The Netherlands’s Approach to a Circular Economy in the Construction Sector

The Netherlands is a small country in Europe with a population around 17 million. As a country with limited raw materials they have grown to understand the importance of recycling and limiting their resource consumption. Since implementing their Circular Economy Plan in 2016, they have set up two important target dates. The country wants to reduce consumption of raw materials such as oil, metals, and minerals by as much as 50% by 2030. The other target is to develop a completely circular economy by 2050 (MIE, 2016). A circular economy attempts to close material loops and prevent discarded waste from entering landfills by implementing better designs, better maintenance, recycling, reusing, or refurbishing practices.

The construction sector is a major source of waste. Profit-driven motives allow for constant building taking place throughout the world without any regard to the waste generated. The building and demolition process produces an immense amount of waste. In the US, it is projected that 40% of landfill input comes from construction waste totaling 251 million tons a year (Hower, 2013). In the Netherlands, while the total volume does not compare to the US, the construction sector is similar in its relative consumption of materials. The construction industry accounts for 50% of the raw materials used, 40% of the energy used, and 30% of the water consumption (MIE, 2016). These are staggering numbers that can hopefully be reduced considerably by the implementation of the Netherlands’s Circular Economy Plan.

The Netherlands has put in place several initiatives to make the construction of buildings energy neutral by 2050. The goal is to incorporate the loss of energy and materials utilized in the construction of the building to be minimized by the long term viability of the building design. New buildings will utilize the ecosystem services wherever they can. Ecosystem services provide benefits through the natural environment. One ecosystem service that is easy to provide in the Netherlands is water storage as they receive a large amount of rainfall every year. Through the use of on-site water storage, the building can provide much more water over the course of the building’s life than was used in the construction.

Figure 1 – Circular Economy in the Construction Sector (MIE, 2016)

Demolition waste is easily reused in other construction projects in the Netherlands. 85% of demolition waste is ground up into granulate and used as foundation base on other projects. It is key to have a solid, well-compacted foundation in the Netherlands as most of the country lies below sea level with somewhat saturated soils. Figure 1 shows how the demolition waste is recycled. “Soil & Civil Engineering” is the granulate used for foundation at other construction sites. The same can be said for road projects in the Netherlands. Roads after one life cycle can be reusable for new roads and then are processed and used as road base after more than one life cycle.

The Circular Economy Plan also must provide plenty of incentives for companies to develop further technologies that can be implemented to drive sustainable practices in the construction sector. The Netherlands has set up a system called “Green Deals.” These deals encourage both private and public companies to come up with solutions to close the material loops while also stimulating economic growth (Government of the Netherlands). “Green Deals” have already been established in the innovative use of bio-based construction materials. Other “Green Deals” established have been based on implementing natural solutions to building climate control and energy efficiency in building operations.

The Netherlands has been proactive on their approach to adapting a circular economy. One of the most important aspects of their plan is the continued efforts to reach out and communicate with other countries to assess what works and what doesn’t in terms of sustainable practices. The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment has organized teams from various sectors to come together and collaborate on innovative initiatives to achieve the most sustainable practices in the construction sector. The government has taken an active role in monitoring the progress and implementation of construction sustainability practices (MIE, 2016).

The Netherlands implementation of their Circular Economy Plan outlines detailed plans for not only the construction waste but also plastics, food waste, consumer goods, and manufacturing waste . All of these areas, if properly planned out, can greatly reduce the countries dependence on acquiring more raw materials in the future. The Netherlands can become more self-sufficient and in turn be a more sustainable society in the future. Their initiatives outlined in their Circular Economy Plan may set the precedent for other countries moving forward as the importance of a sustainable and self-sufficient society are realized.

Source:

Government of the Netherlands. Green Deal. Netherlands Government. Retrieved December 17, 2018, from https://www.greendeals.nl/english

Hower, Mike. (2013). PlanetReuse: Redirecting Building Waste from Landfill to LEED Projects. Sustainable Brands. Retrieved December 17, 2018, from https://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/waste_not/planetreuse-redirecting-building-waste-landfill-leed-projects

The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (MIE). (2016). A Circular Economy in the Netherlands by 2050. Netherlands Government. Retrieved December 17, 2018, from https://www.government.nl/documents/policy-notes/2016/09/14/a-circular-economy-in-the-netherlands-by-2050

December 24, 2018December 24, 2018

Role of Green Infrastructure in Climate Change

Green infrastructure

The urban environment has various biophysical features and continuously interact with the surrounding environment. These interactions may be in the form of heat exchange in densely populated areas, an increase in the surface run-off of rainwater due to higher impervious surfaces in cities or even changes in the land use patterns. All these changes occurring to a place which previously never was in this state triggers a different set of interactions like an increase in temperature, changes in rainfall intensity and patterns. All these are symptoms of climate change and time has come for us to think and accept these changes occurring around us in order to address it.

Canadian Government’s Stand

The Canadian Government has realised the importance of green infrastructure and has allotted $5 billion through Canada Infrastructure Bank and $2.8 billion through a series of national programs. The importance in realising the relationship between public infrastructure and climate change and the need for climate change mitigation strategies in an investment decision-making process is the first step towards a sustainable future.

