Report from the expert workshop in edinburgh


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Report from the expert workshop in edinburgh

  1. 1. C4 UNIVERSITY PARTNERS SID 1 (26)This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCReport from theExpert Workshopin Edinburgh
  2. 2. SID 2(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCIntroduction ......................................................................................................... 3Session 1: What do we mean with Climate Neutrality on an Urban district level? 3Session 2: Parallel Thematic Workshops .............................................................. 4Thematic Workshop: Benchmarking................................................................. 5Thematic Workshop: Indicators.......................................................................10Thematic Workshop: Scenarios .......................................................................16Session 3: Simulated scenario exercise................................................................18Conclusions from the Expert Workshop ..............................................................21Appendixes.........................................................................................................23Appendix 1: Guiding and Inspirational Question to Thematic Workshop –Benchmarking.................................................................................................23Appendix 2: Guiding and Inspirational Questions to Thematic Workshop -Indicators........................................................................................................23Appendix 3: Description of the Scenarios Used in the Scenario Exercise ........24
  3. 3. SID 3(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCINTRODUCTIONThe Expert Workshop held in Edinburgh March 14-15th2013 is a part of theINTERREG IVC project of Climate Neutral Urban Districts in Europe (CLUE).CLUE is a project involving regions, cities and universities in Europe with the aimof exchanging experiences and develop methods concerning policymaking andclimate neutrality for cities.The Edinburgh expert workshop was the first of two expert meetings that will bearrange in the project and the aims for this event were several. One aim was tostart building the expert networks that should be created within the project and thesecond aim were to start the work around exchanging experiences and skillsaround tools and methods in the areas of benchmarking, scenarios and evaluation.The basic idea with this expert meeting was to give a possibility for a moreintensive discussion and exchange of skills and experience between theuniversities and the city experts.The workshop was organized by the university partners (component 4, C4) in theCLUE project and aimed at, together with the cities/regions experts, discussclimate neutrality within the frame of the three themes indicators, benchmarkingand scenarios. The workshop was organized around three sessions, the firstdealing with the issues about defining climate neutrality, the second liftingexperiences from the experts within the three themes and the third session was asimulated scenario exercise.This report summarizes the main results, findings and conclusions from this event.It is structured in the same way as the event meaning that the main chapters areresults from Session 1, 2 and 3. All related documents from this workshop e.g.background reading and power point presentations are published both on theCLUE web platform and at the LinkedIn group CLUE – Experts Network forClimate Neutral Districts.SESSION 1: WHAT DO WE MEAN WITH CLIMATENEUTRALITY ON AN URBAN DISTRICT LEVEL?During this session there were two introductions from KTH and one from City ofStockholm. First Christina Salmhofer from City of Stockholm made a shortpresentation of the new urban district in Stockholm called Stockholm RoyalSeaport. This urban district has a very ambition vision for climate mitigation, andis one of 16 projects worldwide working with Clinton Climate Initiate frameworkfor a climate positive urban district.Second, Nils Brandt, associate professor at Industrial Ecology gave a shortbackground concerning the role of cities in climate mitigation process. Even if
  4. 4. SID 4(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCthere are a lot of international standards for accounting greenhouse gases on citylevel, cities still use different frames setting system borders and collecting data.This, together with the lack of transparency have given a situation wherebenchmarking between cities goals and result still is unclear. Productionperspective or consumption perspective gives total different result in accounting ofcarbon footprints for cities. In a consumption perspective you put a lifecycleperspective and take responsibility even for production far from you city.Implementation of climate mitigation policies and actions need transparence andtools such as.1. Baseline (inventory, benchmarking)2. Policy (goals and ambitions, processes, scenarios)3. Program and actions plans (road mapping and scenarios, processes)4. Implementation (processes and indicators)5. Evaluation ( inventory, indicators and benchmarking)Climate neutrality among cities is still a rather new phenomenon, even more iffocusing on an urban district level. There are either scientific or politicalapproaches and any common definition of climate neutrality on city level is notformulated. In the scientific discussion you find expression like” strictly carbon”,“carbon zero”, carbon neutral or climate positive. All the different expressionshave different definitions based on different system borders and perspectives.Stockholm have in their new urban district (SRS) taken Climate positive as visionbased on the framework of Clinton Climate initiative.Session 1 was finished with a presentation from PhD candidate Stefan Johansson,Industrial Ecology. He presented methodologies issues under the headline;Beyond Climate Neutral - Climate Positive Urban Districts and the StockholmRoyal Seaport (SRS) as an Example.His presentation included;• The process to climate positive and KTH´s work together with CCI and theCity of Stockholm• How to account emissions – scopes & boundaries• Some examples and preliminary results on the road towards climatepositive• How can a very ambitious target such as climate positive play a role in aclimate neutral city or district?SESSION 2: PARALLEL THEMATIC WORKSHOPSDuring the second session of the workshop the attendees was encourage to presenttheir own experiences within the three CLUE themes included in the C4 worknamely; indicators, benchmarking and scenarios. The participants had the
  5. 5. SID 5(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCopportunity to choose for them self which of the three groups they wanted toparticipate in and also if they wanted to present their experiences. The threesessions was held in parallel and the layout for each of them was that ofpresentations of experiences from the experts followed by discussions around waswhat presented but also to some extent around prepared questions that theparticipants have received before the event. Below are the summaries from each ofthe parallel thematic workshops presented.Thematic Workshop: BenchmarkingAttendees:Professor Mark Deakin, (MD), Edinburgh Napier UniversityFiona Campbell, (FC), Edinburgh Napier UniversityAlasdair Reid, (AR), Edinburgh Napier UniversityCordelia Koening, (HAM), HamburgKatharina, Söpper, (VIE),ViennaItzel Sanromà, (BAR), BarcelonaStefan, Johansson (KTH), KTHPresentation 1: Mark Deakin of Edinburgh Napier University presents“Benchmarking Climate Neutral Urban Environments: A Case Study”One Planet Sutton initiative focuses on a programme of environmental upgradescovering: energy use, waste and recycling, sustainable transport, low impactmaterials, food, water, habitats, local identity, economic regeneration andcommunity well-being. One planet Sutton is a partnership between LondonBorough of Sutton and BioRegional. It covers a p the 10 themes of One PlanetLiving, includes the transformation of Hackbridge into UKs first sustainablesuburb. In this aim, BioRegional are currently preparing a Sustainability ActionPlan for the Local Authority advised them on how One Planet Living can beachieved. As they state, to achieve One Planet living: “ Sutton residents shall needto reduce from an Ecological Footprint of 5.32 global hectares to 1.5 and from11.17 tonns of CO2 per capita to 1.2 tonns”As part of this strategy, the Hackbridge project concentrates on the upgrading ofexisting homes (retrofitting) plus the development of 1,100 new environmentally-friendly home. We estimate the mass retrofit in Hackbridge will reduce the C02emissions in the residential property sector from 1.82 - 0.92 tons per capita.Making up approximately 10% of the 89% required C02 reduction, this lowers theglobal hectares from 5.32 - 4.73 per capita and means the equivalent number ofplanets needed to sustain Sutton has reduced from 3.5 - 3.2.While this contribution may appear marginal in relation to the overall goal, it hasto be remembers the mass retrofit proposal is just 1 (energy) of the 10 principles ofOne Planet Living, the other 9 being met by the launch of subsequent initiatives onwaste and recycling, sustainable transport, low impact materials, food, water,habitats, local identity, economic regeneration and community well-being.
  6. 6. SID 6(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCEdinburgh Napier’s involvement with the project has been to work within thebenchmark set by the Sutton partnership for the Hackbridge project (that ofdeveloping an energy efficient-low carbon zone), review the environmentalprofile of the mass retrofit proposal assembled to meet this goal and socialbaseline from which the distribution of energy savings and reduced level of carbonemissions can be measured in terms of costs and benefits. This review of theenvironmental profile and social baseline were seen as particularly importantmeasure to benchmark because the Hackbridge project proposed the benefits ofthe retrofit would be equally shared and no one would be made worse off by theaction.The methodology adopted divided the exercise into two principle components:the construction of the environmental profile and social baseline and then went onto cross-referenced one against the other, so as to examine the distribution of costsand benefits across the community as part of an area-based analysis. This cross-referencing of the profile and baseline as part of an area-based analysis, was seento be particularly significant because it allowed the review team to consider thesustainability of the community development initiative not just in terms of theretrofit’s energy-efficiency, but equity of the costs and benefits associated withsavings and emissions of such low carbon zones.The environmental profile:This profiling exercise sub-divided the stock of residences into six house typesand is used to calculate both the energy savings and carbon emissions reductionsgenerated from the range of retrofit options. It found the potential energy savingsand CO2 reductions to be 56.0% savings and 51.2% emission reductionrespectively. The analysis also found the total cost of implementing all theproposed measures to be £27,463,186. With an average 73% owner occupation thecost of the implementing such measures within this sector is £20,046,466 or£11,429 per property within the study area.The social baseline:This draws upon returns from the Census 2001 and EIMD 2007 [adapted fromdata from the Office for National Statistics licensed under the OpenGovernment Licence v.1.0]. The base unit for census data release is the OutputArea - a cluster of adjacent postcode units incorporating approximately 312residents. The base unit for the EIMD 2007 is the Lower Super Output Area(LSOA): these are built from groups of 4–6 OAs and constrained by the wardsused for the 2001 census outputs. LSOAs incorporate approximately 1,500residents.The standard measures of social deprivation in England are the English Indices ofDeprivation (EIMD), produced by the Government and compiled in 2007. Theseprovide a ranking system whereby small geographical units, known as LowerSuper Output Areas (LSOAs), are rated against 37 indicators and then ranked inrelation to one another. LSOAs are home to approximately 1,500 people: there area total of 32,482 LSOAs in England. As the LSOAs are ranked comparatively,
  7. 7. SID 7(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCrank 1 indicates the most deprived LSOA in England and rank 32, 482 the leastdeprived in England.From these measures a pattern is emerging in the area’s overall EIMD rankings:two pockets of relative deprivation to the north and west of Hackbridge, withrelative prosperity to the south of the study area. These measures of deprivationare, in turn, compounded by the health, housing, education, crime and livingenvironment rankings.An area-based analysis:This relates the socio-demographic data to the environmental profile. This isachieved by way of an area-based analysis, linking levels of energy consumptionand carbon emissions to the structure of tenure and the connection this has to thehousing market. As an area-based analysis, this assessment of consumption andemissions by structure of tenure draws upon data profiled from LSOA’s 1 and 5.The reasons for focusing attention on these areas are:• LSOAs 1 and 5 provide measures of the most and least deprived areas withinthe urban regeneration footprint. Here, Area 1 is the most deprived with aranking within the 21% most deprived areas in England, whereas Area 5 has amuch lower ranking within the 30% least deprived;• while roughly similar in terms of building type, age, and levels ofconsumption and emissions, the social-rented sector is prevalent in Area 1,whereas in Area 5 the owner-occupied and private-rented sector are the mainsectors of the housing market;• such an area-based analysis provides evidence to suggest which type of tenureconsumes the least or most amount of energy and relationship this, in turn,has to the levels of emissions within the housing market.Findings:The issue this benchmarking exercise has with the Hackbridge project relates tothe environmental profile which it is based on. It is found wanting for the simplereason the appraisal is not clear as to whether the benefits generated from theforecast rates of energy consumption and levels of carbon emissions, will bespread equally amongst all residents. The reason for this - the paper suggests - issimple: it is because, in order to clarify the distribution of benefits generated, it isnecessary for the institutional arrangement supporting the regeneration to first ofall "baseline" the social-demographic composition of Hackbridge. Then, drawupon the results of this analysis as the means to assess whether this “innovative”environment has the capacity to carry the energy consumption and carbonemissions targets the “mixed use redevelopment scheme” sets for thetransformation of Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb.The socio-demographic baseline of the study area has been compiled using datafrom the English Indices of Deprivation, 2007 and 2001 Census. The results ofthis analysis have been aggregated at Lower Super Output Area level and theoverall ranking of these areas shows a mix of relatively deprived and prosperousresidents. In expanding this social-demographic baseline to also include data on
  8. 8. SID 8(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCbuilding type, age, levels of consumption and emissions across the structure oftenure within the housing market, it has been possible for the analysis to crossreference the rate of energy consumption and level of carbon emissions withinthese areas to the structure of tenure.This highlights a number of problems associated with the retrofit proposal. Thesemay be summarised as follows:• housing built pre-1918 on average consumes 56% more energy and emits41% more CO2 than houses built post-2001;• the older housing stock is the worst performer in terms of energyefficiency and costly to improve;• within the regeneration footprint this type of housing makes up less than20% of the housing stock. Nearly 40% of the housing stock having beenbuilt post-1970 and is already benefitting from many of the measuresproposed to save energy and reduce carbon emissions;• almost one third of Hackbridge residents live in areas which rank withinthe top 15% most income-deprived in England, renting their homes fromthe Local Authority, Registered Social Landlords, Housing Associations orthe private-rented sector. Homes in the social-rented sector that have beenshown to consume less energy and to emit less CO2 than other housingtype of a similar age in Hackbridge.Given that the current policy on the retrofit excludes the social-rented sector, theassumptions made about the how the efficiency of such a low carbon-zone can bedeveloped at no additional environmental costs to residents, prompts a number ofquestions. This is because in its current form the commitment to the mass retrofitmay be seen as divisive in terms of the actions it lays down for improving theefficiency of energy consumption within the residential property sector and carbonemission footprint across the housing market. The reasons for this being:• the most income and employment-deprived residents live in social rentedaccommodation which already exceeds national standards in terms ofenergy performance;• the least deprived members of the community tend to secure theiraccommodation from either the owner-occupier, or private-rented sectorsof the older, less energy efficient and the highest carbon-emittingdwellings;• while the former are excluded from any benefits the retrofit may generatein terms of energy savings and carbon reduction, the latter are targeted, notonly because they are the worst offenders (as occupants of the older stock),but for the reason that occupants of newer owner-occupied and privaterented housing are also some of the least “worst offenders”.This becomes particularly clear if we summarise the potential benefits of theenergy efficiency and low carbon emissions associated with the Hackbridgeproject. For with the existing proposal, housing situated within the social rentedsector shall be excluded from the retrofit and remain with an energy efficiency and
  9. 9. SID 9(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCcarbon emission rating of 75% (Band C rating). While under the retrofit proposalscovering the owner-occupied and private rented sectors of the housing market, the50% improvements in energy efficiency and carbon emissions for this sector arenot only forecast to improve their standing from Band E to C, respectively (69-80%), but holdout the prospect of meeting the targets set under the UK’s ClimateChange Act for 2020.This tends to leave the occupants of the social-rented sector in the same situationthey were in before the Climate Change Act 2008 came into effect. For whileimproving the overall standing of the owner-occupied and private-rented sector,this sector of the housing market is likely to be left in a situation whereby the massretrofit measures introduced under the auspices of the Hackbridge project, leavethe most income-deprived groups in a somewhat contradictory position. That is,with the status of being the best in their class (for rates of energy performance andlevels of carbon emissions respectively), but stuck in a situation which istantamount to “fuel poverty”.This in turn suggests that using the structure of tenure to draw a clear line betweenwhat sectors of the housing stock are eligible to participate in the benefits of massretrofit projects is inappropriate, not only on the grounds their programmes ofrenewal are divisive and socially inequitable, but for the technical inefficiencieswhich redevelopments of this kind also generate. For, in their current form, themeasures adopted to champion the virtues of environmental sustainability fail toadequately demonstrate where retrofits can best perform as energy efficient, lowcarbon zones. That is to say, where they can best perform as energy efficient, lowcarbon zones, which in both technical and social terms are equally capable ofbeing administered at no extra environmental cost to the very communities theiremerging institutional arrangements are designed to serve.This clearly demonstrates the structure of tenure does not offer an appropriatemeans to baseline mass retrofits associated with the regeneration strategies,visions and master-plans under consideration, as it is not only divisive, but out ofbalance with the demands transformational actions of this kind place oncommunities to deliver energy efficient, low carbon zones at no extraenvironmental cost. For the findings drawn from this case study tend to suggestthat it is not tenure which should be used as the basis for the retrofit, but the type,age, rates of energy consumption and levels of carbon emissions themselves.Presentation 2: Cordelia Koening presents an overview of the attempts to reducecarbon emissions in the German city of Hamburg.This presents a bar-chart showing carbon emission data across a range of sectors(household, industry, transport, etc) and draws specific attention to the significantlevel of carbon savings Hamburg has now achieved. Attention is also drawn towhat Hamburg term: the benchmarking of “Climate Excellent Quarters” within theCity.In response to this questions are asked as to whether the population of Hamburg isgrowing, and if so, what effect is this having on carbon emission data. The
  10. 10. SID 10(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCresponse is to confirm that whilst the residential population of Hamburg isincreasing, the effect of this growth on levels of carbon emission is not currentlyknown.The group discussion than asks all present to consider whether the issue ofresidential carbon emissions is predominantly a “suburban issue” and thediscussion follows on form this focuses on issues such as the rebound effect,equity and if home owners should benefit financially from retrofit proposal. Thegroup then went on to consider the possibilities for communities to monitor theirown energy performance using a variety of tools (such as those developed by theStockholm Institute).Presentation 3: Itzel Sanromà presents an overview of the Vallbona Project inBarcelona.Here Barcelona provided a concise an overview of the Vallbona Project in termsof the strong social agenda, less technocratic and more humanistic approach tosustainable community development it promotes. This draws particular attentionto the relationship between social housing and energy performance is debated, notjust in terms of built form, but benchmarking of the transport and mobility issuesthe project also raises.Note.There was insufficient time to adequately address the list of questions prepared inadvance of this session. Instead, the discussion focused predominantly upon thepresentations.Thematic Workshop: IndicatorsAttendeesUrsel Lünsmann-Pielke, HamburgStefan Geier, ViennaKatarzyna Jasińska, MalopolskaAnna Sokulska, MalopolskaAgata Wesołowska, MalopolskaIrma Soldevilla, BarcelonaMichael Erman, StockholmHusam Al Waer, University of DundeeNils Brandt, KTHLouise Årman, KTHAgenda1. Presentation of cities experience in the use and development of indicatorsfor climate neutrality of urban district.2. DiscussionCities experience in the use of indicators in the area of urban district climateactions and policies
  11. 11. SID 11(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCPresentation 1: Ursel Lünsmann-Pielke, City of HamburgGermany presented 3 examples of indicators from the projects they were workingwith. The study covers 4 German cities with population over 1 million people, likeBerlin, Hamburg, Munich, as well as all cities of metropolitan region. They arecompared to other European cities within the context of European Green CityIndex. The study represents the assessment of environmental sustainability of 30major European Cities from 30 countries. The results of the study were publishedin 2009. Examples of tools that are used include:1) German City Index. The tool measures a city by 8 categories and includes30 indicators 16 of which are derived from quantitative data aiming tomeasure the city performance such as: level of CO2 emissions, how muchenergy was consumed, how much wastes were produced etc. The rest 14indicators are qualitative like environmental policies aspirations to reducethe carbon footprint etc. The data for investigation is collected from thestatistic offices, local city authorities and national environmental agenciesand evaluated by the team of independent experts from the EconomicIntelligence Unit over the period of 7 months. The result of theinvestigation showes that German cities are very similar with regard togovernmental efforts to simplify the acceptance of environmental policy inthe country.2) The second tool reMAC, developed by Matrix in cooperation withUniversity of Manchester, is a result from several towns and regions and isintended for stakeholders use showing the possibilities for reduction ofcity’s CO2 emission. This tool helps to raise public awareness about thecosts of CO2 reduction and what results it is possible to reach with the helpof particular measures. For the assessment the regional economic, social,emission and supply data were used. The tool is based on essential datalike building stock, energy supply and assumptions depending on whatscenario the user choose.3) Monitoring of CO2 for Hamburg Climate Action Plan that uses twomethods – top-down and bottom-up. For application of the bottom-upapproach the results of every measure that could be included in the ClimateAction Plan for district development are collected. A rough tool mix withvery few data – the average area, number of dwellers in the area, type ofenergy that is used in the district – was made in order to get anunderstanding of what is happening in the area.Presentation 2: Irma Soldevilla, City of BarcelonaPresentation was about the tool that was used in Barcelona for monitoring ofpower plants. The tool is essential for the city because there is a lot of informationto evaluate. To perform the monitoring there are 2 kinds of indicators:1. Action Indicators – are based on the indicators of energy projects that aremonitored by the Barcelona Energy Agency2. Reaction Indicators – inform about the energy situation in the cityThe methodology of work performance is based on the input data from varioussectors as housing, waste, energy generation and transportation that are evaluatedseparately and collected in reports. Different set of data like economic, social and
  12. 12. SID 12(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCenergy are used. For implementation of indicators another tool is used. In such away the information about all sectors in the city – the current situation and effectof energy planning projects– is collected.Presentation 3: Malpolska RegionWhen it comes to emission costs on the national level there is a nationaldevelopment program for low-emission economy and in 2013 the process ofimplementation of actions for achieving the low-emission economy has started.The measurable effect of these actions is reduction in CO2 emissions. Theseactions also impose specific goals to be achieved. The positive effect of the actionsand the level of goals achievement should be measured by indicators. However onthe national level the set of indicators for the mentioned purpose has not beendecided yet. Thus on the regional level the indicators have not been developed atall.However there are several programs like Air Protection Program, WasteManagement Program, Energy Program etc. united under umbrella ofEnvironmental Protection Strategic Program that include indicators for differenttopics showing, for example, what is the length of district heating and how muchwastes have been recycled.The program related to GHG emission is the most relevant for the city Krakowthat has high concentration of particular matter. Actions directed on improvementof air quality will also lead to decrease of CO2 emissions.There is a monitoring system that measures different pollutants in different partsof the city that supply the data to database of Malpolska Region. It then presentsthe collected information in the form of daily and monthly reports of air qualitythat is accessible online. Other database that might be useful in the context ofindicators is a database of Marshal Office that collects and owns the data. Theycollect information from organizations that exploit the environment in a differentway and have to pay the environmental fees for the waste production and emissiongeneration. Examples of collected data are: source of emissions, volume ofemissions, what type of fuel is used etc.These data are also supplemented by reliable and detailed statistical data making agood base for development of reliable indicators. They also could be applied forfollowing up and evaluation of both air quality and climate neutrality that was outthe focus until now. Thus, there are lots of indicators in many fields but it isnecessary to collect them into one integrated system for efficient application. Thefirst thing that is required by Malpolska region is a suggestion and guidelines fromthe National Program for creation of comprehensive system of indicators.Presentation 4: Stefan Geier, City of Vienna
  13. 13. SID 13(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCCity of Vienna presented a project in which it takes part as a stakeholder alongsidewith other 25 Austrian cities called “Smart City Profiles”. Its role in the projects isto discuss the results and bring in the data from the city of Vienna. For Vienna theproject is focusing on climate and energy issues. The project working teamincludes Austrian Environmental Agency, City Council, Technical University,Environmental Railroad organization, Design Agency and others.The working data includes:- Structural Indicators: the type of a town (industrial, tourist etc.), the size ofa town, the density of a town etc.- Immediate indicators: the carbon footprint, energy consumption etc.- Indirect indicators: settlement patterns, building infrastructure, economyand society, politics and government.On the first level there should be a general number of indicators from which wedefine factors which should bring to characteristics. In total there are 6characteristics defined:- Economy- People- Governance- Environment- Mobility- Smart living (quality of life)Example of factors may include the administrative traffic system, number ofbicycle paths, ICTs systems used in the area, educational process etc.Currently the focus is more on energy efficiency, feasibility and availability of thedata, carbon reduction and the impact on cities. However for implementation ofthe project results it is necessary to get a support through development of SmartCity Concept.Presentation 5: Husam Al Waer, University of DundeeThis example presents the research of the issue of sustainability assessment andevaluation frameworks at district, neighborhood and family level. It deals with thesolution of such questions as where lays the boundary and if there is an overlapwhen it comes to assessments on the district level separated from the city andbuilding level.The research reviled around 630 tools worldwide developed for buildings andmostly dealing with material and energy issues. Only 7-8 tools related to thedistrict level were discovered.Why neighborhood sustainability assessment? While there are lots of tools forcities and buildings there are only few of them related to districts. Also the lack of
  14. 14. SID 14(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCexperience in assessment on intermediate level like neighborhood stipulates theresearch in this area.There are two kinds of tools on the district and neighborhood level:1. Spin-off tools2. Plan-embodied toolsThe presentation focuses only on spin-off tools since the plan-embodied toolshaven’t been used practically but only tested in some pilot studies. The mainquestions of the study are what is a district and where is its boundary? With thisregard Japan has an interesting approach defining the district by relationshipbetween the inputs of neighborhood to its output.Measuring sustainability at the building level started in 1990 while the practice ondistrict and community level is only 5 years old. The most interesting examples oftools on community and district level come from:1. Arab Emirates: Pearl Rating2. Qatar: Q-SES – Qatar Sustainability Assessment System3. Australia: Green stuff for communityQatar uses very sophisticated tool that is rather difficult to understand for clientsand developers. BREEAM evolved in 2009 and worked only in 1-2 projects inSweden and England.Thus among 100 analyzed tools 5 best are coming from Qatar, Arab Emirates,Japan, LEED and BREEAM. All of them share the following common categorieswith one having a bigger priority in a particular country:1. Resources and Environment – this category has a priority in Qatar andArab Emirates2. Transportation and Connectivity – LEED3. Governance and Culture4. Economy – BREEAM5. Location and Design30 % of BREEAM’s indicators are prerequisite and are the part of the planningpolicy. For LEAD the share of prerequisite indicators equals to 20 %.In the conclusion it is possible to say that there is a variation in definition ofneighborhood by different tools. Some of them consider 2-3 buildings as aneighborhood for others it is 1000 people living in the area. Also none of them usenegative measurements that are however important for clients, architects and localauthorities in order to see where the project is negatively scored.DiscussionThe discussion around indicator was focusing on such questions as: What are thefuture challenges related to the use of indicators? Is it possible or even necessary
  15. 15. SID 15(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCto compare them between the countries? What kind of standards and developmentshave to be done in order to consider all countries’ different perspectives? Areindicators useful? How are they used by different stakeholders?During the discussion it came up that there are many indicators that howeveraren’t combined into one integrated system and indicators are worthless if they donot come in a package or are not a part of integrated system. Another challenge isa communication and transparency of indicators that are sometimes difficult tounderstand even for experts. Another issue is a framework. How many indicatorseach country or city needs? Different cities have different numbers of indicators.Does it mean that the one who has more indicators is more comprehensive? Fromthe other side the more indicators are used the more time is spent.The comparison of indicators between the countries is a rather difficult task sincethere are many cultural and geographical differences. Every city and every countryhas different indicators and it is not possible to compare them so far. The solutionmight be a creation of a common system where targets and projects for carbonneutrality could be compared. However by now there is no solution for the way ofdoing it.However the question of whether we need the consistency in indicators forEuropean countries at all remains controversial since the main target is to reducethe emissions and save energy. How it will be measured on the local level is still alocal problem that should be solved locally. At the same time there already existrather basic indicators familiar to everyone.The compatibility as well as the use of indicators is also a rather difficult questionbecause they have a different meaning for different stakeholders. The academiasee indicators in one way while engineers in a completely different way.Government considers them as quick instruments for policy making. Thus thepolitician may set up a target using indicators that everyone should follow. In thiscase it is very important to explain the content and meaning of indicators. Toexplain how they represent the policy since for example politician from onecountry could orient on the indicators of another country that could be ratherdifficult to attain due to the countries differences and misinterpretation ofindicators.The indicators are useful for the cities in a way that they can show where theproblem is and help to evaluate the target achievement. Eventually they follow theagenda from politicians, market or developers. For example the Stockholm Cityuses indicators not only because of CO2 reduction issue but also for creation ofvision and system of goals. When it concerns environmental issues Indicators areused for measuring the goals and for reporting back to politicians 3 times per year.There is a city protocol of how to do it that was developed over the years since
  16. 16. SID 16(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC2007 and was improved over time. However the protocol is still missing theindicators for sustainable urban development.Thought indicators can give a good picture of present situation they are not veryuseful for daily application. During the workshop there were presented severalexamples of tools from different countries that are however not very useful on adaily basis. These tools are used mostly to show trends, estimate measures andgive an overview. However they are not very useful for making a target on specificpoints. No country presented above use those indicators in their work every day.ConclusionThe conclusion of this workshop is that there is a good experience of tools amongEuropean countries that would be important to estimate in the project and to seewhether we can use or compare more between different cities. Another aspect isthat the indicators were discussed from the very broad perspectives –sustainability, energy, carbon neutrality. In the next step it will be important toconcentrate more on climate issues since at the present the connection between thetools and climate neutrality is not that obvious.Thematic Workshop: ScenariosAttendees:Karel Mulder, TU DelftUdo Pesch, TU DelftHossein Shahrokni, KTHUlf Skirke, HamburgChristina Salmhofer, StockholmÖrjan Lönngren, StockholmMaria Lennartsson, StockholmPia Hlava, ViennaMarc Montlleó, BarcelonaReally Climate Neutral urban areas take long term action. But how to know thefuture? How to develop a course that will be successful in an unknown future.Forecasting is important, but is also misleading as there is not one single future:the future is also the result of our choices now. So we can have various futurecities: The ‘USA city’, the European city, the planned Greenfield city, or the cityas was shown in a GM futures film (from 1940) forecasting the 1960 city. Externalscenarios allow us to determine the ‘future space’, the scope of parameters inwhich the future will most probably unfold. Internal scenarios allow us to showunfolding futures based on different values.
  17. 17. SID 17(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCHaving one goal for interaction (Climate neutrality) does not necessarily lead toone design for that aim, or to one pathway. Besides learning to recognizeboundaries set by external forces, it is also important to discuss with stakeholderwhere various value-based developments might lead. (the scenario workshopexercise of the next day based scenarios on different values regardingdensity/nature/social equality and energy saving/renewable energy)Stakeholder learning is an important aim of stakeholder scenario workshops. Thescenarios are crucial for triggering debate and creating a high quality interaction.Early participation is important as it might prevent a cycle of controversy fromcoming into being. (Sensitive issues being kept from the public -> creating moremistrust-> leading to more heavy fortified proposal-> which are right awaymistrusted by the public)In a stakeholder scenario workshop, it was argued not to involve the media. Thereason was that this would limit the scope for the participants to engage ininteraction, as media presence would force them to represent only theirorganizational viewpoints. This is as such not undemocratic, as no stakeholdergroup should be banned; a workshop should just not be a media event in order notto ruin the interaction.Some cities were applying backcasting and not scenarios. Point is here that theyare not excluding approaches: A scenario workshop might be used to worktowards a future vision which could be the starting point of backcasting. The pointhere is to recognize that there is not just one single option for making climateneutral urban areas, but there are various ones. A backcasting process cannot startfrom a climate neutral urban area as being one clear future vision. Such a futurevision should be defined in cooperation
  18. 18. SID 18(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCSESSION 3: SIMULATED SCENARIO EXERCISEOn the second day a simulated scenario workshop was held. A scenario workshopis intended to enable learning among stakeholders, and with that improve thequality of decision making. At the end of the previous day, a short introductionwas given to the participants. By allotment, four participants were asked to presenta scenario the next day. No elaborate instructions were given, merely the requestto shortly present the scenario, based on a written hand-out and a slide whichfeatured the most important aspects of the scenario.External scenariosThe day itself started with a discussion on external scenarios. External scenariosare established on the identification of the main uncertainties. Two axes were usedto prepare the scenarios of this workshop. On the one axis, low energy pressureversus high energy pressure was represented. This axis related to pressure exertedby issues in the energy domain, such as availability of fuel, energy prices, theimpact of CO2-reduction policies, etc. The other axis represented low populationpressures versus high population pressures. This second axis dealt with issues suchas population growth or decline, immigration, aging, consumption patterns, etc.A short discussion was held on these scenarios. Aspects that were named asimportant with respect to these scenarios were the economy, livability, ecosystemservices, governmental decisions including European Directives, and financialdevelopments. There seemed to be consensus that the quadrant of high energy-high population pressure was the location which most of the participants used astheir starting point.Internal scenariosSubsequently, internal scenarios were discussed in the form of a role play. Mostparticipants of the cities were given a role as a stakeholder, so that a diversity ofbackgrounds was covered (e.g. policy, housing corporations, banks, residents,NGOs). Internal scenarios concern specific policy choices that are taken as astarting point for a fictional future story. These stories have to be both credible andinternally consistent. The scenarios for the workshop have been based oninterviews with experts and desk research. Our scenarios were written for thefictional city of Clueburgh, which is located in the Netherlands, meaning that allkinds of Dutch contextual factors were taken into account in the scenarios. Suchfactors involve the important role of housing corporations, the Dutch system ofmortgage rent deduction, and the lack of space. The scenarios have been based onan identification of uncertainties in the following domains: demography,technology, culture, economy, politics/ institutional contexts, and users/residents.The first scenario was called ‘Clueburgh geothermal’ and dealt with theimplementation of a geothermal system in Clueburgh. The presenter took the roleof an advocate of the plan, but did not expand on the scenario itself. Interestingly,this advocacy gave room for opponents of the plan to disprove its acceptability.
