Research Paper 2 RevG

7/31/2019 Research Paper 2 RevG

1/21

1

With reference to a specific example or examples, critically assess the potential

for energy reduction in the built urban environment

Patrick Arnell

Introduction

This paper examines the potential for energy reduction in the built environment. Energy

production and consumption are closely linked to issues of sustainable development and

anthropogenicclimatechange(IPCC,2007;Goldembergetal,1987;Nissing&Blottnitz,2010).

Cities by association are linked to these issues; globally, cities represent the worlds biggest

consumersofenergy(IEA,2008).In2008,citiesaccountedformorethan66%ofglobalenergy

demandandby2030demandispredictedtoincreaseto73%(IEA,2008).Over85%ofthe

energy consumedbycities isderived from fossil fuel sourcesand projectionsto2030donotshowsignificantreductions(IEA,2008).Assessingthepotentialforenergyreductioninthebuilt

environment is therefore considered relevant, as measurable reductions in the energy

consumptionofcitieswouldgenerallybeexpectedtoproducecorrespondingimprovementsin

environmentalperformance.

Thecityscalewastheunitofanalysischosenforthispaper.Neighbourhoodsandbuildingsalso

represent acceptable scales for assessing the built environment (Williams & Dair, 2007).

However,theformofacityisconsideredtobeoneofthemajordeterminantsofhowenergyis

utilized(Steemers,2003;EPA,2001;Kenworthy&Laube,1999;Owens,1992),andthereforethe

city scale was considered most appropriate an assessment of energy reduction in the built

environment.

Toassess the potential for energy reduction at the city scale, a single planning strategywas

evaluated. Prior to focusing on this strategy, a review of alternative reduction schemes

(IPCC,2007)wasconducted.However,assessmentofasingleplanningstrategywaschosenas

planninghasbeenshowntobe asignificantdeterminantofurban formand thereforeenergy

consumption(Owens,1992).Inaddition,recenttrendsinNorthAmericaandEuropeindicate

planning movements based on sustainability principles are becoming more prevalent

(Williams&Dair,2007).Itisthereforeconsideredrelevanttoassesshowasustainableplanning

strategymayeffectacitysconsumptionofenergy.

The planningstrategyevaluated inthis paperisSmartGrowth (Smart Growth,2010). Smart

Growthisviewedasastrategyforreducingenergydemand(CityMayors,2010),andhasbeen

adopted by cities in both the US (EPA, 2010) and Canada (Smart Growth Canada, 2010).

Principles of Smart Growth include: increasing housing choices, creating walkable

neighbourhoods, mixing land-uses, increasing transportation choices, redeveloping existingcommunitiesandusingcompactbuildingdesign(SmartGrowth,2010).


2/21

2

Toexamineinmoredetailthepotentialforenergyreductionatthecityscale,theCityofCalgary

wasselectedascasestudy.TheCityofCalgarywasselectedforthreereasons.Thefirstisthat

66%ofCalgarysecologicalfootprintisattributedtoenergyconsumptionand70%isconsidered

tobestronglyinfluencedbyCalgarysurbanform(CityofCalgary,2008).ThismakesCalgarya

goodcandidateforassessingtheeffectsofSmartGrowthonenergyusage.Thesecondisthatthe

Cityhasrecentlyintegrateditsplanningpoliciesforcommunitydevelopmentandtransportation

underasingleintegratedstrategywhichusesSmartGrowthprinciples(CityofCalgary,2007).

ThismakesanevaluationofthepotentialforenergyreductionusingSmartGrowthrelevant,as

theCitywillbeincorporatingtheseprinciplesintofutureplanningdecisions.Thethirdfactorfor

consideringCalgaryasacasestudyisproxydata(greenhousegasemissions,populationdensity

and transportation patterns) which provide converging lines of evidence suggesting that

characteristics of Calgarys urban form are similar to other North American cities. An

assessment into the potential for Smart Growth to reduce energy consumption in Calgary is

thereforeconsideredrelevantforothercitiesconsideringtheadoptionofSmartGrowth.

TocriticallyassessthepotentialforSmartGrowthtoinfluenceenergyreductionatthecityscale,

six neighbourhoods within the City of Calgary were evaluated to determine which one best

representedSmartGrowthprinciples.Eachprofileincludedanenergyaudit(NRC,2009)and

thereforepermittedanevaluationofthepotentialforenergyreductionbasedonurbanform.

TheenergyprofileoftheneighbourhoodbestrepresentingSmartGrowthwasthenextrapolated

acrosstheentirecity.Thedifferencebetweentheactualcalculatedenergybudgetforthecity

and the energy budget calculated from the extrapolated energy profile of the selected

neighbourhoodwasthencalculated.Usingthismethodology,thecalculatedenergysavingsforthecitywere62%(+/-2%)andthisresultisinterpretedtorepresentthepotentialforSmart

GrowthprinciplestoreducetheenergyconsumptionoftheCityofCalgary.

