report from the expert workshop in edinburgh

C4 UNIVERSITY PARTNERS

SID 1 (26)

This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC

Report from the Expert Workshop

in Edinburgh

SID 2(26)

FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.


Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3

Session 1: What do we mean with Climate Neutrality on an Urban district level? 3

Session 2: Parallel Thematic Workshops .............................................................. 4

Thematic Workshop: Benchmarking................................................................. 5

Thematic Workshop: Indicators .......................................................................10

Thematic Workshop: Scenarios .......................................................................16

Session 3: Simulated scenario exercise ................................................................18

Conclusions from the Expert Workshop ..............................................................21

Appendixes .........................................................................................................23

Appendix 1: Guiding and Inspirational Question to Thematic Workshop – Benchmarking .................................................................................................23

Appendix 2: Guiding and Inspirational Questions to Thematic Workshop - Indicators ........................................................................................................23

Appendix 3: Description of the Scenarios Used in the Scenario Exercise ........24

SID 3(26)



INTRODUCTION

The Expert Workshop held in Edinburgh March 14-15th 2013 is a part of the INTERREG IVC project of Climate Neutral Urban Districts in Europe (CLUE). CLUE is a project involving regions, cities and universities in Europe with the aim of exchanging experiences and develop methods concerning policymaking and climate neutrality for cities. The Edinburgh expert workshop was the first of two expert meetings that will be arrange in the project and the aims for this event were several. One aim was to start building the expert networks that should be created within the project and the second aim were to start the work around exchanging experiences and skills around 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 more intensive discussion and exchange of skills and experience between the universities and the city experts. The workshop was organized by the university partners (component 4, C4) in the CLUE project and aimed at, together with the cities/regions experts, discuss climate neutrality within the frame of the three themes indicators, benchmarking and scenarios. The workshop was organized around three sessions, the first dealing with the issues about defining climate neutrality, the second lifting experiences from the experts within the three themes and the third session was a simulated 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 are results from Session 1, 2 and 3. All related documents from this workshop e.g. background reading and power point presentations are published both on the CLUE web platform and at the LinkedIn group CLUE – Experts Network for Climate Neutral Districts.

SESSION 1: WHAT DO WE MEAN WITH CLIMATE NEUTRALITY ON AN URBAN DISTRICT LEVEL?

During this session there were two introductions from KTH and one from City of Stockholm. First Christina Salmhofer from City of Stockholm made a short presentation of the new urban district in Stockholm called Stockholm Royal Seaport. This urban district has a very ambition vision for climate mitigation, and is one of 16 projects worldwide working with Clinton Climate Initiate framework for a climate positive urban district. Second, Nils Brandt, associate professor at Industrial Ecology gave a short background concerning the role of cities in climate mitigation process. Even if

SID 4(26)



there are a lot of international standards for accounting greenhouse gases on city level, cities still use different frames setting system borders and collecting data. This, together with the lack of transparency have given a situation where benchmarking between cities goals and result still is unclear. Production perspective or consumption perspective gives total different result in accounting of carbon footprints for cities. In a consumption perspective you put a lifecycle perspective and take responsibility even for production far from you city. Implementation of climate mitigation policies and actions need transparence and tools 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 if focusing on an urban district level. There are either scientific or political approaches and any common definition of climate neutrality on city level is not formulated. In the scientific discussion you find expression like” strictly carbon”, “carbon zero”, carbon neutral or climate positive. All the different expressions have different definitions based on different system borders and perspectives. Stockholm have in their new urban district (SRS) taken Climate positive as vision based 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 Stockholm Royal Seaport (SRS) as an Example. His presentation included;

• The process to climate positive and KTH´s work together with CCI and the City of Stockholm

• How to account emissions – scopes & boundaries • Some examples and preliminary results on the road towards climate

positive • How can a very ambitious target such as climate positive play a role in a

climate neutral city or district?

SESSION 2: PARALLEL THEMATIC WORKSHOPS

During the second session of the workshop the attendees was encourage to present their own experiences within the three CLUE themes included in the C4 work namely; indicators, benchmarking and scenarios. The participants had the

SID 5(26)



opportunity to choose for them self which of the three groups they wanted to participate in and also if they wanted to present their experiences. The three sessions was held in parallel and the layout for each of them was that of presentations of experiences from the experts followed by discussions around was what presented but also to some extent around prepared questions that the participants have received before the event. Below are the summaries from each of the parallel thematic workshops presented.

