## 2 Policy Goals of Urban Transition in the Oresund Region  
### National Policy Goals and Challenges Related to the Agenda  
Justification of large investments in urban transition takes its point of departure in the pertinent questions \"transition to what\" and \"why\" as explored by [PERSON] _et al._[8], who identified different visions of transition to a (1) Smart-Networked City; (2) Self-Reliant City; (3) Compact City; or a (4) Green City. Although the emphasis among these visions differs, they all fit into the broader, but ambiguous goal of sustainability. The key policy documents in Sweden [9] and Denmark [10] set similar composite goals (The national security aspect of energy supply is not discussed here). In Sweden, the national goal for CO\({}_{2}\) emissions is for a 40% reduction from 1990's value by 2020 and for energy reductions of 20% from 1995's value by 2020 and by 50% by 2050 in the building stock. Several goals are in addition set for human wellbeing in the built environment but none as concise and measurable as the two above. Agendas at different policy levels may or may not have overlapping objectives. For example, increasing the energy efficiency in buildings can be a means to achieving the fundamental goal of a European low-carbon economy [11, 12]. However, if the fundamental goal underpinning urban transition is to lower CO\({}_{2}\) emissions the measure of cost-efficiency would in this case be wholly tied to the expected emission reduction of the investment, which may or may not be significantly correlated with energy consumption in buildings. The national building and construction regulations [13, 14] serve as a key policy instrument. Both the Danish and Swedish standards have been revised significantly for new constructions (for Sweden20 times in 20 years) in tune with more ambitious policies on energy and resource conservation. For the existing building stock, no binding requirements are issued to initiate renovations, although recommendations are provided through various authority outlets. When buildings are renovated, Danish building regulations [14] set minimum energy standards for the concerned new building components (such as new windows) and for building parts (e.g., roof and attic), in the latter case dependent on a calculated positive economic return on added investments through energy savings. Despite similarities in how the Danish and Swedish policies target both reductions in CO\({}_{2}\) emissions and energy consumption, they have different points of departure, since the composition of energy sources differ (water, wind, gas, oil, nuclear power, _etc._) across the Oresund, Table 1. In comparison, the dependency on fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) is higher in Denmark (78%) than in Sweden (31%) measured in relation to total energy supply for all sectors in 2010. Sweden's energy supply benefits from a relatively high share of electricity production (27%) stemming from nuclear and hydro power, which is virtually CO\({}_{2}\) free (97%). Interestingly, the contribution of CO\({}_{2}\) attributable to the Swedish building stock amounts to only about \(\approx\)10% of national emissions but about 30% of national energy consumption [16, 17, 18]. This suggests a weak correlation between CO\({}_{2}\) emissions and energy consumption in the building stock of about 0.1. The CO\({}_{2}\) emissions from the building stock is further distributed per energy carriers as roughly 50% from district heating, 30% from and fossil fuels about 20% from electricity [16]. The Danish building stock (Heating, ventilation, electricity) accounts for between 30%-40% of the national energy consumption [19], Table 2. Of total energy consumption in 2012 households consumed in total 30.5%, hereof in detached houses 22.4% and households in apartment blocks 8.1%. Estimates of CO\({}_{2}\) emission stemming from consumptions in households (19.1%) were provided (ibid. p. 39), but no further breakdown showed what share thereof was attributed to CO\({}_{2}\) emissions from the building stock.