Urban Urban Sustainability Urban Urban Sustainability - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

Transforming Ireland Seminar Series – 28th October 2010 - Dublin City Council Civic Offices

Urban Urban Sustainability Sustainability Urban Urban Sustainability Sustainability I di I di Indicators Indicators

• Dr. Ainhoa
• Dr. Ainhoa Gonzá

González ez Centre entre for for Environment Environment entre entre for for Environment Environment Trinity Colle Trinity College ge Dubli Dublin <agonzal@tc gonzal@tcd.ie> .ie>

SLIDE 2

Urban Sustainability Urban Sustainability

…sustainability in urban planning entails current and future protection and improvement current and future protection and improvement

• f urban environments, through the

appropriate delivery and management of land appropriate delivery and management of land, water, energy, transport, and waste, and safeguarding biodiversity, water and air quality; in addition to the promotion of economic prosperity, social equality and human well‐ being... being...

SLIDE 3

Sustainability Indicators

…Setting the Context…

• Pre‐requisite: defining clear and achievable sustainability

Pre requisite: defining clear and achievable sustainability

• bjectives (goals) for the city or plan area
• Indicators formulated to:

– Measure progress towards established objectives – Evaluate planning alternatives (sustainability performance) Monitor changes derived from plan/policy implementation – Monitor changes derived from plan/policy implementation – Monitor fulfillment of set targets/thresholds (legislation or strategies) – Inform plan and policy development and decision‐making

• Indicators can measure physical, biological, chemical, social and

economic parameters

• Indicators can be quantitative or qualitative
• Available at EU and national level

(e.g. European Environment Outlook ‐ EEA, 2005; Ireland’s Environment ‐ EPA, 2008)

SLIDE 4

Sustainable Development Indicators in Ireland

l ( )

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

‐ Environmental Indicators for Ireland (annually)

‐ Indicators for Transport and the Environment (2000)

Indicators for Transport and the Environment (2000)

‐ Rural Environmental Indicators (2001)

‐ Climate Change: Indicators for Ireland (2002)

CSO ‘ i I l d' ’ ( l i d )

• CSO – ‘Measuring Ireland's Progress’ (censal periods)
• National and Economic and Social Council – ‘National Progress

Indicators for Sustainable Economic Social and Environmental Development’ (2002) Indicators for Sustainable Economic, Social and Environmental Development (2002)

• Comhar (Sustainable Development Council)

‐ ‘Counting what Counts’: recommendations on national indicators for SD (2007) ‐ ‘Measuring Ireland's Sustainability’: overview of Ireland’s performance on SD ‐ Currently developing a comprehensive and integrated sustainable development indicator (SDI) set for Ireland

• At the local level, sustainability indicators commonly defined

as part of SEA and EIA processes (used to monitor plan implementation) No official set of sustainability indicators adopted No universally applicable indicator set

SLIDE 5

Sample of Common Urban Sustainability Indicators

Indicators Specifications ENVIRONMENTAL Concentration of primary Concentration (µg/m3) of particulate matter less than 10 µm (PM10). particulate matter PM10 Population exposed to pollutant concentrations b t t l Percentage of the urban population potentially exposed to ambient air concentrations (µg/m3) of SO2, NO2 & PM10 in excess of the EU li it t t l t f th t ti f h h lth above target values limit or target value set for the protection of human health. SOCIAL Density of development Number of people inhabiting a given urbanized area. Availability of local public open areas Percentage of people living within 300 metres of a public open area greater than 5,000 m2 ECONOMIC Cost of proposed Investment (€) Cost of proposed development Investment (€) Effects of the proposed development on local Number of new employment opportunities created and revenue (€/m2). development on local economy (revenue) (€/m ).

SLIDE 6

What will indicators be used for?

• Hierarchy of the plan?
• Scale of urban intervention?
• Assessment aims?
• Assessment aims?
• Availability of data? Measurements versus modelling

Who will use the indicators?

• Technical experts and science advisors?

Who will use the indicators?

• Policy‐makers, plan‐makers, decision‐makers?
• General public and media?
• General public and media?

