Urban Planning Tools for Climate Change Mitigation

8/22/2019 Urban Planning Tools for Climate Change Mitigation

1/52

Urban Planning Tools forClimate Change Mitigation

Pat r i c k M . c o n d o n , d u n c a n c a v e n s , a n d n i c o l e M i l l e r

Policy Focus Report Lincoln Institute of Land Policy


2/52

Urban Planning Tools orClimate Change Mitigation

Patrick M. Condon, Duncan Cavens, and Nicole Miller

Plc Fcus Reprt Seres

The policy ocus report series is published by the Lincoln Institute o Land Policy to address

timely public policy issues relating to land use, land markets, and property taxation. Each report

is designed to bridge the gap between theory and practice by combining research ndings, case

studies, and contributions rom scholars in a variety o academic disciplines, and rom proes-

sional practitioners, local ocials, and citizens in diverse communities.

Abut ths Reprt

The Lincoln Institute o Land Policy and the Design Centre or Sustainability at the University

o British Columbia have been engaged in surveying existing tools that support land use policy

and decision making in the context o climate change mitigation and urban planning at local

and regional levels. To date, two international workshops have been held in Vancouver, an area

at the oreront o mitigation policy or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The meetings brought

together many o North Americas leaders in tool development, policy implementation, and

urban development regulation. The rst event in October 2007 identied specic needs, and

the second meeting in April 2008 ormulated a research agenda with a ocus on emerging

climate change mitigation policy and practice.

This report draws rom those workshops and reviews the relationship between urban planning

and GHG emissions as a key component o climate change, provides characteristics o GHG

decision support tools, and evaluates the strengths and limitations o a cross section o exist-

ing tools using those characteristics. Four case studies illustrate how selected tools are

utilized at various stages o the planning and development process.

Copyright 2009 by Lincoln Institute o Land Policy.

All rights reserved.

113 Brattle Street

Cambridge, MA 02138-3400, USA

Phone: 617-661-3016 x127 or 800-526-3873

Fax: 617-661-7235 or 800-526-3944

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.lincolninst.edu

ISBN 978-1-55844-194-1

Policy Focus Report/Code PF021


3/52

c o n d o n , c a v e n s & M i l l e r u r b a n p l a n n i n g t o o l s 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

2 Execute Summar

4 Chapter 1: The Relatshp Betwee Clmate Chage

ad Urba Plag

5 The Challenge o Climate Change

6 The Relevance o Urban Form

8 Tools and Frameworks or Urban Planners and Policy Makers

10 Chapter 2: Characterstcs Mdelg ad Supprt Tls

10 Scope

11 Methodology

12 Scale

13 Support or Policy Making

16 Chapter 3: Exstg Tls t Assess GHG Emsss

20 Chapter 4: Case Studes: Applcats Selected Tls Plag Prjects

20 INDEX: Designing a Cool Spot Neighborhood

27 I-PLACE3S: Initiating Health and Climate Enhancements

31 Envision Tomorrow: Using Prototype Buildings and Scenario Modelingto Measure Carbon Footprint

37 Development Pattern Approach: Measuring GHG Impacts o

Land Use Decisions

43 Chapter 5: Ccluss ad Recmmedats

46 Reereces ad Web Resurces

47 Abut the Authrs ad Ctrbutrs

48 Acwledgmets


4/52

2 p o l i c y f o c u s r e p o r t l i n c o l n i n s t i t u t e o f l a n d P o l i c y

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Executive Summary

The scale o intervention required

to reduce and adapt to the eects

o climate change will require ac-

tion at all levels o government and

society. International accords to limit overall

carbon emissions will involve national gov-

ernments. Setting carbon emission targets

and standards by industry or sector, or uel

eciency standards or vehicles, tradition-

ally alls within the purview o ederal and

state or provincial governments.

Some state governments are beginning

to require local governments to meet green-

house gas (GHG) reduction targets in rela-

tively short periods o time. However, it is

at the local level that most decisions about

urban orm are madeby public ocials,

practitioners, and citizens in cities, counties,

metropolitan organizations, and special ser-

vice districts. Yet urban planners and local

decision makers generally lack the tools and

means needed to make inormed choices

about the climate change implications o

local growth and redevelopment decisions,

or to measure their eects.

Policy makers and regulators at all urban

scales, as well as their political constituents

and stakeholders, need decision support

tools that illustrate the GHG implications o

urban orm so they can make sound, locally

relevant land use decisions. While a wide

spectrum o tools currently exists, ew have


5/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the capacity to work simultaneously at both

the regional and local scale, or to capture

the multiple consequences o regulatory

decisions. They generally lack the capacityto model the land useGHG relationship in

a way that easily and in real time inorms

the policy process.

This report ocuses on the present state

o tools to model and evaluate the relative

climate change benets o alternative devel-

opment approaches in cities, ranging rom

the project to the neighborhood to the metro-

politan scale. Four case studies illustrate how

selected tools are already being used in the

urban planning and development process

in the United States and Canada.

While no one tool can yet address all

o the desiderata identied by ocials and

experts, the potential to build on the strengths

o existing tools is promising. Continued tool

development will serve to enhance connec-

tions among various tools, create new methods

o evaluating urban orm and GHG emis-

sions, and establish test cases through which

new tools can be applied and rened.

An ideal tool or integrated suite o tools

should have the ollowing characteristics.

Comprehensive: able to capture the

GHG contributions o all relevant sectors,

including buildings and transportation,

and support the consideration o addi-

tional criteria related to the economy

and livability.

Three-dimensional: grounded in

the physical realities o the urban spaces

they seek to model, and able to providevivid and accurate descriptions o the

consequences o uture community design.

Multi-scalar: able to connect top-

down (rom regional to block scale) with

bottom-up analysis and respond to the

interactions between incremental site-

scale decisions and regional and higher-

level decisions on GHG emissions.

Policy-relevant: supportive o the

way policy is made and implemented,

in terms that are direct and useul to

decision makers.

Iterative: capable o testing alternative

scenarios in real time, including within

multi-stakeholder decision processes

and planning charrette environments,

to produce results that can be evaluated

rapidly and incorporated into plan

modications or improved outcomes.

Additive: able to build on and link to

existing models and related applications.

Accessible: intelligible to a wide

range o stakeholders, using a common

language and interace with transparent

outputs.

Affordable: relatively inexpensive to

acquire and easy to use by sta and

consultants to obtain useul results.

To produce such a tool or suite o tools

may appear daunting, but the need is great

to support eective planning and regulatorydecisions, and to set and adjust policy. We

are poised to make planning and policy de-

cisions at the international, national, state,

provincial, regional, and local levels that

will have potentially enormous consequences.

This report can guide public ocials and

proponents o development projects in mak-

ing better inormed decisions with respect to

climate change impacts, and can help tool

developers and modelers identiy critical

needs as they design the next generationo planning support tools.


6/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 1

The Relationship Between ClimateChange and Urban Planning

Unprecedented human intervention will

be required in the coming decades to reduce

the extent o climate change and thereby

avoid its worst potential consequences

(reerred to as mitigation), or make changes

to accommodate those eects that are un-

avoidable (adaptation). Much o the mitiga-

tion policy discussion to date has centered

on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-

sions through uel substitution and uel e-

ciency or vehicles and on energy eciency

or buildings and industries.

At the same time, there is a growing

acknowledgement by scientists and policy

analysts that a substantial part o the global

warming challenge may be met through the

design and development o cities. The orm

and unction o human settlements can either

Climate change is among the most

important issues o our time.

Rising global temperatures, largely

the product o human activity,

are likely to have severeand potentially

catastrophiceects on both the earths

natural systems and human society. Sea

level rise and dramatic changes in weather

patterns, predicted as a consequence o

sustained global warming, could accelerate

the disruption o economic systems, disloca-

tion o coastal communities and port acili-

ties, shortages o ood and water supplies,

increases in disease, additional health and

saety risks rom natural hazards, and large-

scale population migration. Secondary

eects may include the potential or civil

unrest and war.

