Urban Retrofitting for Sustainability

As concerns over climate change and resource constraints grow, many cities across the world
are trying to achieve a low-carbon transition. Although new zero-carbon buildings are an
important part of the story, in existing cities the transformation of the current building stock
and urban infrastructure must inevitably form the main focus for transitioning to a low-
carbon and sustainable future by 2050. Urban Retrofitting for Sustainability brings together
interdisciplinary research contributions from leading international experts to focus
on key issues such as systems innovation, financing tools, governance, energy and water
management. The chapters not only consider the knowledge and technical tools available,
but also look forward to how they can be implemented in real cities by 2050.

Tim Dixon holds a professorial chair in Sustainable Futures in the Built Environment in
the School of Construction Management and Engineering at the University of Reading,
UK. He is currently leading the Urban Foresight work package in the Engineering and
Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) Retrofit 2050 consortium, and has recently
completed funded research work on low-carbon cities for the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors (RICS) and on social sustainability for the EIB and Berkeley Group. His research
interests cover (i) the property industry and its interface with the sustainability agenda;
and (ii) futures work, focusing on socio-technical impacts at a range of scales. He is a
member of the RICS Sustainability Taskforce.

Malcolm Eames holds a professorial chair in Low Carbon Research with the Low Carbon
Research Institute at the Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University, UK, and is the
Principal Investigator for the EPSRC Retrofit 2050 project. With an academic background
in science & technology policy and innovation studies, his current research interests focus
on the interface between: S&T foresight; low-carbon innovation; socio-technological
transitions; and urban sustainability. He previously led the EPSRC’s Citizen Science for
Sustainability (SuScit) project and was formerly Director of the Brunel Research in Enter-
prise, Innovation, Sustainability and Ethics (BRESE) Research Centre at Brunel University.

Miriam Hunt is a research assistant at the Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University,
UK. She is currently working on the EPSRC Retrofit 2050 project, where she is involved
in case study work exploring sustainability transitions in the Cardiff and Manchester city-
regions; a foresight process designed to explore transitions in UK city-regions in the period
2020-2050; and disseminating the wider project work.

Simon Lannon is a research fellow at the Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University,
UK, where he has developed models and tools based on building physics principles to
be used at all scales of the built environment, from individual buildings to regional
energy and emissions models. The main focus of his research has been the development
of software to model the energy use and emissions for large urban areas using Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) and other applications. This software underpins the Energy
and Environmental Prediction (EEP) model, a computer-based modelling framework that
quantifies energy use and associated emissions for cities to help plan to reduce carbon
dioxide (CO2) and other emissions.
This page intentionally left blank
Urban Retrofitting for
Sustainability

Mapping the transition to 2050

Edited by
Tim Dixon, Malcolm Eames,
Miriam Hunt and Simon Lannon
First published 2014
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2014 selection and editorial material, Tim Dixon, Malcolm Eames,
Miriam Hunt and Simon Lannon; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Tim Dixon, Malcolm Eames, Miriam Hunt and Simon Lannon
to be identified as authors of the editorial material, and of the individual
authors as authors of their contributions, has been asserted in accordance
with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification
and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Urban retrofitting for sustainability: mapping the transition to 2050/
edited by Tim Dixon, Malcolm Eames, Simon Lannon, and Miriam Hunt.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Municipal engineering. 2. Sustainable development. 3. Cities and
towns – Energy consumption. I. Dixon, Timothy J., 1958–, editor of
compilation. II. Eames, Malcolm. III. Lannon, Simon.
IV. Hunt, Miriam.
TD160.U73 2014
628.028⬘6 – dc23
2013027540

ISBN13: 978-0-415-64251-4 (hbk)

ISBN13: 978-1-315-85018-4 (ebk)

Typeset in Sabon and Helvetica Neue by

Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon, UK
Contents

List of illustrations vii

Notes on contributors x
Foreword xv
Acknowledgements xvii

1 Introduction 1
Tim Dixon, Malcolm Eames and Simon Lannon

PART I
Setting the scene for urban retrofit 17

2 Sustainable urban development to 2050: complex

transitions in the built environment of cities 19
Tim Dixon and Malcolm Eames

3 Exploring the use of systems dynamics in sustainable

urban retrofit planning 49
Yangang Xing, Simon Lannon and Malcolm Eames

4 The economics and financing of city-scale retrofits 71

Andy Gouldson, Niall Kerr, Corrado Topi,
Ellie Dawkins, Johan Kuylenstierna, Phil Webber
and Rory Sullivan

5 Urban governance, planning and retrofit 87

Kate Theobald and Keith Shaw

6 Locating urban retrofitting across three BRICS cities:

exploring the retrofit landscapes of São Paulo, Mumbai
and Cape Town 99
Jonathan Silver

7 Urban design and the retrofit agenda 115

Georgia Butina Watson
vi CONTENTS

PART II
Energy and urban retrofit 141

8 Energy poverty and the future of urban retrofit 143

Duncan McLaren

9 The smart grid and the interface between energy, ICT and the city:
retrofitting and integrating urban infrastructures 159
Andrés Luque

10 Solar energy in urban retrofit 175

Stuart J. C. Irvine

11 Pathways to decarbonising urban systems 191

Matthew Leach, Sandip Deshmukh and Damiete Ogunkunle

PART III
Water, waste and urban retrofit 209

12 Retrofitting sustainable integrated water management 211

David Butler, Sarah Bell and Sarah Ward

13 Retrofitting sustainable integrated water management at household,

building and urban scales 221
Sarah Bell, Sarah Ward and David Butler

14 Re-engineering the city for sustainable solid waste resource

management 233
Geoff Watson and William Powrie

PART IV
Emerging themes in urban retrofit 253

15 Conclusions: financing, managing and visioning the urban

retrofit transition to 2050 255
Malcolm Eames, Tim Dixon, Miriam Hunt and Simon Lannon

Index 281
Illustrations
Figures
1.1 EPSRC Retrofit 2050 programme of research 9
1.2 Overview of the Urban Foresight Laboratory methodology and
research design 10
2.1 Institutional dimensions of sustainable urban development 23
2.2 Knowledge mapping in the built environment 24
2.3 Variations in temporal scale 24
2.4 System integration is key to achieving energy efficiency in
buildings 27
2.5 Urban infrastructure and usage expenditure 27
2.6 Conceptual illustration of stage model in relation to major
urban environmental problems 29
2.7 Multilevel perspectives on transitions 30
2.8 Hammarby Sjostad, Stockholm, Sweden 33
2.9 Curitiba, Brazil 34
3.1 A schematic view of the SdSAP model 54
3.2 The case study house 55
3.3 The simulation view of the SdSAP model 55
3.4 Impacts of weather uncertainty on space heating costs 57
3.5 Impacts of heating set points on space heating energy costs 57
3.6 Impacts of reducing heating areas on space heating energy costs 58
3.7 Photos of buildings through the ages 60–62
3.8 Overall carbon emissions reductions for all scenarios 63
3.9 Neath Port Talbot housing stock mode 64
3.10 Some initial simulation results (total energy uses and job
opportunities 65
3.11 A generic participatory group modelling process 66
3.12 A whole picture of the Future Resilient One Planet (FREE)
city model 66
3.13 The whole picture Future Resilient One Planet (FREE) city
model in Vensim 66
7.1 Aerial view of Boston during the 1990s 122
7.2 A plan for the restructuring of the Downtown Artery in Boston 124
7.3 Open space proposal 125
7.4 North End urban park – a proposal 128
7.5 North End park 128
7.6 Reconnected historic streets in Boston 129
viii ILLUSTRATIONS

7.7 Urban park in the Financial District, Boston 129

7.8 Open space in Chinatown, Boston 130
7.9 Open space in Chinatown, Boston 130
7.10 Open space strategy for EC1, London 132
7.11 Improved open space in the Spa Fields area 132
7.12 Spa Fields area before the open space improvement 134
7.13 Spa Fields area after the improvement 134
7.14 Old Street, Islington, before the improvement 135
7.15 Old Street, Islington, after the improvement 135
7.16 Images of Spa Fields before and after the area improvement 136
7.17 Old Street before and after the area improvement 136
10.1 Installed PV by region from 2000 to 2011 in MWp per year
showing dominance of the European market but rapid
growth in America, China and APAC regions 177
10.2 Global PV installations over the period 2000 to 2010
compared with predicted growth in 2000 178
10.3 Retail module prices in USA and Europe over the period
2002 to 2012 179
10.4 Schematic of the thin film structure for a CdTe solar cell
based on the ‘superstrates’ approach 181
10.5 Picture of OpTIC PV wall that is an 80 kWp rated thin film
CIS array that also serves to provide a rain screen for the
service access to the technology centre 188
11.1 UK electricity generation shares by type – 2012 193
11.2 Total UK waste management by method 197
11.3 Electricity generation mix in thousand flowers 203
11.4 Technology share for heating demand 204
12.1 ‘Present day’ (2010) urban retrofit interventions to water
challenges 215
12.2 Additional ‘future’ (2050) retrofit interventions to water
challenges 216
12.3 Future UK Water supply–demand balance (2050)
(illustrative only) 217
13.1 External view and cross section of the ‘gutter’ storage RWH
system from Australia 227
13.2 Components of the innovative ‘plastic bag’ RWH system
from Korea 227
14.1 Variation in UK household waste composition 1892–2002 234
14.2 UK waste arisings by sector 235
14.3 Post-war UK MSW arisings 236
14.4 English per capita household waste generation and GDP 236
14.5 Projections of British MSW generation to 2050 237
14.6 Projections of British C&D waste generation 238
14.7 The waste hierarchy 239
14.8 Graph showing per capita mass of MSW treated by different
routes in the 27 EU countries in 2008 239
15.1 Locating the Retrofit 2050 visions 269
15.2 The Smart-Networked City vision 270
 ILLUSTRATIONS ix

15.3 The Smart-Networked City vision 270

15.4 The Compact City vision 271
15.5 The Compact City vision 271
15.6 The Self-Reliant Green City vision 272
15.7 The Self-Reliant Green City vision 272

Tables
2.1 Four categories of cities with different attributes and prospects 35
2.2 Synergy in urban policy 38
2.3 High-level opportunities in the built environment, UK and global
markets 39
3.1 Residential Buildings Stock Profile of the Neath Port Talbot 62
3.2 Scenarios in carbon reductions from Neath Port Talbot housing
stock retrofits 64
9.1 Smart grid contributions to energy optimisation and carbon
reduction 164
14.1 UK annual waste production (megatonnes) 235
15.1 Examples of low-carbon partnerships in UK cities 262
15.2 Examples of low-carbon funding mechanisms for UK cities 262
15.3 Key ‘multi-scale’ energy, water and waste urban retrofit
technologies to 2050 267
15.4 Key characteristics and indicators of the Retrofit 2050 visions 274
Contributors

Editors
Tim Dixon holds a professorial chair in Sustainable Futures in the Built
Environment in the School of Construction Management and Engineering at the
University of Reading. He is currently leading the Urban Foresight work package
in the EPSRC Retrofit 2050 consortium, and has recently completed funded
research work on low-carbon cities for the RICS and on social sustainability for
the EIB and Berkeley Group. His research interests cover (a) the property industry
and its interface with the sustainability agenda; and (b) futures work, focusing
on socio-technical impacts at a range of scales. He is a member of the RISC
Sustainability Taskforce.

Malcolm Eames holds a professorial chair in Low Carbon Research, with the Low
Carbon Research Institute at the Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University,
and is the Principal Investigator for the EPSRC Retrofit 2050 project. With an
academic background in science and technology policy and innovation studies,
his current research interests focus on the interface between S&T foresight, low-
carbon innovation, socio-technological transitions and urban sustainability. He
previously led the EPSRC’s Citizens Science for Sustainability (SuScit) project and
was formerly Director of the BRESE (Brunel Research in Enterprise, Innovation,
Sustainability and Ethics) Research Centre at Brunel University.

Miriam Hunt is a research assistant at the Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff

University. She is currently working on the EPSRC Retrofit 2050 project, where
she is involved in case study work exploring sustainability transitions in the Cardiff
and Manchester city regions; a foresight process designed to explore transitions in
UK city regions in the period 2020–50; and disseminating the wider project work.

Simon Lannon is a research fellow at the Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff

University where he has developed models and tool based on building physics
principles to be used at all scales of the built environment, from individual build-
ings to regional energy and emissions models. The main focus of his research has
been the development of software to model the energy use and emissions for the
large urban areas using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and software. This
software underpins the Energy and Environmental Prediction model (EEP), a
computer based modelling framework that quantifies energy use and associated
emissions for cities to help plan to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) and other emissions.
 CONTRIBUTORS xi

Authors
Sarah Bell is Senior Lecturer at UCL in the Department of Civil, Environmental
and Geomatic Engineering. Her research interests lie in the relationships between
engineering, technology and society as they impact on sustainability, particularly
in relation to water systems. This includes work on water efficiency, the public
acceptability of water re-use and water sensitive urban design. She works in
collaboration with partners including Thames Water, Waterwise, AECOM and
Arup. She is a Chartered Engineer and holds a Ph.D. in Sustainability and
Technology Policy from Murdoch University, Western Australia.

Georgia Butina Watson is Professor of Urban Design, Head of Department of

Planning and Research Director of Urban Design at Oxford Brookes University.
Her professional expertise includes research and consultancy work in urban
regeneration, place-identity, community development and sustainable cities.
She has an extensive portfolio of urban regeneration consultancy projects in the
UK and overseas and she has directed a number of research projects for the UK
Government and research councils including: Quality in Town and Country; the
regeneration of the Thames Gateway; New Towns developments; and young
people and urban design. She is co-investigator on the EPSRC Retrofit 2050
project.

David Butler is Professor of Water Engineering at the University of Exeter and

an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Established
Career Fellow. He is Director of the Centre for Water Systems at Exeter and an
Associate Dean for Research and Knowledge Transfer. He specialises in urban
water management including sustainable and resilient water systems, integration
and control, and water–energy–carbon interactions.

Ellie Dawkins is the co-leader of the Rethinking Development Theme at the

Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and a Research Associate at the University
of York. She specialises in research on sustainable consumption and production,
using modelling techniques such as multi-regional input-output analysis to
investigate the environmental impacts of consumption. She has developed a
number of carbon accounting tools and assessment frameworks, providing support
for the development of alternative pathways to sustainable futures for local and
central governments.

Sandip Deshmukh is Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering at the BITS

Pilani – Hyderabad Campus, India. An engineer by training, his research relates
to the regional energy planning with a focus on decentralised renewable energy
systems and energy resource allocation for socio-economic and techno-economic
development. He has several years of teaching and research experience that
includes four years as a postdoctoral research fellow in the Centre for Environ-
mental Strategy at the University of Surrey, UK.

Andy Gouldson is Director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics
and Policy at the University of Leeds. His research focuses on the governance of
xii CONTRIBUTORS

transitions to a low-carbon, climate resilient society, and on the economics of low-

carbon cities.

Stuart J. C. Irvine is Director of the Centre for Solar Energy Research (CSER)
at the St Asaph OpTIC campus of Glyndŵr University, and research professor
of Opto-electronic Materials for Solar Energy at Glyndŵr University. Research
interests include pioneering work on deposition of thin film materials by metal-
organic chemical vapour deposition (MOCVD), thin-film solar cells and application
of advanced thin-film materials to the solar energy and opto-electronics industry.

Niall Kerr has been working as a Research Assistant at the Centre for Climate
Change Economics and Policy and the Centre for Low Carbon Futures since 2010.
He has an MSc in Energy and Environment from the University of Leeds and a
BSc in Ocean Science/Technology from Heriot-Watt University. He has played a
central role in the development of work on the economics of low carbon cities,
both in the UK and internationally and in the evaluation of urban retrofit schemes.
He is now conducting research on business models for urban retrofit, attached to
the EPSRC and ESRC funded IBuild Centre that is jointly hosted by the
Universities of Leeds, Newcastle and Birmingham.

Johan Kuylenstierna is Policy Director of the Stockholm Environment Institute

and is based at the SEI York Centre in the Environment Department at the
University of York. He has worked for SEI since it began in 1989, and prior to
that at the Beijer Institute since 1986. His research has been concerned with
various atmospheric issues including climate change and, in particular, aspects of
air pollution at scales ranging from regional to global, particularly effects of Short-
Lived Climate Pollutants, acidifying deposition, eutrophying nitrogen deposition
and gaseous pollutant impacts on crops, forests and human health. His interests
are in the in the effective communication of scientific information to policy and
decision makers to promote effective and informed decision-making. He is a
member of the Science Advisory Panel of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition
(CCAC). He is also one the key researchers developing a 'Centre for Low Carbon
Futures', a collaboration across universities in Yorkshire.

Duncan McLaren is the director of Mclaren Environmental Research Consultancy,

and is studying for his Ph.D. at the Lancaster Environment Centre. His research
interests encompass a broad range of approaches to sustainable development and
environmental policy. He is currently focussing on questions of justice arising in
policy and technology responses to climate change, notably in energy systems and
geo-engineering. He is also a member of the Energy Research Partnership and the
Scientific Advisory Committee of the Research Councils UK Energy Programme.

Matthew Leach is Director of the Centre for Environmental Strategy at the

University of Surrey. Matthew is a chartered mechanical engineer, with an M.Sc.
and Ph.D. in Energy Policy from Imperial College London. His research interests
relate to decentralised systems (both energy and waste treatment), looking at the
environmental and economic performance of different technologies, and at policy
aspects.
 CONTRIBUTORS xiii

Andrés Luque is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at Durham University’s

Geography Department. He is a geographer and an anthropologist, with a research
agenda around the emergence of a local governance of energy and the interface
between urban energy systems, climate change and issues of social justice in cities
in the global South. He is also working on the development of a critical under-
standing of notions of ‘smart urbanism’, assessing the governmental rationalities
and techniques underpinning an emerging urban politics around ‘smart’.

Damiete Ogunkunle has worked as a Research Fellow at the Centre for Environ-
mental Strategy, University of Surrey, since 2008. Her research interests include
energy system modelling for low-carbon pathways. She is also involved in
developing and applying novel approaches to the sustainability assessment of
renewable energy technologies

William Powrie is Professor of Geotechnical Engineering and Dean of the Faculty

of Engineering and the Environment at the University of Southampton. His main
technical areas of expertise are in geotechnical aspects of transport infrastructure,
and sustainable waste and resource management. He was elected Fellow of the
Royal Academy of Engineering in recognition of his work in these areas in 2009.
His work in waste and resource management focuses on landfill engineering, and
on the development of a sound scientific basis for policy and practice.

Keith Shaw is Professor of Politics at Northumbria University. His research inter-

ests cover urban sustainability, the local politics of climate change and resilient
communities. He has extensive experience of working for governmental and non-
governmental organisations in relation to project and programme evaluations,
voluntary and community sector involvement, neighbourhood governance and
local partnership working.

Jonathan Silver is a geographer who specialises in urban governance. His principal

research interests explore the intersections between emerging climate change and
energy agendas, urban infrastructures and issues of poverty and inequality.

Rory Sullivan, Senior Research Fellow, University of Leeds, is an internationally

recognised expert on the financial and investment implications of climate change,
having spent seven years working on the issue in one of the UK’s largest asset
management companies, as well as serving as consultant to international bodies
such as EBRD, OECD, the World Economic Forum, UNEP and UNDP. He has
written seven books and many papers, reports and articles on investment, climate
change and related issues.

Kate Theobald is Reader in Sustainable Cities at Northumbria University. Her

research interests cover local governance in relation to sustainable development
both in the UK and Europe, responses at the local level to the climate change
agenda, including delivery of low-carbon strategies at the neighbourhood scale,
and public engagement with, and responses to, renewable energy technologies.

Corrado Topi is a Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute.

He holds a similar position at CCCEP. His research focuses on green economics
xiv CONTRIBUTORS

at local level, i.e. on the transition to sustainable and resilient economic

development models at the local level, in particular in private enterprises and cities.
One of the lead authors of the Minis Stern Review, he is part of the team behind
Climate Smart Cities and directs the EC funded Greeneconet project, the first
European platform to support the transition of SMEs to a green economy
paradigm.

Sarah Ward is a Business Engagement Manager and Research Fellow at the University
of Exeter, where she develops and manages relationships with SMEs and under-
takes research into socio-technical aspects of sustainable water management. Sarah
has worked in the water sector for over 10 years, recently working on projects
investigating modelling frameworks for integrated sustainable development, the
socio-technical integration of water and energy within new housing developments
and on how practitioner and researcher engagement leads to impact generation.
Sarah has a growing publication record, which includes over a dozen journal
articles, various conference papers and industry articles, three book chapters and
a book, currently in progress, on alternative water supply systems.

Geoff Watson is a research fellow in the Faculty of Engineering and the

Environment at the University of Southampton and was an Environment Agency
Fellow in Waste Geomechanics from 2004–7 and remains a member of the EA
Landfill Engineering Group. He is currently working on the modelling of national
solid waste infrastructure capacity and demand as part of the Infrastructure
Transitions Research Consortium (ITRC). His research interests includes:
modelling the future of UK waste infrastructure; work on undisturbed sampling
of waste; flow path detection in laboratory-scale waste cells; developing forensic
deconstruction methods in waste and observation of gas bubbles in granular
materials.

Phil Webber is a visiting professor at Leeds University. His research interests focus
on understanding and reducing energy usage in the built environment and
promoting ethical science and technology.

Yangang Xing has a B.Eng. in Financial and Engineering Management from

HUST, China in 1990, an M.Sc. in Electronic Commerce and Information System
from UMIST in 2003 and a Ph.D. in System Dynamics Modelling for Sustainable
Tourism Development from Salford University in 2006. He currently works as a
Research Associate at the Welsh School of Architecture, working on the EPSRC
Retrofit 2050 project. He is developing an integrated simulation platform that
consists of GIS, system dynamics tools and building physics.
Foreword
Paul King
Chief Executive, UK Green Building Council, and Chairman, Zero Carbon Hub

As the WWF Living Planet Report has shown repeatedly over the last decade,
since the mid-1980s we have been consistently exceeding the regenerative capacity
of the planet, no longer living of its natural interest but plundering the capital
upon which all life on Earth depends. If everyone around the world was consuming
natural resources and emitting carbon dioxide at the same rate as most people in
the UK and other Western economies, we would need the resources of at least
three planet Earths to support us all. Sustainable development is the greatest
challenge the human species has ever faced, and while many struggle with the
complexity of this multi-dimensional project, it can all be boiled down to one
simple question: how are we going to meet the needs of future generations in a
way the planet can afford? As most people in the future – over 70 per cent by
2050 – will live in cities, they seem like a good place to start answering that
question.
Sustainable development – and this book – is about much more than mitigating
the worst effects of climate change, but over recent years this aspect of the global
sustainability project has attracted more attention than most. The UK was the
first country in the world to enshrine its carbon reduction trajectory in law, and
set us on a course to deliver an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.
The last time the UK was emitting carbon at that target level was around 1850.
So, by 2050 we will have a population aspiring to mid-twenty-first-century
lifestyles, but with associated carbon emissions comparable to those of the mid-
nineteenth century. And if that was not a big enough challenge, we must bear in
mind that the population of the UK will be around three times greater, and that
over 80 per cent of the homes and buildings that we will be occupying in 2050
are ones that we are already living and working in today. It is clear that we have
to fundamentally rethink and retrofit our built environment, to meet the needs
of future generations – not just in the UK, but in towns and cities all around the
world.
As we have seen from the first few years in pursuit of zero-carbon new homes
and buildings in the UK, the 2050 challenge is as much a psychological one as it
is a technological one. The scale of the question drives us quite literally back to
the drawing board. The answers will point to step, not incremental changes. The
solutions will arise from new ways of thinking, working and collaborating, as
much as from scientific breakthroughs. This book begins the process of identifying
xvi KING

some of the strategies and approaches, as well as new technologies that will be
required to future-proof our cities. Like all big challenges, this one also comes
with a myriad of opportunities for wider benefit, and these chapters also point
to ways in which the pursuit of carbon reductions can deliver huge improvements
in the whole performance of the built environment – environmentally, socially
and economically.
This is one of the biggest built environment projects we have ever faced, one
that will involve every professional discipline and require the engagement of every
part of the global built environment industry, across the value chain, and
throughout the building lifecycle. It will require financial, political and social
backing – the absence of any one of these could undermine the success of the
whole project. We need to maximise sharing and lessons learned around the world,
but we also need to recognise that this will not be a case of ‘one size fits all’, and
many technical solutions will need to be adapted and applied to local conditions
and context. We must avoid tokenism and picking only the lowest fruit when
harvesting the savings to be had: the potential for cost-effective carbon abatement
from our built environment is simply too great, and the cost of locking-in carbon
through minimal, light-touch interventions is unacceptable and ultimately
unaffordable.
There are some key actors involved in helping us move forwards, and their
leadership is critical. Governments are in a unique position to play a strategic
leadership role, through the setting of policy direction, underpinned by regulation
and incentives, to provide the clarity, consistency and certainty that industry needs
to invest, innovate and deliver solutions. Cities offer some of the most effective
structures for meeting our 2050 targets, and authorities at this level can convene
businesses and building occupiers to create the conditions in which medium- to
large-scale retrofit initiatives can flourish. Businesses that recognise the scale of
the opportunity can provide all-important financial investment, and lead innova-
tion and the necessary technical development. People and communities, living,
working and playing in buildings, can all demonstrate the importance of behaviour
change, which itself can yield as great an impact as any transformation in built
environment infrastructure, and either make or break the project overall. We need
to increase awareness and knowledge among all of these different constituencies,
with a view to building a progressive consensus about the way forward. This book
represents an important and timely contribution to that process, and we need to
pursue it – as though our lives depended on it.
Acknowledgements
Much of the work in this book is based upon research conducted as part of the
‘Re-engineering the City: Urban foresight and transition management’ (Retrofit
2050) project (2010–14). Funded under the EPSRC Sustainable Urban Environ-
ments (SUE) programme, the Retrofit 2050 project is led by Professor Malcolm
Eames at the Welsh School of Architecture (WSA), Cardiff University. Retrofit 2050
aims to develop the knowledge and capability to support city-regional scale
retrofitting in order promote a managed socio-technical transition in the built
environment and urban infrastructure. The academic project partners comprise
Cardiff University, the University of Reading, Oxford Brookes University, Salford
University, the University of Cambridge and Durham University. Non-academic
partners have included Tata Colours, Arup, BRE Wales, Cardiff, Manchester City
and Neath Port Talbot Councils, the Welsh Government, the Environment Agency
(Wales), Core Cities, RICS and Defra. In particular, the book draws upon a series
of expert reviews commissioned as part of the Retrofit 2050 project’s Urban
Foresight Laboratory work package lead by Professor Tim Dixon at the University
of Reading.
We would like to acknowledge our co-authors who have contributed to this
volume and the support of EPSRC (grant number EP/1002162/1) in funding
this work. We would also like to thank other members of the Retrofit Team
(including Carla de Laurentis, Yangang Xing, Aliki Georgakaki, Kruti Ghandi,
Yan Wang, Tim May, Mike Hodson, Simon Marvin, Matt Thompson, Judith
Britnell, Heather Cruickshank, Peter Guthrie, Alex Opoku, Georgia Butina
Watson and Paula Mullins) who played important roles in the overall programme
of research. Further information on the programme of research can be found at
www.retrofit2050.org.uk.
At a personal level the editors would each also like to thank their families for
their invaluable love and support during the editing of this book.

Tim Dixon
Malcolm Eames
Miriam Hunt
Simon Lannon
This page intentionally left blank
1
Introduction
Tim Dixon,* Malcolm Eames** and Simon Lannon**

1.1 Background, aims and objectives

The overall aim of this book is to identify and explain the key trends in urban
retrofitting which are likely to transform cities over the next 20–30 years and
beyond to 2050. The book examines the key drivers and trends in the energy,
water and waste and resource use arenas that are underpinning this transition,
and, drawing on recent research for the EPSRC Retrofit 2050 programme,1 sets
this in the context of the wider agenda of urban retrofitting, both in the UK and
internationally.
In recent years the need to ‘retrofit’ existing buildings and the built environment
in response to the long-term challenges of climate change and resource constraints
has gained increasing prominence (Dawson, 2007; Kelly, 2009; Sustainable
Development Commission, 2010). In the UK, the Climate Change Act and related
80 per cent emissions reduction target for 2050 have done much to focus attention
on the impact of the built environment in cities on carbon emissions. This is not
surprising, given that emissions from buildings (35 per cent) and industry (35 per
cent) account for more than two thirds of total GHG emissions in the UK, with
the residential sector responsible for 23 per cent and the non-residential sector
for 12 per cent (Committee on Climate Change, 2010). Moreover, the rate of
turnover of the building stock in the UK is very slow: less than 1–2 per cent of
total building stock each year is new build (Dixon, 2009; Stafford et al., 2011).
Hence some 70 per cent of total 2010 building stock is expected to still be in use
in 2050 (Better Buildings Partnership, 2010). Current renovation and refurbish-
ment rates are somewhat higher, with between 2.9 per cent and 5 per cent of
existing stock for domestic buildings and between 2 and 8 per cent for commercial
stock, depending on the sector (Hartless, 2004; Stafford et al., 2011), but still
present a very significant challenge in meeting the UK’s carbon reduction targets.
In this context the role of cities as major centres not only of human population
and energy use, but also of innovation and governance capacity, is increasingly
seen as central to scaling up existing ad-hoc and piecemeal retrofit activities.
2 DIXON ET AL.

During the latter part of the last century, and the early part of this century,
therefore, much thought has been given to how a new ‘urban sustainability’ agenda
could shape a strategic response to climate change and resource constraints
(Curwell et al., 1998; May and Perry, 2011; Whitehead, 2012). However, urban
sustainability is a multi-dimensional problem that requires much more than
reductions in carbon emissions (although these are often difficult enough to
achieve) (Wheeler, 2004; Dawson, 2007).2 In line with the UK 2050 carbon
reduction targets, it is therefore important not only to look forward to 2020, but
also beyond to 2050, as current policy drivers and ecological, resource and
demographic pressures progressively take effect (Newton, 2007).
There is a need to envisage a systemic transition in our existing built environ-
ments; not just to zero carbon, but across the entire ecological footprint of our
cities and the regions within which they are embedded, simultaneously promoting
economic security, social health and resilience (Rotmans, 2006). The critical
challenge for contemporary urbanism is then to understand how to develop the
knowledge, capacity and capability for public agencies, the private sector and
multiple users in city regions (i.e. the city and its wider hinterland) to systemically
re-engineer their built environment and urban infrastructure (Living Cities, 2010;
Sustainable Development Commission, 2010). To this end, cities around the world
are increasingly focused on developing city visions for 2030 and beyond, promoted
and underpinned by initiatives such as the C40 cities group (Inayatullah, 2011;
Dixon, 2012; Eadson, 2012; Hodson and Marvin, 2012).

1.2 Cities, transitions and urban retrofit

Complexity in the internal and external environments of cities also means that it
is no longer appropriate, if it ever was, to provide urban infrastructure in a
piecemeal, project-based manner; instead a systemic (or system-wide), long-term
strategy is required (May et al., 2010). At present, however, the capability to
mobilise stakeholders coherently, and in a coordinated way, necessary to develop
and operationalise such strategies for energy and water infrastructure at a city-
regional scale is limited (Hudson, 2008).
Large-scale urban retrofitting requires systemic change in the organisation of
built environment and infrastructure, and the integration of socio-technical
knowledge, capacity and responses. It also requires new forms of knowledge,
expertise and decision support systems that better integrate the technological,
economic and environmental issues and options and societal challenges involved
in implementation. Furthermore, relevant governance structures and capabilities
to develop new societal visions and technological expectations are required, not
only to enrol and align stakeholders, but also to deliver effective and efficient
material change in infrastructure. Finally, there is recognition that technology
impact can operate at a range of scales from individual buildings through, for
example, to the wider spatial impacts of information and communications
technology on future urban land use patterns (EPSRC, 2009). This is important
because processes of urban development can apply to building, neighbourhood,
city, regional, national and global scales.
Frequently our thinking has failed to treat the built environment as spatially
connected and complex (Bai, 2007; Pinnegar et al., 2008). This spatial connectivity
 INTRODUCTION 3

relates to the complexity of infrastructure, spaces and places and communities

together with how urban form and function relate. In this sense a focus purely
on buildings leads to lack of strategic focus. Moreover, as Bai et al. (2010) suggest
(see Chapter 2, this volume), there is frequently an inherent temporal (‘not in my
term’), spatial (‘not in my patch’) and institutional (‘not my business’) scale
mismatch between urban decision-making and global environmental concerns,
where urban decision-makers are frequently constrained within short timescales,
the immediate spatial scale of their jurisdictions and ‘nested’ governmental
hierarchies.
In the past 10 years, the literature on transitions has played an important role
in helping understand the complex and multi-dimensional shifts needed to move
societies to more sustainable modes of production and consumption in such areas
as transport, energy, housing, agriculture and food (Coenen et al., 2011).
Transitions theory postulates that successful systems (or ‘socio-technical regimes’)
comprising networks of artefacts, actors and institutions, become stabilised over
time through the accumulation of processes promoting ‘lock in’ and path
dependency (for example, sunk investments in skills, capital equipment and
infrastructures, vested interests, organisational capital, shared belief systems, legal
frameworks that create uneven playing fields, consumer norms and lifestyles). In
this conceptual framework, which offers a multi-level perspective (MLP), ‘lock in’
to existing systems is overcome and transitions occur as a result of experi-
mentation and the emergence of new socio-technical configurations (innovations)
within protected niches. These factors, combined with landscape pressures,
destabilise and transform or replace the existing ‘regime’ (Rip and Kemp, 1998;
Geels, 2010).
Although transitions to future sustainability cannot be managed in the
traditional sense, because they are complex and uncertain, their direction and
speed can be influenced by various types of steering and co-ordination (Rotmans,
2006). Based on the conceptual model of the fourth Dutch Environmental Policy
Plan, transition management has emerged as a way of deliberately attempting to
stimulate transition to a more sustainable future. While the specifics will vary
depending upon the particular context and nature of problem at hand, transition
management is in essence an open-ended form of process management against
agreed societal goals. For Kemp and Loorbach (2006) key elements of the process
are: (a) systems thinking across multiple domains, actors and scales; (b) long term
thinking as a frame for short-term policy; (c) backcasting and forecasting; (d) a
focus on learning and experimentation about a variety of options; and (e)
stakeholder participation and interaction.
Proponents of the MLP argue that ‘regimes’ should be conceptualised in terms
of systems of production and consumption serving broad societal functions (the
provision of nutrition, shelter, warmth, mobility, etc.). In practice, within the
transitions literature, there is considerable interpretive flexibility, with the notion
of the regime being used synonymously with particular sectors, technological fields
or environmental domains (energy, water, waste, transport, ICT, hydrogen and
fuel cells, biogas, etc.), with the spatial boundaries of the regime left implicit. This
raises important issues over defining scale and designing appropriate governance
structures for socio-technical transitions, which have been highlighted by critics
of the MLP (see for example, Smith et al., 2010).
4 DIXON ET AL.

In other words, how then can the notion of the regime be understood with
respect to the retrofit of urban environments where they fulfil multiple societal
functions integrated across multiple spatial scales, technological fields and
environmental domains?
The issue of boundaries is closely linked to the role of spatial scale and place.
While initially neglected within the MLP, issues concerning the geography of
transitions have recently attracted considerable attention within the literature (see
for example: Smith et al., 2010; Lawhon and Murphy, 2011; Truffer and Coenen,
2012), with one strand of this debate focusing in particular upon cities and low-
carbon transitions (Bulkeley et al., 2010; Hodson and Marvin, 2010, 2012).

1.3 Changing views of the city

Moreover, this issue of boundaries raises the question, what is a city? The term
‘city’ can refer to spatial form, but it can also refer to the multi-dimensions of
urban living that includes ecological, cultural, technological, spiritual and socio-
economic elements and interactions. During the last two centuries a number of
‘theories of the city’ have been postulated in the context of urban planning, ranging
from rational planning models (Edward Banfield, 1970), political economy models
(for example, David Harvey, 2009) through to equity planning (Peter Hall, 1998)
and the advocacy planning model (Kevin Lynch, 1960), which in turn have
informed the way in which we understand cities. For David Harvey (2009: 46),
a city is ‘a complex dynamic system in which spatial form and social process are
in continuous interaction with each other’.
In contrast, Manuel Castells (1989) saw the city more in terms of a fragmented
social-spatial reality (‘Dual City’) brought about by technological change, which
created a conflict between a ‘space of flows’ and a ‘space of places’. For Peter
Hall, writing in 1998, cities:

were and are quite different places, places for people who can stand the heat of
the kitchen: places where the adrenalin pumps through the bodies of the people
and through the streets on which they walk; messy places, sordid places sometimes,
but places nevertheless superbly worth living in, long to be remembered and long
to be celebrated.
(Hall, 1998: 907)

More than 50 years ago a city was first formally viewed as a ‘system’, which
represented the distinct collections of entities and operated almost entirely as a
closed system, with urban planning able to impose command and control prompts
(Berry, 1964; Batty, 2011). But it began to be appreciated that cities are complex
and do not automatically revert to equilibrium after a perturbation, in the same
way that a simple system does. More recently therefore we have seen cities
envisaged as a more complex ‘meta system’ (McNulty, 2011) which represents a
system of sub-systems or nested systems, each of which is interdependent with the
others and the whole. McNulty suggests there are five such sub-systems in a city:

1 economic – set of arrangements through which goods and services are traded;
2 environmental – natural elements of the city;
 INTRODUCTION 5

3 infrastructure – built components of the city;

4 knowledge – learning and experience of the city;
5 social – social practices, culture and people.

Similarly, thinking in this field has also moved away from seeing the city as a
‘machine’ towards seeing the city as an ‘organism’ or, in other words, more like
a biological than a mechanical system (Batty, 2011). This thinking has helped
inform the view of urban metabolic models, with complex feedback loops, in
contrast to simple linear ‘input–output’ models (Wolman, 1965). It has also led
towards the development of an approach that sees cities as ‘complex adaptive
systems’ (Rotmans, 2006) in which cities exhibit the following characteristics:

• non-linear cause and effect relationships;

• negative or positive feedback loops;
• open systems (e.g. with energy imported and exported across boundaries);
• a diverse variety of interacting elements;
• system movement towards a single ‘attractor’ (or a preferred state towards
which the city system moves);
• complexity within the system elements themselves;
• patterns emerging as a result of relationships between the components.

Rotmans (2006) goes on to suggest that this inherent complexity requires us to

think of cities as never being finished and facing continuous change (in this sense
spontaneous change can occur through complex interactions, making total con-
trol of a city impossible). Moreover, city goals not only need to be flexible and
adaptable, with a city’s complexity often being at odds with fixed goals (i.e. there
is structural uncertainty and intrinsic unpredictability in the dynamics of cities),
but cities also need to be viewed from multiple scales, because some properties
are hidden at broader scales but tend to emerge at lower scales (i.e. a city’s
‘emergent’ properties, based on the complexity arising from many and diverse
interactions).

1.4 Understanding urban retrofit as a

socio-technical process
In the context of the city scale, ‘retrofit’ has, in policy and research circles at least,
acquired widespread currency in recent years. However, there does not appear to
be any commonly accepted definition. For the purposes of the EPSRC Retrofit
2050 project, on which the chapters in this book are focused, a normative
definition of sustainable urban retrofitting was adopted which comprises the
‘directed alteration of the fabric, form or systems which comprise the built
environment in order to improve energy, water and waste efficiencies’ (Eames,
2011: 2). There is a particular focus on large-scale socio-technical systems changes
resulting either from incremental innovations or radical and ‘disruptive’
innovations in the built environment – through (inter alia) a combination of
systemic technological and social (institutional governance and behavioural)
changes – operating across the building, neighbourhood and city-regional scales.
This definition of retrofitting would also include new build, but only the 1–2 per
6 DIXON ET AL.

cent of renewed stock that operates within cities – not the construction of new
cities or towns.3
However, as noted above we also start from the perspective that the processes
of urbanisation that underpin the development of cities are complex, and that
urban environments can best be understood as complex adaptive socio-technical
systems (Elzen et al., 2004). In order to explore the future of sustainable urban
retrofitting, it is then also necessary to seek to characterise and understand the
(often emergent) processes of change that have historically re-shaped the fabric,
form and systems of our built environments. Much of these are pervasive, taken
for granted – almost ‘invisible’ – processes of repair and maintenance. As Graham
and Thrift (2007) point out all buildings, infrastructures and technological systems
experience a continual process of decay, necessitating repair and maintenance.
And what starts out as repair or maintenance often becomes improvement and
innovation. At the same time, as we look back over the longer term historical
evolution of our cities we also see instances of radical and disruptive innovation
and systems change (the introduction of mains sewage, gas, electricity and ICT
networks, etc.): although the actual diffusion and adoption of these radical
and disruptive innovations has often been much more incremental and piecemeal
than one might imagine. Within the city these processes of repair, maintenance
and innovation may be seen as clustering around a number of relatively distinct,
although often overlapping, regimes. By ‘regimes’, in this context, we mean rela-
tively stable configurations of buildings and infrastructures, networks of actors
and institutions, technologies, policies and regulations, social norms, practices and
shared expectations.
This viewpoint acknowledges the fact that urban retrofit pathways need to
recognise the legacy of existing built environment and infrastructure in cities, and
that there is no single blueprint for retrofitting a city at scale (WBCSD, 2010).
Existing infrastructure and the built environment tend to change very slowly
because of ‘sunk’ investments that create path dependencies that can only be
adjusted through strong governance and supporting policies: this means that new
technologies often have to co-exist with an ‘old regime’ before they dominate
(Naess and Vogel, 2012). Moreover, this perspective sees cities and the processes
of urbanisation and economic and social development that underpin them in terms
of complex adaptive socio-technical systems. In order to explore the future of
sustainable urban retrofitting, it is first necessary to seek to characterise and
understand the (often emergent) processes of change that have historically
re-shaped the fabric, form and systems of our built environments. Moreover,
methodologies that link these processes through backcasting, visioning and
Foresight-based techniques can provide a coherent way of achieving a meaningful
connection between transitions theory and city-scale thinking.

1.5 EPSRC Retrofit 2050 programme

The core aim of the EPSRC Retrofit 2050 programme (2010–14) is to develop
the knowledge and capability to overcome the separation between the ‘what’ and
‘how’ of urban-scale retrofitting in order promote a managed socio-technical
transition in built environment and urban infrastructure. We start from the
perspective that the processes of urbanisation that underpin the development of
 INTRODUCTION 7

cities are complex, and that urban environments can best be understood as
complex socio-technical systems. Cities become ‘locked in’ to particular patterns
of energy and resource use – constrained by existing infrastructural investments,
sunk costs, institutional rigidities and vested interests. Understanding how to
better re-engineer our cities and urban infrastructure, to overcome ‘lock in’ and
facilitate systems change, will be critical to achieving sustainability. The technical
component of the research explores urban-scale retrofitting as a managed socio-
technical transition, focusing on prospective developments in the built environment
– linking buildings, utilities, land use and transport planning – and in so doing
we develop a generic urban transitions framework for wider application.
Specifically the programme of research addresses the following objectives:

• To explore and advance both theoretical and practical understandings of

processes of systems innovation and transition in an urban context.
• To analyse through case studies, modelling and international comparison, the
technical and social processes underpinning such transitions.
• To identify and characterise prospective disruptive technologies and systems
innovations that will underpin a transition to sustainability in the built
environment (over the period 2020–30).
• To articulate and appraise regionally specific visions and prospective pathways
for urban-scale retrofitting of the built environment (in Cardiff/South East
Wales and Greater Manchester city regions).
• To develop and test an integrated socio-technical support system that prac-
tically assists local policy-makers, designers, developers, commercial users,
NGOs, citizens and community groups in localising and contextualising
technical knowledge and improving effectiveness and efficiency of retrofitting
processes.

The programme of research comprises the following work packages (WPs)

(see Figure 1.1):

WP 1 Urban transitions analysis (Durham University, Salford University

and Cardiff University)
The rationale for this WP is to test the application of transitions analysis (TA)
conceptually and empirically in an urban context. TA has been used historically
to understand system changes and has increasingly been applied to examine
technology-specific system changes in the energy, water and waste sectors. There
is, however, considerable unexploited potential for using this analysis in an urban
context (Hodson and Marvin, 2010). This WP critically assesses and reconcept-
ualises TA in an urban context, focusing in particular on the lessons from previous
urban transitions, the conceptual issues involved in applying TA in an urban
context, and empirical case studies (in Greater Manchester and Cardiff/South East
Wales) of existing retrofitting initiatives. The WP also assesses the degree to which
these represent piecemeal experiments or provide contexts for social learning
allowing the scaling up of niche technologies and solutions to underpin systemic
urban retrofitting. In particular this work is interested in understanding how
cities (as complex entities) develop technological expectations and social visions;
8 DIXON ET AL.

work through networks and intermediaries; engage with key stakeholders and the
public; and develop capacity and capability for transitions management. The
findings from this research are used to develop a conceptual framework for
understanding the potential and limits of urban transitions and the implications
for systemic urban retrofitting.

WP 2 Urban Foresight Laboratory (2020–50) (University of Reading

and Oxford Brookes University)
The aim of this WP is to look beyond current and near-market solutions in order
to systematically review and integrate knowledge and expectations of emerging
and prospective technologies with the potential to underpin the long-term transi-
tion to a sustainable urban future. By framing the work within a systems perspective,
the WP emphasises the barriers and opportunities for systemic change within the
existing built environment of cities. The Urban Foresight Laboratory draws upon
world leading academic and industrial expertise, synthesising existing UK and
international research, and is based on commissioning technology-specific review
papers from leading experts in key fields. The research also focuses closely on
commercial property retrofitting at urban level to augment other work on domestic
property in EPSRC Retrofit 2050. Through interaction between scientific experts,
practitioners and policy users, prospective disruptive technologies and systems
innovations are identified, and provide long-term guiding visions and technology-
based roadmaps for urban retrofitting. The findings from this research are used
to produce roadmap(s) of future technological options and an analysis of the
contextual issues involved in their systemic application in urban contexts.

WP 3 Urban options: modelling, visualisation and pathways analysis

(Cardiff University)
The rationale for this WP is to integrate, model and appraise the findings of WPs
1 and 2 in specific urban contexts, in order to develop a prospective stakeholder-
led framework for shaping systemic urban transitions, to sustainability, at a
city-regional scale. Working with key stakeholders this tests out and explores the
urban transition scenarios and technology roadmaps developed jointly in WPs 1
and 2 through a series of city-regional case studies. The geographical focus of the
research is on the city regions of Cardiff and South East Wales, and on Greater
Manchester. Both are areas with a long history of urbanisation and post-industrial
decline, which are actively seeking manage a purposive transition to sustainability
through harnessing processes of master planning, regeneration and economic
development, driving through significant programmes of retrofitting and infra-
structural development, together with institutional and governance innovations
such as the establishment of Low Carbon Zones (for example, the ‘Heads of
the Valleys’ Low Carbon Zone in South Wales and Manchester’s Low Carbon
Economic Zone – Built Environment). Specifically, integrated multi-scale
modelling of the built environment is used to support regional options visualisa-
tion and pathways analysis, and to test these out through stakeholder evaluation
and deliberative appraisal. This will lead to a framework for the modelling and
evaluation of urban options for systemic urban retrofitting, developed and tested
through urban case studies in Cardiff and Manchester.
 INTRODUCTION 9

Work package 1

Urban transitions
analysis Urban Foresight
Panel Work package 3 Work package 4

Scenario Urban options, Synthesis,

workshops visualisation comparison
and pathways and knowledge
analysis exchange
Produces set of
Work package 2 contextual ‘socio-
technical’ scenarios
Urban Foresight
for testing in WP3
Laboratory
(2020–50)

Figure 1.1 EPSRC Retrofit 2050 programme of research

WP 4 Synthesis, comparison and knowledge exchange (University

of Cambridge)
The purpose of this work package is to draw together and synthesise the findings
from the previous work packages and benchmark them against international experi-
ence for policy and practioner audiences. The work draws on the case studies, models
and scenarios developed in the previous work packages, and augments this with
expert views on future drivers and barriers to the implementation of best practice.

1.6 Urban foresight and research design

The EPSRC Retrofit programme also included a broader programme of urban
foresight oriented activities within WP 2 (see Figure 1.2).4 These included the
commissioning of an extensive series of ‘foresight’-based reviews with international
experts, together with work on disruptive and sustaining innovation and the
development of national (UK) roadmaps for urban retrofit in energy, water, and
waste and resource efficiency (Dixon et al., forthcoming).
A participatory backcasting approach was adopted in order to develop a
realistic, internally coherent and transparent set of socio-technical transition
scenarios for systemic urban retrofitting. This builds upon and extends previous
research that has used backcasting and related techniques for city planning futures
work (Daffara, 2004; Phdungsilp, 2011). It also utilises the reviews of other
relevant futures and participatory-based work in this research space at city level
(Inayatullah, 2011; Dixon, 2011), but it is differentiated from these by its strong
focus on retrofitting and its co-evolutionary nature and structure.
The backcasting process was structured around a series of three Urban Foresight
Panel workshops ((a) Problem framing and structuring; (b) Visioning; (c) Pathway
analysis) that took place between October 2011 and May 2012 (Eames et al.,
2013). The panel comprised some 32 leading UK experts from industry, academia,
national and local government, government agencies and civil society and
10 DIXON ET AL.

Scenarios Foresight Innovation dynamics

Workshop I: Literature review

problem framing

Workshop II: Expert reviews

visioning

Workshop II: National online

Roadmaps
pathways analysis survey

Regional workshops

Figure 1.2 Overview of the Urban Foresight Laboratory methodology and research design

community organisations. The role of the panel was to help develop, inform and
critically review the work of the project team. Participants were invited to take
part on the basis of their individual knowledge and expertise, rather than as
representatives of specific organisations or sectors. Care was taken to ensure that
the composition of the panel promoted critical thinking and reflected a broad
range of disciplinary and organisational perspectives. For the workshops, rather
than imposing a single normative vision, the approach in the EPSRC Retrofit 2050
research was to seek to acknowledge the contested and inherently political nature
of sustainability through exploring a broad range of visions of what a sustainable
city region might look like and the processes of systemic urban retrofitting that
each might entail (Eames et al., 2013).
Three national UK urban retrofit roadmaps were developed for the energy,
water and waste domains, which were then used (a) to help inform the visioning
and backcasting approaches adopted in the three national workshops; and (b) to
help identify key emerging retrofit technologies in three key domains across
the building, neighbourhood and city level (Dixon et al., forthcoming). In order
to develop these roadmaps, a literature review was also conducted alongside a
national online survey of respondents from the private sector, local government,
other public sector organisations/NGOs and academics. The survey was conducted
from June to August, 2011, and was used to help identify key urban retrofit
technologies in the three domains through to 2050 (Britnell and Dixon, 2012).
In addition 20 expert reviews were commissioned from academic and industry
experts in the same three domains, which followed a ‘foresight’ approach in
scoping out future trends and drivers in key technologies in these sectors at the
 INTRODUCTION 11

national and city level through to 2050. These expert reviews form the basis of
the majority of chapters in this book.
For Loveridge (2009) ‘foresight’ divides neatly (as per the OED definition) into:
(a) ‘soft’ (the action of looking forward and caring for, or provision, for the
future); and (b) ‘hard’ (the muzzle sight of a gun) connotations. Loveridge (2001:
781) also separates ‘real foresight’ from ‘institutional Foresight’, with the former
characterised by individual or small group activity of anticipation, as distinct from
policy and planning-led Foresight. However, in a more general sense Miles and
Keenan (2002: 15) suggest that the term foresight is understood to describe:

a range of approaches to improving decision making . . . Foresight involves

bringing together key agents of change and sources of knowledge in order to
develop strategic visions and anticipatory intelligence. Of equal importance,
foresight is often explicitly intended to establish networks of knowledgeable
agents.

In this sense foresight techniques also include horizon-scanning, which aims to

gather a broad range of evidence and information about upcoming trends, ideas
and events (Habegger, 2009). This also underpins the rationale for using ‘state
of science reviews’ in UK Foresight, which are written by experts in each field
and address developments that inform the chosen futures topic. The reviews can
be brief and used as an aid to select areas of investigation. Alternatively, they can
be applied after science area selection and used to delve deeper into the areas
chosen. State of science reviews also aid the communication process by supplying
robust contextual information (Horizon Scanning Centre, 2013).
The EPSRC Retrofit 2050 ‘expert reviews’, which form the majority of the
chapters in this book, were therefore commissioned on the basis of highlighting,
where possible:

• data and trends (including historical data);

• policies or government legislation/programmes related to the field;
• current state of scientific understanding;
• key challenges;
• key technological advances (including disruptive and systemic technological
innovations);
• change issues and critical uncertainties;
• future visions.

In methodological terms, the experts who wrote the reviews (and hence the authors
of corresponding chapters in this book) were identified because they had
substantive knowledge in the field, and because of their ability to think in terms
of the future (Loveridge, 2001).

1.7 Format of the book

This book is arranged in four parts. Part I, comprising Chapters 2 through 7,
is concerned with setting the scene for urban retrofit and begins by examining
the complexity of transitions in the built environment of cities (Tim Dixon and
12 DIXON ET AL.

Malcolm Eames). In Chapter 3 Yangang Xing and Simon Lannon explore how
a modelling framework for sustainable urban retrofit planning can be created.
The economics and financing of city-scale retrofits are examined by in Chapter 4
by Andrew Gouldson and colleagues, before Kate Theobald and Keith Shaw
discuss the urban governance and planning implications of urban retrofit in
Chapter 5. Given that urban retrofit is not confined to the developed world, in
Chapter 6 Jonathan Silver shows how the urban retrofit is emerging in the BRIC
nations in a chapter that examines São Paolo, Mumbai and Cape Town. Finally,
in this section, Georgia Butina Watson, drawing on international examples,
shows how urban retrofit influences and is influenced by urban design choices in
Chapter 7.
Part II of the book, comprising Chapters 8 through 11, examines issues around
energy and urban retrofit. In Chapter 8, Duncan McLaren highlights the important
consideration of energy poverty in undertaking large-scale retrofit. Following this,
in Chapter 9, Andrés Luque highlights how the smart grid and its interface
between energy and ICT can help understand urban retrofitting and integrating
urban infrastructures across cities. Stuart Irvine examines the role of solar energy
and its technological development in Chapter 10 to show how important it could
become in the urban retrofit market by 2050. Finally, in this section, Matthew
Leach and colleagues examine possible pathways to low-carbon urban develop-
ment by highlighting the important relationship between urban form, energy
efficiency, and urban energy and material flows (Chapter 11).
Part III of the book, comprising Chapters 12 through 14, looks at water and
waste issues in relation to urban retrofit. In Chapter 12 David Butler and
colleagues examine the issues surrounding urban retrofitting to achieve sustainable
and integrated water management (SIWM), and follow this with a further chapter
(Chapter 13) that examines the implications of technological development for
SIWM at the household, building- and urban-scale. Finally in this section, Geoff
Watson and William Powrie (Chapter 14) examine the current options for waste
management and the challenges for implementing future strategies in the context
of urban retrofitting.
In the concluding part (Chapter 15), we draw together the main themes
emerging from this book and the implications for urban retrofitting through to
2050.

Notes
* School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading.
** Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University.
1 See www.retrofit2050.org.uk.
2 See also the work of EPSRC Urban Futures (www.urban-futures.org).
3 The focus in the Retrofit 2050 project is on the urban sustainability response to climate
change and resource constraints at the city level and in this context the focus is primarily
on mitigation measures as part of this response, although the importance of adaptation
is also acknowledged.
4 The participatory backcasting and scenario building process, upon which the
scenario workshops are based, is discussed in more detail in the final chapter of this
book.
 INTRODUCTION 13

References
Bai, X. (2007) ‘Integrating global concerns into urban management: The scale argument and
readiness arguments’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2): 15–29.
Bai, X., Roberts, B. H., and Chen, J. (2010) ‘Urban sustainability experiments in Asia:
Patterns and pathways’, Environmental Science and Policy, 13: 312–25.
Banfield, E. (1970) The Unheavenly City, 1st edn. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co.
Batty, M. (2011) Building a Science of Cities. UCL Working Papers Series: 170, November
2011.
Berry, B. (1964) ‘Cities as systems within systems of cities’, Papers and Proceedings of the
Regional Science Association, 13: 147–64.
Better Buildings Partnership (2010) Low Carbon Retrofit Toolkit: A roadmap to success.
London: BBP. Accessed May 2012 at: www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/down
load/bbp_low_carbon_retrofit_toolkit.pdf.
Britnell, J. and Dixon,T. (2012) Retrofitting in the Private Residential and Commercial
Property Sectors: Survey findings. Work Package 2: Urban Technology Foresight
(2020–2050). Accessed April 2013 at: www.retrofit2050.org.uk.
Bulkeley, H. A., Castan Broto, V., Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (eds) (2010) Cities and Low
Carbon Transitions. London: Routledge.
Castells, M. (1989) The Informational City: Information technology, economic restructuring
and the urban-regional process. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., and Truffer, B. (2011) ‘Towards a spatial perspective on
sustainability transitions’, paper presented at the DIME Final Conference, Maastricht,
The Netherlands, 6–8 April 2011. Accessed May 2012 at: http://final.dime-eu.org/
files/coenen_benneworth_truffer_B5.pdf.
Committee on Climate Change (2010) Fourth Carbon Budget: Reducing emissions through
the 2020s. London: Committee on Climate Change.
Curwell, S., Hamilton, A., and Cooper, I. (1998) ‘The BEQUEST network: Towards
sustainable development’, Building Research and Information, 26(1): 56–65.
Daffara, P. (2004) ‘Sustainable urban futures’, in Inayatullah, S. (ed.) The Causal Layered
Analysis (CLA) Reader: Theory and case studies of an integrative and transformative
methodology. Taipei: Tamkang University Press, pp. 424–38.
Dawson, R. (2007) ‘Re-engineering cities: A framework for adaptation to global change’,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 365: 3085–98.
Dixon, T. (2009) ‘Urban land and property ownership patterns in the UK: Trends and forces
for change’, Land Use Policy, 26(Supp. 1): S43–53.
Dixon, T. (2011) ‘Low Carbon’ Scenarios, Roadmaps and Pathways: An overview and
discussion. Accessed October 2013 at: www.retrofit2050.org.uk/sites/default/files/
resources/WP20116.pdf.
Dixon, T. (2012) Hotting Up? An analysis of low carbon plans and strategies for UK cities.
Vol. 1: Main Findings. London: RICS.
Dixon, T., Eames, M., Britnell, J., Watson, G., and Hunt, M. (forthcoming) ‘Urban
retrofitting: Identifying disruptive and sustaining technologies using performative and
foresight techniques’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
Eadson, W. (2012) ‘Constructions of the carbon city’, in Flint, J., and Raco, M. (eds) The
Future of Sustainable Cities. Bristol, UK; Chicago, IL: Policy Press, pp. 65–86.
Eames, M. (2011) Developing Urban Retrofit Scenarios: An outline framework for scenario
foresight and appraisal. EPSRC Retrofit 2050 Working Paper WP 2011/4. Accessed
May 2012 at: www.retrofit2050.org.uk.
Eames, M., Dixon, T., May, T., and Hunt, M. (2013) ‘City futures: exploring urban
retrofit and sustainable transitions’, Building Research and Information, 41(5):
504–16.
14 DIXON ET AL.

Elzen, B., Geels, F. W., and Green, K. (eds) (2004) System Innovation and the Transition
to Sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edgar Elgar.
EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Science Research Council) (2009) Report of the
Sustainable Urban Environment Programme: Grand challenge workshop. Accessed
May 2012 at: www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/reports/SUE
workshop09.pdf.
Geels, F. (2010) ‘Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-
level perspective’, Research Policy, 39 (4): 495–510.
Graham, S., and Thrift, N. (2007) ‘Out of order: Understanding repair and maintenance’,
Theory, Culture & Society, 24 (3): 1–25.
Habegger, B. (2009) Horizon Scanning in Government: Concept, country experiences and
models for Switzerland. Zurich: Center for Security Studies.
Hall, P. (1998) Cities in Civilization. New York: Pantheon.
Hartless, R. (2004) ENPER-TEBUC Project Final Report of Task B4 Energy Performance
of Buildings: Application of energy performance regulations to existing buildings.
Accessed April 2013 at: www.seattle.gov/environment/documents/enper_b4.pdf.
Harvey, D. (2009) Social Justice and the City. Revised edn. Athens, GA: University of
Georgia Press.
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2010) ‘Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how
would we know if they were?’ Research Policy, 39: 477–85.
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2012) ‘Mediating low-carbon urban transitions? Forms of
organization, knowledge and actions’, European Planning Studies, 20(3): 421–39.
Horizon Scanning Centre (2013) ‘State of science reviews: About’. Accessed October 2013
at: http://hsctoolkit.bis.gov.uk/about-17.html.
Hudson, R. (2008) ‘Material matters and the search for resilience: Rethinking regional and
urban development strategies in the context of global environmental change’, Inter-
national Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development (IJISD), 3(3–4): 166–84.
Inayatullah, S. (2011) ‘City futures in transformation: Emerging issues and case studies’,
Futures, 43: 654–61.
Kelly, M. (2009) ‘Retrofitting the existing UK building stock’, Building Research and
Information, 37(2): 196–200.
Kemp, R., and Loorbach, D. (2006) ‘Transition management: A reflexive governance
approach’, in Voss, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R. (eds) Reflexive Governance for
Sustainable Development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 103–30.
Lawhon, M., and Murphy, J. (2011) ‘Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions:
Insights from political ecology’, Progress in Human Geography, 36(3): 354–78.
Living Cities (2010) Green Cities: How urban sustainability efforts can and must drive
America’s climate change policies. New York: Living Cities.
Loveridge, D. (2001) ‘Foresight-seven paradoxes’, International Journal of Technology
Management, 21(7–8): 781–91.
Loveridge, D. (2009) Foresight: The art and science of anticipating the future. New York:
Routledge.
Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
May, T., and Perry, B. (2011) ‘Urban research in the knowledge economy: Content, context
and outlook’, Built Environment, 37(3): 352–67.
May, T., Marvin, S., Hodson, M., and Perry, B. (2010) The SURF-Arup Framework for
Urban Infrastructural Development. Accessed September 2013 at: www.salford.ac.
uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/319634/SURF_ARUP_Framework_Pamphlet_FINAL-
0CT10.pdf.
McNulty, E. (2011) Leadership and Meta-System Challenges: A literature review and
synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Lesley University.
 INTRODUCTION 15

Miles, I., and Keenan, M. (2002) Practical Guide to Regional Foresight in the United
Kingdom. Brussels: European Commission.
Naess, P., and Vogel, N. (2012) ‘Sustainable urban development and the multi-level
transition perspective’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 4,
2012, 36–5.
Newton, P. (2007) ‘Horizon 3 planning: Meshing liveability with sustainability’,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34: 571–5.
Phdungsilp, A. (2011) ‘Futures studies back casting method used for strategic sustainable
city planning’, Futures, 43, 707–14.
Pinnegar, S., Marceau, J., and Randolph, B. (2008) Innovation and the City: Challenges for
the built environment industry. Sydney: City Future Research Centre, University of New
South Wales.
Rip, A., and Kemp, R. (1998) ‘Technological change’, in Rayner, S., and Malone, L. (eds)
Human Choice and Climate Change. Vol. 2: Resources and Technology. Washington
DC: Batelle Press, pp. 327–99.
Rotmans, J. (2006) ‘A complex systems approach for sustainable cities’, in Ruth, M. (ed.)
Smart Growth and Climate Change. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar, pp. 155–80.
Smith, A., Voß, J. P., and Grin, J. (2010) ‘Innovation studies and sustainability transitions:
The allure of the multi-level perspective, and its challenges’, Research Policy, 39:
435–48.
Stafford, A., Gorse, C., and Shao, L. (2011) The Retrofit Challenge: Delivering low carbon
buildings. Leeds, UK: Centre for Low Carbon Futures.
Sustainable Development Commission (2010) The Future is Local: Empowering commun-
ities to improve their neighbourhoods. London: Sustainable Development Commission.
Truffer, B., and Coenen, L. (2012) ‘Environmental innovation and sustainability transitions
in regional studies’, Regional Studies: The Journal of the Regional Studies Association,
46(1): 1–21.
WBCSD (World Business Council on Sustainable Development) (2010) Vision 2050.
Geneva: WBCSD.
Wheeler, S. (2004) Planning for Sustainability: Creating liveable, equitable and ecological
communities. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Whitehead, M. (2012) ‘The sustainable city: An obituary? On the future form and prospects
of sustainable urbanism’, in Flint, J., and Raco, M. (eds) The Future of Sustainable
Cities. Bristol, UK; Chicago, IL: Policy Press, pp. 29–46.
Wolman, A. (1965) ‘The metabolism of cities’. Scientific American, 213(3): 179–90.
This page intentionally left blank
PART I
Setting the scene for
urban retrofit
This page intentionally left blank
2
Sustainable urban
development to 2050
Complex transitions in the built environment
of cities
Tim Dixon* and Malcolm Eames**

The majority of the world’s population now live in cities. This poses great chal-
lenges, but also great opportunities in terms of tackling climate change, resource
depletion and environmental degradation. Policy agendas have increasingly
focused on how to develop and maintain ‘integrated sustainable urban develop-
ment’, and a number of theoretical conceptualisations of urban transition have
been formulated to help our thinking and understanding in both developed and
developing countries. The chapter also shows how cities are developing low-
carbon plans alongside the moves towards sustainable urban development.
Drawing on three case studies, the chapter aims to examine the key ‘critical success
factors’ that need to be in place for cities to traverse a pathway to a more
sustainable future in urban development terms by 2050. The chapter also explores
how important the issues of ‘scale’ are in the context of complexity and frag-
mentation in the city’s built environment and identifies the lessons that can be
learned for future sustainable urban development and the further research that is
needed to address future urban transitions to 2050.

2.1 Introduction
Today some 50 per cent of the world’s population, or 3.6 billion people, live in
cities (UN, 2012), but between now and 2050 the world urban population is
expected to increase by 84 per cent, to some 6.3 billion. This means that, by the
middle of this century, the world urban population will be the same size as the
world’s total population was in 2002 (UN, 2012). Nearly all the expected growth
in the world population over the period to 2050 will be concentrated in the urban
areas of less developed countries, where population is expected to increase from
2.7 billion in 2011 to 5.1 billion in 2050. Megacities (with populations exceed-
ing 10 million inhabitants) will also increase in number from 23 in 2011 to
37 in 2025, and will account for 13.6 per cent of the urban population in 2025.
While 60 per cent of the urban population live in cities with less than 1 million
20 DIXON AND EAMES

inhabitants in 2011, this proportion is expected to decline in the future, so, by

2025, 50 per cent of the urban population will live in cities of this size. In contrast,
cities of 1 million and more inhabitants (accounting for about 40 per cent of the
world urban population in 2011) are expected to account for 47 per cent of
the world urban population by 2025. Indeed, the future urban population will
be increasingly concentrated in large cities of one million or more inhabitants,
with megacities experiencing the largest percentage increase. This increasing
urban concentration in very large cities is a new trend that contradicts previous
observations (UN, 2012).
While such projections are inevitably somewhat uncertain, such dramatic
general increases in population are also expected to be accompanied by other
demographic changes. In developed countries, for example, populations are aging
and stabilising. As a result, most of the projected economic growth over the next
decades is expected to come from developing or emerging economies, and the
BRIC countries in particular (JLL, 2010).
Rapid urban growth carries both costs and benefits. The concentration of such
huge populations in cities (primarily driven by rural depopulation (Satterthwaite,
2007) and the continued quest for economic growth, have substantial implications
for the world in terms of environmental impact, resource depletion, deteriorating
ecosystems and climate change and present huge challenges in meeting the goal
of sustainable development (WBCSD, 2010). For example cities are already
responsible for some 75 per cent of global energy consumption and 80 per cent
of greenhouse gas emissions (UN, 2007).1 This impact is part of what has been
termed by some as the ‘anthropocene’ (Hodson and Marvin, 2010a), which
suggests that we have entered a new era (which started with the industrial
revolution) where human activities have had a significant global impact on the
Earth’s ecosystems.
Yet cities also have potential benefits, in ensuring increased concentration and
economies of scale for the development and deployment of the technologies,
services and infrastructure to offset environmental impact. On the other hand, in
many instances cities have only in the last few decades begun to develop robust
and effective governance and planning systems for delivering sustainable
development, and in the developing world many cities still lack such systems
(OECD, 2009). In short, cities are both a cause and ‘victims’ of environmental
impact, but also the site of potential solutions, as they struggle to innovate in the
face of mounting environmental and socio-economic pressures. In consequence,
a variety of strategies have been developed to enable cities to build the foundations
to protect their ‘ecological security’, or the capacity that cities can mobilise to
secure resources (such as water, energy, waste and flood protection) to ensure
their continued economic and social development (Hodson and Marvin, 2009).
In policy terms and governance terms, there has also been an increasing
emphasis on the concept of ‘sustainable urban development’ and how this can be
achieved to enable cities to move towards a more sustainable future. In Europe,
for example, Rotterdam Urban Acquis of 2004 promoted the concept of
‘integrated sustainable urban development’ (ISUD),2 in which a system of
interlinked actions seeking to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic,
physical, social and environmental conditions of a city or an area within the city.
The key to the process is ‘integration’, meaning that all policies, projects and
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 21

proposals are considered in relation to one another (Colantonio and Dixon, 2010;
EIB, 2010; URBACT, 2010).
There are therefore formidable issues to address if transitions to a more
sustainable future in major urban areas are to be managed successfully. The overall
aim of this chapter is to examine the key critical success factors that need to be
in place for cities to traverse a pathway to a more sustainable future in urban
development terms by 2050. This chapter focuses on cities in developed nations
(but drawing on developing countries for comparison) and begins by identifying
the key concept of ‘sustainable urban development’. The importance of issues of
‘scale’, in the context of complexity and fragmentation in the city’s built
environment, are then considered before briefly reviewing how city transitions to
a more sustainable future may be conceptualised. The chapter then examines
sustainable urban development in practice, using examples drawn from around
the world, before identifying the lessons that can be learned for future sustainable
urban development, and the further research that is needed to address future urban
transitions to 2050.

2.2 Focus and definitions: towards

sustainable urban development
During the 1990s sustainability became a key focus for UK government policy
with an emphasis on social, economic and environmental well-being, or what is
often referred to as the ‘triple bottom line’ approach to sustainable development
in academic literature (Elkington, 1997). This attempts to achieve development
that promotes economic growth, but maintains social inclusion and minimises
environmental impact (Dixon, 2007; Dixon and Adams, 2008). For many the
‘Russian doll’ model of sustainability offers a coherent way of integrating
ecological thinking within all social and economic planning (Newton and Bai,
2008).
In turn this was underpinned by policy guidance (‘Securing the Future’), which
sought to set a new framework goal for sustainable development (SD) (HM
Government, 2005) and revisions to national planning guidance that aimed to
strengthen the focus of SD principles within the wider UK planning system – for
example, PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (CLG, 2005) and PPS 23:
Planning and Pollution Control (CLG, 2004).3
In parallel with this we have seen the emergence of what might broadly be
termed, ‘sustainable urban development’ (SUD),4 which has often been used
interchangeably with ‘urban sustainability’ (Richardson, 1994; Maclaren, 1996).
They may be differentiated, however, because sustainability implies a desirable
state or set of conditions, whereas SUD implies a process by which sustain-
ability can be attained (Maclaren, 1996). More formally, SUD has been defined
as: ‘development that improves the long-term social and ecological health of cities
and towns’ (Wheeler, 1998).
Wheeler goes on to suggest that a ‘sustainable city’ must be compact; promote
efficient land use; have less automobile use, and better access; have efficient
resource use, and less pollution and waste; restore natural systems; provide good
housing and living environments; have a healthy social ecology, a sustainable
economy and community participation and involvement; and preserve local
22 DIXON AND EAMES

culture and wisdom. There is perhaps a move or trend therefore to cities that are
designed according to evolving principles of ‘ecological urbanism’ (Mostafavi and
Doherty, 2010; Hodson and Marvin, 2010a).
The city has in fact become a key focus for promoting sustainable development
policy within the UK and the wider EU. At a European level this has seen the
further development of the concept of ISUD, which was designed to underpin the
Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs, and which was a cornerstone of the Leipzig
Charter on Sustainable European Cities (EC, 2009). ISUD sought to make greater
use of integrated urban development policy approaches (by creating and ensuring
high-quality public spaces, modernising infrastructure networks and improving
energy efficiency, proactive innovation and educational policies). There was also
a strong focus on deprived neighbourhoods by pursuing strategies to upgrade the
physical environment, strengthen the local economy and local labour market
policy, instigate proactive education and training policies, and promote efficient
and affordable urban transport.
Over the last 10 years therefore a common methodology for ISUD has begun
to take shape and has been promoted, following the emergence of a European
‘Acquis Urbain’, which builds on the experience gained in supporting integrated
and sustainable urban development (EC, 2009). This was based on the following
cornerstones (Ministry of Kingdom and Interior Relations, 2005):

• the development of city-wide visions that go beyond each project and are
embedded in the city-regional context;
• an integrated and cross-sectoral approach (horizontal and vertical coordina-
tion);
• new instruments of urban governance, administration and management,
including increased local responsibilities and strong local and regional
partnerships;
• financing and investing with lasting effects; concentration of resources and
funding on selected target areas;
• capitalising on knowledge, exchanging experience and know-how (bench-
marking, networking);
• monitoring the progress (ex-ante, mid-term and ex-post evaluations, and
indicators).

This implies that governance systems are important and this issue has also been
highlighted in the work of Pieterse (2008). While Pieterse focused largely on
developing countries, his work is important for highlighting key systemic drivers
for sustainable urban development, such as: participatory systems; infrastructure
and technology; building, design and landscape standards; as well as the
importance of economic processes and basic inequality (Figure 2.1).

2.3 Scale and fragmentation in the city’s

built environment
According to Moffatt and Kohler (2008: 249) the built environment in cities refers
to ‘(human) made surroundings that provide the setting for human activity,
ranging from the large-scale civic surroundings to the personal places’. In this
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 23

Fiscal policy: Enforcement

tariffs, taxes & capacity
Systemic drivers: land-use levies Democratic system:

• Participatory • Participatory
systems & mechanisms
mechanisms Spatial Capable linked to policy,
• Infrastructure & development democratic budgetary and
technology frameworks local state spatial
• Building, design and decision-making
landscape standards • Vibrant civil society
• Economic processes Spatial • Free speech &
& value chains regulation : independent media
• (In)equality landuse Enforcement • Autonomous action
guidelines & capacity
zoning

Normative framework: right-to-the-city,

pluralism, social justice and poverty reduction

Figure 2.1 Institutional dimensions of sustainable urban development

Source: adapted from Pieterse (2009).

context it is important to note that the built environment does not then just
comprise buildings and infrastructure and transport systems. It also includes the
human community, cultural experiences and the interactions of people (New
Zealand Ministry for Environment, 2009).
Moreover, we find that there are a variety of perspectives on the built
environment in cities. These range from: physical perspectives, including form and
fabric; geographical and spatial perspectives, including morphologies and
typologies of cities; socio-economic perspectives, including behavioural issues and
lifetime trends; and policy and governance perspectives such as the ‘urban
renaissance’ or ‘sustainable community’ discourses (Ravetz, 2008). Knowledge
mapping of the built environment in cities must also recognise its complexity. As
Ravetz (2008) suggests this can viewed on three main axes: existing/new buildings;
physical/social; and scale (Figure 2.2).
In this context it is important to realise that sustainable development can apply
to building, neighbourhood, city, regional, national and global scales. Frequently
our thinking has failed to treat the built environment as spatially connected and
complex (Pinnegar et al., 2008). This spatial connectivity relates to the complexity
of infrastructure, spaces and places and communities together with how urban
form and function relate. In this sense a focus purely on buildings leads to lack
of strategic focus. Moreover, as Bai et al. (2010) suggest there is frequently an
inherent temporal (‘not in my term’), spatial (‘not in my patch’) and institutional
(‘not my business’) scale mismatch between urban decision-making and global
environmental concerns, where urban decision-makers are often constrained
within short timescales, the immediate spatial scale of their jurisdictions and
within ‘nested’ governmental hierarchies (Figure 2.3). Despite these tensions, cities
24 DIXON AND EAMES

City &
regional scale

New Construction Socio-economic

Socio-economic
buildings & adaptation performance uses & users

Physical Maintenance &.

performance improvement
Existing built form
Physical form &
fabric

Building
component
scale

Figure 2.2 Knowledge mapping in the built environment

Source: adapted from Ravetz (2008).

Planning
Land use planning

Infrastructu re development

5 10 15 20 25Yrs

Environment
Land use planning

Infrastructure development

10 100 1000 Yrs

Figure 2.3 Variations in temporal scale: (a) temporal scale of planning; (b) temporal scale of
potential environmental impacts of decisions
Source: adapted from Bai (2007).
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 25

can and do address global issues because of the benefits this entails for local
populations and cities as a whole through direct economic impacts (Bai, 2007).
Cities also present a range of complex issues that differ in their scalar impact.
As Bai (2003) suggests poverty-related issues tend to have local impacts;
production-related issues tend to have local to regional impacts, and consumption-
related issues tend to have regional to global impacts. Nonetheless, as Hodson
and Marvin (2010b) suggest, cities are increasingly a focus for addressing sustain-
ability issues because of increasing economic globalisation, and the resultant
changing relationships between national and sub-national spaces and economic
activity that have led to new spaces of governance and intervention.
There is in practice therefore an increasing appetite from some cities to tackle
transformation to low-carbon economies within a relatively short timescale. As
Kelly (2009) suggests, carbon emissions from existing buildings can be tackled
through re-engineering the existing fabric of buildings; improving appliance
efficiencies; decarbonising energy supplies; and changing behaviour.
Globally, for example, cities have signed up to the C40 initiative, which is a
network of cities dedicated to tackling climate change by reducing emissions. In
the UK the Core Cities programme, which brings together the city-regional ‘big
hitters’ in the UK such as Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol, has also focused
on the low-carbon agenda. For example, in the UK, Greater Manchester was
designated the UK’s first Low Carbon Economic Area (LCEA) for the Built
Environment in 2009. Under the banner of ‘From Red Brick to Green Brick’ the
LCEA brings together the 10 Greater Manchester local authorities under the
leadership of the Greater Manchester Environment Commission to develop a
combined programme that aims to accelerate the pace at which the existing
buildings of Greater Manchester can be retrofitted, so as to create jobs, business
growth and productivity improvements (AGMA, 2010). The Greater Manchester
Strategy is that by 2015 ‘Greater Manchester has established itself as a world
leading city region in the transformation to a low carbon economy’, and analysis
indicates that by 2015 Greater Manchester Low Carbon Economic Area for the
built environment could:

• deliver up to £650 million additional to the gross value added (GVA) of the
economy;
• support 34,800 jobs, including 18,000 in the supply chain and contribute
approximately £1.4 billion GVA in the built environment in total;
• benefit the UK through developing and sharing best practice, as well as
economic spill-over benefits;
• reduce CO2 emissions from the existing domestic sector by 26 per cent by
2015; and
• save 6 million tonnes of carbon from existing buildings.

Among its ambitions, the LCEA aims to have installed loft and cavity wall
insulation in every home where it is practical by 2015, and to have fitted loft and
cavity wall insulation to 75 per cent of all remaining homes by 2013. Delivery is
likely to be dependent on the innovative combination of private capital, including
the European Investment Bank, in partnership with the public sector (AGMA,
2010).
26 DIXON AND EAMES

A further issue cities face, however, in moving towards a sustainable future

is the fragmentation and complexity present within the built environment
industry (Carbon Trust, 2010; WBCSD, 2010). To take just the case of the non-
domestic buildings supply chain (in relation to energy efficiency) in the UK, there
are a large number of players involved from the upstream supply chain (investors,
developers and agents) through to the downstream supply chain. Often there is
a silo mentality in the industry with agents often having little interaction with
designers, and product manufacturers having little interaction with investors
and developers who are procuring the building. This disconnection is played out
many times over when new buildings and new projects in cities are commissioned
(Figure 2.4).
At a broader level, dealing with transformation presents a staggering cost for
infrastructure in cities. A recent report by Booz & Co. for the WWF (Booz &
Co., 2010) suggested that the economic challenge for both developed and
developing nations is ‘gargantuan’ over the next 30 years. Booz’s analysis suggests
that global urban infrastructure and usage expenditures over the next three
decades will exceed $350 trillion (or seven times global GDP) (see Figure 2.5).
This is partly because as smaller cities mature over time they generally follow
a predictable pattern of expenditures and emissions related to infrastructure
development and usage. In the UK this view of infrastructure renewal is sup-
ported by a recent Core Cities report (Core Cities, 2010) that suggests there is
an escalating infrastructure deficit estimated at £500 billion nationally over the
next 10 years.5
In short the Booz report goes onto suggest that there are three main pre-
requisites to tackling such challenges:

1 Cities must adopt aggressive energy reduction goals and best-practice

approaches to urban planning.
2 Innovative financing strategies are needed to provide $20 trillion to $30
trillion in funding for additional upfront capital costs, with developed nations
working together to assist developing nations in their low-carbon urban
infrastructure initiatives.
3 The latest technological advances must be utilised to support and enable the
planning, construction, and usage of urban infrastructure in all cities.

In terms of planning for example, the report suggests that this means there should
be long-term, strategic-level, low-carbon action plans, supported by a holistic
national urban planning approach that enables the integration of large mainstream
investment flows rather than a project-by-project approach on the sidelines of core
development strategies and decisions. It will also require capacity building for
policy-making and financial instruments to assist cities in developing nations with
the upfront investments needed to create and undertake low-carbon initiatives.
Nonetheless, key barriers operate at a city level as well. As recent US research
has shown it can be difficult to secure participation in city-wide retrofitting.
Financing options are currently limited. The green jobs argument is often poorly
articulated and pulling policy strands together in an integrated whole is often
problematic (Institute for Sustainable Communities, 2009).
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 27

Figure 2.4 System integration is key to achieving energy efficiency in buildings

Source: adapted from WBCSD (2008).

Usage
Moving goods

Moving people

Private and commercial real

estate
Infrastructure Information and communications
technology

Access to electricity

o 50 100 150 200 250 300

30 Year cumulative urban expenditure (worldwide, in constant US$ trillions,
year 2000)

Figure 2.5 Urban infrastructure and usage expenditure

Source: Booz & Co. (2010).