Basedon the results outlinedabove, this paper contends that the adoptionofSmartGrowth

principles has the potential to substantially reduce energy use for the City of Calgary. By

implication,citieswithsimilarlanduseandtransportationprofilesmayalsohavethepotential

forreducingenergyconsumptionbyadoptingSmartGrowthprinciples. Toprovidecontextual

informationonhowtheCityofCalgarycompareswithothercitiesthreemetricswerereviewed.

Thesewere:percapitagreenhousegas(GHG)emissions,urbanpopulationdensityandmodesoftransportation.ThesemetricsprovideconverginglinesofevidenceindicatingCalgaryspatterns

ofenergyuseandurbanformaresimilartootherNorthAmericancities.

Themajorsectionsofthispaperareorganizedasfollows.Section1presentstheobjectivesand

methods used to assess the potential for Smart Growth to influence energy consumption.

Section 2 presents data on the three metrics used to compare Calgary to other cities and

concludes with the profiles of the six Calgary neighbourhoods assessed for Smart Growth

principles.Section3presentstheresultsoftheanalysisandSection4presentsasummaryofthe

majorfindings.


3/21

3

1. Objectives&Methods

The objective ofthis paperis tocritically assess the potential for SmartGrowth principles to

influence energy consumption at the city scale. To investigate this, the City of Calgarywas

chosenasacasestudy.Themethodsusedtoperformthecriticalanalysisarepresentedbelow.

Six neighbourhoods in Calgary were recently the subject of a study looking at energy

consumption patterns based on urban typology (NRC, 2009). Energy profiles for the six

communitieswere developed using The UrbanArchetypes Project Methodology (NRC, 2009;

method available at: www.canmetenergy.nrcan.gc.ca). The methodology allows for the

comparisonofenergybudgetsbetweenneighbourhoodsandaccountsforenergyutilizedbythe

dominanthousingtypesofaparticularneighbourhood.Includedineachprofileistheenergy

utilizedfor: spaceheating,hotwater, lighting and appliances. Energy consumedbypersonal

vehicleuseisalsoincludedineachprofile.Forthepurposesofthispaper,theaccountingoftheenergyexpendedfromtransportationandbuildingoccupancyisconsideredsuitablyrobustto

allowfortheprofilesdevelopedinthisstudytobeextrapolatedfortheentireCity.

Thesesixneighbourhoodprofileswerefirstassessedtodeterminewhichonebestrepresented

theprinciplesofSmartGrowth.Asimplemodelwasthenconstructedtoextrapolatewhateffect

theenergyconsumptionpatternsoftheselectedneighbourhoodwouldhaveifappliedacrossthe

entire City. To construct the model, the various housing typologies identified in the study

(NRC,2009)were firstmapped onto the types of housing stock tracked by the City (City of

Calgary,2010),withvehicleusageaveragedacrossallneighbourhoods.Acheckofthemodelwas then conducted by comparing the calculated GHG emissions (T CO2-eq/year), against

published and predicted GHG emissions for the City. The resulting error rate (difference

betweenobservedandcalculated)wasthenusedtoprovidetheconfidencelimitsforthemodel.

Energyusagedata,asmeasuredingigajoules(GJ)wasthenusedtoruntwosimulationsofthe

energy budget for thewholeof theCity of Calgary. The first run simulated the total energy

profileforthecityunderitspresentprofile.Thesecondrunconsideredwhattheenergybudget

for the city would look like if all neighbourhoods exhibited the same energy profile as the

neighbourhoodselectedtorepresentSmartGrowthprinciples.Thedifferencebetweenthese

twomodelrunswasconsideredtobethepotentialforSmartGrowthprinciplestoeffectenergy

usageatthecityscale.


4/21

4

2. Background

EnergyProductionandConsumption

By 2030 global energy demand from cities is predicted to account for 73% of all energy

consumed(IEA,2008).Ofthetotalamountofenergyconsumedgloballybycities,over85%is

derivedfromnon-renewablefossilfuelsources(IEA,2008).Assumingcoal,hydro,gas,nuclear

andhydroarepredominatelyusedinbuildings(heating,cooling,lightingandappliances)andoil

consumptionreflectsvehicleusage,thetwomajorsourcesofenergyconsumptionincitiesare

buildingsat64%andtransportationat32%(IEA,2008).Thisissignificantinthatcityformis

considered to have a important effect on the balance of the energy used by buildings and

transportsystems(Steemers,2003).Chart1showsglobalenergyconsumptionbyfuelstock.

PercentagesoftotalfuelstocksusedbycitiesarepresentedinTable1.