Ls Ageles,

Calra


7/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

reduce or increase the demand or energy,

and can also infuence how energy is pro-

duced, distributed, and used. As world pop-

ulation and economic activity increase,urban orm actors may play as important

a role as reduced uel use in diminishing

the extent o avoidable climate change.

The scale o intervention required to

reduce and adapt to the eects o climate

change will require action at all levels o

government and society. International accords

to limit overall carbon emissions will involve

national governments. Setting carbon emis-

sion targets and standards by industry or

sector, or uel eciency standards or vehi-

cles, alls within the traditional purview o

ederal and state or provincial governments.

Some state governments are beginning

to require local governments to meet GHG

reduction targets in relatively short periods

o time. A 2008 Washington State Senate

Bill on Climate Action mandates emission

reporting and requires GHG reductions o

25 percent below 1990 levels by 2035 and

50 percent by 2050 (State o Washington

2008). Similarly, the Caliornia Global Warm-

ing Emissions Cap sets a statewide GHG

cap or 2020 based on 1990 emissions levels

(State o Caliornia 2006), while the B.C.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act

requires emissions reductions o at least

33 percent below 2007 levels by 2020,

and 80 percent below 2007 levels by 2050

(Province o British Columbia 2007).

Despite these state-level eorts, most deci-

sions about urban orm are made at the lo-

cal levelby public ocials, practitioners,

and citizens in cities, counties, metropolitan

organizations, and special service districts.

Yet urban planners and local decision mak-

ers generally lack the tools and means need-

ed to make inormed choices about the cli-

mate change implications o local growth

and redevelopment decisions, or to measure

the eects o those decisions.

TH E C H AL L En G E o F

CL iMATE CHAnGE

Over the past 60 years, average annual

global temperatures have been rising to

levels unprecedented in the past 100,000

years. Scientists believe this is due primarily

to human activity, and that the burning o

carbon uels has been the principal contrib-

utor to the overproduction o GHGs that

create a blanket in the earths atmosphere,

trapping the warmth o the sun. Because

greenhouse gases accumulate rather than

dissipate over time, the earths atmospheric

temperature has been rising and will rise

urther, likely producing two primary phe-

nomena over the next several decades that

could have enormous consequences or

natural systems and human settlements.

1. The melting o land-based ice masses

could result in long-term sea level rise,

potentially submerging vast amounts

o coastal land.

2. Changes in global and local weather

patterns and dynamics could result in

substantially higher incidences o food-

ing, drought, wildres, and landslides.


8/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Most scientists now predict that tempera-

tures will rise even aster over the next 40

years than recently, due in part to the accu-

mulation o GHGs in the earths atmosphere,and in part to rapidly growing populations

and economies in Asia and South America.

They believe that some amount o global

temperature rise is now inevitable (on the

order o 1 to 2 degrees Celsius by 2050)

and will result in increases in sea level and

changes in weather patterns with concomi-

tant impacts on ood supply, natural hazards,

and economic activity.

This phenomenon will require aggres-

sive adaptation strategies to address the un-

avoidable results o climate change. Among

the measures to be considered are limiting

development in food-prone areas, enhanc-

ing food control systems, ramping up water

and soil conservation measures, rationing

water, and improving inoculation rates or

inectious diseases.

Further global climate change (another

2 degrees Celsius or more) and its most

catastrophic eects are avoidable through

aggressive mitigation strategies. In the last

three years a scientic and policy consensus

has emerged around an overall objective or

mitigation: to reduce annual GHG produc-

tion to a level that is 80 percent below 1990

levels by the year 2050 (roughly equivalent

to 1955 U.S. levels). This objective is now

endorsed by a number o states in the United

States, and serves as the benchmark or

several new regulatory schemes.

Mitigation actions generally all into two

categories: altering the supply source o en-

ergy, and reducing the demand or energy.

Since changing the supply sourceshiting

rom carbon-based to alternative uels and

energy sourceswill take decades, even un-

der aggressive carbon taxation scenarios,

strategies to reduce demand are extremely

important. Increasing the uel eciency o

vehicles and machinery and the energy e-

ciency o buildings are two paths to reduc-

ing demand, but more proound measures

involve shits in societal behavior and settle-

ment patterns.

TH E R EL Ev An C E o F

U R B An Fo R M

Some analysis indicates that planning and

urban design measures can substantially

reduce the number and distance o vehicle

trips by organizing human activity in com-

pact communities with a range o housing

types, providing reliable transit to and rom

employment, and placing services within

easy walking distance o home. For example,

Ewing et al. (2008) ound that miles driven

are reduced by between 20 and 40 percent

in compact urban developments compared

to miles driven in the auto-dependent

suburbs that have predominated in North

America over the last 60 years.

Transportation activity o all orms con-

tributes about 33 percent o energy-related

GHG production in the United States, and

single-occupant automobile travel makes

up about hal o that activity (gure 1). The

vast majority o vehicles now burn carbon

uels and will continue to do so or some

time (even with aggressive uel substitution

and eciency measures), so strategies that

reduce travel by limiting suburban expan-

sion and encouraging more compact,

walkable, ull-spectrum living and working

environments can potentially make a sig-

nicant contribution to overall climate

change mitigation.

A GHG reduction o up to 10 percent may

result rom a change in land use approach

alone, and additional reductions will result

rom employing other strategies such as

transit investment, uel pricing, and parking

charges (Ewing et al. 2008). By one estimate,

approximately two-thirds o all development

in 2050 will be new or will have been rede-

veloped since 2007, suggesting that combined


9/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

figure 1

Ttal Emsss Fssl Fuel Carb Dxde, 2002

land use and transportation strategies could

be quite powerul in mitigating the increases

in GHGs (Nelson 2006).

The Portland (Oregon) metropolitanarea, or example, has deliberately contained

growth and provided transit options over the

past several decades to protect surrounding

arm and orest land. These policies have

reduced per capita vehicle trips by about 17

percent since 1990 and kept overall GHG

levels at about 1990 levels despite a 16 per-

cent growth in population (Metro Regional

Government 2000). Assuming the area main-

tains its commitment to growing in, not

out, population growth could actually pro-

duce urther per capita carbon savings in

trip reduction by spawning a uller array o

services and housing types in close proximity

and by making alternative transportation in-

vestments easible in more locations through-

out the metropolitan landscape.

Additional carbon reductions could come

rom exploiting other aspects o city making

and redevelopment. Using the critical mass

o buildings and activities at the districtscale, it is possible to develop practical and

ecient heating and cooling systems (district

energy systems). This approach shows great

promise in reducing the carbon ootprint o

urban development, although the potential

costs and benets o broad-scale application

have not yet been quantied suciently.

Other energy conservation benets may

result rom common-wall and vertical living

structures typical o multiamily urban

locations, as well as more ecient recycling

o solid waste.

While the impact o more compact land

use on building energy consumption has

been studied less extensively than its impacts

on transportation energy consumption,

several analyses have begun to explore this

The patter

hgher carb

dxde emsss

relates clsel

t hghwas ad

urbazed areas.

Source: www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/plots.php


10/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

relationship. Norman et al. (2006), or ex-

ample, report that per capita energy con-

sumption and GHG emissions are 2 to 2.5

times higher in low-density developmentsthan in high-density areas.

Urban design also oers the potential

or cities to claim some o the attributes

now associated primarily with rural living,

including green inrastructure, such as natu-

ral systems that handle storm water and re-

duce heating loads, and localized ood pro-

duction that reduces shipping, storage, and

packaging needs. These and other strategies

that exploit the nontransportation aspects

o urban orm may contribute signicantly

to overall GHG mitigation, but a more rig-

orous quantication o the potential bene-

ts is needed to augment the estimates al-

ready provided in the transportation sector.

To o L S An D FR AM EWo R kS

Fo R U R B An PL An n ER S An D

Po L iC y M AkER S

Local governments have several ways oinfuencing climate change mitigation. As

purchasers (and sometimes producers) o

power, they can infuence the conversion o

energy to noncarbon sources. They can also

infuence resident and local business behav-

ior through education, tax, and ee policy,

and other economic incentives or disincen-

tives. However, the greatest infuence o

local governments is evident in their decisions

on urban orm, primarily through urban

planning and land use regulation.Local planning guides both inrastructure

investment and development regulation, the

arenas where decisions can be made about

mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods, alter-Prtlad, oreg


11/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

native transportation approaches and invest-

ments, district energy, green inrastructure,

urban arming and armers markets, and a

host o other decisions that can either ad-vance or hinder climate change mitigation.

Policy makers and regulators at all urban

scales, as well as their political constituents

and stakeholders, need decision support

tools that illustrate the GHG implications o

urban orm so they can make sound, locally

relevant land use decisions. While a wide

spectrum o tools currently exists, ew have

the capacity to work simultaneously at both

the regional and local scale, or to capture

the multiple consequences o regulatory deci-

sions. They generally lack the capacity to

model the land useGHG relationship in a

way that easily and in real time inorms the

policy process.

Four key actors could ultimately help

planners and local government ocials in

these eorts.

1. Articulating the big mathwhat portion

o the 80 percent o 1990 GHG levels by

2050 should be attributed to urban orm,

and how much (what ranges) might be

achieved by the major components o

urban orm and other local strategies?

2. Documenting and examining the devel-

opment status o tools and models or

estimating and measuring the climate

change eects o alternative development

strategies and scenarios at the neighbor-

hood, city, and metropolitan level.

3. Dening ways to deepen and broaden

the menu o local approaches to climate

change mitigation within the urban orm

arena and to access inormation aboutexperiences in other jurisdictions.

4. Examining possible governance structures

to make more eective climate change

policies and investments. Cities and spe-

cial service districts are either too small

or too narrowly ocused to act alone and

be successul, yet most metropolitan areas

lack eective regional governments.

This report ocuses on the second issue:

the present state o tools to model and

evaluate the relative climate change benets

o alternative development approaches in

cities, ranging rom the project to the neigh-

borhood to the metropolitan scale. It sum-

marizes the relationship between urban

orm and climate change, particularly in

the mitigation arena, and presents our case

studies that illustrate how selected tools are

already being used in the urban planning

and development process.


12/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 2

Characteristics of Modelingand Support Tools

Existing urban design modeling

tools and GHG-related decision

support tools can be categorized

according to our characteristics:

scope, methodology, scale, and support or

policy making. These categories help us

compare the capacity o available tools, un-

derstand how they might complement each

other, and identiy gaps in inormation and

decision-making support processes.

S C o PE

Single-sector Emissions Sources

Existing decision support tools dier in how

many sectors o the urban abric they can

measure in terms o emissions sources.

Many are designed to do a detailed job on

just one sector, such as the GHG conse-

quences o certain policy changes, techno-

logically based eciency enhancements, or

changes in transportation mode splits. Tools

utilizing a single-sector approach provide

important quantitative baseline emissions

data and help track progress toward reduc-

tion targets, but this inormation is usually

not robust enough to guide a systems-based,

all-inclusive approach to assessing and im-

plementing low-carbon land use policies.

Multi-sector Emissions Sources

Tools that encompass multiple emissions

sources may simply quantiy total emissions

rom multiple sectors, such as buildings,

transportation, waste, and agriculture, or

Charrette

nrth vacuer,

Brtsh Clumba


13/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

they may represent the more complex rela-

tionships among these sectors. Tools with

the capacity to go beyond this quantication

can refect a spectrum o issues, such astransportation demand, mode and mix, or

energy use in buildings resulting rom the

shape or arrangement o the urban abric.

These are precisely the kinds o issues

that planners need to understand and

address in their communities. Multi-sector

comparisons provide critical inormation

that allows decision makers to target emis-

sions sources strategically or the greatest

reduction potential. This type o analysis

comes with a cost, however, resulting in

greater complexity and reduced certainty

due to the interactions o many variables

remaining in play.

M ETH o D o L o G y

Available GHG tools can also be organized

according to their methodological approaches:

spatial/nonspatial, top-down/bottom-up,

simulation/end-state, and observation-based/

process-based. It is also possible or a single

tool to employ more than one approach.

Spatial/Nonspatial Methodologies

Decision support tools that use a spatial

methodology model the relationships among

urban elements. This is important because

the physical organization o a citythe ar-

rangement o its elements in spacegreatly

impacts its carbon ootprint. For example,

the proximity o ones residence to employ-

ment, transit, and commercial services, as

well as the road network conguration among

these destinations, directly aects transpor-

tation choice and travel patterns.

Spatial tools are particularly useul or

modeling the transportation impacts o di-

erent scenarios, and or analyzing building

perormance (e.g., solar access, wind mitiga-

tion rom surrounding buildings, and vegeta-

tion) and determining easible locations or

community energy systems using minimum

density thresholds. A nonspatial methodol-

ogy presents data ndings in numerical

ormat and does not take into account theanalysis o the physical arrangement o

an urban area. While nonspatial tools are

less data-intensive and quicker to prepare,

spatial methods are, at least in theory, more

eective in supporting local government

planning or reduced GHG emissions.

Another advantage o using a spatial

methodology is that it allows or visual

representations o results, oten using GIS

technology and 3-D modeling sotware

that make it easier or lay persons to under-

stand the physical implications o alterna-

tive strategies on GHG production. Further-

more, spatial methodologies can provide

more compelling visual outputs, allowing

decision makers, stakeholders, and consti-

tuents to imagine and understand the on-

the-ground impacts o policy choices.

Top-down/Bottom-up Methodologies

Tools using top-down methodologies oper-

ate at a broad geographical scale, typically

designed to support development o plans at

the municipal or regional level. In contrast,

tools using a bottom-up approach ocus anal-

ysis on local, site-level projects. However,

ew tools eectively blend both approaches

to assess or provide inormation on GHG

emissions across scales.

Simulation/End-state Methodologies

The methods used by existing tools to model

uture impacts on urban orm can be catego-

rized as either simulation or end-state assess-

ments. Simulation methodologies begin with

two primary data inputs: current land use

conditions, and a set o specic rules or

parameters dening how present conditions

will develop over time, including behavioral

patterns, technologies, and government pol-

icies. The modeling tool combines these two


14/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

can establish general relationships between

two parameters without measuring the di-

rect relationships among individual compo-

nents. Process-based simulation methodsexplicitly model the choices or interactions

o individual agents or components within

a described system.

One diculty with observation approaches

is that they are generally unable to unction

outside the range o typically observed phe-

nomena. A urther pitall is their assump-

tion that data can be extrapolated accurately

rom one locale to another. For example, the

impact o increased street connectivity on

transportation-based GHG emissions in a

large, temperate metropolitan area may not

be the same as in a small, northern commu-

nity with a dierent climate, scale, and set

o cultural preerences.

S C AL E

GHG assessment tools are also categorized

according to the geographical scale or scales

at which they operate, including individual

buildings, parcels, blocks, neighborhoods,

municipalities, regions, and bioregions.

Most existing GHG tools operate at a single

scale, measure and model impacts and per-

ormance o specic individual buildings,

or utilize uture land use scenarios at the

regional level. Some tools oer a more

fexible ramework applicable at a variety

o municipal and regional scales.

GHG emissions are infuenced by deci-

sions made at all scalesrom individual

projects at the site scale to inrastructure

projects at the regional scale (gure 2). For

example, community or master plans at the

municipal scale might include increased

density targets that could potentially impact

ridership on regional and local transit; in-

crease the viability o utilities at the neigh-

borhood or municipal scales; and increase

or reduce average energy requirements or

building heating and cooling at the parcel

sets o data to orecast and simulate the out-

come that would result over a given time period.

End-state assessment methodologies

start with data describing uture land useand behavioral patternsin other words,

the desired scenario to be achieved at a spe-

cic point in time. Perormance is assessed

using data provided in the scenario, and

the changes required to achieve the desired

end state can then be back-cast rom ideal

uture conditions.

Simulation tools have one key limitation:

they are oten constrained by present-day

assumptions regarding technological capa-

bilities and behavioral proclivities that are

embedded, oten unconsciously, in the data

used to orecast uture scenarios. As a result,

the scenarios oten ail to consider or refect

technological advancements or broad beha-

vioral shits resulting rom evolving societal

preerences or the sensitivity o individuals

to price signals.

Simulation methods are also highly com-

plex and time consuming, oten requiring

months to model uture scenarios. Con-

versely, end-state assessment methods can be

much simpler and aster in providing appro-

priate levels o data, thus allowing policy

makers and other users to break ree o cur-

rent assumptions and norms. At the same

time, they sometimes sacrice grounding in

real-world cases and the resulting richness

o data that those cases oten provide.

Observation-based/Process-based

Methodologies

Simulation methodologies can be urther

broken down into observation-based and

process-based approaches. The key dier-

ence is in how the underlying models are

calibrated. Tools with an observation-based

simulation method use empirical data to

establish the parameters o the model, such

as the impact o density on the proportion

o nonvehicular trips. Statistical techniques


15/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

scale. Due to these interconnections, tools

with capacity to operate fuidly across multi-

ple geographical scales are the most desirable

way to inorm low-carbon land use planning

decisions at all scales, albeit the most concep-

tually and practically challenging (gure 3).

S U PPo R T Fo R Po L iC y M Ak in G

Currently available GHG tools can also be

classied according to the specic stage or

stages o the policy-making cycle that they

support, inorm, and infuence. In a democ-

racy, particularly in the United States and

Canada where most physical planning deci-

sions are made at the local level by bodies

responsible to public opinion, the processes

o land use planning do not always t neatly

into a linear policy-making cycle. Further-

more, it is now apparent that reducing GHG

emissions resulting rom city design cannot

be addressed exclusively through technologi-

cal change, behavioral change, transporta-

tion policy, road conguration, building de-

sign, economic development strategy, or air

housing policy alone; the solutions require

coordinated action in all o these realms.

The increasingly widespread use o

the design charrette in land use planning

illustrates one response to this complexity

(Kwartler and Longo 2008). A charrette is

an intensive design and policy ormulation

event that brings together diverse stake-

holders to produce through collaborative

interaction a plan or a sustainable commu-

nity (Condon 2007). It typically ollows a

multistage process.

In-depthresearchonissuesimportant

to the community to inorm workshop

decision making;

Twotofourpreliminaryworkshopsto

identiy community goals and objectives

and to set perormance targets;

figure 2

Scales Urba Frm ad Plc istrumets t impact GHG Emsss

Scale Urba Frm Cmm Plces

Scales

Building, parcel

Building codes, zoning

bylaws, developmentguidelines

Block, neighborhood, district

Local area plans, concept

plans, community visions,

development guidelines

Municipality Municipal developmentplans, comprehensive plans

Region, bioregion, megaregion

Regional growth strategies,

regional visions, regional

transportation plans

Source:DesignCentreforSu

stainability,UniversityofBritishColumbia


16/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Collaborativedesignduringthecharrette

itsel, including acilitated stakeholder

discussion and selection o strategies to

achieve perormance targets combined

with designer-only sessions during which

discussion outputs are translated into

rough drawings;

Productionof naldrawingsanddevel-

opment o the nal public presentation

and subsequent report;

Translatingthenalpresentationintoa

nal concept plan that describes the ideas

and goals generated at the charrette; and

Developmentof implementationplans

and technical documents such as design

guidelines that describe the concept plan

in regulatory terms.

The theory underpinning charrettes is that,

given the complexity o sustainability actors,

there is no possibility or linear, single-issue

processes to manage them. The alternative

is synthetic, holistic, and inclusive integra-

tion o all issues that pertain to real-world

problems o city design, in a collaborative

and interdisciplinary setting (Condon 2007).

Successul charrettes and other multiparty

roundtable processes take advantage o all

the inormation and decision support tools

available. The challenge is to integrate the

inormation and tools in a orm that fuidly

intersects the decision-making discourse.

The ollowing ve-step policy cycle model

accurately refects the way that collabora-

tively produced sustainable community de-

sign decisions are made, and integrates the

existing tools into the stages to which they

are best suited (Hessing et al. 2005).

1. Information gathering. Research and assem-

bly o data helps to describe past and

present conditions and project the im-

pacts o various land use decisions.

2. Interpretation.Analysis o the assembled

data explains relationships between policy

Building Parcel Block Neighborhood District Municipality Region

Bio/Mega-

region

Athena Impact Estimatorfor Buildings

Community Energy and

Emissions Inventory (CEEI)

Community Viz

Development Pattern Approach

Energy Demand Characterization(formerly Canadian Urban Archetypes Project)

Envision Tomorrow

INDEX and Cool Spots

I-PLACE3

S

MetroQuest

Neighborhood Explorations:

This View of Density

Tool for Evaluating

Neighbourhood Sustainability

UPlan

figure 3

Scales Exstg Tls

Source:DesignCentreforSustain

ability,UniversityofBritishColumbia


17/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

decisions and data, and inorms design

and policy ormulation.

3. Collaborative design and policy formulation.

Charrette-style decision-making methodsbring together diverse stakeholders to par-

ticipate in a collaborative design process.

The impacts, costs, and benets o pro-

posed policy options are assessed using

design, and consensus is achieved on the or-

mulation o land use strategies and policies.

4. Implementation. The policy decision

achieved during the previous stage is

carried out using a variety o tools, such

as bylaw amendments or development

permit guidelines.

5. Monitoring and evaluation. The results and

eectiveness o the policy decision are

assessed, and revisions made i necessary.

Information

GatheringInterpretation

Collaborative Design +

Policy FormulationImplementation

Monitoring +

Evaluation

Athena Impact Estimator

for BuildingsCommunity Energy and

Emissions Inventory (CEEI)

Community Viz

Development Pattern Approach

Energy Demand Characterization(formerly Canadian Urban Archetypes Project)

Envision Tomorrow


I-PLACE3S

MetroQuest

Neighborhood Explorations:

This View of Density

Tool for Evaluating

Neighbourhood Sustainability

UPlan

figure 4

Plc Ccle impact Exstg Tls

Most available tools quantiy the GHG

implications o dierent strategies and/or

scenarios. They best serve the inormation

gathering stage o the policy-making process.Fewer tools are available to ully support the

interpretation and collaborative design and

policy ormulation stages o land use deci-

sion making. Additionally, existing tools are

oten unresponsive to later implementation,

monitoring, and evaluation demands, as

well as ongoing public education and out-

reach needs.

A small number o tools have begun

to address the process-driven, cross-scale

needs o policy makers (gure 4). Lessons

rom these applications, i incorporated

into tool development, will undoubtedly

enhance them.

Source:DesignCentreforSustainability,UniversityofBritishColumbia


18/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 3

Existing Tools toAssess GHG Emissions

Abroad cross section o existing

tools and other tools still under de-

velopment illustrates the scope o

GHG calculations, the methodolo-

gies employed, the scale at which they are

used, and how they support policy decisions.

While this inventory is ar rom exhaustive,

it represents the range o tools currently

available and compares their various

eatures and unctions (table 1).

Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings

Developed by the Athena Institute, a non-

prot organization located in both the United

States and Canada, this sotware tool uses

a lie-cycle assessment method to provide

cradle-to-grave building evaluation. Outputs

displayed in summary tables and graphs

include data on embodied energy, GHG

consequences, solid waste emissions, and

pollutants to air and water. This tool models

building perormance only, and does not

evaluate issues beyond the envelope.

Community Energy and Emissions

Inventory (CEEI)

Sponsored by the British Columbia Minis-

try o Environment, this initiative is a data

collection, analysis, and reporting system.

Using data rom sources including utilities,

the Insurance Corporation o B.C., and

the Recycling Council o B.C., the system

generates baseline inventories and periodic

reports o community energy consumption

and GHG emissions or on-road transporta-

tion, buildings, and the solid waste sector.

inDEX dgtal

charrette

Elbur, ills


19/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 1

Cmparss Tl Features

Tl Scpe Methdlg Scale Plc Supprt

Athea impact Estmatr

r Buldgs

single-sector; building energy

on a liecycle basis

nonspatial;

spreadsheet-based

individual buildings inormation gathering

Cmmut Eerg ad

Emsss ietr (CEEi)

multi-sector;

buildings, transportation,

community waste,

and land use change

nonspatial;

observation-based;

end-state assessment

o current conditions

municipal;

regional

inormation gathering

Cmmutvz multi-sector; various

user-selected sustainability

indicators

spatial;

observation-based

neighborhood;

regional

inormation gathering;

interpretation;

collaboration

The Deelpmet Patter

Apprach (DPA)

multi-sector;

buildings, transportation,

renewable energy, and other

sustainability indicators

spatial;

observation-based;

end-state evaluations

parcel;

neighborhood;

district; municipal;

regional


interpretation;

collaboration;

implementation

Eerg Demad Characterza-

t (rmerl the Caada

Urba Archetpes Prject)

multi-sector; transportation

and building energy

nonspatial;

observation-based and

survey-based case

studies

neighborhood

(approximately 300

residential units)


interpretation

Es Tmrrw multi-sector; various sustain-

ability indicators including

building and transportation

energy and emissions

spatial;

observation-based;

end-state evaluations

parcel;

neighborhood;

district; municipal;

regional


interpretation;

collaboration;

implementation

inDEX ad Cl Spts multi-sector; various sustain-

ability indicators including

building and transportation

energy and emissions

spatial;

observation-based;


parcel;

neighborhood;

municipal; regional


interpretation;

collaboration

i-PLACE3S multi-sector;

population, transportation,

and employment patterns

spatial;

observation-based;


parcel;

neighborhood;

municipal; regional


interpretation;

collaboration

MetrQuest multi-sector; various

sustainability indicators

including building and

transportation energy

spatial; end-state

assessment

municipal;

regional


interpretation;

collaboration

neghbrhd Explrats:

Ths vew Dest

single-sector; transportation non-spatial;

observation-based;


spreadsheet

neighborhood inormation gathering

Tl r Ealuatg

neghburhd Sustaablt

single-sector; transportation nonspatial; observa-

tion-based; end-state

evaluation spreadsheet

neighborhood inormation gathering;

interpretation; potential

or collaborative use

UPla multi-sector; urban growth

model; emissions

spatial; process-based

simulation

municipal;

regional

inormation gathering

-

CommunityViz

This collection o GIS-based 3-D visualiza-

tion and decision support tools or planning

and resource management was developed by

the Orton Family Foundation in Vermont.

It is managed by Placeways, LCC, a com-

pany in Colorado that was ormed by a

group o ormer CommunityViz employees.

The tool allows users to build land use plan-

ning scenarios to analyze and communicate


20/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GHG emissions, and other indicators to

current conditions, business-as-usual, and

alternative planning scenarios at neighbor-

hood to regional scales. INDEX is utilizedin the Cool Spots planning technique that

was developed in 2007 by Criterion Planners

as a way to organize and prioritize neigh-

borhood-scale climate action measures.

I-PLACE3S

This Web-based modeling platorm was

developed by the Caliornia Energy Com-

mission (CEC), the Caliornia Department

o Transportation, and the U.S. Department

o Energy; it is administered by the Sacra-

mento Area Council o Governments

(SACOG). It evaluates planning scenario

impacts rom multiple issues at the parcel,

neighborhood, and regional scales.

MetroQuest

This real-time, interactive planning support

tool was created by the Sustainable Devel-

opment Research Institute at the University

o British Columbia and is managed by

Envision Sustainability Tools, a company

based in Vancouver. Using an archetype

methodology and GIS-based visual commu-

nication, MetroQuest builds, compares, and

evaluates alternative 40-year scenario simu-

lations at municipal and regional scales.

It captures a range o issues including land

use planning, inrastructure spending, trans-

portation, and air quality. GHG can be

computed rom transportation inormation,

but this module is not yet available within

the tool.

Neighborhood Explorations: This View of Density

This Web-based tool compares area o land

used, roads and sidewalks, water use, local

shopping, transit service, vehicles, parking,

mileage, uel use, gasoline cost, volatile or-

ganic compounds (VOCs), and GHGs in

table ormat or ten specic San Francisco

environmental, economic, and social im-

pacts in real time. The tool can be adapted

or many purposes through user modica-

tion, including GHG calculations.

Development Pattern Approach (DPA)

This project is under development at the

University o British Columbia Design Cen-

tre or Sustainabilitys Neighbourhoods Lab.

The DPA is a suite o methods or modeling

urban development scenarios and quantiy-

ing their perormance against a variety o

sustainability indicators. It uses archetypical

patterns o urban orm to represent current

and uture urban conditions that can be

queried by a suite o submodels (e.g., build-

ing energy, transportation) that measure di-

erent urban characteristics, including GHG

production associated with certain neigh-

borhood and district congurations.

Energy Demand Characterization (formerly

the Canadian Urban Archetypes Project)

This project is under development at

CANMET Energy Technology Centre with-

in Natural Resources Canada. The project

oers municipalities, urban planners, and

developers a reerence library o archetypes

illustrating energy and consumption in the

areas o transportation, residential building

energy use, water, and waste or a range

o urban orm types and resident liestyle

patterns.

Envision Tomorrow

This suite o urban and regional planning

tools can model land use decisions rom the

site to regional scales. It can evaluate the

easibility and implications o dierent

styles and mixes o development on energy

use, water use, and carbon ootprints.


INDEX is a GIS-based sotware that

compares energy use, costs, air pollution,


21/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

neighborhoods with residential densities

ranging rom 3 to 500 households per resi-

dential acre. The tool allows users to gener-

ate customized neighborhood proles byentering residential density, cost o gasoline,

and vehicle mileage.

Tool for Evaluating Neighbourhood Sustainability

Developed by the Canadian Mortgage

and Housing Corporation, this is a spread-

sheet-based model or estimating annual

per-household GHG emissions rom per-

sonal travel based on neighborhood design

eatures. Characteristics include density,

land use, number o bedrooms, requency

o transit service, and intersection density.

It allows users to test a variety o develop-

ment proposals by manipulating and adjust-

ing locational and neighborhood design

variables. The tool is also capable o estab-

lishing the relative GHG emissions dier-

ence between two or more neighborhoodsin large metropolitan areas.

UPlan

UPlan is maintained by the Inormation

Center or the Environment at the Univer-

sity o Caliornia, Davis. Modeling uture

regional land use patterns based on ne-

grained grid data inputs, the application

allows users to overlay projections with envi-

ronmental data to calculate scal costs, as

well as impacts on storm water runo, water

quality, wildlie habitat, and GHG emissions.

Outputs include maps and Excel-based

tables.

Source: MetroQuest (www.metroquest.com).


22/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C h a p t e r 4

Case Studies: Applications ofSelected Tools in Planning Projects

The ToolINDEX is planning support sotware intro-

duced by Criterion Planners in 1994 as a

land use/transportation modeling tool to

evaluate scenarios using goal-derived indi-

cator scores. INDEX is an ArcMap GIS ex-

tension designed with the ollowing eatures.

User-friendly and portable. With a user inter-

ace designed or nontechnical audiences,

the tool is operated on laptops at publicmeetings.

Iterativeandfast. Scenarios can be sketched

and scored in real time to enable rapid

iteration to preerred outcomes.

Transparent. All inputs and calculations

are documented to explain the basis o

results, and major input parameters are

user-dened.