Thematic Workshop: Benchmarking Attendees: Professor Mark Deakin, (MD), Edinburgh Napier University Fiona Campbell, (FC), Edinburgh Napier University Alasdair Reid, (AR), Edinburgh Napier University Cordelia Koening, (HAM), Hamburg Katharina, Söpper, (VIE),Vienna Itzel Sanromà, (BAR), Barcelona Stefan, Johansson (KTH), KTH Presentation 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 upgrades covering: energy use, waste and recycling, sustainable transport, low impact materials, food, water, habitats, local identity, economic regeneration and community well-being. One planet Sutton is a partnership between London Borough of Sutton and BioRegional. It covers a p the 10 themes of One Planet Living, includes the transformation of Hackbridge into UK's first sustainable suburb. In this aim, BioRegional are currently preparing a Sustainability Action Plan for the Local Authority advised them on how One Planet Living can be achieved. As they state, to achieve One Planet living: “ Sutton residents shall need to reduce from an Ecological Footprint of 5.32 global hectares to 1.5 and from 11.17 tonns of CO2 per capita to 1.2 tonns” As part of this strategy, the Hackbridge project concentrates on the upgrading of existing homes (retrofitting) plus the development of 1,100 new environmentally-friendly home. We estimate the mass retrofit in Hackbridge will reduce the C02 emissions 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 the global hectares from 5.32 - 4.73 per capita and means the equivalent number of planets needed to sustain Sutton has reduced from 3.5 - 3.2. While this contribution may appear marginal in relation to the overall goal, it has to be remembers the mass retrofit proposal is just 1 (energy) of the 10 principles of One Planet Living, the other 9 being met by the launch of subsequent initiatives on waste and recycling, sustainable transport, low impact materials, food, water, habitats, local identity, economic regeneration and community well-being.

SID 6(26)



Edinburgh Napier’s involvement with the project has been to work within the benchmark set by the Sutton partnership for the Hackbridge project (that of developing an energy efficient-low carbon zone), review the environmental profile of the mass retrofit proposal assembled to meet this goal and social baseline from which the distribution of energy savings and reduced level of carbon emissions can be measured in terms of costs and benefits. This review of the environmental profile and social baseline were seen as particularly important measure to benchmark because the Hackbridge project proposed the benefits of the retrofit would be equally shared and no one would be made worse off by the action. The methodology adopted divided the exercise into two principle components: the construction of the environmental profile and social baseline and then went on to cross-referenced one against the other, so as to examine the distribution of costs and 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 seen to be particularly significant because it allowed the review team to consider the sustainability of the community development initiative not just in terms of the retrofit’s energy-efficiency, but equity of the costs and benefits associated with savings and emissions of such low carbon zones. The environmental profile: This profiling exercise sub-divided the stock of residences into six house types and is used to calculate both the energy savings and carbon emissions reductions generated from the range of retrofit options. It found the potential energy savings and CO2 reductions to be 56.0% savings and 51.2% emission reduction respectively. The analysis also found the total cost of implementing all the proposed measures to be £27,463,186. With an average 73% owner occupation the cost 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 from data from the Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v.1.0]. The base unit for census data release is the Output Area - a cluster of adjacent postcode units incorporating approximately 312 residents. 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 wards used for the 2001 census outputs. LSOAs incorporate approximately 1,500 residents. The standard measures of social deprivation in England are the English Indices of Deprivation (EIMD), produced by the Government and compiled in 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 approximately 1,500 people: there are a total of 32,482 LSOAs in England. As the LSOAs are ranked comparatively,

SID 7(26)



rank 1 indicates the most deprived LSOA in England and rank 32, 482 the least deprived 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, with relative prosperity to the south of the study area. These measures of deprivation are, in turn, compounded by the health, housing, education, crime and living environment rankings. An area-based analysis: This relates the socio-demographic data to the environmental profile. This is achieved by way of an area-based analysis, linking levels of energy consumption and carbon emissions to the structure of tenure and the connection this has to the housing market. As an area-based analysis, this assessment of consumption and emissions 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 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 30% least deprived;

• while roughly similar in terms of building type, age, and levels of consumption and emissions, the social-rented sector is prevalent 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 which type of tenure consumes 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 to the environmental profile which it is based on. It is found wanting for the simple reason the appraisal is not clear as to whether the benefits generated from the forecast rates of energy consumption and levels of carbon emissions, will be spread equally amongst all residents. The reason for this - the paper suggests - is simple: it is because, in order to clarify the distribution of benefits generated, it is necessary for the institutional arrangement supporting the regeneration to first of all "baseline" the social-demographic composition of Hackbridge. Then, draw upon the results of this analysis as the means to assess whether this “innovative” environment has the capacity to carry the energy consumption and carbon emissions targets the “mixed use redevelopment scheme” sets for the transformation of Hackbridge into a sustainable suburb. The socio-demographic baseline of the study area has 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. In expanding this social-demographic baseline to also include data on

SID 8(26)



building type, age, levels of consumption and emissions across the structure of tenure within the housing market, it has been possible for the analysis to cross reference the rate of energy consumption and level of carbon emissions within these areas to the structure of tenure. This highlights a number of problems associated with the retrofit proposal. These may be summarised as follows:

• housing built pre-1918 on average consumes 56% more energy and emits 41% more CO2 than houses built post-2001;

• the older housing stock is the worst performer in terms of energy efficiency and costly to improve;

• within the regeneration footprint this type of housing makes up less than 20% of the housing stock. Nearly 40% of the housing stock having been built post-1970 and is already benefitting from many of the measures proposed to save energy and reduce carbon emissions;

• almost one third of Hackbridge residents live in areas which rank within the top 15% most income-deprived in England, renting their homes from the Local Authority, Registered Social Landlords, Housing Associations or the private-rented sector. Homes in the social-rented sector that have been shown to consume less energy and to emit less CO2 than other housing type of a similar age in Hackbridge.