Chart1:ProjectedGlobalEnergyConsumptionversesWorldPopulation

Notes: 1. Mtoe: Million tonne oil equivalent

2. Source for population data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.

3. Source for energy consumption data: IEA, 2008.

01,000,000,0002,000,000,0003,000,000,0004,000,000,0005,000,000,0006,000,000,0007,000,000,0008,000,000,0009,000,000,000

0500

10001500200025003000350040004500

2006 2015 2030Coal Oil Gas Nuclear

Hydro Biomass & Waste Other renewables World Population

P

opulation

M

toe


5/21

5

Table1:PercentofTotalFuelStocksConsumedbyCities

2006 2015 2030Fuel Stock

Cities as % of World Cities as % of World Cities as % of World

Coal 76% 78% 81%

Oil 63% 63% 66%

Gas 82% 83% 87%Nuclear 76% 77% 81%

Hydro 75% 76% 79%

Biomass & Waste 24% 26% 31%

Other Renewables 72% 73% 75%

Total 67% 69% 73%

Source for percent of energy used by cities: EIA, 2008.

DataforcomparingcitiesonaktCO2-eq/capitabasishasrecentlybeenmadeavailablebythe

UNandWorldbank(Kennedyetal,2010).ThisGHGemissionsdatahasbeenusedasproxydata

tounderstandingeneraltermstherelationshipbetweencitiesintermsoftheiroverallenergy

budgets.Table2presentstherelativerankingofthetop25citiesinvolvedinthestudybasedon

ktCO2-eq/capita.

Table2:ComparisonofCitiesBasedonktCO2-eq/capita

Rank City Year

Total kt CO2-eq/capita (excluding

marine and aviation) Total kt CO2-eq/capita

1 Rotterdam 2005 29.8

2 Denver 2005 17.88 19.38

3 Washington DC 2000 19.3

4 Minneapolis 2005 18.34

5 Calgary 2003 17.7

6 Stuttgart 2005 16

7 Austin 2005 15.57

8 Frankfurt 2005 13.7

9 Seattle 2005 13.68

10 Los Angeles 2000 9.5 13

11 Portland 2005 12.41

12 Shanghai 2006 10.9 11.7

13 Toronto 2005 10.7 11.6

14 Cape Town 2006 7.8 11.615 Tianjin 1998 10.9 11.1

16 Bologna 2005 11.1

17 Bangkok 2005 8.8 10.7

18 New York City 2005 8 10.5

19 Athens 2005 10.4

20 Bijing 2006 9.6 10.1

21 Veneto 2005 10

22 Hamburg 2005 9.7

23 Torino 2005 9.7

24 London 2003 6.5 9.6

25 Ljubljana 2005 9.5Source: (Kennedy etal, 2010).


6/21

6

TounderstandCalgaryshighpercapitaGHGemissions,areviewofregionalpowergenerationis

required.TheCityofCalgaryobtainsitspowergeneratingstationslocatedwithintheProvince

of Alberta. Generating capacity in the province includes: 5,971 MWof electrical generating

capacity from coal fire plants, 5,149 MW of capacity from gas fired plants (Government of

Alberta,2010),652.95MWof installedwindpower(CANWEA,2010),and869MWofinstalled

hydro power (Bell &Weis, 2009). An overview of Albertas energy profile is presented in

Figure1.

Figure1:2007ElectricalEnergyBudgetfortheProvinceofAlberta

Source: (Bell & Weis, 2009)

The City of Calgary uses two accounting schemes in its assessment of energy usage (City of

Calgary,2006).ThefirstschemeaccountsforenergyconsumedfromCityofCalgaryCorporate

(CCCORP)operationsandincludes:municipalandpublicbuildings,publictransit,streetlights,

waterandseweroperationsandothermiscellaneoussources(CityofCalgary,2006).TheSecond

schemeaccountsforenergyconsumedbytheCityofCalgaryCommunity(CCCOM)andincludes

anaccountingofthefollowing:electricity(lightingandappliances),heating(spaceandwater)

andvehicleusage(CityofCalgary,2006).

In both accounting schemes, results are reported on the basis of green house gas (GHG)

emissions.AseparatesummaryoftheenergyfeedstocksconsumedbyCCCOMisalsoavailable;

however,onlyaggregatedGHGdataispresentedforCCCORP.Thisaggregationandreportingof

energyuseintermsofGHGemissionsforCCCORPpreventsmeaningfulcomparisonofthetotal

energy utilized under the two systems. However, in a comparison of CCCORP emissions to

CCCOMemissions,CCCORPemissionsaccountforonlyabout3%oftheoverallenergybudgetfor

thecityandarenotthereforeconsideredasignificantportionoftheCitiesoverallenergybudget.

AsummaryoftheenergyfeedstocksusedbyCCCOMarepresentedinTable3.


7/21

7

Table3:CCCOM2003EnergyConsumption

Coal & Gas Fired Electricity 7,869,085,000 kWh

Green electricity 59,215,000 kWh

Natural gas 77,000,000 GJ

Gasoline 1,372,929,000 litresDiesel 415,132,000 litres

Propane 196,272,503 litres

Natural gas (vehicles) 319,323 litres

Source: (City of Calgary, 2006)

Chart2presentsacomparisonofCCCOMGHGemissionsversespopulationgrowth.Projected

populationdatahasbeenaddedandfutureGHGemissionshavebeenextrapolatedforabusiness

asusual(BAU)scenariobasedonprojectedpopulationincreases.