City of Toronto

It was in the year 2008, the City of Toronto became the first city in Canada to come up with a comprehensive climate change strategy. The document was titled as “Ahead of Storm”, and it contained a list of actions which might be either for short term or long term to address increasing flooding and heat waves. Toronto being one of the largest city in Canada has a population of approximately 2.7 million and has a continental climate with a daily mean temperature of 22.1°C in July and a maximum of 40.6°C. The effects of climate change are being seen with extreme heat, floods, new vector-borne diseases and drought. The 150mm rainfall in a span of just three hours in 2005, caused a flash flooding which damaged roads and basements. The overall estimate of property damage was up to $500 million. While the same summer had a completely different set of weather but with an exceeding temperature of 30°C for 41 days. The studies have shown that heat waves cause an average of 120 person’s death every year. Overall all these changes occurring around the city needed to be addressed before things went out of hand.

(Source: “Ahead of Storm”, 2008)

The city came up with initiatives like incentives whenever a green roof is installed either on a new building or a renovated one, green development standard for the new buildings aimed at reducing stormwater runoff and enhance neighbourhood green space. Some of the other key initiatives in addition to these were to come up with green parking lots which can reduce the heat reflected from the surfaces during summer and also regulate stormwater during the rainy season. Also a commitment to increase the tree canopy in the city which would increase the shade and reduce the urban heat island effect.

(Source: Green Infrastructure Ontario, GIO, 2016)

Barriers and Challenges

There are various misconceptions becoming barriers in implementing green infrastructure. Green infrastructure being a new concept for many, the performance and its assessment are unknown to many. There is a misconception of high price being associated with green infrastructure but many fail to realise that in the long run, the cost savings outweigh the initial investments. There are also no standardised codes or policies present to guide and encourage people to invest as the area of study and research is dynamic in nature. Developers are also sceptical in implementing new ideas due to increased initial costs which could potentially attract fewer customers. This is due to unfamiliarity in understanding the maintenance costs and long-term benefits. Many municipalities also lack resources to implement green infrastructure and there is a need for funding, updating development codes and educating builders, developers and public. Finally, there are design challenges due to the versatile nature of green infrastructure and it is important to understand that there are many strategies which exist to overcome these challenges.

Overall I feel that even though many cities in developed nations are realising and coming up with a climate change prevention actions, this would merely slow down the or extend the eventuality. There are still many parts of the world that are still not taking any necessary actions and even in the developed cities, many policies are not driven by care towards climate but with a view on continuous economic growth and financial growth being the centre of decision making. It is important to realise our responsibility to make the cities liveable in future for next generation and this is where one can strike a strong emotion with a cause for many policymakers to invest in green infrastructure and many other initiatives to curb climate change.

Sources:

GILL, S. E., HANDLEY, J. F., ENNOS, A. R., & PAULEIT, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment (1978-), 33(1), 115-133. doi:10.2148/benv.33.1.115
“Green Infrastructure, Investing in Green Infrastrucutre” https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/gi-iv-eng.html
Kazmierczak, A., Carter, J., 2010. Adaptation to Climate Change Using Green and Blue Infrastructure. A Database of Case Studies. The University of Manchester, Manchester.
“Overcoming Barriers to Green Infrastructure” https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/overcoming-barriers-green-infrastructure

December 23, 2018January 6, 2019

What is Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance and Why is it Important?

Cities inhabit more than half the world population and contributes to three quarters of total carbon emissions. To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be cut down by at least 80% by the end of the century. To tackle the problem of global warming, and aggressively work towards zero-carbon future, in June 2014 in Copenhagen, major global cities came together to form an alliance to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

Who They Are:

CNCA – Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance – is a collaboration between 20 leading cities across globe (including Vancouver, as shown in the figure above), to combat global warming by aggressively cutting down their carbon emissions; with the target to attain 80-100% reduction by mid-century or sooner. The aim is to work together and find innovative solutions to offset the carbon emissions by the cities and set a standards & guidelines for other cities to follow.

What They Do:

The five main working principles of CNCA are:

Developing Carbon Neutrality Planning and Implementation Standards: The principle promotes the idea of developing innovative ideas and approaches to support carbon neutrality, by standardizing measurements and verifying methods for tracking purposes.
Supporting Deep Decarbonization Innovations: Investing in city-wide projects to develop, test, implement & amplify deep decarbonization practices and ideas.
Advancing Transformative Change in Key Urban Sectors: Sharing and implementing best practices amongst each other, in the field of transportation, energy use and waste systems, to accomplish the deep decarbonization in the cities.
Speaking with a Common Voice: The alliance deems important to have a common voice in all local and international platforms and advocate for policies at different levels of government in order to reduce emission sources not controlled directly by cities and engage with other stakeholders that are important for the success.
Advancing a “Next Wave” of Carbon Neutral Cities: Providing a benchmark for other cities to follow and attain carbon neutrality is the most important principle of the alliance. They aim at creating innovative solutions and methodologies as standards that can be used as a guideline in future.

