughly 28–42% in fossil fuel use, 41–46% in water use and about 90% less waste going to landfill; a commissioned study (Grontmij, 2008) found building-related greenhouse-gas emissions about 40–46% below the 1990 baseline and transport-related emissions about 48% lower. Vendor material (Envac) reports about 60% fewer waste-collection vehicle movements.
Caveats: comparisons are against 1990s districts or national new-build averages, not a matched control; the district still depends heavily on burning waste and imported energy; researchers note rebound effects as cost savings let households consume more; and the model covers local material and energy flows, not household consumption emissions, which remain a large gap. Treat the percentages as indicative rather than audited.

Read the full analysis: https://smartcitysweden.com/best-practice/60/the-hammarby-sjostad-ecocycle/

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful