preparation material clue expert workshop

Climate Neutrality for

Urban Districts in Europe

Edinburgh Expert Workshop

14th

-15th

March 2013

This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC

programme

Expert Workshop

Preparation Material

FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.


programme

WELCOME TO THE EXPERT WORKSHOP IN

EDINBURGH

We are happy to welcome you to the Expert Workshop in Edinburgh. This event is

part of the INTERREG IVC project CLUE (Climate Neutral Urban Districts in

Europe); a project where regions, cities and universities across Europe exchange

experiences and develop methods concerning policymaking. This workshop

focuses on methods and tools for indicators, benchmarking and scenario regarding

climate neutrality for urban districts.

This material hopes to aid you in your preparations before the workshop as well as

be a guiding document during the event. Included is related background reading

for each of the three sessions that the workshop will consist of but also practical

information as venue and transportation information and the latest agenda. We

hope that this document will provide all the information needed.

Session 2 of this event will consist of three thematic workshops (breakout

sessions) running in parallel. This means that the workshop participants will be

divided into three groups. For this to run as smoothly as possible we ask you to

choose which one of the groups you would like to join. The three themes are;

Indicators for following up and evaluate climate neutrality actions

Benchmarking; accounting procedures, audit tools for calculations of

carbon footprints.

Scenario methods for planning and development of climate neutrality

Please announce which group you would like to join to Louise Årman at

[email protected]. We would be grateful if you could give us this indication at the

latest on Friday March 8th

. We will do our best to meet all of your requests

concerning choice of group but we cannot guarantee that we can meet you first

choice due to restricted number of places in each group.

We also hope that you as a participating expert will contribute with 5-10 minutes

presentation of experiences within you groups theme. You can use power-point, but it

is not necessary, it is more important that you could present you or your city´s

experiences of work. Included in the material for session 2 you can find guiding

questions that we hope can facilitate and be an inspiration in the preparation of a

presentation.

Looking forward to meet all of you in Edinburgh for an exciting event and warmly

welcome to the Expert Workshop!

On behalf of the university group in the CLUE project

mailto:[email protected]



programme

VENUE AND TRANSPORT INFORMATION

The Edinburgh Workshop will be held in The Edinburgh Suite in New Craig, the

main building on Edinburgh Napier University’s Craighouse Campus, Craighouse

Road, Edinburgh EH10 5LG.

Craighouse is located in the south west of the city. It is served by two buses: the

number 23 which runs every 10 minutes; and the number 41 which runs every 30

minutes. Both buses drive up into the campus itself.

Taxis are the easiest option and can be either booked in advance or hailed on the

street. The two largest firms are Central (0131 2292468) and City Cabs (0131 228

1211). If you have any questions or need assistance with travel arrangements in

Edinburgh please contact Fiona Campbell at [email protected].

AGENDA

DAY 1, MARCH 14TH

, 08.30-17.00

08.30-09.00: Coffee

09.00-09.30: Welcome to the Expert Workshop Presentation of general outline and practical information

09.30-11.00: Session 1: What do we mean with Climate Neutrality on an Urban District Level?

Definitions, science, technology, models and tools for policy making, with

references e.g. to Clinton Climate Initiative and Stockholm Royal Seaport

(Industrial Ecology, KTH)

Q&A

11.00-11.45: Session 2: Introduction to the Thematic Workshops Introduction to the thematic workshops, aims, outline and preface to each theme.

12.00-13.00: Lunch

13.00-15.00 Parallel Thematic Workshops During the afternoon of the first day three parallel thematic workshops will be

held on experiences and methods:

Indicators for following up and evaluate climate neutrality actions

Benchmarking; accounting procedures, audit tools for calculations of

carbon footprints.

Scenario methods for planning and development of climate neutrality

actions.

mailto:[email protected]



programme

15.00-15.30 Coffee

15.30-16.30: Summery of the Day Summary of the parallel workgroups presented by the moderator of each

group

Common discussion and Q&A

16.30-17.30: Session 3: Introduction to the Scenario Wor kshop Next Day

20.00- Conference Dinner

DAY 2, MARCH 15TH

, 08.30-14.00

08.30-09.00: Coffee

09.00-12.00: Simulated Scenario Workshop This last part of the workshop will demonstrate how scenario methods might be

used in city planning and stakeholder participation. This will be a simulated

stakeholder scenario workshop. Participants will get instructions before and some

might be invited to present scenarios regarding an imaginary European city.

The workshop will consider future energy consumption scenarios and focus on

dilemmas regarding climate neutral urban areas. Important dilemmas are for

example:

Focus on reduced energy consumption or on supplying renewable energy

Focus on more population density to prevent urban sprawl and increase

infrastructure efficiency, or more green areas and urban gardens?

After this simulated workshop, it will be discussed to what degree this approach

meets requirements of various participants.

The University of Delft is responsible for this workshop and background

documents.

12.00-13.00: Ending Plenary Session Feedback of scenario building exercises

Next steps and creation of a carbon neutrality network

Summary of the workshop

13.00-14.00: Lunch

Session 1 - Climate Urban Neutrality

Content

Johansson et. al. (submitted). Creating a Climate Positive Urban District – A

Case Study of Stockholm Royal Seaport. Submitted to Journal of Energy Policy

Johansson et. al. (submitted). Climate Positive Urban Districts – Methodological

Considerations. Using Findings Based on the Case of Stockholm Royal Seaport.

Submitted to Journal of Energy Policy

Submitted article – Journal of Energy Policy Do not copy or redistribute!

1

Creating a Climate Positive Urban District – A Case Study of Stockholm Royal Seaport Stefan Johansson*, PhD Candidate, [email protected] Tel: +46 8 790 87 61 Hossein Shahrokni, PhD Candidate, [email protected] Tel: +46 8 790 87 05 Anna Rúna Kristinsdóttir, Research Engineer, [email protected] Tel: +46 8 790 87 05 Nils Brandt, Associate Professor, [email protected] Tel: +46 8 790 87 59 *Corresponding author KTH, Royal Institute of Technology School of Industrial Engineering and Management Division of Industrial Ecology Teknikringen 34 SE-‐100 44 Stockholm, Sweden Abstract: This paper describes the findings of a case study on the possibility to create a climate positive urban district, the Stockholm Royal Seaport (SRS). SRS is being developed with the explicit goal of becoming climate positive and in the paper we study SRS’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and tries to determine this possibility. To support our findings we define the concept of a climate positive urban district, SRS’s scope of emissions and system boundaries, in order to create a baseline of the urban district’s GHG emissions. Finally we discuss SRS’s process of trying to become a climate positive urban district, both in terms of considerations that have been made regarding scopes, boundaries and data as well as SRS’s relation to the City of Stockholm. Key words: Climate positive urban districts Stockholm Royal Seaport Case study

1. Introduction By 2007, more than half the world’s population was living in urban areas (United Nations, 2007). Cities are becoming one of the key leverage points for climate change, since they are recognised as being one of the major emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG), while also being the ideal platform to cut emissions (Grimm et al., 2008; International Energy Agency, 2008). In Stockholm, Sweden, a new urban district called Stockholm Royal Seaport (SRS) is being developed, with the explicit goal of achieving climate positive status. The Clinton


2

Foundation’s Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) developed the conceptual framework for climate positive urban districts, the Climate Positive Program, and SRS is one of 16 participating projects in different regions around the world. The framework focuses on low energy use, a high degree of renewables, local on-‐site energy production and influencing nearby districts/communities towards low carbon emissions (CCI, 2011). This paper examines the concept of a climate positive urban district by applying the CCI framework to SRS, while still maintaining the possibility to compare SRS to the City of Stockholm by using the same methodology concerning local data and system boundaries as the City. It also compares the urban district in general and its GHG emissions to the rest of the city and tries to draw conclusions from the findings. The paper begins by describing the SRS urban district, its characteristics and its relation to the City of Stockholm in terms of climate-‐related goals and then goes on to describe SRS’s process to become a climate positive urban district. The aims and objectives of the case study are then presented, beginning with an examination of the definition of a climate positive urban district, scopes of emissions and system boundaries and then describing the calculated GHG emissions of the urban district. Next, the baseline emissions are compared against the magnitudes of a few possible actions to reduce the urban district’s GHG emissions. Finally, there is a concluding discussion on the concept of a climate positive urban district, its GHG emissions and the generality of the results.

2. Background Characteristics of the SRS area – Present and Future Infrastructure The area where SRS is being built is a brownfield site currently being used for housing, gas utilities, a combined heat and power plant and a harbour. It serves as a thoroughfare for traffic to the harbour and to the island of Lidingö (population 42 000 in 2009; Lidingö stad, 2011). SRS also occupies a wedge of the National City Park in central Stockholm (City of Stockholm, 2011). The current thoroughfare will be expanded in an effort to build a partial beltway around Stockholm. By the time the development is completed, a total of 10,000 apartments housing 19 000 residents will have been built, along with a large non-‐residential area containing workspaces for 30 000 workers, commercial spaces and a shopping mall. The SRS project is expected to achieve full build-‐out in 2030, but the first residents will be moving in later this year. The planned land uses are summarised by area in Table 1. Table 1. Built areas of Stockholm Royal Seaport by type at full build-‐out

Land use by type Planned area [m2] at full build-‐out

Multifamily housing 1,143,400 Office space 712,330 Commercial space 84,015 Schools 9,500


3

Source: Johansson et al. (2012b).

SRS in Relation to the City of Stockholm and its Climate Goals SRS is located near central Stockholm (3 km from the city centre), with easy access to public transportation, walking and cycle trails. The area is to become Stockholm’s second so-‐called eco-‐district, with a strong ‘green profile’ formulated in a environmental programme for the district (City of Stockholm, 2012). The first eco-‐district, Hammaby Sjöstad (Hammarby Sea City), attempted to be an area that was “twice as good” from an environmental perspective as other areas being built at the time (mid-‐1990s) (Pandis & Brandt, 2009). SRS has two goals with regard to climate change and GHG emissions by the time build-‐out is completed in 2030, namely to have developed a climate positive urban district and to have become a fossil-‐fuel free urban district (City of Stockholm, 2010b). As a comparison, the City of Stockholm’s goals are to limit GHG emissions to 3.0 ton carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per capita1 by the year 2015 and to become a fossil-‐fuel free city by 2050 (Stockholm, 2010a). Since SRS is part of the City of Stockholm, we deemed it appropriate to base our study on earlier experiences from the City and to use the same system boundaries and methods for quantifying GHG emissions as the rest of the City whenever possible. This approach also enabled us to make comparisons and benchmark between SRS and the surrounding City of Stockholm. Like many cities (Kramers et al., 2012), Stockholm has traditionally focused on direct emissions within its geographical boundary while excluding emissions from sources such as long distance travel, construction and consumption. A noteworthy feature of the City of Stockholm is that no waste treatment takes place within its geographical boundary and therefore the only waste emissions included are those from collection, transportation and incineration of waste in the district-‐heating grid (City of Stockholm, 2010a).

3. Aims and Objectives The main aims of the study were to study the GHG emissions of SRS in a transparent way and to determine its possibilities to become a climate positive urban district. To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives were formulated:

• Define the concept of a climate positive urban district • Describe SRS’s scope of emissions, system boundaries and data • Calculate SRS’s baseline emissions • Calculate the magnitudes of a few potential actions to cut SRS’s GHG

emissions • Discuss the results obtained in terms of magnitude of GHG emissions,

SRS’s possibility to become climate positive and the relationship

1 By capita, the city and we use the number of residents living in an enclosed area, either the City of Stockholm or the SRS urban district.


4

between GHG emissions from SRS compared with those from the rest of the City of Stockholm.

This paper describes the findings of our case study on SRS’s progress towards becoming a climate positive urban district.

4. The Concept of a Climate Positive Urban District A number of different terminologies and/or concepts are used when discussing GHG emissions in urban settings. Most are intuitively understandable in a general sense (carbon-‐neutral, zero carbon, etc.) but when examined in closer detail they are quite diverse and formal definitions and related standards currently do not exist (Murray & Dey, 2009) or are vague, creating the possibility of significant confusion and uncertainty. The lack of standards also makes comparison and benchmarking between cities/urban districts etc. difficult or impossible.

The Definition of a Climate Positive Urban District Used by SRS Kennedy & Sgouridis (2011) review a number of different low GHG concepts. According to their definition, a carbon-‐neutral district is one where direct emissions (also referred to as scope 1) and important indirect emissions (also referred to as scope 2 and 3) are in balance/equal to reductions, sequestrations, sinks and offsets. A climate positive district can be defined as one where emissions are less than the sum of reductions, sequestrations, sinks and offsets, or where reductions, sequestrations, sinks and offsets outweigh emissions. However, in the case of SRS, we were unable to identify any significant sinks or sequestrations. SRS’s Process of Becoming a Climate Positive Urban District According to CCI There are two main phases in SRS’s process to become a climate positive urban district based on the methodology supplied by CCI (Figure 1) (CCI, 2011). The first step of the process is to create a GHG emissions baseline for the SRS area. This baseline serves as the basis for the next phase, which is to develop a roadmap of actions that will lead to a climate positive outcome. The roadmap includes actions which focus on energy efficiency measures, fuel switching from fossil fuels to renewables and local energy generation. The roadmap actions are constrained to those directly applied within SRS’s geographical boundary. Figure 1 illustrates the process being used by SRS to become climate positive.


5

Figure 1. Summary of the process by which Stockholm Royal Seaport is striving to become a climate positive urban district.

5. The GHG Baseline for SRS – Scopes and Boundaries In the GHG baseline for SRS, the concept we used for setting the boundaries was that initially developed for the GHG Protocol by World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (Rangathan et al., 2004; Kennedy & Sgouridis, 2011). The scopes are defined as: Scope 1 – Includes direct emissions such as emissions from heating, cooling and transportation. Scope 2 – Core external emissions such as waste treatment and electricity generation. Scope 3 – Non-‐core emissions such as emissions from consumption not included in scope 1 or 2 and other emissions not connected to the geographical area such as long distance travel. When defining what is included in the scopes, the district’s system boundaries also need to be defined. There are four system boundaries to take into account, geographical, activity, temporal and life cycle system boundaries. To determine the emissions included within the boundaries, SRS focuses on emissions related to activities directly related to the geographical area, much like the City of Stockholm itself does when calculating emissions for the entire city (City of Stockholm, 2010).

The Geographical Boundary The SRS’s geographical system boundary is defined as the perimeter that encloses the 236 hectares of project area (City of Stockholm, 2012). Emissions associated with activities related to the district and emitted inside the


6

geographical boundary are accounted for, while emissions not associated with the district are excluded. This excludes, among other activities, emissions from the combined heat and power plant not related to buildings in SRS, since it supplies a far greater area than SRS with heating, cooling and electricity. If a strict geographical perspective had been implemented, all of the emissions from the power plant would have been included, despite the fact that most emissions were generated by energy use elsewhere.

The Activity Boundary The activity boundary determines which activities are included and excluded from the baseline. As stated previously, we deemed it appropriate to include the same activities as the City of Stockholm does when calculating its GHG emissions (City of Stockholm, 2010a). This means that emissions from heating, cooling, electricity and transportation are included, while emissions from the construction of infrastructure, consumption and long distance travel are excluded. A main difference from the City of Stockholm’s traditional way of calculating emissions is that we include life cycle emissions from the treatment of waste in the baseline, since the waste is generated by activities taking place within the geographical boundary despite treatment taking place outside it. Traditionally, the City of Stockholm has only included waste emissions stemming from transportation and waste incineration. The rationale behind this is that household and food waste, which represents the majority of the waste, is transported for incineration in the local district heating system, whereas the treatment plant for the other waste is located outside the city boundary. However, we believed that its emissions should be included.

The Temporal Boundary The temporal boundary for SRS is set to start at complete build-‐out in 2030 (also called operational emissions). Therefore emissions from building and infrastructure construction are excluded. The emissions are measured as annual emissions, either as ton CO2e per year or as ton CO2e/capita and year. The temporal boundary also has a significant effect on the baseline. Since SRS will be built over an extended period of time, almost 20 years, the baseline will be a moving target as the technology and other drivers (for instance travel behaviour) advance throughout the development process. Current trends with more energy-‐efficient buildings and vehicles and a shift to more vehicles running on renewable fuels are likely to continue (Trafikverket, 2011), but can be (partially) offset by increased use. To counter this potential uncertainty, we decided to use 2010 as a base year of reference in the baseline. The base year is used to set the composition of energy sources, vehicle fleet, waste generation, emission factors of district heating and electricity and so forth. No changes over time are taken into account for the baseline, which has been found to be the most conservative approach.

The Life Cycle Boundary The City of Stockholm uses life cycle-‐based emission factors for all fuels and energy carriers used in mobile and stationary combustion, using the best available data for each energy source and presenting all data used, calculations and assumptions in a transparent way (Johansson et al., 2012b). The life cycle


7

data include emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, accounted as CO2e.

