• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Preparation material clue expert workshop

Preparation material clue expert workshop






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Preparation material clue expert workshop Preparation material clue expert workshop Document Transcript

    • Climate Neutrality for Urban Districts in Europe Edinburgh Expert Workshop 14th-15th March 2013 Expert WorkshopPreparation MaterialThis project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC
    • WELCOME TO THE EXPERT WORKSHOP INEDINBURGHWe are happy to welcome you to the Expert Workshop in Edinburgh. This event ispart of the INTERREG IVC project CLUE (Climate Neutral Urban Districts inEurope); a project where regions, cities and universities across Europe exchangeexperiences and develop methods concerning policymaking. This workshopfocuses on methods and tools for indicators, benchmarking and scenario regardingclimate neutrality for urban districts.This material hopes to aid you in your preparations before the workshop as well asbe a guiding document during the event. Included is related background readingfor each of the three sessions that the workshop will consist of but also practicalinformation as venue and transportation information and the latest agenda. Wehope that this document will provide all the information needed.Session 2 of this event will consist of three thematic workshops (breakoutsessions) running in parallel. This means that the workshop participants will bedivided into three groups. For this to run as smoothly as possible we ask you tochoose 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 neutralityPlease announce which group you would like to join to Louise Årman atlarman@kth.se. We would be grateful if you could give us this indication at thelatest on Friday March 8th. We will do our best to meet all of your requestsconcerning choice of group but we cannot guarantee that we can meet you firstchoice due to restricted number of places in each group.We also hope that you as a participating expert will contribute with 5-10 minutespresentation of experiences within you groups theme. You can use power-point, but itis not necessary, it is more important that you could present you or your city´sexperiences of work. Included in the material for session 2 you can find guidingquestions that we hope can facilitate and be an inspiration in the preparation of apresentation.Looking forward to meet all of you in Edinburgh for an exciting event and warmlywelcome to the Expert Workshop!On behalf of the university group in the CLUE projectFEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET. This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC programme
    • VENUE AND TRANSPORT INFORMATIONThe Edinburgh Workshop will be held in The Edinburgh Suite in New Craig, themain building on Edinburgh Napier University’s Craighouse Campus, CraighouseRoad, Edinburgh EH10 5LG.Craighouse is located in the south west of the city. It is served by two buses: thenumber 23 which runs every 10 minutes; and the number 41 which runs every 30minutes. Both buses drive up into the campus itself.Taxis are the easiest option and can be either booked in advance or hailed on thestreet. The two largest firms are Central (0131 2292468) and City Cabs (0131 2281211). If you have any questions or need assistance with travel arrangements inEdinburgh please contact Fiona Campbell at fh.campbell@napier.ac.uk.AGENDADAY 1, MARCH 14TH, 08.30-17.0008.30-09.00: Coffee09.00-09.30: Welcome to the Expert WorkshopPresentation of general outline and practical information09.30-11.00: Session 1: What do we mean with Climate Neutrality onan 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&A11.00-11.45: Session 2: Introduction to the Thematic WorkshopsIntroduction to the thematic workshops, aims, outline and preface to each theme.12.00-13.00: Lunch13.00-15.00 Parallel Thematic WorkshopsDuring the afternoon of the first day three parallel thematic workshops will beheld 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.FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET. This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC programme
    • 15.00-15.30 Coffee15.30-16.30: Summery of the Day  Summary of the parallel workgroups presented by the moderator of each group  Common discussion and Q&A16.30-17.30: Session 3: Introduction to the Scenario Wor kshop NextDay20.00- Conference DinnerDAY 2, MARCH 15TH, 08.30-14.0008.30-09.00: Coffee09.00-12.00: Simulated Scenario WorkshopThis last part of the workshop will demonstrate how scenario methods might beused in city planning and stakeholder participation. This will be a simulatedstakeholder scenario workshop. Participants will get instructions before and somemight be invited to present scenarios regarding an imaginary European city.The workshop will consider future energy consumption scenarios and focus ondilemmas regarding climate neutral urban areas. Important dilemmas are forexample:  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 approachmeets requirements of various participants.The University of Delft is responsible for this workshop and backgrounddocuments.12.00-13.00: Ending Plenary Session  Feedback of scenario building exercises  Next steps and creation of a carbon neutrality network  Summary of the workshop13.00-14.00: LunchFEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET. This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC programme
    • Session 1 - Climate Urban Neutrality ContentJohansson et. al. (submitted). Creating a Climate Positive Urban District – ACase Study of Stockholm Royal Seaport. Submitted to Journal of Energy PolicyJohansson et. al. (submitted). Climate Positive Urban Districts – MethodologicalConsiderations. 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!    Creating  a  Climate  Positive  Urban  District    –  A  Case  Study  of  Stockholm  Royal  Seaport      Stefan  Johansson*,  PhD  Candidate,  sjindeco@kth.se    Tel:  +46  8  790  87  61  Hossein  Shahrokni,  PhD  Candidate,  hosseins@kth.se  Tel:  +46  8  790  87  05  Anna  Rúna  Kristinsdóttir,  Research  Engineer,  arkr@kth.se  Tel:  +46  8  790  87  05  Nils  Brandt,  Associate  Professor,  nilsb@kth.se  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     1  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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   Planned  area  [m2]  at  full  build-­‐out  Land  use  by  type  Multifamily  housing   1,143,400  Office  space   712,330  Commercial  space   84,015  Schools   9,500     2  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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.       3  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!   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.       4  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!        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     5  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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     6  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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.       7  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!   -­‐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   - Hospitals  functions   not   located   within   - Sport  centres  SRS   - 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].     8  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!    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     9  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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   30   50   80   35  [kWh/m2,  year]  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   &   11,186.1   7,722.7   1,098.6   93.9  electricity)   by   building   type    [ton  CO2e/year]  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   Emissions   Emissions     use  [kWh/year]   factor     [ton  CO2e/year]     10  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!   [g  CO2e/kWh]  Infrastructure        -­‐   Electricity   in   street   lights,   756,000   69.73   52.7  traffic  lights,  etc.  -­‐  Road  maintenance     7,670,300   279.31   2,142.4  Water          -­‐   Collection,   treatment,   1,862,595   69.73   129.9  distribution    Locally  generated  energy        -­‐   Generated   biogas   2,300,000   -­‐  586.6   -­‐  557.7  replacing  E5  Petrol  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     11  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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   Residents     Workers   Emissions   Total   emissions  transportation   [PKM/year]   [PKM/year]   factor     [ton  CO2e/year]   [g  CO2e/PKM]  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   Emissions   factor     Annual   emissions   waste/year   [ton  CO2e/ton  waste  ]   [ton  CO2e/year]  Mixed   municipal   solid   7,574   All  municipal  solid  waste  is  used  in  the  City  of  waste   Stockholm’s  district  heating  network  and   emissions  are  therefore  attributed  there     12  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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,     13  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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   Emissions   Per  capita  emissions  Possible  roadmapping  action   reduction     reduction     [ton  CO2e/year]   [ton  CO2e/cap,   year]  Solar  PV  –  30  %  of  building   438   0.02  electricity  Phase  2  Energy  demands   3,095   0.16  Residents  travel:  Gasoline  à   2,870   0.15  Electric  car  Residents  travel:  Gasoline  à   616   0.03  Hybrid  car  Source:  Johansson  et  al.  (2012a).     14  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!    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     15  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!   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   Emissions   Per  capita  emissions  Possible  credit  action   reduction     reduction     [ton  CO2e/year]   [ton  CO2e/cap,  year]  Electrification  of  the  harbour   3,199   0.17  -­‐  Diesel  à  Wind  power  Electrification  of  the  harbour   2,423   0.13  -­‐  Diesel  à  Nordic  electricity  mix  Workers’  commuting     1,688   0.09  Gasoline  à  Electric  car  Workers’  commuting     362   0.019  Gasoline  à  Hybrid  car  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     16  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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,   2011 2 ).   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.       17  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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.               18  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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       19  
    • Submitted  article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!  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.         20  
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  Climate  Positive  Urban  Districts  –  Methodological  Considerations    Using  Findings  Based  on  the  Case  of  Stockholm  Royal  Seaport      Stefan  Johansson*,  PhD  Candidate,  sjindeco@kth.se    Tel:  +46  8  790  87  61  Hossein  Shahrokni,  PhD  Candidate,  hosseins@kth.se  Tel:  +46  8  790  87  05  Nils  Brandt,  Associate  Professor,  nilsb@kth.se  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         1    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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.     2    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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,   3    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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     4    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04   • 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   5    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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,   6    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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:     7    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04    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   8    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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   Potential   for   an   accounting   climate   positive  outcome  -­‐  absolute  approach   positive   outcome   -­‐   accounting   approach     Energy  efficiency   Can   with   traditional   technology   reduce   Can   with   traditional   technology   emissions   down   to   the   point   of   the   life   reduce   emissions   down   to   the   point   of   cycle   emissions   of   the   energy   used,   but   the   life   cycle   emissions   of   the   energy   not   below   zero.   To   ensure   that   actual   used,   but   not   below   zero.   If   energy   emissions   reductions   have   taken   place   it   positive   technology   is   available,   is  necessary  to  verify  that  another  party  is   enabling  export  of  surplus  energy,  and   not  using  the  saved  energy  instead.   avoided   emissions   are   allowed,   9    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04   emissions  may  be  reduced  below  zero.     Fuel   switching   –   Can   reduce   emissions   down   to   the   point   Can   reduce   emissions   below   zero   if   switching   from   of   the   life   cycle   emissions   of   the   the   perspective   of   avoided   emissions   fossil   fuels   to   renewable   fuel,   but   not   below   zero.   To   is   employed.   Otherwise   the   life   cycle   renewables   ensure   that   actual   emissions   reductions   emissions   of   the   renewable   fuel   have   taken   place,   it   is   necessary   to   verify   production  process  are  the  limit  to  the   that   another   party   is   not   using   the   reduction.     leftover  fossil  fuels.       Carbon   capture   CCS   using   fossil   fuels:   Can   reduce   CCS   using   fossil   fuels:   Can   reduce   storage  (CCS)   emissions  down  to  the  life  cycle  emissions   emissions   below   zero   if   the   of   the   fuels   used,   but   not   below   zero   since   perspective   of   avoided   emissions   is   the   fossil   fuels   before   extraction   do   not   employed.   Otherwise   the   life   cycle   have  an  impact  on  the  climate.     emissions   of   the   fuel   production   CCS   using   renewable   fuels:   Can   reduce   process  are  the  limit  to  the  reduction.     emissions   below   zero   if   the   sum   of   life   CCS  using  renewable  fuels:  Can  reduce   cycle   emissions   from   the   energy   emissions   below   zero   if   the   sum   of   life   production   process   is   smaller   than   the   cycle   emissions   from   the   energy   carbon  content  of  the  fuel.     production  process  is  smaller  than  the   carbon  content  of  the  fuel.   Carbon  sinks   Can   fix   atmospheric   carbon   during   a   Can   fix   atmospheric   carbon   during   a   period   of   time   but   might   have   additional   period   of   time   but   might   have   life  cycle  emissions.     additional  life  cycle  emissions.   Locally   generated   Can   reduce   emissions   down   to   the   point   Can   reduce   emissions   below   zero   if   renewable  energy   of   the   life   cycle   emissions   of   the   the   perspective   of   avoided   emissions   renewable   fuel,   but   not   below   zero.   To   is   employed.   Otherwise   the   life   cycle   ensure   that   actual   emissions   reductions   emissions   of   the   renewable   fuel   have   taken   place,   it   is   necessary   to   verify   production  process  are  the  limit  to  the   that   another   party   is   not   using   the   reduction.   leftover  fossil  fuels.       Flexible   Kyoto   Can   be   represented   by   any   of   the   actions   Can   be   represented   by   any   of   the   mechanisms   –   above   and   therefore   have   the   same   actions   above   and   therefore   have   the   emissions   possibilities  and  limitations.   same  possibilities  and  limitations.   credits/imports   and   exports   of   goods    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).       10    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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   11    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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.       12    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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   13    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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.                 14    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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.     15    
    • Submitted  Article  –  Journal  of  Energy  Policy    Do  not  copy  or  redistribute!!       2012-­‐11-­‐04  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>     16    
    • Session 2 - Parallel Thematic Workshops Content Thematic Workshop – Indicators Guiding and Inspirational Questions Thematic Workshop – Benchmarking Guiding and Inspirational Questions Introduction to Thematic Workshop – BenchmarkingDeakin, 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 – ScenariosMulder, K., & Pesch, U. Public participation and scenario’s. Delft University of Technology
    • Guiding and Inspirational Questions to Thematic Workshop - IndicatorsHow do you develop indicators for climate neutral urban districts? Top-down/bottom-up,collaboration between academia, participatory processes or in-house within the city planningoffice? The issues concerning indicator development can be approached from many anglesand with many purposes.How do you measure indicators for climate neutrality on a district level? How is the datacollected, with which resolution is it possible in your region to find data or measure relevantparameters and who owns it?How is the indicators presented? Are the indicators for climate neutrality public or only usedfor planning, policy making or benchmarking?Who is responsible for the indicators? Is it the same organization that is responsible for thedevelopment of them as for collecting relevant data?How do you connect indicators for climate neutrality with sustainability? E.g. nuclear powercan be seen as climate neutral or a better source of energy than fossil fuels but might not beseen as a sustainable energy source.
    • Guiding and Inspirational Question to Thematic Workshop – BenchmarkingCLUE project: Edinburgh Expert Workshop 14th-15th March, 2013Questioning 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 – BenchmarkingBenchmarking: accounting procedures and audit tools for calculations of energy-efficient-low carbonzonesThis workshop shall review the responses European Cities are taking to the carbon reduction targets set by theEuropean Commission (EC) and benchmarks planners have set to sustain the development of Climate NeutralUrban Districts (CLUE’s). Having set out a typology of CLUEs and benchmarks adopted by a number ofleading city planning authorities across Europe to meet the EC’s carbon reduction targets, the opening sessionshall provide an overview of the accounting procedures, audit tools and calculations developed by LondonBorough of Sutton to meet the triple-bottom line of their energy efficient-low carbon zone. This shall drawattention to the potential mass retrofit proposals within the residential property sector have to save energy andlower rates of carbon emission in line with the targets set by the EC. In outlining these energy saving andcarbon reduction measures, particular attention shall be drawn to the social baseline analysis and environmentalprofiling 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 theirexperiences of benchmarking similar actions, the adaptation measures adopted to promote neutrality andprogress made in meeting the targets set by the EC for climate change mitigation. Following this all theparticipants shall be invited to draw upon the lessons learnt from the workshop as a means to enrich theemerging typology of CLUEs and benchmarks being developed to promote climate neutrality for urbandistricts 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 or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
    • Authors personal copy Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpolThe mass-retrofitting of an energy efficient-low carbon zone: Baselining theurban regeneration strategy, vision, masterplan and redevelopment schemeMark Deakin, Fiona Campbell, Alasdair Reid nEdinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland, UKa r t i c l e i n f o abstractArticle history: This paper examines a recent attempt to reduce energy consumption and the associated levels of carbonReceived 10 February 2011 emissions by way of and through what has been termed: ‘‘an active and integrated institutionalAccepted 8 February 2012 arrangement’’. That is, by the integration of a mass retrofit proposal into an urban regeneration strategy,Available online 8 March 2012 with the vision, master-plan, programme of renewal and redevelopment scheme which is capable ofKeywords: transforming into an energy efficient, low carbon zone. As a case study on how institutions can plan for lowCarbon emissions energy efficient redevelopments and the possibility of low carbon zones, the paper highlights the currentMass-retrofits state of the art on mass retrofits within the residential property sector and draws particular attention to theUrban regeneration 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 residential property sector and draws particular attention to the type of baseline assessments needed to legitimate not only the As Ravetz (2008: p. 4482) has recently stated: strategic value of such arrangements, but their practical worth as measures capable of meeting emissions targets. The energy efficiency of homes has improved over the last decade, The paper begins with an examination of the urban regeneration but there is still a very long way to go. The average energy- strategy, the vision and masterplan that underpins this programme efficiency (SAP) rating has improved from 42 in 1996 to 49 in of renewal and redevelopment scheme which supports the inte- 2006 (CLG, 2006b). Social sector homes are substantially more grated institutional arrangement in question. From here the exam- energy efficient than private homes, with an average rating of 57 ination starts to review the energy options appraisal undertaken to compared with 47 in the private sector. In 2006, over two-thirds support the mass-retrofit proposal it advances. It then goes on to of homes (70%) had an energy performance rating of band D or E outline the terms of reference for the authors’ involvement with the according to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) bands. Less project, the specific objectives underlying this intervention and than 10% of homes achieve a rating of band C or higher, while 20% methodology assembled to assess the mass-retrofit proposal. From are in the most inefficient bands F and G. On the low-carbon here the paper goes on to set out the environmental profile under- agenda, there is a perceived need for more integrated and active lying the mass-retrofit and socio-demographic baseline supporting institutional arrangements for strategic management of the hous- the examination’s ex-ante evaluation of the proposal. ings stock (Sustainable Development Commission, 2006). Having done this, the examination goes on to reflect upon the Against such a backdrop, this paper examines a recent attempt potential of mass retrofit proposals, the methodological chal-to reduce energy consumption and the associated levels of carbon lenges they pose and critical insights this paper offers into theemission by such ‘‘an active and integrated institutional arrange- distribution of their costs and benefits.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 is 2. Literature reviewcapable of transforming into an energy efficient, low carbon zone. As a study of how institutions can plan for low energy If we quickly review the existing literature on retrofits, theredevelopments and the possibility of low carbon zones, the strategic value of such an examination should become clear. For,paper highlights the state of the art on mass retrofits within the while over the past decade the potential of retrofits has been reported on, these tend to be couched in terms of what they can n Corresponding author. contribute to the standards of energy consumption and carbon E-mail address: al.reid@napier.ac.uk (A. Reid). emissions across Europe and N. America. Jacobsson and Volkman0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.019
    • Authors personal copy188 M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200(2006) and Amstalden et al. (2007) offer such a policy analysis for carried out to examine the institutional arrangements of massEurope. Selin and Van Dever (2009) also offer the same for N. retrofits within the residential sector of the property market. InAmerica. particular, those successful in not only making the case for While such a policy analysis does much to highlight the retrofits, but realising the ‘‘greater potential’’ they have to reducepotential contribution residential retrofits can make to reduce rates of energy consumption and levels of carbon emissions inthe rates of energy consumption and levels of carbon emissions, line with the standards of environmental sustainability laid downthey also serve to illustrate how little is currently known about by the UK Government.the specific institutional arrangements that towns and citiesacross Europe and N. America are assembling to meet thechallenge which climate change poses. Possible exceptions to this 3. The integrated institutional arrangementcan be found in: As a suburb within the London Borough of Sutton, Hackbridge Power (2008) examination of the emerging evidence on is home to approximately 8000 people. The area is largely retrofits. residential and the housing comprises 18th century listed cot- Williams (2009) review of urban regeneration strategy, vision tages, late 19th century terraced houses, inter-war semi-detached and master-plan for the Thames Gateway. homes and BedZED, the internationally recognised development Zavadskas et al. (2008) study of master-plans for the retro- of 100 homes built to sustainable design principles in 2000. fitting of residential apartment blocks in Villnius. In 2005, Sutton Council stated its commitment to move Dunham-Jones and Williamson (2009) report on the use of towards One Planet Living as a concept based around 10 sustain- retrofit projects in the renewal and redevelopment of Atlanta ability principles developed by sustainability consultants and Maryland. BioRegional. This is set out in the Core Planning Strategy1 BP61 as a: Even here though, we find the focus of the Thames Gateway y key long-term target yto reduce the ecological footprint ofstudy is primarily on the demolition and redevelopment of new residents to a more sustainable level of 3 global hectares perresidential property and not the retrofitting of existing stock. person by 2020 from the current ‘3-planet’ baseline of 5.4 glo-While the Vilnius study does concentrate on the retrofitting of bal hectares. To deliver this Vision, the Council is working inexisting stock, the focus of attention here is on reducing the rate partnership with BioRegional to prepare a ‘Sustainabilityof energy consumption and not the levels of carbon emissions. Action Plan’ based on the 10 One Planet Living principles ofThe third and most recent study of retrofits in Atlanta and zero carbon; zero waste; sustainable transport; local andMaryland does, however, overcome this short falling and report sustainable materials; local and sustainable food; sustainableon the nature of the relationship between retrofits, rates of energy water; natural habitats and wildlife cultural and heritage;consumption and levels of carbon emissions. As Dunham-Jones equity and fair trade; and health and happiness.and Williamson (2009: pp. 2–4) state: The Core Planning Strategy also states, Hackbridge: Retrofitting goes well beyond energy consumption, because retrofitting’s greater potential goes well beyond incremental ywill be the focus for a flagship sustainable [urban] regen- adaptation, reuse and renovation. For by [master]-planning eration project that brings about the renewal of the fabric of suburban properties, more significant reductions in carbon the area through environmentally innovative mixed-use rede- emissions can be achieved with a systematic mix of house velopment schemes. types. 3.1. The urban regeneration strategy To support this claim they quote third party evidence tosuggest ‘‘retrofitting’s greater potential’’ is to ‘‘lower carbon emis- In promoting this urban regeneration strategy, BioRegionalsions by 30% per unit’’ (ibid). have taken on the responsibility of managing the project and This tends to suggest the literature currently available on drafting a Sustainability Action Plan2 setting out how the renewalretrofitting is selective, offering only a partial knowledge of the of the fabric shall be environmentally innovative in terms of thesubject and is insufficiently comprehensive to offer an integrated mixed use redevelopment schemes their joint statement on Onesolution. The reason for this being that it either focuses exclu- Planet Living sets out.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 carbon 3.2. The vision of the master-planemissions. Even the most recent literature available on retrofits islimited in the sense the attempt which this study makes to go Under this institutional arrangement, a masterplan3 has been‘‘beyond incremental adaptation, reuse and renovation’’, only commissioned from Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design. Themanages to make the case for the ‘‘greater potential’’ that it has vision which the masterplan sets out makes clear the programmeto ‘‘lower carbon emissions by 30%’’. of renewal that is being assembled for such a redevelopment The case study this paper advances attempts to bridge the gap needs to underpin the joint statement on One Planet Living andthat currently exists between energy consumption and carbon support the transformation of Hackbridge into a ‘‘sustainableemissions by offering a sufficiently comprehensive analysis of thepotential which mass retrofits in the housing sector have, not only 1 London Borough of Sutton (2008) Draft Development Plan Document: Coreto reduce energy consumption, but to lower levels of carbon Planning Strategy. Available at http://www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=emissions in line with those standards of environmental sustain- 3429&p=0. 2ability laid down by the UK Government in the Climate Change One Planet Sutton. Hackbridge Sustainable Suburb: Draft Sustainability Action Plan. Available at: http://www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=5175&p=0.Act 2008. The study itself draws upon the research undertaken for 3 London Borough of Sutton (2009) Hackbridge Sustainable Suburb: Finalthe EPSRC-sponsored SURegen project (already reported on by Draft Masterplan. Produced by Tibbalds Planning & Urban Design. Available at:Ravetz (2008: p. 4483-6) in this journal) and desktop studies http://www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4366&p=0.
    • Authors personal copy M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 189suburb’’. The Sustainable Suburb Charter, a voluntarily-produced suburb. That is, whether this ‘‘innovative’’ environment has thedocument complementing the plan’s vision, programme of capacity to carry the energy consumption and carbon emissionsrenewal and redevelopment, also draws out 13 additional targets which the ‘‘mixed use redevelopment scheme’’ sets for therequirements. These being to: suburb and if this process of urban regeneration has the means to sustain them. 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 4. SURegen’s involvement target (including social housing); increase the amount of employment opportunities for local In seeking to fill these gaps in the existing appraisal, SURegen’s residents; involvement in the Hackbridge project has been defined in meet the requirements of the area’s population growth, via specific terms. In particular, it has been charged with the new schools, new health facilities, etc.; responsibility of working with the institutional arrangement emer- provide easily accessible green and open spaces; ging from the urban regeneration proposal and establishing the for the redevelopment to provide opportunities for community following: engagement; manage and maintain areas specifically for bio-diversity  whether the environmental profile generated is capable not reduce the disparity in residents’ life expectancy, and obesity only of being baselined in socio-demographic terms, but in general; drawn upon as the means to evaluate if the benefits of the achieve maximum energy efficiency ‘‘in all households, busi- mass retrofit can be spread equally amongst the residents; nesses and public buildings in the area’’;  or whether the distribution of costs emerging from the action achieve a recycling rate higher than the average for London are unevenly distributed across the structure of tenure within and water consumption rates lower than the national average; the housing market and if this undermines the claims made pilot parts of the South London Joint Waste Management Plan; about the environmental sustainability of the action. establish a resource pool and evidence base for all forms of sustainability. What this specific terms of reference does is put an obligation on SURegen to supplement the technical knowledge of energy The masterplan and charter both make explicit references to consumption and carbon emissions already in the public domain,how such measures can sustain the regeneration of Hackbridge in with the socio-demographic data needed to inform those institu-line with BioRegional’s ‘‘One Planet Living‘‘ principles. Here tions participating in such regeneration proposals, not onlyparticular attention is given to how a mass retrofit of the area’s whether the types of renewal and redevelopments they promoteresidential sector can generate reduced rates of energy consump- are legitimate in both technical and social terms, but if they alsotion and lower levels of carbon emissions. champion the kind of environmental sustainability laid down in Principles of One Planet Living and Sustainable Suburb Charter everyone involved has signed up to.3.3. Review of the Energy Options Appraisal The assumption underlying the types of profiling exercises found in the existing Option Appraisal suggests they do legitimate The Energy Options Appraisal for Domestic Buildings4, pro- actions of this type and, in turn, are effective in championingduced by Parity Projects in April 2008, sets out the ‘‘programme of environmental sustainability. This is the assumption which thework’’ for improving the energy efficiency and carbon emissions case study seeks to investigate, throw light on and in that sense,of the housing stock. It assesses the rates of energy consumption bring to the surface. Not for the reason SURegen wants toand levels of carbon emissions for the stock of housing within scrutinise their claims to legitimacy on technical grounds, butHackbridge (as designated in the masterplan). Brief attention is because under the institutional arrangements emerging to sup-also given to profiling the resident community by referencing port such actions, the type of technical knowledge currentlyCensus (2001) returns for the London Borough of Sutton. This available is insufficient to answer the kinds of questions increas-analysis also details a number of energy efficiency measures that ingly being asked of such appraisals. In holding these assumptionscan be taken in order to turn the area under investigation into a up to scrutiny, it is anticipated the case study shall generate alow carbon zone. number of insights into the possibility there is for examinations of While all very useful, the environmental profile advanced in this kind to not only fill the gap between the technical and social,this report is found wanting for the reason the option appraisal is but also take the opportunity which any potential integrationunclear as to whether the benefits generated from the forecast offers to bridge them.levels of energy consumption and carbon emissions will be spread These are the kinds of insight, possibilities, opportunities andequally amongst all residents. The reason for this is simple: it is potentialities the authors of this paper wish to suggest are criticalbecause in order to offer such an evaluation it is necessary for the for all concerned in such projects to be aware of:institutional arrangement supporting the regeneration i.e.,between the London Borough of Sutton, BioRegional and mem-  not only for the reason they start to reveal the complementarybers of the community as advocates of the Charter, to first of all nature of the relationship between the technical and socialbaseline the social-demographic composition of Hackbridge. The components of such proposals, but because they also begin tonext stage is to draw upon the results of this analysis as the show how the virtuous nature of this relationship may bemeans to assess whether this ‘‘innovative’’ environment has the realised;capacity to carry the energy consumption and carbon emissions  nor because the nature of the relationship can be drawn upontargets the ‘‘mixed-use redevelopment scheme’’ sets for the to demonstrate how the type of collaboration inscribed into the institutional arrangements under examination, vis-a-vis, 4 London Borough of Sutton (2008) Energy Options Appraisal for Domestic the visions, masterplans, renewal programmes and redevelop-Buildings in Hackbridge. Produced by Parity Projects. Available at: http://www. ment schemes, currently surrounding the mass retrofit propo-sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=5173&p=0. sals can be constructive;
    • Authors personal copy190 M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 but rather, because they offer the prospect for the institutional grounded, or sure-footed, but if the type of environmental sustain- arrangement to build the type of consensus needed for the ability it champions is both fair and equitable. very redevelopment schemes being designed to meet the requirement for urban regeneration, to be environmentally sustainable. 5. The environmental profile This profiling exercise sub-divides the stock of residences into The model of environmental sustainability this analysis draws six house types and is used to calculate both the energy savingsupon can be traced back to Deakin et al. (2002) and Curwell et al. and carbon emission reductions generated from the range of(2005). The technical components of the analytical model are set retrofit options (see Fig. 1).out in Deakin (2004, 2008a) and the social demographic elements The third column of Fig. 1 illustrates the potential energy andcan be found in Deakin and Allwinkle (2007, 2008). In terms of CO2 reductions in the event all the recommendations outlinedthe relationship such an institutionally-grounded representation within the report are taken up. This shows the forecast levels ofof urban regeneration has to environmental sustainability, this energy consumption to be lowered by 56%, with CO2 emissionscan be found in Deakin et al. (2007), Deakin (2008b, 2008c) and as reduced by 51%.part of an ongoing debate about the development of a commu- Figs. 2 and 3 list the cost of the works needed for the retrofit tonity-based approach to (environmentally) sustainable urban lower the levels of energy consumption and reduce carbonregeneration (Deakin, 2009). emissions. In some cases, alternatives are provided, such as in Couched within this emerging debate on the sustainability of the proposed thickness of loft insulation. Both figures highlighturban regeneration, the specific objectives of this examination these alternatives in grey.into the mass retrofit proposal are to: Fig. 2 lists basic measures assumed to be adopted by a high proportion of households without the need for professional develop an environmental profile for the proposal based upon assistance. These measures can be carried out immediately. The the ‘‘footprint’’ set out in the masterplan and statements on DIY percentage listed is the envisaged capability of residents to energy consumption and carbon emissions found in the fulfil this requirement. Implementing such measures will cost on Options Appraisal; average £691 per property. draw upon official statistical data currently available to ana- Fig. 3 lists those measures which are mostly out with the lyse the social and demographic structure of the regeneration’s capability of households and instead require professional installation footprint and baseline the potential there is for the mass by qualified personnel. Implementing such measures will cost on retrofit to transform Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb; average £10,737 per property. use the outcomes of this social baseline analysis to review whether the energy-saving and carbon reduction measures can transform Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb and if this is ‘‘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- Fig. 1. Potential Energy and CO2 Reductions. Data sourced from the Energytion made about the costs and benefits of the environmental profile. Options Appraisal (2008). Note: Figs. 1–8 have been constructed using dataTogether they will establish whether the project is not just well sourced from the Energy Options Appraisal (2008) produced by Parity Projects. Fig. 2. Cost of basic measures.
    • Authors personal copy M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 191 Fig. 3. Cost of more complex measures. Fig. 4. Average cost per household. private-rented sector. Households in the social-rented sector are not factored into this costing and do not to form part of the retrofit proposal. 5.1. Hackbridge by house type This profiling exercise goes on to identify six house types within the boundaries of the regeneration footprint: House Type B; House Type C; House Type F, House Type I, House Type J and House Type L. Variations within House Type F appear to have been based upon dwelling size rather than any significant Fig. 5. Average cost of DIY and professional measures. difference in design, so the ‘‘sub-types’’ within this group have been aggregated for Figs. 6 and 7. Here Hackbridge is identified as having a high proportion of housing stock built post 1972 (39%) which are likely to have Figs. 4 and 5 shows the total cost of implementing all the cavity insulation already installed. Similarly, those propertiesproposed measures to be £27,463,186. With an average of 73% built pre-1939 (23%) are likely to have been built with solidowner occupation the cost of implementing such measures within single skin external walls and therefore unable to receive cavitythis sector is £20,046,466 or £11,429 per property within the wall insulation. The appraisal suggests that remedial worksstudy area. targeted at the older housing stock will deliver the greatest In accordance with the terms of reference laid down for improvements, however concedes the necessary works are oftenthe retrofit, the said costing are limited to those items of more invasive and costly. Figure 7 shows locations in Hackbridgeexpenditure incurred by households in the owner-occupied and that are characterised by a predominant house type.
    • Authors personal copy192 M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 Fig. 6. Hackbridge by house type.6. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions by house type north and again in areas to the south. Similarly, pockets of low energy consumption can be seen across the map, in the north, where social Fig. 8 shows that, in general, the older house types use more deprivation is highest, and in the south where it is lowest.energy than the newer property types. Whilst energy consumption in Fig. 10 shows the CO2 emissions detailed in the report. TheType B dwellings is highest, Type L homes consume the least energy. calculation of CO2 emissions has been arrived at by multiplying theSimilarly, it can be seen that the older housing stock (Type B, Type C energy consumption by conversion factors 0.43/kWh of electricityand Type F) have a higher rate of CO2 emission than the newer and 0.18/kWh of gas. The highest emissions (7500–8000 kg CO2 perproperties. This is demonstrated in Fig. 8 by Type B (pre 1918) annum) can be found in the north of the study area.dwellings, which feature the highest rates of CO2 emission and Type L(post 2001) producing the lowest rates. 7. The social baseline The following maps present a more detailed picture of energyconsumption across the housing types. These have been collated These maps draw on data returns from the Census 2001 andusing data from the appraisal to indicate energy consumption and EID 2007 [adapted from data from the Office for Nationalconsequent CO2 emissions. Statistics available under the Open Government Licence v.1.0]. Figs. 9 and 10 are arranged according to the groups of similar The base unit for census data release is the Output Area – a clusterhousing stock identified in the appraisal then coded according to their of adjacent postcode units incorporating approximately 312annual consumption of energy and CO2 emissions. Fig. 9 demonstrate residents. The base unit for the EID 2007 is the Lower Superpockets of high energy consumption (shown in dark grey) to the Output Area (LSOA): these are built from groups of 4–6 LSOAs and
    • Authors personal copy M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 193 Fig. 7. Hackbridge by house type location – images. and compiled in 2007 (Noble et al., 2007). These provide a ranking system whereby small geographical units, known as Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs), are rated against 37 indicators and then ranked 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 most deprived LSOA in England and rank 32,482 the least deprived in England. The Lower Super Output Areas within the Hackbridge study area (outlined in black), have been numbered from 1 to 5 and are shown in Fig. 14. As Fig. 15 illustrates, Hackbridge is home to a large population who rank in the 50% least deprived in England. For the purposes of this report, each LSOA has been labelled from 1 to 5: areas within the 50% least deprived in England are labelled 2 and 5. However, Hackbridge is also home to a population amongst the 25% most Fig. 8. Average annual CO2 emissions per house type (kg). deprived in England – in the area labelled 1 – with an overall ranking of 6768 (where 1 is the most deprived and 32,482 is theconstrained by the wards used for the 2001 census outputs. LSOAs least). A second LSOA is ranked at the 25% mark; this is the smallincorporate approximately 1500 residents. area labelled 3. However, as Fig. 14 indicates, care must be taken The outline for Hackbridge has been prepared using the Google when interpreting data returns for Area 3 as only half of the‘‘My Maps’’ function [Fig. 11]. A second map has subsequently been surface area is included within the Hackbridge Study Areaprepared showing the outlines of the LSOAs spanning Hackbridge (shaded). In total, three LSOAs, with an approximate combined(identified using ONS Boundary Viewer and as shown in Fig. 12). The population of 4500, are home to people within the 50% mostmap of the study area has been superimposed upon the map of the deprived in England.LSOAs to confirm appropriate coverage (Fig. 13). In order to better understand these figures, it is important to consider each of the areas covered by the Indices in turn. The8. Classification of social groups Indices of Deprivation 2007 were calculated across 7 domains: Income; Employment; Health and Disability; Education, Skills and The standard measures of social deprivation in England are the Training; Barriers to Housing and Services; Living EnvironmentEnglish Indices of Deprivation (EID), produced by the Government and Crime.
    • Authors personal copy194 M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–2009. Deprivation across the domains  the Barriers to Housing and Services domain is calculated over two sub-domains: geographical barriers and so-called ‘‘wider’’ Fig. 16 demonstrates deprivation ranking in the five LSOAs barriers, which includes issues relating to the affordability ofwithin the study area. These are labelled 1–5 as shown in Fig. 15. local housing. Area 3 is the most deprived within the studyFindings from each domain are as follows: area and is within the 22% most deprived in England.  the Education, Skills and Training deprivation domain measures the Income domain is designed to identify the proportions of a deprivation in educational attainment amongst children, young population experiencing income deprivation, with particular people and the working age population. Area 1 ranks at 21% most attention to those reliant upon various means-tested benefits. None of the LSOAs within the case study area fall within the 10% most income-deprived in England; however, two of Hackbridge’s LSOAs are ranked within the 20% most deprived (Areas 1 and 3) and one is ranked within the 30% most deprived (Area 4). The actual score given to each LSOA represents the area’s income deprivation rate. This means that in Area 1, 32% of residents can be described as income- deprived. To the west, in Area 3, 30% of residents can be described as income deprived. By contrast, in Area 5 to the south 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 the world of work’’. The highest rate of employment deprivation in Hackbridge is 15%, seen in Area 1. This is in the 30% most deprived areas in England. By contrast, the area immediately south of this LSOA (Area 2) has an employment deprivation rate 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 is the most health-deprived, ranking within the 33% most deprived in England. Area 4 ranks within the 28% least health-deprived in England. <1000 4500 - 5000 5000 - 5500 5500 - 6000 6000 - 6500 6500 - 7000 >7000 Fig. 10. CO2 emissions by house type (kg p/a). <5000 10000 - 15000 15000 - 20000 20000 - 25000 25000 - 30000 30000 - 35000Fig. 9. Energy consumption by house type (kWh p/a).Source: Energy Options appraisal (2008). Fig. 11. Hackbridge study area.
    • Authors personal copy M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 195 Fig. 14. Hackbridge sub-sections by number. Fig. 12. Hackbridge by LSOA. Fig. 15. The overall deprivation ranking (where 100% is the least deprived in England). identifies deprivation by measuring housing in poor condition and houses without central heating. Outdoors, air quality is measured across several parameters and the number of road traffic accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists is incorporated. In terms of Living Environment deprivation, both Areas, 2 & 3 rank within the 24% most deprived in England. Fig. 13. Hackbridge by LSOA and study area. From these measures a pattern can be seen emerging in the area’s EID overall rankings: two pockets of relative deprivation to the north and west of Hackbridge, with relative prosperity to the deprived in England; its high ranking owing to the low rate of south of the study area. These measures of deprivation are, in young people entering Higher Education each year. Area 3 ranks turn, compounded by the health, housing, education, crime and at 25%; again largely due to its low HE progression rate. living environment rankings. the Crime domain measures the rate of recorded crime for 4 major volume crime types: burglary, theft, criminal damage and violence. The EID 2007 proposes that this domain represents 9.1. Structure of tenure within the housing market ‘‘the risk of personal and material victimisation at a small area level’’. In this domain, Area 3 is ranked within the 36% most Fig. 17 illustrates the structure of housing tenure within the deprived and Area 1 within the 41% most crime deprived. Area study area using data from the 2001 Census5. As the data returns 5 ranks in the 20% least deprived in England, in terms of crime. the Living Environment domain is, in fact, calculated over two 5 Census output is Crown copyright and is reproduced with the permission of sub-domains: indoors and outdoors. Indoors, the domain the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland.
    • Authors personal copy196 M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 Fig. 16. Multiple deprivation ranking (where a ranking of 32,482 is the least deprived in England).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 deprived areas within the urban regeneration footprint. Here, Area 1 is the most deprived with a ranking within the 21% most deprived areas in England, whereas Area 5 has a much lower ranking within the 29% least deprived; while roughly similar in terms of building type, age, and levels of Fig. 17. Housing Tenure in Hackbridge Source: 2001 Census: Standard Area consumption and emissions, the social-rented sector is prevalent Statistics (England and Wales). in 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 5. ‘‘Tenure’’ data has been taken from the Census 2001 at Output which type of tenure consumes the least or most amount of Area level. The HA (areas of similar housing) are smaller than energy and relationship this, in turn, has to the levels of Output Areas therefore exact counts for each area of housing emissions within the housing market. cannot be provided. The percentages shown represent a best- fit analysis at Output Area level. Notes on Figs. 18 and 19: Fig. 18 illustrates the relationship between the building type and age of construction by Housing Area (HA) 1, 2 and 3, levels of energy1. ‘‘Type’’ refers to the housing model applied in the Energy consumption and carbon emissions for the same, split across the Options Appraisal [see Fig. 7: Hackbridge by House Type]. structure of tenure. As this illustrates, HA 2 is predominantly social-2. ‘‘Age’’ refers to the approximate year of build, as designated in rented in terms of tenure type and has an energy consumption rate of the Energy Options Appraisal. 19,248 (kW h/p.a.), 2113 (kW h/p.a.) or 11% below the overall average3. ‘‘HA’’ refers to the designated localities of similar housing for the owner-occupied, private-rented and social rented sectors of stock in the Hackbridge Study Area, as detailed in the Energy the housing market in LSOA 1. Fig. 19 goes on to illustrate the same Options Appraisal. Twenty areas of similar housing stock were relationships for HAs 18, 19 and 20 in LSOA 5. Here the structure of identified and are used here to show the different housing tenure is predominantly owner-occupied and private-rented and the stock within the lowest-ranking Lower Super Output Area (EID average energy consumption is 21,926 (kWh p.a.), 565 (kWh p.a.), or 2007) and the highest-ranking LSOA. 3% higher than the average for LSOA 1.4. Energy and CO2 data has been taken from the Energy Options Fig. 20 illustrates that LSOA 1(HAs 1, 2 and 3), located within Appraisal. the 21% most deprived in England ,has the lowest levels of energy consumption and LSOA 5, situated within the 29% least deprived 6 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. Crown copyright 2003. in England (HAs 18,19 and 20) the highest. Fig. 21 also illustrates
    • Authors personal copy M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 197 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). 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 the Hackbridge project offers a particularly good example of a response 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 of mass retrofits, it is to be commended for the reason it provides a good example of how to progress beyond the state-of-the-art, be strategic, visionary and masterful in planning a programme of renewal whose redevelopment is not predicated on demolition and new build, but adaptation and renovation of an existing use. That is, based upon relatively small-scale, low cost adaptations of existing buildings whose value lies in the capacity such modifica- tions have to lower energy consumption and reduce levels of carbon emission. The Energy Options Appraisal also produced from this exercise should be commended, if only for the reasonFig. 20. The relationship between deprivation and energy consumption in LSOA this report offers the evidence base to underpin such actions and1 and LSOA 5. Note: The diagram illustrates deprivation and energy consumption support them as viable implementation strategies.values for LSOA 1 and LSOA 5 only. It is not intended to suggest a linear The fact this project has now started to integrate the energyrelationship between deprivation and energy consumption. consumption and carbon emissions generated from the commer- cial and industrial sectors of the property market, also serves tothe levels of energy consumption within the 21% most and 29% highlight the progressive nature of the renewal programme andleast deprived LSOAs (1 and 5, respectively) and shows how they redevelopment scheme it advances. Not least because in cuttingare split across the social-rented, owner-occupied and private across these sectors, it no longer restricts itself to the adaptationrented sectors. Within the social-rented sector of LSOA 1 (HA 2), it and continued use of the existing housing stock, but also coversillustrates the average level of consumption to be 19,248, whereas the energy consumption and carbon emissions of the new buildin LSOA 5 (HA 18, 19 and 20) this is shown to be 21,926, or 14% components of the commercial and industrial property markethigher for the owner occupied and private rented tenures. covered by the regeneration strategy. As embodiments of One As the CO2 emission levels are similar for both LSOAs 1 and 5 Planet Living Principles and the Sustainable Suburb Charter, the(HAs 1, 2, 3 and 18, 19 and 20), they are not seen as warranting institutional arrangements between Sutton Council, BioRegional,such an area-based analysis.7 Parity Projects and other organisations emerging from the Hack- bridge project, are also commendable, not only for the reason they assemble the resources to programme this renewal and redevelopment, but because they also piece together the means to implement it. 7 The Energy Options Appraisal presents CO2 emission data based upon Saying this, the underlying issue which this paper has with theconversion factors for both electricity and gas (combined as ‘‘total energyconsumption’’). The report does not include information on the electricity and Hackbridge project relates to the environmental profile the mass-gas consumption rates used in calculating total energy consumption and emis- retrofit proposal advances. This is found wanting because thesions of CO2. appraisal is not clear as to whether the benefits generated from
    • Authors personal copy198 M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 the worst performer, makes up less than 20% of the housing stock. Indeed, the same calculation shows that a high proportion of the stock within the regeneration footprint comprises house types which can be considered relatively new. Indeed as much as 39% of the housing stock was only built post-1970 and already contains many of the measures proposed, so will therefore, only make a marginal contribution toward the transformation of Hackbridge into 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 been aggregated at Lower Super Output Area level and the overall ranking of these areas shows a mix of relatively deprived and prosperous residents. Two of these areas, home to approximately 3042 people, are ranked within the 25% most deprived in England. By contrast, another two LSOAs, home to approximately 3271 people, are ranked within the 40% least deprived in England. One LSOA is also ranked within the 30% least deprived. In expanding this social-demographic baseline to include dataFig. 21. The relationship between deprivation and energy consumption in the on building type, age, levels of consumption and emissions acrosssocial and owner occupier (including private rental) sectors. Note: The diagram the structure of tenure within the housing market, it has beenillustrates deprivation and energy consumption values for LSOA 1 and LSOA possible for the analysis to cross reference the rate of energy5 only. It is not intended to suggest a linear relationship between deprivation andenergy consumption. consumption and level of carbon emissions within these areas to the structure of tenure. The value of such socio-demographic analysis lies in the opportunity it offers the masterplan, programme of renewal andthe forecast rates of energy consumption and levels of carbon redevelopment scheme to:emissions, will be spread equally amongst all residents. Thereason for this – the paper suggests – is simple: it is because, in  provide an area-based analysis of the urban regeneration’sorder to clarify the distribution of benefits generated, it is mass retrofit proposal that is location-specific in terms of thenecessary for the institutional arrangement supporting the regen- environmental profile which it builds;eration i.e., the London Borough of Sutton, BioRegional and  get beyond the tendency for the environmental profiles con-members of the community who have signed up to the Charter, structed by such reports to take on a purely technical nature;to first of all ‘‘baseline’’ the social-demographic composition of  overcome the methodological challenges that such exercisesHackbridge. Then, draw upon the results of this analysis as the pose by supplementing such technical analyses with themeans to assess whether this ‘‘innovative’’ environment has the social-demographic information able to integrate data pre-capacity to carry the energy consumption and carbon emissions viously overlooked;targets the ‘‘mixed use redevelopment scheme’’ sets for the  use the aforesaid as a means to take a fresh look at the retrofittransformation of Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb. through an analysis that is not overly reliant upon the Defining the terms of reference and specific objectives of technical efficiencies of the consumption and emissionSURegen’s involvement in the Hackbridge project, the paper has targets supporting the environmental profile, but social equityalso gone some way to overcome the methodological challenges underlying the structure of tenure which the housing marketwhich the question that surrounds the distribution of benefits is based upon.poses. This has been achieved by: Together these analyses offer critical insights into the distribu- assembling the footprint forming the boundary of the project’s tional assumptions underlying the mass retrofit and supporting the environmental profile; transformation of Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb. In particular, mapping the footprint by building type, age and number of those about the degree to which the project’s alignment of both their residential units; social and technical components provide a baseline as much equitable analysing the footprint’s: as efficient. That is, as much equitable as efficient and based on a J energy consumption and carbon emissions by building type structure of tenure within the housing market which is sufficiently and age; balanced for the environmental profiles this develops to support the J energy-saving and carbon reduction measures by building transformation of Hackbridge. type and age; J their consumption, emissions, savings and reduction mea- sures, by location within the boundary of the environmen- tal profile; 11. Conclusions evaluating the cost of implementing the measures proposed in the Energy Options Appraisal. As the literature review has gone some way to establish, while policy analysis over the past decade has done much to highlight This has established that housing built pre-1918 on average the potential contribution mass retrofits in the housing sector canconsumes 56% more energy and emits 41% more CO2 than houses make to reduce the rates of energy consumption and levels ofbuilt post-2001. This establishes the older housing stock is the carbon emissions, they also serve to illustrate how little isworst performer in terms of energy consumption and such currently known about the institutional arrangements townshousing is also the most costly to improve. House Type B, and cities are currently putting in place as integrated solutionsidentified as the oldest of the 6 house types and subsequently to the problems climate change pose.
    • Authors personal copy M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200 199 This suggests the literature currently available on mass retro- Given that the current policy on the retrofit excludes thefits is selective, either because it focuses exclusively on the social-rented sector, the assumptions made about how such ademolition and new build components of renewal, or for the flagship ‘‘low carbon-zone’’ can be developed at no additionalreason the material currently available on the incremental adap- environmental costs to residents prompts a number of questions.tation, renovation and reuse of the existing stock, concentrates on This is because in its current form the commitment to the massreductions in energy consumption and not carbon emissions. retrofit may be seen as divisive in terms of the actions it lays downEven the most recent literature available on attempts made to for improving the energy efficiency and carbon footprint of thego ‘‘beyond incremental adaptation, renovation and reuse’’, have housing market. The reasons for this being:been found lacking in the sense they too only manage to make thecase for the ‘‘greater potential’’ such energy efficiency measures  the most income- and employment-deprived residents live inhave to ‘‘lower carbon emissions by 30%’’. social rented accommodation which already exceeds national The mass retrofit proposal examined in this paper has sought standards in terms of energy performance;to bridge this gap by drawing upon the research undertaken  the least deprived members of the community tend to securefor the EPSRC-sponsored SURegen project and desktop exercises their accommodation from either the owner-occupier, orcarried out to examine the institutional arrangements of private-rented sectors of the older, less energy efficient andmass retrofits within the residential sector of the property the highest carbon-emitting dwellings;market. In particular, those demonstrating the capacity to not  while the former are excluded from any benefits the retrofitonly make the case for mass retrofits, but also realise the potential may generate in terms of energy savings and carbon reduc-which the housing sector has to reduce rates of energy consump- tion, the latter are targeted, not only because they are thetion and levels of carbon emissions in line with the standards of worst offenders (as occupants of the older stock), but forenvironmental sustainability which are laid down by the UK the reason that occupants of newer owner-occupied andGovernment. private rented housing are also some of the least ‘‘worst The institutional arrangement which has been chosen to offenders’’.demonstrate 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 that This becomes particularly clear if we summarise the potentialhas been made by a London Borough to move beyond the state- benefits of the energy efficiency and low carbon emissionsof-the-art and underpin their vision of urban regeneration with a associated with the Hackbridge project. For with the existingmasterplan itself capable of supporting a programme of renewal proposal, housing situated within the social rented sector shall beand redevelopment by way and through the adaptation and excluded from the retrofit and remain with an energy efficiencyrenovation of property within an existing use. and carbon emission rating of 75% (Band C rating). While under This highlights the proposals to improve the energy efficiency the retrofit proposals covering the owner-occupied and privateand carbon emissions of existing housing stock and thereby ‘‘y rented sectors of the housing market, the 50% improvements inmake Hackbridge a more sustainable place to live.’’ Similarly, the energy efficiency and carbon emissions for this sector are not onlyHackbridge Charter lists a key objective of this proposal as to forecast to improve their standing from Band E to C, respectivelyachieve: ‘‘ythe maximum possible energy efficiency for all house- (69–80%), but holdout the prospect of meeting the targets setholdsy through the provision of appropriate locally generated under the UK’s Climate Change Act for 2020.renewable sources, retrofitting and other measures, using both This tends to leave the occupants of the social-rented sectorpromotion and direct works such as insulation for the housing stock.’’ in the same situation they were in before the Climate ChangeThe Core Planning Strategy for Sutton also specifies that: ‘‘y the Act 2008 came into effect. For while improving the overallrenewal of the fabric of the area [will be brought about] through standing of the owner-occupied and private-rented sector, thisenvironmentally innovative mixed-use redevelopment schemes.’’ sector of the housing market is likely to be left in a situation This baseline analysis has, however, thrown light on a number whereby the mass retrofit measures introduced under theof problems associated with the retrofit proposal. These may be auspices of the Hackbridge project, end up leaving the mostsummarised as follows: income-deprived groups in a somewhat precarious situation. That is, with the status of currently being the best in their class (for housing built pre-1918 on average consumes 56% more energy rates of energy performance and levels of carbon emissions, and emits 41% more CO2 than houses built post-2001; respectively), but stuck in a situation which is tantamount to the older housing stock is the worst performer in terms of ‘‘fuel poverty’’. energy efficiency; the most laborious and costly to improve; This also suggests that using the structure of tenure to draw a within the regeneration footprint, this type of housing makes clear line between what sectors of the housing stock are eligible up less than 20% of the housing stock. Nearly 40% of the to participate in the benefits of mass retrofit projects is inap- housing stock having been built post-1970 is already benefit- propriate, not only on the grounds their programmes of renewal ting from many of the measures proposed to save energy and are divisive and socially inequitable, but for the technical ineffi- reduce carbon emissions; ciencies which redevelopment schemes of this kind also generate. almost one third of Hackbridge residents live in areas which For, in their current form, the measures adopted to champion the rank within the top 25% most income-deprived in England, virtues of environmental sustainability fail to adequately demon- renting their homes from the Local Authority, Registered Social strate where retrofits can best perform as energy efficient, low Landlords, Housing Associations or the private-rented sector. carbon zones. That is where they can best perform as energy Homes in the social-rented sector that have been shown to efficient, low carbon zones and which in both technical and social consume less energy and to emit less CO2 than other housing terms, are equally capable of being administered at no extra types of a similar age in Hackbridge. Indeed, using the environmental cost to the very communities their emerging Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure for the energy institutional arrangements are designed to serve. rating of dwellings (SAP), the local authority housing in This clearly demonstrates the structure of tenure does not question is shown to out-perform the national average ratings offer an appropriate means to baseline mass retrofits associated across all dwelling types. with the regeneration strategies, visions and masterplans under
    • Authors personal copy200 M. Deakin et al. / Energy Policy 45 (2012) 187–200consideration, as it is not only divisive, but out of balance with Referencesthe demands transformational actions of this kind place oncommunities to deliver energy efficient, low carbon zones at no Amstalden, R., Kost, M., Nathani, C., Imoden, D., 2007. Economic potential ofextra environmental cost. For the findings drawn from this case energy efficient retrofitting in the Swiss residential building sector: the effects of policy instruments on energy price. Energy Policy 35 (2), 1819–1829.study tend to suggest that it is not tenure which should be used as Deakin, M., Curwell, S., Lombardi, P., 2002. Sustainable urban development: thethe basis for the retrofit, but the type, age, rates of energy framework and directory of assessment methods. Journal of Environmentalconsumption and levels of carbon emissions themselves. For in Assessment, Management and Policy 4 (2), 171–198.terms of the measures currently being drawn upon to transform Curwell, S., Deakin, M., Symes, M. (Eds.), 2005. Sustainable Urban DevelopmentHackbridge into a sustainable suburb and champion environmen- Volume 1: The Framework, Protocols and Environmental Assessment Meth- ods. E&FN Spons, Oxon.tal sustainability, such a basis would: Deakin, M., 2009. A Community-based approach to sustainable urban regenera- tion. Journal of Urban Technology 16 (1), 91–110. be more inclusive, capable of cutting across the structure of Deakin, M., 2008a. The search for sustainable communities. In: Vrekeer, R., Deakin, tenure and integrating the housing market based on levels of M., Curwell, S. (Eds.), Sustainable Urban Development Volume 3: The Toolkit energy consumption and carbon emissions. That is, capable of for Assessment. Routledge, Oxon. not only realising the potential the owner-occupied and Deakin, M., 2008b. The NAR model of land use and building assessment. In: Deakin, M., Vrekeer, R., Curwell, S. (Eds.), Sustainable Urban Development private-rented sectors have to increase levels of performance Volume 3: the Toolkit for Assessment. Routledge, Oxon. from Bands B to C, but the possibility there is to do likewise Deakin, M., 2008c. Definitional components of sustainable communities: the net and draw upon this to shift the ratings of the housing stock effect of a realignment and cross-sectional representation. International within the socially-rented sector from a C to B Rating and use this Journal of Design Principles and Practices 3 (1), 183–196. as a means to begin addressing the 80% post-2020 targets; Deakin, M., 2004. The NAR model. In: Deakin, M. (Ed.), Property Management: Corporate Strategies, Financial Instruments and the Urban Environment. treat all social groups – the most and least deprived – equally Ashgate Press, Aldershot. and in terms of the potential each type of tenure offers any Deakin, M., Allwinkle, S., 2007. Urban regeneration and sustainable communities: retrofit proposal to save energy and reduce carbon emissions; the role networks, innovation and creativity in building successful partner- allow the retrofit to prioritise those types of housing, age groups ships. Journal of Urban Technology 14 (1), 77–91. Deakin, M., Allwinkle, S., 2008. A community-based approach to sustainable urban and tenures with the greatest potential to be both socially regeneration: the LUDA project. International Journal of Inter-disciplinary equitable and technically efficient in meeting such targets; Social Sciences 3 (5), 181–191. focus attention on the worst offenders and maximise the Deakin, M., Mitchell, G., Nijkamp, P., Vrekeer, R. (Eds.), 2007. Sustainable Urban environmental benefits such energy efficient, low carbon zones Development Volume 2: the Environmental Assessment Methods. E&FN Spons, offer society without either excluding the strongest upholders of Oxon. Dunham-Jones, E., Williamson, J., 2009. Retrofitting Suburbia, Urban Design such standards from the exercise altogether, or running the Solutions. John Wiley, New Jersey. associated risk of downloading the cost of any such actions onto Jacobsson, S., Volkman, L., 2006. The politics and policy of energy system the weakest and most vulnerable groups, least able to afford them. transformation – explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy Those who simply cannot afford not to be included in such technology. Energy Policy 34 (3), 256–276. actions: not only because of the contradictions this exposes in Office for National Statistics, 2001: Digitised Boundary Data (England and Wales) [exe]. ESRC Census Programme, Census Dissemination Unit, Mimas (University the programmes of renewal and redevelopment schemes that of Manchester). currently support mass retrofit proposals of this kind, but for the Noble, M., et al., 2007. The English Indices of Deprivation 2007. Department of reason such exclusions also tend to bring the status of the Communities and Local Government, London. masterplans and visions of urban regeneration into doubt. Power, A., 2008. Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help increase our environmental, social and economic viability. Energy Policy 36 (12), 4487–4501. Given it is proposed that energy consumption and carbon emis- Ravetz, J., 2008. State of the stock – what do we know about existing buildings andsions should be core to the masterplan, it is particularly important for their future prospects. Energy Policy 36, 4462–4470.the institutional arrangements which are being assembled to under- Selin, H., Van Dever, D., 2009. Changing Climates in North America. MIT Press,pin the redevelopment programme, should in turn support any such Cambridge, MA.transformation of Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb. This is Williams, J., 2009. The deployment of decentralised energy systems as part of abecause without such a solid foundation, the Principles of One Planet housing growth programme in the UK. Energy Policy 38, 7604–7613. Zavadskas, E., Raslanas, S., Kaklauskas, A., 2008. The selection of effective retrofitLiving that underpin the Charter for a Sustainable Suburb, may not be scenarios for panel houses in urban neighbourhoods based on expected energystrong enough to maintain the level of support which the community savings and increase in market value: the Vilnius case. Energy and Buildingsneeds to stand firm on such matters. 40 (4), 573–587.
    •  Public participation and scenario’sKarel MulderUdo PeschDelft University of TechnologyWhy public participation in sustainable urban development?One may distinguish roughly three reasons to involve the ‘public’ (or external stakeholders) incollective decision-making processes. The first reason is to safeguard democratic legitimacy. Thesecond reason is to increase the quality of the decisions that are made. The third reason is enhancethe acceptability of a given policy plan (Cuppen, 2009; Stirling, 2006). In policy-making practice, theemphasis is on the third reason: the public is involved in decision-making processes to ensurethat policy plans have the support of public, or, at least, that these plans do not raise publicopposition. Here we like to focus especially on the second reason for involving the public – suchinvolvement might be used to enhance the qualities of decision made. We will show why suchinvolvement can be seen as a fertile addition to existing patterns in political decision-making, andwe 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 todevelop policy plans will be explored.How are policies usually made?The policy domain is characterized by a separation of functional responsibilities. Obviously thereis the legislative branch of parliament and the executive branch of government, which both havetheir distinct place and role in the decision-making process. However, the division ofresponsibilities 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. whichbasically means that different organizational sections have to compete with each other for resourcesand 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 thatthe development of a successful policy plan is mainly based on acquiring support for a particularpolicy plan. A coalition of advocates has to be forged which bears enough critical mass toeventually pass the highest executive and legislative levels. One may say that the game of policy- 1  
    •  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 isthat 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 explainpainful fiasco’s in US foreign policy, such as the disastrous preparation to the Pearl Harborattacks, the escalation of the war in Korea, the failed invasion of the Cuban Bay of Pigs, and theunwanted intensification of the American involvement in the Vietnam war (Janis, 1972). In eachof these cases, the group of decision-makers in charge were pursuing consensus and harmonyinside of the group itself, leading to the negligence of crucial information, to the failure toformulate policy alternatives, or the reluctance to take such alternatives seriously. Also when thegroup was confronted with news about recent, undesirable, developments, the group perseveredin 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 anddeviant voices cannot be admitted to the precarious enterprise of building a coalition. Whilestudies again and again reveal that to increase the quality of a decision or a policy, theconsideration of outside voices is of a quintessential requirement. Taking account of new andunexpected perspectives allows decision-makers to be prepared for a wider range of futureevents, making the policy plan more robust. Unfortunately, most practices that are related to the involvement of the public do notgive rise to breaking the routines that were sketched above. What usually happens is that a policyplan that is already formulated is presented to the public in a consultation round (or perhaps areferendum). In general, the role of the public is then limited to making small adjustment orrefusing 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 thepolicy realm. In our society, government has to play a central and coordinating role; after all, it isthe only agency that can fulfill such a function. It would be unrealistic and idealistic to expect thatgrassroots initiatives suffice to face the grand challenges of the modern world. Moreover, in 2  
    •  relation to formulating policy plans, it has to be realized that most people, stakeholders and thegeneral 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 toimprove its functioning by adding well-considered elements. From the discussion above, it can beinferred that public involvement might be seen as a basis for collecting deviant voices, in otherwords, for improving the quality of decisions. The disclaimer in this is that the public should beenabled to The use of scenario’s promises the effectuation of these three conditions. On the onehand, the formulation and coordination of collective plans takes place at the level of a centralagency. On the other hand, the core of the scenario workshop-method is to collect deviant voicesand 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 theexplication of different ideas about the future. Below, we will first describe scenario’s as a tool tomake futures ‘manageable’, subsequently the role of the public and stakeholders will beelaborated upon.Mapping the futureMaking policy plans, is about dealing with the future. As nobody knows the future, it might berather convenient to plan the future as it would be like today, forever…… Of course nobody isthat 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 planfor 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 thechanges to come might be analyzed by forecasting. As so many forecasts have turned out to betotally wrong, claims are nowadays more modest: we might use foresight to sensitize planners 3  
    •  for changes that might come, instead claiming that the changes are unavoidable. However, alsowith 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 samerailway gauge example teaches us that there is quite a lot of predictability; the gauge has remainedidentical for centuries. Only there are ‘forks’ in history, not everybody might take the samedirection at the forks, and how to foresee the consequences of the options? Scenarios might helpto foresee the forks and the impacts of options. In thinking about the future, it is useful to make a distinction between changes that areoutside our reach (that are just happening, and we just need to adapt our plans to them) and thechanges that we are creating by our plans. For both changes, we might use scenarios, but they areof 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 thatpresent a comprehensive strategy might also create an interesting storyline that allows for a farbetter quality of interaction with, and between stakeholders. Often stakeholders have problems inimagining a consistent future: they often have immediate demands or problems to be solved, andit might be hard to make them think in a long term perspective. With that, it is hard for manyactors to articulate the way they relate to a certain policy plan, which affects the efficacy of their 4  
    •  contribution. In other words, the use of scenario’s figures as a potential a tool for improving thequality of interaction with stakeholders.For the Edinburgh workshop, we are looking for experts within the CLUE partner cities thathave applied one of these approaches in urban planning:  Forecasting (other than demographic changes)  foresight  scenarios for planning purposes,  scenarios for improved quality of stakeholder participationDuring the expert workshop these experiences will be discussed in combination with someresults 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  Swedens 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.   5  
    • Session 3 - Simulated Scenario Workshop Content More information will be given during the Expert Workshop