Given that the current policy on the retrofit excludes the social-rented sector, the assumptions made about the how the efficiency of such a low carbon-zone can be developed at no additional environmental costs to residents, prompts a number of questions. This is because in its current form the commitment to the mass retrofit may be seen as divisive in terms of the actions it lays down for improving the efficiency of energy consumption within the residential property sector and carbon emission footprint across the housing market. The reasons for this being:

• the most income and employment-deprived residents live in social rented accommodation which already exceeds national standards in terms of energy performance;

• the least deprived members of the community tend to secure their accommodation from either the owner-occupier, or private-rented sectors of the older, less energy efficient and the highest carbon-emitting dwellings;

• while the former are excluded from any benefits the retrofit may generate in terms of energy savings and carbon reduction, the latter are targeted, not only because they are the worst offenders (as occupants of the older stock), but for the reason that occupants of newer owner-occupied and private rented housing are also some of the least “worst offenders”.

This becomes particularly clear if we summarise the potential benefits of the energy efficiency and low carbon emissions associated with the Hackbridge project. For with the existing proposal, housing situated within the social rented sector shall be excluded from the retrofit and remain with an energy efficiency and

SID 9(26)



carbon emission rating of 75% (Band C rating). While under the retrofit proposals covering the owner-occupied and private rented sectors of the housing market, the 50% improvements in energy efficiency and carbon emissions for this sector are not 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 Climate Change Act for 2020. This tends to leave the occupants of the social-rented sector in the same situation they were in before the Climate Change Act 2008 came into effect. For while improving 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 mass retrofit measures introduced under the auspices of the Hackbridge project, leave the 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 and levels of carbon emissions respectively), but stuck in a situation which is tantamount to “fuel poverty”. This in turn suggests that using the structure of tenure to draw a clear line between what sectors of the housing stock are eligible to participate in the benefits of mass retrofit projects is inappropriate, not only on the grounds their programmes of renewal are divisive and socially inequitable, but for the technical inefficiencies which redevelopments of this kind also generate. For, in their current form, the measures adopted to champion the virtues of environmental sustainability fail to adequately demonstrate where retrofits can best perform as energy efficient, low carbon zones. That is to say, where they can best perform as energy efficient, low carbon zones, which in both technical and social terms are equally capable of being administered at no extra environmental cost to the very communities their emerging institutional arrangements are designed to serve. This clearly demonstrates the structure of tenure does not offer an appropriate means to baseline mass retrofits associated with the regeneration strategies, visions and master-plans under consideration, as it is not only divisive, but out of balance with the demands transformational actions of this kind place on communities to deliver energy efficient, low carbon zones at no extra environmental cost. For the findings drawn from this case study tend to suggest that 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 reduce carbon 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 significant level of carbon savings Hamburg has now achieved. Attention is also drawn to what Hamburg term: the benchmarking of “Climate Excellent Quarters” within the City. In response to this questions are asked as to whether the population of Hamburg is growing, and if so, what effect is this having on carbon emission data. The

SID 10(26)



response is to confirm that whilst the residential population of Hamburg is increasing, the effect of this growth on levels of carbon emission is not currently known. The group discussion than asks all present to consider whether the issue of residential carbon emissions is predominantly a “suburban issue” and the discussion follows on form this focuses on issues such as the rebound effect, equity and if home owners should benefit financially from retrofit proposal. The group then went on to consider the possibilities for communities to monitor their own energy performance using a variety of tools (such as those developed by the Stockholm Institute). Presentation 3: Itzel Sanromà presents an overview of the Vallbona Project in Barcelona. Here Barcelona provided a concise an overview of the Vallbona Project in terms of the strong social agenda, less technocratic and more humanistic approach to sustainable community development it promotes. This draws particular attention to the relationship between social housing and energy performance is debated, not just in terms of built form, but benchmarking of the transport and mobility issues the project also raises.

Note. There was insufficient time to adequately address the list of questions prepared in advance of this session. Instead, the discussion focused predominantly upon the presentations.