Summary of SRS’s Scopes and Boundaries Using the scopes of emissions together with the system boundaries we were able to decide which emissions are included in the baseline and which are excluded. For each emission category, the principle of activities directly related to the geographical area is used. However, within each emissions category important choices had to been made, as described below. Energy The emissions from energy include emissions from energy use in the area (buildings, infrastructure) and emission reductions from local energy generation (more about this in the results of the SRS baseline). The principle of only including activities directly related to the SRS district were used to limit the emissions from the combined heat and power plant located in the area to emissions from building energy use (heating, cooling, electricity) in the area, instead of accounting for all of the emissions, since the majority of these stem from energy use in the City of Stockholm. Transportation The transportation emissions include emissions from people and activities directly connected with the urban district. This means that transportation emissions from residents’ private and commuting trips are included, while their business trips are excluded since it was assumed that they do not work locally. For workers, the emissions from personal trips and commuting are excluded, since they were assumed not to live in SRS, while emissions from business trips are included, since the companies are located within SRS. Waste The emissions from waste include emissions from the waste collection process, transportation and the treatment of waste. Excluded emissions The emissions from consumption are excluded, since almost none of the GHG emissions from the production of the goods consumed take place inside SRS, with the exception of energy use and emissions from waste. Long distance travel by modes such as air, bus, ferry and train are excluded, since they do not take place within the geographical area. Emissions from societal functions that a person living in SRS (might) need, such as hospitals, sport centres, public administration, etc. are excluded, since these activities do not take place within SRS. The included and excluded emissions in the GHG emissions baseline for SRS are summarised in Table 2. Table 2. Summary of included and excluded GHG emissions in the Stockholm Royal Seaport baseline

Included emissions Comments Energy -‐Emissions related to heating, cooling and

electricity directly linked to activities within the geographical boundary of SRS.


8

-‐Emission reductions from local energy production directly related to the geographical boundary of SRS. -‐Energy used in infrastructure such as road maintenance, traffic lights, etc.

Transportation Emissions related to transportation stemming from activities directly related to the geographical area of SRS:

- Private trips (residents) - Commuting trips (residents) - Business trips (workers) - Goods and services

Waste Emissions and emissions reductions from the collection, transport and treatment of waste.

Excluded emissions Comments Consumption The only emissions from consumption included

are direct energy use and/or emissions from waste.

Long distance travel Air travel, long distance bus, ferry, train

Emissions from societal functions not located within SRS

- Hospitals - Sport centres - Public administration …

Construction

6. Results: The GHG baseline of SRS – Emissions and Calculations

Calculations of the yearly GHG emissions in the baseline were divided into three main emissions categories: energy, transportation and waste. For instance, the energy emissions category includes energy in buildings, infrastructure, water and locally generated energy. For each emissions category, the data used are described below together with any assumptions made. To determine what data to use in the baseline, we adopted the following data hierarchy:

1. Where local SRS-‐specific data are available, these are primarily used. For instance projected heating and hot water demand [kWh/m2 and year] for buildings.

2. Where SRS-‐specific data are unavailable, data for the City of Stockholm or greater Stockholm are used, for instance composition of the vehicle fleet [% gasoline cars, % biogas cars, etc.], and emissions from the Stockholm district heating mix [g CO2e/kWh].

3. Where data specific for Stockholm are unavailable, data for Sweden or the Nordic countries are used, for instance GHG emissions from waste management by fractions of waste in Sweden [g CO2e/ton waste].


9

All calculations made are using the same basic formula:

Activity * Emission Factor = Emissions

Examples of activities are annual energy use [kWh of a fuel or energy carrier/year], annual person kilometres (PKM) travelled [PKM of a mode of transportation/year] and annual waste generated [ton per waste fraction and year]. The emission factors are coupled with the respective activities. In the example above, emissions from energy use are expressed as [g CO2e/kWh of fuel or energy carrier], those from transportation as [g CO2e/PKM of the mode of transportation used] and those from waste as [g CO2e/ton of waste fraction and treatment method].

Energy The emissions related to energy in the baseline include emissions from heating, cooling and electricity used in buildings, emissions from energy used in the infrastructure (street lights, traffic lights, road maintenance, snow clearing, etc.) and emissions from supplying the district with water. Also included in the energy part of the baseline are emissions reductions from locally generated energy, such as biogas from wastewater sludge.

Buildings The buildings in the SRS are divided into four categories, multifamily housing, offices, commercial space and schools. The emissions included come from heating, cooling and electricity, with electricity end-‐uses tracked separately (elevators, pumps, ventilation, etc.).

Data used and calculations: The data used in the baseline are based on the assumption that the projected (simulated) energy use for the buildings in the first construction phase (2012-‐2014) will be representative for the entire district. The emissions factors used are three-‐year mean values for the Stockholm district heating mix and the Nordic electricity system (Johansson et al., 2012b). The reason for using the three-‐year mean instead of only using the base year (2010) emissions was to eliminate the seasonal variations of hot and cold years, which affect the emissions factors. For each type of building, the projected energy used is calculated. In the first build phase strict energy requirements on energy use in buildings had yet to be implemented but simulations have demonstrated that the projected energy use is roughly 25% lower than specified in the current Swedish building codes (Boverket, 2011). Total energy use and emissions are therefore calculated according to Table 3. Table 3. Projected energy use and emissions from different types of buildings in the baseline

Energy by type/Buildings by type Residential Offices Commercial Schools Heating and cooling Heating [kWh/m2, year] 42.5 35 25 55 Hot water [kWh/m2, year] 25 2 2 10


10

Cooling [kWh/m2, year] 0 20 35 0 Surface area [m2] 1,143,400 712,330 84,015 9,500 Total energy use [GWh/year] 77.2 40.6 5.2 0.6 Emissions factor [g CO2e/kWh] 98.45 Total emissions [ton CO2e/year] 7 598.3 3 997.4 512.8 60.8

Electricity Building electricity [kWh/m2, year] 15 25 20 15 Residential/commercial electricity [kWh/m2, year]

30 50 80 35

Surface area [m2] 1,143,400 712,330 84,015 9,500 Total energy use [GWh/year] 51.5 53.4 8.4 0.48 Emission factor [g CO2e/kWh] 69.73 Total emissions [ton CO2e/year] 3,587.8 3,725.3 585.8 33.1

Total emissions (heating, cooling & electricity) by building type [ton CO2e/year]

11,186.1 7,722.7 1,098.6 93.9

Total building emissions [ton CO2e/year] 20,301.3 Source: Johansson et al. (2012b).

Infrastructure, Water and Locally Generated Energy The emissions from infrastructure in SRS include emissions from electricity used in streetlights, traffic lights, non-‐building related electricity (pumps, fountains, etc.) as well as mainly diesel fuel used in the operation of road infrastructure (road maintenance, snow cleaning, gritting, etc.) (Table 4). The emissions from water include emissions from the electricity used to collect, treat and distribute water to and from SRS. In the baseline there is not much local energy production, but wastewater sludge from the urban development is collected and used to generate biogas. In the baseline scenario the biogas is then upgraded and used to replace gasoline in cars, thus reducing baseline emissions (Johansson et al., 2012b).

Data used and calculations: The data regarding electricity use in infrastructure were developed using the master plans for SRS. The data for road maintenance are based on figures from the City of Stockholm (Fahlberg et al., 2007), assuming that SRS infrastructure will require the same amount of maintenance as the rest of the City. Water use is based on technology currently in use in Hammarby Sjöstad (Pandis & Brandt, 2009) and that will be implemented in SRS, while the energy use for collection, treatment and distribution is based on figures for the City of Stockholm (Stockholm Vatten, 2010). The amount of biogas generated by wastewater sludge was estimated and the full amount assumed to replace gasoline in cars. Table 4. Projected energy use and emissions from infrastructure, water and locally generated energy in Stockholm Royal Seaport

Activity Annual energy use [kWh/year]

Emissions factor

Emissions [ton CO2e/year]


11

[g CO2e/kWh] Infrastructure -‐ Electricity in street lights, traffic lights, etc.

756,000 69.73 52.7

-‐ Road maintenance 7,670,300 279.31 2,142.4 Water -‐ Collection, treatment, distribution

1,862,595

69.73 129.9

Locally generated energy -‐ Generated biogas replacing E5 Petrol

2,300,000 -‐ 586.6 -‐ 557.7

Total emissions [ton CO2e/year] 1,767.3 Source: Johansson et al. (2012b).

Transportation In the baseline, transportation emissions are divided into four categories, private trips, commuting trips, business trips and the transportation of goods and services to the area. The transportation emissions highlight the problem of measuring emissions on the urban district level in comparison with the city level. If a strict geographical perspective is employed only emissions within that area are addressed. This might lead to sub-‐optimisation by clouding significant actions that could improve the whole transportation system, collaborating with the right stakeholders (public transportation companies, car sharing companies, mobility management, etc.), as well as only accounting for a fraction of the transportation emissions that the district actually generates. For instance, the new thoroughfare is likely to include significant amounts of traffic from the island of Lidingö, combined with transportation from the harbour, both of which are mostly unrelated to the urban district. This raises the question of who should be responsible for them and where the reduction strategies should be implemented. The accounting method used accounts for commuting emissions to where the commuter lives. That accounting method skews planned efforts by SRS to be a working centre with more than twice as many workspaces as residential spaces. Therefore significant emissions from worker commutes are excluded, despite the fact that that most “Smart Growth” transportation measures can readily be undertaken on the district level to minimise them. These include mixed use planning, increased density, increased walkability and easy cycling access, limited parking spaces and increased parking fees, and so forth (City of Stockholm, 2012). Based on this, the baseline transportation emissions include emissions from residents’ private and commuting trips, workers’ business trips and emissions from the transportation of goods and services delivered to and from the urban district (Table 5).

Data used and calculations: All activity data regarding resident and worker trips were developed using two transportation studies, one focusing on the inner City of Stockholm (USK, 2006) and one focusing on Stockholm as a whole (Rytterbro et al., 2011). The total projected travel demand was calculated. Transportation emissions from goods


12

and services were estimated using Stockholm-‐specific data (Fahlberg et al., 2007). Table 5. Projected emissions and travel behaviour of residents and workers in Stockholm Royal Seaport 2010

Mode of transportation

Residents [PKM/year]

Workers [PKM/year]

Emissions factor [g CO2e/PKM]

Total emissions [ton CO2e/year]

Car -‐ biogas 920,046 780,696 0.02 0.03 Car – E85 6,584,892 5,587,546 76.78 934.60 Car – Gasoline E5 36,045,366 30,585,942 170.81 11,381.30 Car – Diesel RME5 12,109,452 10,275,357 166.04 3,716.80 Car – Electric 2,418 2,052 11.56 0.05 Car – Hybrid 885,626 751,489 136.65 223.70 Local bus 11,003,413 1,184,771 4.13 50.30 Local train 27,907,469 1,777,157 0.05 1.50 Long distance bus 7,187,855 0,00 32.00 230.00 Long distance train 24,284,576 7,108,628 0.13 4.10 Physically active 18,703,695 1,184,771 0.00 0 Total residential emissions 9,074.23 Total worker emissions 7,468.15 Goods and services 3,289.26 Transportation totals 19,831.7 Source: Johansson et al. (2012b).

Waste Each waste fraction includes emissions from collecting, transporting and treating each fraction, as well as emissions reductions from recycling compared with using virgin materials (Table 6). The waste emissions exclude the upstream lifecycle emissions of production and transporting the respective goods before they are disposed of as waste. This merits a discussion about consumption that is outside the scope of this paper, but it should at least be noted that this exclusion leads to the paradox that the more food and goods consumed within SRS, the lower their emissions. This is because the waste generated is combusted in the district heating system, which leads to lower district heating emissions compared with using fossil fuels. Each emissions factor is based on waste treatment in Sweden, since SRS-‐specific or Stockholm-‐specific data are not available at this time.

Data used and calculations: The waste streams in the urban development were projected using data for the City of Stockholm combined with the possibility to collect household waste, combustibles, newspapers and paper beside or within the buildings themselves. Table 6. Emissions from waste in the baseline for Stockholm Royal Seaport

Waste fraction Ton waste/year

Emissions factor [ton CO2e/ton waste ]

Annual emissions [ton CO2e/year]

Mixed municipal solid waste

7,574 All municipal solid waste is used in the City of Stockholm’s district heating network and emissions are therefore attributed there


13

Gardening waste 122 -‐0.4 -‐48.8 Bulk waste 3,168 -‐0.1 -‐316.8 Sorted waste -‐ Glass 718 -‐0.04 -‐28.7 -‐ Paper 2,537 -‐0.18 -‐456.7 -‐ Metal 109 -‐0.61 -‐66.5 -‐ Newspapers 896 -‐0.18 -‐161.3 -‐ Plastics 800 1.52 1 216 -‐ Electronics 329 -‐0.05 -‐16.5 -‐ Hazardous waste 49 -‐0.3 -‐14.7 Waste totals 106 Source: Johansson et al. (2012b).

Baseline Results The baseline emissions in the different categories discussed above are summarised in Table 7. Table 7. Summary of baseline emissions for SRS

Emission Categories Ton CO2e/year Ton CO2e/capita Energy -‐Heating & cooling 12,169.3 0.64 -‐Electricity 7,932 0.42 -‐Water & infrastructure 2,325 0.12 -‐Locally produced energy -‐ 557.7 -‐0.03 Transportation -‐Residents 9,074.2 0.48 -‐Workers 7,468.1 0.39 -‐ Goods & services 3,289.2 0.17 Waste 106 0.01 Baseline totals 41,806.1 2.20 Source: Johansson et al. (2012b). The baseline emissions of 2.2 ton CO2e/capita are low compared with the emissions from the average person living in Stockholm, which in 2010 were roughly 3.2 ton CO2e/capita (City of Stockholm, 2010a). At first glance, emissions from the SRS area are significantly lower, due in part to some of the emission factors having been updated since the City of Stockholm’s last calculation in 2010, lowering SRS’s emissions. However, the major reason for the lower emissions for SRS is that not all emissions are included due to the choice of focusing on activities directly related to SRS’s geographical area. When moving from the city level to the urban district level, an additional ‘layer’ of emissions is added, namely those that take place within the city but not within the specific urban district representing these emissions, which can have a significant impact on total emissions. For example, in the case of SRS, many societal functions that a resident uses regularly, such as hospitals, libraries, sports centres, etc., are not included in the geographical area. That means that the urban district’s emissions are too low compared with the total city emissions. On the other hand, two of the main sources of emissions in Stockholm are located in the SRS area, since it includes the combined heat and power plant and the harbour. There is also the question of the thoroughfare,


14

since most of the traffic it carries is not related to the SRS district itself. The emissions from these sources are instead scaled to proportion of the residents, so that every person in Stockholm gets an equal share. If emissions from activities not included in the geographical baseline but connected to the City of Stockholm were to be included in the calculations, such as emissions from hospitals, sports centres, public offices and so forth, the annual emissions of a resident in SRS would increase by at least 0.5 ton CO2e per capita (Fahlberg et al., 2007).

7. Magnitude Study of Possible Roadmap Actions Once the baseline has been clearly defined, the next step in the process is to develop roadmap actions. They can be divided into three categories; energy efficiency measures, fuel switching and behaviour changes that lead to either fuel switching or energy efficiency. In order to discuss the magnitude of effect of possible road mapping actions, here we calculated the emission reductions for a few simple examples. These actions represent interpretations of SRS’s overall environmental programme and the environmental requirements for the second build phase of SRS. Note that the actions only represent magnitudes of emissions reductions, and no decisions to implement them in any way have been made by the stakeholders involved. Note also that no consideration has been given so far to the effect that different actions have on each other. The following actions were identified for study (Johansson et al., 2012a):

• Solar photo voltaics (PV) -‐ Solar PV should generate at least 30% of the building electricity used for lifts, ventilation, pumps, etc.

• Phase 2 Energy demands – In the second build phase of SRS, an energy target is to reduce the total energy use excluding household and commercial electricity to 55 kWh/m2 and year. This would then serve as a limit for future build phases.

• Residential travel – One goal is that residents should be able to travel using low CO2e vehicles. In the magnitude of reductions calculated here, 50% of transportation by gasoline car is shifted to either electric car or hybrid car (gasoline & electricity).

The calculated emissions reductions are summarised in Table 8. Table 8 Magnitude of emissions reduction effect of possible road mapping actions

Possible roadmapping action Emissions reduction [ton CO2e/year]

Per capita emissions reduction [ton CO2e/cap, year]

Solar PV – 30 % of building electricity

438 0.02

Phase 2 Energy demands 3,095 0.16 Residents travel: Gasoline à Electric car

2,870 0.15

Residents travel: Gasoline à Hybrid car

616 0.03

Source: Johansson et al. (2012a).


15

A first comparison between the baseline emissions (Table 7) and the reductions through roadmap actions (Table 8) demonstrates that it is difficult to become climate positive on a local scale. As regards possible road mapping actions, even the more ambitious actions, such as influencing the residents’ travel behaviour, only reduce total baseline emissions by about 10% each. Furthermore, while the current proposed actions only represent a fraction of possible emissions cuts, they are in themselves rather ambitious. The baseline energy use for buildings in the baseline is already 25% lower than the current Swedish building code requirements (Boverket, 2011) and implementing 55 kwh/m2 and year is close to the Swedish passive house standard. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the SRS district will manage to achieve climate positive status just by roadmapping action strategies within the urban district itself.

8. Credits – Roadmapping Actions Outside the District We can see from comparing the magnitudes of possible roadmapping actions to reduce emissions (through energy efficiency, fuel switching and influencing residents behaviour) against the baseline emissions that it will be difficult to reach a climate positive outcome solely by local actions within SRS’s geographical boundary. The CCI framework recognises this problem and the solution proposed is to implement credits (CCI, 2011), using the same general principle as credits from the flexible Kyoto mechanisms (Joint Implementation, Clean Development Mechanism and Emissions Trading) (UNFCC, 1998). Through these, the emissions of a country, city or area are cut by emissions reductions in other places (referred to as certified emission reductions, or credits for short). However, there are significant differences between CCI’s credits and those relating to flexible mechanisms, the major difference being that CCI’s credits have to be generated locally, in relation to the urban district itself. To be able to generate a credit according to CCI, the urban district must be connected through relevant infrastructure (energy, transport, waste) or other relevant processes (for instance decision making processes, rules, regulations, standards). Note also that the purchase of credits not generated in connection with the urban district (as can be done with credits from the flexible Kyoto mechanisms) is not accepted as a reduction strategy (CCI, 2011). Once the sum of emissions reductions from roadmap actions and credits is greater than the baseline emissions, the area is considered to be climate positive. To demonstrate what could be considered local credits, we calculated the magnitude of emission reductions from a few possible actions (Johansson et al., 2012a). All of the actions build on official documents (environmental plans, applications, etc.), for inspiration, but note that all credit actions are just a representation of magnitudes and do not represent actual emission reductions decided by the stakeholders involved. The magnitudes of the following credit actions are shown in Table 9 (Johansson et al., 2012a):

• Electrification of the harbour – The harbour area is close to SRS and the idea is to connect ships and ferries that make port on a regular basis to the electricity grid instead of having them idle using diesel engines. The magnitudes of two different credit actions are calculated, one where


16

diesel is replaced by electricity from the Nordic electricity mix and one where it is replaced by wind power.

