It only takes two hours to get a rough estimate of urban eco-efficiency

Transkriptio

1 It only takes two hours to get a rough estimate of urban eco-efficiency SB Eero Puurunen Architect, Master of Environmental Design Pekka Lahti, VTT Antti Nikkanen, City of Tampere 2 HEKO district level eco-efficiency assessment tool for planners Foundation underlying HEKO Description of HEKO as a tool Lessons learned: testing HEKO s beta version 1

2 3 Legislation National Land Use Guidelines Regional Plan The City of Helsinki owns 2/3 of its land area Comprehensive Plan Master Plan Municipal Detailed Plan 4 Helsinki City Planning Department pre-study 2008 HEKO report

3 5 Initial Goals for HEKO Easy to use = easy to adopt Quick to use = more likely to be widely implemented and used on a continuous basis Based on the best current understanding of the impacts of urban development 6 The three basic pillars of Sustainable Development The four basic corners of Sustainable Development SOCIAL OVERALL SUSTAINABILTY ECONOMIC ECOLOGICAL HEKO Tool is based on the interpretation of the hard core of Sustainable Development i.e. the ecological sustainability / environmental imperative / eco-efficiency Source: Lahti et al Towards Sustainable Urban Infrastructure (ESF/COST C8 ) 3

4 7 FLOWS OF Urban metabolism FOR URBAN ELEMENTS OF IN PHASES OF 8 Materials Wood Metals Minerals Fuels Water Food etc. Energy Primary Secondary Emissions GHGs (CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O) other gases ( NOx, SOx, HC etc.) particles Buildings Residential buildings Production facilities Office and service facilities Infrastructure Transport Energy Water supply, drainage and sewage Telecommunication Waste management Blue -green infra (parks, outdoor areas, water areas etc.) Pre-construction Resource finding Raw material take Energy production Prefabrication Logistics Construction Operation and use Indoor comfort Transportation Maintenance and repair Post-operation Renovation Demolition Recycling Reuse 4

5 9 HEKO tool issues to be assessed Category LAND WATER ENERGY TRANSPORT AND SERVICES CARBON AND MATERIAL CYCLES no of the issue Issue to be assessed 1 land use for building purposes 2 efficiency in land use and amount of infrastructure 3 earthmoving 4 contaminated soil 5 local recreational areas and urban agriculture 6 structural quality of soil for building purposes 7 management of storm water, drainage and ground water 8 flood protection 9 water consumption per inhabitant 10 energy consumption of buildings 11 production of electricity 12 production of heat 13 utilisation of passive solar energy 14 outdoor lighting 15 mass transit 16 walking and cycling 17 use of passenger cars and parking 18 location of services and mixed land use 19 carbon footprint and use of recycled materials 20 waste management 21 utilisation of existing building stock HEKO TOOL issues to be assessed and their relative importance in total eco-efficiency Category LAND WATER ENERGY no of the issue 1 2 land use for building purposes efficiency in land use and amount of infrastructure Points Min Max % % 3 earthmoving % 4 contaminated soil % local recreational areas and urban agriculture structural quality of soil for building purposes management of storm water, drainage and ground water % % 27,4 % % 8 flood protection % 9 10 water consumption per inhabitant energy consumption of buildings % 6,0 % % 11 production of electricity % 12 production of heat % 13 Issue to be assessed utilisation of passive solar energy Impact power % 14 outdoor lighting % 29,5 % 15 mass transit % TRANSPORT AND SERVICES 27 % CARBON AND MATERIAL CYCLES 10 % LAND 27 % ENERGY 30 % 10 WATER 6 % TRANSPORT AND SERVICES CARBON AND MATERIAL CYCLES 16 walking and cycling % 17 use of passenger cars % and parking 18 location of services and % mixed land use 26,8 % carbon footprint and use % of recycled materials 20 waste management % 21 utilisation of existing % building stock 10,4 % 5

6 11 HEKO TOOL eco-efficiency assessment criteria and their weights assessment criteria with weights (subcategories of eco-efficiency affected by the urban planning and design solution) WASTE AND MATERIALS ENERGY RENEWABLES EMISSIONS RECYCLING ECO-SYSTEM criterion: decreases material consumption (excl. fuels) criterion: decreases energy consumption criterion: increases the share of renewables in energy production criterion: decreases emissions, especially greenhouse gases criterion: decreases wastes, increases recycling and reuse of materials, decreases dangerous waste and their impact criterion: decreases harmful disturbances of eco-systems and negative change in biodiversity; increases flexibility and resilience, improves knowledge, management and participation in impact assessment The weighting system is transparent This Beta version of the tool proposes a set of weights which could be changed after careful consideration 12 6

7 13 An example of inputs 14 HEKO tool results 1), 2) and 3) 1) total points 3) eco-efficiency category 2) spider net graph 100 7

8 15 HEKO TOOL results 4) simple hand of eco-efficiency (like in a speedometer) 100 Case area HEKO TOOL results 4) simple hand of eco-efficiency (like in a speedometer) 100 Case area