Chart2:CityofCalgaryPopulationGrowthversesGHGEmissions

Notes: 1. GHG emissions Source: (City of Calgary, 2006a)

3. Future years of CO2-eq emissions calculated from projected population growth

AnitemizedcomparisonofGHGemissionsforCCCOMandCCCORParepresentedinCharts3and

4respectively.

0200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

198

3

198

5

198

7

198

9

199

1

199

3

199

5

199

7

199

9

200

1

200

3

200

5

200

7

200

9

201

1

201

3

201

5

201

7

201

9

202

1

202

3

202

5

Population kt CO2-eq

BUA Forecast

ktCO2-eq

Population


8/21

8

Chart3CCCOMGHGEmissionsprojected2010usingBUAForecast.

Notes: 1.FutureyearsofCO2-eqemissionscalculatedfromprojectedpopulationgrowth 2.Decreasein2004attributedtomildwintertemperatures 3.Sourceofemissionsdata:CityofCalgary2006StateoftheEnvironmentreport 4.Sourceofpopulationdata:CityofCalgary2010Census.

Chart4CCCORPGHGEmissions

Notes: 1.SourceGHGEmissions:CityofCalgary2008StateoftheEnvironmentreport. 2.Sourceofpopulationdata:CityofCalgary2010Census.

Charts3and4showthatwhiletheCityhasbeensuccessfulinreducingCCCORPGHGemissions,

itsinitiativestoreduceCCCCOMemissionshavenottodatemetwithsimilarsuccess.Withthe

exception of a slight dip in CCCOM GHG emissions for 2004, which was attributed to an

unseasonablywarmwinter,emissionsbetween1990and2005increased29%(CityofCalgary,

2006a).Theseresultsindicatethattherehasbeennosignificantpercapitareductioninenergy

consumptionbytheCityofCalgarycommunity.

020000040000060000080000010000001200000

02,0004,0006,0008,00010,000

12,00014,00016,00018,00020,000

19901997200020032004200520062007200820092010Waste Vehicles Natural gas Electricity Population

BUA ForecastCO2-eq

Pop

ulation

0200,000400,000600,000

800,0001,000,0001,200,000

0100200300

400500600

1990 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Other Water treatment facilitiesStreet and traffic lights City fleetCity buildings Population

CO2-eq

Popu

lation


9/21

9

PopulationDensity

ToexamineCalgaryspopulationdensityinrelationtootherUSandCanadiancitiesandevaluate

thepotentialeffectofdensityonpercapitaGHGemissions,datafromtheCityMayorswebsite

(2010)andKennedyetal (2010)wasused.TheaveragedensityofallUSandCanadiancities

withpopulationsover750,000was1,270people/km2(CityMayors,2010a).Incomparison,thedensityofCalgary(1250people/km2)isveryclosetotheaverage.Chart5presentspopulation

density verses GHGemission and two things are relevant to note. The first is a discernable

relationshipbetweenpopulationdensityandpercapitaCO2-eqemissions.Thesecondisthatthe

citiesclosesttoCalgaryonChart6areallUScities.Thisisinterpretedasanindicationthatthe

CityofCalgarysharesadensity/energyprofilecomparabletoseveralUScities.

Chart5:PopulationDensityversesGHGEmissions

Notes: 1. City of Calgary highlighted in red.2. Source for per capita CO2-eq data: Kennedy etal, 2010.

3. Source for population density: City Mayors, 2010.

DenverWashington DC

MinneapolisCalgary

Seattle

Shanghai

TianjinBejing

Seoul

R=0.33894

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

kt CO2-eq/capita

people/km2


10/21

10

Transportation

Asnotedabove transportationrepresents amajorsource of energy usagebycities. Chart6,

belowpresentsthemodalsplitoftransportationtypesgroupedbyregion.

Chart6:ModalTransportationSplitofSelectCitiesGroupedbyRegion

Source: IPCC, 2007 p. 387

Within the City of Calgary dominant modes of transportation for 2010 included: motorized

vehicles(78%ofdailytrips),publictransit(15%),andwalking/cycling(7%)(CityofCalgary,

2010a).Chart7graphicallysummarizestherelationshipbetweenvehicleownershipinCalgary

versesotherCanadiancitiesandtheUnitedStates.Thedatapresentedhereareinterpretedto

indicate that the City of Calgary exhibits transportation patterns similar to other US and

Canadiancities.

0 20 40 60 80 100%

U.S.A.