• Workers’ travel – One goal is that workers should be able to travel using low CO2e vehicles. Just as in the case of residents’ travel, the calculated magnitudes are represented by 50% of transportation by gasoline car being shifted to either electric car or hybrid car (gasoline & electricity).

Table 9. Magnitude of emissions reduction effect achieved by possible credit actions

Possible credit action Emissions reduction [ton CO2e/year]

Per capita emissions reduction [ton CO2e/cap, year]

Electrification of the harbour -‐ Diesel à Wind power

3,199 0.17

Electrification of the harbour -‐ Diesel à Nordic electricity mix

2,423 0.13

Workers’ commuting Gasoline à Electric car

1,688 0.09

Workers’ commuting Gasoline à Hybrid car

362 0.019

Source: Johansson et al. (2012a). Just as in the case of roadmapping actions, the magnitudes of emission cuts from credit actions are small relative to the baseline emissions. Even a major action such as electrification of the harbour represents roughly only a 10% reduction in emissions, while the other actions have smaller effects (Table 9). The credit action effects calculated of course represent only a small proportion of possible actions that the City of Stockholm could undertake.

9. Discussion It is difficult to achieve climate positive status on local scale with planned actions Even adding roadmapping and credit actions together, it will still be a challenge for SRS to become climate positive. However, the roadmapping process can serve as a catalyst to start a process of implementing innovative solutions with important stakeholders in the development process, such as the landowner, relevant authorities, construction companies, (future) residents, etc. Since the road mapping process has the explicit goal of achieving a climate positive urban district, the actions and their calculated magnitude in relation to the baseline emissions can serve as a very powerful motivational tool and driving force to reach the targets that would otherwise have been impossible. Credits can then be used when local options run out. The potential and risks of credits – a driving force and possible greenwashing The key aspect of the concept of credits is how the term ‘local’ is defined. Since some of the systems connected to the urban district span a vast geographical


17

area (such as the Nordic electricity system), it is important that the term local is not used too liberally in order to avoid the risk of greenwashing. Technically, for example, a wind power plant in the north of Sweden could possibly pass as a credit, since the electricity system is connected, but it can scarcely be considered to be local electricity production, since the distance between Stockholm and the wind power in northern Sweden could be 600-‐1000 km. On the other hand, local credits according to the framework could be a very important driving force for innovations that generate credits not only for the urban district, but also for other parts of the city, aiding their work to implement local climate action(s). In order to use and develop local credits, the city needs to formulate its definition of ‘local’ before creating business models and inviting developers and stakeholders to join in the process of creating credit actions. Emissions change over time It is important to note that even after sufficient amounts of credit have been generated by actions outside the geographical system boundary, some problems remain, namely; Since the emissions are primarily based on current district heating and electricity mixes, a margin of safety needs to be added since emission factors can fluctuate by 20% or more on a yearly basis (Johansson et al., 2012b). As the energy system in the Nordic countries becomes more integrated with central Europe, the energy mixes will also change, which could impact on emissions (Eurostat, 2012). The baseline needs to be continuously updated as measured data become available. It is also important to bear in mind that changes over time in the two key areas, buildings and transportation, need to be taken into account. It is also important to take into account that once infrastructure has been built, there are lock-‐in effects when it comes to emissions (Unruh, 2000). These include technical and behavioural aspects and thus it is important to plan ahead, especially when aiming for an ambitious goal such as climate positive. Not all emissions are included As previously mentioned, it is important to bear in mind that not all emissions are included, both when comparing the urban district with the surrounding city and when comparing the city with the world. Significant emissions caused by the urban district may take place outside the set boundaries and need to be addressed. When discussing the geographical area from an urban district point of view, there are some additional considerations that need to be taken into account. They are similar but not equal to the discussions of a city’s boundary and its emissions outside that boundary. A study on cities by Davis & Caldeira (2010) concluded that 20-‐50% of emissions are generated outside the city’s geographical boundary, or occur as the result of cross boundary emissions (Räty & Carlsson Kanyama, 2007; Cool California, 20112). When adding baseline emissions in the present case study, some emissions from activities taking place outside SRS but inside Stockholm were not included and adding these emissions

2 In the Cool California household calculator, average values for California were input as suggested by the tool.


18

from consumption, construction and long distance travel would further increase total emissions from the baseline’s 2.2 ton CO2e/capita to 2.7 ton CO2e/capita. Note also that an ‘accounting’ perspective is used in this paper, which means that there is no obligation to verify that energy saved by SRS is not used by anyone else (e.g. rebound effects) or that fossil fuels replaced by new renewable energy generation are not used anywhere else.

Conclusions Some aspects of the baseline, system boundaries and roadmap actions are clearly influenced by the characteristics of Stockholm Royal Seaport, for instance that there is a district heating network or that the Nordic electricity mix has relatively low CO2e emissions per kWh (compared with the US, China, etc.). The selected roadmap actions are therefore likely to vary depending on geographical location and the individual characteristics of each individual urban development. A general conclusion that remains is that it is important to transparently track energy use and emissions, especially if a more complete view of emissions is to be achieved at a later stage. As a tool/model for creating a climate positive urban district, the approach of baseline, roadmap and credits seems to work well in the general sense that it promotes actions towards low energy use, a high degree of renewables and local energy generation and that the urban district can function as a catalyst for surrounding districts to reduce emissions. Credits and roadmapping can serve as driving forces for innovation. The key challenge is to have a high degree of transparency regarding which emissions are included and excluded in order to avoid the risk of greenwashing.


19

References Boverket, 2011. Boverkets byggregler BBR. BBR 18, BFS 2011:6 Retrieved from: <http://www.boverket.se/Global/Webbokhandel/Dokument/2011/BFS-‐2011-‐6-‐BBR-‐18.pdf > Chavez, Ramaswami, 2011. Progress toward low carbon cities: approaches for transboundary GHG emissions’ footprinting. Carbon Management (2011) 2(4), 471-‐482. ISSN 1758-‐3004 City of Stockholm, 2010a. Stockholm action plan for climate and energy 2010-‐2020. Retrieved from <http://www.stockholm.se/PageFiles/97459/StockholmActionPlanForClimateAndEnergy2010-‐2020.pdf> City of Stockholm, 2010b. Övergripande program för miljö och hållbar stadsutveckling i Norra Djurgårdsstaden City of Stockholm, 2011. National Park – At the heart of the City. Retrived from <http://www.nationalstadsparken.se/default.aspx?id=1777> City of Stockholm, 2012. Stockholm Royal Seaport. Retrieved from <http://www.stockholmroyalseaport.com/> Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), 2011. Climate + Development Program, Framework for Climate Positive Communities. Retrieved from <http://climatepositivedevelopment.org/download/attachments/294975/ClimatePositiveFramework+v1.0+2011+.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1331574106709 > Cool California, 2011. Household Carbon Calculator. Retrived from <http://www.coolcalifornia.org/calculator > Davis, Caldeira, 2010. Consumption-‐based accounting of CO2 emissions. PNAS vol. 107 no. 12 5687-‐5692. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906974107 Eurostat, 2012. Eurostat – European Energy Statistics. Retrieved from <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/energy/introduction> Fahlberg, Johansson, Brandt. 2007. Referensscenario för utsläpp av växthusgaser I Stockholms stad fram till 2015. TRITA IM 2007:28 ISSN 1402-‐7615 Grimm, Faeth, Goulbiewski, 2008. Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science 319, 756 – 760. International Energy Agency (IEA), 2008. World Energy Outlook, 2008. Paris, France Johansson, Sharokni, Rúna Kristinsdóttir, Brandt, 2012a. Calculation of Magnitudes of Possible Roadmapping Actions and Credits – According to the Clinton Climate Initiative and Stockholm 3.0. TRITA IM: 2012:12, Division of Industrial Ecology, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Johansson, Rúna Kristinsdóttir, Sharokni, Brandt, 2012b. The Stockholm Royal Sea Port Greenhouse Gas Baseline Report According to the Requirements of the Clinton Climate Initiative and Stockholm 3.0 . TRITA IM: 2012:09, Division of Industrial Ecology, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Kennedy, Sgouridis, 2011. Rigorous classification and carbon accounting principles for low and Zero Carbon Cities. Energy Policy 39 (2011) 5259-‐5268. Doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.038 Kramers, Wangel, Johansson, Höjer, Finnveden, Brandt, 2012. Elusive targets: Methodological considerations for cities’ climate targets, submitted paper


20

Lidingö stad, 2011. Befolkningsprognos 2009 – 2028. Retrived from <http://www.lidingo.se/download/18.55d5c0d1123937fc6e880001780/Befolkningsprognos%2B2009-‐2028.pdf > Murray, Dey. 2009. The carbon neutral free for all. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3(2), 237-‐248. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.07.004 Pandey, Agrawal, Shanker Pandey, 2010. Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. DOI10.1007/s10661-‐010-‐1678-‐y Pandis, Brandt, 2009. Utvärdering av Hammarby Sjöstads miljöprofilering -‐ vilka erfarenheter ska tas med till nya stadsutvecklingsprojekt i Stockholm? TRITA IM 2009:03 ISSN 1402-‐7615 Rangathan, Janet, Corbier, Laurent, Bhatia, Pankaj, Schmitz, Simon, Gage, Peter, Oren, Kjell, 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. World Business Council for Sustainable Development & World Resources Institute, USA. Räty, Carlsson Kanyama. 2007. Energi-‐ och koldioxidintensiteter för 319 varor och tjänster. ISSN 1650-‐1942 Retrieved from <www2.foi.se/rapp/foir2225.pdf > Rytterbro, Robért, Johansson, Brandt, 2011. Are future renewable energy targets consistent with current planning perspectives? Environmental Economics, Volume 2, Issue 2, 2011 Stockholm Vatten, 2010. Nyckeltal 2001-‐ 2010 Trafikverket, 2011. Ökade utsläpp från vägtrafiken trots rekordartad energieffektivisering av nya bilar. Retrieved from <http://www.trafikverket.se/PageFiles/25435/nov10/05-‐2011_PM%20v%C3%A4gtrafikens%20utsl%C3%A4pp%20110330.pdf > UNFCC, 1998. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved from: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf United Nations, 2007. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision, UN, NY, USA Unruh, 2000. Understanding carbon lock-‐in. Energy Policy, 28(12), 817-‐830 (USK) Utrednings och Statistikkontoret, 2006. Resvaneundersökningarna 2004-‐2006: Genomförande, granskning, kodning samt bortfallsanalys. USK, Stockholm.

Submitted Article – Journal of Energy Policy Do not copy or redistribute!! 2012-‐11-‐04

1

Climate Positive Urban Districts – Methodological Considerations Using Findings Based on the Case of Stockholm Royal Seaport

Stefan Johansson*, PhD Candidate, [email protected] Tel: +46 8 790 87 61 Hossein Shahrokni, PhD Candidate, [email protected] Tel: +46 8 790 87 05 Nils Brandt, Associate Professor, [email protected] Tel: +46 8 790 87 59 *Corresponding author KTH, Royal Institute of Technology School of Industrial Engineering and Management Division of Industrial Ecology Teknikringen 34 SE-‐100 44 Stockholm, Sweden Abstract: In Stockholm a new urban district called the Stockholm Royal Seaport (SRS) is being developed with the goal of becoming a climate positive urban district. This paper describes the findings of a study of methodological considerations when trying to create a climate positive urban development. This is done by investigating what the concept of a climate positive urban district entails by investigating definitions of how current low/zero/neutral concepts for cities and urban districts are formulated and how they could be used together with climate positive. The paper also investigates methodological issues with setting scopes and system boundaries with a climate positive goal in mind.

Key words:

Climate positive urban districts

Stockholm Royal Seaport

Methodological considerations


2

Introduction With the urban population increasing worldwide, cities are becoming increasingly important in addressing key environmental issues, not only because the growing urban population is leading to increased pressure on the environment, but also because cities have the potential to become more resource efficient, thereby reducing the pressure (Grimm et al., 2008; International Energy Agency, 2008). One area where cities are working actively is in reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In Stockholm, Stockholm Royal Seaport (SRS) is a new urban district that is being developed with the explicit goal of becoming climate positive. This paper presents the findings of a study on the methodological considerations related to developing climate positive urban districts. These include defining the concept of a climate positive urban district, its scopes, its system boundaries, and how its GHG emissions are accounted. To support the findings, experiences from implementing this concept on the SRS project are used (Johansson et al., 2012a, b).

Background –Stockholm Royal Seaport and its Process to Become Climate Positive The new urban development of SRS is being built in the northern part of central Stockholm, roughly 3 km from the city centre. The land is currently a brownfield site with mixed use including housing, a combined district heating and power plant, a harbour and a thoroughfare for traffic to the harbour and to other parts of the city. The construction of SRS started in 2010 and will be completed by 2030. The project involves rebuilding much of the current infrastructure and adding new infrastructure (City of Stockholm, 2012). On completion, the area will be home to roughly 19,000 residents and some 30,000 workers, distributed among 10,000 apartments and 30,000 workplaces (City of Stockholm, 2012). When the plans for SRS were being developed, it was decided that it would become Stockholm’s second eco-‐district, following Hammarby Sjöstad (Hammarby Sea City). The term eco-‐district encompasses a number of different targets for sustainability (City of Stockholm, 2010b) ranging from limiting GHG emissions and emissions to water to more social aspects of sustainability, such as sustainable life styles. The targets set for GHG emissions are that by 2020, the urban district should not emit more than 1.5 ton carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per capita1 and year and should be fossil fuel free by 2030. As a point of reference, similar targets for the entire City of Stockholm are 3.0 ton CO2e per capita in 2015 and becoming a fossil fuel free city by 2050 (City of Stockholm, 2010a). The City of Stockholm is also participating in the Clinton Climate Initiative’s (CCI) Climate Positive programme, thereby adding the goal of SRS becoming a climate positive urban development upon completion in 2030. This process includes using the CCI method for reporting emissions (CCI, 2011), which is similar to that already in use in the City of Stockholm (City of Stockholm, 2010a).

1 The term capita used by SRS and the city of Stockholm refers to a resident of a given area such as the urban district or the city.


3

The process to an urban district becoming climate positive includes two general steps, the creation of the GHG baseline for the urban district and the creation of a climate positive roadmap detailing the steps towards climate positive status. The SRS baseline and the magnitude of a few roadmapping reductions using existing data have been reported previously (Johansson et al., 2012a).

Aim and Objectives The aim of this study was to examine the methodological considerations that have to be made when trying to create a climate positive urban district. To achieve this aim, the following objectives were formulated:

• Describe and discuss what the concept of a climate positive urban district entails, focusing on: -‐ Can the low/neutral/zero carbon concepts available today possibly be

developed further for use by projects that set a climate positive goal?

-‐ What are the possibilities and limitations of these concepts if they are to be implemented for a climate positive urban district?

• Describe and discuss methodological considerations of a climate positive urban district focusing on: -‐ Setting scopes and boundaries for accounting GHG emissions

-‐ The key issues involved when moving from a “traditional” city-‐scale

perspective to the urban district level

-‐ The different perspectives involved when accounting for GHG emissions reductions, an absolute (global) perspective compared with an accounting (local) perspective

The Concept of a Climate Positive Urban District and its Process A short, very general definition of a climate positive urban district would be one where the sum of the district’s emissions is less than the sum of sequestrations, actions to mitigate emissions and offsets (Kennedy & Sgouridis, 2011). Before going into detail of the methodological issues with a climate positive urban district, the process of becoming a climate positive urban district should be explained. The first step of the process is to determine the emissions of the urban district by creating a baseline or inventory of emissions (see for instance D’Avignon et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2010) . In practice, this process consists of a number of steps; choosing a method for accounting emissions, setting scopes and boundaries, data collection and finally calculating emissions. If the urban district is not climate positive after the baseline has been compiled, it needs to reduce emissions, either by mitigation efforts such as energy efficiency measures,


4

switching from fossil fuels to renewables, sequestering carbon or investing in offsets such as projects under the flexible Kyoto mechanisms. In the case of CCI, this step is called formulating a roadmap with the goal of becoming climate positive in the end (CCI, 2011). The term ‘roadmap’ is used throughout the remainder of this paper to describe actions to reduce and sequester emissions. Once the sum of emissions is less than the sum of the actions to mitigate emissions in the roadmap, the urban district can be considered to be climate positive. The process is summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The process of an urban district becoming climate positive.

As an example, since SRS is using the CCI method, the steps included in the process are: Setting scopes and boundaries; data collection; and calculating the GHG emissions baseline. The next step for SRS is then mitigation of emissions (for example energy efficiency measures). Carbon sequestration and purchased offsets are not allowed in either the CCI methodology or the City of Stockholm’s approach. In addition to the other mitigation options, a system of credits is planned where decisions and technology implemented in SRS will reduce emissions in the surrounding City of Stockholm (CCI, 2011; Johansson et al., 2012a).