Each city in the alliance has individual goals, but all of them are committed to achieving at least 80% carbon neutrality by 2050. The figure below shows the targets of each city and their timeline for the same.

What They Have Achieved (So Far):

To date, the Alliance has invested $2.4 million in 27 early-stage innovation projects targeting transportation, energy-supply, buildings, and waste systems. Cities are moving forward and increasing their economy while simultaneously reducing carbon emissions. The table below gives an update on the performance of 16 of the 20 cities till date.

	Baseline Year	Emissions Reduction	Economic Growth
Adelaide	2006	15%	35%
Berlin	1990	32%	32%
Boston	2005	13%	20%
Boulder	2005	16%	57%
Copenhagen	2005	42%	24%
Melbourne	2006	3%	42%
Minneapolis	2006	18%	30%
New York City	2005	14%	23%
Portland	1990	21%	24%
San Francisco	1990	30%	110%
Seattle	2008	6%	22%
Stockholm	2005	25%	37%
Sydney	2006	19%	37%
Toronto	1990	24%	36%
Vancouver	2006	11%	26%
Washington DC	2008	24%	14%

Why Are They Important:

Avoiding the most destructive effects of climate change requires reimagining and reinventing urban centers to put them on the path of zero carbon future. CNCA is designed as a space for cities to work together in practical & mutually beneficial ways to address challenges faced to achieve decarbonization. By sharing resources and collaborating, they are trying to accelerate the progress in meeting their individual goals, have consistency in planning across nations, and inspire other cities to attain similarly aggressive goals by setting baseline standards for them to follow.

References:

Cygler, C. (2017), For Carbon Neutral Cities, LeLab Ouisharex C:ronos. Report for a LeLab Member.

USDN, https://www.usdn.org/public/page/13/CNCA

Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, https://carbonneutralcities.org/

CNCA, http://climateinitiativesplatform.org/index.php/Carbon_Neutral_Cities_Alliance

Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance – Framework Report

December 16, 2018December 16, 2018

The world’s Largest Waste to Energy Plant.

Largest Waste-To-Energy Plant in the world.

Waste to Energy Plant

The waste-to-energy plant is a waste management facility that combusts waste to produce electricity. They form an essential part of a sustainable waste management chain. Generates valuable and sustainable electricity and heat, of which 50% is recognized as renewable, and the other 50% is derived from recovered energy sources that would be lost otherwise. It also helps in reducing the carbon footprint of human activities through reduced methane emissions from landfill, it offsets the use of fossil fuels for energy production and the recovery of materials.

hence it provides a meaningful outcome for wastes. Some of the benefits of this plant are:

Fully complementary to recycling by recovering energy from unrecyclable waste.
Recovers significant amounts of ferrous and non-ferrous metals.
Removes toxic substances from the eco-cycle.
Allows up to 95% landfill diversion rate.

Waste Management in China

China is the world’s largest Solid waste generator, producing as much as 175 million tons of waste every year. For a developing country like china it is not easy to manage its entire waste and convert it into energy. There exist many challenges such as insufficient or elusive data, poor infrastructure, informal waste collection systems, the lack of laws and regulations, lack of economic incentives and the high costs associated with biomass technologies. Hence china should focus on its policy reformation to eliminate the unsustainable management of waste and underutilization of its potential energy which can only be possible by adopting integrated solid waste management strategies. Nevertheless, China has started to realize the importance of IWMS and with help of the government they have been working towards building the world’s largest waste to energy plant in the country.

Sustainable energy

With continuous economic growth in China and throughout Asia, there is a growing demand for reliable, sustainable and clean renewable energy. To help meet this demand, China has planned to build the largest Waste to the Energy treatment plant in the world in Shenzhen East. For this plant, B&W Vølund will supply equipment that includes a DynaGrate combustion grate system, hydraulics, burners, and other boiler components. The plant is expected to be an important showcase of the most advanced technology for environmentally friendly energy production in China. The plant is designed by Schmidt Hammer Lassen Architects and Gottlieb Paludan Architects will take a distinctive circular form, so as to minimize the plant’s footprint and reduce the amount of excavation required during construction. Built with sustainability in mind, it will incorporate rooftop solar panels, a visitor education center and an observation platform into its architectural design. When operational, it will incinerate about 5600 tons of trash per day out of 15,000 tons to generate 550 million kWh of electricity every year. It will also generate renewable energy using 44,000 m2 of solar panels incorporated on the rooftop and It will be the first plant in China to use B&W Vølund’s DynaGrate technology.

DynaGrate technology

Unlike other types of grates, there is no physical contact between moving grate components. This unique design limits wear and minimize the mechanical forces internally in the grate. The mechanical design of the DynaGrate system is developed to increase plant availability and lower operation and maintenance costs. With this grate, plant operation is not interrupted by melting metals. The mechanical break-up of the waste layer on the grate results in thorough agitation and thereby superior combustion conditions resulting in very low total organic carbon (TOC) values in the bottom ash. Also, it is designed to minimize the maintenance cost.