Australia/New Zealand

Canada

Western Europe

High Income Asia

Eastern Europe

Middle East

Latin America

Africa

Low Income Asia

China

non motorised motorised public motorised private


11/21

11

Chart7:Registeredvehiclesper1,000People

Source: City of Calgary, Feburary 2008. Mobility Monitor.

NeighbourhoodProfiles

ToassessthepotentialforenergyreductionintheCityofCalgaryusingSmartGrowthprinciples,

the profiles of six neighbourhoods were assessed. The neighbourhoods assessed were:

Britannia, Citadel,Rundel, Lake Bonavista,Mission and Tuscany. Dataused to construct the

profilesforeachofthesixneighbourhoodswastakenfrom2010censusdata(CityofCalgary,

2010)andanenergyprofilingstudyconductedbyNaturalResourcesCanada(NRC,2009).

Housing Stock in Calgary is categorized into one of five types (City of Calgary 2010 p. 120).

These are: single detached family dwellings (SF), semi-detached duplexes (DUP), apartments

(APT),rowortownhouses(TWN),andconvertedstructures(CNV),(typicallyhomeswhichhavebeensuited).ThepercentofeachhousingtypeintheCityofCalgaryfor2010was:SF59%,DUP

7%,APT21%,TWN10%andCNV3%.

Toassesseachofthe sixneighbourhoodsagainstSmartGrowthprinciplesaseries ofmetrics

were reviewed. These were adopted from the NRC study (NRC, 2010) and a summary is

presentedinTable3.Figure3presentsamapofCalgarywiththerelativelocationofeachofthe

sixneighbourhoodsshown.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

Re

gisteredvehiclesper1,0

00peo

ple

Montreal

Winnipeg

Calgary

Ottawa

United States


12/21

12

Table3:MetricsUsedtoAssessNeighbourhoodsAgainstSmartGrowthPrinciples Britannia Citadel L. Bonavista Mission Rundle Tuscany

Vehicle km

traveled

40,000km/yr 42,300km/yr 45,600km/yr 16,200km/yr 36,200km/yr 36,500km/yrResident

Lifestyle

Average #

vehicles per

household

2.3 2.1 2.4 0.9 2.6 -

Density (units per

hectare)

6.43 14.87 7.02 55.5 11.61 14.9

Percent of single

detached homes

79% 93% 98% 4% 68% 91%

Land-use mix* 0.28 0.00 0.20 4.00 2.00 1.10

Neighbourhood

Design

Total road length 6.3 5.3 5.3 0.9 4.4 3.9

Location Distance to city

core

4.1km 13.2km 12.2km 1.6 7.2km 16.0km

Notes: 1. Source: NRC, 2009 p.10

2. *Land-use mix includes number of retail/commercial units, retail/commercial buildings, institutions and

municipal buildings. The higher the score, the more mixed the land use in the neighbourhood.

Figure3.CityofCalgaryShowingApproximateLocationsoftheSixNeighbourhoodsAssessed.

Sources: 1. Map from City of Calgary, 2010 Snapshots.

2. Neighbourhood Locations adapted from Natural Resources Canada, 2010.

Legend

Community Structure

CENTRE CITY

INNER CITY

1950s

1960s/1970s

1980s/1990s

2000s

BUILDING OUT

EMPLOYMENT

PARKS

UNDEVELOPED

OTHER

Transportation Utility Corridor

Lake Bonavista

Britannia

Mission

Rundle

Citadel

Tuscany


13/21

13

3. Results

To critically assess the effect that the principles of Smart Growth could have on the energy

budgetfortheCityofCalgary,publisheddatacharacterizingtheenergyprofilesofsixCalgaryneighbourhoodswasused.ThedatawascollectedbyNaturalResourcesCanadausingtheUrban

ArchetypesProjectMethodology(NRC,2009).Themethodinvolvesthedevelopmentofenergy

profiles for the major housing typologies representative of each of the neighbourhoods and

accountsfortheenergyexpendedwithinbuildings(spaceheating,hotwaterandenergyusedfor

lightingandoperationofappliances)aswellenergyusedforpersonaltransportation(Natural

ResourcesCanada,2009).Thesixneighbourhoodsassessedinthestudywere:Britannia,Citadel,

LakeBonavista,Rundel,MissionandTuscany(Figure2).

Based on the data reviewed in Table 4, the neighbourhood of Mission was selected as best

representingtheprinciplesofSmartGrowth.TheprinciplesofSmartGrowthconsideredinthis

assessment included:housingchoice,walkableneighbourhood,mixed land-use,transportation

choices,redevelopmentofexistingcommunitiesandcompactbuildingdesign.Therationalefor

choosingMissionwas basedonthe number of theseSmartGrowth principles reflected in its

urbanform(Table4)versestheotherneighbourhoodsassessed.Asummaryofthisassessment

ispresentedinTable5below.