General Principles for GHG Accounting The current methods to account for GHG emissions from a city or an urban district usually build on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (Rangathan et al., 2004). This was originally developed for corporations, but versions of it have been developed with cities in mind (e.g. ICLEI, 2009). In principle, these protocols make no distinction between accounting for emissions from a city and accounting for emissions from an urban district. What differ between a city and an urban district are the scopes and boundaries that determine which emissions are included and how some emissions should be divided or allocated. This is necessary since not all the emissions of an urban district are limited to the geographical area of the district itself. Examples of emissions associated with the district but usually emitted (completely or at least partly) elsewhere are emissions from electricity use, heating, cooling, transportation and waste treatment. Generally the protocols mentioned above classify emissions into one of three categories:

• Scope 1 or internal emissions, such as direct emissions from heating, cooling and transportation

• Scope 2 or core external emissions, such as emissions from electricity use and waste treatment


5

• Scope 3 or non-‐core emissions, such as emissions from the production and consumption of goods and food

The emissions from scopes 1 and 2 are generally required to be reported (Rangathan et al., 2004; Kennedy & Sgouridis, 2011), while the inclusion of scope 3 emissions is generally voluntary. However, the scopes themselves are too vague to clearly describe what emissions should be included in the GHG accounting, especially scope 3 (WRI & WBCSD 2011). To better address this, four different types of system boundaries need to be set. For each emissions source under each scope, the four types of system boundaries are applied. These determine which scope the emissions source falls under, thereby deciding whether the emissions are included or not. Drawing on work recently published by Kennedy & Sgouridis (2011), the system boundaries can be summarised as:

• Temporal Boundary -‐ Determining a starting point when tracking emissions and sequestrations and also if periodisation is used, for instance tracking annual emissions.

• Activity Boundary -‐ Determining whether activities generating emissions are connected to the urban district or not.

• Geographical Boundary -‐ Determined by the urban district’s geographical area.

• Life Cycle Boundary -‐ Determining whether emissions in the life cycle of

material and energy flows are included or excluded.

Setting Scopes and Boundaries Determining the scope within which a specific category of emissions (such as energy, waste, etc.) falls is a process of elimination. For each of the system boundaries, each emissions category is tested to see whether it is included within the boundary or not. If an emissions category were considered to fall within all four of the system boundaries, it would be considered a scope 1 emission. Should it fall outside any of the system boundaries, it would be considered either a scope 2 or scope 3 emission. The process of determining scopes of emissions using system boundaries is summarised in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Process for determining the scopes and boundaries for GHG emissions.

The order of boundary tests shown in Figure 2 seems common in the literature (Rangathan et al., 2004; ICLEI, 2009; Kennedy et al., 2010). Starting with the temporal boundary, a starting year for accounting of emissions is chosen together with a periodisation of emissions, which is typically annual or annually accumulated. Common


6

start years for GHG accounting include for instance 1990 for countries (under the Kyoto protocol), the year a city started actively to mitigate its GHG emissions for cities and the year the urban district is started or expected to be completed for an urban district (CCI, 2011). Moving on to the activity boundary, it prompts the question of which emissions associated with activities taking place within the urban district are considered to be core emissions and which are non-‐core emissions. Non-‐core emissions are then moved to scope 3. Examples of core activities are heating, cooling and transportation, while examples of non-‐core activities are goods purchased outside the urban district and food. The remaining core emissions are then divided by the geographical boundaries so that emissions taking place within the urban district’s geographical boundaries are accounted for in scope 1, while emissions taking place outside are considered to be scope 2 emissions. In the case of determining the scope that external emissions fall under, the life cycle boundary is used. The emissions that are considered to fall under scope 2 are external emissions but vital to the operation of the urban district, while those that fall under scope 3 are not. These emissions are often embedded emissions, such as those in goods or food. However, emissions from categories such as food, goods or infrastructure can be either scope 2 or 3 depending on whether the urban district chooses to include embedded emissions. The methodological issues regarding scopes and boundaries for a climate positive urban district are discussed in the following section.

Methodological Issues with Scopes and Boundaries Having defined the concepts of scopes and boundaries according to Figure 2, classification of emissions might seem a straight-‐forward task, but there are methodological issues which can greatly impact on emissions and thereby significantly change the opportunities for an urban district to become climate positive. In order to support our findings, we include examples from the work done in SRS, in which the following types of issues have been identified:

Methodological Issues Regarding the Temporal Boundary The temporal boundary fulfils several important functions. It defines a suitable period to track emissions, sequestrations and offsets, and also determines the GHG accounting starting point for the urban district. An example of a major emissions source that is affected by this choice is construction emissions. For urban developments that intend to sequester or offset carbon, it is also important to note how the temporal boundary is set in order to be able to account for the correct amount of carbon sequestered or offset. In the case of SRS, annual emissions are tracked and the starting point will be set to the full build-‐out of the district which resulted from the CCI process (CCI, 2011). In the case of SRS, no emissions reductions using sequestrations or purchased offsets from projects in the flexible Kyoto mechanisms are allowed by either the City or CCI.

Methodological Issues Regarding the Geographical and Activity Boundaries The problems regarding the geographical boundary have been described previously, for instance in CASBEE city (2010), Kennedy et al. (2010) and Peters (2010). These show that a city’s characteristics of emissions will vary greatly depending on the choice of method used when setting system boundaries. If a strict geographical perspective is used for the scope 1 emissions, heavily industrialised areas are penalised despite the goods and services they provide being used elsewhere. The same problems apply when moving from the city level to the urban district level. Depending on the local geography,


7

it would be significantly easier for some areas of a city to become climate positive than others (for example a small city primarily comprising residential spaces, located near another city which serves as a job centre). In the case of SRS, there would be three major problems if a strict geographical perspective were applied, since the urban district contains a combined heat and power plant, a thoroughfare and a harbour. On the other hand, using a strict geographical perspective also excludes emissions depending on the geography. In the case of SRS there are no hospitals, major sports and recreation centres, municipal government offices or other important societal functions, as all these are located outside the geographical boundary. These excluded or overhead emissions are in the range 0.5–1.0 ton CO2e/cap for the average person in Stockholm (excluding food, goods and consumption) (Fahlberg et al., 2007; Johansson et al., 2012).

Methodological Issues Regarding the Life Cycle Boundary There are a number of issues regarding the life cycle boundary, some relating to choices that the urban district has made, particularly regarding how to account for carbon embedded in products and infrastructure used in the urban district. Typically, the urban district can choose a production perspective or a consumption perspective. In the production perspective, only the emissions directly taking place due to activities in the urban district itself are accounted for, while the consumption perspective attempts to distinguish emissions embedded in imported and exported goods. This is similar to the case of the activity and geographical system boundaries, which include and exclude emissions from activities differentiating between either all activities in the urban district or only emissions from activities related to its residents/workers. The corresponding choice for the life cycle boundary is to distinguish between whether only embedded emissions taking place within the district should be taken into account (production perspective) or whether all embedded emissions should be included regardless of where they are taking place (consumption perspective). The life cycle boundary also comes with a data quality issue, depending on whether only carbon dioxide is tracked or whether other GHG emissions such as methane and nitrous oxide are included too. SRS mainly uses a production perspective focused on the activities of its residents and workers, where emissions from energy use, transportation and waste are accounted for. Because of the production perspective, not all emissions are included, in particular emissions from the consumption of goods, long distance travel and infrastructure (Johansson et al., 2012b).

Reducing Emissions -‐ The Climate Positive Roadmap When creating the baseline for emissions, the process of scopes and boundaries is an essential step for transparency and evaluation purposes. In climate positive districts, a similarly robust system needs to be implemented for the reduction and management of emissions. There are several different strategies to reduce emissions in any of the three scopes (Kennedy & Sgouridis, 2011), which can be summarised in the terms reducing, eliminating, balancing and offsetting. To arrive at the sum total of emissions that result from the baseline process and the management of emissions, a simplified equation for the total carbon balance of a city or urban district could look like the “City Framework for Carbon Accounting” or CiFCA formulated by Kennedy & Sgouridis (2011), simplified in Figure 3:


8

Figure 3. Summary of emissions and reductions for a city or urban district, building on CiFCA (Kennedy & Sgouridis, 2011).

Methodological Issues Regarding the Climate Positive Roadmap The roadmap in principle works in the same way as the baseline in terms of scopes & boundaries and their methodological issues. However, there are some additional issues that are not necessary to take into account when calculating the baseline for emissions. One of issues is connected with the “safety margin” that the urban district must have, since emissions and reductions may vary on a yearly basis. Another issue is the principle chosen when discussing emissions reductions and how to ensure the quality of the emissions reductions. A third issue is the danger of overestimating emissions reductions as a result of actions within the urban district.

Changing Emissions – Is the Urban District Climate Positive Enough Over Time? When constructing the baseline for an urban district, it is important to note that it only represents a “snapshot” of emissions at a certain point in time (Rydpal & Winiwarter, 2001). Depending on the characteristics of the urban district, its emissions are likely to change over time, and thereby its potential for the urban district to become or stay climate positive. Over the course of time, carbon accounting is always associated with a significant margin of error, both in terms of emissions factors, their underlying LCAs, and developments/changes in technology (such as fuel efficiencies of vehicles) or behaviour (proportion of residents choosing public transportation). This in turn will affect emissions. To demonstrate these changes over time, the emissions factor for electricity use in SRS can be used, since it differs by as much as 20-‐30% between cold and warm years (Johansson et al., 2012b). To counter some of this variance, calculations in the SRS baseline concerning energy use from heating, cooling and electricity are based on three-‐year mean values. Both electricity and district heating in the Nordic countries and Sweden have low emissions factors, since the energy mix is mostly comprised of


9

hydropower, nuclear power and biofuels. However, should the emissions increase, it is important that sufficient “margins” are created by the urban district early on to ensure that it stays climate positive even if the energy mix becomes “dirtier”. The variance in emissions factors also highlights the importance of not only tracking emissions, but also focusing on energy use and use reductions. If only emissions are considered, the importance of stable emissions factors becomes a major issue, while if both emissions and energy use are tracked the urban district can focus on using a high degree of renewables and on energy efficiency measures, making sure that it limits the effects of potentially changing emissions factors. In the end, this raises the issue of the difference between a carbon neutral urban district and a climate positive one. Surely the entire difference cannot be just 1 g CO2e (0 g = carbon neutral to -‐1 g = climate positive)? So how climate positive should a district be to ensure that it is climate positive enough? Although the CCI still has not formally addressed this question, it could be argued that climate positive is a very ambitious goal and if an urban district is serious about achieving it, it also needs to ensure a sufficient safety margin.

The Difference Between an Absolute and an Accounting Approach when Reducing an Urban District’s Emissions and the Need for Verification of Emissions Reductions When tracking emissions reductions, it is important to discuss how the urban district ensures that actual GHG reductions have taken place. This is a question which the urban district must address. In principle, two different ways are possible, an absolute way and an accounting way. When using the absolute way, the (life cycle) emissions of each fuel, energy carrier, etc. are accounted for without taking relative changes into account. If for instance electricity generated by wind power replaces electricity generated by natural gas, the change in emissions needs to be verified not only by the addition of new wind power, but also by ensuring that no one else uses the “surplus available” natural gas. If the accounting perspective is used instead, relative changes are counted as reductions in emissions. The reduction if the same example as before is used is equal to the difference in emissions factors between natural gas and wind power, but with no regard to the system as a whole. The accounting perspective can therefore enable the concept of avoided emissions whereby it is possible to become climate positive by replacing a higher emitting activity with a lower emitting one and thereby counting the difference between the two as a negative. The differences between the absolute and the accounting perspectives when accounting for emissions reductions are summarised in Table 1. Table 1. Becoming climate positive using an absolute (global) approach compared with an accounting (local) approach

Actions Potential for an absolute climate positive outcome -‐ absolute approach

Potential for an accounting climate positive outcome -‐ accounting approach

Energy efficiency Can with traditional technology reduce emissions down to the point of the life cycle emissions of the energy used, but not below zero. To ensure that actual emissions reductions have taken place it is necessary to verify that another party is not using the saved energy instead.

Can with traditional technology reduce emissions down to the point of the life cycle emissions of the energy used, but not below zero. If energy positive technology is available, enabling export of surplus energy, and avoided emissions are allowed,


10

emissions may be reduced below zero. Fuel switching – switching from fossil fuels to renewables

Can reduce emissions down to the point of the life cycle emissions of the renewable fuel, but not below zero. To ensure that actual emissions reductions have taken place, it is necessary to verify that another party is not using the leftover fossil fuels.

Can reduce emissions below zero if the perspective of avoided emissions is employed. Otherwise the life cycle emissions of the renewable fuel production process are the limit to the reduction.

Carbon capture storage (CCS)

CCS using fossil fuels: Can reduce emissions down to the life cycle emissions of the fuels used, but not below zero since the fossil fuels before extraction do not have an impact on the climate. CCS using renewable fuels: Can reduce emissions below zero if the sum of life cycle emissions from the energy production process is smaller than the carbon content of the fuel.

CCS using fossil fuels: Can reduce emissions below zero if the perspective of avoided emissions is employed. Otherwise the life cycle emissions of the fuel production process are the limit to the reduction. CCS using renewable fuels: Can reduce emissions below zero if the sum of life cycle emissions from the energy production process is smaller than the carbon content of the fuel.

Carbon sinks Can fix atmospheric carbon during a period of time but might have additional life cycle emissions.

Can fix atmospheric carbon during a period of time but might have additional life cycle emissions.

Locally generated renewable energy

Can reduce emissions down to the point of the life cycle emissions of the renewable fuel, but not below zero. To ensure that actual emissions reductions have taken place, it is necessary to verify that another party is not using the leftover fossil fuels.

Can reduce emissions below zero if the perspective of avoided emissions is employed. Otherwise the life cycle emissions of the renewable fuel production process are the limit to the reduction.

Flexible Kyoto mechanisms – emissions credits/imports and exports of goods

Can be represented by any of the actions above and therefore have the same possibilities and limitations.

Can be represented by any of the actions above and therefore have the same possibilities and limitations.

Choosing the accounting approach over the absolute approach makes it significantly easier to become climate positive and offers a wider array of possible emissions cuts. However, there are risks as well, many of which have already been covered in discussions about the flexible Kyoto mechanisms. SRS currently employs the accounting perspective, as a result of inheriting much of the methodology from the City of Stockholm. As can be seen in Table 1, it is important when tracking emissions reductions to raise the question of how the urban district is actually ensuring that GHG emissions have actually been reduced as a consequence of mitigation measures. In practice, this is very difficult to carry out, since it becomes a question of “what if?”. Can the urban district for instance say with certainty that another party has not used the saved energy from energy efficiency measures taken in the district? Connected to the issue of the absolute and accounting perspectives are also issues of rebound effects, where the initial effect of an action to reduce GHG emissions is reduced over time because of choices that the urban district makes, for instance in investing saved economic resources (see for instance Greening et al., 2000).


11

Overestimating Emissions Reductions -‐ The Risk of Green Washing A risk when trying to create a climate positive urban district is setting very narrow scopes of emissions, thus making it relatively easy achieve the goal. Another risk is that of creating emissions reductions, sequestration or offsets far from the urban district’s control. If an urban district follows this path, the risk of being accused of green washing is significant, especially if the urban development cannot ensure that actual emissions reductions have taken place, as seen above. Since SRS is using the CCI methodology for a climate positive urban district, it is not permitted to use sequestration and offsets to become climate positive. However, the urban district is allowed to account for local emissions reductions taking place outside the geographical boundary, as long as these reductions are connected through infrastructure such as energy, transportation, water or decisions made by the City of Stockholm (CCI, 2011).

Current Definitions of Low, No and Carbon Neutral Concepts and Their Possibilities to Become Climate Positive There are several different definitions for concepts that that help to aid urban districts to reduce GHG emissions. These include low carbon, no carbon, or carbon neutral cities (Murray & Dey, 2009; Kennedy & Sgouridis, 2011). The different concepts, while intuitively understandable, are often vaguely defined when put into evaluation and in practical implementations (Murray & Dey, 2010; Pandey et al., 2010; Kennedy & Sgouridis, 2011). This creates uncertainty and problems, for instance when comparing two different cities using the same concept (carbon neutral, etc.). The differences are not necessarily there because of differences in the concepts themselves, but rather in the interpretation(s) of these by the city or urban district (Murray & Dey, 2010; Kennedy & Sgouridis, 2011). Since the different concepts vary, we found that it would add value to the discussion about climate positive urban districts if we were to discuss whether and how they could be used for a climate positive urban district. Kennedy & Sgouridis (2011) examined a number of different low carbon methodologies and concepts that use different approaches regarding included emissions, whether emissions are allowed in certain scopes, and how external emissions and emissions reductions are handled. Those authors discussed the different methodologies and approaches on a city scale, but in terms of methodology this discussion can be transferred to the urban district level. The concepts identified by Kennedy & Sgouridis (2011) were: Strictly Zero Carbon (SZC) – No carbon is emitted within scope 1 or 2 and no balancing or offsets are allowed, which means that the urban district needs to be very advanced to begin with. Since sequestration is allowed in scope 1 and 2, this would be a way to reach a climate positive outcome. If scope 3 emissions and sequestration could be included, this would provide additional possibilities for an urban development using SZC to become climate positive. An example could be a district in Iceland heated by geothermal energy that generates electricity combined with wind or wave power. Some of that electricity is then used to generate, compress and pump hydrogen to fuel transportation in the district. This essentially arrives at SZC, and by also sequestering through tree plantation, a Climate Positive status could be achieved. However, since no balancing or


12

offsets are allowed, the major question arises as to whether import substitutions are allowed. Using SZC seems like a very challenging way to become climate positive, since despite low emissions there is little room for creating reductions. There is also an issue of where sequestrations are to be made, should they be made locally or can they be made globally? Net Zero Carbon (NZC) – Scope 1 emissions are eliminated via sequestration and scope 2 emissions are balanced, either through the export of low/zero carbon goods that are exported, replacing “high” carbon goods outside the development, by internal or external sequestration, or by replacing goods with high scope 3 emissions with locally produced goods with low/zero emissions. NZC could be a good candidate to reach a climate positive outcome. It includes emissions in all three scopes and also provides possibilities for reductions, sequestrations and offsets, which essentially means that all the accounting tools to achieve climate positive are available. Carbon Neutral (CN) – Scope 1 and 2 emissions are balanced by offsets and sequestrations. The difference between a carbon neutral urban development and a climate positive one is ensuring that the sum of offsets and sequestrations is larger than the sum of emissions, and not equal to it. This would therefore be a good candidate for a methodology to build on for climate positive urban developments. Low Carbon (LC) – All three scopes (including offsets and sequestrations) are reduced compared with a baseline set by regional conditions. Similar to CN, the LC concept is another good example of a current methodology that could be used to define climate positive status. CCI method used by SRS – Scope 1 and 2 emissions are minimised to zero or below. If the urban district is not climate positive after this, it may undertake emissions reductions that affect the surrounding city, thereby lowering emissions and taking credit. Note, however, that credits from traditional carbon trading schemes such as CDM, JI, ETS etc. are explicitly forbidden. The objective is instead to provide local reductions.