  19. 19. SID 19(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCFor instance, NGOs raised the issue of risks and the lack of awareness aboutecosystem services. The fear of citizens was triggered about the possibility that ageothermal well might also bring radioactive material to the surface, they alsowere complaining about the dominance of institutional players and stakes in thedebate. In essence, this supported the hypothesis that starting a stakeholderdiscussion on the basis of a given plan raises antagonism, and reduces the chancesfor learning.The second scenario was that of ‘Passive Clueburgh’, and involved theimplementation of passive housing in a newly constructed urban district. Here, thepresenter gave a more straightforward account of the scenario. The ensuing debatepredominantly involved the uncertainty domains that were used for the scenarioconstruction, leading to discussions about the technical and financial details of theof the construction of passive districts, as well as the role of users in the efficiencyof passive houses. Moreover, the contribution of the passive district to sustainabledevelopment was debated. For instance, by the way the construction of the districtthreatened the snakes who lived there (they were saved according to the housingcorporation by bringing them to the zoo), and by the lack of having affordablehouses in the district, making it a homogeneous, and hence unsustainable, urbandistrict.The third scenario,’ Compact Clueburg’, concerned the restructuring of an existingcity district in the heart of Clueburgh. The poor district was aimed to be upgradedby having a cultural center, renovated houses, and reduction of car traffic. Themain point of discussion involved social aspects of the restructuring of the citydistrict. Especially the opposition between poor immigrants and richer urbanprofessionals and their respective needs was a topic of debate.The final scenario was that of ‘Green Clueburgh’ which involved the developmentan urban district in a conservancy area. The discussion mainly revolved around theresidents who were quite happy with the place and for whom the naturalsurroundings were a nice incidental aspect of their residential area, and theenvironmental NGO who had helped to develop the district but now experiencedthe demise of its original goals of nature preservation.DiscussionIn the discussion afterwards, a number of issues were raised. Some of theparticipants were expecting more consensus-building, and they had the sense thatthe workshop did not allow this to happen. Another issue involved the questionhow to deal with interests inside and outside of the workshop. The workshop isorganized in such a way that stakeholders can engage in discussions withouthaving to take care of their institutional interest. This ‘openness’ is considered tobe a precondition for stakeholder learning. The participants of the workshopcorroborated that it is fruitful that stakeholder ‘take off their institutional hat’ when
  20. 20. SID 20(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCthey enter the room, but what will happen when they leave the room and put ontheir institutional hat again? In other words, how open can such a workshop be?ReflectionsThe workshop took place in an enjoyable atmosphere. Participants took their rolesserious, but with humor. This helped to have lively and spontaneous discussions,although it has to be granted that there was a threat that discussion would not takeplace, as most participants have a comparable background as urban developers.Moreover, all of the roles pertained to people who were motivated to engage insustainable development. With that, there might have not been enough divergenceto guarantee a vivid discussion. What helped to raise diverging voices was that therole of a particularly antagonistic NGO was given to one of the scientists, and thatthere were a number of people who played the role of interested citizens. They hadthe opportunity to act as a kind of ‘joker’, by bringing in new viewpoints when thediscussion was in danger of fading out.Obviously there was quite a difference in the capacities of the participants to playtheir role. Some roles were simply more familiar to people working in the policydomain than others. Some participants may also have had more difficulty withengaging in an English discussion than others. Then again, also in real-lifeworkshops there are differences in the way people manifest themselves, so thiswas not reckoned to be a drawback. At times, the lack of hands-on knowledgeraised the necessity to invent arguments and data out of the blue, which led toamusing discussions about things as the survival of snakes (see above) and thecultural interest of Angolan immigrants.As said above, the presenters of the scenarios were not given much instructionsabout how to prepare their presentations. Besides the fact that there was not a lotof time to do this, it allowed the workshop to be as spontaneous as possible. At thesame time, the variety in ways of presenting testified that the way in which ascenario is presented has a major impact on the character of the discussion.The issues that have been raised during the discussion after the workshop (seeabove) raise some relevant practical and theoretical concerns. The points aboutworking towards a decision and the role of institutional interests are intrinsicallyrelated as they pertain to the goal of a scenario workshop. As said, the goal of sucha workshop is to learn from each other. Such learning is meant to enhance thequality of decision-making by taking divergent perspectives and possible futuredevelopments into account. This will reduce the chance for group think, and mayalso help to reduce the chance of societal opposition. This goal of learning bytaking a broader scope urges policy makers to take some distance from theiraspiration to come to decisions. In other words, it demands a change of mentality,which might be hard to effectuate. We also observed a lack of familiarity of theparticipants with internal scenarios. Scenarios appeared to be external scenarios,and the use of internal scenarios based on fictional storylines instead of computermodels and quantitative data raised some initial misunderstanding. This suggeststhat the roles of internal and external scenarios must be really well explained