The applications o our dierent tools or sets o tools in a variety o case study

projects illustrate how these tools have been used in real-world planning situations.

They oer a representative sample o available tools, and the results produced when

they are applied to an actual site. Each description presents the tool and its opera-

tional characteristics, the project site, the methodology employed, some conclusions, and

the case study consultant.

INDeX: Dsigning Cl S Nigbd

Elburn, Illinois

The ral trast stat

the prject ste


23/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scalable. The tool perorms its calculations

at the building and parcel level, and scena-

rios can be assembled or blocks, neighbor-

hoods, communities, and regions. Lower-level scenarios nest within larger-scale

scenarios.

Linkable. Scenarios can be exported to

transportation demand, storm water,

developer pro orma, and scal impact

models, among others.

Comprehensive. A menu o 94 indicators

addresses demographics, land use, hous-

ing, employment, recreation, transporta-

tion, water, energy, and GHG emissions.

Affordable. The cost o acquiring and

applying the tool is comparable to typical

local government GIS applications.

The tool has been applied in the United

States at approximately 700 locations in 37

states, as well as in Australia, Canada, Chi-

na, Japan, and Spain. In the United States,

the sotware is licensed to 175 user organi-

zations, including municipal and regional

planning agencies, urban design consultants,

and educational institutions (Brail 2008).

Current representative applications include

regional transit planning in Portland, Oregon;

figure 5

Exstg Lad Use Pla, Elbur, ills

Exstg Lad-Use

0.5Miles

Vacant

ResidentialSingle Family

ResidentialDuplex

ResidentialTownhouse

ResidentialMultiamily

Commercial

Government/Institutional

Industrial

School

Farming

Open Space


24/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

redevelopment planning o the Mall o

America neighborhood near Minneapolis,

Minnesota; preparation o a regional grow-

ing cooler ramework or Baltimore, Mary-land; identication o potential Cool Spots

or Albuquerque; and a downtown climate

change action plan or Laayette, Caliornia.

The Project

Elburn, Illinois, is a Chicago suburb o

approximately 4,000 residents with a com-

muter rail transit connection to the center

city. A 300-acre site adjacent to the rail tran-

sit station is the communitys ocus area or

uture growth. It presents a signicant op-

portunity or a climate-riendly Cool

Spot design (gure 5).

Since 2007, a series o INDEX digital

charrettes have been conducted to evaluate

Cool Spot opportunities in the station area.

The objective o the charrettes has been

identication o alternative land use/trans-

portation designs that lower the station areas

GHG emissions, while also meeting the

communitys overall comprehensive plan-

ning goals. The charrettes were preceded

by the ollowing set-up tasks.

Calibrate local energy and carbon characteristics.

Fuel shares and carbon content or local

building and transportation energy sup-

plies were specied.

Benchmarkexistingcitywidelanduseandtrans-

portation conditions. A comprehensive set o

indicators was scored or the entire com-

munity to create a rame o reerence or

setting station area goals (table 2).

Formulatemeasurablegoals. Using citywide

benchmark scores, goal-relevant indicators

and desired scores were selected or eval-

uating and ranking station area scenarios.

Createpalettesof landuseandtransportation

features. Station area land uses and trans-

portation acilities were dened and

assembled into palettes or scenario

sketching (gure 6).

figure 6

Lad Use Palette r Scear Setchg

Sgle Faml

10 DU/acre

nET ACRES

Sgle Faml

16 DU/acre

Hgh Dest

Resdetal

30 DU/acre

Retal

45 jobs/acre

ofce

80 jobs/acre

Mxed-Use

45 jobs/acre

20 DU/acre

Par

Wd Farm

0.05 MW/acre

isttutal

12 jobs/acre

DU=Dwelling Units

MW= Megawatts


25/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 2

idcatrs r Exstg Bechmars ad Prject objectes

inDEX idcatrs Uts

Ctwde

Exstg

Stat Area

objectes

Stat Area

Desg Scears

A B C

DemgraphcsPopulation residents 3,324 6,868 5,882 7,441

Employment employees 948 3,151 5,893 3,551

Lad-Use

Use Mix 0-1 scale 0.19 0.50 or more 0.40 0.57 0.36

Use Balance 0-1 scale 0.71 0.90 or more 0.87 0.89 0.81

Husg

Dwelling Unit Count total DU 1,306 3,276 2,895 3,664

Single-Family Dwelling Density DU/net acre 2.60 14.00 or more 16.00 14.62 16.00

Multi-Family Dwelling Density DU/net acre 8.22 28.00 or more 26.61 26.39 28.65

Single-Family Dwelling Share % total DU 76.6 38.5 10.9 12.5

Multi-Family Dwelling Share % total DU 21.3 61.5 89.1 87.5

Amenities Proximity avg walk t to closest grocery 4,952 2,000 or less 1,906 3,048 3,110Transit Proximity to Housing avg walk t to closest stop 2,909 1,000 or less 952 928 1,146

Emplmet

Jobs to Housing Balance jobs/DU 0.73 0.90 to 1.10 0.96 2.04 0.97

Employment Density emps/net acre 21.04 70.00 or more 49.92 52.82 60.09

Commercial Building Density avg FAR 0.20 0.65 or more 0.54 0.56 0.59

Transit Proximity to Employment avg walk t to closest stop 1,384 1,000 or less 731 959 1,087

Recreat

Park/Schoolyard Space Supply acres/1000 persons 19.8 3.0 to 8.0 4.0 4.9 5.9

Park/Schoolyard Proximity to Housing avg walk t to closest park/schoolyard 2,144 1,000 or less 1,725 1,319 1,165

Trael

Street Segment Length avg t 658 300 or less 315 399 452

Street Network Density centerline mi/sq mi 6.8 27.6 24.8 18.9Transit Service Coverage stops/sq mi 1.0 10.0 or more 22.6 18.1 13.6

Transit-Oriented Residential Density DU/net acre w/i 1/4 mi o stops 4.03 28.00 or more 21.90 23.71 27.95

Transit-Oriented Employment Density emps/net acre w/i 1/4 mi o stops 15.78 49.92 51.52 61.32

Pedestrian Network Coverage % o streets w/sidewalks 91.9 100.0 or more 99.7 99.7 100.0

Street Route Directness walk distance/straightline ratio 1.84 1.40 or less 1.38 1.33 1.36

Bicycle Network Coverage % street centerlines w/bike route 33.16 50.00 or more 44.29 49.41 27.67

Home Based VMT Produced mi/day/capita 25.0 20.6 20.9 20.2

Non-Home Based VMT Attracted mi/day/emp 15.0 12.4 12.5 12.1

Clmate Chage

Residential Building Energy Use MMBtu/yr/capita 50.92 45.51 41.69 41.84

Residential Vehicle Energy Use MMBtu/yr/capita 41.51 34.18 34.66 33.59

Residential Total Energy Use MMBtu/yr/capita 92.42 79.69 76.35 75.43

Non-Residential Building Energy Use MMBtu/yr/emp 45.66 43.34 42.47 11.85

Non-Home Based Vehicle Energy Use MMBtu/yr/emp 24.90 20.51 20.80 20.15

Non-Residential Total Energy Use MMBtu/yr/emp 70.56 63.85 63.26 32.00

Residential Building CO2 Emissions lbs/capita/yr 6,462 4,561 4,735 3,634

Residential Vehicle CO2 Emissions lbs/capita/yr 6,340 5,221 5,294 5,130

Residential Total CO2 Emissions lbs/capita/yr 12,802 9,781 10,029 8,764

Non-Residential Building CO2 Emissions lbs/emp/yr 7,286 4,343 4,823 1,029

Non-Home Based Vehicle CO2 Emissions lbs/emp/yr 3,804 3,132 3,176 3,078

Non-Residential Total CO2 Emissions lbs/emp/yr 11,090 7,476 7,999 4,107


26/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Digital charrettes are normally our- to

six-hour sessions involving as many as 100

people. Tables o eight to ten people use

INDEX on a laptop to sketch and evaluatescenarios. For the Elburn transit station,

participants perormed the ollowing tasks.