13

Discussion It is clear just from looking at experiences from emissions accounting, the current concepts available to cities and the methodological issues regarding a climate positive urban district that it will be very difficult to find one unifying definition of it. However, we argue that an urban district that wants to become climate positive (regardless of its definition) needs to employ a very high degree of transparency in presenting how it intends to tackle a number of issues. This can be summarised in how the urban district defines its process of a climate positive urban district, its process of creating a baseline for emissions and its process for reducing emissions and verifying emissions reductions. The process to a climate positive urban district and what it entails Defining what a climate positive outcome entails might seem like a very basic step, but we argue that it contains a number of deciding factors if the urban district wishes to have a high degree of credibility when aiming towards an ambitious goal such as climate positive. The first step for the urban district is to outline its process towards a climate positive outcome. Should the urban district follow the path of SRS and create an emissions baseline followed by a roadmap of actions? Or should it perhaps take another approach, say that each of the main emissions categories such as energy, transportation and waste should become climate positive by themselves? The urban district also needs to decide how to adjust its concept of a climate positive urban district to changes over time, particularly if energy use and emissions change by a substantial amount in the future. Once the definition of the concept and the process have been decided, the urban district needs to formulate which scopes of emissions should be reported and what possibilities to reduce, sequester and offset emissions are available in each scope. It is also of great importance to determine the main emissions categories beforehand, so that planning on how to collect data and verify emissions reductions can be done well before the urban district is built. The process of creating a baseline for emissions Since the scopes of emissions and emissions categories have been decided in the previous stage, the urban district now needs to formulate its system boundaries by selecting a starting year, determining activities and the management of embodied emissions. Once this is done, the urban district can begin the process of determining which emissions fall under the scopes that need to be reported and which emissions fall outside these scope(s). The urban district can then proceed on to collecting data and calculating emissions. The process of reducing and verifying emissions reductions Reducing emissions might at first glance seem like a relatively simple process. However, if the urban district strives towards a very high degree of transparency and a low risk of being accused of green washing, reducing emissions quickly becomes difficult. The first problem begins even before the urban district has been built (in the case of new developments), when a snapshot of emissions that comprise the baseline or inventory of emissions and how these emissions will change over time is created. If the projected future emissions are likely to increase, the urban district needs to take this into account when planning actions to reduce emissions. The key question here is of course how large


14

a margin the urban district will need. In reality, the actions to reduce emissions will cost money, which the city, developers, companies or residents will have to provide. Another key question is how the urban district aims to reduce emissions. Local actions such as energy efficiencies and fuel switching might not be sufficient, especially if the absolute perspective of accounting emissions reductions is used. Using the less strict accounting approach makes emissions reductions far easier, especially if the concept of avoided emissions is allowed, but this also increases the likelihood of the actions being seen as green washing. Sequestration and offsetting of emissions are also available, but in most cases share the same limitations and issues as the local actions. For all actions the verification process is of key importance, especially if the absolute perspective is used.

Conclusions While the concept of a climate positive urban district is intuitively easy to understand, it carries with it a number of methodological issues that need to be addressed if an urban district’s ambition to achieve it is to be taken seriously. A very high degree of transparency and the will to invest significant resources is needed if the urban district wants to succeed. The challenges to the urban district range from planning-‐related issues such as formulating a clear strategy of what a climate positive urban district entails to practical issues such as implementing technology and verification systems to ensure that emissions and reductions can be tracked properly. There is also the financial dimension of who will pay the costs and reap the benefits of the urban district. However, even if the urban district falls short of becoming climate positive, the concept itself will still be useful since it will promote low energy use, a high degree of renewables, and investments in technology to sequester carbon or to develop carbon sinks.


15

References CCI (Clinton Climate Initiative), 2011. Climate + Development Program, Framework for Climate Positive Communities. Retrieved from: <http://climatepositivedevelopment.org/download/attachments/294975/ClimatePositiveFramework+v1.0+2011+.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1331574106709 > City of Stockholm, 2010a. Stockholm action plan for climate and energy 2010-‐2020. Retrieved from <http://www.stockholm.se/PageFiles/97459/StockholmActionPlanForClimateAndEnergy2010-‐2020.pdf> City of Stockholm, 2010b. Övergripande program för miljö och hållbar stadsutveckling i Norra Djurgårdsstaden City of Stockholm, 2012. Stockholm Royal Seaport. Retrieved from <http://www.stockholmroyalseaport.com/> D’Avingion, Azervedo. Lébre La Rovere, Burle Schmidt Dubeux, 2010. Emission inventory: An urban public policy instrument and benchmark. Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4838-‐4847 doi:10.1016/jenpol.2009.10.002 Greening, Greene, Difiglio, 2000. Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—a survey. Energy Policy, 28, pp. 389-‐401. Grimm, Faeth, Goulbiewski, 2008. Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science 319, 756 – 760. ICLEI, Local Governtments for Sustainability, 2009. International Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP) Retrieved from <http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=ghgprotocol > International Energy Agency (IEA), 2008. World Energy Outlook, 2008. Paris, France Johansson, Rúna Kristinsdóttir, Sharokni, Brandt, 2012a. Creating a Climate Positive Urban District – A Case Study of Stockholm Royal Seaport. Submitted article Johansson, Rúna Kristinsdóttir, Sharokni, Brandt, 2012b. The Stockholm Royal Sea Port Greenhouse Gas Baseline Report According to the Requirements of the Clinton Climate Initiative and Stockholm 3.0 . TRITA IM: 2012:09, Division of Industrial Ecology, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Kennedy, Sgouridis, 2011. Rigorous classification and carbon accounting principles for low and Zero Carbon Cities. Energy Policy 39 (2011) 5259-‐5268. Doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.038 Kennedy , Steinberger, Gasson ,Hansen , Hillman, Havranek, Pataki, Phdungsilp, Ramaswami, Mendez GV, 2010. Methodology for inventorying greenhouse gas emissions from global cities. Energy Policy http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.050 Murray, Dey. 2009. The carbon neutral free for all. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3(2), 237-‐248. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.07.004 Pandey, Agrawal, Shanker Pandey, 2010. Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. DOI10.1007/s10661-‐010-‐1678-‐y Peters, 2010. Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.05.004 Rangathan, Janet, Corbier, Laurent, Bhatia, Pankaj, Schmitz, Simon, Gage, Peter, Oren, Kjell, 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. World Business Council for Sustainable Development & World Resources Institute, USA. Rypdal, Winiwarter, 2001. Uncertainties in greenhouse gas emission inventories—evaluation, comparability and implications. Environmental Science and Policy, 4, pp. 107-‐116.


16

WRI & WBCSD, World Resources Institute & World Business Council on Sustainable Development, 2011. Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. Retrived from <http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-‐3-‐standard>

Session 2 - Parallel Thematic Workshops

Content

Thematic Workshop – Indicators

Guiding and Inspirational Questions

Thematic Workshop – Benchmarking

Guiding and Inspirational Questions

Introduction to Thematic Workshop – Benchmarking

Deakin, M., Campbell, F., & Reid, A. (2012). The mass-retrofitting of an energy

efficient-low carbon zone: Baselining the urban regeneration strategy,

vision, masterplan and redevelopment scheme. Energy Policy, 45, 187–200.

Deakin, M., Campbell, F., & Ried, A. (2012). The mass-retrofitting of an energy

efficient low carbon dioxide zone. Energy Policy, 165, 197–208.

Thematic Workshop – Scenarios

Mulder, K., & Pesch, U. Public participation and scenario’s. Delft University of

Technology

Guiding and Inspirational Questions to Thematic Workshop - Indicators

How do you develop indicators for climate neutral urban districts? Top-down/bottom-up,

collaboration between academia, participatory processes or in-house within the city planning

office? The issues concerning indicator development can be approached from many angles

and with many purposes.

How do you measure indicators for climate neutrality on a district level? How is the data

collected, with which resolution is it possible in your region to find data or measure relevant

parameters and who owns it?

How is the indicators presented? Are the indicators for climate neutrality public or only used

for planning, policy making or benchmarking?

Who is responsible for the indicators? Is it the same organization that is responsible for the

development of them as for collecting relevant data?

How do you connect indicators for climate neutrality with sustainability? E.g. nuclear power

can be seen as climate neutral or a better source of energy than fossil fuels but might not be

seen as a sustainable energy source.

Guiding and Inspirational Question to Thematic Workshop – Benchmarking

CLUE project: Edinburgh Expert Workshop 14th-15th March, 2013

Questioning framework for “Benchmarking Climate neutral Urban Environments”

Questions:

1. The One Planet living model adopted by the Hackbridge Project offers “another take”

on climate neutrality, what do you think its relative strengths and weaknesses are as

an assessment methodology?

2. Do you think the retrofit route into climate neutrality is either too narrow a path to

follow, or sufficiently open to “reverse engineer” all the other dimensions relating to

environmental sustainability?

3. Given many of the CLUE project case studies do not relate to retrofit scenarios but

new build, do you think the same detailed level of analysis should also be

undertaken to set the benchmarks for these climate neutral proposals?

4. Given the Hackbridge case study is one of the few that manages to integrate the

environmental and social components of climate neutral assessments into a baseline

analysis, do you think this type of benchmarking is something which ought to be a

standard measure of such evaluations.

5. Do you think this type of benchmarking and evaluations they generate could support

the transition to a low carbon economy as part of a triple bottom line sustainability

assessment?

Introduction to Thematic Workshop – Benchmarking

Benchmarking: accounting procedures and audit tools for calculations of energy-efficient-low carbon

zones

This workshop shall review the responses European Cities are taking to the carbon reduction targets set by the

European Commission (EC) and benchmarks planners have set to sustain the development of Climate Neutral

Urban Districts (CLUE’s). Having set out a typology of CLUEs and benchmarks adopted by a number of

leading city planning authorities across Europe to meet the EC’s carbon reduction targets, the opening session

shall provide an overview of the accounting procedures, audit tools and calculations developed by London

Borough of Sutton to meet the triple-bottom line of their energy efficient-low carbon zone. This shall draw

attention to the potential mass retrofit proposals within the residential property sector have to save energy and

lower rates of carbon emission in line with the targets set by the EC. In outlining these energy saving and

carbon reduction measures, particular attention shall be drawn to the social baseline analysis and environmental

profiling techniques being developed to sustain the transformation of this suburb into a post carbon economy.

Following this short presentation, other members of the workshop shall be invited to exchange their

experiences of benchmarking similar actions, the adaptation measures adopted to promote neutrality and

progress made in meeting the targets set by the EC for climate change mitigation. Following this all the

participants shall be invited to draw upon the lessons learnt from the workshop as a means to enrich the

emerging typology of CLUEs and benchmarks being developed to promote climate neutrality for urban

districts across Europe.

Mark Deakin

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

The mass-retrofitting of an energy efficient-low carbon zone: Baselining theurban regeneration strategy, vision, masterplan and redevelopment scheme

Mark Deakin, Fiona Campbell, Alasdair Reid n

Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 10 February 2011

Accepted 8 February 2012Available online 8 March 2012

Keywords:

Carbon emissions

Mass-retrofits

Urban regeneration

a b s t r a c t

This paper examines a recent attempt to reduce energy consumption and the associated levels of carbon

emissions by way of and through what has been termed: ‘‘an active and integrated institutional

arrangement’’. That is, by the integration of a mass retrofit proposal into an urban regeneration strategy,

with the vision, master-plan, programme of renewal and redevelopment scheme which is capable of

transforming into an energy efficient, low carbon zone. As a case study on how institutions can plan for low

energy efficient redevelopments and the possibility of low carbon zones, the paper highlights the current

state of the art on mass retrofits within the residential property sector and draws particular attention to the

type of baseline assessments needed to legitimate, not only the strategic value of such arrangements, but

their practical worth as measures capable of meeting emission targets set under the 2008 UK Climate Bill.

& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As Ravetz (2008: p. 4482) has recently stated:

The energy efficiency of homes has improved over the last decade,but there is still a very long way to go. The average energy-efficiency (SAP) rating has improved from 42 in 1996 to 49 in2006 (CLG, 2006b). Social sector homes are substantially moreenergy efficient than private homes, with an average rating of 57compared with 47 in the private sector. In 2006, over two-thirdsof homes (70%) had an energy performance rating of band D or Eaccording to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) bands. Lessthan 10% of homes achieve a rating of band C or higher, while 20%are in the most inefficient bands F and G. On the low-carbonagenda, there is a perceived need for more integrated and activeinstitutional arrangements for strategic management of the hous-ings stock (Sustainable Development Commission, 2006).

Against such a backdrop, this paper examines a recent attemptto reduce energy consumption and the associated levels of carbonemission by such ‘‘an active and integrated institutional arrange-ment’’. That is, by the integration of a mass retrofit proposal intoan urban regeneration strategy, with the vision, master-plan,programme of renewal and redevelopment scheme, which iscapable of transforming into an energy efficient, low carbon zone.

As a study of how institutions can plan for low energyredevelopments and the possibility of low carbon zones, thepaper highlights the state of the art on mass retrofits within the

residential property sector and draws particular attention to thetype of baseline assessments needed to legitimate not only thestrategic value of such arrangements, but their practical worth asmeasures capable of meeting emissions targets.

The paper begins with an examination of the urban regenerationstrategy, the vision and masterplan that underpins this programmeof renewal and redevelopment scheme which supports the inte-grated institutional arrangement in question. From here the exam-ination starts to review the energy options appraisal undertaken tosupport the mass-retrofit proposal it advances. It then goes on tooutline the terms of reference for the authors’ involvement with theproject, the specific objectives underlying this intervention andmethodology assembled to assess the mass-retrofit proposal. Fromhere the paper goes on to set out the environmental profile under-lying the mass-retrofit and socio-demographic baseline supportingthe examination’s ex-ante evaluation of the proposal.

Having done this, the examination goes on to reflect upon thepotential of mass retrofit proposals, the methodological chal-lenges they pose and critical insights this paper offers into thedistribution of their costs and benefits.

2. Literature review

If we quickly review the existing literature on retrofits, thestrategic value of such an examination should become clear. For,while over the past decade the potential of retrofits has beenreported on, these tend to be couched in terms of what they cancontribute to the standards of energy consumption and carbonemissions across Europe and N. America. Jacobsson and Volkman

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Energy Policy

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.019

n Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Reid).

Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200


(2006) and Amstalden et al. (2007) offer such a policy analysis forEurope. Selin and Van Dever (2009) also offer the same for N.America.

While such a policy analysis does much to highlight thepotential contribution residential retrofits can make to reducethe rates of energy consumption and levels of carbon emissions,they also serve to illustrate how little is currently known aboutthe specific institutional arrangements that towns and citiesacross Europe and N. America are assembling to meet thechallenge which climate change poses. Possible exceptions to thiscan be found in:

� Power (2008) examination of the emerging evidence onretrofits.� Williams (2009) review of urban regeneration strategy, vision

and master-plan for the Thames Gateway.� Zavadskas et al. (2008) study of master-plans for the retro-

fitting of residential apartment blocks in Villnius.� Dunham-Jones and Williamson (2009) report on the use of

retrofit projects in the renewal and redevelopment of Atlantaand Maryland.

Even here though, we find the focus of the Thames Gatewaystudy is primarily on the demolition and redevelopment of newresidential property and not the retrofitting of existing stock.While the Vilnius study does concentrate on the retrofitting ofexisting stock, the focus of attention here is on reducing the rateof energy consumption and not the levels of carbon emissions.The third and most recent study of retrofits in Atlanta andMaryland does, however, overcome this short falling and reporton the nature of the relationship between retrofits, rates of energyconsumption and levels of carbon emissions. As Dunham-Jonesand Williamson (2009: pp. 2–4) state:

Retrofitting goes well beyond energy consumption, becauseretrofitting’s greater potential goes well beyond incrementaladaptation, reuse and renovation. For by [master]-planningsuburban properties, more significant reductions in carbonemissions can be achieved with a systematic mix of housetypes.

To support this claim they quote third party evidence tosuggest ‘‘retrofitting’s greater potential’’ is to ‘‘lower carbon emis-

sions by 30% per unit’’ (ibid).This tends to suggest the literature currently available on

retrofitting is selective, offering only a partial knowledge of thesubject and is insufficiently comprehensive to offer an integratedsolution. The reason for this being that it either focuses exclu-sively on new development, or because the publications currentlyavailable on the renewal and redevelopment of the existing stockconcentrate on reductions in energy consumption and not carbonemissions. Even the most recent literature available on retrofits islimited in the sense the attempt which this study makes to go‘‘beyond incremental adaptation, reuse and renovation’’, onlymanages to make the case for the ‘‘greater potential’’ that it hasto ‘‘lower carbon emissions by 30%’’.