2.4 Conceptualising and theorising cities

and transitions
Broadly speaking about 1–2 per cent annually of total building stock in UK cities
is ‘new build’.6 This means that the vast majority of stock comprises existing
buildings, so achieving sustainable urban development on the scale required to
transform our cities to 2050 will require a dramatic transformation of buildings,
28 DIXON AND EAMES

infrastructures, lifestyles and governance systems. Understanding how such large-

scale systemic changes can be brought about is therefore fundamental to planning
and managing sustainable urban transitions. Briefly reviewing ‘systems’ models
of the city, of urban sustainability, and of the dynamics of systems innovation in
an urban context, provides some indication of the nature of the challenges
inherent in conceptualising and enacting such transitions.
It is over 50 years since the first attempts model the city as a closed linear system
with urban planning able to impose command and control prompts (Berry, 1964;
Batty, 2011). However, it was soon appreciated that cities are complex and do
not automatically revert to equilibrium after a perturbation, in the way that a
simple system does (McNulty, 2011). As we saw in Chapter 1, thinking in this
field therefore moved away from seeing the city as a ‘machine’ towards concept-
ualising the city as an ‘organism’ or, in other words, more like a biological than
a mechanical system (Batty, 2011). This led to the emergence of urban metabolic
models, with complex feedback loops, based on resource flows and systems
thinking (Wolman, 1965). Such urban metabolic model are useful for communi-
cating key sustainable development goals for cities which might include (Newton
and Bai, 2008): (a) using resources more efficiently; (b) using waste as a resource;
(c) restoring and maintaining urban environmental quality; (d) enhancing human
wellbeing; and (e) promoting highly efficient and effective urban and industrial
planning, design and management systems.
Building upon such thinking Haughton (1997) suggests four different models
of the relationship between cities and their ‘environmental hinterlands’. These
comprise ‘self-reliant’ cities, which encapsulate the city as an ‘urban metabolism’
(see also Guy and Marvin, 2001, and Wolman, 1965); ‘redesigning cites’, which
is based around planning for compact and energy efficient regions; ‘externally
dependent cities’, which follow a linear model for metabolism; and a ‘fair shares’
model, which incorporates environmental value with social justice and links the
best elements of the previous three models.
Moreover, the goals relating to urban metabolism fit with what has been termed
‘eco-city’ status, or ‘Stage IV’ of the phases of ‘urban environmental transition’
(UET) (Bai and Imura, 2000; see Figure 2.6). In one sense this is linked to the
Kuznets curve of environmental development, whereby cities follows an inverted
U-curve of environmental development. However, as Newton and Bai (2008)
observe, many consumption trends do not follow this shape (for example,
greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss) and the same pattern may not be
applicable to all cities. Further research (Newton, 2007; Bai and Imura, 2000)
also suggests that resource use may also often not be reduced over time because
of the geographical separation of populations from the location of resource
extraction (i.e. out of sight, out of mind), the relatively easy externalisation of
such impacts, and weak governance systems.
UET offers an approach that is based on empirical analysis of past trends. The
concept comprises four main components (Newton and Bai, 2008: 9): (a) cities
can be viewed as complex systems that are subject to constant change, which
constitutes a dynamic evolutionary process; (b) urban environmental profiles of
cities are diverse, but there are certain commonalities in the longitudinal dynamics
among different cities; (c) there is a strong non-linearity in the trajectories of the
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 29

Todayo future
° °

tl
ro
a.
o~ Consumption
ro
+' Production stage
C
Q) stage
E Eco-city
c Poverty stage
e
os; stage
c
W

Time/Economic
Development

Figure 2.6 Conceptual illustration of stage model in relation to major urban environmental problems
Source: adapted from Bai and Imura (2000) and Newton and Bai (2008).

environmental evolution of cities, rather than there being a fixed common pattern;
(d) the trajectory is shaped by a unique combination of endogenous and exogenous
forces, reflecting both the external pressures and the responses within the city (Bai,
2003). This approach also fits well with much recent thinking which sees cities
as ‘complex adaptive systems’ (see Chapter 1), in which cities exhibit properties
such as: non-linear cause and effect relationships; negative or positive feedback
loops; and, open systems (with for example energy imported and exported across
boundaries) with a diverse variety of interacting elements (Rotmans, 2006).
However, it should be noted that, as recent work by Ooi (2007) shows, the
past is not necessarily an unalterable trend for the future; in that sense the
evolutionary patterns illustrated in Figure 2.6 do not automatically translate into
a future sustainability transition. Moreover, the importance of governance systems
is not adequately catered for in such models. Indeed the concept of ‘ecological
modernisation’, which focuses on the role of innovation in cleaner production
and decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation (Hajer, 1995),
(and hence the promotion of structural shifts to less carbon intensive economies
through market mechanisms (with a minimum role played by the state)), has been
criticised for its ‘one size fits all’ approach, which may well not be appropriate
to developing countries (Lankao, 2007).
In parallel with these developments in the fields of urban planning and urban
ecology, and partly motivated by a recognition that the demands of sustainable
development require a broader framing than that provided by the discourse of
‘ecological modernisation’ (Smith et al., 2010), the last decade has seen the
emergence of the new interdisciplinary field of sustainability transitions research.
Indeed, transitions theory, and the multi-level perspective (MLP) in particular, has
30 DIXON AND EAMES

played a substantial role in helping understand the complex and multi-dimensional

shifts needed to move societies to more sustainable modes of production and
consumption in such areas as transport, energy, housing, agriculture and food
(Coenen et al., 2011).
Informed by insights from evolutionary economics, innovation studies, ecology,
systems thinking and complexity theory, transitions theory assumes that large-
scale societal changes occur in a quasi-evolutionary fashion – that patterns in the
dynamics of ‘systems innovations’, or ‘transitions’, occur as a result of processes
of variation and selection that drive the co-evolution of social and technological
change. Transitions are understood as complex processes resulting from mutually
reinforcing changes involving multiple societal actors, operating across multiple
domains (science, technology, economy, ecology, institutions, culture, user-
behaviours and expectations). Moreover, from historical studies we know that
transitions are long-term processes, with system-wide change typically taking
decades (20–50 years) to occur.
Transitions theory postulates that successful systems (or ‘socio-technical
regimes’) comprising networks of artefacts, actors and institutions, become
stabilised over time through the accumulation of processes promoting ‘lock in’
and path dependency (for example, sunk investments in skills, capital equipment
and infrastructures, vested interests, organisational capital, shared belief systems,
legal frameworks that create uneven playing fields, consumer norms and lifestyles).
In this MLP (Figure 2.7), ‘lock in’ to existing systems is overcome and transitions
occur as a result of experimentation and the emergence of new socio-technical
configurations (innovations) within protected niches. These factors, combined with
landscape pressures, destabilise and transform or replace the existing ‘regime’ (Rip
and Kemp, 1998; Geels, 2004; Kemp and Loorbach, 2006; Kemp et al., 2006).

Landscape
developments IV. Replacement
phase

Socio-technical III. Breakthrough :

regime windows of opportunity

II. Market niches and stabilisation

Technological
niches
I. Novelties emerge from niches

Time

Figure 2.7 Multilevel perspectives on transitions

Source: adapted from Geels (2004).
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 31

Given their inherent complexity and uncertainty, it is argued that, socio-

technical transitions cannot be ‘planned’ or ‘managed’ in the traditional sense.
Instead, proponents of transition theory suggest that new reflexive, networked
governance practices are required to align both the speed and direction of system
change towards the goals of sustainable development (Geels, 2005; Rotmans,
2006).
Earlier work on the MLP has, however, been criticised for its neglect
of geography and implicit focus on national level transitions (see for example:
Smith et al., 2010; Lawhon and Murphy, 2011; Truffer and Coenen, 2012).
Truffer and Coenen (2012) in particular have argued for a richer spatial and scale
conceptualisation within transition studies, while Monstadt (2009) explicitly
called for a greater cross-fertilisation of urban and technology studies.
One element of this debate has focused specifically on cities and low-carbon
transitions (Rotmans, 2006; Bulkeley et al., 2010; Hodson and Marvin, 2010b;
Hodson and Marvin, 2010c; Geels, 2010; De Laurentis et al., 2012; Hodson and
Marvin, 2012). For example, Geels (2010) suggests that cities themselves can play
three important roles in technological transitions at the national level: first as
‘primary actors’, who enact the transition; second as ‘seedbeds and locations’ for
radical innovations in the early phases of transitions; and third in a more limited
role that helps transform ‘existing systems’ through powerful incumbent actors
and strong market interactions. Similarly, work by Hodson and Marvin (2012)
and De Laurentis et al. (2012) has sought to understand the role of cities as
intermediary organisational contexts for low-carbon transition in order to examine
how responses are constituted and visions mobilised to include or exclude
particular interests and communities.
Nonetheless as Naess and Vogel (2012: 16) suggest, it should be recognised
that applying MLP at city level presents particular challenges:

the complexity, scale and context-dependency of cities, the relative perman-

ence of the urban built environment and the strong vested interests, cultural
norms and lifestyles associated with present modes of urban development present
huge challenges to a transition toward sustainability, politically as well as
analytically.

Indeed recent work by both Naess and Vogel (2012) and Eames et al. (2013) has
sought to critically explore the challenges in applying the MLP framework to the
analysis of urban sustainability transitions. Both argue that the ‘dominant
technology’ MLP conceptualisation of the regime is particularly problematic with
respect to urban environments where multi-segmented regimes fulfil multiple
societal functions integrated across multiple spatial scales, technological fields and
environmental domains. Both also highlight the use of backcasting to envisage
normative, sustainability oriented city-regional futures and analyse the conditions
and processes, or pathways, necessary for their realisation. Nonetheless further
work is needed to translate and adapt the MLP to cater for the differences of the
city compared with other contexts, and to develop alternate heuristics that better
integrate and synthesise systems models of the city and elements of transitions
theory to assist in our understanding of urban sustainability transitions.
32 DIXON AND EAMES

2.5 Sustainable urban development: what

does it look like in practice?
Clearly theoretical constructs can aid our understanding of the substantial
transformations required at city level if our built environment is to be sustainable
by 2050. But what does sustainable urban development look like in practice?
If new urban development is to be truly sustainable then it will need to fulfil
key criteria. As discussed in the previous section the urban metabolism model
suggests that key sustainable development goals should be met (Newton and
Bai, 2008). There has therefore been an increasing trend in the literature
surrounding sustainable urban development to cite case studies that exemplify
these principles. The World Bank’s Eco2 City initiative (World Bank, 2010), for
example, suggests there are several factors that need to be in place for cities to
be both ‘economically’ competitive and ‘ecologically’ sustainable. Approaches
should be city-based, for example, and incorporate an expanded platform for
design and decision-making within a ‘one system’ framework. Cities should also
utilise an ‘investment framework’ which values sustainability and resilience across
the whole lifecycle of buildings. Much of this mimics some of the characteristics
of ISUD identified earlier, but also controversially may be seen by some as
attempting to draw parallels between developed and developing countries in the
sense that the latter should seek to aspire to the sustainability values and ideals
of the former.
Nonetheless, there are a plethora of examples within literature and ‘best
practice’ to highlight the key principles of ISUD. In this sense ISUD is seen as
being recognisable through its strong focus on the three pillars of sustainability
and its basis on ‘partnership’, ‘participation’ and ‘integration’ (see for example,
Dixon, 2007; Williams and Dair, 2007). The following three short case studies
are therefore included to exemplify key trends and characteristics in relation to
ISUD.

2.5.1 Hammarby Sjostad, Stockholm, Sweden

The transformation of the former industrial and harbour area around the
Hammarby Lake in Stockholm is one of the biggest urban development ventures
in Europe (Figure 2.8). This is an urban extension to Stockholm’s inner city and
is often cited as an exemplar of integrated environmental urban design. The urban
extension is based on a 200 ha brownfield site to the south of Hammarby Lake
and will provide 11,000 homes and 200,000 m2 of commercial space when it
is completed in 2018, with a total population of 30,000. The development is
characterised by strong stakeholder engagement through what is known as the
Hammarby Model, a systematic approach to integrating energy, water and waste
systems in a holistic way so that resources used in one part of the system are
recycled for use in other parts of the system. The overall objective of the
community is to reduce environmental impact by 50 per cent compared with other
suburban areas in Stockholm. The area was remediated using solidification and
stabilisation techniques.
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 33

Figure 2.8 Hammarby Sjostad, Stockholm, Sweden

Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hammarby_Sjostad.jpg. Accessed June 2013.

2.5.2 Dockside Green, Victoria, Canada

Dockside Green is a 1,300,000-square-foot (121,000 m2) mixed-use community
currently under development in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. It is a co-
development of Vancity Credit Union, Canada’s largest credit union, and Windmill
West, a partnership ‘dedicated to designing and building only the best urban
environments’. According to Dockside Green’s 2007 Annual Sustainability Report,
the project’s first two phases ‘Synergy’ and ‘Balance’ are well beyond LEED
Platinum certification levels with 63 points each (52 are needed for Platinum).
Probably the most important aspect of Dockside Green’s environmental aspira-
tions is the building of a centralised biomass gasification plant that converts waste
wood (tree clippings, construction excesses) into a gas that is burned to provide
hot water and heat. Additional natural gas boilers will also be used in peak
periods. It is hoped that the biomass plant will not only make Dockside Green
neutral or even negative in terms of greenhouse gas production, but even allow
it to sell energy to surrounding communities. Dockside Green has also publicly
committed to using the ‘LEED for Neighborhood Development’ and places strong
emphasis on community. The overall design of the Dockside Green is in general
agreement with the principles of New Urbanism, a school of thought in planning
that favours mid-to-high density neighbourhoods with a focus on community and
the resident’s ability to walk to most their daily needs. Designs focus on creating
an intimate atmosphere on city streets, narrowing them and bringing the faces of
buildings closer to the streets themselves. Dockside Green is also linked with
Vancouver’s move to position itself as the world’s ‘greenest city’ by 2020.7

2.5.3 Curitiba, Brazil

Curitiba is the capital of the Brazilian state of Paraná (Figure 2.9). It is the
country’s seventh largest city and has the perhaps the most dynamic economy in
southern Brazil. The city is Brazil’s fourth richest and has a GDP in excess of
USD 17 billion, according to IBGE (n.d.). The city has been heralded as a fine
34 DIXON AND EAMES

Figure 2.9 Curitiba, Brazil

Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Curitiba_seen_from_above.jpg. Accessed June 2013.

example of sustainability with much of its success attributed to Jaime Lerner, former
mayor of the city. Key to its success has also been the Plano Diretor that was
adopted in 1968, and which integrated land use and transport to produce an axial
system. A single unified planning unit, the IPPC, has ensured Curitiba has a highly
effective public transport system (75 per cent of commuters take the bus with the
result that there is 25 per cent less congestion in Curitiba, and 30 per cent lower
fuel consumption than in other similar sized Brazilian cities), excellent recycling
facilities and a green and liveable environment (much of which is integrated with
flood protection work). Everyone has easy access to public transport and the five
arterial routes from the city centre to the outskirts have been used as the growth
corridors of the city, with density decreasing away from the growth corridors. In
the 1990s, the city started a project called Faróis do Saber (‘Lighthouses of
Knowledge’), which are free educational centres, including libraries, Internet
access, and other cultural resources, aimed particularly at children.
Of course, other examples of new sustainable urban development exist
elsewhere in the world and some of this development is seen as being part of a
wider ‘eco city’ movement (Joss et al., 2013). For example, in the Middle East,
cities are competing and vying with each to incorporate sustainability principles
into their master plans and to try and lead the sustainability agenda. Some of
these developments are controversial in terms of their environmental impact, but
others, such as Masdah, have been seen by some as exemplars of sustainability
(Stillwell and Lindabury, 2008; Joss et al., 2013).
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 35

2.6 What lessons can we learn from cities

as they seek to move towards a more
sustainable future?
It is clear that cities will follow different trajectories in the future and that ‘one size
does not fit all’. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development Vision
2050 report (WBCSD, 2010) suggests there are a spectrum of cities globally that
have different requirements and needs (Table 2.1). For example, so-called ‘green’
or ‘eco’ cities such as Masdah in Abu Dhabi, (UAE) are planned cities designed and
built from scratch. ‘Brown’ cities such as London or Seoul are already established
metropolises where the majority of buildings are ‘legacy’ stock. ‘Blue’ cities such
as Dhaka, Bangladesh and New Orleans, USA, are situated in low-lying areas
and are frequently susceptible to flooding and so will also require special adaptive
measures, while ‘red’ cities, such as Mumbai and Soweto, with booming popu-
lations but inadequate resources, present opportunities to develop affordable,
scalable and eco-efficient solutions that could improve quality of everyday life.
Further research (OECD, 2009) has also shown that those cities that promote higher
environmental quality will maintain and enhance economic attractiveness.
Many cities are vying with each other to become the world’s greenest city, and
that includes cities that also have a significant legacy stock (Siemens, 2010). For
example, Vancouver has developed a plan to be the world’s greenest city by 2020
(in competition with cities such as London, New York, San Francisco, Sydney
and Stockholm) and has adopted an ambitious action plan to achieve its target.
In many cities, transport and green growth alongside energy efficiency measures
are seen as key in terms of moving to a low-carbon future alongside the aspiration
towards a more integrated form of sustainable urban development. For example,
cities in the UK that form part of the Core Cities group have the power and
resources to engage with the low-carbon agenda. Leadership, enthusiasm, skills
and the freedom to operate locally are all important attributes for successful cities
in this arena. In Bristol, for example, the creative tension between local community
interests and council members, stretching back to the 1980s, has created a culture
of strong environmentalism (Dixon, 2012).

Table 2.1 Four categories of cities with different attributes and prospects
‘Brown’ ‘Red’ ‘Green’ ‘Blue’

Example London Mumbai Masdah Dhaka

Development Gradual Ad-hoc Deliberate At risk
Assets Cultural history, Resilience, Clean slate Potential for
outdated diversity, ability for innovative, innovative
buildings to manage holistic solutions
scarcity solutions
Buildings New construction Affordable and Holistic design Adaptation
and retrofit low-impact
housing

Source: adapted from WBCSD (2010).

36 DIXON AND EAMES

Often the vision is challenging in its own right: Stockholm, for example, has
placed the low-carbon economy at the heart of the long term vision for the city,
including the target of becoming fossil fuel free by 2050, and this has been backed
up by shorter term actions, such as integrating the low-carbon agenda in new
regeneration and development projects. Oslo’s vision is also ambitious (Oslo City
Council, 2011):

Oslo has a vision that Oslo shall be a capital city in sustainable development,
characterised by economic, social and cultural growth according to nature’s ability
to sustain that growth ecologically. We shall pass on the city to the next generation
in a better environmental condition than we ourselves inherited it. Oslo shall be
one of the world’s most environmentally friendly and sustainable capital cities.

Key to success is also the concept of participatory action, whereby key stakeholder
groups are consulted and involved in dialogue. The City of Stockholm, for
example, used its historic legacy of Local Agenda 21 to raise awareness and is
using its Environmental Program in a similar way. Plymouth in the UK is engaging
with the business sector to help lever change to a low-carbon economy (Dixon,
2012; Dixon and Wilson, 2013).
Very often cities also lead by example through setting tough carbon emissions
targets for the local authority, or cities also learn by sharing, in the sense that
they try and promote wider engagement and learn from key stakeholders
connected with climate and energy planning (see also Climate Group, 2011).
Strong leadership, collaboration and communication are all key to successful
implementation of target-based action plans.
For example, looking internationally, Vancouver sees itself as the world’s most
‘liveable’ city, and this is founded on a strong focus on social sustainability, which
very often is overlooked in sustainable urban development. A comprehensive
definition with a special focus on urban environments is provided by Polese and
Stren (2000: 15–16) who define social sustainability as

Development (and/or growth) that is compatible with harmonious evolution of

civil society, fostering an environment conductive to the compatible cohabitation
of culturally and socially diverse groups while at the same time encouraging social
integration, with improvements in the quality of life for all segments of the
population.

In Vancouver’s SDP, social sustainability is defined as follows (City of

Vancouver, 2005: 12):

For a community to function and be sustainable, the basic needs of its residents
must be met. A socially sustainable community must have the ability to maintain
and build on its own resources and have the resiliency to prevent and/or address
problems in the future.

The Vancouver model (Colantonio and Dixon, 2010) suggests that to develop
communities that are socially sustainable requires us to acknowledge that there
are three main building blocks:
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 37

1 basic needs: appropriate and affordable housing;

2 individual or human capacity, which refers to the attributes and resources
that individuals can contribute to their own well-being and to the well-being
of the community as a whole, such as skills, education employment, lifelong
learning; and
3 social community or capacity, which is defined as the relationships, networks
and norms that facilitate collective action taken to improve upon quality of
life and to ensure that such improvements are sustainable (i.e. social inter-
action; public spaces; culture and the arts).

In Vancouver the overarching milestones of social sustainability (which is

adaptable to changing requirements) is guided by four principles (which include
equity, inclusion, adaptability and security) and policy actions in seven areas, or
themes. Furthermore, related research (Colantonio and Dixon, 2010) has shown
that for cities to be successful in social sustainability terms requires certain
‘critical success factors’ to be in place, which include:

• strong brand and identity for projects at the relevant scale;

• local community participation and empowerment;
• innovative and effective partnership models that bring together the private
and public sectors; and
• strong planning policies and governance models.

2.7 Critical success factors for integrated

sustainable urban development
Previous research has shown that there are five main dimensions or critical success
factors (CSFs) to this new thinking that can provide a strong basis for ISUD, and
that in turn link with the concept of a ‘managed transition’:8

CSF 1 Stronger governance systems and strategic planning regimes

at all scales
There has frequently been a failure to develop governance and planning systems
at a city scale that are adaptive and flexible enough to cope with disruptions and
uncertainty over what is a relatively long timescale to 2050. Frequently governance
and planning systems have been beset by expediency issues and have failed to
address longer-term systemic problems. For example, climate change action at an
urban level happens through a combination of local regulations, urban services,
programme administration, city purchasing, property management and consulta-
tion and dialogue with local stakeholders (Lamia and Robert, 2009). Change may
also be relatively easier to instil where the public sector plays an important role
in a city. Urban policies also require better ‘joining up’: for example, spatial
planning policies that promote higher densities and better mixing of uses can help
create more sustainable transport options (Table 2.2). More recently the UN
(2013) has highlighted innovation in governance systems (alongside high-quality
spatial planning and design; innovation in buildings; and resilience in the ability
to plan and manage natural disasters) as being key to understanding how cities
can transition to a more sustainable future in the developing world.
38 DIXON AND EAMES

Table 2.2 Synergy in urban policy

Impact
Land-use zoning
Land-use zoning determines
the density, height of
buildings, and proportion
of undeveloped land on
each property
Natural resources
Natural resource policies
determine which areas are
preserved from development
and what uses are
acceptable on them
Building
Building policies, including
building codes, affect
building materials,
construction types, and
other physical conditions
Transportation
Segregation of land uses
impacts travel distances and
frequency; transit-oriented
development zones
encourage use of mass
transportation
Natural resource policies
affect the placement
of road and mass
transportation infrastructure
Renewable energy
Zoning density can constrain
on-site renewable energy
production but can also
increase efficiency of service
delivery
Natural resources
endowment makes certain
renewable energies possible
Building codes can require
the on-site generation of
renewable energy
Waste and water
Zoning density can determine
the efficacy of delivery of waste,
recycling and composting
services; and the energy
required and efficacy of
delivery of water services
Building codes can require
design and building materials
that produce less construction
waste

Note: Policy sectors with no shading demonstrate highest impact. Policy sectors with light grey shading demonstrate lower impact. Policy sectors with
dark grey shading demonstrate no impact.
Source: adapted from OECD (2010).

CSF 2 Better integration across the built environment

As was suggested earlier in this chapter, there has frequently been a failure to
integrate thinking across professions in the built environment. This is important
to recognise operationally at a building project level, and through individual and
group actions, this also plays out at a city level. Frequently there is failure to learn
from projects and transfer knowledge about sustainability effectively. In the built
environment there is also a tendency to approach issues with a silo mentality,
with planners, designers and architects taking different views of how to achieve
the end result. Often projects are fast tracked and we lose the true virtues of
sustainability. Moreover, in design terms, the details of sustainability are lost on
senior decision-makers through lack of clarity. Finally, there is often too much
focus on capital costs instead of whole life costs, and frequently knowledge transfer
or best practice is lost (WBCSD, 2008). However, the built environment offers
high-level opportunities for market growth and jobs creation, as adaptation
requirements drive change. As GHK (2010) point out, in relation to the UK and
globally, these opportunities that are largely based around retrofitting and new
build are expected to feed through in the short term and beyond (Table 2.3).

CSF 3 An integrated approach to sustainable development that

recognises the importance of social and economic issues
alongside environmental issues
Critics of the ecological urbanism agenda have suggested that (a) environmental
and economic issues have frequently been pursued at the expense of social
sustainability (Dixon et al., 2007; Colantonio and Dixon, 2010); and (b) that the
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 39

creation of ‘ecological enclaves’ may result (Hodson and Marvin, 2010a).9 An

integrated approach that recognises the importance of the three pillars of
sustainability within all projects at a city scale (and above and below) is therefore
essential. This also means promoting urban green growth strategies that promote
greener public services; greener industrial production; raising education and
awareness programmes in cities to help underpin technology deployment and
supporting innovative R&D (OECD, 2010).

CSF 4 Access to innovative ‘green’ finance and ability to use ‘green’

taxes at a city level and nationally
Achieving viable city-scale retrofit programmes will be challenging. Cities could,
over a longer timescale, develop a combination of fiscal instruments and incentives
together with financing mechanisms to achieve sustainability goals, but there
are a number of challenges to implementing policy at city level and above. For
example, building performance standards vary internationally and there is often
a ‘disconnect’ between owners and operators in buildings (WEF, 2010). Alterna-
tively, existing buildings tend not to capture the imagination in the same way
as new buildings, because organisations often do not set ambitious targets for
refurbishments as they don’t perceive that inspired or innovative solutions are
required (Carbon Trust, 2008). At a larger scale carbon taxes and climate change
levies are introduced at a national level, although there are examples of city-level
tax regimes such as the carbon tax in the city of Boulder, Colorado. Some
countries, such as the Netherlands have made the greening of their tax systems
an explicit policy goal (OECD, 2010), and innovative value capture techniques
have been used to capture enhanced land value to pay for infrastructure (for
example, Tax Increment Financing in the USA). Cities will also need to lever
investment finance, perhaps through an increased use of Clean Development
Mechanisms (CDM); improved connection with carbon markets; and tapping into
the potential carbon bond market (Kidney et al., 2009). In the UK10 the the Green
Investment Bank (GIB) has been developed, and a recent report (GIB Commission,
2010) suggests the GIB could help catalyse low-carbon investment by, for example,
unlocking project finance through equity co-investment, first loss debt and
insurance products for low-carbon technologies and infrastructure; creating ‘green

Table 2.3 High-level opportunities in the built environment, UK and global markets
Short term (5 years) Medium term (> 5 years)

New commercial and domestic developments will drive Global new build and retrofit markets are likely to grow
innovations in energy and water management and control substantially, requiring technologies and design, engineering
technologies and construction services

Increased adaptation awareness by property developers
and domestic owners will create greater demand for both
innovative retrofit solutions (e.g. insulation, ventilation,
flood protection, water saving) and training and support
services for building managers
Opportunities for green infrastructure and re-designing/
re-engineering urban areas for climate resilience will start
to become important
Eco-towns in the UK will provide good demonstration site
potential

Source: adapted from GHK (2010).

40 DIXON AND EAMES

bonds’ to provide access to the substantial pools of capital held by institutional

investors, which would be attractive to long-term investment horizons of pension
funds and life insurance companies. The GIB could also, for example, provide the
scale of capital needed to fund the low-carbon transformation, and provide green
ISAs, which would be an important and transparent way for retail investors to
make a contribution to the funding of green infrastructure.

CSF 5 Effective and innovative partnerships between the private

and public sectors
Well constructed public and private partnerships (PPPs) can potentially offer better
value for money than traditional procurement methods and can enable risk
sharing at a time when public purses are constrained. At a building level, there
is still a lack of research that proves that green buildings are worth more in
the market than conventional buildings. However, there is emerging evidence
(Chegut et al., 2010) that in some instances in some sectors, there may be a ‘green’
premium. Proving the business case is fundamental to getting the private sector
to respond to the needs and requirements of retrofitting cities, but the presence
of public sector actors is fundamental to success within a framework of regime
change that requires new polices and new instruments. Cities have a role to play
in this through the jobs/green growth agenda (GHK, 2010; OECD, 2010). For
example, New York’s ‘Greener Cities, Greater Buildings Plan’ is expected to create
17,800 construction-related jobs, and in Freiberg, Germany, the city’s old and
historic buildings are being retrofitted in an ambitious retrofitting plan (OECD,
2010). Finally, retrofitting or re-engineering cities should recognise that, within
cities, land and property ownership patterns are key to understanding how future
trajectories of change will play out. Understanding patterns of urban land and
property ownership is important not only because the size and configuration of
land holdings affects urban morphology through new development, regeneration
and refurbishment of existing land and property, but also because historically,
the timing of land sales affects the nature and shape of urban development by
reflecting contemporaneous architectural and planning styles (Kivell, 1993; Dixon,
2009). Land ownership also confers economic and social power and wealth on
owners who can also potentially exert influence upon urban planning policies and
outcomes (Massey and Catalano, 1978; Kivell, 1993).

2.8 Conclusions
Cities are increasingly seen as the key arena for tackling climate change, resource
depletion and environmental degradation. Cities are seen as the problem and the
solution in this respect, and they can in a positive sense act as policy and
technology ‘laboratories’, with many cities in the world taking action on climate
change and green issues. Landmark polices, for example, include those formulated
by Vancouver, Seoul, Stockholm, Toronto, Copenhagen, New York, London and
Tokyo (Lamia and Robert, 2009; Arup/C40 Group, 2011).
The costs and complexity of transforming cities through major retrofitting
programmes are immense. New build programmes can tackle some of the issues
we have to deal with by 2050 as evidenced by the growth of the ‘eco city’ concept,
and there are some exemplary developments from both developed and developing
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 41

countries as to how to achieve step change. Nonetheless, the biggest wins will
come through major retrofitting programmes at urban scale.
Theories and conceptualisation of how to achieve these transformative
trajectories of change range from rather ‘deterministic’ approaches such as
the Kuznets curve through to the co-evolutionary socio-technical heuristics
of Transitions theory and the MLP. Further research is needed to assess how
such theoretical constructs can be applied and help shape our understanding at
city scale.
There are also substantial caveats to the view that transformative change can
happen at city level. It is clear that ‘one size’ does not fit all, and that there are
key differences between developed and developing countries when it comes to
transformative urban change. The price of change does not come cheaply
therefore, and unplanned actions can have surprising consequences. In the much-
discussed case of Detroit, as the automobile and associated industries declined
and economic deprivation and stagnation took root (with more than 40 per cent
of its land now vacant), in one respect the city has ‘died’. But in another sense
been reborn, or at least come to terms with ‘shrinkage’, through the collective
actions of its residents and community groups, and growth as a centre for ‘urban
farming’ (Popper and Popper, 2010; Satterthwaite et al., 2010).
Planned, rather than unplanned, transformative change can in theory provide
more coherent and managed outcomes, and further research is needed to enable
us to understand how complexity can be overcome through large-scale systemic
restructuring. This requires further research to address:

• systemic change in the organisation of built environment and infrastructure,

understood as both a technological and societal challenge that requires
integrated socio-technical knowledge, capacity and responses;
• the development of new forms of knowledge, expertise and decision support
systems that better integrate the technological, economic and environmental
issues and options and societal challenges involved in implementation;
• relevant governance structures and institutional capabilities to develop new
social visions and technological expectations, to enrol and align stakeholders,
to deliver effective and efficient material change in infrastructure;
• business and organisational models that help to scale up technological
innovation and deployment;
• recognition that technology impact can operate at a range of scales from
individual buildings through, for example, to the wider spatial impacts of
information and communications technology on future urban land use
patterns.

In the meantime it is already clear that certain critical success factors will need
to be put in place to help transform cities including: stronger governance systems
and strategic planning regimes at all scales; better integration across the built
environment; an integrated approach to sustainable development that recognises
the importance of social and economic issues alongside environmental issues;
access to innovative ‘green’ finance and ability to use ‘green’ taxes at a city level
and nationally; alongside effective and innovative partnerships between the private
and public sectors. As the recent report on ‘Green Cities’ in the USA (Living Cities,
42 DIXON AND EAMES

2010) suggested: ‘It is no longer a question of “if” the nation will begin the
challenging transition to a greener economy but “how” we will get there.’
It is at the city scale that the battle for a sustainable urban future by 2050 will
be won or lost.

Notes
* School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading.
** Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University.
1 It should be noted, as Dodman (2009) suggests, however, that in most cases the per
capita emissions from cities are lower than the average for the country in which they
are located.
2 See also Section 2.2.
3 Within the UK, we are now looking at a changed planning landscape, brought about
by a drive towards ‘decentralisation’ through the localism agenda, and, at the same time
the continued ‘centralism’ of planning (albeit in reduced extent), through the
introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012 (Barnett,
2011; Holman and Rydin, 2012). Indeed, the NPPF has placed the issue of sustainable
development centre stage within planning.
4 The terms, ‘development’ and ‘regeneration’ are also distinguishable. For example, while
development is seen as focusing on profit and commercially viable in its focus,
regeneration should also incorporate elements of social and economic diversity to benefit
existing communities (IPF, 2009; Dixon, 2011). In this chapter, the term SUD is also
taken to include regeneration.
5 The UK ranks only thirty-fourth in the world for its infrastructure behind Saudi Arabia
and Malaysia, with only 1.5 per cent of GDP spent (compared with 6 per cent in Japan
and 3 per cent in France) (Core Cities, 2010).
6 An alternative representation of the same view is that about 80 per cent of the UK’s
buildings standing in 2050 have already been built (GHK, 2010).
7 For example, all new commercial and multi-family buildings are required to meet the
strictest energy efficiency requirements in Canada. Vancouver has established a
forward-thinking transportation plan for the city. The city has designed for a variety
of road users by supporting transit, creating greenways and incorporating bicycle lanes.
The result is a 44 per cent increase in walking, a 180 per cent increase in bike trips and
a 10 per cent reduction in vehicle trips since 1997. Transit ridership has increased by
50 per cent in the last decade (City of Vancouver, 2013).
8 Some of the thinking here is based on work by OECD (2010); Institute for Sustainable
Communities (2009); and WBCSD (2008).
9 For some, however, the recession has, in fact, provided a rationale for challenging the
mainstream discourse of sustainability and regeneration. For example, Evans et al.
(2009) suggest that a more ‘organic’ model of urban regeneration, based on bottom-
up community action should replace what they consider to be the essentially private-
sector led, ‘commodity-based’ model, which, for them, has frequently failed to deliver
on social sustainability.
10 The C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group has also partnered with the Swiss
government, ECOS and the World Bank on a programme called Carbon Finance
Capacity Building as the first step for cities being given access to sources of funding
currently targeted at national governments (OECD, 2010).
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 43

References
AGMA (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) (2010) Greater Manchester’s Low
Carbon Economic Area for the Built Environment Joint Delivery Plan. Manchester:
AGMA.
Arup/C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (2011) Climate Action in Megacities: C40 Cities
Baseline and Opportunities. Accessed June 2013 at: www.arup.com/Publications/
Climate_Action_in_Megacities.aspx.
Bai, X. (2003) ‘The process and mechanism of urban environmental change: An
evolutionary view’, International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 19(5):
528–41.
Bai, X. (2007) ‘Industrial ecology and global impacts of cities’, Journal of Industrial Ecology,
11(2): 1–6.
Bai, X., and Imura, H. (2000) ‘A comparative study of urban environment in East Asia: Stage
model of urban environmental evolution’, International Review for Environmental
Strategies, 1(1): 135–58.
Bai, X., McAllister, R., Beaty, R., and Taylor, B. (2010) ‘Urban policy and governance in
a global environment: Complex systems, scale mismatches and public participation’,
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2: 1–7.
Barnett, N. (2011) ‘Local government at the nexus?’, Local Government Studies, 37(3):
275–90.
Batty, M. (2011) Building a Science of Cities. UCL Working Paper Series: 170, November
2011.
Berry, B. (1964) ‘Cities as systems within systems of cities’, Papers and Proceedings of the
Regional Science Association, 13: 147–64.
Booz & Co. (2010) Reinventing the City: Three prerequisites for greening urban
infrastructures. Switzerland: Booz & Co. for the World Wildlife Fund.
Bulkeley, H. A., Castan Broto, V., Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (eds) (2010) Cities and Low
Carbon Transitions. London: Routledge.
Carbon Trust (2008) Low Carbon Refurbishment of Buildings: A guide to achieving carbon
savings from refurbishment of non-domestic buildings. London: Carbon Trust.
Carbon Trust (2010) Building the Future, Today. London: Carbon Trust.
Chegut, A., Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., and Quigley, J. M. (2010) ‘The value of green buildings:
New evidence from the UK’. Paper presented at the 17th Annual ERES Conference,
Milan, Italy, 23 June 2010.
City of Vancouver (2005) A Social Development Plan for the City of Vancouver: Moving
towards social sustainability, administrative report A7. Vancouver, Canada.
City of Vancouver (2013) ‘Green buildings: Goal – lead the world in green building design
and construction’, 8 July 2013. Accessed September 2013 at: http://vancouver.ca/green-
vancouver/green-buildings.aspx.
CLG (Communities and Local Government) (2004) Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning
and pollution control. London: CLG.
CLG (Communities and Local Government) (2005) Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering
sustainable development. London: CLG.
Climate Group (2011) Low Carbon Cities: An international perspective. London: Climate
Group.
Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., and Truffer, B. (2011) ‘Towards a spatial perspective on
sustainability transitions’. Paper presented at DIME Final Conference, 6–8 April,
Maastricht, The Netherlands. Accessed June 2013 at: http://final.dime-eu.org/files/
coenen_benneworth_truffer_B5.pdf.
Colantonio, A., and Dixon, T. (2010) Urban Regeneration and Social Sustainability.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
44 DIXON AND EAMES

Core Cities (2010) Core Cities Driving Recovery: A new partnership with a new
government. London: Core Studies.
De Laurentis, C., Eames, M. Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2012) ‘Sustainability in a climate
of austerity: Responses from UK city-regions’, in Smart, Creative, Sustainable,
Inclusive: Territorial Development Strategies in the Age of Austerity; Conference
Proceedings of the Regional Studies Association Winter Conference, London, 23
November 2012, pp. 63–6.
Dixon, T. (2007) ‘The property development industry and sustainable urban brownfield
regeneration in England: An analysis of case studies in Thames Gateway and Greater
Manchester’, Urban Studies, 44(12): 2379–400.
Dixon, T. (2009) ‘Urban land and property ownership patterns in the UK: Trends and forces
for change’, Land Use Policy (DIUS Foresight Land Use Futures Programme), 26(1):
S43–53.
Dixon, T. (2011) ‘The property industry and the construction of urban spaces: Crisis or
opportunity?’ in Flint, J., and Raco, M. (eds) The Future of Sustainable Cities: Critical
reflections. Bristol, UK; Chicago, IL: Policy Press.
Dixon, T. (2012) Hotting Up? An analysis of low carbon plans and strategies for UK cities.
Vol. 1: Main Findings. Report. RICS, London.
Dixon, T., and Adams, D. (2008) ‘Housing supply and brownfield regeneration in a post-
Barker world: Is there enough brownfield land in England and Scotland?’, Urban
Studies, 45(1): 115–39.
Dixon, T., and Wilson, E. (forthcoming) ‘Cities’ low carbon plans as an “Age of Austerity”:
An analysis of UK local austerity actions, attitudes and responses’, Carbon
Management, 4(6).
Dixon T., Colantonio, A., and Shiers, D. (2007) Socially Responsible Investment (SRI),
Responsible Property Investment (RPI) and Urban Regeneration in the UK and
Europe: Partnership Models and Social Impact Assessment, Measuring Social
Sustainability: Best Practice from Urban Renewal in the EU. 2007/02: EIBURS
Working Paper Series, September 2007 (Oxford Brookes).
Dodman, D. (2009) ‘Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse
gas emissions inventories’, Environment and Urbanization, 21(1): 185–201.
Eames, M., Dixon, T., May, T., and Hunt, M. (2013) ‘City futures: Exploring urban retrofit
and sustainable transitions’, Building Research and Information, 41(5): 504–516.
EC (European Commission) (2009) Promoting Sustainable Urban Development in Europe:
Achievements and opportunities. European Commission: Brussels.
EIB (European Investment Bank) (2010) ‘Frequently asked questions’. Accessed June 2013
at: www.eib.org/products/technical_assistance/jessica/faq/.
Elkington, J. (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business.
Oxford, UK: Capstone.
Evans, J., Jones, P., and Krueger, R. (2009) Organic regeneration and sustainability or can
the credit crunch save our cities? Local Environment: International Journal of Justice
and Sustainability, 14(7), 683–98.
Geels, F. W. (2004) ‘From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights
about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory’, Research Policy,
33: 897–920.
Geels, F. (2005) ‘Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the
co-evolutionary multi-level perspective’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
72: 681–96.
Geels, F. (2010) ‘The role of cities in technological transitions: Analytical clarifications and
historical examples’, in Bulkeley, H., Broto, V., Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (eds) Cities
and Low Carbon Transitions. London: Routledge, pp. 13–29.
GHK (2010) Opportunities for UK Business from Climate Change Adaptation. London:
DEFRA.
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 45

GIB (Green Investment Bank) Commission (2010) Unlocking Investment to Deliver

Britain’s Low Carbon Future. Accessed June 2013 at: www.climatechangecapital.com/
thinktank/ccc-thinktank/publications.aspx.
Guy, S., and Marvin, S. (2001) ‘Constructing sustainable urban futures: From models to
competing pathways’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(2): 131–9.
Hajer, M. A. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological modernisation and
the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Haughton, G. (1997) ‘Developing sustainable urban development models’, Cities, 14(4):
189–95.
HM Government (2005) Securing the Future: Delivering UK sustainable development
strategy. DEFRA: London.
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2009) ‘Urban ecological security: A new urban paradigm?’,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(1): 193–215.
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2010a) ‘Urbanism in the anthropocene’, City, 14(3), 299–313
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2010b) World Cities and Climate Change. Maidenhead, UK:
McGraw-Hill.
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2010c) ‘Can cities shape socio technical transitions and how
would we know if they were?’, Research Policy, 39: 477–85.
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2012) ‘Mediating low-carbon urban transitions? Forms of
organization, knowledge and actions’, European Planning Studies, 20(3): 421–39.
Holman, N., and Rydin, Y. (2012) ‘What can social capital tell us about planning under
localism?’, Local Government Studies, 39(1): 71–88.
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística) (n.d.) ‘Cidades: Paraná: Curitiba’.
Accessed October 2013 at: www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/xtras/perfil.php?codmun=
410690.
Institute for Sustainable Communities (2009) Scaling Up Building Energy Retrofitting in US
Cities. Montpelier, VT: Living Cities/Institute for Sustainable Communities.
IPF (Investment Property Forum) (2009) Urban Regeneration: Opportunities for property
investment. London: IPF.
JLL (Jones Lang LaSalle) (2010) Global Market Perspective, March: A BRIC built recovery?
London: JLL.
Joss, S., Cowley, R., and Tomozeiu, D. (2013) ‘Towards the “ubiquitous eco-city”: An
analysis of the internationalisation of eco-city policy and practice’, Journal of Urban
Research and Practice, 6(4): 64–74.
Kelly, M. (2009) ‘Retrofitting the existing UK building stock’, Building Research and
Information, 37(2): 196–200.
Kemp, R., and Loorbach, D. (2006) ‘Transition management: A reflexive governance
approach’, in Voss, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., and Kemp R. (eds) Reflexive Governance for
Sustainable Development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar: pp. 103–30.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., and Rotmans, J. (2006) ‘Transition management as a model
for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development’, in Andersen,
M. M., and Tukker, A. (eds) Perspectives on Radical Change to Sustainable
Consumption and Production (SCP), Proceedings of Workshop of the Sustainable
Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE) Network, Copenhagen, Denmark, 20–21
April 2006, pp. 459–77.
Kidney, S., Mellon, K., Silver, N., and Williams, C. (2009) Financing a Rapid, Global,
Transition to a Low-carbon Economy. Climate Bonds Initiative. Accessed June 2013
at: http://climatebonds.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/climate_bonds_28Dec09.pdf.
Kivell, P. (1993) Land and the City: Patterns and processes of urban change. Routledge:
London.
Lamia, K. C., and Robert, A. (eds) (2009) Competitive Cities and Climate Change.
Regional Development Working Papers No. 2. Paris: OECD.
46 DIXON AND EAMES