SLIDE 7

Common Methods to Select Indicators Common Methods to Select Indicators

L i l ti i t

• Legislative requirements

‐ Set thresholds / targets ‐ Agreements and common pursuits

• Expert judgment

Expert judgment

‐ Specialist input C iti l id ti ‐ Critical considerations

• Public consultation

‐ Participation and ownership ‐ Public concerns

SLIDE 8

Applying Indicators Sets Applying Indicators Sets

• Need to define comparable units
• Commonly achieved through normalisation

(e.g. scale 1 to 10) ( g )

• Several mathematical agregation methods
• Final output: value, graph, map, score
• r index
• r index

SLIDE 9

Presenting Indicators

PM10 concentration [µg/m3] = 28 PM10 concentration [µg/m3] limit = 50

January July December

10 10 8 6 2 4

Alternative A = 2 versus Alternative B = 7 (on a scale of 10)

• Individual indicator value (max, min, average…)
• Indicator trend graph (temporal/seasonal variation)

g p

( p / )

• Indicator map (spatial variation)
• Spider diagram (comparable indicators)

Spider diagram (comparable indicators)

• Score or Index (constrasted performance)

SLIDE 10

Interpreting Indicators

Value compared against EU set targets/thresholds Current value compared against baseline value Alternative 1 value compared against Alternative 2 value Alternative 1 value compared against Alternative 2 value Values compared over time and space (e.g. different cities) PM10 concentration [µg.m‐3]

90 95

PM10 concentration [µg.m‐3]

55 60 65 70 75 80 85 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

road excluded

General rule: increase/decrease of value from baseline shows improving/worsening condition

5 10 15

excluded

SLIDE 11

FP7 Project BRIDGE ‐ Case Studies FP7 Project BRIDGE Case Studies

Varied cultural and planning contexts, geographical scale, issues & scope of assessment

SLIDE 12

Simplified Structure

• f the BRIDGE Approach

s Objectives Objectives

Spatial Data Collation

eeting/s eeting/s Indicators Indicators

Modelling Outputs

CoP CoP Me Me Case Study

DSS

C Case Study

(Plan & Alternatives)

Sustainability of Planning Proposals Impact Assessment

• f Alternatives

g p

(Water, Air, Energy)

• f Alternatives

SLIDE 13

Community of Practice Community of Practice

in the Development of Objectives and Indicators

CoP Kick‐off Athens

Stage 1

• Gathering perceptions: urban sustainability,

planning priorities; drivers and pressures

meeting Firenze Gliwice

p g p ; p

• Introduction to the method for the development of

indicators.

Gliwice Helsinki

Stage 2

• Consensus on core sustainability objectives.
• Review of a preliminary set of targets & indicators.

Second CoP meeting London

Stage 3 Indicators Workshop

b ll

Indicators Workshop

• Consensus on a final set of common and city‐

specific indicators.

Umbrella CoP (representatives from all case study cities) Set of objectives, criteria and indicators for assessing urban sustainability

SLIDE 14

CoP Results – Sustainability Objectives

AIR ENERGY WATER OTHERS Improve Air Quality Reduce CO Improve Energy Efficiency Improve the Built Fabric

ATHENS

Reduce CO2 Emissions Reduce Thermal Discomfort Increase Green Space Areas Increase Mobility

FIRENZE

Improve Air Quality Improve Energy Efficiency Improve Mobility Increase and Improve G S A Green Space Areas

GLIWICE

Improve Air Quality Optimise Energy Efficiency Improve Water Management Improve Mobility Promote Controlled Expansion of Urban Expansion of Urban Areas

HELSINKI

Improve Air Quality Optimize Energy Consumption Protect the Water Balance Enhance human well‐ being in the city

LONDON

Improve Air Quality Reduce CO2 Decrease Heat Island Effect Reduce Flooding Promote Integrated Decision‐making Emissions Increase Canopy Cover

SLIDE 15

CoP Results – Sustainability Indicators

AIR ENERGY WATER OTHERS

• Concentration of

pollutants (NOx, SOx, PM10 PM2 5)

• Energy consumption per

capita.

• % of population using

public transport.

ATHENS

PM10, PM2.5).

• Number of days above

established air quality thresholds

• % of energy from renewable

sources.