The case study this paper advances attempts to bridge the gapthat currently exists between energy consumption and carbonemissions by offering a sufficiently comprehensive analysis of thepotential which mass retrofits in the housing sector have, not onlyto reduce energy consumption, but to lower levels of carbonemissions in line with those standards of environmental sustain-ability laid down by the UK Government in the Climate ChangeAct 2008. The study itself draws upon the research undertaken forthe EPSRC-sponsored SURegen project (already reported on byRavetz (2008: p. 4483-6) in this journal) and desktop studies

carried out to examine the institutional arrangements of massretrofits within the residential sector of the property market. Inparticular, those successful in not only making the case forretrofits, but realising the ‘‘greater potential’’ they have to reducerates of energy consumption and levels of carbon emissions inline with the standards of environmental sustainability laid downby the UK Government.

3. The integrated institutional arrangement

As a suburb within the London Borough of Sutton, Hackbridgeis home to approximately 8000 people. The area is largelyresidential and the housing comprises 18th century listed cot-tages, late 19th century terraced houses, inter-war semi-detachedhomes and BedZED, the internationally recognised developmentof 100 homes built to sustainable design principles in 2000.

In 2005, Sutton Council stated its commitment to movetowards One Planet Living as a concept based around 10 sustain-ability principles developed by sustainability consultantsBioRegional. This is set out in the Core Planning Strategy1 BP61as a:

y key long-term target yto reduce the ecological footprint ofresidents to a more sustainable level of 3 global hectares perperson by 2020 from the current ‘3-planet’ baseline of 5.4 glo-bal hectares. To deliver this Vision, the Council is working inpartnership with BioRegional to prepare a ‘SustainabilityAction Plan’ based on the 10 One Planet Living principles ofzero carbon; zero waste; sustainable transport; local andsustainable materials; local and sustainable food; sustainablewater; natural habitats and wildlife cultural and heritage;equity and fair trade; and health and happiness.

The Core Planning Strategy also states, Hackbridge:

ywill be the focus for a flagship sustainable [urban] regen-eration project that brings about the renewal of the fabric ofthe area through environmentally innovative mixed-use rede-velopment schemes.

3.1. The urban regeneration strategy

In promoting this urban regeneration strategy, BioRegionalhave taken on the responsibility of managing the project anddrafting a Sustainability Action Plan2 setting out how the renewalof the fabric shall be environmentally innovative in terms of themixed use redevelopment schemes their joint statement on OnePlanet Living sets out.

3.2. The vision of the master-plan

Under this institutional arrangement, a masterplan3 has beencommissioned from Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design. Thevision which the masterplan sets out makes clear the programmeof renewal that is being assembled for such a redevelopmentneeds to underpin the joint statement on One Planet Living andsupport the transformation of Hackbridge into a ‘‘sustainable

1 London Borough of Sutton (2008) Draft Development Plan Document: Core

Planning Strategy. Available at http://www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=

3429&p=0.2 One Planet Sutton. Hackbridge Sustainable Suburb: Draft Sustainability Action

Plan. Available at: http://www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=5175&p=0.3 London Borough of Sutton (2009) Hackbridge Sustainable Suburb: Final

Draft Masterplan. Produced by Tibbalds Planning & Urban Design. Available at:

http://www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4366&p=0.

M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200188


suburb’’. The Sustainable Suburb Charter, a voluntarily-produceddocument complementing the plan’s vision, programme ofrenewal and redevelopment, also draws out 13 additionalrequirements. These being to:

� create a local centre for Hackbridge;� develop high-quality pedestrian and cycle routes;� for the redevelopment to meet 20% of all Sutton’s new housing

target (including social housing);� increase the amount of employment opportunities for local

residents;� meet the requirements of the area’s population growth, via

new schools, new health facilities, etc.;� provide easily accessible green and open spaces;� for the redevelopment to provide opportunities for community

engagement;� manage and maintain areas specifically for bio-diversity� reduce the disparity in residents’ life expectancy, and obesity

in general;� achieve maximum energy efficiency ‘‘in all households, busi-

nesses and public buildings in the area’’;� achieve a recycling rate higher than the average for London

and water consumption rates lower than the national average;� pilot parts of the South London Joint Waste Management Plan;� establish a resource pool and evidence base for all forms of

sustainability.

The masterplan and charter both make explicit references tohow such measures can sustain the regeneration of Hackbridge inline with BioRegional’s ‘‘One Planet Living‘‘ principles. Hereparticular attention is given to how a mass retrofit of the area’sresidential sector can generate reduced rates of energy consump-tion and lower levels of carbon emissions.

3.3. Review of the Energy Options Appraisal

The Energy Options Appraisal for Domestic Buildings4, pro-duced by Parity Projects in April 2008, sets out the ‘‘programme ofwork’’ for improving the energy efficiency and carbon emissionsof the housing stock. It assesses the rates of energy consumptionand levels of carbon emissions for the stock of housing withinHackbridge (as designated in the masterplan). Brief attention isalso given to profiling the resident community by referencingCensus (2001) returns for the London Borough of Sutton. Thisanalysis also details a number of energy efficiency measures thatcan be taken in order to turn the area under investigation into alow carbon zone.

While all very useful, the environmental profile advanced inthis report is found wanting for the reason the option appraisal isunclear as to whether the benefits generated from the forecastlevels of energy consumption and carbon emissions will be spreadequally amongst all residents. The reason for this is simple: it isbecause in order to offer such an evaluation it is necessary for theinstitutional arrangement supporting the regeneration i.e.,between the London Borough of Sutton, BioRegional and mem-bers of the community as advocates of the Charter, to first of allbaseline the social-demographic composition of Hackbridge. Thenext stage is to draw upon the results of this analysis as themeans to assess whether this ‘‘innovative’’ environment has thecapacity to carry the energy consumption and carbon emissionstargets the ‘‘mixed-use redevelopment scheme’’ sets for the

suburb. That is, whether this ‘‘innovative’’ environment has thecapacity to carry the energy consumption and carbon emissionstargets which the ‘‘mixed use redevelopment scheme’’ sets for thesuburb and if this process of urban regeneration has the means tosustain them.

4. SURegen’s involvement

In seeking to fill these gaps in the existing appraisal, SURegen’sinvolvement in the Hackbridge project has been defined inspecific terms. In particular, it has been charged with theresponsibility of working with the institutional arrangement emer-

ging from the urban regeneration proposal and establishing thefollowing:

� whether the environmental profile generated is capable notonly of being baselined in socio-demographic terms, butdrawn upon as the means to evaluate if the benefits of themass retrofit can be spread equally amongst the residents;� or whether the distribution of costs emerging from the action

are unevenly distributed across the structure of tenure withinthe housing market and if this undermines the claims madeabout the environmental sustainability of the action.

What this specific terms of reference does is put an obligationon SURegen to supplement the technical knowledge of energyconsumption and carbon emissions already in the public domain,with the socio-demographic data needed to inform those institu-tions participating in such regeneration proposals, not onlywhether the types of renewal and redevelopments they promoteare legitimate in both technical and social terms, but if they alsochampion the kind of environmental sustainability laid down inPrinciples of One Planet Living and Sustainable Suburb Chartereveryone involved has signed up to.

The assumption underlying the types of profiling exercisesfound in the existing Option Appraisal suggests they do legitimateactions of this type and, in turn, are effective in championingenvironmental sustainability. This is the assumption which thecase study seeks to investigate, throw light on and in that sense,bring to the surface. Not for the reason SURegen wants toscrutinise their claims to legitimacy on technical grounds, butbecause under the institutional arrangements emerging to sup-port such actions, the type of technical knowledge currentlyavailable is insufficient to answer the kinds of questions increas-ingly being asked of such appraisals. In holding these assumptionsup to scrutiny, it is anticipated the case study shall generate anumber of insights into the possibility there is for examinations ofthis kind to not only fill the gap between the technical and social,but also take the opportunity which any potential integrationoffers to bridge them.

These are the kinds of insight, possibilities, opportunities andpotentialities the authors of this paper wish to suggest are criticalfor all concerned in such projects to be aware of:

� not only for the reason they start to reveal the complementarynature of the relationship between the technical and socialcomponents of such proposals, but because they also begin toshow how the virtuous nature of this relationship may berealised;� nor because the nature of the relationship can be drawn upon

to demonstrate how the type of collaboration inscribed intothe institutional arrangements under examination, vis-a-vis,the visions, masterplans, renewal programmes and redevelop-ment schemes, currently surrounding the mass retrofit propo-sals can be constructive;

4 London Borough of Sutton (2008) Energy Options Appraisal for Domestic

Buildings in Hackbridge. Produced by Parity Projects. Available at: http://www.

sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=5173&p=0.

M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 189


� but rather, because they offer the prospect for the institutionalarrangement to build the type of consensus needed for thevery redevelopment schemes being designed to meet therequirement for urban regeneration, to be environmentallysustainable.

The model of environmental sustainability this analysis drawsupon can be traced back to Deakin et al. (2002) and Curwell et al.(2005). The technical components of the analytical model are setout in Deakin (2004, 2008a) and the social demographic elementscan be found in Deakin and Allwinkle (2007, 2008). In terms ofthe relationship such an institutionally-grounded representationof urban regeneration has to environmental sustainability, thiscan be found in Deakin et al. (2007), Deakin (2008b, 2008c) and aspart of an ongoing debate about the development of a commu-nity-based approach to (environmentally) sustainable urbanregeneration (Deakin, 2009).

Couched within this emerging debate on the sustainability ofurban regeneration, the specific objectives of this examinationinto the mass retrofit proposal are to:

� develop an environmental profile for the proposal based uponthe ‘‘footprint’’ set out in the masterplan and statements onenergy consumption and carbon emissions found in theOptions Appraisal;� draw upon official statistical data currently available to ana-

lyse the social and demographic structure of the regeneration’sfootprint and baseline the potential there is for the massretrofit to transform Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb;� use the outcomes of this social baseline analysis to review

whether the energy-saving and carbon reduction measurescan transform Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb and if thisis ‘‘achievable without burdening any residents with addi-tional environmental cost’’.

Such an environmental profile is needed because currently neitherthe masterplan, nor Options Appraisal is sufficiently grounded inwhat this paper refers to as an appropriate ‘‘area-based’’, vis-a-vis,‘‘in situ’’ analysis. The first and second objectives set for SURegen’sinvolvement in the project offer the prospect of such an analysis. Thethird uses the data generated from this analysis to review the socio-demographic evidence such a baseline offers to evaluate the proposi-tion made about the costs and benefits of the environmental profile.Together they will establish whether the project is not just well

grounded, or sure-footed, but if the type of environmental sustain-ability it champions is both fair and equitable.

5. The environmental profile

This profiling exercise sub-divides the stock of residences intosix house types and is used to calculate both the energy savingsand carbon emission reductions generated from the range ofretrofit options (see Fig. 1).

The third column of Fig. 1 illustrates the potential energy andCO2 reductions in the event all the recommendations outlinedwithin the report are taken up. This shows the forecast levels ofenergy consumption to be lowered by 56%, with CO2 emissionsreduced by 51%.

Figs. 2 and 3 list the cost of the works needed for the retrofit tolower the levels of energy consumption and reduce carbonemissions. In some cases, alternatives are provided, such as inthe proposed thickness of loft insulation. Both figures highlightthese alternatives in grey.

Fig. 2 lists basic measures assumed to be adopted by a highproportion of households without the need for professionalassistance. These measures can be carried out immediately. TheDIY percentage listed is the envisaged capability of residents tofulfil this requirement. Implementing such measures will cost onaverage £691 per property.

Fig. 3 lists those measures which are mostly out with thecapability of households and instead require professional installationby qualified personnel. Implementing such measures will cost onaverage £10,737 per property.

Fig. 1. Potential Energy and CO2 Reductions. Data sourced from the Energy

Options Appraisal (2008). Note: Figs. 1–8 have been constructed using data

sourced from the Energy Options Appraisal (2008) produced by Parity Projects.

Fig. 2. Cost of basic measures.



Figs. 4 and 5 shows the total cost of implementing all theproposed measures to be £27,463,186. With an average of 73%owner occupation the cost of implementing such measures withinthis sector is £20,046,466 or £11,429 per property within thestudy area.

In accordance with the terms of reference laid down forthe retrofit, the said costing are limited to those items ofexpenditure incurred by households in the owner-occupied and

private-rented sector. Households in the social-rented sector arenot factored into this costing and do not to form part of theretrofit proposal.

5.1. Hackbridge by house type

This profiling exercise goes on to identify six house typeswithin the boundaries of the regeneration footprint: House TypeB; House Type C; House Type F, House Type I, House Type J andHouse Type L. Variations within House Type F appear to havebeen based upon dwelling size rather than any significantdifference in design, so the ‘‘sub-types’’ within this group havebeen aggregated for Figs. 6 and 7.

Here Hackbridge is identified as having a high proportion ofhousing stock built post 1972 (39%) which are likely to havecavity insulation already installed. Similarly, those propertiesbuilt pre-1939 (23%) are likely to have been built with solidsingle skin external walls and therefore unable to receive cavitywall insulation. The appraisal suggests that remedial workstargeted at the older housing stock will deliver the greatestimprovements, however concedes the necessary works are oftenmore invasive and costly. Figure 7 shows locations in Hackbridgethat are characterised by a predominant house type.

Fig. 3. Cost of more complex measures.

Fig. 4. Average cost per household.

Fig. 5. Average cost of DIY and professional measures.



6. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions by house type

Fig. 8 shows that, in general, the older house types use moreenergy than the newer property types. Whilst energy consumption inType B dwellings is highest, Type L homes consume the least energy.Similarly, it can be seen that the older housing stock (Type B, Type Cand Type F) have a higher rate of CO2 emission than the newerproperties. This is demonstrated in Fig. 8 by Type B (pre 1918)dwellings, which feature the highest rates of CO2 emission and Type L(post 2001) producing the lowest rates.

The following maps present a more detailed picture of energyconsumption across the housing types. These have been collatedusing data from the appraisal to indicate energy consumption andconsequent CO2 emissions.

Figs. 9 and 10 are arranged according to the groups of similarhousing stock identified in the appraisal then coded according to theirannual consumption of energy and CO2 emissions. Fig. 9 demonstratepockets of high energy consumption (shown in dark grey) to the

north and again in areas to the south. Similarly, pockets of low energyconsumption can be seen across the map, in the north, where socialdeprivation is highest, and in the south where it is lowest.

Fig. 10 shows the CO2 emissions detailed in the report. Thecalculation of CO2 emissions has been arrived at by multiplying theenergy consumption by conversion factors 0.43/kWh of electricityand 0.18/kWh of gas. The highest emissions (7500–8000 kg CO2 perannum) can be found in the north of the study area.

7. The social baseline

These maps draw on data returns from the Census 2001 andEID 2007 [adapted from data from the Office for NationalStatistics available under the Open Government Licence v.1.0].The base unit for census data release is the Output Area – a clusterof adjacent postcode units incorporating approximately 312residents. The base unit for the EID 2007 is the Lower SuperOutput Area (LSOA): these are built from groups of 4–6 LSOAs and

Fig. 6. Hackbridge by house type.



constrained by the wards used for the 2001 census outputs. LSOAsincorporate approximately 1500 residents.

The outline for Hackbridge has been prepared using the Google‘‘My Maps’’ function [Fig. 11]. A second map has subsequently beenprepared showing the outlines of the LSOAs spanning Hackbridge(identified using ONS Boundary Viewer and as shown in Fig. 12). Themap of the study area has been superimposed upon the map of theLSOAs to confirm appropriate coverage (Fig. 13).

8. Classification of social groups

The standard measures of social deprivation in England are theEnglish Indices of Deprivation (EID), produced by the Government

and compiled in 2007 (Noble et al., 2007). These provide a rankingsystem whereby small geographical units, known as Lower SuperOutput Areas (LSOAs), are rated against 37 indicators and thenranked in relation to one another. LSOAs are home to approxi-mately 1500 people: there are a total of 32,482 LSOAs in England.As the LSOAs are ranked comparatively, rank 1 indicates the mostdeprived LSOA in England and rank 32,482 the least deprived inEngland.

The Lower Super Output Areas within the Hackbridge studyarea (outlined in black), have been numbered from 1 to 5 and areshown in Fig. 14.

As Fig. 15 illustrates, Hackbridge is home to a large populationwho rank in the 50% least deprived in England. For the purposes ofthis report, each LSOA has been labelled from 1 to 5: areas withinthe 50% least deprived in England are labelled 2 and 5. However,Hackbridge is also home to a population amongst the 25% most

deprived in England – in the area labelled 1 – with an overallranking of 6768 (where 1 is the most deprived and 32,482 is theleast). A second LSOA is ranked at the 25% mark; this is the smallarea labelled 3. However, as Fig. 14 indicates, care must be takenwhen interpreting data returns for Area 3 as only half of thesurface area is included within the Hackbridge Study Area(shaded). In total, three LSOAs, with an approximate combinedpopulation of 4500, are home to people within the 50% mostdeprived in England.

In order to better understand these figures, it is important toconsider each of the areas covered by the Indices in turn. TheIndices of Deprivation 2007 were calculated across 7 domains:Income; Employment; Health and Disability; Education, Skills andTraining; Barriers to Housing and Services; Living Environmentand Crime.

Fig. 7. Hackbridge by house type location – images.

Fig. 8. Average annual CO2 emissions per house type (kg).