Table5: Summary of Assessment Criteria used to Select Neighbourhood Best RepresentingSmartGrowth

Housing Choices Percent of

single family

homes

Walkable

Neighbourhoods

Total road

length and

vehicle km

traveled

Mixed Land-use Land-use mix

Increasing

transportation

choices

Average

vehicles per

household

Redeveloping existing

communities

Distance to city

core

Compact Building

Design

Density

Note: * See Table 3 for details.


14/21

14

ToestimatethepotentialenergysavingsfortheCityofCalgaryadoptinganeighborhoodprofile

similartoMissions,asimplemodelwasdevelopedbasedonhousingtypographiesandaverage

vehicleusage.Housingtypographiesidentifiedintheenergyauditstudy(NRC,2009)werefirst

mappedontothehousingtypographiestrackedbythecity(CityofCalgary,2010).Theresultsof

thismappingexercisearepresentedinTable6.

Table6:HousingTypesfromNRCStudyMappedontoCityofCalgaryHousingTypesCity of Calgary Housing TypesNeighbourhood Natural Resources Canada

Housing Types Single

Family (SF)

Duplex

(DUP)

Apartment

(APT)

Townhouse

(TWN)

Converted

Unit (CNV)

A. Single detached one storey B. Single detached two storey

Britannia

C. Single detached two storey

A. Single detached two storey

Citadel

B. Single detached two storey A. Single detached one storey B. Single detached two storey

L. Bonavista

C. Single detached two storey A. Apartment four storey B. Apartment six storey

Mission

C. Single detached two storey A. Single detached one storey B. Single detached one storey

Rundle

C. Row house two storey Tuscany A. Single detached two storey

Next,themodelwascheckedforaccuracybytestingitagainsttwodatapoints.Greenhousegasemissions for eachof theNRChousing typesweremapped onto the City of Calgary housing

types. Valueswere averagedbyhousing type and thesevalueswere thenmultipliedby total

dwellingcountsbasedonCitycensusdata.Vehicleemissionsforeachoftheneighbourhoods

wasalsoaveragedandthisvaluewasmultipliedbythetotalnumberofcitizens.Finallythese

twovalueswerethensummedandcomparedtoGHGemissiondata.Table7presentshowGHG

emissionsweremappedacrosshousingtypesandTables8aand8bpresentthe resultsofthe

GHGemissionscalculatedbytheModelagainst2003reportedCCCOMGHGemissionsand2010

projectedGHGemissions.


15/21

15

Table7:GHGEmissions(TCO2-eq/yr)byHousingType+VehicleEmissions(TCO2-eq/yr)City of Calgary Housing TypesNeighbourhood Natural Resources Canada

Housing Types (SF) (DUP) (APT) (TWN) (CNV) Vehicle

A. Single detached one storey 15.5

B. Single detached two storey 17.2

Britannia

C. Single detached two storey 15.9

13.7

A. Single detached two storey 12.4Citadel


13.8

A. Single detached one storey 14


L. Bonavista


15.1

A. Apartment four storey 7.1

B. Apartment six storey 11.9

Mission


5

A. Single detached one storey 10.6

B. Single detached one storey 12.3

Rundle

C. Row house two storey 11 11 11

11.9

Tuscany A. Single detached two storey 11.2 11.3

Notes: 1. Vehicle column added. Values represent average T CO2-eq for transport by neighbourhood.

Table8a:2003ReportedGHGEmissionsversesGHGEmissionsCalculatedbyModel

2003 Total T CO2-eq/year Total kt CO2-eq/year

Population 922,315 11.8 10883

Housing Units* 371,756 12.2 4535

Total Calc. GHG Emissions 15418Total Reported CCCOM GHG Emissions 15748

Difference 329

Percent Difference -2%

Notes: 1. Housing Units by type not available for 2003. Average T CO2-eq/yr for all housing types used.

2. Source 2003 census data: City of Calgary, 2010.

3. Source total CCCOM GHG Emissions: City of Calgary 2006a.

Table8b:2010EstimatedCCCOMGHGEmissionsversesGHGEmissionsCalculatedbyModel

2010 Total SF DUP APT TWN CNV Vehicle Total kt CO2-eq/year

Housing units 440,856 257,854 28,507 93,730 45,543 15,222

Population 1,050,415

T CO2-eq/yr 14.4 11 9.5 11 11 11.8

Total kt CO2-eq/yr 3707 314 890 501 167 12395*

Total Calc. GHG Emissions 17974

Total Est. CCCOM GHG Emissions 18146

Difference 172

Percent Difference -1%

Notes: 1. * Value in this cell equals average Vehicle T CO2-eq/yr multiplied by total population.

2. Source 2010 census data: City of Calgary, 2010.

3. Total estimated CCCOM GHG Emissions based on population data.


16/21

16

The results of these two data checks of themodel showed good agreementwith actual and

estimatedCCCOMGHGemissions.For2003thepercentdifferencebetweenthemodelandthe

reported CCCOM GHG emissions was 2%. A similar comparison to 2010 census data and

projectedGHGemissionsshowedthemodelunderestimatedGHGemissionby1%.Additional

testingwouldberequiredtoconfirmtherobustnessofthemodelbutbasedondatachecksat

tworeferencepoints(2003and2010)themodelestimatedGHGemissionswithinamaximumof

2%ofobservedGHGemissions.