References

Fernandez, M. (2018, August 3). Retrieved from BioEnergy Consult: https://www.bioenergyconsult.com/waste-to-energy-china/

Schmidt Hammer Lassen. (2016). Retrieved from SHL website: http://www.shl.dk/shenzhen-east-waste-to-energy-plant/

Zhang, D. l. (2015). Waste-to-Energy in China: Key Challenges and Opportunities. Energies, 14182-14196.

December 16, 2018December 16, 2018

How Bhutan Became The Only Carbon Negative Country In The World

Bhutan: The Only Carbon Negative Country

Bhutan, a small country that lies deep within the Himalayas between India and China, is often overlooked by the international community because of its low global GDP and political impact. It has a small population of about 750,000 and but a vast forest region. Despite economic challenges, Bhutan has put up a great effort to mitigate the climate change and become the only carbon negative country in the world with per capita emissions of just 0.8 annual metric tons and have kept their promise made at the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference to go carbon neutral. Even though the forest reserves act as mega carbon sinks and the rivers provide the country an emission-free power source but it’s the commitment of the people towards the environment which is helping them to achieve beyond their strength.

Gross National Happiness

Bhutan refuses to judge their success on GDP, instead believes that their national progress is well defined through the index Gross National Happiness. This index measures the prosperity by giving equal importance to non-economic aspects of well being instead of just focusing solely on economic indicators. In 2015, based on a survey it was estimated that 91% of its citizens are narrow, extensively or deeply happy. Hence Bhutan gives utmost importance to the forestry and its constitution requires forest to be maintained above 60% of its original cover. In 2015 they created a world record by planting nearly 50,000 trees in one hour. The country is also increasing its share of renewables, by exploring wind, biogas and solar. Also, the country is working hard through ‘Green Bhutan’ and ‘Clean Bhutan’ campaign to enhance their GNH index.

Agriculture

More than half of the population are involved in agriculture and forestry department and it is aiming to develop organic agriculture by 2020 and zero-waste agriculture by 2030. Developing these practices is Bhutan is relatively easier because of already existing practices of using fewer agrochemicals and more of natural fertilizers. To reach their goals it is offering many free training sessions to farmers on organic farming practices, encouraging low waste farming and use of compost.

Hydro-Power

Along with a vast forest region, Bhutan is also blessed with glaciers and rivers. Hydropower is the country’s major source for renewable energy and wealth. Bhutan has the potential to develop 30,000 MW of power out of which only 5% is utilized. The government plans to develop 10,000 MW of power by 2020 and export 80% of it to India.

Transportation

Although the emissions from industrial and transport sector are very low in Bhutan, currently it is seeing an increasing trend. Hence, instead of just relying on the forest for sequestration of carbons the country is adopting many measures such as:

Raising the vehicle and fuel price to lower the number of vehicles on the road.
Applying tax waivers to eco-friendly and fuel-efficient buses and taxis.
Encouraging the use of private electrical vehicles.
Providing electric trains in the cities.
Improving pedestrians’ facilities such as cycling and walking ways.

Climate Change

Even though the country is working very hard in preventing CO2 emissions, but unfortunately it is still one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change. These climate change impacts can potentially derail Bhutan from the path of sustainable development. Some of the key resources, like agricultural and forest lands, mountains are also very vulnerable to threats causing flash floods, windstorms, forest fires etc., Its regenerative water supply which is pivotal to the country’s economy is also under threat of global warming. But sadly, they have done nothing to be affected like this. Hence it is the responsibility of every country to fight against the climate change so that the countries like Bhutan won’t have to pay for it.

References

Arvid Kiran. (2018, July 12). Retrieved from India Today: https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/bhutan-worlds-only-carbon-negative-country-1261119-2018-07-12

Mark Tutton. (2018, October 11). CNN. Retrieved from CNN Website: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/asia/bhutan-carbon-negative/index.html

Mellino, C. (2016, March 19). Eco Watch. Retrieved from Eco Watch Website: https://www.ecowatch.com/this-country-isnt-just-carbon-neutral-its-carbon-negative-1882195367.html

Munawar, S. (2016, July). Bhutan Improves Economic Development as a Net Carbon Sink.

December 15, 2018

The Effect of Contamination on the Marketability of Recyclable Waste

The marketability of recycled goods is not a concept with which most Canadians are familiar. And yet, millions of canadians engage with the practice of recycling everyday, a practice that is predicated on the notion that there is a demand for certain types of garbage. Ultimately, since recycled goods are products that need to be sold in order to be reused, the quality of recycled goods (like any other product on the market) is very important.

In terms of quality, contamination is the biggest player, costing Canadian recycling programs millions every year. When contaminated garbage is thrown out in blue bins, it is first processed as if it were recyclable, but ultimately, it ends up in the landfill. As a result, “you basically pay twice to manage garbage,” according to Jim McKay who works for solid waste management Toronto. According to CBC news, “even a few spoonfuls of peanut butter left in a jar can contaminate a tonne of paper and make it unmarketable — destined for the dump.” The costs associated with processing twice are not the only losses that need to be considered. Recycled garbage with a higher contamination rate, even after it has been processed to remove obvious offenders, cannot be sold as easily. As a result it needs to be discounted and sold at a cheaper price. Therefore the costs incurred from additional processing as well as the loss in revenue are both important factors that need to be taken more seriously when developing city-wide recycling programs.

Although recycling is something that cities are beginning to take more seriously, it is clear that the tangible costs associated with contaminated recycling is a concept that too many Canadians are either unaware of or indifferent to. Perhaps it is merely another situation which demonstrates the tragedy of the commons. Although the simplicity of this explanation might be enticing, there are large disparities between the rates of residential recycling contamination within various Canadian cities. This disparity can be partly explained by the variety and effectiveness of city-wide recycling programs. Vancouver, for example, has one of the lowest recycling contamination rates among large Canadian cities. According to Recycle BC, the percent of contaminated products in Vancouver’s recycling system is 4.6%. For reference, Toronto’s contamination rate is 26%, Montreal’s is 7.5%, Calgary’s is 13%, Ottawa’s is also low at 5%, and Edmonton’s is 24%.

One of the ways Vancouver accomplishes such a low contamination rate is through stricter separation of recycled goods. Glass and paper each have their own bins/bags, and in that way both are separated from recyclable plastics. According to Recycle BC’s Allen Langdon, recycling programs that operate in a “single-stream” manner without any further separation past the blue bin, consistently demonstrate higher rates of contamination.

The city of Surrey has increased its focus on education as a method to mitigate contamination. One of their first initiatives was to identify specific neighborhoods with particularly poor sorting habits. After gathering the data they were able to establish a door to door education program that targeted those specific neighborhoods in order to explain the different materials that should and should not be recycled as well as the impacts of contamination. Currently, the city continues to identify specific households that do not adhere to the recycling guidelines and sends letters and pamphlets. If a specific household continues to be found in violation of proper recycling practices, they are temporarily barred from receiving the pick up service, and their garbage is left at the curb. The solid waste manager at the City of Surrey, Harry Janda, reported that in 2017 on an average day, the City of Surrey issued 400 “no collection stickers” and “issued a significant number of education notices.” There are numerous tactics that a city can employ to improve recycling habits, and historically an effective education plan has been a core part of every successful city-wide initiative.

The strides that have been taken to increase the effectiveness of recycling in certain cities demonstrates the impact that various programs and initiatives can have. This is a promising result, and one that should not be taken lightly, especially in light of the changing economic market of recyclables. In 2017, China passed a ban on 24 types of imported waste. This ban became effective as of January 2018, and the market has not yet reached a stabilized equilibrium. Before the ban, China had been the largest importer of waste for decades. According to the International Solid Waste association, in 2012 China imported 56% of global plastic exports, which amounted to almost 9 million metric tonnes of plastic. In addition to the ban, China imposed new standards outlining the acceptable contamination within a given batch of recyclables. The new standards are much stricter and contaminated materials are now required to be limited to less than 0.5% of the batch. As a result, many Canadian cities have been forced to find alternative buyers for their recyclables.

The sudden decrease in demand for recyclables has resulted in a surplus of supply, reducing the market price. A report from Toronto’s solid waste management service estimates that in 2018 the loss in revenue as a result of the changing market will be about 5.2 million dollars for the City of Toronto. With most goods, this decrease in price would cause a decrease in supply and a new equilibrium would balance out in time. However recyclables are most often a by-product of the purchase of other goods (which have been packaged in plastic). And the decrease in demand for this packaging will not necessarily deter consumers from purchasing the good that has been wrapped in plastic. Unless consumer behavior is drastically changed or a new demand emerges, it is possible that a large amount of recyclable waste (which had previously been sold to China) will end up in landfills. One advantage of China’s import waste ban is that it puts added pressure on exporting nations to reduce the amount of garbage they produce. The ‘out of sight out of mind’ mentality is easy to sustain when garbage is being shipped off to another continent, but now that this option has been drastically reduced, it could provide a powerful opportunity for change.

References

https://recyclebc.ca/what-is-contamination/

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/start

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/recycling-contamination-1.4606893

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-113576.pdf

https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/Task_Forces/TFGWM_Report_GRM_Plastic_China_LR.pdf

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/surrey-aggressively-tackling-recycling-contamination-to-avoid-hefty-fines/

http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/press/releases/toxics/2017/Chinas-ban-on-imports-of-24-types-of-waste-is-a-wake-up-call-to-the-world—Greenpeace/

December 8, 2018

How the Netherlands ‘keeps its head above water’

The Netherlands is one of those countries who lives up to its name as being a ‘lowland’. 26% of the country is located below sea level, another 29% is susceptible for river floats, which makes the Netherlands highly susceptible for sea level rise.[1] However, for the past 65 years, the Netherlands has managed to prevent disastrous floats thanks to the construction of the Deltaworks.