Thematic Workshop: Indicators Attendees Ursel Lünsmann-Pielke, Hamburg Stefan Geier, Vienna Katarzyna Jasińska, Malopolska Anna Sokulska, Malopolska Agata Wesołowska, Malopolska Irma Soldevilla, Barcelona Michael Erman, Stockholm Husam Al Waer, University of Dundee Nils Brandt, KTH Louise Årman, KTH Agenda

1. Presentation of cities experience in the use and development of indicators for climate neutrality of urban district.

2. Discussion Cities experience in the use of indicators in the area of urban district climate actions and policies

SID 11(26)



Presentation 1: Ursel Lünsmann-Pielke, City of Hamburg Germany presented 3 examples of indicators from the projects they were working with. The study covers 4 German cities with population over 1 million people, like Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, as well as all cities of metropolitan region. They are compared to other European cities within the context of European Green City Index. The study represents the assessment of environmental sustainability of 30 major European Cities from 30 countries. The results of the study were published in 2009. Examples of tools that are used include:

1) German City Index. The tool measures a city by 8 categories and includes 30 indicators 16 of which are derived from quantitative data aiming to measure the city performance such as: level of CO2 emissions, how much energy was consumed, how much wastes were produced etc. The rest 14 indicators are qualitative like environmental policies aspirations to reduce the carbon footprint etc. The data for investigation is collected from the statistic offices, local city authorities and national environmental agencies and evaluated by the team of independent experts from the Economic Intelligence Unit over the period of 7 months. The result of the investigation showes that German cities are very similar with regard to governmental efforts to simplify the acceptance of environmental policy in the country.

2) The second tool reMAC, developed by Matrix in cooperation with University of Manchester, is a result from several towns and regions and is intended for stakeholders use showing the possibilities for reduction of city’s CO2 emission. This tool helps to raise public awareness about the costs of CO2 reduction and what results it is possible to reach with the help of particular measures. For the assessment the regional economic, social, emission and supply data were used. The tool is based on essential data like building stock, energy supply and assumptions depending on what scenario the user choose.

3) Monitoring of CO2 for Hamburg Climate Action Plan that uses two methods – top-down and bottom-up. For application of the bottom-up approach the results of every measure that could be included in the Climate Action Plan for district development are collected. A rough tool mix with very few data – the average area, number of dwellers in the area, type of energy that is used in the district – was made in order to get an understanding of what is happening in the area.

Presentation 2: Irma Soldevilla, City of Barcelona Presentation was about the tool that was used in Barcelona for monitoring of power plants. The tool is essential for the city because there is a lot of information to evaluate. To perform the monitoring there are 2 kinds of indicators:

1. Action Indicators – are based on the indicators of energy projects that are monitored by the Barcelona Energy Agency

2. Reaction Indicators – inform about the energy situation in the city The methodology of work performance is based on the input data from various sectors as housing, waste, energy generation and transportation that are evaluated separately and collected in reports. Different set of data like economic, social and

SID 12(26)



energy are used. For implementation of indicators another tool is used. In such a way the information about all sectors in the city – the current situation and effect of energy planning projects– is collected. Presentation 3: Malpolska Region When it comes to emission costs on the national level there is a national development program for low-emission economy and in 2013 the process of implementation of actions for achieving the low-emission economy has started. The measurable effect of these actions is reduction in CO2 emissions. These actions also impose specific goals to be achieved. The positive effect of the actions and the level of goals achievement should be measured by indicators. However on the national level the set of indicators for the mentioned purpose has not been decided yet. Thus on the regional level the indicators have not been developed at all. However there are several programs like Air Protection Program, Waste Management Program, Energy Program etc. united under umbrella of Environmental Protection Strategic Program that include indicators for different topics showing, for example, what is the length of district heating and how much wastes have been recycled. The program related to GHG emission is the most relevant for the city Krakow that has high concentration of particular matter. Actions directed on improvement of air quality will also lead to decrease of CO2 emissions. There is a monitoring system that measures different pollutants in different parts of the city that supply the data to database of Malpolska Region. It then presents the collected information in the form of daily and monthly reports of air quality that is accessible online. Other database that might be useful in the context of indicators is a database of Marshal Office that collects and owns the data. They collect information from organizations that exploit the environment in a different way and have to pay the environmental fees for the waste production and emission generation. Examples of collected data are: source of emissions, volume of emissions, what type of fuel is used etc. These data are also supplemented by reliable and detailed statistical data making a good base for development of reliable indicators. They also could be applied for following up and evaluation of both air quality and climate neutrality that was out the focus until now. Thus, there are lots of indicators in many fields but it is necessary to collect them into one integrated system for efficient application. The first thing that is required by Malpolska region is a suggestion and guidelines from the National Program for creation of comprehensive system of indicators. Presentation 4: Stefan Geier, City of Vienna

SID 13(26)



City of Vienna presented a project in which it takes part as a stakeholder alongside with other 25 Austrian cities called “Smart City Profiles”. Its role in the projects is to discuss the results and bring in the data from the city of Vienna. For Vienna the project is focusing on climate and energy issues. The project working team includes 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 of a town, the density of a town etc.