GiventhemodelsaccuracyincalculatingGHGgasemissions,themodelwasrerunusingenergy

values(GJ).Table9presentshowtotalenergyvaluesweremappedontoHousingTypes.Table

10apresentsthecalculatedenergybudgetfortheCitybasedonaveragevaluesforhousingtype

an vehicle usage. Table 10b presents the calculated energy budget for the City assuming all

neighbourhoodsinCalgaryexhibitthesameenergyprofileasMission.

Table9:EnergyBudget(GJ)byHousingTypeCity of Calgary Housing TypesNeighbourhood Natural Resources Canada

Housing Types (SF) (DUP) (APT) (TWN) (CNV) Vehicle


B. Single detached two storey 279

Britannia

C. Single detached two storey 254

197

A. Single detached two storey 186Citadel


199



L. Bonavista


218

A. Apartment four storey 33

B. Apartment six storey 67

Mission


72


B. Single detached one storey 163

Rundle

C. Row house two storey 164 164 164

172

Tuscany A. Single detached two storey 163 163

Table10a:2010CalculatedEnergyBudgetforCityofCalgary(GJ)

2010 Total SF DUP APT TWN CNV Vehicle Total kt

CO2-eq/year

Housing

units

440,856 257,854 28,507 93,730 45,543 15,222

Population 1,050,415

GJyr 222 164 50 164 164 170

Total GJ/yr 57308052 4675148 4686500 7469052 2496408 178745619

Total Calc. Energy Budget for City of Calgary (GJ) 255380779

Notes: Table contains rounding errors for raw data set see Appendix B.


17/21

17

Table10b:2010CalculatedEnergyReductionApplyingSmartGrowthforCityofCalgary(GJ)

2010 Total SF DUP APT TWN CNV Vehicle Total kt

CO2-eq/year

Housing

units

440,856 257,854 28,507 93,730 45,543 15,222

Population 1,050,415GJyr 50 50 50 50 50 170

Total GJ/yr 12892700 1425350 4686500 2277150 761100 75629880

Total Calc. Energy Budget for City of Calgary (GJ) 97672680

Notes: Table contains rounding errors for raw data set see Appendix B.

Thedifferencebetweenthe totalenergybudget inTable10aandTable10bisconsideredthe

potentialforenergyreductioninCalgaryusingtheprinciplesofSmartGrowth.Basedonthese

results,totalenergyreductionsof157,708,099GJor62%(+/-2%)wereachievable.


18/21

18

4. Conclusions

Citiesgloballyarethelargestconsumersofenergyandthemajorityofthisenergyisderived

fromnon-renewablefossilfuels.Byextension,cityuseofenergyiscloselylinkedtoissuesof

sustainabledevelopmentandanthropogenicclimatechange.Strategiesforreducingtheenergy

consumptionofcitiesisthereforerelevantwhenconsideringpotentialsolutionsforimprovingtheenvironmentalperformanceofcities.

AnassessmentofhowtheprinciplesofSmartGrowthcouldinfluenceenergyconsumptionwas

completedusingtheCityofCalgaryasacaseStudy. TheCityofCalgarywaschosenbasedon

several factors including the contribution of its current urban form to the consumption of

energy,theCitysrecentadoptionofSmartGrowthprinciplesandconverginglinesofevidence

indicatingthatthecityexhibitscharacteristicstypicalofmanyUSandCanadiancities.

ToevaluatehowCalgarysbuiltenvironmentmightperformiforganizedaroundtheprinciplesofSmartGrowth, asimplemodelwasconstructed. Theusefulnessof themodelwascheckedby

comparing calculatedGHG emissions toobservedand predicted values. Themodelwas then

usedtocalculatetheenergybudgetfortheCityofCalgarygivenitspresenturbanformand

finally under the scenario that Calgarys urban formwas constructedusing the principles of

SmartGrowth.ThetotalcalculatedreductionfortheCityofCalgarysenergybudgetusingthis

methodwas62%(+/-2%).ThisresultisconsideredthepotentialforSmartGrowthtoreduce

energyconsumptionfortheCityofCalgary.


19/21

19

References

BELL,J.,WEIS,T.,2009.GreeningtheGrid-PoweringAlbertasFuturewithRenewableEnergy.

ThePembinaInstitute,DraytonValley,Alberta.

CANWEA(CanadianWindEnergyAssociation),2010.Website:

http://www.canwea.ca/farms/wind-farms_e.php.AccessedDecember272010.

CITYOFCALGARY,2006.CalgaryClimateChangeActionPlanTarget50.CityofCalgary,July

2006.

CITYOFCALGARY,2006a.2006StateoftheEnvironmentReport,ThirdEdition.CityofCalgary.