55% of the Netherlands is susceptible for floods due to sealevel rise

The year 1953 marks the turning point in the Dutch water management system. A heavy storm from the northwest in combination with a spring tide lead to the greatest natural disaster of the 20^th century. The dikes in Zeeland, Zuid-Holland and Noord-Brabant were not strong or high enough to deal with the seawater rise of 4.55 m. A total of 1,836 people lost their lives, 4,300 homes were destroyed and 187,000 farm animals did not make it. The total damage cost was estimated to be $ 8.2 billion dollar.[2]

The current deltaworks establishd in zeeland – The Netherlands

To prevent such a disaster from ever happening again, the Dutch government invested $ 7.8 billion in the Delta works. The Deltaplan got set-up only 20 days after the North Sea Flood of 1953. The main priority was to improve safety in and around the flooded areas, but one should not forget about the economic benefits of open rivers and what would happen to the environment of the rivers when they would be closed off from the sea. The Western Schelde is the only access route to the port of Antwerp, whereas De Nieuwe Waterweg is an important access route to the port of Rotterdam. So how do you keep the rivers open for ships and trade and keep the river environment stable, but also guarantee the safety of people living near and in these flood areas?

Since the Delta committee had as number one priority to keep people save, they first closed waterways that were not important for the ports of both Rotterdam and Antwerp. In these river mouths, they designed dames, barriers and sluices. For the Western Schelde and De Nieuwe Waterweg, the committee decided to not put any of these structures in the river mouths, instead they reinforced the on-land dikes. This way, the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam remained easy to access.

Eastern Schelde storm surge barrier (oosterscheldekering)

The Eastern Schelde storm surge barrier distinguishes itself from many of the other barriers since the system can be opened. An open barrier is less appealing than a closed dam since it is a lot more expensive, but a closed dam in this area would have negative effects on the fishing industry and the river environment. A total of 62 sluices, which would only be closed in case of storms, are installed to allow as much salt water flowing through as possible to preserve the healthy environment in the Eastern Schelde and the suitable fishing conditions. [3]

The water management system resulted into more benefits than only increased safety. The fresh-water excess created due to the closed dams could be transported to the Ijssel lake to improve the water conditions there. Moreover, the transportation between the different islands of Zeeland became easier since roads were constructed on top of the barriers and dams. Even tough some nature reserves have been damaged by the change in water conditions in the Delta area, new nature reserves have emerged as well. The influence of the Deltaworks on the river environment however is still unknown.

We can conclude that the planning of the Deltaworks depended on several factors such as safety, economy and environment. Due to the large scale of the Deltaworks, namely 700 km of dikes, and the many different factors that played a roll, the Deltaworks took from 1953-1997 to complete. This includes both planning and construction time. The Deltaworks are a great example of systems thinking and adapting to a changing climate. The success of the Deltaworks teaches us that it is possible to balance safety, ecosystem services and economic services, and that is what environmental stewardship is all about.

Used sources:

[1] https://www.pbl.nl/dossiers/klimaatverandering/content/correctie-formulering-over-overstromomgsrisico

[2] https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/english/water-systems/protection-against-water/the-flood-of-1953/index.aspx

[3] http://www.deltawerken.com/Deltaworks/23.html

December 7, 2018

How We Get to Low-Carbon Neighbourhoods

What are Low-Carbon Neighbourhoods?

A Low-carbon neighbourhood, sometimes referred to as climate positive development, contributes to the alleviation of stresses and challenges associated with climate change and urban population growth. Low-carbon neighbourhoods help to provide the supporting fabric that leads to the development of low-carbon cities. The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group loosely defines climate positive development as a means to supplying sustainable net-carbon negative communities for future generations (C40 Cities 2016). Arguably, one of the best ways to achieve low-carbon neighbourhoods is through a collaborative, forward-thinking, and integrated approach to planning, design, and development. It also requires taking an incremental approach to achieving a net-carbon negative result (Connolly 2018). We can begin to understand how we get to low carbon neighbourhoods in cities by asking ourselves the following questions – which are presented in no particular rank or order (C40 Cities 2016):

Does the neighbourhood prioritize walkability and cyclability?
Does the neighbourhood contain highly efficient buildings?
Is the energy supplying the neighbourhood a low-carbon source?
Does the neighbourhood recycle, and use landfill diversion programs, or use waste as a resource?
Is the neighbourhood located within close proximity (~10 min) to high quality mass-transit?
Is the neighbourhood a compact and mixed-use development?
Does the neighbourhood exemplify positive effects for the neighbouring communities?

If the answer to each one of these questions is Yes, then we can safely say with some confidence that we have arrived at a sustainable and low-carbon solution to neighbourhood development. If the answer is No, then we need to take a deeper look at how we get to net-carbon negative neighbourhoods.

The Six Characteristics of Low-Carbon Neighbourhoods

There are six characteristics that contribute to the overall development of low-carbon neighbourhoods (C40 Cities 2016). These six areas include:

Walkability and Access to Alternative Transportation Modes
Density and Mixed-Use
Building Efficiency
Renewable and District-Scale Energy Supply
Waste Disposal, Recycle, and Potential Reuse
Positive Social and Cultural Impacts

Walkability and Access to Alternative Transportation Modes

Neighbourhoods that highlight alternative transportation modes, such as walking, cycling, ride-sharing, and mass-transit, contribute to fewer emissions overall and promote a decrease in our reliance on single-occupancy vehicle use (Centre for Sustainable Energy 2018). This way of thinking about development is sometimes referred to as transit-oriented development. Low-carbon neighbourhoods prioritize pedestrian-oriented transportation modes over traditional car-oriented transportation modes, in addition to also prioritizing mass-transit. It is the action of building connections between the walking and cycling paths within neighbourhoods and connecting them with major transit routes that helps decrease our dependence on vehicle mobility. It is essential that low-carbon neighbourhoods foster this type of development.