- Immediate indicators: the carbon footprint, energy consumption etc. - Indirect indicators: settlement patterns, building infrastructure, economy

and society, politics and government. On the first level there should be a general number of indicators from which we define factors which should bring to characteristics. In total there are 6 characteristics defined:

- Economy - People - Governance - Environment - Mobility - Smart living (quality of life)

Example of factors may include the administrative traffic system, number of bicycle paths, ICTs systems used in the area, educational process etc. Currently the focus is more on energy efficiency, feasibility and availability of the data, carbon reduction and the impact on cities. However for implementation of the project results it is necessary to get a support through development of Smart City Concept. Presentation 5: Husam Al Waer, University of Dundee This example presents the research of the issue of sustainability assessment and evaluation frameworks at district, neighborhood and family level. It deals with the solution of such questions as where lays the boundary and if there is an overlap when it comes to assessments on the district level separated from the city and building level. The research reviled around 630 tools worldwide developed for buildings and mostly dealing with material and energy issues. Only 7-8 tools related to the district level were discovered. Why neighborhood sustainability assessment? While there are lots of tools for cities and buildings there are only few of them related to districts. Also the lack of

SID 14(26)



experience in assessment on intermediate level like neighborhood stipulates the research in this area. There are two kinds of tools on the district and neighborhood level:

1. Spin-off tools 2. Plan-embodied tools

The presentation focuses only on spin-off tools since the plan-embodied tools haven’t been used practically but only tested in some pilot studies. The main questions of the study are what is a district and where is its boundary? With this regard Japan has an interesting approach defining the district by relationship between the inputs of neighborhood to its output. Measuring sustainability at the building level started in 1990 while the practice on district and community level is only 5 years old. The most interesting examples of tools on community and district level come from:

1. Arab Emirates: Pearl Rating 2. Qatar: Q-SES – Qatar Sustainability Assessment System 3. Australia: Green stuff for community

Qatar uses very sophisticated tool that is rather difficult to understand for clients and developers. BREEAM evolved in 2009 and worked only in 1-2 projects in Sweden 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 categories with one having a bigger priority in a particular country:

1. Resources and Environment – this category has a priority in Qatar and Arab Emirates

2. Transportation and Connectivity – LEED 3. Governance and Culture 4. Economy – BREEAM 5. Location and Design

30 % of BREEAM’s indicators are prerequisite and are the part of the planning policy. 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 of neighborhood by different tools. Some of them consider 2-3 buildings as a neighborhood for others it is 1000 people living in the area. Also none of them use negative measurements that are however important for clients, architects and local authorities in order to see where the project is negatively scored.

Discussion The discussion around indicator was focusing on such questions as: What are the future challenges related to the use of indicators? Is it possible or even necessary

SID 15(26)



to compare them between the countries? What kind of standards and developments have to be done in order to consider all countries’ different perspectives? Are indicators useful? How are they used by different stakeholders? During the discussion it came up that there are many indicators that however aren’t combined into one integrated system and indicators are worthless if they do not come in a package or are not a part of integrated system. Another challenge is a communication and transparency of indicators that are sometimes difficult to understand even for experts. Another issue is a framework. How many indicators each country or city needs? Different cities have different numbers of indicators. Does it mean that the one who has more indicators is more comprehensive? From the other side the more indicators are used the more time is spent. The comparison of indicators between the countries is a rather difficult task since there are many cultural and geographical differences. Every city and every country has different indicators and it is not possible to compare them so far. The solution might be a creation of a common system where targets and projects for carbon neutrality could be compared. However by now there is no solution for the way of doing it. However the question of whether we need the consistency in indicators for European countries at all remains controversial since the main target is to reduce the emissions and save energy. How it will be measured on the local level is still a local problem that should be solved locally. At the same time there already exist rather basic indicators familiar to everyone. The compatibility as well as the use of indicators is also a rather difficult question because they have a different meaning for different stakeholders. The academia see indicators in one way while engineers in a completely different way. Government considers them as quick instruments for policy making. Thus the politician may set up a target using indicators that everyone should follow. In this case it is very important to explain the content and meaning of indicators. To explain how they represent the policy since for example politician from one country could orient on the indicators of another country that could be rather difficult to attain due to the countries differences and misinterpretation of indicators. The indicators are useful for the cities in a way that they can show where the problem is and help to evaluate the target achievement. Eventually they follow the agenda from politicians, market or developers. For example the Stockholm City uses indicators not only because of CO2 reduction issue but also for creation of vision and system of goals. When it concerns environmental issues Indicators are used 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

SID 16(26)



2007 and was improved over time. However the protocol is still missing the indicators for sustainable urban development. Thought indicators can give a good picture of present situation they are not very useful for daily application. During the workshop there were presented several examples of tools from different countries that are however not very useful on a daily basis. These tools are used mostly to show trends, estimate measures and give an overview. However they are not very useful for making a target on specific points. No country presented above use those indicators in their work every day.