Lankao, P. (2007) ‘Are we missing the point? Particularities of urbanization, sustainability

and carbon emissions in Latin American cities’, Environment and Urbanization, 19(1):
159–75.
Lawhon, M., and Murphy, J. (2011) ‘Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions:
Insights from political ecology’, Progress in Human Geography, 36(3): 354–78.
Living Cities (2010) Green Cities: How urban sustainability efforts can and must drive
America’s climate change policies. New Yor: Living Cities.
Maclaren, V. (1996) ‘Urban sustainability reporting’, Journal of the American Town
Planning Association, 52(2): 184–202.
McNulty, E. (2011) ‘Leadership and meta-system challenges’. Accessed September 2013 at:
http://richerearth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Meta-System-Leadership-rev-6-
11.pdf.
Massey, D., and Catalano, A. (1978) Capital and Land: Landownership by capital in Great
Britain. London: Arnold.
Ministry of Kingdom and Interior Relations (2005) Ministerial Meeting Urban Policy: Cities
empower Europe conclusions. Dutch Presidency 2004. Accessed June 2013 at:
www.bmvbs.de/Anlage/original_983143/Urban-Acquis-englisch-_November-2004.pdf.
Moffatt, S., and Kohler, N. (2008) ‘Conceptualizing the built environment as a socio-
ecological system’, Building Research and Information, 36(3): 248–68.
Monstadt, J. (2009) ‘Conceptualising the political ecology of urban infrastructures: Insights
from technology and urban studies’, Environment and Planning A, 41: 1924–42.
Mostafavi, M., and Doherty, G. (eds) (2010) Ecological Urbanism. Harvard University
Graduate School of Design. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Müller Publishing.
Naess, P., and Vogel, N. (2012) ‘Sustainable urban development and the multi-level
transition perspective’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 4: 36–50.
Newton, P. (2007) ‘Horizon 3 planning: Meshing liveability with sustainability’, Environ-
ment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34: 571–5.
Newton, P., and Bai, X. (2008) ‘Transitioning to sustainable urban development’, in
Newton, P. (ed.) Transitions: Pathways towards sustainable urban development in
Australia. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 3–19.
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (2009) Rethinking Our Built Environment:
Towards a sustainable future. New Zealand Government.
OECD (2009) Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2010) Cities and Green Growth: Issues Paper for the 3rd Annual Meeting of the
OECD Urban Roundtable of Mayors and Ministers. Paris: OECD.
Ooi, G. L. (2007) ‘Urbanization in Southeast Asia: Assessing policy process and progress
toward sustainability’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2): 31–42.
Oslo City Council (2011) ‘Sustainable development’. Accessed June 2013 at: www.
byradsavdeling-for-miljo-og-samferdsel.oslo.kommune.no/miljo_og_klima/english/.
Pieterse, E. (2008) City Futures: Confronting the crisis of urban development. London, New
York: Zed Books.
Pinnegar, S., Marceau, J., and Randolph, B. (2008) Innovation and the City: Challenges
for the built environment industry. Sydney: City Future Research Centre, University
of New South Wales.
Polese, M., and Stren, R. (eds) (2000) The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the
management of change. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Popper, D., and Popper, F. (2010) ‘Smart decline in post-carbon cities’, in Heinberg, R., and
Lerch, D. (eds) The Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st century’s sustainability
crises. Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media. Accessed October 2013 at: www.
postcarbon.org/Reader/PCReader-Popper-Decline.pdf.
Ravetz, J. (2008) ‘State of the stock – what do we know about existing buildings and their
future prospects?’ Energy Policy, 36: 4462–70.
 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO 2050 47

Richardson, N. (1994) ‘Making our communities sustainable: The central issue is will’, in
Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy (1994). Ontario: Sustainable
Communities Resource Package.
Rip, A., and Kemp, R. (1998) ‘Technological change’, in Rayner, S., and Malone, L. (eds)
Human Choice and Climate Change. Vol. 2: Resources and technology. Washington
DC: Batelle Press, pp. 327–99.
Rotmans, J. (2006) ‘A complex systems approach for sustainable cities’, in Ruth, M. (ed.)
Smart Growth and Climate Change. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar, pp. 155–80.
Satterthwaite, D. (2007) The Transition to a Predominantly Urban World and its
Underpinnings. London: IIEDL.
Siemens (2010) European Green City Index. Munich. Accessed November 2013 at:
www.siemens.com/entry /cc/en/greencityindex.htm.
Smith, A., Voß, J. P., and Grin, J. (2010) ‘Innovation studies and sustainability transitions:
The allure of the multi-level perspective, and its challenges’, Research Policy, 39,
435–48.
Stillwell, B., and Lindabury, S. (2008) Masdah: Evaluating the world’s most sustainable city.
Accessed September 2013 at: https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/crp384/2008reports/
07MASDAR.pdf.
Truffer, B., and Coenen, L. (2012) ‘Environmental innovation and sustainability transitions
in regional studies’, Regional Studies: The Journal of the Regional Studies Association,
46(1): 1–21.
UN (United Nations) (2007) ‘City planning will determine pace of global warming’.
Accessed September 2010 at: www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gaef3190.doc.htm.
UN (2012) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 revision. New York: UN.
UN (2013) Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Cities and Peri-urban
Communities. Report of the Secretary General. Accessed June 2013 at: http://unctad.
org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/ecn162013d2_en.pdf.
URBACT (2010) ‘Understanding integrated urban development’. Accessed June 2013 at:
http://urbact.eu/en/header-main/integrated-urban-development/understanding-
integrated-urban-development/.
WBCSD (World Business Council on Sustainable Development) (2008) Energy Efficiency
in Buildings. Geneva: WBCSD.
WBCSD (World Business Council on Sustainable Development) (2010) Vision 2050.
Geneva: WBCSD.
WEF (World Economic Forum) (2010) Governors Meeting for Real Estate. Geneva: WEF.
Wheeler, S. (1998) ‘Planning Sustainable and Livable Cities’, in LeGates, R. T., and
Stout, F. (eds) The City Reader. London, New York: Routledge.
Williams, K., and Dair, C. (2007) ‘A framework for assessing the sustainability of
brownfield developments’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
50(1): 23–40.
Wolman, A. (1965) ‘The metabolism of cities’, Scientific American, 213(3): 179–90.
World Bank (2010) Eco2 Cities: Ecological cities as economic cities. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
This page intentionally left blank
3
Exploring the use of systems
dynamics in sustainable
urban retrofit planning
Yangang Xing,* Simon Lannon* and Malcolm Eames*

Retrofitting our current building stock and urban infrastructure is a vital part of
meeting emissions reductions targets, using energy and resources in a more
efficient way and creating sustainable lifestyles. However, one of the key barriers
identified is a lack of appropriate modelling and decision support tools to aid long-
term planning for sustainable urban retrofitting. In this respect the complexity of
the built environment in cities represents a significant challenge. In recent years
significant advances in ‘bottom-up’ models have allowed the development of
increasingly sophisticated simulation tools for use at building and urban scales.
However, such static models can by themselves tell us relatively little about the
dynamics of urban retrofit transitions. This chapter explores the use of system
dynamics in developing integrated modelling tools and approaches at different
scales, through: (a) the creation of a transparent and flexible building energy
performance simulation model (SdSAP); (b) a prototype toolkit for the analysis
of urban retrofit options at a local authority scale; and (c) a participatory group
modelling exercise carried out with a multidisciplinary group of expert stake-
holders, with the objective of enhancing understanding of the challenges and long-
term dynamics of systemic urban retrofit at a city-regional scale.

3.1 Introduction
Transitions towards more sustainable cities are inherently complex long-term
phenomena that cut across scales and across many interlinked multi-segmented
socio-technical systems or ‘regimes’ (e.g. water, waste, energy, built environment,
transport, etc.) (Naess and Vogel, 2012). In the UK and other developed economies
with a long history of urbanisation, the critical challenge for the research
community, urban policy-makers and practitioners alike is to develop the
knowledge and capacity to use resources more sustainably and incorporate this
knowledge into the systemic retrofitting of the existing built environment and
50 XING ET AL.

urban infrastructures, and the lives of the people who live in it (Eames et al., 2013).
However, one of the key barriers identified is a lack of appropriate modelling and
decision-support tools to aid long-term planning for sustainable urban retrofitting.
In this respect the complexity of the built environment in cities presents
significant questions, which will need to be answered by combining existing
modelling techniques. Over the last two decades the significant advances in
computing power, data availability and ‘bottom-up’ building physics and geo-
spatial modelling techniques have allowed the development of increasingly
sophisticated simulation tools for use at building and urban scales. There have
been undoubted increases in computer power over two decades: in the 1990s,
modelling 100,000 properties was considered beyond the capacity of researchers,
but now it is possible to undertake vast arrays of simulations in a matter of
minutes, using high-powered desktop computers, or high-performance computing
facilities. This surge in processing power has been matched by the increase in data
availability. In the UK sources of data such as the Department of Energy and
Climate Change regional energy statistics (DECC, 2013b), Energy Saving Trust
HEED database (EST, 2010) and more general databases such as Google Street
View have become widely available allowing detailed characterisation of the urban
built environment. Bottom-up models, also known as engineering models, use
these data sources on individual buildings to aggregate results to the larger scale.
The individual buildings can be grouped together or classified into archetypes to
aid the data collection and modelling process (Jones et al., 2007). However, despite
their increasing sophistication such static models can by themselves tell us
relatively little about the longer-term dynamics of urban retrofit transitions.
At the same time conceptual models have increasingly sought to understand
both the evolution of cities and processes of sustainability transition in terms of
the behaviour of complex adaptive systems (Rotmans et al., 2000). Such systems
are characterised (in part at least) by the interactions of multiple networks of
diverse actors, the existence of multiple feedback loops, and their emergent and
non-linear behaviour.
Although a number of approaches have been explored or suggested for
modelling sustainability transitions (for a recent review see Holtz, 2011), in this
chapter we focus upon the use of system dynamics-based approaches and
modelling tools because this allows the combination of engineering models
and feedback systems and the potential to model the temporal nature of urban
transitions. System dynamics is a holistic approach for investigating interactions
of linked components over long-term horizons (Meadows et al., 1972; Forrester
et al., 1976). It was developed during the mid-1950s by Professor Jay Forrester
of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1969 Forrester published Urban
Dynamics (Forrester, 1969), which presented a computer model describing the
factors controlling the balance of population, housing, and industry within an
urban area. Forrester went on to develop a system dynamics model of the world
socioeconomic system (called WORLD1), which was subsequently developed for
the Club of Rome’s seminar report Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972).
The system dynamics method has since been used in a wide variety of applications,
both in the social sciences and in engineering, for example for building evacua-
tions (Thompson and Bank, 2010), urban planning (Yates and Bishop, 1998;
Fang et al., 2005), island tourism infrastructure planning (Xing and Dangerfield,
 SYSTEMS DYNAMICS IN URBAN RETROFIT PLANNING 51

2010), hydrological systems modelling (Khan et al., 2009) and community energy
planning (Xing et al., 2012).
A number of features of system dynamics methodology make it appropriate
for modelling societal transitions. First, it is possible to study the dynamic
behaviour of variables and interactions between them simultaneously. Second, it
is able to handle multiple feedback loops in the system under investigation and
study their aggregated influences. The basic structure of a system dynamics
simulation model is a series of simultaneous non-linear, first-order differential (or
integral) equations that can help users to understand the dynamic behaviour of
complex systems. It is characterised by its ability to study internal feedback loops
and time delays that affect behaviour.
In the urban planning field, Burdekin (1979) developed methodologies to
improve systems dynamics by developing a model that simulates the development
of housing and industry over a city divided into 16 zones (and thus helps deal
with the lack of the systems dynamics model’s spatial dimension). Recent attempts
in applying system dynamics methods in modelling the urban built environment
have focused on top-down approaches to investigate the incentivisation of
renewable energy systems (Alishahi et al., 2012), long-term energy system capacity
modelling (Olsina et al., 2006; Ford et al., 2007; Hasani and Hosseini, 2011) and
urban growth modelling (Han et al., 2009). New approaches have also focused
on the importance of close collaborations between model users and inter-
disciplinary modelling teams (Meadows and Jenny, 1985; Vennix, 1996).
This chapter explores the use of system dynamics in developing both stand
alone and hybrid modelling and decision support tools for sustainable urban
retrofit planning at building, local authority and city scales, with a particular focus
on energy efficiency and carbon reduction in the built environment. Section 3.2
briefly discusses the role of modelling tools and techniques in decision and policy
support. Section 3.3 comprises three short case studies exploring: (a) the creation
of a transparent and flexible building energy performance simulation model
(SdSAP), (b) the development of a prototype toolkit for the analysis of urban
retrofit options at a local authority scale and (c) a participatory group modelling
exercise carried out with a multidisciplinary group of expert stakeholders, with
the objective of enhancing understanding of the challenges and long-term dynamics
of systemic urban retrofit at a city-regional scale. Finally, Section 3.4 seeks to draw
some overarching conclusions and recommendations for further research.

3.2 Current modelling tools and techniques in

urban retrofit planning
Planning support systems tend to be bespoke software applications that reduce
complexity (Klosterman, 1997). As a consequence planners seeking to use such
tools are often faced with a number of substantial challenges, related to the lack
of flexibility of such systems or their lack of awareness of the existing models
(Geertman and Stillwell, 2004; Brömmelstroet, 2012). Indeed, many urban
simulation models developed over the past 40 years have tended to be large and
complex ‘black box’ models (Batty, 2008).
Researchers have therefore argued that developers of planning support systems
(PSS) can learn from other disciplines, such as management science to improve
52 XING ET AL.

the implementation of such systems. Sustainable urban retrofitting is an extremely

complex phenomenon, and so researchers have argued for: more detailed
prediction tools (Jones et al., 2007); the philosophy of law approach for urban
sustainability modelling (Tweed and Jones, 2000); integrations of different
components of resources flow models (Argent, 2004); and more comprehensive
urban models (Wilson, 2007).
There are currently two primary existing methods that are being used to model
urban energy efficiency and retrofit planning: (a) building performance simulation
based tools and (b) geographic information systems (GIS)-based approaches.
A range of bottom-up building performance simulation-based models for energy
consumption in the residential sector have been developed (Kavgic et al., 2010).
However, few tools of these tools are able to predict performance at an urban scale.
One such tool – the Energy and Environment Prediction (EEP) tool (Jones et al.,
2007, 2010) can model building energy use and potential health impacts of existing
built environment and be used for master planning for future cities.
GIS data are measurements or observations or any entities that include
geographical location. This data can be based on point data, such as latitude
and longitude, coordinates, or large geographies such as provinces, districts, city
suburbs or census area. Spatial data can be organised in layers, comprising
different types of objects such as point data, vector or area data, and finally raster
data, for example infrared satellite thermal images. These layers can be overlaid
to allow spatial analysis to occur through aggregation and dis-aggregation of
data to different geographies. The Cellular Automata (CA) approach, a model
that investigates a cell based system in which neighbouring cells act on each other
based on set rules, has been used to improve the ability of a GIS-based tool to
undertake complex system analysis (Wu, 1996; Batty et al., 1999). However, it
is argued that the CA approach lacks the capacity to investigate the underlying
systems structure (Han et al., 2009).

3.3 Case studies exploring modelling urban

retrofit at a city-regional scale
Three case studies are set out below exploring the use of system dynamics in
modelling retrofit at the building, urban and city-regional scales. The last of these
case studies focuses in particular on the insights gained from engaging with expert
stakeholders through a group modelling workshop process.

3.3.1 Integrating building simulation and system

dynamics – The SdSAP model
Predicting the energy performance of real buildings and assessing the energy
efficiency gains, carbon savings and financial cost and benefits of retrofit measures
is a complicated undertaking.
The Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) (BRE, 1998) is the most commonly
used tool to assess performance of domestic buildings in UK. Based on Building
Research Establishment Domestic Energy Model (BREDEM)-12 (Anderson et al.,
2001), SAP uses a two zone model as defined in BREDEM, where the first zone
 SYSTEMS DYNAMICS IN URBAN RETROFIT PLANNING 53

comprises the major occupied spaces of the home and the second zone represents
the bedrooms and rest of house. The current assumption in SAP is that the heating
thermostat settings are set to 21°C and 18°C in the two zones, respectively.
BREDEM defines two heating profiles, one for weekdays and one for weekends.
The SAP methodology has been validated empirically with favourable comparison
and real measured data (Shorrock and Dunster, 1997). There has been research
carried out to investigate the limitations of SAP (Kelly et al., 2012) and how to
further improve it (Murphy et al., 2011). SAP is a simple energy rating tool, and
although it is used on an individual building to assist owners of the building
and contractors in decision-making regarding energy efficiency, it cannot consider
the impacts of multiple criteria; for example, the potential impact of occupant
behaviour change on the pay back potential of energy efficiency measures.
Based on BREDEM-12, a system dynamics-based model, SdSAP was created
by the authors to model building performance. The SdSAP is validated against
the conventional SAP tool and improved through the provision of a more
transparent approach and flexible control over the inputs. SdSAP can help the
users and modellers to investigate energy consumption variations and potential
cost savings. SdSAP was developed using a simulation tool – i.e. Vensim (Ventana,
2013) – to analyse building performance. Vensim is a simulation software tool
emphasising connections to data, flexible distribution, instant output with
continuous simulation, and user-friendly graphical interface for model analysis
including optimisation and Monte Carlo simulation. The Vensim based SdSAP
model can be constructed and edited graphically. This model provides a
framework for energy users, financers, utilities, energy service companies (ESCOs)
and policy-makers to carry out more realistic estimations of future energy,
cost and carbon emissions savings.
In order to carry out holistic analyses of building performance to assist decision-
making on building retrofit, an iterative analytical process can be followed by
using the SdSAP model. In the first step, the operation of the building is surveyed
and monitored and, with the help of the SdSAP, the future performance of the
building is estimated. In the second step, the simulation results can be used either
to: (a) provide information to the occupiers of the building to influence behavioural
changes (e.g. change of heating set point, heating areas or retrofitting actions) or
(b) act as a diagnostic tool, providing information for modellers to improve their
building models in order to provide better estimations.
The schematic view of the SdSAP model is presented in Figure 3.1. It consists
of a set of interlocking differential algebraic equations developed from a broad
spectrum of measured field data or experiential estimations based on SAP 2009
(SAP, 2009). Unlike other commercial black box models, the SdSAP model and
user interface are together referenced as a ‘microworld’ in which the user can
interact with a model in a gaming mode to run multiple scenarios. A graphical
interface is used to change parameters, such as heating thermostat settings, heating
periods, fuel costs and weather data. It is easy to use, transparent, and flexible
enough to allow for the creation of alternative future scenarios. Highly visual aids
can be provided in this model to understand the structure of the model, such as
those pictured in Figure 3.1, the causal relationships for useful gains, heat loss
coefficient and heat losses.
54 XING ET AL.

Accumulated
annual cost
annual cost
Emission factors
255 Total domestic hot water
energy cost heating energy
273 Dwelling CO2
emission rates 232 energy for average
211 Total space lighting efficiency
heating energy
fuel price table
206 Efficiency of
main heating system
98 Space heating
requirement 84 Total internal and
97 Heat loss rate for solar gains
mean temperature T9d 95 Useful gains

83 Gm
96 Monthly avg ext 94 Utilisation Solar gains
temperature factor for in watts
Th1 85 set gains Nm
point 39 Heat transfer 73 Total internal
coefficient gains
L heat loss
rate W 35 Thermal mass
38 Ventilation 37 Total fabrics parameter TMP
heat loss 40 Heat loss
loss parameter HLP

36 Thermal
4 Total floor
bridges 33 Fabric area
heat loss

Figure 3.1 A schematic view of the SdSAP model

3.3.1.1 Base scenario: validation against conventional SAP

calculation
The SdSAP model has been validated using the SAP model for a typical 1980s
UK end terrace house (Figure 3.2). The house is owned by a registered social
landlord, located in south Wales. It is a small two-storey house (59.3 m2 in total)
with two bedrooms and a garden. The fabric is typical of the building of this era:
un-insulated brick-block cavity walls, concrete slab floor, tiled timber truss roof
with little loft insulation, double glazed windows and gas central heating.
Performance of the house is modelled using the SdSAP (whole system view in
Figure 3.3) which was validated against conventional SAP calculations based on
BuildDesk Energy Design 3.4.2 incorporating SAP 2005 version 9.81, dated
January 2008. The base energy consumption is estimated around 9,129 kWh/year,
with heat losses parameter of 2.760 w/m2k.
In Figure 3.3, the simulation view, it can be seen that the SdSAP can be run
with considerable interactivity. Changes made (either in the equation editor view
on the top left of the view or in sliders under the data items) to the model will
cause the model to be re-run and simulation results are shown automatically.
 h
..
i1
~~t { i'f
. 01<
l!, i'fr h
i~ i!!-H S~i01<
! !, j
~.L:' ;
. .~-H
~ ~ •• -n,
~ ~
~t!~.L:' i'f -a 0
, r• ~~ 01< I'
.tl
60;- ..., ! !,
:~ t
5 t~~{ 1.
-H
~.L:'
~
~
If ; . j h
"5
j, ~ ~ i~ !l 01<
i'f~: j
rr•
", ~
51 ~
~: !
! !, ..
i1
~ }is •= -H
~.L:'
t •••
i . I
~

·r .~ r ~i Eii
., i I'~
f~ ,L
~j.
; l

Figure 3.2 The case study house

,"l
~~ Q~
. .- ~~
n ~ tf~
i~ ,- ~I
..
~~ j j ·0 r
l ~ h
rr• Hi.-
H ,t ~ •5• '. l
j
j,
.. •=
1 . •• ~
••
~ ':.
... ~i!, I
Ii ~¥
.
,"l i
~
I
i;~ e ~ z 1 r; r
.. \ ' ,I r; f; j
~ gi- L ~ i:, I !~ f; : 8 •
~ ~ .. t , ~ H ~i , •
~ ;: -,

Figure 3.3 The simulation view of the SdSAP model

;; l::: ~ h •
~
•!
~ t ~~ 1:1 i h
~ ;: ', IL i:, r ..
!~ i1
.. . ;~r l:< ~! , I~ ;
t~ ~
~~ i i~
• L
•H' ~
r~~ c f
~ '0
i I Ii L
t .it
, I '.
I' L
., 5 •£ : ;':J
i i It ;1'
t t 1 • h
f~ .,i ~
.,t .,tit ir
I. r
t ~ i
it ;t
~
.
,, ~ ! t t" i=
l r ~ 11
lJ :
I ~
L,
•r r c i
• 0'"
~
ii " h -. "
if i i,
. i~~
.: if t
r
.!!i" "
r
., r ;!i" i= .,:.
fl i
" L
., i=! c
11! 1.
!:
11 '"
SYSTEMS DYNAMICS IN URBAN RETROFIT PLANNING
55
56 XING ET AL.

In SdSAP, the structure and equations can be made available for inspection by
non-technical users. This allows model users to investigate in detail the assump-
tions underlying the model, improving acceptance and preventing the spread of
misunderstanding relating to the energy performance predictions.
As learning is considered an essential goal in building performance simulation
by the authors, the highly interactive learning environment (as a workbench–
toolbox) created in SdSAP will improve effectiveness in the learning process.
It allows users to switch easily between the structure, underlying assump-
tions, available data and predicted results, and therefore acquire a much better
understanding of how those factors interact.

3.3.1.2 Impacts of variations in future weather conditions and

rising fuel costs
Previous research has demonstrated the importance of incorporating climate
change, room temperature setting, and energy price scenarios in helping building
owners to understand future building energy costs (Holmes and Reinhart, 2011;
de Wilde and Tian, 2012). In this research, SdSAP is used to investigate the impacts
of variations in future weather conditions, temperature setting, and rising fuel
costs in the UK context. Three sets of weather scenarios are investigated, which
include: 30 years average data as used in the SAP (2009 version), modelled future
weather for 2050 (Eames et al., 2011) and past weather in the UK from 1970 to
2012 (DECC, 2013b).
The total energy cost (with 22°C as the heating set point) in the coldest year,
2010, is 14 per cent more than that of the typical design year, which is the average
of the past thirty years (SAP, 2009). On the other hand using weather data from
the 2050 50th percentile warm-year scenarios, space heating energy demand would
be reduced by 26 per cent (Figure 3.4). It is estimated that in the UK, domestic
energy bills will increase by between 13 per cent and 26 per cent by 2020 (from
2009 levels) – with the possibility that wholesale price spikes could lead to an
increase in domestic energy costs (OFGEM, 2010). A similar magnitude of
increase in fuel prices in the USA and potential impacts on buildings in Boston
was investigated (Holmes and Reinhart, 2011). In this chapter, a 50 per cent
increase in fuel costs (darker column in Figure 3.5) demonstrates that final space
energy costs will increase despite warmer climates.

3.3.1.3 Impacts of lifestyle changes

Apart from weather conditions and future fuel prices, a higher ‘acceptable’ level
of comfort temperatures combined with increasing heated floor area per capita,
have contributed to an increase in total energy consumption in buildings. Demand-
side approaches and lifestyles changes are becoming increasingly important for
retrofitting buildings to zero-carbon standards (Lenoir et al., 2011; Tanimoto
et al., 2011; Xing et al., 2011).
Within SdSAP the effects of lifestyle changes can be explored by, for example,
modelling the impact of changes in heating thermostat settings and changes
in heated floor areas. Based on SdSAP, total space heating energy costs can be
estimated by changing heating set points from 20 to 25°C (Figure 3.6). It can
 SYSTEMS DYNAMICS IN URBAN RETROFIT PLANNING 57

be seen that space heating costs can be reduced by £174 (35 per cent reduction)
in this house at the current fuel price, if the heating set point is reduced from
25 to 20°C.
With a future increase of 25 per cent in fuel costs by 2020 (OFGEM, 2010),
if the heating thermostat setting is adjusted to 20°C, the space heating costs will
still be less than the space heating costs at 25°C at current fuel prices. This type
of modelling can help the owner of the building to choose heating thermostat
settings accordingly. Considering the impact of heating system controls, more
radical changes in the control strategies are now analysed.

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
o
Future climate 2050 Current 30 years Cold year 2010
average

£/year in current price £/year in 50% increase of unit fue l price

Figure 3.4 Impacts of weather uncertainty on space heating costs

800

600

400

200

a
25 set point 22 set point 21 set point 20 set point

ffyear in 25% increase of unit fuel price

ffyear in current price

Figure 3.5 Impacts of heating set points on space heating energy costs
58 XING ET AL.

700
600
SOD
400
300
200
100

a
Existi ng 22 set point Existing 22 set point Existing 22 set point
only heating occupied on ly heating occupied central heating
room floor

£/year in current price £fyear in 50% increase of unit fuel price

Figure 3.6 Impacts of reducing heating areas on space heating energy costs

It is argued that there is a spill-over effect of central heating systems, which

are widely used in the UK today. Central heating has led to the whole house being
heated for longer periods, rather than only heating rooms as they are being used.
In the SdSAP model, we present simulation results showing the impact of smaller
volumes of heated space on heat energy demand reductions. Initial simulation
results (as shown in Figure 3.6) demonstrate the dramatic impact that changes in
heating area volume (such as heating one room or one floor only of the existing
building) can have on space heating energy costs – £235 can be saved in the current
fuel price scenario.
To predict real building energy performance involves many factors, particularly
when assessing costs savings and making investments in retrofitting actions. There
is also a lack of tools to help Green Deal analysis, where the energy savings
produced by a particular retrofit choice can have an impact on its cost viability.
SAP is a generic rating procedure; SdSAp is a more flexible tool that can assist
owners of the building and contractors in decision-making. The SdSAP can be
further developed by linking social economic feedback loops to investigate
interactions of different factors (such as fuel price, fuel poverty, future climate
and buildings) over the long term.

3.3.2 A prototype toolkit for the analysis of urban retrofit

options at a local authority scale
A toolkit has been developed to investigate the impact of different retrofitting
strategies on energy reduction at an urban scale (Neath Port Talbot County
Borough). An integrated planning process was developed. This process started
with a building energy survey and modelling incorporating GIS analysis methods;
 SYSTEMS DYNAMICS IN URBAN RETROFIT PLANNING 59

a current urban-scale thermal performance model was then produced to be

integrated with system dynamics modelling tools to produce future scenarios.
The case study area, Neath Port Talbot (Welsh: Castell-nedd Port Talbot) is a
unitary Local Authority in South Wales. Modern settlement patterns reflect the
industrial history of the area, with urban development along the flatter areas of
the valleys and some parts of the coast. Neath Port Talbot Country Borough has
a population of around 135,000. The economy in the South Wales region has
been dominated by heavy industry, notably coal and steel and also petrochemicals.
During the 1930s, and then with increasing speed during the 1970s and 1980s,
this economic base, and the ways of life it sustained, declined. Neath Port Talbot,
like other industrial areas of South Wales, combines a legacy of environmental
pollution from heavy industry, poor standards of housing and amenities, high
levels of poverty, and economic inactivity. Post-war public housing developments,
such as that in the Sandfields area of Port Talbot, now suffer from a lack of social
and economic investment. Levels of health and well-being in such former steel
and coal communities, including this area, are significantly worse than the UK
average (WSA, 2008).

3.3.2.1 Estimating and mapping energy consumption of

existing building stock
The estimation of the energy consumption of a large area can be undertaken using
a bottom up approach such as the EEP model. The data for the model in the case
study area is based on an extensive energy survey of 55,000 dwellings (over 90
per cent of the stock) of Neath Port Talbot (Alexander et al., 2009). GIS-based
modelling work for Neath Port Talbot County Borough was carried using the
Ordnance Survey’s map products (for analysis, these maps are embedded within
a GIS system: Mapinfo™), and tested against selected samples of energy con-
sumption and carbon emission figures for building stocks in Neath Port Talbot.
In general, dwellings in Wales and England can be categorised in five groups (see
photos in Figure 3.7) as pre-1919 (solid walls – short end of the brick exposed
can be noticed), 1919–44 (cavity walls), 1945–64 (cavity walls), 1965–80 (cavity
walls) and post-1980 (insulated walls).
The energy efficiency of the building is presented to postcode level in the form
of thematic maps. The users can identify ‘hotspots’ of energy use and emissions
that can be targeted to make environmental improvements. The area contains a
diverse mix of building stocks and so should provide a reasonable indication of
overall identification power in a UK context. A ‘rapid’ data collection survey
method has been developed to collect information to a satisfactory level
unobtrusively, and within the time and staff resources available within local
authority budgets (Alexander et al., 2009).
More detailed categorisation and modelled energy consumption data can be
found in Table 3.1. It can be seen that more than a third of the buildings in Neath
Port Talbot were built before 1919, and that these contribute 40 per cent of total
energy consumption.
The EEP modelling process has been expanded to explore potential pathways
towards a low-carbon residential building stock in 2050. The outcomes of the
model are a measure of the impact of housing retrofit, renewable technologies,
occupant behaviour and grid decarbonisation as measured at a local authority scale.
60 XING ET AL.

Figure 3.7 Photos of buildings through the ages (above top pre-1919; bottom 1919–44; opposite top 1945–64; opposite bottom
1965–80)
SYSTEMS DYNAMICS IN URBAN RETROFIT PLANNING 61
62 XING ET AL.

Figure 3.7 continued (post 1980)

Table 3.1 Residential buildings stock profile of the Neath Port Talbot
Building era Region building Energy No. of units Avg. fuel use Energy Carbon
stock (%) consumption (MWh/year consumption emissions
(%) per unit) (MWh/year) (tonnes CO2)

Pre-1919 35 40 19,250 39.5 760,375 228,113

1919–1944 13 14 7,150 38.1 272,415 81,725
1945–1964 27 24 14,850 29.9 444,015 133,205
1965–1980 18 17 9,900 32.1 317,790 95,337
Post 1980 7 5 3,850 25.8 99,330 29,799
Total 100 100 55,000 1,893,925 568,178

Within this application, a total of 625 pathways were modelled, using a

bottom-up approach in combination with pre-existing energy efficiency scenarios.
The results of the simulation process for the whole local authority show that only
10 of the 625 pathways investigated were successful in achieving the 80 per cent
overall reduction target (Figure 3.8). The successful pathways all required full grid
decarbonisation and large-scale change in occupant behaviour.
The user is then able to explore the overall outcomes of these scenarios at a
local authority level; these can then be investigated at a lower level to display a
variety of changes in the scenario make up. These types of bottom-up models
require considerable effort to compile the necessary location specific data sets.
However, once this data is collected, the outcomes of the model can provide a
local authority with the evidence base necessary for the efficient and cost-effective
 SYSTEMS DYNAMICS IN URBAN RETROFIT PLANNING 63

120

~ 100
.~
c: 80
'"u'"
'0 60
...
'"E
.t:I 40
:I
Z 20

0
10% 20% 30"10 40% 50% 60"10 70% 80% 90% 100%
Carbon emission reduction

Figure 3.8 Overall carbon emissions reductions for all scenarios

delivery of carbon reduction targets. This type of modelling can also allow
the user to explore the impact of retrofitting policies on individual types of
buildings.

3.3.2.2 Long-term jobs created based on retrofitting actions

It has been argued that retrofitting activities will create a significant number of
job opportunities for local residents. To investigate this claim, a stock and flow
model of the housing stock (as in Figure 3.9) was constructed using Vensim system
dynamic software to support decision-making. The model is created with a time
scale of 50 years, with one-year time steps across this period. Three simple
scenarios, each associated with different refurbishment targets, were simulated:
these comprised 10 per cent, 30 per cent and 80 per cent of buildings being
refurbished to very high standards (25 MWh/year on average) by the year 2050
(Table 3.2). Based on initial simulation results (Figure 3.10), it can be seen that
the numbers of jobs in retrofit related activities falls over time as the number of
untreated properties declines. This simulation shows that long-term job market
planning is required to provide more sustainable urban retrofitting employment.

3.3.3 Participatory group modelling of urban retrofit at

the city-regional scale
A participatory group modelling process was started to explore the potential of
using systems dynamics modelling within stakeholders’ existing working practices.
This type of participatory research has been used successfully in a number of
studies (Richardson et al., 1989; Eden and Radford, 1990; Vennix, 1996). Group
model building (GMB) is a technique to engage the stakeholders within the
process of developing a systems dynamics model. In this exercise GMB was used
to elicit the knowledge of the participants and to engage them in analysing
complex problems. The final outcome will be to work with them to develop
models that may or may not be computer based. There are three main reasons
64 XING ET AL.

influence of
fuel price total energy use
pre-1919 refurbished
fuel poverty levels pre-1919 pre-1919
buildings
avg fuel use
pre-1919 retrofit a

fuel consumption
total energy use refurbished per unit
fuel price 19–44 1919–44 19–44
increase buildings
avg fuel use 45–64 retrofit b

total energy use

45–64 refurbished
total energy uses of 1945–64 45–64 total energy use
unrefurbished buildings avg fuel 45–64 buildings after refurbishment
retrofit c
total energy use avg fuel use 65–80
65–80
1965–80 refurbished
buildings 65–80
retrofit d
total energy use avg fuel use 80–11
1980–2011 refurbished
buildings 1980–2011
retrofit e
avg fuel use post-2011
Figure 3.9 total energy use
post-2011 refurbished
Neath Port Talbot post-2011
buildings post-2011
housing stock mode add to building stocks retrofit f

Table 3.2 Scenarios in carbon reductions from Neath Port Talbot housing stock retrofits
Scenario Fuel use per unit Percentage Total energy use Total energy use Total energy use
of refurbished of building (GWh) in 2050 of unrefurbished of refurbished
building (GWh/yr) refurbished buildings buildings
by 2050 (GWh) in 2050 (GWh) in 2050
10% retrofit 0.025 10 1,820 1,690 130
30% retrofit 0.025 30 1,740 1,380 360
80% retrofit 0.025 80 1,590 830 760

for engaging stakeholders in the model-building process. First, the stakeholder

holds the knowledge required to build the models. Second, if they are involved
in the process, they are likely to engage more fully with the results. Third, the
stakeholders will gain knowledge and understanding of the problem by expressing
their views (Rouwette et al., 2002; Stave, 2003; Beall and Zeoli, 2008).
Modelling experts and policy-makers from Cardiff City Council and a
commercial firm were recruited in the modelling process for the task of planning
for a ‘Future Resilient One Planet Living City’ (Figure 3.11). Based on a series of
workshops, a generic participatory modelling process was created for this task,
which has four key steps: (a) identify key performance indicators (KPIs) and system
diagrams; (b) identify ‘influencing factors’ (a term used in the system dynamics
domain indicating the driving forces behind change) on the KPIs and key data
sources; (c) develop a stakeholder focused model; and (d) implement the model
within the stakeholder organisations.
In the first workshop, the grand challenges and visions for a future resilient
one planet city were discussed. The stakeholders then reviewed their existing
knowledge of modelling techniques, and during this process gaps were found
 SYSTEMS DYNAMICS IN URBAN RETROFIT PLANNING 65

total energy llses

2M

1.75 M

'0
.t:I
E 1.5M
:I
Z

1.25 M

1M
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060
Tirre (Year)
total energy uses: neathl Opct
total energy uses : neath30pct
total energy uses : neathSOpct

job oppoltunities
600

450
'0
...
'"E...
'0
.t:I

Z'"
:I
.t:I 450
E
:I
Z
ISO

o
2010 20 15 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060
Tirre (Year)
job opportunities : neathl Opct
job opportunities: neath30pct
job opportunities: neath80pct
Figure 3.10 Some initial simulation results (total energy use and job opportunities)

and potential tools discussed. The workshop then moved on to the KPIs, first
identifying them, then creating sketch graphs to express the trends in the KPIs
over the long term, in this case until 2050. At the end of the first workshop
the participants created a ‘systems diagram’ representing a future resilient city
(as presented in Figure 3.12).
The outcomes of workshop 1 were compiled and a computerised system
dynamics model was created in Vensim (Figure 3.13) to demonstrate to the
participants the potential for such a model. Workshop 2 was based around the
66 XING ET AL.

RefIne models
Integration process
KPls over time
Influence diagrams Knowledge
Whole picture
Data sources disseminations
Sector specific Implementation
model process

Figure 3.11 A generic participatory group modelling process

Figure 3.12 A whole picture of the Future Resilient One Planet (FREE) city model

Physical Human behaviour Social

(Energy, materials and water) (Demographics, behavioural, (Economics, wellbeing
transports) and happiness)

food type food sources

employment in
aging populations energy intensity per renewable sectors
energy security NPVs of selected
capita of buildings
elements
other renewable disposable
energy household income
diversification of district heating demographics
emergent cheaper LCA and
energy supply per capital energy emobided
energy
consumptions CO2
pct of sustainable building
micro wind resources used EPC/DEC rating
fossil fuels usages total employment
micro solar power behavioural retrofit rate working hours
commercial pct of renewable changes
tidal power energy
non-recyclable energy intensity low interest rate
rain and grey Diversion of waste per head per capita of of finance for retrofit happiness
water use rainwater from biodiversity sustainable transports wellbeing
transport access to
sewage landfill waste facilities
sustainable urban model of tonage of health and
drainages travel no of trips freight wellbeing
air quality
river and sea per household GDP old GDP new quality of life
availability of
water quality cycling paths
environmental relative cost
quality of travel distance travelled
per trip

Figure 3.13 The whole picture Future Resilient One Planet (FREE) city model in Vensim
 SYSTEMS DYNAMICS IN URBAN RETROFIT PLANNING 67

idea of using the model and how to develop it from a sketch to a functioning
feedback tool. Initially the group worked through a number of simple models and
engaged with them on a computer. Once the concepts and some of the limitations
had been explained, a set of selected KPIs were identified in detail, and potential
data sources were discussed. Finally a group discussion was facilitated to identify
ways forward and to gather feedback from the process.
The participants were supportive of the process, and they found it useful as a
new technique for modelling and as a process to articulate the inter linkages of
the KPIs they identified. Further stages of the research will include engagement
with stakeholders to capture the data required to run the models and to establish
methods of integrating the models into the stakeholder’s work practices.

3.4 Discussion and future work

Planning for carbon emission reduction strategies has to face many challenges,
such as required resources, management of uncertainties and effective com-
munication. While sustainable urban retrofitting presents a useful tool to this
end, it is a very complex phenomenon. Modelling impacts of retrofitting strategies
requires integrated approaches to look at the impacts of interrelated factors over
long time horizons. The integrated simulation for urban retrofit dynamics is a
complex task but one with a promising future. Urban planners, policy analysts
and building designers will be able to assess the impacts of their policies and
designs simultaneously in a holistic manner.
In this research, an attempt has been made to develop system dynamics-based
integrated modelling approaches that can tackle the complexities of urban
retrofitting. System dynamics-based approaches can be utilised to investigate and
identify fundamental system structures and actions required to improve sustainable
urban retrofits, for example through the building physics-based SdSAP model to
analyse building retrofit dynamics, GIS-based tools, or the FREE model for more
integrated urban systemic analysis. This chapter has also described the generic
participatory group modelling process used to engage stakeholders with the later
modelling process. The outcome of this work shows the need for transparent
models that help the model users to improve their confidence and trust in their
tools. The system dynamics approaches presented in this chapter represent a
unique experiment to push the boundaries of conventional building performance
modelling and urban retrofit planning. In doing so, we have shown it is possible
to develop more dynamic approaches.
In conclusion, the system dynamics approaches presented in this chapter (i.e.
SdSAP, the GIS based energy and environment prediction tool and the FREE city
modelling process) have demonstrated the potential for the development of more
transparent, holistic and inclusive building retrofit design and urban planning
support tools. The challenge is how to develop a better ‘interface’ to engage
stakeholders with innovative software tools, and how to better integrate the
modelling tools and techniques with professional facilitation and community
engagement processes.
68 XING ET AL.

Note
* Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University.

References
Alexander, D., Lannon, S., and Linovski, O. (2009) ‘The identification and analysis of
regional building stock characteristic using map based data’, in proceedings of the 11th
International IBPSA Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, 27–30 July 2009, pp. 1421–8.
Alishahi, E., Parsa Moghaddam, M., and Sheikh-El-Eslami, M. K. (2012) ‘A system
dynamics approach for investigating impacts of incentive mechanisms on wind power
investment’, Renewable Energy, 37(1): 310–17.
Anderson, B., Chapman, P., Cutland, N., Dickson, C., Henderson, G., Henderson, J.,
Iles, P., Kosmina, L., and Shorrock, L. (2001) BREDEM-12 Model Description, 2001
Update. Watford, UK: BRE.
Argent, R. M. (2004) ‘An overview of model integration for environmental applications –
Components, frameworks and semantics’, Environmental Modelling and Software
19(3): 219–34.
Batty, M. (2008) ‘The size, scale, and shape of cities’, Science, 319(5864): 769–71.
Batty, M., Xie, Y., and Sun, Z. (1999) ‘Modeling urban dynamics through GIS-based cellular
automata’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 23(3), 205–33.
Beall, A., and Zeoli, L. (2008) ‘Participatory modelling of endangered wildlife systems:
Simulating the sage-grouse and land use in Central Washington’, Ecological Economics,
68(1–2): 24–33.
BRE (Building Research Establishment) (1998) The Government’s Standard Assessment
Procedure for Energy Rating of Dwellings. Garston, UK: Building Research Establish-
ment for DETR.
Brömmelstroet, M. (2012) ‘Transparency, flexibility, simplicity: From buzzwords to
strategies for real PSS improvement’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,
36(1): 96–104.
Burdekin, R. (1979) ‘A dynamic spatial urban model: A generalization of Forrester’s Urban
dynamics model’, Urban Systems, 4: 93–120.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2013a) ‘Energy consumption in the
UK’, Chapter 3. Accessed 29 November 2013 at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/
energy-consumption-in-the-uk.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2013) Sub-national Consumption
Statistics. Accessed 29 November 2013 at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/sub-
national-energy-consumption.
de Wilde, P., and Tian, W. (2012) ‘Management of thermal performance risks in buildings
subject to climate change’, Building and Environment, 55: 167–77.
Eames, M., Kershaw, T., and Coley, D. (2011) ‘On the creation of future probabilistic design
weather years from UKCP09’, Building Services Engineering Research and Technology,
32: 127–42.
Eames, M., Dixon, T., May, T., and Hunt, M. (2013) ‘City futures: Exploring urban retrofit
and sustainable transitions’, Building Research and Information, 41(5), 504–16.
Eden, C., and Radford, J. (1990) Tackling Strategic Problems: The Role Of Group
Decision Support. London: Sage.
EST (Energy Saving Trust) (2010) HEED Online 2 Full Technical Guide v2.01. Accessed
28 November 2013 at: www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Publications2/Housing-
professionals/HEED-PDFs/HEED-Online-2-Basic-User-Guide-v-2.0.
Fang, S., Gertner, G., Sun, Z., and Anderson, A. (2005) ‘The impact of interactions in spatial
simulation of the dynamics of urban sprawl’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(4):
294–306.
 SYSTEMS DYNAMICS IN URBAN RETROFIT PLANNING 69

Ford, A., Vogstad, K., and Flynn, H. (2007) ‘Simulating price patterns for tradable green
certificates to promote electricity generation from wind’, Energy Policy, 35: 91–111.
Forrester, J. (1969) Urban Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forrester, J., Mass, N., and Ryan, C. (1976) ‘The system dynamics national model:
Understanding socio-economic behavior and policy alternatives’, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 9(1–2): 51–68.
Geertman, S., and Stillwell, J. (2004) ‘Planning support systems: an inventory of current
practice’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28(4): 291–310.
Han, J., Hayashi, Y., Cao, X., and Imura, H. (2009) ‘Application of an integrated system
dynamics and cellular automata model for urban growth assessment: A case study of
Shanghai, China’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(3): 133–41.
Hasani, M., and Hosseini, S. H. (2011) ‘Dynamic assessment of capacity investment in
electricity market considering complementary capacity mechanisms’, Energy, 36: 277–93.
Holmes, S., and Reinhart, C. (2011) ‘Climate change risk from a building owner’s
perspective: Assessing future climate and energy price scenarios’, in Proceedings of the
12th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association,
Sydney, 14–16 November 2011, pp. 2522–9.
Holtz, G. (2011) ‘Modelling transitions: An appraisal of experiences and suggestions for
research’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1: 167–86.
Jones, P., Patterson, J., and Lannon, S. (2007) ‘Modelling the built environment at an urban
scale – Energy and health impacts in relation to housing’, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 83(1): 39–49.
Jones, P., Lannon, S., van Nouhuys, R., and Rosenthal, R. (2010) ‘Global megacities and
low carbon: From concept planning to integrated modelling,’ World Architecture,
236(2): 30–9.
Kavgic, M., Mavrogiannia, A., Mumovica, D., Summerfieldb, A., Stevanovicc, Z., and
Djurovic-Petrovicd, M. (2010) ‘A review of bottom-up building stock models for energy
consumption in the residential sector’, Building and Environment, 45(7): 1683–97.
Kelly, S., Crawford-Brown, D., and Pollitt, M. G. (2012) ‘Building performance evaluation
and certification in the UK: Is SAP fit for purpose?’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 16(9): 6861–78.
Khan, S., Yufeng, L., and Ahmad, A. (2009) ‘Analysing complex behaviour of hydrological
systems through a systems dynamic approach’, Environmental Modelling and Software,
24: 1363–72.
Klosterman, R. (1997) ‘Planning support systems: A new perspective of computer-aided
planning’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17: 45–54.
Lenoir, A., Cory, S., Donn, M., and Garde, F. (2011) ‘User’s behaviour and energy
performance of net zero energy buildings’, in Proceedings of the.12th Conference of
International Building Performance Simulation Association, Sydney, 14–16 November
2011, pp. 1527–34. IBPSA.
Meadows, D. H., and Jenny, M. (1985) The Electronic Oracle: Computer models and social
decisions. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W. W. (1972) The Limits to
Growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New
York: Universe Books.
Murphy, G., Kummert, M., Anderson, B. R., and Counseil, J. (2011) ‘A comparison of the
UK Standard Assessment Procedure and detailed simulation of solar energy systems for
dwellings’, Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 4(1): 75–90.
Naess, P. and Vogel, N. (2012) ‘Sustainable urban development and the multi-level
transition perspective’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 4: 36–50.
OFGEM (Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) (2010) ‘Action needed so energy supplies
remain secure: Ofgem’s Project Discovery findings’, Factsheet 88.
70 XING ET AL.

Olsina, F., Garcés, F., and Haubrich H. J. (2006) ‘Modeling long-term dynamics of
electricity markets’, Energy Policy, 34: 1411–33.
Richardson, G., Vennix, J., Andersen, D., Rohrbaugh, J., and Wallace, W. (1989) Eliciting
group knowledge for model-building. In Milling, P. M., and Zahn, E. O. K. (eds)
Computer-based Management of Complex Systems, Proceedings of the 1989
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Stuttgart, 10–14 July 2989,
pp. 343–57.
Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M., and Vellinga, P. (2000) An integrated planning tool for
sustainable cities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20(3): 265–76.
Rouwette, E., Vennix, J., and Mullekom, T. (2002) ‘Group model building effectiveness:
A review of assessment studies’, System Dynamics Review, 18: 5–45.
SAP (Standard Assessment Procedure) (2009) The Government’s Standard Assessment
Procedure for Energy Rating of Dwellings – 2009 edition. Accessed 28 November 2013
at: www.gov.uk/standard-assessment-procedure.
Shorrock, L., and Dunster, J. (1997) ‘The physically-based model BREHOMES and its use
in deriving scenarios for the energy use and carbon dioxide emissions of the UK housing
stock’, Energy Policy, 25: 1027–37.
Stave, K. (2003) ‘A system dynamics model to facilitate public understanding of water
management options in Las Vegas, Nevada’, Journal of Environmental Management,
67(4): 303–13.
Tanimoto, J., Hagishima, T., and Ikegaya, N. (2011) ‘Total utility demand prediction for
multi-dwelling sites considering variation of occupant behaviour schedules’, in
Proceedings of the 12th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation
Association, Sydney, 14–16 November 2011, pp. 16–23. IBPSA.
Thompson, B., and Bank, L. (2010) ‘Use of system dynamics as a decision-making tool in
building design and operation’, Building and Environment, 45(4), 1006–15.
Tweed, C., and Jones, P. (2000) ‘The role of models in arguments about urban
sustainability’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20(3): 277–87.
Vennix, J. (1996) Group Model Building: Facilitating team learning using system dynamics.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Ventana (2013) ‘Vensim software’. Available at: http://vensim.com/vensim-software/.
Wilson, A. (2007) ‘A generalised representation for a comprehensive urban and regional
model’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 31(2), 148–61.
WSA (Welsh School of Architecture) (2008) Evaluation of an Energy Efficiency Scheme to
Upgrade the Existing Domestic Building Stock of a Local Authority Region. Cardiff:
WSA, Cardiff University.
Wu, F. (1996) ‘A linguistic cellular automata simulation approach for sustainable land
development in a fast growing region’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,
20(6): 367–87.
Xing, Y., and Dangerfield, B. (2010) ‘Modelling the sustainability of mass tourism in island
tourist economies’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(9), 1742–52.
Xing, Y., Hewitt, N., and Griffiths, P. (2011) ‘Zero carbon buildings refurbishment:
A hierarchical pathway’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6), 3229–36.
Xing, Y., Bagdanavicius, A., Lannon, S., Pirouti, M., and Bassett, T. (2012) ‘Low
temperature district heating network planning with focus on distribution energy
losses’. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Applied Energy,
Suzhou, China, 5–8 July 2012.
Yates, P. and Bishop, I. (1998) ‘The integration of existing GIS and modelling systems with
urban applications’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 22(1): 71–80.
4
The economics and financing
of city-scale retrofits
Andy Gouldson,* Niall Kerr,* Corrado Topi,**
Ellie Dawkins,** Johan Kuylenstierna,** Phil Webber*
and Rory Sullivan*

Is there a business case (and a wider social and economic case) for large-scale
investments in decarbonising a city? If there is a business case, what risks need
to be managed and what institutional arrangements need to be in place to enable
such investments to be made? This chapter starts by outlining the methods and
findings of what has been termed a ‘mini-Stern review’ at the city scale. Based on
the application of this model in the Leeds city region in the UK, it finds that there
can be a compelling business case for large-scale investments in city-scale retrofits
and that this is supported by a wider social and economic case. It then briefly
reviews some different financial models that could be used to underpin major
investments in city-scale retrofits and some of the risks that have to be assessed
and managed before these models are more widely applied. The chapter concludes
by putting the changes that could result from such investments into a longer-term
context by considering the extent to which the levels of decarbonisation that could
be achieved would be compatible with longer-term visions for deeper levels of
decarbonisation at the city scale.

4.1 Introduction
Globally, more than half of all economic output is generated in cities, and more
than half of all people live in cities (UN-Habitat, 2011b; UNWUP, 2009). Further,
it has been estimated that between 40 and 70 per cent of all anthropogenic
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are produced in cities, and that at least 70 per
cent of emissions can be attributed to the consumption that takes place within
cities (UN-Habitat, 2011b; UNEP, 2011). The success or failure of global attempts
to cut carbon emissions to avoid dangerous climate change therefore depends to
a large extent on what happens in cities.
Many of the more progressive cities around the world have adopted targets
and strategies to cut their carbon footprints (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005). How-
ever, to achieve their targets, very significant levels of investment are likely to be
72 GOULDSON ET AL.

needed (OECD, 2010; UNEP, 2011). For some of the less progressive cities, the
assumption that such investments will be needed is often enough to preclude action.
Obviously this barrier to change is more significant in contexts where economic
growth is limited, where financial resources are hard to access and where local
authority capacities have suffered as a result of austerity measures and budget cuts.
Both the more and the less progressive cities are therefore concerned about the
economics and the financing of city-scale retrofits. This chapter examines these
issues, asking whether there is a business case (and a wider social and economic
case) for large-scale investments in decarbonising a city. Finding that there can be
both a narrow business case and a wider social and economic case for such
investments, it examines the broad features of the financial models that could be
used to underpin major investments in city-scale retrofits and the various risks that
need to be identified, assessed and managed to enable such investments to be made.
The chapter concludes by examining the extent to which these investments, if they
are made, will take us towards a vision of a more deeply decarbonised city.
The first part of the chapter outlines the methods, findings and implications of
what has been termed a ‘mini-Stern review’ at the city scale. This review sought
to develop a method and a framework for analysis that could be applied at the
city scale in various contexts. The method has a number of key elements. First,
it draws on data that evaluates the performance, in both cost and carbon terms,
of the thousands of low-carbon options that could be applied at the local level
in the domestic, commercial, industrial and transport sectors. Second, it assesses
the scope for the deployment of each option in different sectors at the local level.
Third, it adds up the costs and benefits of the widespread deployment of different
low-carbon options at a number of levels – the cost-effective level that considers
only those investments that would more than pay for themselves over their
lifetime, the cost-neutral level that assumes levels of investment that imply no net
cost to the local economy over time, and the realistic-potential level that assumes
all technically viable options are exploited. The investment needs and payback
periods for each of these levels of change are then identified. Fourth, it develops
a baseline that takes into account the future impacts of ongoing trends in energy
use (including the impacts of current policies, future price increases and changes
in demand, assumed improvements in the carbon intensity of energy supply, and
the efficiency of energy use, etc.). Against this baseline we add in the impacts of
the cost-effective, cost-neutral and realistically achievable technical potential,
thereby allowing us to identify the levels of cost and carbon saving that could be
achieved with different levels of investment.
As will be shown, at least for the Leeds city region, there seems to be a
compelling business case for major-scale investments to reduce energy demand
and to increase energy supply from the wider deployment of small-scale renewables
across the area. The business case also seems to be supported by a wider social
and economic case – if these investments were made, the economy would be
stimulated, jobs would be created and protected, fuel poverty would be reduced
and so on. Questions of finance and risk then come to the fore – how can the
public and private sectors raise the required levels of investment, and what risks
have to be assessed and mitigated for the business case to be seen not as a forecast
projection but as a practical possibility that could actually be exploited? Of course,
we hope that by providing robust data on the performance of thousands of
 ECONOMICS OF CITY-SCALE RETROFITS 73

low-carbon options and the scope for their deployment at the local level, risks
are reduced and action becomes more possible. However, it is important to note
that the risks that could deter action come in a wider range of forms. For
example, there are political risks for key decision-makers in city regions, financial
risks for investors and take-up risks for the public. There are risks that potentially
significant start-up costs may not be recovered. There are risks that funds may
be secured but that end user demand is low, making it hard to distribute funds.
There are risks that investments may not generate the returns predicted, or that
recipients of investments may default on repayments. And there are legal risks
for all involved. All of these risks – that spread across the instigators, investors,
deliverers and adopters of low-carbon finance – need to be managed and mitigated
if the potential is to be exploited.
We conclude by reviewing the extent to which the development and wider applica-
tion of these models could enable major investments in city-scale decarbonisation
plans in the coming years. We also try to put the changes that could result from such
investments into a longer-term context by considering the extent to which the levels
of decarbonisation that could be achieved through such levels of investment would
be compatible with longer-term targets for deeper levels of decarbonisation.

4.2 Methods for a city-scale mini-Stern review

As presented in Gouldson et al. (2012a, 2012b), our approach is based on the
following stages.

1 Identifying and reviewing the performance of applicable low-

carbon measures
We base our evaluation on UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC) data on
the potential energy, cost and carbon savings from thousands of low-carbon
measures. The CCC data includes a list of the energy efficiency options (including
both technological and behavioural options) and small-scale renewable tech-
nologies that could be adopted in the domestic, commercial, industrial and
transport sectors. To a large degree, we base our analysis on that list of measures;
however as the transport sector analysis only considers private road transport
options, we expand it to consider a limited number public transport options.
A full list of the measures included in the analysis is presented in the appendix
to this chapter. We do not claim that this list of measures is complete – indeed
expanding it to include a wider range of measures (including those relating to
structural changes in the urban form) should be seen as a key priority – but it is
the most detailed and extensive list that we have found that is underpinned by
robust and broadly comparable data sets.
Based on the CCC data set, we extract data on the costs of adopting one unit
of each measure and the energy (and hence the financial and carbon) savings that
can be expected over the lifetime of that measure. The costs we consider include
the capital costs, running costs and any hidden or missing costs (i.e. the costs of
searching for or adopting the measure). We take into account incentives designed
to encourage take up of small-scale renewable or energy efficiency measures such
as feed-in tariffs. Future energy costs are based on DECC energy price forecasts
through to 2022. Savings are based on CCC evaluations of the energy saved or
generated in different contexts over the lifetime of each measure.
74 GOULDSON ET AL.

Throughout the analysis, we use realistic projections of the energy, cost and
carbon savings emerging from different measures. Conservative estimates of
energy savings are used that take into account implementation gaps and rebound
effects, and the scope for the adoption of different measures is adjusted to take
into account hard to reach households and businesses. Carbon savings from
demand reductions are based on the attribution of a share of national carbon
emissions to the relevant form of final consumption at the local level (AEA, 2010).
Future carbon savings reflect projected falls in the carbon intensity of electricity
in the period to 2022.

2 Assessing the scope for the deployment of different measures at

the local level
We then relate this list of measures to the scope for their deployment at the city
scale. Ideally, this process would use observed data to take into account the size,
composition and the actual and potential energy efficiency of the domestic,
industrial, commercial and transport sectors in each particular locality. However,
the availability and quality of data on this aspect of the analysis is quite variable.
In the domestic sector in the UK we can make well-informed assessments of each
of these factors through the Homes Energy Efficiency Database,1 and for the
transport sector we can make detailed assessments of the scope to replace the
vehicle stock with more efficient alternatives and of the benefits of reducing vehicle
kilometres travelled through Department for Transport data. Data on the scope
for the adoption of public transport and transport demand-side management
options is absent from national models and therefore has to be generated locally.
For industry, we adjust for the scale and sectoral composition of the local
economy through local economic data, but there is no data on the energy efficiency
(actual and potential) of different industries at the local level. We therefore
assume that industry in each location is as energy efficient and has as much
potential to adopt low-carbon measures as the national average. For non-domestic
(public and private sector) buildings, we adjust for scale using Office for National
Statistics data on floor space as a key indicator, but again data that distinguishes
between different sectors or that takes into account variations in the energy
efficiency or the scope to absorb low-carbon measures is not readily available.
We therefore assume that these factors in non-domestic buildings in a particular
area are the same as the national average.

3 Aggregated assessment
Based on the assessments of the different measures and the scope for their
deployment in a particular context, we then conduct an aggregated assessment
of the costs and benefits of different levels of investment. The assessment is based
on a private interest rate of 8 per cent and a central estimate (DECC, 2010) of
future energy prices.2 We then identify the measures that have a positive net
present value – or in other words the measures that are cost effective as they more
than pay for themselves over their lifetimes. We then calculate the extent to which
profits from these could be recycled to fund further investments in non-cost-
effective measures to establish a cost-neutral level of investment and decarbonisa-
tion. Using CCC scenarios and definitions, we also calculate the investment needs,
payback periods and so on associated with the exploitation of all of the realistic
technical potential for the deployment of the different low-carbon options.
 ECONOMICS OF CITY-SCALE RETROFITS 75

4 Baseline analysis
To put the different levels of investment and decarbonisation outlined above into
a wider context, we calculate baselines back to 1990 and generate a number of
scenarios through to 2022. We use local-level consumption-based data that
attributes a share of national emissions to levels of energy consumption at the
local level (AEA, 2010). As this data is only available for the period from 2005–8,
we backcast to 1990 and we forecast to 2022 taking into account actual and
projected levels of economic and population growth, trend rates in energy
efficiency improvement and in the decarbonisation of electricity supply and
demand-side responses to changing energy prices based on medium-term price
elasticities of demand. To consider the potential for the adoption of extra low-
carbon measures above this baseline, we then follow the CCC by assuming take-
up rates of low-carbon measures that are based on a realistic proportion of the
technical potential of each measure being exploited by 2022. These deployment
rates take into account the impact of policies such as the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS), the UK Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) and UK feed-in
tariffs (FITs) for small-scale renewables. We also incorporate an evaluation of the
impacts of the UK Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI), based on provisional incentive
rates included in consultation documents (DECC, 2010). We assume that current
(as at January 2012) and prospective rates for FITs and the RHI stay in place
through to 2022. The analysis does not account for the impact of the Green Deal
or the Green Investment Bank – although these schemes could provide finance
for some of the investments mentioned.

5 Generating league tables of cost and carbon effective measures

Based on assessments of the levels of profitability of each measure over its lifetime
(i.e. its net present value or NPV) and the scope for its deployment at the local
level, we then generate league tables of the most cost-and carbon-effective
measures that could be deployed either in each sector or in aggregate in a
particular area. These league tables allow different measures to be costed and
compared on an equal basis, thereby providing an accessible evidence base for
more informed decision-making.

6 Calculating employment and wider economic effects

The final stage of the analysis considers the effects that low-carbon investments
would have on employment and the wider economy. To do this, we take the
forecast levels of investment required to exploit those cost-effective and cost-
neutral opportunities with employment generating potential, and we assume even
levels of investment per year over the period from 2012 to 2022. We then make
assumptions about the amount of the investment retained within the local
economy, taking into account the strength of the supplier base and the level of
competition from outside the locality in particular sectors. Our assumptions
draw on a recently completed study of the low-carbon goods and services sector
within the Leeds city region (see Quantum Strategy and Technology, 2011).
Only those measures with employment generating potential are examined –
some behavioural measures (i.e. adjusting thermostats) with no employment
generating potential are not assessed. The direct employment effects of major levels
of investment in low-carbon options are then forecast based on an expansion of
76 GOULDSON ET AL.

current levels of employment per unit of gross value added (GVA) within the low-
carbon goods and services sector, and direct economic effects are forecast based
on an expansion of current levels of GVA per employee. Wider economic effects
are then calculated using standard multipliers (English Partnerships, 2008).

4.3 Limitations of the method

The methodology enables the development of a robust assessment of the perform-
ance of thousands of low-carbon technologies, and an evaluation of the scope for
the deployment of each option at the local level. Of course the methodology is
only as good as the data that goes into it – while the data we have used are based
on apparently realistic evaluations of performance and of costs, benefits, returns,
and so on, and of interest rates, energy prices, and so on, there is of course some
potential for inaccuracy. In an attempt to check the integrity of the findings, for
the domestic sector we have compared predictions from the analysis against
outcomes from real investments (notably from the Kirklees Warmzone scheme)
and have found that they are very accurate. More could of course be done to
check the accuracy of the findings for the other sectors, and we envisage that such
assessments of accuracy will be completed, for example, as part of the due
diligence process that precedes investments.
There are three other key limitations with the approach – all of which are
critically important. The first is that the method does not assess all options – it
only assesses the scope for the deployment of many of the better-known techno-
logical and behavioural options. It does not assess any of the structural changes
(i.e. in the urban form) that may need to be made to secure a deeply decarbonised
city, and it does not consider long-distance travel or large-scale infrastructure
projects. The second is that, although it is based on assessments of energy
consumption in cities, it does not account for embedded carbon in the products
and services that are consumed. Others have found that when such embedded
carbon is taken into account we see very different trends in carbon emissions and
footprints (see Peters, 2010). And a third and fundamental limit of the method
is that it only considers the economic costs and benefits associated with the range
of low-carbon options. We of course recognise that there are many other factors
that shape consumption patterns and carbon footprints and that numerous
infrastructural, institutional, political, sociological, psychological and cultural
factors shape the ways in which different actors respond to the incentive struc-
tures that we have assessed here. Other inter-disciplinary work addresses these
dimensions more fully, but we contend that the approach adopted here still has
significant value, not least in enabling climate change to be seen as a critical issue
(and opportunity) in economic policy debates.

4.4 Outcomes of a city-scale mini-Stern review

To test the method outlined above, we apply it to the Leeds city region (LCR). The
LCR has a population of 3 million people, an economy worth £52 billion a year
and an annual energy bill of £5.4 billion a year. The LCR is a fairly typical UK
city region in terms of its size, the composition of its building stock, the make-up
 ECONOMICS OF CITY-SCALE RETROFITS 77

of its economy and so on. We are therefore confident that there is some basis for
drawing conclusions that have wider relevance particularly in the UK and possibly
also in other areas of northern Europe. With some adaptation, the wider approach
is applicable in most other contexts.3

4.4.1 The potential for reducing carbon footprints

Based on the method outlined above, we find that – compared to 1990 levels –
the LCR could reduce its carbon emissions by 2022 by:

• Nearly 13 per cent through cost-effective investments that would pay for
themselves (on commercial terms) over their lifetime. This would require an
investment of £4.9 billion, generating annual savings of £1.2 billion, paying
back the investment in 4.1 years but generating annual savings for the lifetime
of the measures.
• Approximately 18 per cent through cost-neutral investments that could be
paid for at no net cost to the LCR economy if the benefits from cost-effective
measures were captured and re-invested in further low-carbon measures. This
would require an investment of £11.6 billion, generating annual savings of
£1.6 billion, paying back the investment in 7.3 years but generating annual
savings for the lifetime of the measures.
• Nearly 19 per cent with the exploitation of all of the realistic potential of the
different measures. This would require an investment of £13 billion, gener-
ating annual savings of £1.7 billion, paying back the investment in 7.6 years
but generating annual savings for the lifetime of the measures.

4.4.2 The wider context: other influences on LCR carbon

emissions
To put these energy savings and carbon reduction figures into a wider context,
we find that:

• The extrapolation of current trends with increasing energy demand being

counteracted by improvements in energy efficiency will lead LCR carbon
emissions to grow by 2 per cent between 1990 and 2022.
• Higher energy prices will impact on demand, and in combination with
background trends this will lead to a 10 per cent drop in LCR carbon
emissions compared to the 1990 baseline by 2022.
• The decarbonisation of the national electricity system will add to this to create
a 23 per cent drop in LCR carbon emissions by 2022.
• The total effect of all of the above plus the exploitation of all of the cost-
effective low-carbon options will be a 36 per cent drop in LCR carbon
emissions between 1990 and 2022.
• The total effect of all of the above plus the exploitation of the remaining cost-
neutral options will be a 41 per cent drop in LCR emissions between 1990
and 2022.
• The total effect of all of the above plus the exploitation of all of the remaining
realistic potential will be a 42 per cent drop in LCR carbon emissions between
1990 and 2022.
78 GOULDSON ET AL.

4.4.3 Wider impacts on employment, the economy

and society
We also calculate that the levels of investment required to secure these reductions
in energy bills and carbon footprints could have wider economic benefits within
the LCR in the next decade:

• The levels of investment needed to exploit all cost-effective measures with

employment generating capacity would lead to the generation of 4,443 jobs
and growth in GVA of £211 million per year.
• The levels of investment needed to exploit the all of the cost-neutral measures
with employment generating capacity would lead to a further 5,226 jobs and
GVA growth of £230 million per year.

As well as creating the jobs mentioned above, the investments would also
protect employment in other sectors by enhancing efficiency and competitiveness
and reducing the extent to which employers are vulnerable to energy price
increases and volatility. Particularly if they are well targeted, such investments
could also play a substantial role in tackling fuel poverty and in reducing the
associated health-related issues.

4.5 Investment, finance and risk

The analysis highlights that within the LCR at least (and presumably in many
other contexts too) there is very considerable potential to reduce energy use and
carbon footprints through cost-effective and cost-neutral investments on com-
mercial terms. However, the fact that these opportunities exist on this scale is
obviously not enough to ensure that they are actually exploited. Incentives – no
matter how strong they are – have to be matched with appropriate capacities if
progress is to be made. These capacities relate both to the supply side (the
capacity to secure and distribute major-scale investments) and to the demand side
(the capacity to absorb such investment and the ability to capture and recover
the associated benefits).
The mini-Stern review methodology set out above clearly helps to build
understanding of the scale of the opportunity. This can be critical in developing
political, business and public commitment to city-scale decarbonisation. However,
the mini-Stern results are perhaps best seen as a prima facie case for major
investments – more needs to be done to turn this prima facie case into action.
A key first step in doing this is to consolidate the opportunities for investment
that are spread throughout the city into a small number of investable oppor-
tunities. Institutional investors prefer to invest at scale, and so opportunities in
the tens or even hundreds of millions are much more likely to attract investment
than smaller or more fragmented opportunities. Thereafter, there are two key
dimensions: (a) to review different ways of financing city-scale retrofits; and (b)
to assess the various risks associated with such investments and to mitigate them
to a level that is acceptable to the different parties that are likely to have an interest
in such investments.
 ECONOMICS OF CITY-SCALE RETROFITS 79

4.5.1 Financing models

In broad terms, local authorities can seek to finance low-carbon cities directly,
through some sort of partnership arrangement with the private sector, or by relying
on the private sector to provide the finance required (see also EST, 2011). Clearly,
these options can overlap but considering them as distinct approaches allows some
general observations about the risks associated with each approach to be made.
Public sector financed models would see local authorities providing 100 per
cent of the capital required for the investment. This capital could be provided
through reserves or revenue streams or through the local authority raising capital
directly (e.g. in the form of bank debt or some sort of bond issue). The advantages
of this approach are that it can be simpler and easier to arrange, and that the
benefits of the investments can return to the fund to finance further low-carbon
investors or to the local authorities that invested. However, the disadvantages are
also clear, particularly in a time of austerity when local authority resources are
often already overstretched and when the ability to invest or the appetite to take
risks may be reduced. The localism agenda may however make it easier for local
authorities to pursue this kind of option.
The public–private model would see some sort of special purpose vehicle being
set up for the public and private sectors to invest in. Such vehicles can be set up
in a multitude of ways: profits and losses are shared equally (or proportionally)
across the partners, one of the partners takes the ‘first loss’, some of the risk is
underwritten or insured, and so on. These vehicles could also come in the form
of a not-for-profit community interest company (CIC) that could be governed by
its members (including local authorities, local communities, etc.) with a remit
to secure the maximum carbon savings possible while also servicing any loans
made. The advantage of a public–private approach is that it can be explored in
a phased way – local authorities can play a bigger role in financing or underwriting
investments in the earlier phases when risks and uncertainties are higher, with the
private sector playing a more significant role subsequently once business models
have been proven and revenue streams established. In both phases, scarce local
authority resources are used to leverage private sector funds, but in the early phase
some willingness to borrow or assume responsibility for risks is needed.4
Private sector models would see institutional investors providing all of the
capital required. The local authority may have a role, perhaps by creating a
favourable planning context, by facilitating or supporting the flow of projects that
are to be financed or through acting as a ‘cornerstone’ client that absorbs a
proportion of the investment (i.e. in retrofitting its own buildings) and is virtually
guaranteed to repay. But under this model the investment comes from and the
returns are made to the private sector.
This simplified categorisation of how local authorities may approach financing
low-carbon cities obscures a whole series of related factors: what is the role of
central government, what are the exact structures involved, who is responsible
for delivery and implementation of the funding and of the projects, and so on?
However, the central point to be made is that the different approaches have quite
different financial implications for local authorities in terms of the financial risks
that they are being asked to carry.
80 GOULDSON ET AL.

4.5.2 Risk assessment and mitigation

Of course there is a view that the private sector is able to recognise and fund the
exploitation of profit-making opportunities. The fact that they haven’t done so
suggests that either the opportunities are not as big as suggested or that there are
some barriers preventing them from investing. This does seem to be the case at
present, and as a result some public sector involvement seems to be required, at
least in the early stages and/or among the first movers. Clearly central government
can provide support in different forms, for example, through the funding of
demonstration schemes or through facilities such as the UK’s Green Investment
Bank. But at present, at least in the UK, local authorities do seem to be the key
to unlocking major-scale investments in low-carbon options within their areas.
In the current context this could be taken as an indication that little will happen,
but recent cases indicate that local authorities could be willing to act – and
investors then willing to invest – if the risks associated with their involvement
can be identified and managed down to an acceptable level. These risks – and
related mitigation actions – are more fully explored in Sullivan et al. (2012).
While clearly risks will be specific to the local authority involved and to the
needs and interests of its partners and stakeholders, in broad terms the major risks
that need to be assessed and managed include:

Political risks: Political leaders at a local level have to take some political risks to
pursue major-scale investments in low-carbon options. They may see local
authorities accused of wasting money, or being criticised for funding some
projects (or projects in some areas) and not others. They may – even if all
goes well – see local authorities criticised for working with the private sector,
or even for crowding out the private sector. Some of these risks are inevitable
for any type of large-scale investment but they may be exacerbated for
investments that are seen as outside local authorities’ core service areas and
responsibilities.
Policy risks: Many low-carbon projects depend on policies in one form or another
to make them viable. These policies may establish targets for carbon reduction
that have to be met, or they can establish carbon prices and taxes such as
those from emissions trading schemes, or subsidies such as feed-in-tariffs that
make incentives for investment in low-carbon options more significant. They
can also create ‘pay as you save’ cost recovery mechanisms as in the UK’s
Green Deal or financial facilities such as the UK’s Green Investment Bank.
All of these help to support investment in low-carbon options at the city scale,
but by implication the possibility that they could be withdrawn creates an
investment risk. Confidence in government policy is therefore key.
Market risks: Clearly markets can have a very significant impact on investments
in low-carbon options, particularly through the risk of changing interest rates
and energy prices. The mini-Stern analysis outlined above finds that
investments are probably more sensitive to changes in energy price than
interest rates. While most predictions suggest that energy prices will continue
to increase and to become more volatile, if oil prices do drop, or if shale gas
production leads to rapid falls in gas prices, then the economics of investments
in energy efficiency will change.
 ECONOMICS OF CITY-SCALE RETROFITS 81

Legal and contract risks: Local authorities, as public bodies, have various freedoms
but they also face a whole series of constraints on their actions and behaviour.
While new measures such as the localism agenda may free them to explore
new possibilities, they must comply with other obligations, for example
relating to state-aid or to competitive tendering. The requirement to clarify
which legal freedoms or obligations are in force can be enough to stop some
local authorities looking into the different possibilities for funding. A
reluctance to consider locking a local authority into a long-term partnership
with a private sector partner can also be a major barrier.
Transaction and start-up risks: The costs of, for example, contract development
or due diligence studies can be significant, and they can occur at a time when
many elements of the potential activity remain uncertain (e.g. if there are
questions about whether sufficient finance will be raised). Local authorities
may be unwilling to incur these costs if they are not confident that they will
make significant progress or deliver significant outcomes.
Take-up risks: Even if investments are secured, there is no guarantee that the funds
will be deployed to or taken up by different actors on the scales envisaged.
A lack of concern about the issues or a lack of trust in the delivery agency
can be enough to dissuade households or firms from participating. Local
authorities may be concerned that even if they succeed in raising significant
amounts of financing they may be unable to find the projects to invest in.
Benefit risks: Where funds are deployed and measures taken up, there is a risk
that they will not generate the returns that were forecast. There is often a
difference between the designed and deployed performance of different
options – for example as a result of incorrect assumptions or poor installation.
Even small variations in relative performance can amount to significant losses
in absolute terms when the results of multiple investments are aggregated.
Default risks: If funds are deployed in measures that do generate the expected
returns, then there is still a risk that the recipient of the investment will default
on repayments. They may affect projected returns (although the exact impact
will depend on the assumptions made about default rates at the beginning),
they may be used as examples of how the low-carbon effort has failed, and
they may be used as examples of inappropriate behaviour by local authorities
(e.g. increasing personal indebtedness).
Cherry-picking risks: There is a risk that only easy to reach projects with short
payback periods will receive funding, and that investors will extract the profit
from the easy options without investing in the harder to reach options.
Potentially, investors could withdraw after the earlier phases, leaving an area
with only the harder to reach options and no ability to cross subsidise.

It is clear that these risks could be significant, whether politically, legally or

economically. However, it is also important to note that all of these risks can be
accommodated or managed. Politicians may be willing to take some risks if the
potential rewards are high enough and even more so if there are successful cases
that they can learn from elsewhere. Policy risks affect all investments, but
governments could clearly do more to build investor confidence by creating a more
stable and predictable policy climate. Market risks can be managed, and it seems
unlikely that energy prices will drop significantly in the next 3–4 years when many
82 GOULDSON ET AL.

of the investments can be repaid. Legal risks and start-up risks can be reduced
through demonstration schemes and the publication of template contracts and
such like. Take-up risks can be reduced through the formation of public–private
alliances that combine the reputation and accountability of the public sector with
the resources and delivery capabilities of the private sector. Benefit risks can be
reduced through realistic technological assessments, the ‘ground-truthing’ of
predictions against actual outcomes and through measures designed to assure the
quality of installation. Default risks are likely to be radically reduced through
policy innovations such as the UK’s Green Deal. And cherry-picking risks can be
minimised through contracts that require investors to blend investments in easy
options with those in hard-to-reach options.

4.6 Conclusions and recommendations

The analysis presented here – based on the case study of the Leeds city region –
suggests that the economic returns on major-scale investments in low-carbon cities
could be very significant indeed. Many of the measures would pay for themselves
in a relatively short period of time, they would generate significant levels of
employment and economic growth in the process, and if done well there may be
a wider range of indirect benefits. The political and business case for large
investments in low-carbon cities seems very strong indeed.
If these investments were made, then the analysis suggests that cities such as
the Leeds city region could cut their carbon emissions by around 40 per cent by
2022 at no net cost to their economies. Decarbonising on this scale and at this
rate should be possible. The technological and behavioural options are readily
available, the energy and financial savings associated with these are clear (even
based on conservative assessments), the investment criteria are commercially
realistic if some key barriers can be overcome, and the deployment rates have
been judged to be challenging but still realistic.
However, this transition depends on political and social capital as well as
financial capital. The levels of ambition, investment and activity needed to exploit
the available potential are clearly very significant indeed. Enormous levels of
investment are required, and major new initiatives are needed with widespread
and sustained influence in the domestic, commercial and industrial sectors. And
of course we need to think about some major innovations, particularly in
managing the risks associated with significant investments in city-scale retrofits.
We also need to think about `future proofing’ investments to consider their
compatibility with the more demanding targets for carbon reduction and with
the different levels of climate change that are likely to come after 2022. One
of the surprising results to come from the application of the mini-Stern approach
to the Leeds city region is that only a 42 per cent carbon reduction could be secured
if all of the realistic technical potential for deploying the thousands of low-carbon
measures assessed was exploited. Even if almost all of this figure (41 per cent)
could be achieved at no net cost, this still implies an overall investment of more
than £11 billion in a city region, which represents 5 per cent of the UK economy.
Optimistically, we might say that further decarbonisation will be delivered through
the 2020s and 2030s as major investments in low-carbon electricity supply take
effect. But pessimistically, or perhaps just realistically, it seems entirely possible
 ECONOMICS OF CITY-SCALE RETROFITS 83

that much of the investment made to secure 40 per cent carbon cuts in the next
decade will not be compatible with the investments that will ultimately be needed
to secure 80 per cent carbon cuts. We clearly need to ensure that actions taken
now are fully compatible with a vision of a much more deeply decarbonised city.

Notes
* Centre for Low Carbon Futures and ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and
Policy, University of Leeds.
** Centre for Low Carbon Futures and Stockholm Environment Institute, University of
York.
1 Since completing the analysis we have been triangulating predicted outputs for the
domestic sector with actual outputs from related investments at the local level, and this
has assured us that the predictions are broadly accurate
2 Sensitivity tests with higher and lower energy prices and interest rates were conducted
– for results, see Gouldson et al. (2012a).
3 We are in the process of replicating the study for other UK cities as well as elsewhere
in Europe and also internationally.
4 At the time of writing, there is significant interest in the UK in the public–private
approach. A leading example of this is the Birmingham Energy Savers approach, where
the first phase of investment is based on public loans taken out by the local authority,
with the expectation that the public sector will play a smaller role and the private sector
a larger role in subsequent phases of investment. This model seems likely to be replicated
in a number of other cities in the UK.

References
Bulkeley, H., and Betsill, M. (2005) ‘Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance
and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change’, Environmental Politics, 14(1): 42–63.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2010) ‘Consultation document on the
renewable heat incentive’. URN 10D/542. Accessed October 2013 at: www.rhincentive.
co.uk/library/regulation/100201ConsultationRHI.pdf.
English Partnerships (2008) Additionality Guide: A standard approach to assessing the
additionality of interventions. London.
EST (Energy Savings Trust) (2011) Local Energy Efficiency Finance. London: EST.
Gouldson, A., Kerr, N., Topi, C., Dawkins, E., Kuylenstierna, J., and Pearce, R. (2012a)
The Economics of Low Carbon Cities: A mini-Stern review for the Leeds city region.
Centre for Low Carbon Futures. Accessed October 2013 at: www.lowcarbonfutures.
org/sites/default/files/2449_mainreport_LCC_WEB_1325868558.pdf.
Gouldson, A., Kerr, N., Topi, C. Dawkins, E., Kuylenstierna, J., and Pearce, R. (2012b)
‘The economics of low carbon cities: Approaches to a city-scale mini-Stern review’,
in Simpson, R., and Zimmerman, M. (eds) The Economy of Green Cities: A world
compendium on the green urban economy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands; New York:
Springer.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2010) Cities and
Climate Change. Paris: OECD.
Peters, G. (2010) ‘Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales’, Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(4): 245–50.
Quantum Strategy and Technology (2011) The Prospects for Green Jobs to 2020. June. Final
report for Yorkshire Cities by Quantum Strategy and Technology, BE Group and the
University of Hull.
84 GOULDSON ET AL.

Ricardo-AEA (2010) Local and Regional CO2 Emissions Estimates for 2005–2008.
Statistical release prepared for DECC.
Sullivan, R., Gouldson, A., and Webber, P. (2012) ‘Funding low carbon cities: Local
perspectives on risks and opportunities’, Climate Policy, 13(4): 514–529.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2011) Cities: Investing in energy and
resource efficiency. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
UN-Habitat (2011a) State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the urban divide.
London: Earthscan.
UN-Habitat (2011b) Cities and Climate Change: Policy directions. Global report on
human settlements. London: Earthscan.
UNWUP (United Nations World Urbanisation Prospects) (2009) The 2009 Revision
Population Database. Available at: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/index.htm.