• Number of new car‐

parking spaces. C t ti f K ( %) d d f C hi

FIRENZE

• Concentration of

pollutants (PM10, CO2, NOx, SOx, CO, etc.).

• Kw (or %) produced from

renewable sources.

• % of energy consumed (and

saved) per capita.

• Car ownership.
• Public transport use (%).

C t ti f E l (GJ/MW W t b % f f d b

GLIWICE

• Concentration of

pollutants (PM10, CO2, NOx, SOx, CO, etc.).

• Contribution of ‘low

emissions’ to the total

• Energy loses (GJ/MW

tonnes/m3/y/).

• Number (%) or

modernized/insulated old buildings.

• Water use by

sector.

• % of population

connected to waste water treatment.

• % of surface covered by

land use plans.

• Daily travel time to/back

from the city centre. emissions to the total emissions. buildings. water treatment.

HELSINKI

• Concentration of

pollutants (O3, NOx, SOx, PM10, PM2.5).

• Energy ratings and heating in

buildings.

• % of energy from renewable
• Water balance:

precipitation, surface run‐off,

• Density of developments

(persons/m2).

• Population exposure to

SOx, PM10, PM2.5).

• GHG and CO2

emissions per capita and sectoral split.

• % of energy from renewable

sources. surface run off, evapotranspiration, filtration, and flooding

• Population exposure to

air pollutants.

• CO2 concentration.
• Average outdoor
• Flood events.
• Public participation and

LONDON

CO2 concentration.

• % of emissions from

anthropogenic sources. Average outdoor temperature (surface and air). Flood events. Public participation and effectiveness.

• Quantitativeness of

SEA/EIA/HIA reports.

SLIDE 16

CoP Results – Main Findings g

• Participative approach: addressing stakeholder concerns
• Lack of consensus: different cities different issues

b l b

• Divergences in sustainability objectives
• Legal requirements prioritised (e.g. EU Directives’ targets/thresholds)

g q p

• Common versus city‐specific indicators (need for adaptation)
• Indicators highly constrained by availability of data (certain

environmental indicators omitted and limitations for socio‐economic indicators)

• Reuse existing indicators to facilitate monitoring
• Limitations for the assessment

SLIDE 17

European Green City Index (2009)

EU urban indicator measurement projects in Ireland …EU urban indicator measurement projects in Ireland…

Indicators for environmental performance 30 cities from 30 countries; 30 indicators grouped into 8 categories

SLIDE 18

European Green City Index

1 = Good performance: Brussels, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Stockholm 27‐30 = Bad performance: Bucharest, Instanbul, Sofia, Prague

bli ( l i h h ) Dublin: 21 (along with Athens)

SLIDE 19

MOLAND – Monitoring Land Use/Cover Dynamics

EU urban indicator measurement projects in Ireland …EU urban indicator measurement projects in Ireland…

• Spatially referenced indicators for urban sustainability
• Land cover changes based on land use evolution and

future scenario modelling (demographic, economic, climatic, etc.)

• Ouputs: ‐ Cartography, tables, statistics

‐ Spatial planning and policy recommendations

Green edge Habitat suitability

550 600 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 Km2 MID/END 50's END 60'S - BEGINNING 70'S MID 80'S END 90'S 50 100 150 200 B i l b a

• B

r a t i s l a v a B r u s s e l s D u b l i n H e l s i n k i I r a k l i

• n

C

• p

e n h a g e n L y

• n

M i l a n M u n i c h N i c

• s

i a O p

• r

t

• P

a l e r m

• P

r a g u e S e t u b a l S u n d e r l a n d T a l l i n n V i e n n a

SLIDE 20

Final remarks Final remarks

• Play an important role in sustainability assessment
• Monitor progress towards established goals/targets
• Commonly used in SEA and EIA

Commonly used in SEA and EIA

• Need to be (S)SMART: (Spatial)‐Specific‐

Measurable Achievable Relevant Timely Measurable‐Achievable‐Relevant‐Timely

• Applicability commonly tied in to indicator ability to

dd t t ifi i ( lt ti ) address context‐specific issues (consultation)

• Understandable to the audience
• Could derive into policy recommendations
• Inform decision‐making

SLIDE 21

Thank you