Conclusion The conclusion of this workshop is that there is a good experience of tools among European countries that would be important to estimate in the project and to see whether we can use or compare more between different cities. Another aspect is that the indicators were discussed from the very broad perspectives – sustainability, energy, carbon neutrality. In the next step it will be important to concentrate more on climate issues since at the present the connection between the tools and climate neutrality is not that obvious.

Thematic Workshop: Scenarios Attendees: Karel Mulder, TU Delft Udo Pesch, TU Delft Hossein Shahrokni, KTH Ulf Skirke, Hamburg Christina Salmhofer, Stockholm Örjan Lönngren, Stockholm Maria Lennartsson, Stockholm Pia Hlava, Vienna Marc Montlleó, Barcelona Really Climate Neutral urban areas take long term action. But how to know the future? 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 future cities: The ‘USA city’, the European city, the planned Greenfield city, or the city as was shown in a GM futures film (from 1940) forecasting the 1960 city. External scenarios allow us to determine the ‘future space’, the scope of parameters in which the future will most probably unfold. Internal scenarios allow us to show unfolding futures based on different values.

SID 17(26)



Having one goal for interaction (Climate neutrality) does not necessarily lead to one design for that aim, or to one pathway. Besides learning to recognize boundaries set by external forces, it is also important to discuss with stakeholder where various value-based developments might lead. (the scenario workshop exercise of the next day based scenarios on different values regarding density/nature/social equality and energy saving/renewable energy) Stakeholder learning is an important aim of stakeholder scenario workshops. The scenarios are crucial for triggering debate and creating a high quality interaction. Early participation is important as it might prevent a cycle of controversy from coming into being. (Sensitive issues being kept from the public -> creating more mistrust-> leading to more heavy fortified proposal-> which are right away mistrusted by the public) In a stakeholder scenario workshop, it was argued not to involve the media. The reason was that this would limit the scope for the participants to engage in interaction, as media presence would force them to represent only their organizational viewpoints. This is as such not undemocratic, as no stakeholder group should be banned; a workshop should just not be a media event in order not to ruin the interaction. Some cities were applying backcasting and not scenarios. Point is here that they are not excluding approaches: A scenario workshop might be used to work towards a future vision which could be the starting point of backcasting. The point here is to recognize that there is not just one single option for making climate neutral urban areas, but there are various ones. A backcasting process cannot start from a climate neutral urban area as being one clear future vision. Such a future vision should be defined in cooperation

SID 18(26)



SESSION 3: SIMULATED SCENARIO EXERCISE

On the second day a simulated scenario workshop was held. A scenario workshop is intended to enable learning among stakeholders, and with that improve the quality of decision making. At the end of the previous day, a short introduction was given to the participants. By allotment, four participants were asked to present a scenario the next day. No elaborate instructions were given, merely the request to shortly present the scenario, based on a written hand-out and a slide which featured the most important aspects of the scenario. External scenarios The day itself started with a discussion on external scenarios. External scenarios are established on the identification of the main uncertainties. Two axes were used to prepare the scenarios of this workshop. On the one axis, low energy pressure versus high energy pressure was represented. This axis related to pressure exerted by issues in the energy domain, such as availability of fuel, energy prices, the impact of CO2-reduction policies, etc. The other axis represented low population pressures versus high population pressures. This second axis dealt with issues such as population growth or decline, immigration, aging, consumption patterns, etc. A short discussion was held on these scenarios. Aspects that were named as important with respect to these scenarios were the economy, livability, ecosystem services, governmental decisions including European Directives, and financial developments. There seemed to be consensus that the quadrant of high energy-high population pressure was the location which most of the participants used as their starting point. Internal scenarios Subsequently, internal scenarios were discussed in the form of a role play. Most participants of the cities were given a role as a stakeholder, so that a diversity of backgrounds was covered (e.g. policy, housing corporations, banks, residents, NGOs). Internal scenarios concern specific policy choices that are taken as a starting point for a fictional future story. These stories have to be both credible and internally consistent. The scenarios for the workshop have been based on interviews with experts and desk research. Our scenarios were written for the fictional city of Clueburgh, which is located in the Netherlands, meaning that all kinds of Dutch contextual factors were taken into account in the scenarios. Such factors involve the important role of housing corporations, the Dutch system of mortgage rent deduction, and the lack of space. The scenarios have been based on an 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 the implementation of a geothermal system in Clueburgh. The presenter took the role of 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.