Designstreetcross-sectionsanddraw

their locations.

Paintlandusesandlocatespecic

amenities, such as a grocery store.

Drawbusroutesandlocatestops.

Drawbikeroutes.

Selectawindpowershareforthe

neighborhoods electric supply.

Protectexistingwetlandsandwildlife

habitat on a portion o the site.

Figure 7 shows three scenarios developed

during the charrettes, while gure 8 ranks

these scenarios according to GHG reduc-

tion and the extent to which they meet com-

munity planning goals. The nal iteration,

Scenario C, achieves the greatest reduction

in GHG emissions, and also accomplishes

the strongest response to the communitys

goals. This GHG superiority is achieved

with both high housing and employment

densities that reduce air conditioning

demands, auto trips, and trip lengths; and

30 percent o total electricity sourced rom

emission-ree wind power. Scenario C also

excels in terms o other community plan-

ning goals, including its large amount o park

space that satises recreation objectives.

The GHG emission levels calculated or

Elburns three scenarios are consistent with

research on the climate change impacts o

urban orm, as well as Criterions modeling

o LEED or Neighborhood Development

(ND) projects. Criterions ND certication

review o 40 neighborhood projects in the

United States and Canada indicates that

per capita GHG emission reductions o

25 to 33 percent appear to be consistently

achievable with strong multimodal travel

figure 7

Stat Area Scears, Elbur, ills

Scear A

Scear B

Scear C

environments and compact, mixed land use

designs that embody the principles o smart

growth and New Urbanism.

The Methodology

INDEXs GHG estimation process trans-

lates development scenarios into energy

use and GHG emissions (gure 9). Energy


27/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

demands are set or each building type

using climate-adjusted values or building

square ootage. The building values are thenassigned to land use types, and these are

aggregated into total building energy loads

based on the amounts o land area paint-

ed with land uses. Inrastructure energy

use (e.g., streetlights, utility pumps) can be

added optionally.

Vehicle trips (VT) and vehicle miles trav-

eled (VMT) are estimated based on common

urban design variables such as density, inter-

connectivity, and availability o transit. As

scenarios alter land use density and diversity,street and pedestrian networks, and regional

accessibility, the elasticities estimate the re-

sulting changes in baseline VT and VMT.

VMT is converted into energy use based on

vehicle types, uel shares, and emission rates

adjusted or VT eects.

To arrive at net energy use and GHG

emissions, building energy and transportation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

%

CO2

/Capita/YrRe

ductionsBelow

CurrentCitywideRate

A B C

Scenarios

28

30

32

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

%

Ove

rallGoalsAchievement

72.0

67.9

76.6

A B C

Scenarios

Overall Goal Achievement

A B

figure 8

Scear Rags b GHG Emsss Reduct ad oerall Gal Acheemet

Community Scenarios

Land Use Transportation

BuildingsVehicle Miles

Traveled

Infrastructure

Energy Sources

CO2 Emissions

figure 9

Estmat GHG Emsss Usg inDEX


28/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

energy are combined into total gross energy

demand, and then credits are given option-

ally or clean electricity and uel shares, em-

bodied energy savings rom building reuse,and carbon sequestration in local orestry.

Once GHG emissions have been estimated

and indicators scored or other goals, such

as open space preservation and aordable

housing, the tool ranks all the scenarios ac-

cording to both individual goal achievement

and overall achievement o community

goals weighted by their relative importance.

Conclusions

As an integrated land use/transportation

planning technique or reducing GHG

emissions, Cool Spots is able to quantiy the

emissions o alternative community scen-

arios in real time at public meetings. In so

doing, it assists stakeholders in assembling

climate-riendly urban development plans.

Advances are occurring in GHG calcula-

tion methods and computer technology that

will enable wider adoption o digital sketch

planning techniques or climate protection.

Touch-screen interaces, 3-D visualization

sotware, and smaller, distributed user de-

vices will make charrettes easier to conduct

and more engaging or participants, which

will increase uture participation and sup-

port or resulting plans.

To help oster such processes, however,

communities need to make greater invest-

ments in data that describe land use, trans-

portation, and energy conditions at thebuilding and neighborhood levels; and the

planning proession needs to encourage stu-

dents and practitioners to acquire relevant

modeling and charrette skills. Recent state

legislation, such as Caliornia Senate Bill

375 and Florida House Bill 697, is begin-

ning to mandate GHG considerations in

community planning that will accelerate

these trends. Eventually, GHG assessment

o proposed urban development is likely

to become standard practice comparable

to the types o impact studies usually

prepared or trac, schools, and other

community issues.

Case Study Consultant

Established in 1979, Criterion Planners is

an urban and regional planning consultancy

based in Portland, Oregon, specializing in

community planning or energy eciency.

The rm has assisted local, state, and ederal

agencies with climate change action plan-

ning since 1993, including preparation o

the Chula Vista, Caliornia global warming

reduction plan that received the Environ-

mental Protection Agencys 2003 Climate

Protection Award.


29/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Tool

I-PLACE3Sis a Web-based, publicly avail-able modeling platorm or scenario planningthat is capable o working with detailed data

at scales rom the neighborhood to multi-

county regions. Developed by the Caliornia

Energy Commission (CEC), the Caliornia

Department o Transportation, and the U.S.

Department o Energy, I-PLACE3S is ad-

ministered by the Sacramento Area Council

o Governments (SACOG). It evaluates the

impact o alternative development approaches

or transportation investments on a range o

indicators including population, employ-

ment, transportation patterns, energy use,

and cost eciency.

The visual and interactive nature o

I-PLACE3S mapping analysis makes scen-

ario development and testing accessible

to nontechnical users in public workshops

and other settings. Because it is Web-based,

I-PLACE3S requires no specialized hard-

ware or sotware, has only one dataset to

maintain and update, and is capable o per-

orming analysis on extremely large datasets(more than 750,000 records) within a several-

second timerame. Furthermore, I-PLACE3S

can incorporate data rom and provide eed-

back into regional travel models to illustrate

regional transportation benets o local-

level land use change.

The robust unctionality o I-PLACE3S

allows the tool to take into account study

area demographics (particularly important

or any public health analysis), and to mea-

sure the built environment within walking

distance o each study area parcel. Designed

or fexibility, I-PLACE3S can be expanded

by adding new or updated modules and can

be customized to meet the needs o individ-

ual organizations. New additions are then

made available to all users, enabling synergy

and cost savings.

I-pLaCe3S: Iniiing hl nd Clim enncmns

King County, Washington

Thugh mstl

aut-reted,

the Whte Ceter

busess dstrct

has gd bes.


30/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Project

The King County HealthScape initiative

seeks to improve public health and environ-

mental sustainability through communitydesign. As part o this initiative, the I-PLACE3S

scenario planning model was expanded to

evaluate the transportation impacts o dier-

ent land development alternatives, includ-

ing GHG emissions. For King County and

the cities within it, the enhanced version

o I-PLACE3S can inorm a number o

processes (gure 10).

Statistical relationships generated by an

analysis o King County data on the built

environment, transport, physical activity,

GHG, and air pollution were programmed

into I-PLACE3S. The resulting version o

the application was tested on the 98th Street

corridor in White Center, an unincorporated

urban area. The community has an inter-

connected street network and a mix o com-

mercial, employment, and residential land

uses enlivened by new immigrants romAsia, Arica, and South America.

The Methodology

The statistical relationships used to enhance

I-PLACE3S or the King County project

were generated by linear regression analyses.

A previous county-wide analysis o the rela-

tionship between CO2

and specic land use

characteristics was rerun using up-to-date

data rom the 2006 Puget Sound Regional

Council (PSRC) Household Travel Survey

and the Neighborhood Quality o Lie

Survey (NQLS) project. Land use patterns

around each household location were mea-

sured and correlated to travel, air pollution,

figure 10

Parcel Map Lad Use Tpes Whte Ceter, Washgt


31/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

carbon dioxide, physical activity, and body

mass index (BMI).

