comparing the socio-economic impacts of spatial planning options with their potential for...

Comparing the socio‐economic impacts of spatial planning options with their potential for decentralised

green technologies

Tony HargreavesVicky Cheng, Marcial Echenique

& Vassilis Zachariadis

email: [email protected]

The future of national infrastructure systems & economic prosperity

Regional Visions of Integrated Sustainable Infrastructure Optimised for Neighbourhoods

Heat

Demands

Power

Clean water

Grey water

Waste

Overall Integrated Modelling Framework

Spatial Planning Policy option(Trend, Compact, Market‐led)

Socio‐economic

location choice module

Exports, demographics, public sector, investment

Regional characteristics(climate, soil

topography etc)

Technology selection module

Technology scenario

Supply characteristics (costs & emissions)

Spatial demands per activity

Water services

Waste services

Energy conversion

Supply


Travel

Floor spaceBuildings

Transport system


LUISA: Spatial Model

Vassilis Zachariadis

Final demandInactive people

Land & other policies

Location of activities/Land use

Flows/transport use

Changes in prices due to land use and travel constraints

LAND

‐ Supply of land

demand for land

LAND

‐ Supply of land

demand for land

‐ Exports ‐ Government spending

‐ Investment

INDUSTRY

demand for labour

LABOUR

households

‐ Inactive persons

HOUSEHOLD

spatial assignment of

labour

spatial assignment of production

endogenous demand

(intermediate)

Flows of freight and passengers

Flows of commuters

Flows of goods and passengers

Dutch concentrated dispersal

Wider South East

green belt constraint

Flemish region dispersal

SUSTAINABILITY OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORT IN OUTER NEIGHBOURHOODS


22 | 11 | 2012

rail

motorways

Green Belt

Outstanding Beauty

rail

motorways

Green Belt

Outstanding Beauty

0-2

2-4

4-6

6-8

8-10

10-15

-2-0

0-2

2-5

5-10

10-20

20-30

30-50

50-75

Domestic land change 2001‐31Trend


Domestic land added Annual rent change

land in km2

London 62

EE 240

SE 275

WSE 585

annual rent change in £

London 24.6

EE 6.5

SE 8.3

WSE 9.5

22 | 11 | 2012

Model outputs: forecast


22 | 11 | 2012


Assessment: Economic

‐5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Trend Market Led Compaction

Compensating Variation | Wider South East (cost in 2001 £bn/yr)

Exports (Wholesale)

Exports (Services)

Exports (Retail)

Exports (Real Estate)

Exports (Manufacturing)

Exports (Public Sector)

Exports (Agriculture)

Persons (Unemployed)

Persons (Retired)

Persons (Inactive)

Calculation by Vassilis Zachariadis & Marcial Echenique

Linking Regional Planning to Neighbourhood DesignHigh level Planning:• Growths (population, economic, etc.)• Spatial development pattern• Land Use and Transport• Employment and Households

Local Decisions:• Urban Form• Infrastructural Design(energy, water, waste, etc.)


9

Density of plots (dwelling per hectare)

1200

Detached House

Tower Block

220 390 4601173020

Semi‐detached House

Terrace House

Courtyard Flat

Slab Block

Generic Tiles, (each tile is 1 hectare)

50

Slide provided by Dr. Vicky Cheng


Integration of Infrastructural Design at Local Scale

Energy Water Waste

Local Impacts:• Economy• Environment• Health


Slide provided by Dr. Vicky Cheng

Energy supply data provided by Dr. Sandip Deshmukh

Low cost retrofit

Low CO2 retrofit

Low cost retrofit & supply

Low CO2 retrofit & supply

No retrofit or supply tech


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Central Urban Suburban Rural Total

CO2 em

ission

s (m

illion tonn

es per ann

um)

No retrofit or supply technology

Trend

Market

Compact

0

5

10

15

Central Urban Suburban Rural Total

Low CO2 retrofit & supply technology

Total CO2 emissions (million.tonnes per annum)

Spatial options make relatively little difference:‐ New dwellings more energy efficient and marginal change over 30 years is smallDecentralised supply and retrofitting of existing buildings has much bigger impact especially in suburban & rural areas


b

c

d


a

a. Low cost retrofit has a positive rate of return on investment;b. The cost of ‘Low CO2 retrofit’ options is of a similar magnitude to the value of the CO2 savingsc & d. Options that also included decentralised supply technologies were not cost effective,unless the technologies become more efficient

‐5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Trend Market Led Compaction

Compensating Variation (£bn/yr)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Trend Compaction Market

No retrofit or decentralised supply(£bn/yr)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Trend Compaction Market

Cost impact of retrofit & technology

Energy supply costs WSE (£bn/yr)

Centralised supply

Decentralised

ConclusionsDeveloped an integrated modelling framework and tested the socio‐

economic and environmental impacts of spatial planning policies in combination with decentralised infrastructure technologies.

Extended the model using ‘tiles’ provides a 3‐dimensional context for integrating neighbourhood scale supply and demand research

The spatial planning options have only around +/‐5% impact on building energy CO2 emissions in UK over a 30 year period, providing that local planning controls are in place to avoid sprawl. Previous SOLUTIONS project found similar impacts on car travel.

Retrofitting and technologies have a far greater impact on reducing CO2 emissions than spatial planning (and could be implemented more quickly), although decentralised energy supply is generally not yet cost effective.

The socio‐economic benefits of a market‐led policy could be sufficient to subsidise these measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of building energy consumption.

Analysis is underway on the other infrastructure sectors before reaching final conclusions.

comparing the socio-economic impacts of spatial planning options with their potential for...

Economy & Finance