SID 19(26)



For instance, NGOs raised the issue of risks and the lack of awareness about ecosystem services. The fear of citizens was triggered about the possibility that a geothermal well might also bring radioactive material to the surface, they also were complaining about the dominance of institutional players and stakes in the debate. In essence, this supported the hypothesis that starting a stakeholder discussion on the basis of a given plan raises antagonism, and reduces the chances for learning. The second scenario was that of ‘Passive Clueburgh’, and involved the implementation of passive housing in a newly constructed urban district. Here, the presenter gave a more straightforward account of the scenario. The ensuing debate predominantly involved the uncertainty domains that were used for the scenario construction, leading to discussions about the technical and financial details of the of the construction of passive districts, as well as the role of users in the efficiency of passive houses. Moreover, the contribution of the passive district to sustainable development was debated. For instance, by the way the construction of the district threatened the snakes who lived there (they were saved according to the housing corporation by bringing them to the zoo), and by the lack of having affordable houses in the district, making it a homogeneous, and hence unsustainable, urban district. The third scenario,’ Compact Clueburg’, concerned the restructuring of an existing city district in the heart of Clueburgh. The poor district was aimed to be upgraded by having a cultural center, renovated houses, and reduction of car traffic. The main point of discussion involved social aspects of the restructuring of the city district. Especially the opposition between poor immigrants and richer urban professionals and their respective needs was a topic of debate. The final scenario was that of ‘Green Clueburgh’ which involved the development an urban district in a conservancy area. The discussion mainly revolved around the residents who were quite happy with the place and for whom the natural surroundings were a nice incidental aspect of their residential area, and the environmental NGO who had helped to develop the district but now experienced the demise of its original goals of nature preservation. Discussion In the discussion afterwards, a number of issues were raised. Some of the participants were expecting more consensus-building, and they had the sense that the workshop did not allow this to happen. Another issue involved the question how to deal with interests inside and outside of the workshop. The workshop is organized in such a way that stakeholders can engage in discussions without having to take care of their institutional interest. This ‘openness’ is considered to be a precondition for stakeholder learning. The participants of the workshop corroborated that it is fruitful that stakeholder ‘take off their institutional hat’ when

SID 20(26)



they enter the room, but what will happen when they leave the room and put on their institutional hat again? In other words, how open can such a workshop be? Reflections The workshop took place in an enjoyable atmosphere. Participants took their roles serious, 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 take place, as most participants have a comparable background as urban developers. Moreover, all of the roles pertained to people who were motivated to engage in sustainable development. With that, there might have not been enough divergence to guarantee a vivid discussion. What helped to raise diverging voices was that the role of a particularly antagonistic NGO was given to one of the scientists, and that there were a number of people who played the role of interested citizens. They had the opportunity to act as a kind of ‘joker’, by bringing in new viewpoints when the discussion was in danger of fading out. Obviously there was quite a difference in the capacities of the participants to play their role. Some roles were simply more familiar to people working in the policy domain than others. Some participants may also have had more difficulty with engaging in an English discussion than others. Then again, also in real-life workshops there are differences in the way people manifest themselves, so this was not reckoned to be a drawback. At times, the lack of hands-on knowledge raised the necessity to invent arguments and data out of the blue, which led to amusing discussions about things as the survival of snakes (see above) and the cultural interest of Angolan immigrants. As said above, the presenters of the scenarios were not given much instructions about how to prepare their presentations. Besides the fact that there was not a lot of time to do this, it allowed the workshop to be as spontaneous as possible. At the same time, the variety in ways of presenting testified that the way in which a scenario is presented has a major impact on the character of the discussion. The issues that have been raised during the discussion after the workshop (see above) raise some relevant practical and theoretical concerns. The points about working towards a decision and the role of institutional interests are intrinsically related as they pertain to the goal of a scenario workshop. As said, the goal of such a workshop is to learn from each other. Such learning is meant to enhance the quality of decision-making by taking divergent perspectives and possible future developments into account. This will reduce the chance for group think, and may also help to reduce the chance of societal opposition. This goal of learning by taking a broader scope urges policy makers to take some distance from their aspiration 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 the participants with internal scenarios. Scenarios appeared to be external scenarios, and the use of internal scenarios based on fictional storylines instead of computer models and quantitative data raised some initial misunderstanding. This suggests that the roles of internal and external scenarios must be really well explained

SID 21(26)



before a workshop is started. Even more importantly in this respect is the fact that some stakeholders might not be interested to join the workshop if it does not have the goal to come to a conclusive decision, and if it is required to renounce from institutional stakes for the time being. In other words, why should stakeholders participate? There are convincing answers to be given here, for instance, it might be so that such a workshop is the only place in which stakeholders meet in a friendly and sheltered context, so that it features a good opportunity for networking or for the establishment of mutual understanding. In anyway, an organizer of a workshop should attend this question seriously. Once a participant is in, there is the issue whether this participant is trustworthy. How do you know whether a participant will not abuse knowledge acquired in a workshop for his or her strategic benefit outside of the workshop? This is a fundamental question that needs further reflection. At this moment, it cannot be answered in a conclusive way.