Figure 11 contrasts a household located

in a typical low-density, disconnected, single-

use neighborhood on the let with another in

a compact, connected, mixed-use neighbor-

hood on the right. The circle represents a 1

kilometer radius (the crow-fy buer) rom

each household. The analysis measured land

use patterns within the smaller, asymmetri-

cal 1 kilometer network buer, which repli-

cates the area people can access within a six-

to ten-minute walk. The connected neigh-

borhood has many more nearby destinations

due to the higher densities, mixed land use

pattern, and interconnected street networks.

This set o neighborhood-scale urban

orm measures was supplemented in the

analysis by other regional-scale measures

such as transit service levels and driving times

to address the impacts o regional location

and transit service on CO2

emissions.

Demographic and household characteris-

tics, such as income, number o workers,

and number o cars or each household,

were also taken into account.

Transport-related CO2

estimates were

generated rom the PSRC travel survey trip

data by calculating CO2

emissions or each

link o each trip based on the road acility

type (e.g., or each trip, the distance traveled

on local streets, arterials, and reeways), time

o day (which determined congestion and

thereby travel speed), cold starts, and

vehicle occupancy. This approach provided

a more detailed estimate than could be

attained using a simple average speed or

individual trips.

The estimated emissions or each trip

link were then summed at the trip level and

linked to the urban orm characteristics (in-

cluding net residential density, retail foor-

area ratio, intersection density, land use mix,

and park/retail/transit access) within the

1 kilometer walk-shed o each household.

The regression equations produced

by this analysis were programmed into

I-PLACE3S, enabling the user to estimate

how dierent built environment scenarios

aect transport-related CO2. I-PLACE3S

calculates total and per capita CO2

at the par-

cel level or each scenario being evaluated.

White Center is one o the ew remaining

unincorporated urban areas in King County,

so ocials are strongly interested in making

it a more pedestrian-riendly community.

figure 11

Cmparate Measuremets Lad Use Patters Sgle-use adMxed-use neghbrhds

Disconnected Connected

Crow-Fly Buffer

Sample Household

Network Buffer

Single Family ResidentialMulti Family ResidentialCommercialOfceIndustrial

Greenspace/Recreational

ParkingUnknown

Institutional


32/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Zoning in the 98th Street corridor has been

changed to increase allowable densities and

to both allow and encourage mixed-use

development. A direct pedestrian walkway

connecting the Greenbridge Hope VI

public housing development to the centers

commercial district is also being built.

I-PLACE3S estimated that at ull build-

out these changes would reduce daily house-

hold CO2

rom transport rom 14.17 to

13.94 kilograms (kg), adding up to a daily

reduction o 575 kg or what is a very small

study area (about 200 parcels). Additional

transit service in the area would reduce

per-household CO2

emissions urther, to

12.9 kg per day.

Conclusions

More compact regions eaturing walkable,

mixed-use centers connected by ast and

reliable transit service can lead to large reduc-

tions in per capita vehicle miles and hours o

travel. Local and regional government agen-

cies thereore have several options to reduce

GHG emissions rom transportation: ex-

pansion or upgrading o transit service by

transit agencies; growth management and

regional-scale development patterns by state

or regional agencies; and neighborhood de-

sign through rezoning by local municipalities.

Geographically fexible and versatile

applications such as I-PLACE3S can support

each o the above options. In its current en-

hanced version, this tool can inorm planning,zoning, development review, and transit/

transportation investments, as well as Health

Impact Assessment (HIA) in King County.

Research results rom other urban regions

can also be incorporated into I-PLACE3S,

creating a tool that is more broadly applica-

ble across the United States and Canada.

Its uture expansion to allow estimation

o CO2

generated rom building energy

operation, in addition to transport, would

make a household carbon ootprint possible.

This would require obtaining data on build-

ing energy use rom the local utilities in

King County and other urban areas.

Planners and developers have an un-

precedented opportunity to shape the land-

scape as they expand the built environment

to meet growing population needs over the

next 25 years (Nelson 2006). Tools such as

the enhanced version o I-PLACE3S that

provide quantitative, locally relevant evidence

about the GHGurban orm relationship

will help to ensure that new development

minimizes the carbon ootprint.

Case Study Consultant

Urban Design 4Health (UD4H) is a leader

in the application o research assessing how

transportation and community design impacts

environmental and health-related outcomes

to practice-based decision-making contexts.

With a demonstrated track record o applying

evidence to real-world decisions at the neigh-

borhood, municipal, regional, and national

levels, UD4H ocuses on inorming policy

and planning decisions. Using a pracademic

approach, UD4H provides evidence-based

advice to its clients on the environmental,

health, mobility, and social implications o

contrasting scal and regulatory strategies.

The Greebrdge

Hpe vi husg

deelpmet


33/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the ability to model the energy use, water

use, and carbon ootprint o potential

development at the building, district, and

regional scenario levels.

Building Prototypes. Development o Envision

Tomorrow began with a tool called the Return

on Investment (ROI) model that tests the

physical and nancial easibility o hypothe-tical development projects. The ROI model

can be used to develop building prototypes

ranging rom single-amily homes and mixed-

use buildings to regional retail malls and oce

buildings. It can also measure housing and

employment densities, foor-area ratios, im-

pervious suraces, construction costs, nancial

easibility, tax revenue, and other key attributes.

envisin tm: Using py Buildings nd ScniMdling Msu Cbn Fin

Superstition Vistas, Arizona

The Tool

Envision Tomorrow, a suite o urban and

regional planning tools developed by Frego-

nese Associates, is used to model land use

decisions at a range o scales. At the site

level, this tool can be used to identiy nan-

cially easible development opportunities

and pinpoint ways to adjust existing land use

regulations to encourage new development.At the neighborhood scale, various mixes

o buildings and other attributes (e.g., streets,

parkland) can be compiled to evaluate the

implications o dierent styles o develop-

ment. These buildings and development

types can be used to create land use scenarios

at the district, city, county, and regional scales.

The Envision Tomorrow tool also includes

A ew the

Superstt

Mutas rm

part the

stud area


34/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

These building types can then be aggregated

and combined to orm development types

collections o buildings, streets, parks, and

civic areas.

Scenario Builder and Scenarios. The tool also

includes a Scenario Builderan ArcMap GIS-

based modeling and evaluation application

capable o combining dierent development

types into a uture growth scenario (gure 12).

Ranging rom the neighborhood to the re-

gional scale, these scenarios are stories about

what might be, not orecasts or predictions.

They are possible utures based on what already

exists, evident trends, and the values and

preerences o the participants. The essential

requirement o any scenario is plausibility,

within the realm o what exists and what is

now known or can be reasonably conceived.

The Project

The Superstition Vistas project seeks to

demonstrate opportunities or sustainable

development in the Phoenix area that could

be an international model or energy- and

water-ecient development with a low car-

bon ootprint. The 275-square-mile site at

the eastern edge o the Phoenix metropolitan

area spreads rom the Superstition Moun-

tains Wilderness Area south to Florence, and

rom the Pinal County line to the eastern

edge o Florence Junction (gure 13). This

figure 12

Steps r Mdelg Lad Use Scears


35/52


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

state trust land is owned and managed by

the Arizona State Land Department or the

benet o school children. Proceeds rom

land sales are set aside and may be expendedonly or educational purposes.

Anticipating that the project area may

eventually house more than one million peo-

ple, the East Valley Partnership (EVP) com-

missioned a study in 2007 to explore ways to

maximize long-term urban development sus-

tainability while generating long-term value

or education. The EVP, the projects client,

is a coalition o civic, business, educational,

and political leaders rom the East Valley o

the Phoenix metropolitan area. The EVPadvocates in areas such as economic devel-

opment, education, tra

Documents

Urban Planning Tools for Climate Change Mitigation