9. Deprivation across the domains

Fig. 16 demonstrates deprivation ranking in the five LSOAswithin the study area. These are labelled 1–5 as shown in Fig. 15.Findings from each domain are as follows:

� the Income domain is designed to identify the proportions of apopulation experiencing income deprivation, with particularattention to those reliant upon various means-tested benefits.None of the LSOAs within the case study area fall within the10% most income-deprived in England; however, two ofHackbridge’s LSOAs are ranked within the 20% most deprived(Areas 1 and 3) and one is ranked within the 30% mostdeprived (Area 4). The actual score given to each LSOArepresents the area’s income deprivation rate. This means thatin Area 1, 32% of residents can be described as income-deprived. To the west, in Area 3, 30% of residents can bedescribed as income deprived. By contrast, in Area 5 to thesouth of Hackbridge station, only 9% of residents are income-deprived.� the EID 2007 conceptualises employment deprivation as ‘‘the

involuntary exclusion of the working-age population from theworld of work’’. The highest rate of employment deprivation inHackbridge is 15%, seen in Area 1. This is in the 30% mostdeprived areas in England. By contrast, the area immediatelysouth of this LSOA (Area 2) has an employment deprivationrate of 5%; amongst the 20% least deprived in England.� the Health and Disability domain measures morbidity, dis-

ability and premature mortality in each given area. Area 1 isthe most health-deprived, ranking within the 33% mostdeprived in England. Area 4 ranks within the 28% leasthealth-deprived in England.

� the Barriers to Housing and Services domain is calculated overtwo sub-domains: geographical barriers and so-called ‘‘wider’’barriers, which includes issues relating to the affordability oflocal housing. Area 3 is the most deprived within the studyarea and is within the 22% most deprived in England.� the Education, Skills and Training deprivation domain measures

deprivation in educational attainment amongst children, youngpeople and the working age population. Area 1 ranks at 21% most

<5000

10000 - 15000

15000 - 20000

20000 - 25000

25000 - 30000

30000 - 35000

Fig. 9. Energy consumption by house type (kWh p/a).

Source: Energy Options appraisal (2008).

<1000

4500 - 5000

5000 - 5500

5500 - 6000

6000 - 6500

6500 - 7000

>7000

Fig. 10. CO2 emissions by house type (kg p/a).

Fig. 11. Hackbridge study area.



deprived in England; its high ranking owing to the low rate ofyoung people entering Higher Education each year. Area 3 ranksat 25%; again largely due to its low HE progression rate.� the Crime domain measures the rate of recorded crime for

4 major volume crime types: burglary, theft, criminal damageand violence. The EID 2007 proposes that this domain represents‘‘the risk of personal and material victimisation at a small arealevel’’. In this domain, Area 3 is ranked within the 36% mostdeprived and Area 1 within the 41% most crime deprived. Area5 ranks in the 20% least deprived in England, in terms of crime.� the Living Environment domain is, in fact, calculated over two

sub-domains: indoors and outdoors. Indoors, the domain

identifies deprivation by measuring housing in poor conditionand houses without central heating. Outdoors, air quality ismeasured across several parameters and the number of roadtraffic accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists isincorporated. In terms of Living Environment deprivation, bothAreas, 2 & 3 rank within the 24% most deprived in England.

From these measures a pattern can be seen emerging in thearea’s EID overall rankings: two pockets of relative deprivation tothe north and west of Hackbridge, with relative prosperity to thesouth of the study area. These measures of deprivation are, inturn, compounded by the health, housing, education, crime andliving environment rankings.

9.1. Structure of tenure within the housing market

Fig. 17 illustrates the structure of housing tenure within thestudy area using data from the 2001 Census5. As the data returns

Fig. 12. Hackbridge by LSOA.

Fig. 13. Hackbridge by LSOA and study area.

Fig. 14. Hackbridge sub-sections by number.

Fig. 15. The overall deprivation ranking (where 100% is the least deprived in

England).

5 Census output is Crown copyright and is reproduced with the permission of

the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland.



in this instance were at Output Area level6 (the smallest unit ofspatial analysis) it is possible to include a 6th area: a section of127 households. The data returns (at Output Area level) have beenshown within the Lower Super Output Areas (numbered 1–5) forthe purposes of clarity. As the Figure shows, owner-occupation inHackbridge is above the English average of 68.72% in all but onearea. Social rented accommodation is below the average of 19.26%in all areas, and privately rented accommodation exceeds theaverage figure of 8.80% in all areas but one.

9.2. An area-based analysis

The following relates the socio-demographic data to the envir-onmental profile. This is achieved by way of an area-based analysis,linking levels of energy consumption and carbon emissions to thestructure of tenure and the connection this has to the housingmarket. As an area-based analysis, this assessment of consumptionand emissions by structure of tenure draws upon data profiled fromLSOA’s 1 to 5. The reasons for focusing attention on these areas are:

� LSOAs 1 and 5 provide measures of the most and least deprivedareas within the urban regeneration footprint. Here, Area 1 is themost deprived with a ranking within the 21% most deprived areasin England, whereas Area 5 has a much lower ranking within the29% least deprived;� while roughly similar in terms of building type, age, and levels of

consumption and emissions, the social-rented sector is prevalentin Area 1, whereas in Area 5 the owner-occupied and private-rented sector are the main sectors of the housing market;� such an area-based analysis provides evidence to suggest

which type of tenure consumes the least or most amount ofenergy and relationship this, in turn, has to the levels ofemissions within the housing market.

Notes on Figs. 18 and 19:

1. ‘‘Type’’ refers to the housing model applied in the EnergyOptions Appraisal [see Fig. 7: Hackbridge by House Type].

2. ‘‘Age’’ refers to the approximate year of build, as designated inthe Energy Options Appraisal.

3. ‘‘HA’’ refers to the designated localities of similar housingstock in the Hackbridge Study Area, as detailed in the EnergyOptions Appraisal. Twenty areas of similar housing stock wereidentified and are used here to show the different housingstock within the lowest-ranking Lower Super Output Area (EID2007) and the highest-ranking LSOA.

4. Energy and CO2 data has been taken from the Energy OptionsAppraisal.

5. ‘‘Tenure’’ data has been taken from the Census 2001 at OutputArea level. The HA (areas of similar housing) are smaller thanOutput Areas therefore exact counts for each area of housingcannot be provided. The percentages shown represent a best-fit analysis at Output Area level.

Fig. 18 illustrates the relationship between the building type andage of construction by Housing Area (HA) 1, 2 and 3, levels of energyconsumption and carbon emissions for the same, split across thestructure of tenure. As this illustrates, HA 2 is predominantly social-rented in terms of tenure type and has an energy consumption rate of19,248 (kW h/p.a.), 2113 (kW h/p.a.) or 11% below the overall averagefor the owner-occupied, private-rented and social rented sectors ofthe housing market in LSOA 1. Fig. 19 goes on to illustrate the samerelationships for HAs 18, 19 and 20 in LSOA 5. Here the structure oftenure is predominantly owner-occupied and private-rented and theaverage energy consumption is 21,926 (kWh p.a.), 565 (kWh p.a.), or3% higher than the average for LSOA 1.

Fig. 20 illustrates that LSOA 1(HAs 1, 2 and 3), located withinthe 21% most deprived in England ,has the lowest levels of energyconsumption and LSOA 5, situated within the 29% least deprivedin England (HAs 18,19 and 20) the highest. Fig. 21 also illustrates

Fig. 16. Multiple deprivation ranking (where a ranking of 32,482 is the least deprived in England).

Fig. 17. Housing Tenure in Hackbridge Source: 2001 Census: Standard Area

Statistics (England and Wales).

6 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown copyright 2003.



the levels of energy consumption within the 21% most and 29%least deprived LSOAs (1 and 5, respectively) and shows how theyare split across the social-rented, owner-occupied and privaterented sectors. Within the social-rented sector of LSOA 1 (HA 2), itillustrates the average level of consumption to be 19,248, whereasin LSOA 5 (HA 18, 19 and 20) this is shown to be 21,926, or 14%higher for the owner occupied and private rented tenures.

As the CO2 emission levels are similar for both LSOAs 1 and 5(HAs 1, 2, 3 and 18, 19 and 20), they are not seen as warrantingsuch an area-based analysis.7

10. Reflections on the examination

Reflecting on the terminology deployed by Ravetz (2008: p.4482) and found in the introduction to this paper, it is evident theHackbridge project offers a particularly good example of aresponse to the ‘‘perceived need for more integrated and active

institutional arrangements towards the strategic management of the

housing stock’’. For, as an exercise in realising the potential ofmass retrofits, it is to be commended for the reason it provides agood example of how to progress beyond the state-of-the-art, bestrategic, visionary and masterful in planning a programme ofrenewal whose redevelopment is not predicated on demolitionand new build, but adaptation and renovation of an existing use.That is, based upon relatively small-scale, low cost adaptations ofexisting buildings whose value lies in the capacity such modifica-tions have to lower energy consumption and reduce levels ofcarbon emission. The Energy Options Appraisal also producedfrom this exercise should be commended, if only for the reasonthis report offers the evidence base to underpin such actions andsupport them as viable implementation strategies.

The fact this project has now started to integrate the energyconsumption and carbon emissions generated from the commer-cial and industrial sectors of the property market, also serves tohighlight the progressive nature of the renewal programme andredevelopment scheme it advances. Not least because in cuttingacross these sectors, it no longer restricts itself to the adaptationand continued use of the existing housing stock, but also coversthe energy consumption and carbon emissions of the new buildcomponents of the commercial and industrial property marketcovered by the regeneration strategy. As embodiments of OnePlanet Living Principles and the Sustainable Suburb Charter, theinstitutional arrangements between Sutton Council, BioRegional,Parity Projects and other organisations emerging from the Hack-bridge project, are also commendable, not only for the reasonthey assemble the resources to programme this renewal andredevelopment, but because they also piece together the means toimplement it.

Saying this, the underlying issue which this paper has with theHackbridge project relates to the environmental profile the mass-retrofit proposal advances. This is found wanting because theappraisal is not clear as to whether the benefits generated from

Fig. 18. Profile of housing, energy consumption and tenure within the most deprived area of Hackbridge (LSOA 1).

Fig. 19. Profile of housing, energy consumption and tenure within the least deprived area of Hackbridge (LSOA 5).

Fig. 20. The relationship between deprivation and energy consumption in LSOA

1 and LSOA 5. Note: The diagram illustrates deprivation and energy consumption

values for LSOA 1 and LSOA 5 only. It is not intended to suggest a linear

relationship between deprivation and energy consumption.

7 The Energy Options Appraisal presents CO2 emission data based upon

conversion factors for both electricity and gas (combined as ‘‘total energy

consumption’’). The report does not include information on the electricity and

gas consumption rates used in calculating total energy consumption and emis-

sions of CO2.



the forecast rates of energy consumption and levels of carbonemissions, will be spread equally amongst all residents. Thereason for this – the paper suggests – is simple: it is because, inorder to clarify the distribution of benefits generated, it isnecessary for the institutional arrangement supporting the regen-eration i.e., the London Borough of Sutton, BioRegional andmembers of the community who have signed up to the Charter,to first of all ‘‘baseline’’ the social-demographic composition ofHackbridge. Then, draw upon the results of this analysis as themeans to assess whether this ‘‘innovative’’ environment has thecapacity to carry the energy consumption and carbon emissionstargets the ‘‘mixed use redevelopment scheme’’ sets for thetransformation of Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb.

Defining the terms of reference and specific objectives ofSURegen’s involvement in the Hackbridge project, the paper hasalso gone some way to overcome the methodological challengeswhich the question that surrounds the distribution of benefitsposes. This has been achieved by:

� assembling the footprint forming the boundary of the project’senvironmental profile;� mapping the footprint by building type, age and number of

residential units;� analysing the footprint’s:

J energy consumption and carbon emissions by building typeand age;

J energy-saving and carbon reduction measures by buildingtype and age;

J their consumption, emissions, savings and reduction mea-sures, by location within the boundary of the environmen-tal profile;

� evaluating the cost of implementing the measures proposed inthe Energy Options Appraisal.

This has established that housing built pre-1918 on averageconsumes 56% more energy and emits 41% more CO2 than housesbuilt post-2001. This establishes the older housing stock is theworst performer in terms of energy consumption and suchhousing is also the most costly to improve. House Type B,identified as the oldest of the 6 house types and subsequently

the worst performer, makes up less than 20% of the housing stock.Indeed, the same calculation shows that a high proportion of thestock within the regeneration footprint comprises house typeswhich can be considered relatively new. Indeed as much as 39% ofthe housing stock was only built post-1970 and already containsmany of the measures proposed, so will therefore, only make amarginal contribution toward the transformation of Hackbridgeinto a sustainable suburb.

The socio-demographic baseline of this study area has, in turn,been compiled using data from the English Indices of Deprivation,2007 and 2001 Census. The results of this analysis have beenaggregated at Lower Super Output Area level and the overallranking of these areas shows a mix of relatively deprived andprosperous residents. Two of these areas, home to approximately3042 people, are ranked within the 25% most deprived in England.By contrast, another two LSOAs, home to approximately 3271people, are ranked within the 40% least deprived in England. OneLSOA is also ranked within the 30% least deprived.

In expanding this social-demographic baseline to include dataon building type, age, levels of consumption and emissions acrossthe structure of tenure within the housing market, it has beenpossible for the analysis to cross reference the rate of energyconsumption and level of carbon emissions within these areas tothe structure of tenure.

The value of such socio-demographic analysis lies in theopportunity it offers the masterplan, programme of renewal andredevelopment scheme to:

� provide an area-based analysis of the urban regeneration’smass retrofit proposal that is location-specific in terms of theenvironmental profile which it builds;� get beyond the tendency for the environmental profiles con-

structed by such reports to take on a purely technical nature;� overcome the methodological challenges that such exercises

pose by supplementing such technical analyses with thesocial-demographic information able to integrate data pre-viously overlooked;� use the aforesaid as a means to take a fresh look at the retrofit

through an analysis that is not overly reliant upon thetechnical efficiencies of the consumption and emissiontargets supporting the environmental profile, but social equityunderlying the structure of tenure which the housing marketis based upon.

Together these analyses offer critical insights into the distribu-tional assumptions underlying the mass retrofit and supporting thetransformation of Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb. In particular,those about the degree to which the project’s alignment of both theirsocial and technical components provide a baseline as much equitable

as efficient. That is, as much equitable as efficient and based on astructure of tenure within the housing market which is sufficientlybalanced for the environmental profiles this develops to support thetransformation of Hackbridge.

11. Conclusions

As the literature review has gone some way to establish, whilepolicy analysis over the past decade has done much to highlightthe potential contribution mass retrofits in the housing sector canmake to reduce the rates of energy consumption and levels ofcarbon emissions, they also serve to illustrate how little iscurrently known about the institutional arrangements townsand cities are currently putting in place as integrated solutionsto the problems climate change pose.

Fig. 21. The relationship between deprivation and energy consumption in the

social and owner occupier (including private rental) sectors. Note: The diagram

illustrates deprivation and energy consumption values for LSOA 1 and LSOA

5 only. It is not intended to suggest a linear relationship between deprivation and

energy consumption.



This suggests the literature currently available on mass retro-fits is selective, either because it focuses exclusively on thedemolition and new build components of renewal, or for thereason the material currently available on the incremental adap-tation, renovation and reuse of the existing stock, concentrates onreductions in energy consumption and not carbon emissions.Even the most recent literature available on attempts made togo ‘‘beyond incremental adaptation, renovation and reuse’’, havebeen found lacking in the sense they too only manage to make thecase for the ‘‘greater potential’’ such energy efficiency measureshave to ‘‘lower carbon emissions by 30%’’.

The mass retrofit proposal examined in this paper has soughtto bridge this gap by drawing upon the research undertakenfor the EPSRC-sponsored SURegen project and desktop exercisescarried out to examine the institutional arrangements ofmass retrofits within the residential sector of the propertymarket. In particular, those demonstrating the capacity to notonly make the case for mass retrofits, but also realise the potentialwhich the housing sector has to reduce rates of energy consump-tion and levels of carbon emissions in line with the standards ofenvironmental sustainability which are laid down by the UKGovernment.

The institutional arrangement which has been chosen todemonstrate the strategic value of mass retrofits in the housingsector is that known as the Hackbridge project. It has been chosenbecause it offers a particularly good example of a response thathas been made by a London Borough to move beyond the state-of-the-art and underpin their vision of urban regeneration with amasterplan itself capable of supporting a programme of renewaland redevelopment by way and through the adaptation andrenovation of property within an existing use.

This highlights the proposals to improve the energy efficiencyand carbon emissions of existing housing stock and thereby ‘‘ymake Hackbridge a more sustainable place to live.’’ Similarly, theHackbridge Charter lists a key objective of this proposal as toachieve: ‘‘ythe maximum possible energy efficiency for all house-

holdsy through the provision of appropriate locally generated

renewable sources, retrofitting and other measures, using both

promotion and direct works such as insulation for the housing stock.’’

The Core Planning Strategy for Sutton also specifies that: ‘‘y the

renewal of the fabric of the area [will be brought about] through

environmentally innovative mixed-use redevelopment schemes.’’

This baseline analysis has, however, thrown light on a numberof problems associated with the retrofit proposal. These may besummarised as follows:

� housing built pre-1918 on average consumes 56% more energyand emits 41% more CO2 than houses built post-2001;� the older housing stock is the worst performer in terms of

energy efficiency; the most laborious and costly to improve;� within the regeneration footprint, this type of housing makes

up less than 20% of the housing stock. Nearly 40% of thehousing stock having been built post-1970 is already benefit-ting from many of the measures proposed to save energy andreduce carbon emissions;� almost one third of Hackbridge residents live in areas which

rank within the top 25% most income-deprived in England,renting their homes from the Local Authority, Registered SocialLandlords, Housing Associations or the private-rented sector.Homes in the social-rented sector that have been shown toconsume less energy and to emit less CO2 than other housingtypes of a similar age in Hackbridge. Indeed, using theGovernment’s Standard Assessment Procedure for the energyrating of dwellings (SAP), the local authority housing inquestion is shown to out-perform the national average ratingsacross all dwelling types.