CITYOFCALGARY,2006a.2003CalgaryCommunityGreenhouseGasEmissionsInventory.Cityof

CalgaryJuly2006.

CITYOFCALGARY,2006b.ImagineCalgaryPlanforLongrangeurbansustainability.Cityof

Calgary.

CITYOFCALGARY,2008.MobilityMonitor.Issue#22,February2008.CityofCalgary.

CITYOFCALGARY,2007.PlanItCalgary,IntegratedLandUseandMobilityPlan.CityofCalgary.

CITYOFCALGARY,2008.TowardaPreferredFuture,UnderstandingCalgarysEcological

Footprint.CityofCalgary.

CITYOFCALGARY,2010.2010CivicCensusResults.ElectionandInformationServices,Cityof

Calgary,2010.

CITYOFCALGARY,2010a.CalgarySnapshots2010.CityofCalgary.

CITYMAYORS,2010.Website:http://www.citymayors.com/environment/smartgrowth_us.html.

AccessedJanuary1,2010.

CITYMAYORS,2010a.Website:http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-

125.html.AccessedDecember30,2010.

EPA(UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY),2001.OurBuiltandNatural

Environments,ATechnicalReviewoftheInteractionsbetweenLandUse,Transportation,andEnvironmentalQuality.WashingtonDC,January2001.


20/21

20

EPA(UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY),2010.Website:

http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/sg_network.htm.AccessedDecember18,2010.

GOLDEMBERGJ.,JOHANSSONB.,REDDYA.,WILLIAMSR.,1987.EnergyforaSustainableWorld.

WorldResourcesInstitute,NewDelhiIndia,September,1987.

GOVERNMENTOFALBERTA,2010.AlbertaEnergyIndustry,AnOverview2009.Alberta

Environment2010.

IEA(INTERNATIONALENERGYAGENCY),2008.WorldEnergyOutlook2008.International

EnergyAgency,ParisFrance.

IPCC,2007:SummaryforPolicymakers.In:ClimateChange2007:Mitigation.Contributionof

WorkingGroupIIItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimate

Change[B.Metz,O.R.Davidson,P.R.Bosch,R.Dave,L.A.Meyer(eds)],CambridgeUniversity

Press,Cambridge,UnitedKingdomandNewYork,NY,USA.

KENNEDYC.,RAMASWAMIA.,CARNEYS.,DHAKALS.,2010.GreenhouseGasEmissionsBaselines

forGlobalCitiesandMetropolitanRegions.Reportavailableat:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-

1256566800920/6505269-1268260567624/KennedyComm.pdf.AccessedDecember28,2010.

KENWORTHY,J.R.&LAUBE,F.B.,1999.Automobiledependenceincities:Aninternational

comparisonofurbantransportandlandusepatternswithimplicationsforsustainability.

EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview,16,279-308.

NRC(NATURALRESOURCESCANADA),2009.TheUrbanArchetypesProject,CommunityCase

Study:TheCityofCalgary.NaturalResourcesCanada.

NISSING,C.&VONBLOTTNITZ,H.2010.Renewableenergyforsustainableurbandevelopment:

Redefiningtheconceptofenergisation.EnergyPolicy,38,2179-2187.

OWENS,S.1992.Land-UsePlanningforEnergyEfficiency.AppliedEnergy,43(1992)81-114.

STATISTICSCANADA,2010.Website:http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-

eng.htm.AccessedDecember27,2010.

STEEMERS,K.2003.Energyandthecity:density,buildingsandtransport.EnergyandBuildings,

35,3-14.


21/21

SUSTAINABLECITIES,2010.Website:http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-

projects/cases/copenhagen-cities-can-run-on-wind-energy.AccessedDecember20,2010.

SMARTGROWTH,2010.Website:http://www.smartgrowth.org/default.asp.Accessed

December28,2010.

SMARTGROWTHCANADA,2010.Website:http://www.smartgrowth.ca/partner_e.html.

AccessedDecember20,2010.

U.S.CENSUSBUREAU,2010.InternationalDataBase(IDB).Website:

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.php.AccessedDecember26,2010.

WILLIAMS,K.&DAIR,C.2007.Aframeworkofsustainablebehavioursthatcanbeenabled

throughthedesignofneighbourhood-scaledevelopments.SustainableDevelopment,15,160-

173.

WILSON,J.,ANIELSKI,M.,2005.EcologicalFootprintsofCanadianMunicipalitiesandRegions.

PreparedfortheCanadianFederationofCanadianMunicipalities.Edmonton,Alberta,January

2005.

WORLDBANK,2010.CitiesandClimateChange:AnUrgentAgenda.WashingtonDC.

WORLDRESOURCESINSTITUTE,2010.Website:http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=6.AccessedDecember30,2010.

Research Paper 2 RevG

Documents

Transcript of Research Paper 2 RevG