9 17 HEKO TOOL results 4) simple hand of eco-efficiency (like in a speedometer) 100 Case area Spider web diagram Total "eco-print" of the area The smaller the pink area, the more eco-efficient utilisation of existing building stock land use for building purposes efficiency in land use and amount of infrastructure waste management carbon footprint and use of recycled materials earthmoving contaminated soil Case area normal level location of services and mixed land use local recreational areas and urban agriculture use of passenger cars and parking structural quality of soil for building purposes walking and cycling management of storm water, drainage and ground water mass transit flood protection outdoor lighting water consumption per inhabitant utilisation of passive solar energy production of heat energy consumption of buildings production of electricity 9

10 19 HEKO test case 1: Meri-Rastila west bank 20 HEKO test case 1: Meri-Rastila west bank Draft for general plan (spring 2010) Option A Option B Option C 10

11 21 HEKO test case 1: Meri-Rastila west bank Draft for general plan (summer 2010) Option 1 Option 2 22 Meri-Rastila west bank test result (option 2): 102 points = good palveluiden sijainti ja toimintojen sekoittuminen henkilöauton käyttö ja pysäköinti olevan rakennuskannan hyödyntäminen rakentamisen hiilijälki kävely ja pyöräily joukkoliikenne jätehuolto ulkovalaistus passiivisen aurinkoenergian huomioiminen lämmöntuotanto maan käyttö rakentamiseen aluetehokkuus ja perusrakenteen määrä sähköntuotanto maansiirrot pilaantuneet maat, kaatopaikat lähivirkistysalueet ja -viljely maaperän rakennettavuus hulevesien hallinta ja pohjavedet tulvasuojelu vedenkulutus/asukas rakennusten energiankulutus Meri-Rastilan länsiranta normaalitaso 1 maan käyttö rakentamiseen 97 aluetehokkuus ja perusrakenteen 2 määrä maansiirrot pilaantuneet maat, kaatopaikat lähivirkistysalueet ja -viljely 95 6 maaperän rakennettavuus hulevesien hallinta ja pohjavedet tulvasuojelu vedenkulutus/asukas rakennusten energiankulutus sähköntuotanto lämmöntuotanto 100 passiivisen aurinkoenergian 13 huomioiminen ulkovalaistus joukkoliikenne kävely ja pyöräily henkilöauton käyttö ja pysäköinti 91 palveluiden sijainti ja toimintojen 18 sekoittuminen rakentamisen hiilijälki jätehuolto 104 olevan rakennuskannan 21 hyödyntäminen

12 maan käyttö rakentamiseen olevan rakennuskannan hyödyntäminen aluetehokkuus ja perusrakenteen määrä rakentamisen hiilijälki alveluiden sijainti ja toimintojen sekoittuminen henkil öauton käyttö ja pysäköinti kävely ja pyöräil y joukkoli ikenne ulkovalaistus jätehuolto passiivisen aurinkoenergian huomioiminen lämmöntuotanto maansii rrot pilaantuneet maat, kaatopaikat lähivirk istysalueet ja -viljely maaperän rakennettavuus hulevesien hallinta ja pohjavedet tulvasuojelu vedenkulutus/asukas rakennusten energiankulutus sähköntuotanto Koivusaari normaalitaso maan käyttö rakentamiseen olevan rakennuskannan hyödyntäminen aluetehokkuus ja perusrakenteen määrä rakentamisen hiilijälki palveluiden sijainti ja toimintojen sekoittuminen henkilöauton käyttö ja pysäköinti kävely ja pyöräily joukkoliikenne jätehuolto ulk ov alaistus passiivisen aurinkoenergian huomioiminen lämmöntuotanto maansiirr ot pilaantuneet maat, kaatopaikat lähivirkistysalueet ja -viljely maaperän rakennettavuus hulevesien hallinta ja pohjavedet tulvasuojelu vedenkulutus/asukas rakennusten energiankulutus sähköntuotanto 23 HEKO test cases 2 4 Koivusaari, Helsinki Saukonlaituri, Helsinki Koukkuranta, Tampere Saukonlaituri normaalitaso 24 Lessons learned from case studies: The variation of the overall eco-efficiency seems narrow: points, cf. the potential range of The assessment process appears to guide planners/designers towards more eco-efficient solutions Planners cannot directly influence many detailed aspects of the urban environment. When solely focusing on the work of planners, HEKO struggles to reach these aspects of urban development Although the user interface was crude, HEKO was easy to learn as a tool and could be conveniently integrated into the planning process o Learning to use the tool takes appr. one day o An individual assessment takes appr. 2 hours 12

13 25 For future research and development: The tool needs to be developed further in order to achieve greater acceptance and reliability o The scientific foundation of the tool to be strenghtened o Constituent participation during tool development to be strenghtened o Feedback loops from ex-post evaluations to tool development to be considered Role of benchmarking to be considered 26 VTT Aalto University Finnish Environment Institute Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation Ministry of the Environment 7 Finnish municipalities 2 Finnish construction companies 13

14 27 Thank you! grayorganschi.com 14