EESAP4 Yepez Salmon, Grace


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

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

No notes for slide

EESAP4 Yepez Salmon, Grace

  1. 1. Grace YEPEZ – Fabien FILLIT – Nicolas SALMON / NOBATEK Environmental assessment of sustainable urban projects through NEST, a tool for urban planning actors
  2. 2. 5 critical parameters: -Defined: centre and limits -Compact -Complete -Connected -Allow human-nature link [ Sustainable neighbourhood ] Urban neighbourhood, designed to have a low environmental impact on environment while insuring high quality of life for its inhabitants. It is based on long terms objectives, aims at a functional autonomy and at a consistent integration in the city [G.Yépez,2011] 2
  3. 3. REQUIREMENTS > Consistent with architects’ ways of working and the level of information in an early design phase > Evaluation through understandable and objective (quantitative) indicators > Evaluation base on 3D modelling and impact visualisation clearly linked to design options > To allow comparing design scenarios MASTERPLAN early phases > need for better EVALUATION tools LEVEL OF DATA in an early phase > Early phase: urban planning competition or outline proposals > Site of construction + urban program + sustainability objectives > General geometry of buildings, land occupation, roads and circulations > General characterization of roads composition, green areas and available public transportation
  4. 4. State of the art : tools for evaluating urban planning impacts + + Workability: sites/actors/projects QUALITATIVE evaluation QUANTITATIVE evaluation
  5. 5. District planning scenarioLife Cycle Analysis (LCA) LCA Infrastructure LCA buildings LCA transport LCA land use + + + LCA Neighbourhood Designing a new district: how to evaluate quickly and effectively a design scenario ?
  6. 6. NEST Indicators Calculated per user and per year ENERGY Total primary energy consumption (MJ) of the district It includes: Buildings construction, buildings use, infrastructure construction, public lighting, transportation CO2 Green house gases (GHG) emitted by the district (IPCC 100). It includes: Buildings construction, buildings use, infrastructure construction, public lighting, transports LAND USE Land use (impact on biodiversity) (eco-indicator 99) It includes: land transformation; land consumption WASTE Waste generation and valorization It includes: construction and demolition waste, household waste AIR QUALITY Volume of polluted air generated by the district (m3) It includes air pollution from: transports, buildings heating fumes (gas and wood boilers). WATER Water consumption in the district It includes consumption from: construction of the dwellings, use of dwellings, maintenance of gardens It includes separately: drinking water, rain water ECONOMY Cost of the project It includes the cost of : roads, green areas, buildings (per categories), other street elements SOCIAL IMPACT Evaluation of users 'satisfaction It includes evaluation from : accessibility, availability of green areas, size of dwellings, means of transports, availability of parking Indicators > (mostly) based on a LCA approach
  7. 7. Evaluation: example Roads and pavements design Materials consumption Land occupation Water runoff Transportation scenario Accessibility Initial investment Energy CO2 Waste Land use (biodiversity) Water Energy CO2 Social satisfaction Economy Sustainability issue Indicators Air quality
  8. 8. Nest: plug-in in Trible sketchup
  9. 9. Objective > ability to evaluate quickly planning scenarios during the design phase Project characteristics Import / export of models Land use parameters Buildings creation Buildings properties Street elements Infrastructures (roads) properties Transport scenario Calculation Comparison of scenarios Report INPUTS RESULTS
  10. 10. Example of INPUTS: Buildings characteristics…
  11. 11. Example of INPUTS: Roads properties…
  12. 12. Example of INPUTS: Transportation scenario…
  13. 13. RESULTS: sustainability indicators
  14. 14. RESULTS: reporting
  15. 15. Example of application analysis of a urban planning scenario for a new neighborhood Project characteristics: - located in the Pyrénées Atlantiques (Fr), 2.6 ha - Closed to the (small) town center, closed to the highway - Area occupied by a football field, few houses, a small agriculture company and empty fields - Initial definition of the land use: 50% artificial area, 30% agriculture fields, 10% urban area, 10% empty urban areas - Distance to the main working area: 10 km - Objective: housing 300 inhabitant + shops + offices Planning proposal: scenario 0 -based on integrated urban gardens, pedestrian areas, smaller roads for cars, fewer parking spaces per dwelling, vegetated parks, buildings shops and offices creating a wall against the noise from the highway - Quite high density -All buildings are energy efficient (completion of 45 kWh / m² / year) and include solar energy production on rooftops - large areas of green spaces and green roofs (> water management) - All buildings include a place to facilitate waste sorting, have local bicycles shelters, and are equipped with systems to reduce water consumption - Grey water reuse is also considered in some buildings - 20% of housing is social housing - 1 bus line and creation of bicycle connection to the town center
  16. 16. RESULTS: scenario 0 > energy and climate change -Impact of density - high performance of buildings - quite low level of transport impact - low impact from infrastructures - French electricty mix leads to low CO2 emissions from electricty uses (buildings) - High impact of transportation is consequent of the project localization
  17. 17. RESULTS: scenario 0 > Waste production - Good result on recycling capacity - Important potential of waste reduction through the reduction of waste for the construction and demolition works
  18. 18. RESULTS: Water management (consumption/ infiltration) - Low level of potable water consumption - Improvements can be realized to further avoid water runoff
  19. 19. Planning proposal - Based on low density, individual houses, large lots, large and numerous roads - Mostly mineralized areas - Minimized public spaces - Performance of building: based on current regulation, no renewable energy production neither rain water recovery. - 1 bus line - The construction proposed reaches only 215 inhabitants Alternative: scenario 1 =business as usual
  20. 20. RESULTS Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual) - Main differences generated by the buildings performance strategy and by the ability to use alternative transportation for a little part of the transport needs > PRIMARY ENERGY
  21. 21. RESULTS Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual) - Main differences generated by the buildings performance strategy and by the ability to use alternative transportation for a little part of the transport needs > CO2 EMISSIONS
  22. 22. RESULTS Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual) > WATER CONSUMPTION - Efforts realized on water reuse is clearly visible for scenario 1
  23. 23. RESULTS Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual) - The proposal 1 would gain with more natural green spaces > LAND USE
  24. 24. RESULTS Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual) scenario 0 scenario 1 Scenario 1 - 41% energy consumption  -16% CO2 emissions  -25% non recyclable waste  -47% potable water consumption  -20% outside air pollution  + 40% housing capacity  + 40 % initial investment
  25. 25. Siège Social NOBATEK 67, rue de Mirambeau 64600 ANGLET Tél. : 05 59 03 61 29 Fax. : 05 59 63 55 41 Site Ecocampus ENSAM Esplanade des Arts et Métiers 33405 TALENCE Tél. : 05 56 84 63 70 Fax. : 05 56 84 63 71