Appendix: lists of the low-carbon measure

considered
Domestic
Mini wind turbines (5 kW) with FIT, photovoltaic generation with FIT, biomass
boilers with RHI, electronic products, ICT products, integrated digital TVs,
reduced standby consumption, reduce heating for washing machines, A++ rated
cold appliances, A Rated Ovens, biomass district heating with (RHI), efficient
lighting, A-rated Condensing Boiler, Insulate Primary Pipework, Glazing – old
double to new double, uninsulated cylinder to high performance, glazing – single
to new, insulated doors, reduce household heating by 1°C, induction hobs, loft
insulation 0–270 mm, cavity wall insulation for pre-1976 houses, improve air
tightness, DIY floor insulation (suspended timber floors), loft insulation (increase
from 25 to 270 mm), loft insulation (increase from 50 to 270 mm, cavity wall
insulation for houses built between 1976 and 1983, A+ rated wet appliances, loft
insulation (increase from 75 to 270 mm), cavity wall insulation for houses built
post-1983, turn unnecessary lighting off, installed floor insulation (suspended
timber floors), loft insulation (increase from 100–270 mm), loft insulation
(increase from 150–270 mm), room thermostat to control heating, paper type solid
wall insulation, modestly insulated cylinder to high performance, thermostatic
radiator valves (TRVs), air source heat pump with RHI, micro wind turbines
(1 kW) with FIT, hot water cylinder thermostat, solar water heating with RHI

Commercial
Photocopiers – energy management, printers – energy management, monitors –
energy management, computers – energy management, fax machine switch off,
vending machines – energy management, most energy efficient monitor pc only,
most energy efficient monitor, lights – turn off lights for an extra hour, lights –
sunrise-sunset timers, lights – basic timer, heating – more efficient air conditioning,
lights – light detectors, stairwell timer, compressed air, presence detector, heating
– programmable thermostats, heating – optimising start times, heating – reducing
room temperature, biomass boilers with RHI, most energy efficient fridge-freezer,
heating – TRVs fully installed, most energy efficient flat roof insulation, heating
 ECONOMICS OF CITY-SCALE RETROFITS 85

– most energy efficient boiler, biomass district heating with RHI, lights – metal
halide floodlights, lights – IRC tungsten-halogen – spots, most energy efficient
pitched roof insulation, most energy efficient cavity wall insulation, air source
heat pump with RHI, most energy efficient freezer, most energy efficient fridge,
ground source heat pump with RHI, lights – most energy efficient replacement
26 mm, motor – 4 pole motor – EFF1 replace 4 pole, lights – HF ballast, most
energy efficient external wall insulation, solar thermal (including RHI) most
energy efficient double glazing, lights – most energy efficient replacement tungsten,
variable speed drives, most energy efficient double glazing (replace old double)

Industriala
Burners, drying and separation, refrigeration and air conditioning, lighting,
compressed air, heat recovery with RHI, design, low temperature heating,
renewable heat with RHI, building energy management, space heating, new food
and drink plant, high temperature heating, fabrication and machining, operation
and maintenance, controls, energy management, process improvement, ventilation,
information technology, motors and drives, insulation

Transport
Park and ride, express bus network, bus priority and quality enhancements,
smarter choices, cycling, demand management, mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid, full
hybrid, biofuels, micro hybrid, electric, new railway stations, rail electrification
a
Industrial measures are based on the grouping of thousands of different measures into broader
categories to aid analysis and presentation.
This page intentionally left blank
5
Urban governance, planning
and retrofit
Kate Theobald* and Keith Shaw*

This chapter examines current academic understanding and policy developments

around governance and planning processes that relate to and impact retrofitting
by city governments. It focuses on the challenges facing cities in the coming decades
in reducing the carbon footprint of domestic, commercial and public buildings.
Central to this area of work are academic debates on the governing capacity of
cities to address climate change adaptation and mitigation, both in terms of policy
delivery and facilitating change. Two key issues here are the ways in which local
governments interact with and can influence private sector and public sector
landlords in delivering the low-/zero-carbon retrofit of buildings, and the influence
they have with local communities and residents, particularly through engaging
people in changing behaviour to reduce energy consumption. This chapter assesses
the key policy drivers for urban retrofits in providing a foundation for cities to
take integrated action for retrofitting on a large scale. It then explores the role
and impact of financial incentives that have been introduced or are in the pipeline,
such as feed-in tariffs and the Green Deal, and assesses the opportunities that these
may present for city governments, both in terms of working with private sector
and social housing providers and through supporting individual households in
undertaking retrofitting of their properties.

5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis of the governing of retrofit in cities. As evidenced
in a myriad of academic, policy and practitioner debates, this is a complex policy
area, given the raft of legislation regarding the mechanisms for and barriers to
delivering city-wide retrofit of all buildings, and the complex sets of relations
between diverse actors in the public and private sectors (Moore, 2008; Kelly, 2009,
2010; Duxbury, 2010; Jenkins, 2010; Smith and Swan, 2011).
The approach taken in this chapter is to explore current city governing
arrangements and the ways in which cities can influence a shift to the wide-scale
88 THEOBALD AND SHAW

retrofit of buildings. Initially, it analyses key debates in the academic literature

that identify the main challenges involved in the overall governance of climate
change (see for example, Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005; Shaw and Theobald, 2011;
Shaw, 2012), and then examines the potential for city-scale reductions in carbon
emissions through energy efficiency measures, increased use of renewable energy
technologies and personal reductions in energy consumption. It considers the
capacity of city governments to implement policies and measures to tackle carbon
emissions in domestic housing stock and commercial buildings and the
implications of current and proposed future planning frameworks. Clearly the
arguments contained in these different approaches, while coming from different
starting points and theoretical positions, all have implications for city governments
in terms of their capacity to deliver effective, city-wide retrofit measures. The third
section explores the current and potential future incentives for retrofit in the
domestic and commercial sectors and considers how they may help or hinder local
governments in meeting targets for carbon emissions reductions.

5.2 Setting the context

It is important, before entering into discussions on the governing of retrofit, to
set out the major current – and future – challenges for cities that require a visionary
and integrated approach by city governments. In the UK, 45 per cent of all carbon
emissions come from heating and moving air and water and the use of appliances
in existing buildings. This is split between domestic buildings (27 per cent) and
non-domestic buildings (18 per cent) (ESRC, 2009). More than 26 million homes
in the UK contribute an average 5.1 tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum, equating
to a total of 129.4 million tonnes of CO2 per annum, which comprise 28.3 per
cent of the total UK CO2 emissions (Smith and Swan, 2011: 1). Combined with
the fact that new-build homes only contribute an extra 1 per cent to the stock
every year (Jenkins, 2010: 832), unless there is a deep retrofit of existing domestic
buildings it is clear that reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent and probably
by 80 per cent – the targets in the Climate Change Act (2008) – will most likely
be missed.
Kelly (2010) further emphasises the scale of the challenge based on the current
rate of progress in retrofitting for energy efficiency. He points out that to meet
the DECC target for 2020 (cutting emissions from homes by 29 per cent based
on 2008 levels), the sector is going to need to progress at six times the net rate
in the period from 2005–20, and currently there is no evidence that this is
occurring on the correct scale to meet this target. Moreover, he argues that the
principal measures for refurbishing housing (draught-proofing, double glazing, loft
insulation and wall insulation) will be exhausted by 2015 and further progress
will require much higher standards for insulation, lower energy consumption by
appliances and changes in personal behaviour. In addition, there will need to be
a major shift to decarbonising the sources of energy to the home, either through
the grid, or the use of local or distant sources of renewable energy.
In relation to commercial buildings, the British Council for Offices (2011)
argues there is substantial evidence that current buildings will no longer be fit for
purpose in the coming decade. It uses Department of Communities and Local
Government (DCLG) data to show that a major shift in Display Energy Certificate
 URBAN GOVERNANCE, PLANNING AND RETROFIT 89

(DEC) distribution is required from 2009 to 2050 to meet the target of 80 per
cent reduction in carbon emissions, with retrofit expected to play a major role.
In order to meet A and A+ ratings (which are rare at present), the majority of
commercial stock would need to undergo an energy retrofit in the next 40 years.

5.3 Urban governance and climate change

The importance of sub-national interventions to promote sustainable development
and tackle climate change is well-established in the academic literature, with a
particular emphasis on the role of urban government (see for example Bulkeley
and Betsill, 2005; Bulkeley and Kern, 2006; Schreurs, 2008). A recent driver for
action by city governments has been at European level, with the Covenant of
Mayors being established in 2010 by the European Commission. This requires
signatory local authorities to go beyond the EU target of 20 per cent reduction
in CO2 by 2020, through production and implementation of a Sustainable Energy
Action Plan (SEAP). The SEAP defines the activities and measures set up to achieve
the targets, together with time frames and assigned responsibilities and includes
behaviour change measures for energy consumption at the household level. At
the time of writing, there were 3,354 signatories from across Europe, and 32 of
these were in the UK (including the main UK cities).
There is increasing evidence of local governments developing and extending
their enabling role in the arena of energy retrofits. As Shaw and Theobald (2011)
note, a more strategic and innovative local response to climate change has grown
in local government in the UK in the past five years. There are many examples
of creative local approaches such as free home insulation, construction of district
heating schemes, exploring potential to build wind turbines on local authority
land and development of a climate change ‘expertise matrix’ that captures activities
engaged with by local governments. There are also increasing numbers of ‘good
practice’ examples of larger-scale retrofits, mainly of housing (Shaw and Theobald,
2011: 3–4).
Concerns remain however, over the effectiveness of the local response: as one
review highlighted, the ‘gap’ between the rhetoric and the reality of local
interventions ‘remains stubbornly resistant to change’ (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007:
448). Others have questioned whether local government in the UK has the
‘jurisdictional scope’ to contribute effectively to reducing CO2 emissions, while
Pearce and Cooper (2009) point to a lack of collaborative frameworks necessary
to integrate local, sub-regional and regional responses to climate change. There
are also concerns as to whether local authorities have the capacity to ensure the
co-operation and involvement of a wide range of stakeholders in achieving CO2
reductions (Shaw and Theobald, 2011). While Romero-Lankao, in her recent
study (2012), finds that although many cities are already responding to the
climate challenge, existing mitigation and adaptation responses are fragmented
and piecemeal.
Moreover, in a political system as centralised as the UK, the role of local
governments (and the level of autonomy enjoyed) is heavily circumscribed by the
declining level of central government resources, the micro-management of service
standards, the setting of a bewildering variety of performance targets, and the
inspection and audit regime. From this position, the ‘local’ politics of climate
90 THEOBALD AND SHAW

change have been dominated more by the local delivery and implementation of
nationally defined priorities than any ‘bottom-up’ approaches. However, even
in such a top-down system, there are genuine examples of local government
innovation, including the local energy management of municipal properties. Such
innovation is particularly found in ‘resilient’ local governments characterised by
the presence of local climate change ‘champions’, the creative and permissive
interpretation of statutory powers, the exploration of access to other sources of
finance, high levels of local government competencies and capacity, and the
political will to empower local communities (Shaw, 2012).
In the case of implementing (and working within) the national agenda for
retrofitting, local governments can still develop their own approach to how they
interact with, and influence, private sector and public sector landlords in deliver-
ing low-/zero-carbon retrofit of buildings, and enhance the influence they have
with local communities and residents, particularly through engaging people
in changing behaviour to reduce energy consumption. As one observer confirms,
‘It is individual actions, integrated at the local authority level, that will most
effectively capture the problems and opportunities over the next 40 years’ (Kelly,
2010: 1088).

5.4 Planning for retrofitting

The principal mechanism for local governments in driving forward on energy
efficiency and retrofit programmes is the statutory planning framework. According
to the current UK government perspective, the planning system helps ensure that
development takes place in a way that is economically, socially and environ-
mentally sustainable. It also has a role to play in helping to cut carbon emissions,
protect the natural environment and deliver energy security.
According to the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG, 2011)
the current government is intending to radically reform the planning system to
give neighbourhoods greater ability to shape development in their area. In relation
to climate change, the proposed new framework confirms planning plays an
important role in tackling climate change and making the transition to a low-
carbon economy. Planning can help secure radical reductions in carbon emissions
through support for energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings and
backing the delivery of renewable and low-carbon energy including community-
led initiatives. The proposed change which has particular implications for local
governments is the new ‘Duty to Co-operate’, to be put on councils to work
together to address planning issues that impact beyond local boundaries. This
could provide the necessary mechanism for local governments to co-operate with
others within a region (for example as being explored in the north-east of
England), bringing financial benefits and scope for large-scale retrofit programmes.
However, successful delivery on a city-wide scale ultimately requires commitment
by planners to make use of the mechanisms available to them.
The traditional means for requiring improved energy performance in building
stock is through building regulations. Although considered a part of the regulatory
measures open to local governments, building regulations follow a different tra-
jectory to the planning legislation. There are differences between the requirements
for ‘commercial’ buildings, according to whether they are ‘government’ owned
 URBAN GOVERNANCE, PLANNING AND RETROFIT 91

buildings (for example universities, hospitals, schools) or owned by private

landlords. The former are required to have a Display Energy Certificate (DEC).
DECs were introduced by the government in response to the EU Energy
Performance of Buildings Directive, and in theory they provide a stimulus for the
‘landlords’ to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. For the latter there is no
such incentive, as they are renting out their buildings to different organisations
(or individuals in the case of private housing), and rents are set according to
existing market rents and do not to take account of energy consumption. Building
regulations (Part L2B – relating to conservation of fuel and power; HMG, 2010)
are the only mechanism that local governments have in terms of standards for
refurbishment of commercial buildings, which include improved energy efficiency
measures. However there is a question as to the extent to which this is actually
enforced due to the required resources and the shift, for both domestic and
commercial buildings, to certification for all energy-related issues to come from
an ‘approved’ person, who is not necessarily the local authority building control
officer. It is also important to note that city governments have no regulatory
powers to require commercial ‘landlords’ to improve the energy efficiency of their
buildings, thus the only route is through negotiation and partnership/business links
to encourage improvements. This is the same for both domestic and commercial
buildings.

5.5 Retrofitting: central government incentives

The chapter now considers the range of mechanisms and incentives that are
available to local governments, in terms of their own social housing refurbishment
programmes and influencing the actions of private householders and commercial
landlords. One key issue is the opportunities for, and restrictions on, local
governments in terms of scaling up domestic retrofit in order to meet carbon
reduction targets.
A range of incentives emerged under the previous government, aimed at
meeting the targets set in the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (DECC, 2009),
and these have been developed and revised under the Coalition Government.
To encourage the mobilisation required to retrofit 24 million homes in the next
39 years (EST, 2010), energy efficient and low-carbon retrofit technologies are
incentivised predominantly through the Feed-In Tariff (FIT), Renewable Heat
Incentive (RHI) and the Green Deal, and these are briefly outlined below.

5.5.1 FITS and RHI

The UK government FIT was introduced in April 2010 under the Energy Act
(2008) for electricity in order to make smaller-scale micro-generation in domestic
properties more financially attractive. FITs are intended to encourage people to
invest in small-scale low-carbon electricity, in return for a guaranteed payment
for the electricity they generate and export (DECC, 2011a). Most domestic
technologies (and larger systems up to 5 MW) qualify for the FIT, including: micro
combined heat and power (CHP); solar electricity (or photovoltaic (PV)) (roof
mounted or stand alone); wind turbines (building mounted or free standing);
hydroelectricity; and anaerobic digesters (EST, 2011). From the start of the FIT
92 THEOBALD AND SHAW

scheme in April 2010 up to June 2011 over 40,000 FIT installations were
accredited, the vast majority at household level (DECC, 2011a). FITs work
alongside the Renewables Obligation (RO) and the RHI, which will support
generation of heat from renewable sources at all scales.1 The Government is taking
a phased approach to implementing the RHI. In the first phase, (beginning in
November 2011), long-term tariff support was targeted towards big emitters
in the non-domestic sector. As an interim measure, until the RHI was available
to domestic users, the Government also initially introduced The Renewable Heat
Premium Payment (RHPP), as a one-off grant designed to help towards meeting
the costs of installing renewable heating technologies. However, an extension to
the RHPP was announced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in
2013: the scheme being extended until the end of March 2014, just ahead of the
RHI scheme for householders. The second phase of RHI support (to operate in
conjunction with the Green Deal Assessment) includes long-term tariff support
for the domestic sector and was announced by the Government in July 2013.
The scheme (operating from spring 2014) covers single domestic dwellings and
is open to owner-occupiers, private landlords, Registered Providers of Social
Housing, third party owners of heating systems and self-builders. The scheme
covers those wishing to replace their current heating system with a supported
renewable heat technology or households who have installed such technology
since July 2009. The domestic RHI will pay: 19.2 p/kWh for solar thermal panels;
12.2p/kWh for biomass boilers; 18.8p/kWh for ground source heat pumps;
and 7.3p/kWh for air source heat pumps.

5.5.2 Green deal and energy companies obligation

The government has extended the Carbon Emissions Reduction Targets (CERTs)2
from March 2011 to December 2012, after which time energy companies will be
obliged to take over the Green Deal policy. Under the powers of the Energy Act
(2011) the Green Deal provides a framework to enable private firms to offer
consumers energy efficiency improvements to their homes at no upfront cost, and
gather the debt for the cost of the improvement through a charge in instalments
on the energy bill. The Green Deal ‘Golden Rule’ is thus that the energy savings
will pay for the measures over 25 years. This will be achieved through a ‘Green
Deal plan’, a finance mechanism which allows consumers to pay back through
their energy bills, with clear and transparent charges. The Green Deal differs from
existing lending because the financial obligation is not attached to the individual:
if the individual moves out of the home the financial obligation moves to the next
bill payer at that property.
There are some instances where the Golden Rule will not be effective for certain
householders or house types. The key mechanism of support in these cases will
be the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) (DECC, 2011e) which will work in
parallel with the Green Deal finance offer by targeting appropriate measures at
those households likely to need additional support, in particular those with
vulnerable people on low incomes and in hard-to-treat homes. To support these
measures, DCLG (2010) has suggested that in its review of Part L, it will consider
the implementation of further changes to the energy efficiency of buildings.
The introduction of Green Deal and ECO will have considerable implications
for local governments in terms of how they can support large-scale retrofit
 URBAN GOVERNANCE, PLANNING AND RETROFIT 93

through social housing measures. Camco (2011) on behalf of the National

Housing Federation (NHF) has examined the potential for the Green Deal to
deliver viable CO2 reductions in the social housing sector (local authority and
housing association homes) by examining what measures could be carried out
according to the Green Deal ‘Golden Rule’.
According to the Camco report, the role and correct administration of ECO
is central to the success of the Green Deal. It argues the following points:

• ECO should target energy efficiency improvements for fuel poor households
and those in priority need.
• The remaining ECO should be used to treat ‘hard to treat’ properties, such
as solid-walled homes.
• ECO should be transparent and available to all Green Deal providers and
delivery agents to ensure a fair and competitive marketplace.
• Energy suppliers should make all costings transparent to ensure they do not
maintain control over expenditure and monopolise the Green Deal Market.
• ECO and Green Deal should include the costs of delivering training and on-
going advice on behaviour change to ensure take-up and energy savings.

If one assumes the social housing sector has the same target as that set out in
the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (DECC, 2009), which was to reduce carbon
emissions from UK homes by 29 per cent by 2020, then the findings from the
report by Camco suggest that it might be possible to meet the carbon emissions
targets for 2020 (but only if the grid is decarbonised sufficiently). However, this
is before considerations of occupier behaviour are factored into the calculations,
which can impact potential energy savings by up to 30 per cent (Milne and
Boardman, 2000). This is particularly relevant for energy efficiency retrofit
programmes such as the Green Deal, as occupant behaviour factors such as these
may impact on predicted energy savings. In fact, when Camco’s (2011) report
factored in a realistic Green Deal potential, the scheme would only provide a 4
per cent carbon reduction by 2020. This was assuming that 25 per cent of social
housing received Green Deal retrofits and that there was a 25 per cent loss of
carbon reduction potential due to the comfort ‘take back’ effect.
Dodd et al. (2010), in a report commissioned by the Homes and Communities
Agency/Sustainable Housing Action Partnership, note that a key assumption of
the UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan was that social housing would lead the
way in developing the market for energy saving. They argue that it should be
possible, through harnessing the skills and experience of social landlords, to deliver
a ‘triple bottom line’ of social, economic and environmental benefits to tenants,
local communities and the local economy. They propose a community scale
Green Deal in order to engage local people, and note the need for extending
successful examples of area-based programmes with community engagement on
a street-by-street basis. They also point to strong evidence that local authorities,
in partnership with social landlords and social enterprises are potentially the most
trusted partners to deliver the Green Deal.
The key role to be played by local governments in delivering the Green Deal
therefore raises a number of issues that require clarification from national govern-
ment in terms of the legal and financial scope for city-scale retrofit measures. In fact
the government has acknowledged that, while some social landlords have taken up
94 THEOBALD AND SHAW

FITs for housing stock, uptake has been affected by overlapping policies such as the
rules governing the combination of FITs and grants for works (DECC, 2011a).
Local governments are now exploring different models for delivering Green Deal,
such as the possibility of becoming Green Deal providers or partners in a
Public–Private Partnership model with other local authorities or industry. One area
being investigated is the potential to use a local authority’s prudential borrowing
capabilities to ‘kick start’ the Green Deal at scale, and to lever in private sector
funding as the Green Deal is rolled out. The approach taken to achieve this would
involve a number of local authorities and housing organisations. Yet one key barrier
is that delivery would not be able to start until 2014 due to restrictions in terms
of State Aid and the requirement for competitive dialogue procurement. There also
needs to be clarity as to whether and how district heating schemes can be incor-
porated into the Green Deal framework, and the limitations of applying district
heating within both non-domestic and domestic properties.
A further area for consideration is whether a regional level approach (i.e. a
number of local authorities working together) is required, in order to share the
financial risk of delivering the Green Deal and provide the necessary skills and
infrastructure. This fits with the proposal of imposing a ‘Duty to Cooperate’ on
local governments in the Draft Planning Framework. However, even with this
approach, a lack of resources (staff and finance) inhibits local governments, and
there needs to be clarification from government on the incentives that will be in
place to permit an up-scaling in retrofit. Dodd et al. (2010) also raise the issue
of housing retrofit extending to the commercial sector, and question what the risks
involved are and how they might be dealt with.
In relation to social housing, Reeves (2009) provides an insight into the key
issues faced by social housing providers in addressing the retrofit requirements
and meeting emissions targets. His report for Peabody’s ‘21st Century Com-
munities Project’ uses the Peabody Energy Model and considers different options
such as solid-walled dwellings being insulated, the use of micro-generation tech-
nologies and estates being connected to low-carbon communal heating systems
where viable. The report concludes that even with substantial financial support
from government, these will still require additional investment from social
landlords, yet this could impact in terms of rent increases and increased fuel
poverty. Thus the current funding model for social housing is unlikely to be
appropriate to deliver what is required. Peabody therefore modelled impacts and
costs of different refurbishment approaches – using a base year of 2006 and up
to 2030 – and the report presented four future scenarios, taking into account the
extent to which UK society acts to mitigate climate change, and the nature of fuel
prices.3 The research measured future progress against two targets: carbon
reduction goals set by the Greater London Authority (GLA) in its Climate Change
Action Plan, which calls for 60 per cent reductions from 1990 emission levels
in London by 2025; and secondly the goal of achieving zero net carbon emis-
sions across Peabody stock by 2030. Only two of the scenarios – Sustainable
Development and Power Down – are likely to meet the GLA target, due to the
strong reliance on reductions in the carbon intensity of grid electricity and reduced
carbon demand from residents. Also, to achieve the two scenarios, comprehensive
solid-wall insulation, connections to district heating networks and some micro-
generation would be required, and different housing types clearly would require
different approaches. Given all these factors, financial viability is a key concern
 URBAN GOVERNANCE, PLANNING AND RETROFIT 95

– as even where there is considerable financial support for refurbishment from

the government (as assumed in the Sustainable Development and Power Down
scenarios) Peabody would still have a shortfall of many millions of pounds.
Bridging the funding gap could require sales of homes, and increase in rents. The
latter however has impacts in terms of raising fuel poverty levels (and in fact in
all scenarios except Breaking Down, around 6 per cent of residents would be in
fuel poverty in 2030). Thus wider issues such as significant decarbonisation of
the grid provide an important context for social landlords meeting their targets
and not impacting on fuel poverty.

5.6 Looking to the future

This chapter has identified the challenges facing cities in the coming decades in
reducing the carbon footprint of domestic, commercial and public buildings. No
one should be in any doubt as to the scale of the response required: once the target
of an 80 per cent reduction in carbon omissions by 2050 was enshrined in law
(in 2008), this necessitated a ‘radical makeover of today’s buildings and a renewal
of the energy infrastructure, together a civil engineering project on a scale never
contemplated before in peacetime’ (Kelly, 2010: 1083). Other observers also
highlight how the ‘immature’ market for sustainable retrofit still requires more
extensive (and effective) regulation and support, and that managing retrofit at scale
is a complex process and ‘a different type of problem from the technical solutions
that are offered up to deliver a demonstration project’ (Smith and Swan, 2011:
13). Recent debates on the introduction of the Green Deal also suggest caution.
Some still argue that retrofit is only one ‘solution’ to the problem of carbon
emissions from the housing stock and that, given the likely cost of retrofitting
older properties, the business case for demolition and new build is worth
considering (Hutchinson, 2012). There are also concerns that the Green Deal, as
presently constituted, will neglect basic low-cost improvements (loft and cavity
wall insulation) in favour of much more expensive solid-wall insulation. This not
only runs the risk of the ECO subsidy regime forcing the fuel poor to pay extra
on their bills to subsidise such insulation for the more affluent, but may also lead
to statutory targets for tacking fuel poverty and climate change (Harrabin, 2012).
Despite these challenges however, it is clear that city governments have a
key strategic role in co-ordinating and influencing the activities of a range of
organisations (including private and public sector landlords), in identifying areas/
communities within which to focus retrofit activities and in engaging people in
changing behaviours in order to reduce energy consumption. Indeed, the national
climate change agenda has arguably provided an enabling framework that allows
city governments to take a more joined-up, holistic and long-term perspective on
achieving low- and zero-carbon retrofit. Crucially, this allows for a shift towards
the up-scaling of retrofit in buildings across a city.
In conclusion, a number of key areas where change is still required to enhance the
role of city governments can be briefly identified. First, local governments need to be
given wider regulatory powers in the area of planning and retrofit of buildings, and
to have the resources to implement these. In conjunction with this, further incentives
(such as DECs) need to be introduced for all privately owned commercial buildings.
Second, the rules on procurement need to be relaxed to give local governments
greater scope to deliver and finance retrofit programmes. Third, the proposed
96 THEOBALD AND SHAW

‘Duty to Co-operate’ needs to be accompanied by appropriate financial incentives

to deliver city-wide retrofit programmes, both through local governments working
together and through partnerships between the public and private sectors,
community organisations and business organisations. Fourth, local governments
need to develop more sophisticated and targeted communication strategies to
engage households in changing energy practices and providing information on the
potential of new energy-saving retrofit technologies. Finally, city-wide infra-
structures and delivery mechanisms need to be in place for making the deployment
of decarbonisation options possible. This includes using technologies appropriate
to different parts of a city and to different property types. This however requires
a fundamental shift in policy priorities at national level, which in turn demands
a different national energy framework.

Notes
* Schools of the Built and Natural Environment and Arts and Social Sciences,
Northumbria University.
1 The RO is a regulatory measure, aimed at large-scale energy generation companies to
increase the generation of renewable electricity from a range of technologies and a range
of scales (DECC, 2011b). The RHI provides financial support that encourages
individuals, communities and businesses to switch from using fossil fuel for heating to
renewable energy sources such as biomass. It is similar to the FIT scheme, whereby
homeowners who install renewable technologies receive an annual payment for each
kWh of energy generated. While FITs pay incentives for electricity-generating renew-
ables, the RHI does so for those that generate heat. Annual payments will be made based
on estimated figures dependent on the amount of energy needed to warm the building
and will vary by house age and size as well as by technology (DECC, 2011c).
2 CERT, which began in April 2008, is an energy and carbon saving scheme for the
household sector, placing an obligation on energy suppliers to meet carbon reduction
targets for households. Suppliers meet their targets by promoting (for example,
through subsidy) the take-up of energy saving measures, mainly loft insulation, cavity
wall insulation and, up till June 2010, low-energy lighting (DECC, 2011d). Local
authorities and social landlords have been the primary mechanisms for the delivery of
CERT (Ofgem, 2011).
3 The four scenarios are: Keeping the Lights On (low fuel prices and weak action on
climate change); Sustainable Development (low fuel prices and strong action on
climate change); Breaking Down (high fuel prices and weak action on climate change);
and Power Down (high fuel prices and strong action on climate change).

References
Betsill, M., and Bulkeley, H. (2007) ‘Looking back and thinking ahead: A decade of cities
and climate change research’, Local Environment, 12(5): 447–56.
British Council for Offices (2011) The Challenges for the Office Sector Over the Next
Decade and Beyond. Accessed November 2013 at: www.sustainablebydesign.co.uk/
Downloads/BCOChallengescover.pdf.
Bulkeley, H., and Betsill, M. (2005) ‘Rethinking sustainable cities: Multi-level governance
and the “urban” politics of climate change’, Environmental Politics, 14(1): 42–63.
Bulkeley, H., and Kern, L. (2006) ‘Local government and climate change governance in the
UK and Germany’, Urban Studies, 43(12): 2237–59.
 URBAN GOVERNANCE, PLANNING AND RETROFIT 97

Camco (2011) Green Deal Potential in Social Housing Report on behalf of the National
Housing Federation. London: Cameo.
DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) (2010) Future Changes to the
Building Regulations: Next steps. London: DCLG.
DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) (2011) Draft National Planning
Policy Framework. July 2011. Accessed December 2011 at: www.communities.gov.uk/
documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951811.pdf.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2009) The UK Low Carbon Transition
Plan: National strategy for climate and energy. Accessed November 2013 at: http://
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk /20100509134746/http:/www.decc.gov.uk/en/
content/cms/publications/lc_trans_plan/lc_trans_plan.aspx.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2011a) Feed-in Tariffs Scheme:
Summary of responses to the fast-track consultation and government response.
Accessed November 2013 at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/42765/fits-fast-track-government-response/final.pdf.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2011b) Consultation on Proposals for
the Levels of Banded Support under the Renewables Obligation for the Period
2013–17 and the Renewables Obligation Order 2012. Accessed November 2013 at:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/42842/3235-
consultation-ro-banding.pdf.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2011c) ‘Renewable Heat Incentive
(RHI) scheme: RHI Update 7’. October 2011. Accessed December 2011 at: www.decc.
gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/Renewable_ener/incentive/incentive.aspx.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2011d) ‘Paving the way for a Green
Deal: Extending the carbon emissions reduction target supplier obligation to December
2012’, Accessed December 2011 at: www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/
cons_cert/cons_cert.aspx.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2011e) Getting Help Where It Is
Needed: A new energy company obligation. Accessed November 2013 at: www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48086/1732-extra-help-
where-it-is-needed-a-new-energy-compan.pdf.
Dodd, N., Baker, C., Heaslip, M., Brown, J., Hughes, S., Sampson, J., and Bower, P.
(URBED) (2010) Community Green Deal: Developing a model to benefit whole
communities. Executive summary and key findings. A report commissioned by Homes
and Communities Agency/Sustainable Housing Action Partnership.
Duxbury, N. (2010) ‘Retrofit realities’, Inside Housing, posted 10 September 2010.
Accessed 4 October 2012 at: www.insidehousing.co.uk/sustainability/retrofit-realities/
6511596.article.
ESRC (2009) ‘How people use and “misuse” buildings’, ESRC Seminar Series: Mapping the
public policy landscape. Accessed November 2013 at: www.esrc.ac.uk/Image/ESRC_
PP_Buildings_final_tcm11-9422.pdf.
EST (Energy Saving Trust) (2010) Sustainable Refurbishment: Towards an 80 per cent
reduction in CO2 emissions, water efficiency, waste reduction, and climate change
adaptation. London.
EST (Energy Saving Trust) (2011) ‘Feed-In Tariffs scheme (FITs)’. Accessed December 2011
at: www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generate-your-own-energy/Financial-incentives/
Feed-In-Tariffs-scheme-FITs.
Harrabin, R. (2012) ‘Cameron hears Green Deal Concerns’, The Guardian, 16 May 2012.
Accessed 16 May 2012 at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18074650.
HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) (2010) Conservation of Fuel and Power (Existing
Buildings other than Dwellings). Accessed October 2013 at: www.planningportal. gov.
uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_L2B_2011.pdf.
98 THEOBALD AND SHAW

Hutchinson, T. (2012) ‘Retrofitting is expensive: Let’s demolish and start again’, The
Guardian, 3 April. Accessed 3 April 2012 at: www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/
2012/apr/03/retrofit-expensive-demolish-unfit-homes.
Jenkins, D. P. (2010) ‘The value of retrofitting carbon-saving measures into fuel poor social
housing’, Energy Policy, 38: 832–9.
Kelly, M. J. (2009) ‘Retrofitting the existing UK building stock’, Building Research and
Information, 37(2): 196–200.
Kelly, M. J (2010) ‘Energy efficiency, resilience to future climates and long-term
sustainability: The role of the built environment’, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society A, 368(1914): 1083–9.
Milne, G., and Boardman, B. (2000) ‘Making cold homes warmer: The effect of energy
efficiency improvements in low-income homes. A report to the Energy Action Grants
Agency Charitable Trust’, Energy Policy, 28(6–7): 411–24.
Moore, R. (2008) ‘Retrofitting the existing housing stock in the South East: A strategy to
reduce carbon emissions and alleviate fuel poverty: 2008–2011’. Accessed 11 April 2012
at: www.seeda.co.uk/_publications/Retrofitting_SE_Housing_Stock.pdf.
Ofgem (2011) A Review of the Third Year of the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target
(CERT). London. Accessed November 2013 at: www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/
58463/cert-2011-annual-reportv1.pdf.
Pearce, G., and Cooper, S. (2009) ‘Sub-national responses to climate change in Local Area
Agreements’. Paper presented at the PAC Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan,
7–9 September 2009. Accessed January 2010 at: www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/
2010/681_619.pdf.
Reeves, A. (2009) Towards a Low-Carbon Peabody: Exploring the viability of achieving
deep carbon dioxide emissions cuts from existing Peabody homes. A report for
Peabody’s 21st Century Communities Project 2. Accessed November 2013 at: www.
dora.dmu.ac.uk/handle/2086/4973.
Romero-Lankao, P. (2012) ‘Governing carbon and climate in the cities: An overview of
policy and planning challenges and options’, European Planning Studies, 20(1): 7–26.
Schreurs, M. (2008) ‘From the bottom up: Local and sub-national climate change policies’,
The Journal of Environment and Development, 17(4): 343–55.
Shaw, K. (2012) ‘The rise of the resilient local authority’, Local Government Studies, 38(3):
281–300.
Shaw, K., and Theobald, K., (2011) ‘Resilient local government and climate change
interventions in the UK’, Local Environment, 16(1): 1–15.
Smith, L., and Swan, W. (2011) ‘Delivery of retrofit at scale: Developing a viable delivery
model in social housing’. Accessed 15 April 2012 at: www.energy.salford.ac.uk/cms/
resources/uploads/File/Retrofit per cent20Papers/076 per cent20Smith.pdf.
6
Locating urban retrofitting
across three BRICS cities
Exploring the retrofit landscapes of São Paulo,
Mumbai and Cape Town
Jonathan Silver*

The rapid urbanisation of cities in the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India,
China and South Africa is creating a convergence of urban economic and
population growth, climate change, poverty and insecure energy futures, creating
huge landscape pressures on these often understudied cities and requiring
significant infrastructural investment in urban retrofitting programmes. In these
cities, alongside the growth of consumption patterns across the middle classes and
elites and the needs of international commerce and finance, the requirements of
urban poor communities continue to dominate debates around infrastructural
investment and the need to retrofit housing, energy, sanitation and other
networked systems. Slum improvement projects provide a long history of attempts
by the local and regional state institutions to retrofit urban poor areas, while new
global environmental challenges and technological advances open emerging
retrofitting pathways around low-carbon futures, climate change adaption and
the rise of the green economy.
This chapter seeks to understand how these often contested processes are
shaping three high-profile BRICS cities towards 2050 by providing a comparative
analysis of urban retrofitting processes emerging from São Paulo, Cape Town and
Mumbai. The chapter explores how wider socio-technical landscape pressures
shape particular policy responses, the emergence of technological innovations
across infrastructure systems and new urban knowledge constructions in these
cities. As urban retrofitting becomes an increasingly important part of urban
planning, management and politics this chapter reflects on a range of critical
uncertainties around how the developing agenda is conceived in the BRICS city,
the debates taking place about who and where is involved in these processes, the
contested nature of these dynamics and the importance of these cities to ongoing
debates about retrofitting.
100 SILVER

6.1 Introduction
Over the next twenty years the growth of urban populations, including in many
of the BRICS countries, will mean that by 2030 around three-quarters of the
world’s population will be urban. UN-Habitat (2010a) predicts that the rapid
nature of growth across cities in the global South will mean that this urban
population will rise considerably by 2050 and place urban issues at the centre of
a range of debates around economic growth, sustainability and politics. Since the
post-World War II period, the migration of those seeking economic opportunities,
fleeing insecurity or joining family members in BRICS cities has contributed to
the millions of rural poor moving to urban areas in one of the largest migrations
in human history. With this urbanisation has come a group of countries that are
characterised by fast growing economies, rapid development, increasing geo-
political aspirations and nearly half the world’s population. This urbanisation
poses considerable challenges to communities, planners, policy-makers and others
as a convergence of explosive urban growth, climate change, poverty and insecure
energy futures create huge landscape pressures on cities (Davis, 2006) requiring
massive and unprecedented infrastructural investment in retrofitting programmes.
This chapter will outline the landscapes of urban retrofitting across three BRICS
cities to explore some of the main drivers that are shaping these processes,
covering the critical ecological, economic, political and social issues that are
mediating the socio-technical landscapes of retrofitting at the urban scale. The
experience of these BRICS cities illustrates the diverse retrofit pathways being
travelled, the huge changes taking place across these cities and the ongoing
difficulties being faced, offering important considerations for wider urban
retrofit debates. As economic power shifts towards these countries the need to
examine these urban transformations becomes ever more pressing and reveals
important lessons about the nature of cities in the twenty-first century. The
chapter constructs these landscape pressures by building on existing socio-technical
analysis explicitly concerned with the urban scale (Hodson and Marvin, 2010;
Bulkeley et al., 2011), through a developing political economic framework that
seeks to identify a number of shared pressures across the selected cities and
consider the political economies of such processes, how they are shaping and
mediating urban infrastructures, and the intermediaries influencing such pathways.
While BRICS cities present different histories and cultures, traditions of
governance, and forms of urban infrastructure, a series of connected processes
are shaping the retrofitting landscapes of these urban areas that illustrate a
paradoxical, splintered urbanism of wealth and poverty, connection and
disconnection, and opportunity and oppression (Graham and Marvin, 2001). Part
of this commonality can be seen in the part rejection of the neoliberal model so
favoured across the global North as these countries establish alternative pathways,
institutions and forms of urban planning that point to very different urban futures
than those of the global North and suggest the importance of considering how
these different contexts shape urban retrofit pathways. The landscape pressures
reviewed include poverty and housing, economic development, and climate change
and energy insecurities. Situating these processes in São Paulo, Mumbai and Cape
Town, symbolic leaders in a range of urban development programmes, the chapter
considers the urban dynamics of retrofit pathways in these cities by drawing on
 URBAN RETROFITTING ACROSS THREE BRICS CITIES 101

selected policy, data, practices and discourses to consider what they reveal about
urban retrofitting processes in BRICS cities towards 2050. While this comparative
gesture can be considered limited in its scope and open to critiques about
comparative urbanism, the role of the selected cities has been to begin to identify
common retrofit issues among the diverse urban spaces of these countries. A range
of insights are drawn from the chapter that position urban retrofitting, in the
BRICS city, as requiring increasing conceptual and empirical attention across
urban studies and beyond. The chapter draws together these insights to suggest
a need to explore the conflicting urban retrofit narratives emerging from these
urban spaces between and across urban elites and the urban poor, the fragmented
and splintered nature of infrastructures, and the conflicts, contestations and
political nature of urban retrofitting processes as they mediate the urbanism of
BRICS cities towards 2050.

6.2 Landscape pressures

6.2.1 Poverty
In São Paulo, Mumbai and Cape Town the issue of poverty and the requirements
of urban poor communities continue to dominate debates around infrastructure
investment and the need to retrofit housing, energy, sanitation and other urban
systems to provide basic networked services for urban citizens. The role of poverty
and needs of the urban poor thus constitute the first socio-technical landscape-
shaping urban retrofitting in the BRICS cities. Slum improvement projects provide
a long history of attempts by local, regional and national, state and non-state
institutions to improve urban poor areas (Pieterse, 2008). The political economic
context in which these transformations are happening is often through hybrid
neoliberal forms of (urban) governance (Ong, 2006) and public spending that
restrict the financial resources of cities to be able to achieve comprehensive slum
improvement programmes (Davis, 2006). Perhaps the main way in which urban
retrofitting can be approached, in relation to poverty and the needs of the urban
poor, is through the housing needs across these rapidly growing BRICS cities.
In Cape Town the need to develop a larger housing infrastructure, to support
the needs of many of the city’s households, forms a central tenet in considering
urban retrofitting in the city. With over 100,000 informal dwellings across
Cape Town (City of Cape Town, 2010), the need to upgrade existing informal
settlements through retrofitting, alongside the requirement to build new homes,
forms the focus of the wider poverty alleviation agenda. The South African
Government, alongside the City of Cape Town, Western Cape Provincial Govern-
ment and a range of other partners, have embarked on a programme of formal
housing construction for low-income and vulnerable households. This extensive
public works, covering not just housing needs, but water, electrification and
other areas of infrastructure, has been at the centre of policy oriented around
infrastructural investment and urban retrofitting since the beginning of the post-
apartheid period in 1994. In Cape Town tens of thousands of homes have been
built during the last 19 years of the post-apartheid era, retrofitting the urban
system to significantly increase the housing capacity of the city. Yet despite the
huge investment and public works over 450,000 people (Luhanga, 2009) remain
102 SILVER

on the housing waiting list across the municipality. This landscape pressure is
compounded by an annual migration rate over 10 per cent, meaning retrofitting
the housing infrastructure is a huge, complex and increasingly difficult task facing
city planners. Furthermore, the bad quality of building construction of much of
the publicly financed housing stock has meant that households have been living
in sub-standard homes with little support available to retrofit them to a standard
in which households can live dignified and healthy lives and leaving the
municipality with a financial requirement of R58 billion, something it cannot
realistically expect to fulfil (Human Settlements South Africa, 2011). The sub-
standard building quality of many publicly financed homes in Cape Town is
further compounded by the estimated 30,000 to 40,000 homes without insulated
ceilings, leaving households vulnerable to the cold and damp conditions of winters
in the Western Cape. Although the South African Government recognised the
challenges these conditions were having on households, including bad health and
livelihood impacts, by providing an additional subsidy from 2004 for ceilings in
new publicly financed homes, this was not retrospective, meaning further
retrofitting investment is required for the housing built before this date. Due to
the housing becoming private when completed and handed to households, and
through the constraints of the Municipal Financing Act, the City of Cape Town
is unable to invest further in these buildings from its own funds, and is reliant on
external funders to support this urban retrofitting work, something that remains
in an experimental or pilot form of delivery.1 Across Cape Town, while extensive
urban retrofitting is taking place, many thousands of residents remain without
adequate housing and in conditions of poverty. These huge pressures to retrofit
the city have created a political environment of contestation and conflict as the
urban poor demand housing and other networked services, promised in the early,
optimistic years of the ANC Government (Samara, 2006).
In the metropolitan region of São Paulo many of its 17.8 million inhabitants
(Observatório das Metrópoles, 2000) are located in areas that require and
experience extensive urban retrofitting programmes. The favelas and cortiços of
São Paulo, the largest concentration of slum urbanisation in South America, form
an iconic image of the city and a political imperative for urban retrofitting that
has remained centre stage in municipal and national politics for decades. A range
of municipal policies, oriented around urban retrofitting, have over the last 50
years been implemented to improve the conditions of poverty in São Paulo’s slum
areas. These retrofitting processes can be understood through two different types
of retrofitting intervention. First, through programmes of urban renewal that
have demolished and rebuilt neighbourhoods, replacing informal housing with
new housing construction from which slum dwellers have often been excluded.
Second, through processes of upgrading, in which homes are untouched and
the retrofitting focuses on improving the infrastructure of the neighbourhood
(e.g. electrification, drainage systems, etc.) alongside the formalisation of tenure
and other rights for the slum dwellers. The scale of these retrofitting programmes
is extensive, for instance, the Urban Recovery Subprogram in one area of São
Paulo, the Guarapirange Basin, has worked with over 25,000 households on urban
retrofitting drainage, transport and housing infrastructures with a range of
international, national and local partners (UN-Habitat, 2010b).
 URBAN RETROFITTING ACROSS THREE BRICS CITIES 103

In Mumbai the municipality identifies slums (alongside traffic pollution and

waste management) as one of the most important policy areas requiring extensive
investment and retrofitting (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2005).
Like in Cape Town and São Paulo, the slum upgrading and retrofitting agenda
forms an important socio-technical landscape pressure across the urban govern-
ance regimes of the city. Yet simultaneously many of Mumbai’s slums are facing
multiple pressures as land values increase across India’s booming city. Battles over
control of land (and its soaring values) often take precedent over any programmes
to improve the conditions of Mumbai’s urban poor. Although Mumbai does
engage in extensive urban retrofitting programmes oriented around poverty
alleviation, these policy objectives intersect with a range of other processes, such
as capital accumulation (in the form of more profitable middle-class housing
development), that creates a complicated and shifting socio-technical landscape
of urban retrofitting and an uncertain future for low-income communities.
The relationship between urban retrofitting and poverty across Cape Town,
São Paulo and Mumbai is complicated and often contradictory. The need to
upgrade urban areas, characterised by informal or inadequate housing, poor
infrastructure and an urban poor, eager for change, helps to shape a political
context in which urban retrofitting forms a crucial battleground across political
landscapes, at a range of different geographical and governance scales. Yet at the
same time the limits of neoliberal fiscal environments and the expediency of
various urban actors means that the programmes of urban retrofitting occurring
across the BRICS countries often remain limited in the context of the needs, rights
and demands of the urban poor (Pieterse, 2008). Furthermore, the intertwining
of the needs of the urban poor with the need to attract national and global capital
flows and develop middle class housing has meant that urban retrofitting is often
focused on upgrading BRICS cities for the priorities of capital and urban elites
rather than citizens living in low-income areas.