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE EXPERT WORKSHOP

From the Case Studies previously conducted in the CLUE project we have learned the project’s City partners are promoting CLUES of either world-class, or leading European standards (3-5 tons/capita per annum) so the level of ambition is quite high. This demands serious attention from all involved and sets the CLUE project’s targets. During Session 1 we have learned there are a number of perspectives on the issue about Climate Neutrality and many supporting protocols, but they may be summarized as:

• Production-led • Consumption-driven • User-centric

We also learnt the only way to tackle the rebound effect of such protocols is to take a consumption-driven approach and make any adaptation measures user-centric, as otherwise you will not only under-represent the dynamics at play in climate neutrality, but the behaviour of users. The main message from this discussion on the protocols is that you are going to come across a lot of indicators which relate to climate neutrality, so it is particularly important we are selective in using them to approximate neutrality when benchmarking CLUEs. On this matter all present agreed a systematic approach to such measurement is needed and measurement system that not only reflects, or mimics, but which really captures the complexity of urban environments as open systems. From Session 2 – the Parallel Thematic Workshops three very good examples of best practice in: the use of indicators, adaption of benchmarking techniques and the application of scenario-building exercises, were presented. This in turn

SID 22(26)



stimulated a series of interesting debates on their role as key instruments in the drive towards climate neutrality. Overall it is recognized the workshop made progress in identifying how cities can consolidate the ongoing debate on climate neutrality and intensify their efforts to sustain the development of urban districts in Europe. Furthermore, the discussions tended to recognize cities can not achieve climate neutral urban environments without recourse to the social and economic structures of the districts they are proposing to sustain the development of. The lesson to take from this being: we need to systematically link the indicators, benchmarking techniques and scenario-building exercises of any climate neutral assessments to the triple bottom-line of urban districts and where possible, base any such sustainable development statements on consumption-driven and user-centric evaluations.

SID 23(26)



APPENDIXES

Appendix 1: Guiding and Inspirational Question to Thematic Workshop – Benchmarking CLUE project: Edinburgh Expert Workshop 14th-15th March, 2013 Questioning framework for “Benchmarking Climate neutral Urban Environments”

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?

Appendix 2: Guiding and Inspirational Questions to Thematic Workshop - Indicators How 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 indicator development can be approached from many angles and with many purposes. How do you measure indicators for climate neutrality on a district level? How is the data collected, with which resolution is it possible in your region to find data or measure relevant parameters and who owns it? How is the indicators presented? Are the indicators for climate neutrality public or only used for planning, policy making or benchmarking?

SID 24(26)



Who is responsible for the indicators? Is it the same organization that is responsible 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 than fossil fuels but might not be seen as a sustainable energy source.

Appendix 3: Description of the Scenarios Used in the Scenario Exercise

8Challenge the future

Scenario 1: Clueburgh geothermal

1. Clueburgh goal of being carbon neutral in 2050

2. Six parties joined consortium (Clueburgh, energy companies, housings corporation)

3. Investment 14 million euro4. Due to housing crisis 3000 houses instead of

6000 houses 5. Great losses for housing corporations, which

became collectivized again6. Unconventional fossil fuel leads to decrease of

energy prices7. Passive housing becomes the standard,

geothermal energy not used any longer

SID 25(26)




Scenario 2:Passive Clueburgh

1. Tasman Quarter: Passive houses, Stelladam is project developer

2. Sloppy construction, due to lack of standards3. Residents suffer from different nuisances and

take Stelladam to court4. Not much interest in further initiatives by

project developers5. Renegotation of European Directive, it

becomes less stringent6. Passive houses are still a promise, not the

dominant approach to building


Scenario 3: Compact Clueburgh1. The Purgedistrict is crowded, polluted, and poor2. Integral plan to restructure the district: central

square with cultural facilities; renovation of houses; traffic circulation plan

3. Opposition to new theater4. Crisis in building sector, city council demands

theater to be build by local unemployed constructors, causing fraudelent practices

5. Reconstruction was meant to stimulate socio-economic integration

6. In the end, Purgedistrict still very much segregated7. High consumption of energy8. Tensions over parking space9. Smart & green cars might make car use attractive

again for urban professionals

SID 26(26)




Scenario 4: Green Clueburgh

1. Sandytown built in dune area. Goals: carbon neutral, protection of nature, minimal visual impact, affordable

2. Partnership with environmental NGOs3. Parking spaces far from houses led to

sense of lack of safety, people started to park their cars close to their houses

4. Wind energy was forbidden by supreme court, green energy hase become provided by controversial import of green certificates

5. Prices of houses have become very high, due to attractive living environment

report from the expert workshop in edinburgh

Documents