Figure 1: Prioritization of Pedestrian and Bicycle Oriented Transit in Vancouver, BC, Source: Dandyhorsemagazine.com

Density and Mixed-Use Amenities

Low-carbon neighbourhoods prioritize density over sprawl and mixed-use over single-use developments so that they contribute to an overall reduction in GHG emissions. These two development practices grant citizens the opportunity to make better decisions regarding where they work, shop, and play, and how they ultimately choose to get to a chosen destination. It does this in two ways: density and mixed-use. Density contributes significantly to the efficiency of both transportation and waste management systems by providing greater access to these services while also decreasing the distances that are needed to travel between destinations. Mixed-use developments support better access to a greater number of shops, schools, parks, and places of work, which provides a greater choice. It also provides a greater variety in the types of housing, jobs, and businesses within a given community. Combined, these areas work to promote walkability within and between neighbourhoods and enable the connectivity of individuals, amenities, and services.

Figure 2: PCI’s Crossroads Mixed-Use Development Project at Cambie and Broadway, Source: PCI Group

Building Efficiency

In Vancouver, the built environment contributes to 55% of the regions GHG emissions (Crowe 2012). One of the ways that we increase energy efficiency in our cities and in our neighbourhoods is through performance-based building design. In performance-based design, clear performance targets are established at the beginning of a project, such as targets that achieve net-zero energy or indoor air quality. This gives developers, contractors, and designers greater freedom to choose the materials and methods that help them to achieve a given performance target. With a performance-based design approach, the final performance targets for a given building are prioritized over the methods and materials needed to get the job done. This is a result focused methodology, and the sustainability of the means and the methods used to achieve these targets should not be neglected. With performance-based design, a greater emphasis is also placed on the comfort, health, and affordability, which includes initial costs and operational and maintenance costs of the building for occupants (Canadian Architect 2018). In British Columbia, the new BC Energy Step Code is intended to shift the industry away from the traditional prescriptive code requirements and towards a performance-based code environment that is more effective at incorporating energy efficiency into our built environment (Government of British Columbia 2018). Adoption of performance-based criteria in building design and construction is integral to achieving low-carbon neighbourhoods.

Figure 3: Example of a Zero Emission Building, Source: City of Vancouver

Renewable and District-Scale Energy Supply

District energy systems centralize the production of heating and cooling for a neighbourhood and can take advantage of the differing energy demand patterns of residential, commercial, and industrial users. They also enable the use of local renewable energy sources and places less demand on gas as a heating source. District energy systems are an effective component of low-carbon neighbourhoods – especially when considered within a dense and diverse urban context. When combined with a supply of renewable energy, their use quickly becomes essential. The City of Vancouver establishes guidelines for district energy that establish five key areas for achieving a successful district energy project, these areas include:

Climate Protection
Air Quality
Neighbourhood Fit
Sustainability of Fuel Sources
Community Engagement

When implemented successfully, district energy systems have the potential to reduce infrastructure needs, emissions, and costs (Crowe 2012). An example of the successful implementation of a district energy system is at the LEED platinum neighbourhood development of Dockside Green in Victoria, BC. The energy system at Dockside Green is being phased out over the life of the neighbourhood as it grows. Currently, the system uses natural gas to heat water delivered at the district scale for residential, commercial, and industrial clients. As the size of the neighbourhood increases over time, the system will incorporate a wood gasification process in addition to a sewer waste heat recovery process (Dockside Green Energy LLP 2008). Renewable and district-scale energy systems are an important component that is worthy of consideration as we shift towards low-carbon neighbourhoods.

Figure 4: Southeast False Creek Neighbourhood Energy Untility, Source: AME Group

Waste Disposal, Recycle, and Reuse

Low-carbon neighbourhoods work to reduce their carbon footprint resulting from waste. This includes determining sustainable solutions to how the waste is disposed, how and if it is recycled, and in exemplary cases, how and if it can be captured and reused as an energy source. Covanta Burnaby is Metro Vancouver’s answer to providing energy-from-waste. The Covanta Burnaby project takes 25% of Metro Vancouver’s post-recycled waste and converts it to energy that is supplied back to local customers. The system is capable of processing 850 tons of waste per day and generating 170,000 MWh of electrical energy (Covanta Holding Corporation 2018). Not only is waste reuse contributing to renewable energy sources in the community, but it also reduces the amount of waste headed to local landfills.