Given that the current policy on the retrofit excludes thesocial-rented sector, the assumptions made about how such aflagship ‘‘low carbon-zone’’ can be developed at no additionalenvironmental costs to residents prompts a number of questions.This is because in its current form the commitment to the massretrofit may be seen as divisive in terms of the actions it lays downfor improving the energy efficiency and carbon footprint of thehousing market. The reasons for this being:

� the most income- and employment-deprived residents live insocial rented accommodation which already exceeds nationalstandards in terms of energy performance;� the least deprived members of the community tend to secure

their accommodation from either the owner-occupier, orprivate-rented sectors of the older, less energy efficient andthe highest carbon-emitting dwellings;� while the former are excluded from any benefits the retrofit

may generate in terms of energy savings and carbon reduc-tion, the latter are targeted, not only because they are theworst offenders (as occupants of the older stock), but forthe reason that occupants of newer owner-occupied andprivate rented housing are also some of the least ‘‘worstoffenders’’.

This becomes particularly clear if we summarise the potentialbenefits of the energy efficiency and low carbon emissionsassociated with the Hackbridge project. For with the existingproposal, housing situated within the social rented sector shall beexcluded from the retrofit and remain with an energy efficiencyand carbon emission rating of 75% (Band C rating). While underthe retrofit proposals covering the owner-occupied and privaterented sectors of the housing market, the 50% improvements inenergy efficiency and carbon emissions for this sector are not onlyforecast to improve their standing from Band E to C, respectively(69–80%), but holdout the prospect of meeting the targets setunder the UK’s Climate Change Act for 2020.

This tends to leave the occupants of the social-rented sectorin the same situation they were in before the Climate ChangeAct 2008 came into effect. For while improving the overallstanding of the owner-occupied and private-rented sector, thissector of the housing market is likely to be left in a situationwhereby the mass retrofit measures introduced under theauspices of the Hackbridge project, end up leaving the mostincome-deprived groups in a somewhat precarious situation. Thatis, with the status of currently being the best in their class (forrates of energy performance and levels of carbon emissions,respectively), but stuck in a situation which is tantamount to‘‘fuel poverty’’.

This also suggests that using the structure of tenure to draw aclear line between what sectors of the housing stock are eligibleto participate in the benefits of mass retrofit projects is inap-propriate, not only on the grounds their programmes of renewalare divisive and socially inequitable, but for the technical ineffi-ciencies which redevelopment schemes of this kind also generate.For, in their current form, the measures adopted to champion thevirtues of environmental sustainability fail to adequately demon-strate where retrofits can best perform as energy efficient, lowcarbon zones. That is where they can best perform as energy

efficient, low carbon zones and which in both technical and social

terms, are equally capable of being administered at no extraenvironmental cost to the very communities their emerginginstitutional arrangements are designed to serve.

This clearly demonstrates the structure of tenure does notoffer an appropriate means to baseline mass retrofits associatedwith the regeneration strategies, visions and masterplans under



consideration, as it is not only divisive, but out of balance withthe demands transformational actions of this kind place oncommunities to deliver energy efficient, low carbon zones at noextra environmental cost. For the findings drawn from this casestudy tend to suggest that it is not tenure which should be used asthe basis for the retrofit, but the type, age, rates of energyconsumption and levels of carbon emissions themselves. For interms of the measures currently being drawn upon to transformHackbridge into a sustainable suburb and champion environmen-tal sustainability, such a basis would:

� be more inclusive, capable of cutting across the structure oftenure and integrating the housing market based on levels ofenergy consumption and carbon emissions. That is, capable ofnot only realising the potential the owner-occupied andprivate-rented sectors have to increase levels of performancefrom Bands B to C, but the possibility there is to do likewiseand draw upon this to shift the ratings of the housing stock

within the socially-rented sector from a C to B Rating and use this

as a means to begin addressing the 80% post-2020 targets;

� treat all social groups – the most and least deprived – equallyand in terms of the potential each type of tenure offers anyretrofit proposal to save energy and reduce carbon emissions;� allow the retrofit to prioritise those types of housing, age groups

and tenures with the greatest potential to be both sociallyequitable and technically efficient in meeting such targets;� focus attention on the worst offenders and maximise the

environmental benefits such energy efficient, low carbon zonesoffer society without either excluding the strongest upholders ofsuch standards from the exercise altogether, or running theassociated risk of downloading the cost of any such actions ontothe weakest and most vulnerable groups, least able to afford them.Those who simply cannot afford not to be included in suchactions: not only because of the contradictions this exposes inthe programmes of renewal and redevelopment schemes thatcurrently support mass retrofit proposals of this kind, but for thereason such exclusions also tend to bring the status of themasterplans and visions of urban regeneration into doubt.

Given it is proposed that energy consumption and carbon emis-sions should be core to the masterplan, it is particularly important forthe institutional arrangements which are being assembled to under-pin the redevelopment programme, should in turn support any suchtransformation of Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb. This isbecause without such a solid foundation, the Principles of One PlanetLiving that underpin the Charter for a Sustainable Suburb, may not bestrong enough to maintain the level of support which the communityneeds to stand firm on such matters.

References

Amstalden, R., Kost, M., Nathani, C., Imoden, D., 2007. Economic potential of

energy efficient retrofitting in the Swiss residential building sector: the effectsof policy instruments on energy price. Energy Policy 35 (2), 1819–1829.

Deakin, M., Curwell, S., Lombardi, P., 2002. Sustainable urban development: the

framework and directory of assessment methods. Journal of EnvironmentalAssessment, Management and Policy 4 (2), 171–198.

Curwell, S., Deakin, M., Symes, M. (Eds.), 2005. Sustainable Urban DevelopmentVolume 1: The Framework, Protocols and Environmental Assessment Meth-ods. E&FN Spons, Oxon.

Deakin, M., 2009. A Community-based approach to sustainable urban regenera-tion. Journal of Urban Technology 16 (1), 91–110.

Deakin, M., 2008a. The search for sustainable communities. In: Vrekeer, R., Deakin,

M., Curwell, S. (Eds.), Sustainable Urban Development Volume 3: The Toolkitfor Assessment. Routledge, Oxon.

Deakin, M., 2008b. The NAR model of land use and building assessment. In:Deakin, M., Vrekeer, R., Curwell, S. (Eds.), Sustainable Urban DevelopmentVolume 3: the Toolkit for Assessment. Routledge, Oxon.

Deakin, M., 2008c. Definitional components of sustainable communities: the neteffect of a realignment and cross-sectional representation. InternationalJournal of Design Principles and Practices 3 (1), 183–196.

Deakin, M., 2004. The NAR model. In: Deakin, M. (Ed.), Property Management:Corporate Strategies, Financial Instruments and the Urban Environment.

Ashgate Press, Aldershot.

Deakin, M., Allwinkle, S., 2007. Urban regeneration and sustainable communities:the role networks, innovation and creativity in building successful partner-

ships. Journal of Urban Technology 14 (1), 77–91.

Deakin, M., Allwinkle, S., 2008. A community-based approach to sustainable urban

regeneration: the LUDA project. International Journal of Inter-disciplinarySocial Sciences 3 (5), 181–191.

Deakin, M., Mitchell, G., Nijkamp, P., Vrekeer, R. (Eds.), 2007. Sustainable Urban

Development Volume 2: the Environmental Assessment Methods. E&FN Spons,Oxon.

Dunham-Jones, E., Williamson, J., 2009. Retrofitting Suburbia, Urban Design

Solutions. John Wiley, New Jersey.

Jacobsson, S., Volkman, L., 2006. The politics and policy of energy system

transformation – explaining the German diffusion of renewable energytechnology. Energy Policy 34 (3), 256–276.

Office for National Statistics, 2001: Digitised Boundary Data (England and Wales)

[exe]. ESRC Census Programme, Census Dissemination Unit, Mimas (Universityof Manchester).

Noble, M., et al., 2007. The English Indices of Deprivation 2007. Department of

Communities and Local Government, London.

Power, A., 2008. Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes

help increase our environmental, social and economic viability. Energy Policy36 (12), 4487–4501.

Ravetz, J., 2008. State of the stock – what do we know about existing buildings and

their future prospects. Energy Policy 36, 4462–4470.

Selin, H., Van Dever, D., 2009. Changing Climates in North America. MIT Press,Cambridge, MA.

Williams, J., 2009. The deployment of decentralised energy systems as part of ahousing growth programme in the UK. Energy Policy 38, 7604–7613.

Zavadskas, E., Raslanas, S., Kaklauskas, A., 2008. The selection of effective retrofitscenarios for panel houses in urban neighbourhoods based on expected energysavings and increase in market value: the Vilnius case. Energy and Buildings

40 (4), 573–587.


1

Public participation and scenario’s

Karel Mulder

Udo Pesch

Delft University of Technology

Why public participation in sustainable urban development?

One may distinguish roughly three reasons to involve the ‘public’ (or external stakeholders) in

collective decision-making processes. The first reason is to safeguard democratic legitimacy. The

second reason is to increase the quality of the decisions that are made. The third reason is enhance

the acceptability of a given policy plan (Cuppen, 2009; Stirling, 2006). In policy-making practice, the

emphasis is on the third reason: the public is involved in decision-making processes to ensure

that policy plans have the support of public, or, at least, that these plans do not raise public

opposition. Here we like to focus especially on the second reason for involving the public – such

involvement might be used to enhance the qualities of decision made. We will show why such

involvement can be seen as a fertile addition to existing patterns in political decision-making, and

we will also introduce scenario workshops as a method to engage the public in a productive way.

(Mulder, Oetrik, Parandian, & Gröndahl, Forthcoming) To start with the dominant way to

develop policy plans will be explored.

How are policies usually made?

The policy domain is characterized by a separation of functional responsibilities. Obviously there

is the legislative branch of parliament and the executive branch of government, which both have

their distinct place and role in the decision-making process. However, the division of

responsibilities and roles goes much further than this bipartite division (for the time being,

ignoring the judicial branch). We have different ministries, different levels of authority, etc. which

basically means that different organizational sections have to compete with each other for resources

and for the possibility to pursue its own plans and ambitions .

This division of tasks has great implications for the way policies are made. It implies that

the development of a successful policy plan is mainly based on acquiring support for a particular

policy plan. A coalition of advocates has to be forged which bears enough critical mass to

eventually pass the highest executive and legislative levels. One may say that the game of policy-

2

making is one of conflict and conviction, that works its way up from the ‘inside’ to the ‘outside’

(Kingdon, 1984; Stone, 2002).

In terms of the quality of decision-making the main problem of this mode of working is

that it gives rise to group think, which is seen as the most common explanation for policy failure.

The notion of group think was introduced by Irving L. Janis in 1972, and it was used to explain

painful fiasco’s in US foreign policy, such as the disastrous preparation to the Pearl Harbor

attacks, the escalation of the war in Korea, the failed invasion of the Cuban Bay of Pigs, and the

unwanted intensification of the American involvement in the Vietnam war (Janis, 1972). In each

of these cases, the group of decision-makers in charge were pursuing consensus and harmony

inside of the group itself, leading to the negligence of crucial information, to the failure to

formulate policy alternatives, or the reluctance to take such alternatives seriously. Also when the

group was confronted with news about recent, undesirable, developments, the group persevered

in its (Bogner, 2012) chosen policy course.

Trying to involve advocates to back up a given plan increases the chance for group think,

it means that one has to look for supporters of the plan to build up critical mass. Outsiders and

deviant voices cannot be admitted to the precarious enterprise of building a coalition. While

studies again and again reveal that to increase the quality of a decision or a policy, the

consideration of outside voices is of a quintessential requirement. Taking account of new and

unexpected perspectives allows decision-makers to be prepared for a wider range of future

events, making the policy plan more robust.

Unfortunately, most practices that are related to the involvement of the public do not

give rise to breaking the routines that were sketched above. What usually happens is that a policy

plan that is already formulated is presented to the public in a consultation round (or perhaps a

referendum). In general, the role of the public is then limited to making small adjustment or

refusing the package deal altogether (leading to great frustration among the policy-makers).

Deviant voices that may be present in the public are not given the opportunity to be raised

(Bogner, 2012).

Working from the outside in?

Our account does not mean that we have to get rid of the main modes of decision-making in the

policy realm. In our society, government has to play a central and coordinating role; after all, it is

the only agency that can fulfill such a function. It would be unrealistic and idealistic to expect that

grassroots initiatives suffice to face the grand challenges of the modern world. Moreover, in

3

relation to formulating policy plans, it has to be realized that most people, stakeholders and the

general public alike, are quite inarticulate in their capacity to address long-term futures, which is,

of course, an essential prerequisite for making policy plans.

The challenge is not to overthrow the decision-making system, but to think about ways to

improve its functioning by adding well-considered elements. From the discussion above, it can be

inferred that public involvement might be seen as a basis for collecting deviant voices, in other

words, for improving the quality of decisions. The disclaimer in this is that the public should be

enabled to

The use of scenario’s promises the effectuation of these three conditions. On the one

hand, the formulation and coordination of collective plans takes place at the level of a central

agency. On the other hand, the core of the scenario workshop-method is to collect deviant voices

and deviant information in an organized so that these insights can be used as assets for decision-

making process. Moreover, the methods of scenario workshops are especially geared towards the

explication of different ideas about the future. Below, we will first describe scenario’s as a tool to

make futures ‘manageable’, subsequently the role of the public and stakeholders will be

elaborated upon.

Mapping the future

Making policy plans, is about dealing with the future. As nobody knows the future, it might be

rather convenient to plan the future as it would be like today, forever…… Of course nobody is

that naïve, but the number of possible changes that we can take into regard in planning is limited.

For instance, if we want to plan urban areas to accommodate population changes, and we plan

for climate neutrality, various other changes might affect our activities:

cultural changes leading to different demands for housing, qualitatively as well as

quantitatively,

urban sprawl might occur instead of urbanization as office workers and employers might

finally master teleworking,

new practices leading to massive void office spaces, changing commuting and travel

habits.

Often there is a tendency to react to market changes, not to seek them pro-active. Some of the

changes to come might be analyzed by forecasting. As so many forecasts have turned out to be

totally wrong, claims are nowadays more modest: we might use foresight to sensitize planners

4

for changes that might come, instead claiming that the changes are unavoidable. However, also

with foresight we run into problems:

1. The dynamics of various important factors is non-linear. It implies that small changes at

specific moments lead to irreversible pathways in a development. For instance, as a

famous urban legend claims, the width of current railway tracks is still determined by

width of the classic Roman carriages.

2. Not all changes are external: we create the world and we are not passive spectators. So

our foresight partly depends on our own actions.

The consequence of 1) might be to claim that the world is unpredictable. However, the same

railway gauge example teaches us that there is quite a lot of predictability; the gauge has remained

identical for centuries. Only there are ‘forks’ in history, not everybody might take the same

direction at the forks, and how to foresee the consequences of the options? Scenarios might help

to foresee the forks and the impacts of options.

In thinking about the future, it is useful to make a distinction between changes that are

outside our reach (that are just happening, and we just need to adapt our plans to them) and the

changes that we are creating by our plans. For both changes, we might use scenarios, but they are

of a different nature:

The external scenarios span a ‘future space’ in which the plans that we make should be

effective and efficient. Exploring this space makes sense in order to find (all) options

open to the planner. Workshops on external scenarios lead to discussions regarding

‘robust’ options and precautions for ‘the extreme’.

Internal scenarios represent the main comprehensive strategies that could be

implemented. These scenarios can be evaluated for their consistency, and lead to

discussions regarding their ‘success in meeting predetermined targets’, and for their ‘other

impacts‘ under the various external scenarios.

So scenarios might be an important planning tool. But they might be more. Scenarios that

present a comprehensive strategy might also create an interesting storyline that allows for a far

better quality of interaction with, and between stakeholders. Often stakeholders have problems in

imagining a consistent future: they often have immediate demands or problems to be solved, and

it might be hard to make them think in a long term perspective. With that, it is hard for many

actors to articulate the way they relate to a certain policy plan, which affects the efficacy of their

5

contribution. In other words, the use of scenario’s figures as a potential a tool for improving the

quality of interaction with stakeholders.

For the Edinburgh workshop, we are looking for experts within the CLUE partner cities that

have applied one of these approaches in urban planning:

Forecasting (other than demographic changes)

foresight

scenarios for planning purposes,

scenarios for improved quality of stakeholder participation

During the expert workshop these experiences will be discussed in combination with some

results from the literature.

Bogner, A. (2012). The Paradox of Participation Experiments. Science, Technology & Human Values, 37(5), 506‐527.

Cuppen, E. (2009). Putting Perspectives into Participation. Constructive Conflict Methodology for Problem Structuring in Stakeholder Dialogues. Oisterwijk: Boxpress.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign‐policy decisions and fiascoes.

Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown. Mulder, K. F., Oetrik, O., Parandian, A., & Gröndahl, F. (Forthcoming). Scenario Based Learning

Regarding Contested Articulations of Sustainability. The Example of Hydropower and Sweden's Energy Future. International Journal of Sustainable Water and Environmental Systems.

Stirling, A. (2006). Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In M. Leach, I. Scoones & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and Citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement (pp. 218‐ 231). London: Zed Bookes.

Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. Revised edition. New York: Norton.

Session 3 - Simulated Scenario Workshop

Content

More information will be given during the Expert Workshop

preparation material clue expert workshop

Documents