6.2.2 Economic development

The imperatives of economic growth are proposed as the second socio-technical
landscape orienting urban retrofitting processes in BRICS cities towards 2050.
Rapid economic growth in these cities is reflected and reinforced in the widespread
urbanisation and retrofitting processes shaping cities such as Mumbai and São
Paulo, which are playing an increasingly important and central role on the world
economic stage and across city-to-city networks. The need to provide employ-
ment, raise tax revenues and foster industrialisation are central to the work of
municipalities and national governments, which view urban space as a key site
for undertaking economic development policies. Across BRICS cities, urban
retrofitting, oriented around economic development, is often focused on creating
infrastructures that can attract global circuits of capital and foreign direct
investment. Retrofitting initiatives such as creating ICT infrastructures, upgrading
international airports, encouraging construction of high standard hotels and
conference venues are one pathway in which these cities are undertaking
this retrofitting work. Much of this urban retrofitting is taking place through the
private sector, often in partnership with national and municipal governments and
104 SILVER

financed by borrowing on global financial markets or through income generated

in exporting natural resources from rural hinterlands.
Alongside these more traditional ways in which economic development is influ-
encing how cities approach urban retrofit pathways, oriented around attracting
foreign direct investment, are new narratives emerging around the green economy
and retrofitting the city. These governance initiatives, intricately linked to the
reshaping and retrofitting of the city, encompass a range of directions in which
BRICS cities are travelling towards 2050, such as the SMART city concept, stimu-
lating growth in green industries and encouraging renewable energy production.
While the concept of the green economy is still emerging, the agenda is set to
become a key economic driver of retrofitting processes towards 2050.
In Cape Town, with huge disparities in wealth and many residents living in
conditions of poverty, the municipality has an urgent task to stimulate and
encourage economic development, particularly since the retrenchment of many
economic sectors in the late 1990s, as South Africa integrated into the globalised
economy and privatised many State-run industries. There are a number of new
developments around the re-orientation of the economy towards green objectives
and the potential new pathways these opportunities present in terms of job
creation and tackling issues of urban sustainability. Although these economic
narratives and discourses are perhaps still emerging in Cape Town there seems
to be a growing socio-technical landscape in which the green economy is becoming
embedded and foregrounding urban retrofitting as a key economic stimulus. This
emphasis on the green urban economy is illustrated through a range of retrofitting
work that has brought about new investments and sites for experimentation,
including the new Green Manufacturing Cluster that the city is seeking to develop
and estimated to generate up to R3 billion annually and over 2,000 new jobs (City
of Cape Town, 2011).
In São Paulo the city is developing a number of urban retrofitting pathways
linked to the green economic growth paradigm, reflecting the work of the Brazilian
government to sustain the high growth rate of the country, stimulate the urban
economy, move towards high value added industries and improve sustainability.
The city has recently announced a number of key strategic partnerships to take
forward these agendas such as the Green Alliance, a public–private partnership
incorporating stakeholders such as Wal-Mart and the British Government. The
Smart Cities partnership between the municipality and General Electric is another
emerging partnership, predicated on a green economic paradigm, that promises
a wave of urban reconfiguration activity, towards 2050, as the city becomes a
test bed for retrofitting new infrastructural technologies.

6.2.3 Climate change

The third socio-technical landscape in which to approach the relationship between
retrofitting and BRICS cities towards 2050 is climate change. A series of multiple
and connected vulnerabilities confront often highly polluted and high-emission
cities relating to the impacts of climate change. These are far ranging and include:
heat waves, air pollution, increasing and erratic rainfall, drought, flooding, and
a range of secondary vulnerabilities, including increased disease vectors, urban
insecurity (e.g. food riots) and accelerating rural to urban migration (Toulmin,
 URBAN RETROFITTING ACROSS THREE BRICS CITIES 105

2009; Bulkeley, 2012). Thus, upgrading of infrastructural systems, through new

governance arrangements, is becoming a key policy response, oriented around
adaptation of these networks (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007) to protect citizens and
urban areas from the worst impacts of climate change. For many BRICS cities
these impacts will be amplified by already existing socio-environmental hazards
(such as lack of drainage systems) and are already placing considerable retrofitting
burdens on municipalities. The costs of retrofitting cities to adapt to climate change
towards 2050, when major climate-related events will have accelerated, are huge.
The World Bank (2011) estimates that up to 80 per cent of the $100 billion a
year financing needed for adaptation is expected to be required across urban areas
in the global South with much of this focused on urban retrofitting in BRICS
countries. Some of this adaptation financing has been committed by global North
countries through governance initiatives such the United Nations ‘Adaptation
Fund’ and ‘Climate Development Mechanism’. Yet the scale of the adaptation
and retrofitting challenge dwarfs the financial and institutional resources available
to BRICS cities and the funds so far committed by global North countries, often
reluctant to transfer financial resources to these fast growing economies, meaning
uncertainty about the future for vast swathes of climate vulnerable urban
populations.
Mumbai faces a range of climate change impacts that will require substantial
investment in retrofitting the urban infrastructure to protect the city from bio-
physical processes such as flooding, cyclones and other extreme weather events.
The adaptation challenge to retrofit Mumbai’s infrastructures is particularly
influenced by the risk of severe flooding across the city, something that will become
a major threat to the city towards 2050 and amplified by the historic patterns of
urbanisation that have left Mumbai prone to rising sea levels. Retrofitting
Mumbai’s urban infrastructure to adapt to climate change processes is further
complicated by land scarcity, a rapidly growing population in informal housing
areas, rising demand for networked services, under resourced municipal govern-
ance and uncertainty around land tenure and increasing conflict characterising
the politics of the city. The cost of failing to undertake a programme of urban
retrofitting to support Mumbai in adapting to the risks of climate change has been
estimated at RS 2.28 Lakh Crore (Ghoge, 2010) leaving the city facing difficult
political and economic considerations.
São Paulo was one of the first BRICS cities to approve climate change legislation
that will structure urban retrofitting dynamics over the next few decades across
sectors such as transportation, energy, waste management, health, construction
and land use. As such São Paulo enjoys membership and links with a number of
international urban networks working across issues of climate change, such as
the C402 and hosting a range of international conferences. Membership of groups
such as C40 presents São Paulo with opportunities to project the rising economic
and diplomatic power of Brazil onto a (global) municipal stage to show the city
as a world leader in urban environmental policy and retrofitting, and forms part
of its aim to become a ‘world city’. These ‘global’ or ‘world city’ narratives thus
form an important consideration when analysing urban retrofitting dynamics as
cities such as São Paulo use retrofitting projects to showcase the city to flows of
international investment and approach various funding mechanisms.
106 SILVER

The socio-technical landscapes of retrofitting cities relating to climate change

are also being influenced by the mitigation agenda. Mitigation, that is the reduction
of carbon emissions across cities, is being pursued across numerous retrofitting
pathways by global South cities (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007). These pathways
include reducing energy consumption (e.g. with insulation) through to using
cleaner energy (by retrofitting with photovoltaic technologies), from transport
(building public transit networks) to improving waste collection (retrofitting
sanitation networks). Mitigation in BRICS cities is becoming increasingly entwined
with efforts to promote the green economy and the recognition from municipalities
that action needs to be undertaken to retrofit infrastructures towards a low-carbon
future. For instance, Cape Town has committed to becoming a low-carbon city
in the context of electricity generation heavily reliant on fossil fuels (City of Cape
Town Planning Department, 2006) and has begun to implement a number of
retrofitting projects that seek to provide examples of this commitment. Mitigation
remains a controversial and contested landscape pressure mediating retrofitting
responses to climate change. Some urban governance actors across the BRICS
countries argue that the historic responsibility towards climate change has
emanated from the global North and question why investment needs to be
directed towards mitigation retrofitting when the need to continue to generate
high levels of economic growth and the retrofitting of urban poor areas and the
wider city remain such pressing issues. This contested retrofitting process will
continue to act as a site of contestation across urban governance regimes towards
2050 while becoming increasingly central in mediating the reconfiguration of
networked systems.

6.2.4 Energy
The socio-technical landscape of energy constitutes the fourth key issue
mediating retrofitting in BRICS cities towards 2050 and interconnecting with other
pressures such as poverty alleviation and climate change imperatives. These issues
include energy (in)securities and supply, energy poverty and expanding access,
reducing carbon emissions, and financing maintenance and repair. Together these
landscape pressures create a number of different potential retrofit pathways for
BRICS cities through to 2050 that shape and mediate conflicting agendas. Cities,
such as Mumbai and São Paulo, illustrate these multiple priorities involved in
energy-related retrofitting by seeking to improve electrification rates in slum areas
while also developing new renewable energy pathways. The financial resources
on which these municipalities can develop these retrofit interventions are often
limited, meaning that retrofitting energy networks across BRICS cities often
remains limited to experimental or pilot projects, rather than comprehensive
upgrading. It remains to be seen how these priorities will be structured towards
2050 with the likelihood being that experimentation rather than large-scale
upgrading will characterise these processes of urban retrofitting.
In São Paulo climate change legislation is an emerging policy focus that
will become more dominant towards 2050, shaping the landscapes of energy,
with retrofitting programmes established to promote mitigation through actions
such as promoting efficiency in public lighting and the retrofitting of energy infra-
structures oriented around new technologies. Perhaps the largest energy project
 URBAN RETROFITTING ACROSS THREE BRICS CITIES 107

in São Paulo is the retrofitting of thermoelectric power plants in the Bandeirantes

and São João landfills. Utilising the carbon trading market to generate investment
and finance this waste to energy projects has resulted in the generation of 7 per
cent of the electricity consumed in the city and over 10 million tonnes of saved
carbon dioxide emissions (C40 Cities, n.d.). At the same time the need to retrofit
energy networks to tackle multi-dimensional energy poverties is pursued through
actions such as subsidised fuel to poor households using less than 220 kWh (Slum
Lab, 2008), the electrification of favelas and the legalising of clandestine
connections. Yet with only limited financial resources for these retrofitting actions
it will be difficult for São Paulo to achieve these twin energy objectives without
increased international financing such as the carbon trading market used for the
landfill retrofit. Indeed critics have argued that the liberalisation of energy policy
in the city had oriented network retrofitting around emerging technology markets
and supporting industrialisation rather than the energy needs of low-income
communities.
In Mumbai a range of government and non-government organisations are
involved in responding to the unfolding crisis taking place across the city’s energy
infrastructure, in which the shortfall in capacity is estimated at up to 700 MW
each day (Bothra, n.d.). The Mumbai Energy Alliance, for instance, is developing
a range of retrofitting projects, predicated on energy efficiency, as one retrofitting
response to the energy crisis in the city, which is considered to become an
increasingly critical issue towards 2050. The aim of the programme is to mobilise
a collaborative effort to deliver large-scale measurable energy efficiency improve-
ments, through retrofitting, over the next 25 years, targeted at reducing the city’s
long-term energy costs and lack of generation capacity.3
Many municipalities in BRICS cities are also beginning to identify the potential
financial benefits of developing and delivering low-carbon energy technologies and
the opportunities present across the urban energy network. This is particularly
the case in the fast growing economies such as India and Brazil, which aim to
‘leap’ ahead of global North countries in technological capacity over the next 30
years. Thus partnerships with global IT companies are becoming increasingly
important for cities and will come to define how networked systems are mediated
towards 2050. These processes are often taking place within the framework of
SMART cities (see Chapter 9 of this volume) and retrofitting urban infrastructure
with new experimental technologies will become a feature across cities such as
São Paulo and Mumbai as they seek to become hotbeds of innovation. While a
focus on innovation and technological development shape the green growth
agenda, in cities such as Cape Town this is also intrinsically linked to the potential
job creation impact of these developments and the pathways to create new
industrial employment opportunities.

6.2.5 Landscape pressures towards 2050

As the chapter has shown a range of landscape pressures are mediating urban
retrofitting responses in BRICS cities towards 2050, and while similar processes
can be seen across different cities these landscape pressures are also acting and
inter-relating in diverse pathways in different contexts. Poverty alleviation remains
a key factor influencing retrofitting across the urban spaces of the BRICs countries,
108 SILVER

whether in the favelas of São Paulo or the townships of Cape Town: huge
numbers of people require and demand decent housing and networked services
that provide a central landscape pressure which is set to increase towards 2050
as the mega cities of these countries continue to grow. Linked to poverty alleviation
is the landscape pressure of economic development, and it is likely that urban
retrofitting towards 2050 will be increasingly linked to opportunities to develop
urban economies and restructure urban infrastructures to support this growth.
Both climate change and energy landscape pressures are also set to increasingly
dominate discussions and debates around urban retrofitting as climate change
adaptation and mitigation financing rises to billions of dollars per year and
energy insecurity becomes perhaps the key geo-political issue of the era. While
numerous other landscape pressures exist that shape urban retrofit pathways, this
chapter has outlined the key influences and takes this forward by considering how
these pressures relate to the governing of urban retrofitting.

6.3 Governing urban retrofitting

A range of urban intermediaries are involved in the urban retrofitting of BRICS
cities revealing the multiple processes of contestation and politics involved in
governing these processes. The role of urban intermediaries is significant in
orienting the pathways which retrofitting programmes are following, illustrating
the shifting institutional arrangements involved in urban governance (Brenner,
2004). Exploring the landscape pressures that are mediating retrofitting processes
across these cities shows that there is no defined pathway for municipalities to
travel and that the course of urban retrofitting dynamics towards 2050 will
be structured by the specific urban governance context and the politics and
power of urban intermediaries in moving forward agendas. Across these cities,
urban governance regimes interact with diverse and complex processes, orienting
retrofit pathways through different socio-technical landscapes, and thus form an
important consideration in analysing future trends in cities such as São Paulo,
Cape Town and Mumbai.
In Cape Town urban retrofitting has often been state led with the local,
provincial and national governments providing the finances and policy orientation
to develop retrofitting pathways. Although there are attempts to develop more
market-led pathways across service delivery areas, particularly around water and
energy infrastructures, the state still dominates the trajectories of these pathways
(within a wider neoliberal model of service delivery). Towards 2050, Cape Town
urban governance will increasingly rely on these market-oriented retrofitting pro-
grammes in order to deliver widespread urban upgrading of networked systems.
In terms of retrofitting housing infrastructures, the model is less characterised
by neoliberal models of delivery and is instead oriented around basic needs,
the constitution and human rights, yet the city is often in conflict with groups
and citizens demanding basic housing within the context of growing numbers of
residents living in informal settlements and backyard dwellings. Thus the urban
governance of Cape Town towards 2050 will become increasingly conflictual in
nature, constructing a division between an urban poor demanding constitutional
rights, a municipality unable to meet the needs of these populations and an urban
elite tired of paying, through taxes, for this retrofitting.
 URBAN RETROFITTING ACROSS THREE BRICS CITIES 109

Retrofit pathways in Mumbai reveal the conflicts taking place in the city about
how investment in infrastructures is managed. The tension between developing
infrastructure for foreign capital investment (such as ICT networks) and seeking
to support urban poor communities has meant that urban governance approaches
to urban retrofitting have often been fragmented and reflected the top-down nature
of such infrastructural investment. This division is certain to continue towards
2050 and, as in Cape Town, provides a driver for increasing conflict, urban
disorder and securitised environments.
In São Paulo new partnerships among metropolitan intermediaries show the
increasing confidence of municipal actors in Brazil to engage in new growth
coalitions as responses to wider landscape pressures and policy orientations. For
example, the Alliance for Green Economy shows that the metropolitan inter-
mediaries are conceived in the broadest possible sense, with a range of partners
headed by the (São Paulo) State Department of Environment, who are seeking to
develop a group that bring together all social and environment stakeholders.
Furthermore, these partnerships seek to support cities in presenting themselves as
‘world cities’ and using retrofitting projects to symbolise their emergence as hubs
of innovation and reflect their status in the world economic system as important
sites of economic activity.
Of course, urban dwellers are not passive recipients of urban retrofitting in
BRICS cities. While this chapter has tended to focus on emergent trends emanating
from state intervention, the everyday retrofitting of the city is also taking place
on a large scale and is a key consideration when approaching the urban governance
of retrofitting. The urban poor use ingenuity and innovation, often in desperate
circumstances, to develop community responses to the socio-technical landscapes
that mediate retrofitting, creating new technologies and retrofitting homes and
favelas through improvisation and incremental urbanism (Simone, 2004, 2010).
Yet these forms of urban retrofitting often exist outside the parameters of civil
society (Chatterjee, 2004) and take place on a terrain of contestation, criminalisa-
tion and illegality that can lead to the reversal of any incremental gains and open
conflict between the urban poor and authorities. Such urbanism points to a very
different geography of urban retrofit in these cities and provides an alternative
pathway towards 2050 that will see an increasingly improvised form of urban
retrofitting, ongoing conflict between various urban actors and, importantly, a
level of uncertainty about the future for millions of the urban poor. What this
insight and others, emerging from a focus on urban governance, show in
considering pathways towards 2050 is the complex and often contradictory
nature of governing urban retrofitting in BRICS cities and the social relations and
power configurations reflected and reinforced in these processes, as Swyngedouw
(2003: 130) comments:

Urban process and conditions are wrought from, and refashioned through, new
networked technological systems, on the one hand, while, on the other, these systems
embody myriad social processes that signal the changing parameters of contemporary
urban practices and characteristics, both materially and socio-culturally.

With these multiple processes of retrofitting various urban actors, often in conflict,
seek to steer, challenge and influence the retrofitting pathways that cities are
110 SILVER

moving towards. While this chapter has provided a brief overview of these processes
the motivations, tools and forms of different sectors of urban populations are
likely to change the nature and trajectory of urban retrofitting over the next
30 years and constitute an uncertainty about how these processes will unfold
towards 2050.

6.4 Urban retrofitting towards 2050: splintered

retrofit pathways?
What is evident in this comparative review is that although BRICS cities are
experiencing a range of similar socio-technical landscape pressures their retrofitting
pathways are often forming in diverse ways. The energy, poverty, climate change,
economic development and urban governance landscapes provide these contexts
in which urban retrofitting is being undertaken towards 2050. A range of retro-
fitting dynamics are thus emerging from these socio-technical landscapes. The
growing, and in many cases, immediate crisis of climate change and the financial
mechanisms that are opening to adapt, through retrofitting, to the challenges will
become increasingly central to the type of retrofitting activity undertaken by these
cities. Likewise, energy insecurities will provide another key retrofitting dynamic
for these cities as they seek to secure energy supply, increase generation capacity
and move towards renewable energy sources that can open new (green) economic
opportunities.
Perhaps the most important emerging consideration is the increasing conflict
across different parts of BRICS cities around economic conditions and the need
to retrofit urban areas to improve conditions for the urban poor. Echoing the work
of Splintering Urbanism (Graham and Marvin, 2001) these processes can be
understood as shaping an increasingly fragmented city in which the urban elite
seek to retrofit infrastructures to link to global flows of capital and profit from
economic development, while the urban poor demand basic networked services
and formal housing infrastructures. It is this toxic mixture of poverty, booming
economies and conflicting, under-resourced urban governance regimes that will
become the dominant socio-technical landscape shaping the retrofitting pathways
of cities of the global South. Thus, to understand urban retrofitting, towards 2050,
in the global South, is to position these processes as political and contested. It is
to view the retrofitting pathways in which cities travel as reflecting and reinforcing
the configurations and relationships of power that constitute the urban governance
of these cities. These contested processes of retrofitting urban infrastructures thus
link into wider histories of infrastructural development shaped by political conflict
and negotiation (Graham and Marvin, 2001) and will constitute the main
mediating factor in the retrofitting pathways of BRICS cities towards 2050. What
is clear is that concerns about social, environmental and employment issues
remain pertinent across these urban spaces and act in tension with attempts to
create prioritised infrastructures for elite urban actors. While much of the discourse
in the global North around urban retrofitting is centred on a commodified view
of these processes in countries such as Brazil, India and South Africa this is part
of a wider landscape of contestation that suggests urban retrofitting is as much
about urban inequalities and power relations as new market opportunities for
particular sectors or urban actors.
 URBAN RETROFITTING ACROSS THREE BRICS CITIES 111

Finally, what the chapter has shown, beyond an overview of the main socio-
technical landscape pressures mediating retrofitting and the deeply political nature
of these processes, is that further conceptual and empirical investigation is needed
in urban studies that engages with BRICS cities. This work needs to explicitly
link retrofitting to current areas of research, such as poverty, informality and so
forth, to understand how these different landscapes operate in different contexts
and how they structure the direction in which cities are travelling along diverse
retrofitting pathways. Conceptual frameworks that draw on ongoing theoretical
debates across urban studies are needed to approach these research agendas and
that can help to articulate critical interventions across these investigations. The
stakes are high: with millions of new inhabitants each year, the retrofitting
pathways of these cities will shape social and environmental relations for a
growing proportion of the world’s population and impact on the lives of many
more. While urban retrofitting is becoming a key area of focus for urban and
technology studies in the global North it remains an under-studied phenomena
in these fast growing economies, where these processes are reconfiguring cities on
an unprecedented scale and shaping the urban futures of hundreds of millions of
people towards 2050. Furthermore these processes are unfolding in a very different
fashion to that experienced in European and American cities and that may offer
important lessons to urban researchers, practitioners and communities about
urbanisation, retrofitting and environmental sustainability. The importance of
understanding the competing narratives and forms of retrofit urbanism – across
different BRICS cities, the urban poor and elites, and different communities of
researchers – thus becomes imperative in understanding not just retrofitting
pathways, but the wider urban future of such cities. While this chapter has
provided a broad political economic commentary of such processes, more detailed
work is needed that engages with a range of ways of thinking about these
competing narratives and that is able to uncover, analyse and question such
politically contested dynamics.

Notes
* Durham University.
1 Early urban retrofitting projects on existing RDP stock include installing 240 ceilings
in Mamre and the more extensive Kuyasa CDM project, which included over 2,400
solar water heaters.
2 The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) is a network of large and engaged cities
from around the world committed to implementing meaningful and sustainable
climate-related actions locally that will help address climate change globally. The
organisation’s global field staff works with city governments, supported by technical
experts across a range of programme areas (see http://live.c40cities.org/).
3 See www.mumbaienergyalliance.org/.

References
Betsill, M., and Bulkeley, H. (2007) ‘Looking back and thinking ahead: A decade of cities
and climate change research’, Local Environment, 12(5): 447–56.
Bothra, S. (n.d.) ‘Solution to Mumbai’s energy crisis’. Accessed October 2012 at: www.
preservearticles.com/2011081810985/solution-to-mumbais-energy-crisis.html.
112 SILVER

Brenner, N. (2004) ‘Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in western
Europe, 1960–2000’, Review of International Political Economy, 11(3): 447–88.
Bulkeley, H. (2012) Cities and Climate Change. London: Routledge.
Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (eds) (2011) Cities and Low
Carbon Transitions. London: Routledge.
C40 Cities (n.d.) ‘São João and Bandeirantes landfills’. Accessed December 2012 at:
www.c40cities.org/c40cities/sao-paulo/city_case_studies/sao-joao-and-bandeirantes-
landfills.
Chatterjee, P. (2004) The Politics of the Governed: Popular politics in most of the world.
New York: Columbia University Press.
City of Cape Town (2010) ‘Informal dwelling count for Cape Town (1993–2005)’.
Accessed January 2012 at: www.capetown.gov.za/en/stats/CityReports/Documents/
Households/Informal_Dwelling_Count_38200681212_359.pdf.
City of Cape Town (2011) ‘City supports green technology with new project in Atlantis’.
Accessed October 2012 at: www.capetown.gov.za/en/MediaReleases/Pages/Citysup
portsgreentechnologywithnewprojectinAtlantis.aspx.
City of Cape Town Planning Department (2006) Energy and Climate Change Strategy.
Cape Town: City of Cape Town Environmental Planning Department.
Davis, M. (2006) Planet of Slums. London: Verso Books.
Ghoge, K. (2010) ‘Climate change action plan for Mumbai in two years’. Accessed
December 2012 at: www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/Climate-change-
action-plan-for-Mumbai-in-two-years/Article1-525623.aspx.
Graham, S., and Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Networked infrastructures,
technological mobilities, and the urban condition. New York: Routledge.
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2010) ‘Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how
would we know if they were?’, Research Policy, 39(4): 477–85.
Human Settlements South Africa (2011) ‘40 years to fix poorly built RDP houses’,
17 February 2011. Accessed January 2012 at: http://human-settlements.blogspot.com/
2011/02/40-years-to-fix-poorly-built-rdp-houses.html.
Luhanga, P. (2009) ‘Cape Town backyarders demand action on housing policy’. West
Cape News, 27 March 2009. Accessed January 2012 at: http://westcapenews.com/?
p=562.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2005) Mumbai City Development Plan 2005:
Strategy for environmental improvement. Accessed November 2013 at: www.mcgm.
gov.in/irj/go/km/docs/documents/.
Observatório das Metrópoles (2000) ‘Região Metropolitana de São Paulo (SP)’. Accessed
January 2012 at: www.observatoriodasmetropoles.ufrj.br/metrodata/ibrm/ibrm_sp.
html.
Ong, A. (2006) Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations of citizenship and sovereignty.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Pieterse, E. (2008) City Futures: Confronting the crisis of urban development. London:
New York: Zed Books.
Samara, T. (2006) ‘Youth, crime and urban renewal in the Western Cape’, Journal of
Southern African Studies, 31(1): 209–27.
Simone, A. M. (2004) For the City Yet to Come: Changing African life in four cities. London:
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Simone, A. M. (2010) City Life from Dakar to Jakarta. New York: Routledge.
Slum Lab (2008) ‘Energy usage for São Paolo favela households: Biogas in context’. Accessed
December 2012 at: http://slumlab.org/page/5#/post/1110752592.
Swyngedouw, E. (2003) ‘Book review of Splintering Urbanism’, Progress in Human
Geography, 27(1): 130–1.
 URBAN RETROFITTING ACROSS THREE BRICS CITIES 113

Toulmin, C. (2009) Climate Change in Africa. London: Zed Books.

UN-Habitat (2010a) State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011 – Cities for all: Bridging the urban
divide. Nairobi, Kenya: UN Human Settlements Programme.
UN-Habitat (2010b) São Paulo: A tale of two cities. Nairobi, Kenya: UN Human
Settlements Programme.
World Bank (2011) Cities and Climate Change: An Urgent Agenda. Accessed January 2012
at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUWM/Resources/340232-1205330656272/
CitiesandClimateChange.pdf.
This page intentionally left blank
7
Urban design and the retrofit
agenda
Georgia Butina Watson*

Sustainable urban design is concerned with issues of liveable communities that

offer their users a broad range of life opportunities. We need to create places that
support a variety of urban design qualities while also making cities more
sustainable.
The chapter introduces the current thinking about the ‘art’ and the ‘science’
of place-making. This includes current theories on delivering sustainable urban
design (e.g. responsive urban design); planning policy guidance and government
legislation (including delivering sustainable communities, transport, energy effici-
ency, waste recycling and water resources); and current technological innovations
already available and tested in specific cases. A number of projects are identified
and critically discussed, including Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Curitiba, Boston and
London. These cases illustrate wider societal benefits and disadvantages of
linking innovative technologies and urban design, implemented as part of the
place-making agenda.
The chapter also identifies emerging and future technologies and examines how
technological advances could be of value in future retrofitting of cities, and the
key challenges that face experts, politicians and broader communities. This is
discussed from the point of view of political leadership and commitment,
community and other key actor engagement and broader issues of funding and
implementation.
The chapter concludes with a synthesis of two urban design paradigms: one
that is ‘artistic’ in terms of designing places that promote a range of urban design
qualities and a ‘scientific’ one dealing with technological incorporation of future
retrofitting of cities.
116 BUTINA WATSON

7.1 Introduction
Today some 50 per cent of the world’s population, or 3.6 billion people, live in
cities, but between now and 2050 the world urban population is expected to
increase by 84 per cent, to some 6.3 billion (or nearly 70 per cent of the global
population; UN, 2012). This means that by the middle of this century the world
urban population will be the same size as the world’s total population was in
2002 (UN, 2012). Such a pattern of urban growth is putting large pressures on
the existing and new infrastructure, housing and open-space provision as well as
on the access to a range of services and facilities, clean air, water, energy and
food supply.
While cities offer many opportunities, they are also major contributors to
environmental pollution, and potentially to climate change, both at the local and
global levels. If we consider that some 70 per cent of carbon emission and 75 per
cent of global energy consumption are directly attributed to cities then it is of
paramount importance that we find solutions for how to live in cities that offer
many life opportunities and positive urban experiences but are also resource
efficient, and are socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. These
complex issues have been debated and addressed locally and globally by aca-
demics, community groups, politicians, NGOs and national and local governments
across the world.
At the global level, we have a whole spectrum of strategies, mandates, guidelines
and protocols that have been generated over the last five decades and particularly
over the last two decades since the Rio Earth Summit and the mandate of the
Agenda 21 (OECD, 2006).
Still the most widely cited has been the Brundtland Commission report of 1987
(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) and its first clearly
articulated definition of sustainability, defined as meeting ‘the needs of the present
without compromising the future generations to meet their own needs’ (World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987: 43).
A number of specific national policies have been adopted by many countries,
particularly by the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD). Further down the hierarchy these national
policies have been translated into specific regional and local policy frameworks
and other instruments. Initiatives among the major world cities have been
particularly strong, and in 2005 city mayors from 18 of the world’s largest cities,
including New York, Melbourne, Paris and Beijing met in London to agree how
they should work together to achieve major cuts in carbon emission from cities
(Ritchie and Thomas, 2009).
In order to address the higher-level policies and guidelines, a whole spectrum
of professionals has been working on developing specific responses and potential
solutions to solve many of the problems discussed earlier. This is particularly
evident among the professionals who deal with planning, urban design, transport,
architecture and building components, engineering, and landscape design who are
working on innovative solutions to create more sustainable cities.
Urban design as a discipline bridges many aspects of city planning and
design that incorporate both the ‘art’ and the ‘science’ of city design. Urban
 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 117

designers also operate through design interventions, at different scales of

urban form, and they bring together a range of solutions to socio-spatial, physical
form, economic and other dimensions of sustainability. They also play a key
role in retrofitting cities and in finding solutions to achieving more sustainable
futures.
This chapter introduces the current theoretical thinking and practice of urban
design linked to the concepts of ‘art’ and ‘science’ of place-making. It also
discusses the role of national policies and guidelines (including delivering
sustainable communities, transport, energy efficiency and other related matters),
as well as technological innovations already available and tested in practice. A
number of projects are identified and critically discussed, including Copenhagen,
Amsterdam, Curitiba, Boston and London. These case studies illustrate broader
societal and community benefits and dis-benefits of linking innovative tech-
nologies and urban design qualities, implemented as part of the ‘place-making’
agenda.
The chapter also examines how key technological advances and urban design
practices could be of value in the future retrofitting of cities, and the key challenges
that face experts, politicians and wider communities. This is discussed within the
context of political leadership and key actor engagement and broader issues of
funding and implementation.
The chapter draws conclusions by synthesising two urban design paradigms:
‘artistic’, in terms of designing cities that promote and support a range of urban
design qualities, at different morphological levels, and ‘scientific’, dealing with
technological aspects of designing and creating better sustainable futures.
The chapter is based on a combination of theoretical conceptualisations,
practical urban design proposals and inquiry by design methods, field observations
and behavioural studies, structured interviews, and focus group discussions.

7.2 What is urban design?

Urban design is the art of place-making. It is both the process of designing
places, through which we engage with different stakeholders, and the product,
manifested through design interventions at different morphological levels, from
city-scale to districts, neighbourhoods, streets, buildings, open spaces and detail
components.
‘Urban design’ as a concept first originated in North America and is linked to
theorists such as Jonathan Barnett (1982), Kevin Lynch (1960) and Jane Jacobs
(1961), founded in the City Beautiful movement. Their work produced some of
the most influential thinking on urban design (Carmona and Tiesdel, 2007).
Similar origins can be found in the British tradition of ‘Civic Design’ and the
Townscape approach developed by Gordon Cullen (1961). Equally important in
this early development of urban design thinking have been theories on the ‘sense
of place’ (Norberg-Schulz, 1980) that aimed to capture qualities that are present
in our cities and towns that define their unique characteristics, also defined today
as place-identity (Butina Watson and Bentley, 2007). Through the synthesis of
these two traditions, the American and the British, we have inherited the aesthetic
as well as the operational principles, still practised today.
118 BUTINA WATSON

Much of the British urban design practice developed during the 1970s as part
of a critique of the contemporary city development process, the city product, and
as a critique of professional roles that failed to deliver quality places (Bentley,
1978). In response to these criticisms academic programmes on urban design began
to be set up during the 1970s, having now some 40 years of theoretical and
practical work.
However, urban design theorists and practitioners still have no agreed
single definition of what urban design is. Madanipour (2007) for example, defines
urban design as being primarily concerned with the quality of public realm – both
physical and socio-cultural – and the making (and managing) of meaningful
‘places’ for people to enjoy and use. Other theorists (Butina Watson and Bentley,
2007) see it as a movement, where different professions and disciplines work
together in creating successful and loved places.
One approach that has had a large impact on the last 25 years of urban design
thinking and practice comes from the work developed by the Responsive
Environments team who formulated a concept of ‘responsiveness’, defining it as
‘the idea that the built environment should provide its users with an essentially
democratic setting, enriching their opportunities by maximising the degree of
choice available to them’ (Bentley et al., 1985: 9): such places are called responsive
places. The team formulated a number of qualities important in achieving
responsive and quality places. The original list of qualities introduced at the time
of the publication of the book (1985) is discussed below.
Permeability or the ability to access places is very important in the overall
spatial structuring of cities, and is a skeleton that holds many urban form
components together. This skeleton also provides access to open spaces
(Rossi, 1982) and is important in our understanding of legibility (Lynch, 1960).
Legibility is also important in helping us to orient ourselves spatially, which
helps us to interpret places in place-identity terms (Butina Watson and
Bentley, 2007).
As users we also exercise our choices by accessing various functions, uses,
buildings and open spaces, which offer many life opportunities: the quality known
as variety. By focusing on achieving a fine grain of mix of uses, we also ensure
that places are lively, democratic and vibrant. Both permeability and variety
are also closely linked to the quality of vitality, or vibrancy of the public spaces
(Jacobs, 1961), which supports us in the perceptions of safety. If places are
read as unsafe, we tend to avoid them, which leads to fewer people using
pedestrian spaces, which leads to even more areas of our cities being perceived
as dangerous. Even the shortest distances are perceived as problematic, and
instead of walking we use cars. Various studies followed establishing a very close
link between the perception of safety, walkability and crime incidents, which all
influence how we use cities. The more we walk or cycle, less fuel consumption is
also needed.
Another quality important in creating responsive places is the quality of
robustness, also known as resilience, or the opportunity to use different places
and buildings for different purposes, at different times, and over a period of
time. This quality is therefore very important in helping to create sustainable
urban form: a type of form that can be used over time for a variety of functions
 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 119

and can be adapted to serve or afford different opportunities for its users
over time.
In addition to the four urban qualities mentioned above, responsive places
should also be visually rich and appropriate, the qualities known as visual
appropriateness and richness. While the visual appropriateness is closely linked
to the aesthetic considerations of what places and buildings look like, richness
refers to a full spectrum of sensory experiences. According to some theorists, we
do not just experience places through artistic representation, as for example in
paintings, something that hangs on the walls; we inhabit such places, and in return
also shape such places through the collaborative art performances (Novitz, 2001).
As urban designers we need to engage with all these qualities to create lovable
and successful places. Such places are likely to last for a very long time and adapt
more easily to changing needs of the users.
Both traditions, the North American and the British, are still dominant in UK
urban design theory and practice. This can be seen from many locally produced
guidelines, master plans and Local Development Frameworks. This combined
approach has also found a place in many other European countries as well in
Australia, New Zealand, South East Asia, China and Latin America; the result
of academic training and the availability of key urban design texts (Bentley et al.,
1985; Zetter and Butina Watson, 2006; Butina Watson and Bentley, 2007)
internationally.

7.3 Urban design and the sustainability agenda

There is now widespread concern that in addition to the ‘art of place-making’ we
also need to embrace urban design solutions that address a broad spectrum of
sustainable futures (Zetter and Butina Watson, 2006; Cooper et al., 2009; Ritchie
and Thomas, 2009). Bentley added three more qualities to the original responsive
environments agenda, consisting of resource efficiency, pollution minimisation and
ecosystem maintenance (Bentley, n.d.), which closely align with some of the ideas
incorporated into the green city models. The latest thinking also includes concepts
such as co-dwelling with nature (Butina Watson and Bentley, 2007). Urban
design thinkers and practitioners joined forces with the landscape tradition of
urban design (Bentley, n.d.), and, later on, other professions joined in. This has
resulted in the setting up of the Urban Design Alliance group, which aims to bridge
the professional divide of planning, architecture, landscape design, real estate and
engineering professions.
Today urban design is seen as an interdisciplinary movement, where all built
and natural environment disciplines share some common ground, working
together to solve many current problems including sustainability issues. These
common efforts are also supported by the key professional bodies (RTPI, RIBA,
RICS, LI), the central and local governments as well as a whole host of voluntary
organisations and local community groups. The most significant contribution to
the national adoption of the urban design principles came from the research carried
out by Oxford Brookes University (Butina Watson et al., 1996) on behalf of the
Department of Environment on the Quality in Town and Country initiative
which resulted in the recommendations to expand the Planning Policy Guidance
120 BUTINA WATSON

(PPG1) advice, to include also the principles of urban design when considering
urban development interventions. Punter and Carmona identified through their
research (1997) that the revised PPG1 went beyond the concern of what the
buildings look like and it introduced a more fundamental role for urban design
as a professional discipline that is concerned with buildings and the spaces
between them, the public and private realms, as well as quality architecture,
townscape and landscape, a sense of belonging, safety and security, and a healthy
environment. This was subsequently modified and expanded into the Planning
Policy Statement (PPS1), which included a whole spectrum of ideas how to deliver
sustainable communities. Similar national policies and guidelines have been pro-
duced by a number of European, North American and Latin American countries
(Zetter and Butina Watson, 2006). Very closely aligned to the UK Planning Policy
are Australia’s Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines including also Our
Future – A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future
(www.urbandesign.gov.au).
The outcome of the PPG1 and the PPS1 has seen the production of many
examples of successful places, particularly those linked to the ideas about
compact urban form (Jenks et al., 1996) that have been incorporated into
many local planning strategies, as can be seen from several very useful imple-
mentation strategies in cities such as Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham.
The compact city ideas have also influenced guidance on achieving mixed-use
neighbourhoods and cities, which helps in designing walkable neighbour-
hoods. Von Borke (2009) and other theorists state that designing cities at higher
densities leads to more sustainable society, as living and working in cities that
have higher densities will limit our need to travel by car and therefore promote
healthier living.
A large body of work has focused on the level of pollution and CO2 emission
generated by transport and other activities and the need to reduce negative by
products of urban life generally. Particularly significant have been debates about
reducing car travel mobility and therefore reducing the need for fuel consumption
and other resources, by moving to alternative mobility patterns such as pedestrian
and cycle movements.
If we consider that nearly 85 per cent of global CO2 emission comes from urban
areas and that 75 per cent of global energy consumption comes from cities, serving
some 3.5 billion people living in these cities, then solutions need to be found for
sustaining such places for future generations. At the same time we need to reduce
our energy and water consumption and generate alternative sources of energy.
This cannot be solely achieved through new developments and urban expansions;
we also need to consider how we can retrofit existing urban areas, open spaces
and buildings. This is where the ‘art’ and the ‘science’ of urban design need to be
fully integrated and considered, forming in a sense what could be called eco-
responsive environments and urban design.
Studies of the morphological components of the urban (Butina Watson and
Bentley, 2007) indicate that urban form components, at different morphological
levels, change at different timescales. So in retrofit terms it may be easier, for
example, to retrofit individual buildings and their components, than it is to
retrofit large spatial structures and networks that generally last for centuries. The
 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 121

longest lasting morphological components are those that are part of the natural
system, the topography and the blue/green underlying structures of the cultural
landscape. This large-scale natural system can help us understand longer
evolutionary cycles of geomorphological, climatic and other transformations so
that we can plan to deal more efficiently with potential disasters, such as flooding
for example.
There are a number of useful examples to see how nature–urban form systems
could be successfully integrated. The city of Copenhagen has shaped its spatial
structure by using a green-finger corridor plan, which allows the green networks
to penetrate deep into the urban structure. This system is very efficient as it cools
down the urban fabric during hot periods, protects it in the cold weather and
allows the biotic support to connect to human networks, promoting the idea of
co-dwelling with nature (Butina Watson and Bentley, 2007), which also has
psychological benefits. Such systems also have other benefits as they support better
water retention and improve the local micro-climate.
Ritchie and Thomas (2009: 13) state that:

Thinking about sustainable urban structures begins with the urban region: the town
or city and its rural and/or coastal hinterland. The town or city depends on its
hinterland for food and water, clean air and open space and, looking to the future,
perhaps on biomass or wind for energy.