  21. 21. SID 21(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCbefore a workshop is started. Even more importantly in this respect is the fact thatsome stakeholders might not be interested to join the workshop if it does not havethe goal to come to a conclusive decision, and if it is required to renounce frominstitutional stakes for the time being. In other words, why should stakeholdersparticipate? There are convincing answers to be given here, for instance, it mightbe so that such a workshop is the only place in which stakeholders meet in afriendly and sheltered context, so that it features a good opportunity fornetworking or for the establishment of mutual understanding. In anyway, anorganizer of a workshop should attend this question seriously. Once a participantis in, there is the issue whether this participant is trustworthy. How do you knowwhether a participant will not abuse knowledge acquired in a workshop for his orher strategic benefit outside of the workshop? This is a fundamental question thatneeds further reflection. At this moment, it cannot be answered in a conclusiveway.CONCLUSIONS FROM THE EXPERT WORKSHOPFrom the Case Studies previously conducted in the CLUE project we have learnedthe project’s City partners are promoting CLUES of either world-class, or leadingEuropean standards (3-5 tons/capita per annum) so the level of ambition is quitehigh. This demands serious attention from all involved and sets the CLUEproject’s targets.During Session 1 we have learned there are a number of perspectives on the issueabout Climate Neutrality and many supporting protocols, but they may besummarized as:• Production-led• Consumption-driven• User-centricWe also learnt the only way to tackle the rebound effect of such protocols is totake a consumption-driven approach and make any adaptation measures user-centric, as otherwise you will not only under-represent the dynamics at play inclimate neutrality, but the behaviour of users.The main message from this discussion on the protocols is that you are going tocome across a lot of indicators which relate to climate neutrality, so it isparticularly important we are selective in using them to approximate neutralitywhen benchmarking CLUEs. On this matter all present agreed a systematicapproach to such measurement is needed and measurement system that not onlyreflects, or mimics, but which really captures the complexity of urbanenvironments as open systems.From Session 2 – the Parallel Thematic Workshops three very good examples ofbest practice in: the use of indicators, adaption of benchmarking techniques andthe application of scenario-building exercises, were presented. This in turn
  22. 22. SID 22(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCstimulated a series of interesting debates on their role as key instruments in thedrive towards climate neutrality.Overall it is recognized the workshop made progress in identifying how cities canconsolidate the ongoing debate on climate neutrality and intensify their efforts tosustain the development of urban districts in Europe. Furthermore, the discussionstended to recognize cities can not achieve climate neutral urban environmentswithout recourse to the social and economic structures of the districts they areproposing to sustain the development of. The lesson to take from this being: weneed to systematically link the indicators, benchmarking techniques and scenario-building exercises of any climate neutral assessments to the triple bottom-line ofurban districts and where possible, base any such sustainable developmentstatements on consumption-driven and user-centric evaluations.
  23. 23. SID 23(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCAPPENDIXESAppendix 1: Guiding and Inspirational Questionto Thematic Workshop – BenchmarkingCLUE project: Edinburgh Expert Workshop 14th-15thMarch, 2013Questioning framework for “Benchmarking Climate neutral UrbanEnvironments”1. The One Planet living model adopted by the Hackbridge Project offers“another take” on climate neutrality, what do you think its relativestrengths and weaknesses are as an assessment methodology?2. Do you think the retrofit route into climate neutrality is either too narrow apath to follow, or sufficiently open to “reverse engineer” all the otherdimensions relating to environmental sustainability?3. Given many of the CLUE project case studies do not relate to retrofitscenarios but new build, do you think the same detailed level of analysisshould also be undertaken to set the benchmarks for these climate neutralproposals?4. Given the Hackbridge case study is one of the few that manages tointegrate the environmental and social components of climate neutralassessments into a baseline analysis, do you think this type ofbenchmarking is something which ought to be a standard measure of suchevaluations.5. Do you think this type of benchmarking and evaluations they generatecould support the transition to a low carbon economy as part of a triplebottom line sustainability assessment?Appendix 2: Guiding and Inspirational Questionsto 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 planning office? The issues concerning indicatordevelopment can be approached from many angles and with many purposes.How do you measure indicators for climate neutrality on a district level? How isthe data collected, with which resolution is it possible in your region to find dataor measure relevant parameters and who owns it?How is the indicators presented? Are the indicators for climate neutrality public oronly used for planning, policy making or benchmarking?
  24. 24. SID 24(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVCWho is responsible for the indicators? Is it the same organization that isresponsible for the development of them as for collecting relevant data?How do you connect indicators for climate neutrality with sustainability? E.g.nuclear power can be seen as climate neutral or a better source of energy thanfossil fuels but might not be seen as a sustainable energy source.Appendix 3: Description of the Scenarios Used inthe Scenario Exercise8Challenge the futureScenario 1: Clueburgh geothermal1. Clueburgh goal of being carbon neutral in20502. Six parties joined consortium (Clueburgh,energy companies, housings corporation)3. Investment 14 million euro4. Due to housing crisis 3000 houses instead of6000 houses5. Great losses for housing corporations, whichbecame collectivized again6. Unconventional fossil fuel leads to decrease ofenergy prices7. Passive housing becomes the standard,geothermal energy not used any longer
  25. 25. SID 25(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC9Challenge the futureScenario 2:Passive Clueburgh1. Tasman Quarter: Passive houses, Stelladam isproject developer2. Sloppy construction, due to lack of standards3. Residents suffer from different nuisances andtake Stelladam to court4. Not much interest in further initiatives byproject developers5. Renegotation of European Directive, itbecomes less stringent6. Passive houses are still a promise, not thedominant approach to building10Challenge the futureScenario 3: Compact Clueburgh1. The Purgedistrict is crowded, polluted, and poor2. Integral plan to restructure the district: centralsquare with cultural facilities; renovation of houses;traffic circulation plan3. Opposition to new theater4. Crisis in building sector, city council demandstheater to be build by local unemployedconstructors, causing fraudelent practices5. Reconstruction was meant to stimulate socio-economic integration6. In the end, Purgedistrict still very much segregated7. High consumption of energy8. Tensions over parking space9. Smart & green cars might make car use attractiveagain for urban professionals
  26. 26. SID 26(26)FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC11Challenge the futureScenario 4: Green Clueburgh1. Sandytown built in dune area. Goals:carbon neutral, protection of nature,minimal visual impact, affordable2. Partnership with environmental NGOs3. Parking spaces far from houses led tosense of lack of safety, people startedto park their cars close to their houses4. Wind energy was forbidden bysupreme court, green energy hasebecome provided by controversialimport of green certificates5. Prices of houses have become veryhigh, due to attractive livingenvironment