Figure 5: Metro Vancouver’s Waste-to-Energy Facility in Burnaby, Source: Hiveminer.com

Positive Social and Cultural Impacts

Low-carbon neighbourhoods contribute to job creation, public health, social inclusion, and improved accessibility within their own communities as well as neighbouring communities. To effectively fit within a sustainability framework, low-carbon neighbourhoods must prioritize, in addition to the other five categories, the social and cultural implications of the development as a whole. According to Gouldson et. al., opportunity to increase the social and cultural benefits of neighbourhoods exists within the building, transportation, and waste management sectors. Research by Gouldson et. al. shows that the energy-efficient residential and commercial building sector is capable of increasing human health through improved air quality and improved productivity for occupants. Their research also shows that the energy-efficient transportation sector contributes to job creation, productivity, and an increase in overall human health. Further, the research shows that green waste management significantly contributes to increased human health and well-being through reduced pollution while also contributing to job growth and employment opportunity (Gouldson, et al. 2018).

Figure 6: Davie Street Community Garden in Vancouver BC, Source: Vancouver Community Garden (Wikipedia)

How We Get to Low-Caron Neighbourhoods

We get to low-carbon neighbourhoods by considering the many parts that make up a neighbourhood. We can take this a step further and include the component parts that make up the six characteristics described above. I believe that we get to low-carbon neighbourhoods by asking ourselves the seven questions identified at the beginning of this article. I also believe that if we can start to achieve low-carbon neighbourhoods that we are well on our way to achieving low-carbon cities.

Sources

BC Climate Action Toolkit. 2018. District Energy Systems. https://www.toolkit.bc.ca/tool/district-energy-systems.

C40 Cities. 2016. Good Practice Guide: Climate Positive Development. London; New York; Rio de Janeiro: C40 Cities: Climate Leadership Group.

C40 Cities: Climate Leadership Group. 2017. How sustainable neighbourhoods are the building blocks of green, climate-safe cities. 07 11. https://www.c40.org/blog_posts/sustainable-neighborhoods-july.

Canadian Architect. 2018. Green Building coalition pushes for performance-based building codes. 07 26. https://www.canadianarchitect.com/sustainability/green-building-coalition-pushes-for-performance-based-building-codes/1003743695/.

Centre for Sustainable Energy. 2018. Low-carbon neighbourhood planning: A guide to creating happier, healthier, greener communities. Bristol: Centre for Sustainable Energy.

Connolly, Joannah. 2018. Q&A: Is building low-carbon neighbourhoods sustainable? 09 28. Accessed 11 2018. https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/q-a-is-building-low-carbon-neighbourhoods-sustainable-1.23446235.

Covanta Holding Corporation. 2018. Covanta Burnaby. https://www.covanta.com/Our-Facilities/Covanta-Burnaby.

Crowe, Brian. 2012. Vancouver Neighbourhood Energy Strategy and Energy Centre Guidelines. Policy, Vancouver: City of Vancouver.

Dockside Green Energy LLP. 2008. Renewable Energy and a Zero Carbon Footprint. http://docksidegreenenergy.com/carbon_footprint.html.

Gouldson, Andy, Andrew Sudmant, Haneen Khreis, and Effie Papargyropoulou. 2018. The Economic and Social Benefits of Low-Carbon Cities: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Review, London and Washington: Coalition for Urban Transitions.

Government of British Columbia. 2018. How the BC Energy Step Code Works. https://energystepcode.ca/how-it-works/.

December 2, 2018

Walkable Cities: Policies and the Public

Over the last century, densification within cities has impacted the quality of our urban spaces. The surge in population density caused need for large roadways and more residences which ultimately reduced walkable urban spaces within cities (Tanan & Darmoyono, 2017). In recent years it has become apparent that walkable cities provide extensive environmental, health, and social benefits, therefore causing a re-emergence of the walkable city (Marquet & Miralles-Guasch, 2015). The walkable city is multi-faceted, it considers not only the practicality of implementation among urban structure of a city and it’s systems, but it also considers the social concerns of it’s users including comfort, safety, security and aesthetics (Tanan & Darmoyono, 2017). In the video below Jeff Speck speaks about his “general theory of walkability” and the four principles that support a walkable city.

Transitioning from a typical urban street plan to a walkable city can be challenging for cities with poor transportation and infrastructure systems. Social acceptance, political acceptance, and policy integration are additional factors that many cities must consider when redeveloping their urban spaces. When the city of Bogor in Indonesia decided to adapt their vehicle centered city into a space that encouraged walking, they worked to integrate the public’s opinions and ideas by hosting a design competition. The intention of the design competition was to encourage the public to share their ideas of how the existing spaces could be improved by integrating green transportation, green buildings and green open spaces. The central purpose of the designs was to improve the quality of the open space and strengthen the historical and local identity of the City. The design competition proved to be an extremely useful tool to increase public support of the proposed green and walkable city. The competition functioned as both a form of stakeholder engagement and boosted the support of the public and allowed the innovative ideas of the community to be integrated with the policy and regulation of pedestrian transportation systems. The inputs were used by decision makers to enhance the city’s planning guidelines to support a green city infrastructure (Tanan & Darmoyono, 2017).

Sources:

Marquet, O., & Miralles-Guasch, C. (2015). The walkable city and the importance of the proximity environments for Barcelona’s everyday mobility. Cities, 42, 258-266. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2014.10.012

Tanan, N., & Darmoyono, L. (2017). Achieving walkable city in indonesia: Policy and responsive design through public participation. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1903(1) doi:10.1063/1.5011598