The second morphological layer that has a long lasting impact is the overall
spatial structure: the system of roads, streets, pathways and open spaces. This is
also the structure that accommodates large patterns of movements, and is there-
fore the most significant carrier of pollutants. Retrofitting such systems is both
disruptive and costly. If we get these structures wrong, they are with us for
centuries. There are two ways in which such systems could be improved: through
the management of the types and flow of traffic, and through physical inter-
ventions. In addition to the transport corridors we also have a system of open
spaces. At the overall open-space level, we can improve places through urban
design and landscape interventions by introducing nature in the city and by
improving perceptual and other sensory experiences.
At the lowest level of urban form elements, we have buildings and the building
components that change more frequently than other, larger systems. Here we can
see how natural resources and new technologies can be used to generate solar or
wind energy; how water and waste can be recycled; how buildings could be
insulated to retain heat or provide better cooling opportunities; how buildings
could be designed to last longer; and how nature could be incorporated into design
solutions.
What is important to consider is how all different morphological levels relate
to each other and how we can accommodate change over time. This is particularly
challenging in interventions in the existing urban areas as some of the deep-rooted
structures are difficult to alter. We shall now review in more detail how urban
designers apply theoretical ideas and urban visions of sustainable futures and how
they intervene in retrofitting cities at different scales, and what lessons such
interventions may have on future urban projects.
122 BUTINA WATSON

7.4 Retrofitting large spatial structures

Retrofitting large urban structures, such as Boston’s Downtown Artery,
requires a number of factors to be in place: creative planning and urban design
vision, political drive and support, financial resources, technological innovations,
clear and workable implementation strategy, and above all the support of
people who live in such places. When the new city Mayor Raymond L. Flynn
began his political mayoral campaign during early 1980s Boston was experi-
encing a broad spectrum of social, economic and environmental problems.
The city suffered from high levels of pollution, generated by a large volume
of urban traffic; it was in economic decline and it could not compete locally or
globally in attracting both the capital and the people into the city. It also suffered
from a rather fragile local political structure (Butina Watson and Bentley,
2007).
The city urban fabric is the outcome of many historical and morphological
layers, with a very unique and distinctive urban from and spatial structure (Butina
Watson and Bentley, 2007). In addition to the fine mesh of city streets, open spaces
and buildings it also stands out from other North American cities due to its very
European morphology with a distinctive system of open spaces, popularly known
as the Emerald Necklace. The green necklace was designed by Olmsted and Eliot
in 1897, during the City Beautiful Movement, and it had both aesthetic and health
benefits. In contrast, there was also an elevated urban artery: a major double-
level urban thoroughfare, built in 1956, to provide easier access for companies
locating into Boston.
When the artery was first built it was greeted with much praise by urban
planners for allowing the traffic to travel faster while being condemned by the

Figure 7.1 Aerial view of Boston during the 1990s

 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 123

local communities of North End and West End that got separated from each other,
due to the artery cutting through its historic neighbourhoods.
By the 1980s the artery had become a major obstacle for the city and the two-
level, six-lane elevated urban motorway was causing noise, vibration and
pollution. It was estimated that the artery was carrying 190,000 vehicles a day,
contributing to high levels of CO2. Raymond Flynn decided to create a new vision
for Boston, centred on the idea of creating socially, economically and environ-
mentally sustainable Boston. This was to be achieved by taking down the
Downtown Artery and by placing it under the ground while reinstating some
of the severed streets that used to connect the historic neighbourhoods. In
addition, the incoming city Mayor also wanted to create new urban spaces.
A number of planning, urban design, technological and financial innovations
were required to deliver such a complex retrofit project, but above all it needed
a strong political commitment and the democratic support of the local community
and business groups.
The City Hall and Mayor Flynn set up an ambitious community participation
process (Butina Watson and Bentley, 2007) and engaged a large group of planning,
urban design, landscape and architectural consultants. Some 66 local community
groups were formed with specific roles and task force responsibilities to create a
common vision for the city. Even school children participated and contributed
their visions and ideas of how to shape a better Boston. Many other depart-
ments such as the Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW), the City
Planning Department, State and local agencies, the Boston Society of Architects,
the Transport Department, together with many other agencies, produced specific
feasibility studies and plans that fed directly into the production of Boston:
A plan for the central artery, published in 1990 (BRA). The most important
concept was an overall urban design strategy, based on four visions that were
later united into a single strategy. A further elaboration of this plan led to the
production of Toward Boston 2000 – Realizing the vision document (1997). The
vision brought together three main long-term goals: ‘economic success as a place
of work; ecological and sustainable city; and socially, politically and culturally
bound communities’ (Butina Watson and Bentley, 2007: 221). The main skeleton
of the spatial plan was designed as a tree-lined boulevard system stretching from
the North Station to China Town and South Station, while east–west historic
streets were to be reconnected to promote permeability and connectivity between
historic neighbourhoods. Some 56 acres of left-over space were to be redesigned
as two downgraded local urban roads and some 30 acres of a sequence of new
open spaces.
In order to implement such an ambitious retrofit strategy, a whole range of
technological innovations, financial resources, innovative marketing campaigns
and the commitment from Boston citizens and its wider community were required.
The construction of the new underground artery took 15 years to complete, not
without associated technical challenges due to unstable soil that resulted in water
penetration into the newly constructed tunnels and other construction problems.
It also would not have been possible to achieve this large transformation without
the construction and technological innovations, as well as complex computerised
systems that measure air quality, levels of pollution, traffic flow and potential fire
hazards. Such a complicated and complex intervention led to long construction
124 BUTINA WATSON

New Boulevards Existing Arterial Roads

Loc:aI Streets Rebuilt Local Historic SUeeti

Figure 7.2 A plan for the restructuring of the Downtown Artery in Boston
 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 125

New Boulevards Existing Arterial Roads

Local Streets Rebuilt Local Historic Streets

Figure 7.3 Open space proposal

126 BUTINA WATSON

delays and five times the cost originally estimated. The final bill is calculated
to be $15 billion put together from city, state and federal financial deals and
packages.
During the construction process, noise, vibration and traffic congestion in
Boston were carefully measured so that businesses and local communities could
carry on with their normal daily life.
The most significant and visible transformation of the area is in downgrading
the artery into two tree-lined, boulevard-type urban roads that have reinstated
the historic streets of the city. It is estimated that the car travel today is about
14,500 vehicles per day rather than 190,000, which is 85.6 per cent lower than
before the artery had been taken down in 2003. The removal of the artery and
the building of two tree-lined, boulevard-type city roads were supplemented by
an integrated public transport strategy, which included in its plans public
transport, cycling and walking opportunities.
The remaining space, stretching along the spine of the former artery, resulted
in an innovative approach to public space design, which is the result of many
urban design and landscape experts’ interventions and the production of urban
design briefs, formulated from both the experts’ and local community’s ideas. The
open space is structured around a sequence of several urban parks that are
designed to promote local identity of different neighbourhoods, while at the same
time reinforcing Boston’s overall legibility.
A longitudinal study (2001–11) carried out by Butina Watson utilised
structured interviews with the key stakeholders; observation and field analyses of
different stages of the implementation; and the review of many documents and
plans produced by the City Hall and other agencies. The overall outcome of the
project is very positive in many aspects. First, the levels of noise, pollution and
poor air quality have improved and the overall traffic in the city has been cut by
85.6 per cent. The improved public open spaces are used for walking, cycling and
for children to play in their local neighbourhood parks. New grassed areas and
planting of trees and other plants have reduced the impact of heat islands and
the new open spaces are allowing rain penetration into the soil and stabilisation
of the terrain. However, the negative impacts are evident in the disruption to the
city over some 15 years of construction work and the cost associated with it. This
large project demonstrates that the decisions we make about large infrastructure
projects, unless properly designed and constructed, are very costly to repair.
Similar large-scale restructuring of urban motorways has also taken place in San
Francisco, Milwaukee, Vancouver, Toronto and Seoul and some modifications
have been made in other places, such as Birmingham for example. As we see other
cities of fast developing nations building their own large-scale urban structures,
we need to question the long-term benefits, and potential costs that may incur as
part of some future retrofit initiative.
Other, less radical approaches to retrofitting spatial networks in cities can be
seen from the planning and urban design interventions in Curitiba and
Amsterdam. In Curitiba, planning and urban design interventions since 1965 have
focused on promoting a sustainable city (Gehl, 2009). In that regard the city
planners, urban designers and transport engineers produced a radical spatial
structure, consisting of five linear, tree-planted, boulevard-style corridors that are
designated for long-distance fast bus routes. There are dedicated lanes for this
 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 127

mode of transport and the flow of movement is regulated by an integrated

signalling system. Other roads and streets are designed to accommodate local
transport movement, using shorter and more frequent buses that lead directly to
key facilities, schools and housing areas. In parallel to the integrated public
transport system the city has invested large amounts of financial resources to
improve historic streets and public spaces, parks and other green corridors. Many
streets are now pedestrian and bicycle friendly, which has stimulated the growth
of the local economy and has also improved the levels of CO2 emissions and the
perceptions of safety. Curitiba’s sustainability campaign, led by the city Mayor
Jaime Lerner, has also included a number of other measures to improve the city’s
appearance and the quality of various social and economic functions, as well as
the built form. Recycling of waste was embraced by nearly all living in the city
and Curitiba became an international example of a sustainable city.
Retrofitting existing urban corridors with cycle lanes, creating pedestrian
priority and shared space zones together with the provision of an efficient public
transport can also be seen in Amsterdam.
The city is composed of a very unique morphological structure dominated by
a densely grouped buildings and the system of canals. Nevertheless, the streets
accommodate trams, cyclists and pedestrians with great efficiency. This strategy
is also supported by other planning measures such as mixing of uses and the idea
of a very compact city. City and neighbourhood plans are fully integrated and
different decisions are negotiated with politicians, business communities and the
local residents. Such integrated policies promote qualities of vitality and variety,
ensuring that the perceptions of safety are also maintained. An integrated open-
space strategy also ensures safety of local streets, the idea of ‘woonerfs’, where
shared spaces are user friendly, allowing children to play in such spaces. The
maintenance of open spaces through planting, water pumping and other technical
measures also ensures wider environmental benefits, protecting the city from
flooding and sinking.
Similar approaches have also been applied in the regeneration of Sheffield where
an integrated transport strategy and open-space improvements have turned the
city into a more pedestrian and user-friendly environment.
Lessons about future settlement planning and design and how we can
retrofit cities of the future can also be learnt from some innovative technological
solutions from places such as Masdar City in Abu Dhabi. This experimental
settlement, designed by Norman Foster and his associates, is based on a zero-
carbon solutions that aim to generate new types of energy sources and waste
recycling through the design of spatial structures, modes of transport and building
types. However, as some critics state, such technologically driven solutions
should also incorporate urban design qualities that are not yet fully visible from
the design available.
The case study examples discussed above can serve as potential examples for
other cities aiming to achieve more sustainable futures. What is critical to note is
that such interventions, or ways of thinking, require a holistic approach where
political, planning, urban design and other professions need to work together
with the collective support of their communities. We can also see, as shown
in the case of Boston, that some large spatial-retrofit interventions can be very
disruptive and costly.
128 BUTINA WATSON

Figure 7.4 North End urban park – a proposal

Figure 7.5 North End park

 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 129

Figure 7.6 Reconnected historic streets in Boston

Figure 7.7 Urban park in the Financial District, Boston

130 BUTINA WATSON

Figure 7.8 Open space in Chinatown, Boston

Figure 7.9 Open space in Chinatown, Boston

 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 131

7.5 Retrofitting neighbourhood open spaces

At a lower morphological level of urban design we can also identify a number of
retrofit interventions, particularly in the improvement of public open spaces.
Islington in London has seen radical changes in the quality of the open spaces
that were part of the New Deal for Communities (NDC) funding scheme, as a
result of creative urban design visions and project implementation.
Many established residential areas, as well as large-scale housing estates,
frequently suffer from neglect, poor management structures and run-down
appearance due to the lack of funding. Even when we retrofit individual tower
blocks and other building types we tend to forget open spaces around them. There
is increasing recognition today that we need to consider the total environment,
not just individual buildings. The open space strategy developed for EC1 in
Islington clearly demonstrates the value of a more holistic approach.
Neglected open spaces attract undesirable activities, and they are perceived by
their users as dangerous. This has an implication for how we use such areas, and
even the shortest distances are reached by vehicles rather than on foot or by
bicycles. Open spaces are frequently covered by tarmac, which also has negative
impacts on microclimate, and the vehicular trips made have serious implications
for the levels of fuel used and the levels of pollution generated, with inevitable
links to health. Children are particularly vulnerable in such neighbourhoods as
they seldom play in run-down neighbourhood parks and play areas (Butina
Watson et al., 2008). People who live in such neighbourhoods may suffer from
low esteem, lack of sociability and trust and can promote violence and crime.
Even when the money is found to improve and retrofit buildings, very seldom
does this include wider areas and open-space networks. Retrofitting individual
buildings provides many benefits in the reduction of energy and water usage, and
various technological innovations linked to the insulation of walls, double glazing,
roof insulation, solar and wind energy harvesting, and water recycling have been
employed in such retrofit schemes, but what other benefits can we get by adopting
a more holistic view in developing retrofit solutions in neighbourhoods and on
housing estates? The next section of the chapter explains how urban design
principles and a holistic approach to retrofitting an area of Islington have produced
rewarding results. The analysis is based on structured interviews with the key
actors, fieldwork observations and the monitoring of activities of ‘before’ and
‘after’ situations and the participatory involvement with designers, planners and
local residents through focus group discussions.
When part of Islington was designated as a NDC area (Figure 7.10) it
was typical of many city areas suffering from social, economic and health
deprivation, and a generally run-down and neglected appearance characterised
its streets, parks and other open spaces. The area was awarded £52.9 million in
2001 (Kessler, 2011) to be spent over a period of 10 years with a view to transform
the area and improve its open space networks.
The EC1 NDC area is primarily residential with some 12,000 residents living
in flats on a number of local authority estates, built between the 1950s and 1980s.
Morphologically and typologically they are typical modernist blocks—some are
tower blocks—that are surrounded by ill-defined open space structures that do
not provide clear definitions of what is public and what is private, leaving spaces
132 BUTINA WATSON

Figure 7.10 Open space strategy for EC1, London

Figure 7.11 Improved open space in the Spa Fields area

 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 133

in between as no man’s land and having a very poor relationship with the
surrounding streets and parks. Before the work was completed, the streets were
full of cars and open spaces were deserted and felt unsafe, while play areas were
empty (Kessler, 2011). Many parts of the estate were covered in graffiti and parks
were used for anti-social behaviour.
In order to develop an integrated open-space strategy, a multi-professional team
was put together consisting of local authority experts from a number of
departments, engineers, housing officers and local residents. Without the local
residents’ involvement the project could not go ahead. They all constituted the
NDC Board tasked with the responsibility to develop a strategy for retrofitting
the area. A large number of area analysis workshops, consultation and involve-
ment with local schools were carried out to develop a common vision and the
area strategy, which was approved in June 2004 by Islington Planning Committee
and by the NDC Board. One of the key outcomes of the approved strategy was
to appoint an urban designer as an Open Space Co-ordinator to ensure that open
spaces were also retrofitted, not only the buildings. A sum of £6 million was
originally allocated, which later on extended to £17 million. The original vision
that was adopted by the Board ensured that all projects fit into a unified solution,
known as the ‘green chain’ of open spaces.
Between 2004 and 2011 50 projects were designed and implemented, including
4 parks, external spaces of 6 residential estates, 19 streets and public spaces, a
street market, and a variety of other improvements such as street lighting, trees
and other kinds of planting intervention, including urban allotments.
The most significant contribution was in the quality of the overall system, or
the ‘chain’ of open space improvements that have a large cumulative impact in
terms of the overall experience, usage and perceptions of safety. Instead of black
tarmac many streets have been ‘traffic calmed’ and resurfaced with specially chosen
paving slabs so that the rain water can penetrate into the soil and water the roots
of the trees. Instead of cars dominating the streets, streets are now pedestrian and
child friendly. Retrofitted play areas have been particularly successful as a result
of the creative use of planting and play equipment. They are now full of children
and parents enjoying this radical transformation.
A number of small urban allotments have also been introduced to provide fresh
vegetables for the residents; this has given ideas to other residents in the area who
have started to turn their neglected front gardens into colourful and much loved
‘front rooms’. Urban parks have also seen major transformations. Diseased trees
have been removed and replaced with new healthy ones; other trees have been
pruned to allow sunlight and water penetration into the soil. Neglected hedges have
been trimmed to improve the visibility and the natural surveillance of the area.
According to the participants of the focus group discussions, the improvement
of the perception of safety in the area has so far had the biggest impact. Residents
and children now walk or cycle to work or local schools, which also should have
positive impacts on their health. Instead of the smell of petrol, streets and open
spaces are now full of clean air. Instead of noisy traffic residents can now enjoy
other more natural soundscapes, such as birds singing. Residents also claim that
the retrofitted open spaces have returned the local pride and a sense of community
belonging, while the safe streets ensure that the vitality of the area is maintained
from morning until night.
134 BUTINA WATSON

Figure 7.12 Spa Fields area before the open space improvement

Figure 7.13 Spa Fields area after the improvement

 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 135

Figure 7.14 Old Street, Islington, before the improvement

Figure 7.15 Old Street, Islington, after the improvement

136 BUTINA WATSON

Figure 7.16 Images of Spa Fields before and after the area improvement

Figure 7.17 Old Street before and after the area improvement
 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 137

7.6 Conclusion
There are a number of useful lessons to be learnt from the examples discussed in
this chapter. First, it is important to think about sustainable cities in a holistic
way, to include natural as well as built form and human systems. These systems
should be planned and designed at different morphological levels, from larger
city/region systems and networks, to the overall spatial structures, open spaces
and detailed buildings. Both qualitative and scientific principles need to be thought
of as part of the same solution.
The chapter presented a new ‘combined’ theoretical construct that brings
together qualitative aspects of urban form and the sustainability agenda. This was
discussed from the point of view of the ‘art’ and the ‘science’ of place-making.
From the ‘art’ based theories it is clear that urban designers employ a number
of qualities that contribute to the positive experience of users, as they read and
interpret such places as distinctive and unique, and offer many choices in terms
of responsiveness. Such places are also being experienced as safe, which promotes
walkability, and therefore potentially contributes to healthier life opportunities.
The chapter also recognises that urban design qualities should also incorporate
ideas of co-dwelling with nature, and it argues for a combined urban form/natural
systems approach to planning and urban designing future cities. These two
paradigms also have strong alliances with both the ‘compact city’ and the ‘green
city’ models, which have many benefits when establishing longer-term futures
scenarios.
The chapter also argues that in order to achieve sustainable futures, urban
design qualities need to incorporate ‘scientific’ and ‘technological’ advancements.
These could be employed at different morphological levels and different scales of
urban design interventions. The chapter also discussed the value of large retrofit
projects, as seen from Boston, and the need to embrace such initiatives at different
political and community levels, as well as in terms of disruptions they create for
their communities and the costs associated with such projects. Equally challenging
are initiatives linked to ‘greening’ urban corridors and large open spaces, but the
benefits in terms of counteracting negative microclimate effects, such as reducing
local temperatures and heat islands, outweigh the disruption caused to the city
dwellers.
Urban designers also utilise other mechanisms for creating more sustainable
cities. These are linked to the qualities of permeability whereby public transport
systems, as seen in Curitiba and Boston, cycling lanes as in Amsterdam, and
compact and distributed mixed-use developments as in Boston all positively
contribute to the reduction of pollution and carbon emissions. Some of the future
technologies linked to the use of electric vehicles can also be positive in terms of
reducing environmental pollution.
At the lower level of morphological resolution, the greening of streets and
neighbourhood open spaces can also have many benefits. The case of Islington
shows how through creative and collaborative engagement with the local
communities, there could be wider benefits in terms of health, playability and
climatic benefits. This is where urban designers work most closely with landscape
designers to create innovative solutions that combine both ‘art’ and ‘science’
aspects of design.
138 BUTINA WATSON

There are also wider community and societal benefits in incorporating new
technological solutions at the individual building level. These solutions include
roof and wall insulation, double glazing, using special coating to reduce glazing
and heat generation, the solar heating and passive cooling of buildings, rainwater
harvesting, and water recycling, to mention just some of the tools. However, in
order to accommodate new technologies, buildings need to be robust enough, and
we need to think how such solutions affect other urban qualities.
Some of the most outstanding initiatives, discussed in this chapter, have also
been the result of planning and urban design guidance (PPSs) introduced at the
national level, as in the case of the UK, which are then interpreted at the local
level. At the local level, there are a number of instruments that can provide visions
and guidance of how to plan and design cities spatially, and how to articulate
urban design qualities through the production of briefs or Local Area Action Plans
and Neighbourhood Plans. It is also important to deliver these strategies at
different morphological levels. It will be interesting to see how the new National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the Policy Guidance it replaces, is going
to affect the delivery of sustainable cities.
It is also important to engage politicians, professionals and local community
groups to develop common visions in order to ensure that the ideas developed
are implemented and maintained over time. It is particularly challenging to
engage young children and young adults in creating visions for their cities and
neighbourhoods as they are the guardians of our sustainable futures. Many
retrofit projects require large financial and other resources, so when we design
our cities we need to ensure that they are robust enough to accommodate both
present and future needs as well as to benefit from new technological solutions.
By linking the ‘art of place making’ and the ‘science’ we can gain greater benefits
longer term so that the quality of life is both ensured and maintained. As urban
design is bringing different professions together, it could play a key role in
bringing together different approaches to creating more sustainable futures.
However, where urban design needs to go next is in setting specific targets,
formulating pathways for how to achieve them but also monitoring and evaluating
the benefits and dis-benefits of both human and wider ecosystems.

Note
* Department of Planning, Oxford Brookes University.

References
Barnett, J. (1982) An Introduction to Urban Design. New York: Harper & Row.
Bentley, I. (1978) ‘What is urban design’, Urban Design Forum, 1.
Bentley, I. (n.d.) ‘Lecture notes on qualities in urban design’. Oxford Brookes University.
Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., McGlynn, S., and Smith, G. (1985) Responsive
Environments: A manual for designers. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.
Boston Redevelopment Authority (1997) Toward Boston 2000-Realizing the Vision.
Boston, MA: City Hall.
Butina Watson, G., and Bentley, I. (2007) Identity by Design. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Butina Watson, G., Murrain, P., Bentley, I., Goodey, B., McGlynn, S., Hayward, R.,
Lyne, I., Reeve, A., Samuels, I., Simmonds, R., Smith, G., and Smith, P. (1996) Quality
in Town and Country: Analysis of the findings. London: DOE.
 URBAN DESIGN AND THE RETROFIT AGENDA 139

Butina Watson, G., Kiddle, R., Bentley, I., Lim, R., and Muckholi, P. (2008) UrbanBuzz:
Rootscape project. London: UCL.
Carmona, M., and Tiesdel, S. (eds) (2007) Urban Design Reader. Oxford: Architectural
Press.
Cooper, R., Evans, G., and Boyko, C. (2009) Designing Sustainable Cities. Chichester, UK:
Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cullen, G. (1961) The Concise Townscape. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Gehl, J. (2009) Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Penguin.
Jenks, M., Burton, E., and Williams, K. (1996) The Compact City: A sustainable urban form?
London; New York: E & FN Spon.
Kessler, L. (2011) Interview. September. London.
Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Madanipour, A. (1997) ‘Ambiguities of urban design’, in Carmona, M., and Tiesdel, S. (eds)
(2007) Urban Design Reader. London: Architectural Press, pp. 12–24.
Norberg-Schultz, C. (1980) Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture.
London: Academy Editions.
Novitz, D. (2001). ‘Art, narrative, and human nature’, in Hinchman, L. P., and Hinchman,
S. K. (eds) Memory, Identity, Community: The idea of narrative in the human sciences.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 143–60.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2006) Advancing
Sustainable Development. Policy brief, March 2006. Accessed 7 October 2013 at:
www.oecd.org/greengrowth/36277332.pdf.
Punter, J., and Carmona, M. (1997) The Design Dimension of Planning. London; New York:
E & FN Spon.
Ritchie, A., and Thomas, R. (2009) Sustainable Urban Design: An environmental approach.
London; New York: E & FN Spon.
Rossi, A. (1982) The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
UN (United Nations) (2012) World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2011 revision. New York:
UN.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future.
Accessed 7 October 2013 at: www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm.
Zetter, R., and Butina Watson, G. (2006) Designing Sustainable Cities in the Developing
World. Aldershot, UK; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
This page intentionally left blank
PART II
Energy and urban retrofit
This page intentionally left blank
8
Energy poverty and the future
of urban retrofit
Duncan McLaren*

8.1 Introduction
The case for retrofitting cities to reduce carbon emissions – especially from
energy use in buildings (e.g. Boardman et al., 2005; Harvey, 2008; Power, 2008;
Neuhoff et al., 2011c) – is compelling, but current and foreseeable technical and
economic retrofit options could undermine social justice. Typical shallow retrofit
measures – such as loft and cavity wall insulation – cannot eliminate energy
poverty. Deeper measures can risk displacement of poorer populations through
gentrification. Funding systems that rely on householder access to capital leave
the poorest, and private-rented sector tenants in particular, further disadvantaged,
while mechanisms that recoup the costs through general increases in energy bills
can raise the incidence of energy poverty.
With a high share of emissions attributable to providing energy services
(especially heating) in buildings, and a low renewal rate of buildings (especially
residential ones), achieving deep cuts in carbon emissions will necessitate rapid
rates of retrofit. For any given emissions cut there is a trade-off between the rate
at which additional properties are treated, and the depth of the treatment (in terms
of the proportionate reduction of existing energy demand achieved).1
Energy retrofit is fairly common in both the USA and Europe (where 70–80
per cent of buildings pre-date effective efficiency standards BPIE, 2011). Itard
et al. (2006: 92) report: ‘in most [European] countries, the number of buildings
. . . renovated each year substantially exceeds the annual number of newly built
dwellings. In most cases, energy ambitions are an important reason to renovate.’
However, measured against carbon reduction ambitions, retrofit is typically either
too slow, too shallow or both. In broad terms, the supply of additional low-carbon
energy (through support for renewable or nuclear power, or the development of
carbon capture and storage technology) receives disproportionate policy attention
and effort.
It is posited here that to achieve socially just retrofit (in the UK) requires both
new policies and new funding mechanisms to deliver universal deep retrofit. This
144 MCLAREN

chapter focuses on experiences outside the UK, and in particular in Germany and
Austria to consider the potential for much more ambitious and socially just
approaches to urban retrofit.

8.2 Retrofit and energy poverty

Ageing building stocks, especially in the face of rising energy prices, typically
contribute to a persistent problem of energy poverty.2 Energy poverty is distinctive
from income poverty in that it arises where households have difficulty in affording
basic energy services such as heating because of the combination of poverty with
either high energy prices (imposed through prepayment meters for example), or
poor infrastructure (such as hard to heat homes) or both (Boardman, 2010;
Househam, 2010). Energy poverty can have severe health impacts, contributing
to higher levels of respiratory illness, and to the phenomenon of extra winter
deaths.
Experience in the UK suggests that schemes designed to address fuel poverty
by enhancing energy efficiency in currently inefficient buildings (such as Warm
Zones, and the Central Heating Replacement Scheme) have a relatively good,
although still inadequate, record in alleviating fuel poverty (EST et al., 2005;
Sheldrick and Hepburn, 2007; Edrich et al., 2011). On the other hand, measures
intended to increase the incomes of, or reduce the costs of fuel to those vulnerable
to fuel poverty (such as social tariffs) appear to be poorly targeted and largely
ineffective (Baker, 2006; Brinkley and Less, 2010). Among other problems,
targeting households with children, elderly people or those in receipt of benefits
misses two further groups disproportionately represented in fuel poverty: the rural
poor, and single-adult households of working age (Palmer et al., 2008).
In the UK, legal definitions of ‘fuel poverty’ focus on a household’s need to
spend more than a certain share of income on energy services. So a household
may be in ‘fuel poverty’ simply because of income poverty, even in a good quality
home with access to relatively low-cost energy. More sophisticated ‘capability’
definitions of fuel poverty focus on the likely obstacles to a household being able
to access energy services. Income and affordability still feature, but factors such
as housing quality and energy supply conditions come to the fore. In this respect
energy poverty is an issue of failed recognition of the needs of particular types of
householders (Walker and Day, 2012).
A lack of consistent (or in many countries any) definitions and statistical
measures makes it impossible to undertake a meaningful international comparison
of energy poverty. However there is little reason to doubt that the problem is
widespread and potentially severe wherever income poverty and old or poor
housing intersect. It has been identified in virtually all European nations, North
and South America and Australasia (Buzar, 2007; Househam, 2010). It affects
households both where winter heating and summer cooling are the respective
challenges. It is however, very unevenly recognised. For example, in the UK it is
legally defined and formally measured, while in post-communist Eastern Europe,
while widespread, it is rarely acknowledged (Buzar, 2007).
The vulnerability of different types of household is also unevenly addressed.
Exposure of urban transient populations, often young and immigrant, is particu-
larly unrecognised in comparison to that of the elderly, single parents and families
 ENERGY POVERTY AND URBAN RETROFIT 145

(Bouzaroski, 2011) while risks to the rural poor and single person households of
working age are underestimated in the UK (Palmer et al., 2008). Even when
exposure is recognised, policies run the risk of typecasting and even stigmatising
the energy poor.
Housing retrofits that either improve energy efficiency, or provide access to
affordable self-generated (renewable) energy can help tackle energy poverty while
also reducing carbon emissions.3 The emissions benefit may be reduced by a
(socially desirable) rebound effect in which energy poor households take some
part of improved access to energy services in enhanced comfort. In contrast,
measures to reduce carbon emissions from energy generation that lead to higher
unit energy prices (or higher standing charges) risk exacerbating existing problems
of energy poverty.
UK Feed-In Tariff (FIT) support for small-scale renewables can be criticised
for this reason, with the additional potential injustice that even with high FITs
and installation support it remains significantly easier for relatively wealthy home
owners to invest in such installations, than for those in energy poverty. However,
appropriate support for micro-generation can be a useful part of a strategy to
tackle energy poverty. For example in remote rural, off-gas grid properties, trials
of supported installation of renewable heating systems (or heat-pumps) have been
found to alleviate energy poverty (Clear Plan UK and Logan Project Management,
2008).
Access to retrofit measures raises further distributional concerns. Needs for
capital and secure tenure (with a sympathetic landlord) may limit the access of
the most vulnerable to retrofit measures. In Belgium already advantaged house-
holds have been shown to find it easier to access even basic support and advice
(Bartiaux et al., 2011). In North Carolina black households typically face higher
electricity bills because of inefficient buildings and appliances, but make less use
of compact fluorescent light-bulb give-aways funded through higher unit energy
prices (Thoyre, 2011).
Means testing of support adds a further potential obstacle and stigma. Universal
provision on the other hand implies a large level of free-riding, and higher overall
costs, with potential injustice if those costs are funded through levies or other
additions to energy bills. Preston et al. (2010) show that in comparison to the
use of general taxation, funding energy efficiency programmes through flat-rate
levies on energy bills is regressive and can be argued to unfairly penalise financially
disadvantaged households. Moreover, in some countries, benefits systems rules
mean that even where fuel costs are reduced by retrofit, gains to the household
can be offset by reduced benefit payments (Househam, 2010).
The net effect can be similar if refurbishment leads to higher rent levels. While
social landlords typically manage rental levels, where retrofit occurs in the private
rented sector (a key problem sector for energy poverty), rents may rise – potentially
by more than energy cost savings – even if refurbishment costs have been
subsidised. In Germany, Austria and The Netherlands, rent regulation has ensured
that the tenants gain the majority of the benefits (Amecke and Neuhoff, 2011;
Tigchelaar, 2011).
From a justice perspective all this makes the inclusion of targeted measures to
mitigate energy poverty a critical part of climate policy. But it must be noted that
not all renovation and redevelopment activity – nor its social impacts – are driven
146 MCLAREN

by energy and climate policy. According to Itard et al. (2006: 92) ‘the (social)
upgrading of neighbourhoods’ is an important factor. Similarly, for households,
expenditure on home improvements and extensions can be a significant indicator
of status. In extreme cases, displacement can follow renovation. This directly
affects tenants rather than existing home owners, and particularly those on short-
term and informal tenancies, but rising housing values can indirectly exclude whole
sections of the population from large areas of cities.
Gentrification may be not just a social process, but a policy designed to deliver
higher tax revenues and enable the relocation of politically problematic popula-
tions (Lees, 2008), resulting in further exclusion of poorer and ethnic groups from
the facilities and capabilities of urban life. Insofar as policies to address fuel
poverty also stimulate gentrification – without compensatory measures such as
rent regulation – this could significantly reduce their social justice benefits.

8.3 Policy, practice and financing

This section turns in more detail to policy choices and approaches to delivery and
financing of retrofit, with particular reference to experiences in Germany and
Austria. The relative efficacy and justice implications both of different technical
approaches and different financing approaches are considered.

8.3.1 Demolish or deep retrofit?

It has been argued that where properties are especially inefficient and difficult and
costly to refurbish, demolition and rebuild may both save more carbon and
alleviate fuel poverty more effectively. Boardman et al. (2005) estimates 3 million
demolitions will be needed in the UK by 2050, targeting the hardest to treat homes.
Roberts (2008: 4474) also argues that ‘a significant increase in demolition rates
targeted on the least thermally efficient dwellings, and their replacement by more
efficient ones, would have a disproportionately beneficial effect on the fuel poor,
who are most likely to occupy these dwellings.’
However, both the achievable standards of refurbishment and the carbon costs
of demolition and rebuild may have been underestimated (Power, 2008), while
the social impacts of demolition are typically severe. Estimates cited by Power
(2008) suggest that replacement might be preferable on carbon terms in the long
term (50 years plus), but refurbishment is preferable in shorter timeframes because
of the level of embodied emissions in new construction. This is significant both
because an early peak in emissions is required, and because it reduces the level
of additional low-carbon energy generation needed to meet future demand.
German experience suggests that deeper refurbishment is practical, even though
the costs may not be outweighed by the value of direct energy savings in all cases.4
As of 2011, there were 8,000 Effizienz haus model retrofits using 30 per cent
less energy than the Energy Conservation Act standard (Power and Zulauf, 2011)
and smaller numbers of ‘Factor 10’, and deep ‘Better than New’ refurbishment
(Laustsen, 2011). Neuhoff et al. (2011a) find that in 5 of 7 cases modelled
householders and grant-makers combined incur lower annuitised costs (over the
20-year loan period) in retrofit than the value of saved energy. Even in the excep-
tions (for deep retrofits to 55 per cent or less of new-build minimum standards),
 ENERGY POVERTY AND URBAN RETROFIT 147

at €20,000–40,000 per dwelling, retrofit remains much lower cost than replace-
ment in absolute terms. At €200–250 per tonne (Korytarova, 2006) deep retrofit
may seem expensive carbon mitigation. But a significant share of the cost is regained
from energy savings, and the non-carbon co-benefits such as improved dwellings,
greater employment and better health may offset the remainder (McLaren, 2010).
Modelling work suggests that deep retrofit should be more widely applied: not
just in cases where demolition might otherwise be recommended. BPIE (2011)
assess different rates and depths of renovation, single- and two-phase renovation,
and slow and fast energy supply decarbonisation, finding (across Europe) that the
deepest renovations (whether achieved in one or two phases) deliver the highest
energy and CO2 savings, the highest net financial benefits and the largest additional
employment. BPIE conclude that 3 per cent of the stock should be renovated every
year, and that most renovations should be deep (although a two stage process
may be financially optimal if householders or energy consumers are expected to
pay the investment costs).
Herrero (2011) also finds deep retrofit approaches preferable. His modelling
for Hungary suggests that the deeper the retrofits, the greater the net benefits,
although deep retrofit programmes (80 per cent plus reductions in energy
requirements) would require sustained deficit investment for 5–10 years. Most
importantly for social justice, it appears that only with deeper programmes (60
to 90 per cent reductions in energy requirements) would extra winter deaths be
reduced. There are currently lower rates of extra winter deaths in countries that
have deep refurbishment programmes (like Germany) or long-standing high new-
build efficiency standards (like Sweden) (Healy, 2004) although other factors also
have roles to play.

8.3.2 Delivery in practice

To deliver deep retrofit involves three pillars of policy – a legal framework; subsidy
programmes; and information, advice and support. In German energy efficiency
policy, there are strong synergies between building standards, subsidies and
information programmes (Amecke and Neuhoff, 2011). Austria uses the same
three pillars: describing them as ‘stick, carrot and tambourine’ (Dell, 2011: 11),
and delivers 75–80 per cent energy consumption reductions in retrofit (resulting
in similar post-retrofit average consumption levels as in Germany).
Nonetheless Korytarova’s (2006) evaluation of the German programme
identified shortfalls in overall CO2 reductions against targets. Kwapich’s (2008:
8) analysis indicated that this may have been both because the ‘retrofitting rate
is too low: 1.8–2 per cent instead of 2.5 per cent’ and too shallow, in that
individual ‘retrofit projects are still not fully exploiting potential energy savings’.
UK retrofit rates are much lower still.
Key choices in the design of retrofit schemes, particularly regarding geographical
focus and the extent of included measures, have implications for both depth and
rate of retrofit, as well as for social outcomes.

8.3.3 A whole-building approach

Deep retrofits imply a comprehensive or ‘whole building’ approach, rather than
installation of specific improvements. But in many countries (even within the EU,
148 MCLAREN

where a whole building approach is mandated by the Energy Performance

of Buildings Directive; BPIE, 2011), efficiency schemes or tax incentives often
promote the installation of isolated measures on short-term cost-effectiveness
grounds.
For example, in the UK in the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT)
scheme, the scoring system incentivised least-cost delivery, resulting in delivery
of lower-cost measures – notably lighting and insulation – in easier to treat
properties and more accessible areas (DECC, 2011). Such shallow interventions
are effectively ‘cherry picking’ energy savings (Neuhoff et al., 2011b), with the
disadvantage of raising the future average net costs of deep retrofits. In contrast,
in the Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP) scheme, at least two
measures were installed in most properties: most commonly solid wall insulation
and one other measure (DECC, 2011). However CESP has focused on social
housing, leaving the problematic private rental sector largely untouched.
In Austria and Germany, the comprehensive approach has extended to micro-
generation. Eligibility for feed-in tariffs for domestic renewables is directly linked
to achievement of energy efficiency standards (Power and Zulauf, 2011). To
encourage a comprehensive approach, Austria’s soft loans are now restricted to
houses achieving low energy standards close to new build (Dell, 2011), while in
Germany greater reductions in energy use attract lower loan rates as well as greater
subsidies.
The Austrian approach also strongly emphasises renewable heating. A 46 per
cent share has been achieved, notably through high utilisation of solar energy,
and increased biomass use for both household and district heating. Austria has
successfully developed renewable heating industry clusters (Späth and Rohracher,
2010). Austria’s biomass boiler industry now produces 25 per cent of all EU
installed biomass boilers (Egger, 2011). Standardisation of both pellets and boilers
has been a key market-making tool.
The integration of micro-generation and efficiency has obvious technical and
economic synergies: with lower domestic demand, more energy can be exported
by a household. It also has important social and cultural synergies, increasing
energy literacy and stimulating energy citizenship (Bergman, 2009).

8.3.4 Area-based approaches

Resources and activity can be focused on particular areas (in particular periods),
rather than offering measures to households anywhere at all times in a national
scheme. ‘Area-based approaches’

typically involve all households in a particular area being offered face-to-face

energy advice, together with insulation measures, and are seen to offer the potential
for high rates of take-up, including identifying and engaging consumers who might
not otherwise access centrally-provided services.
(CAG Consultants, 2010: 3)

Such approaches can deliver up to 30 per cent lower cost through the
bulk purchase of insulation measures, and productivity levels – gained from
reduced travelling time between installations – can be 50 per cent higher (CAG
 ENERGY POVERTY AND URBAN RETROFIT 149

Consultants, 2010). The highest levels of benefit are achieved outside of urban
areas where otherwise a critical density of activity could not be achieved. Area-
based schemes can also help with targeting energy poor households, but only if
a door-to-door approach is linked with universal grant support. Otherwise the
energy poor might be neither identified nor willing to participate if ineligible for
support (CAG Consultants, 2010).
The benefits of area-based approaches vary with the levels of support and the
degree of voluntarism involved. In UK area-based schemes, unless free measures
are provided, the proportion of properties treated remains low, around 10 per
cent. Where at least some of the measures offered are free and universally
available, take up rates may be as high as 37.7 per cent (Kirklees) or even 57 per
cent (Hadyard Hill) (CAG Consultants, 2010). These are, however, relatively
shallow interventions (achieving perhaps 20 per cent reduction in emissions).
The involvement of the local authority in delivery – even of national schemes
– is considered crucial to reassure householders of a scheme’s credibility (DECC,
2011). For deep retrofit in the German model, local delivery of national schemes
also appears to have been effective. In deep retrofit, the efficiency benefits of area-
based schemes are a proportionately less significant element of total cost, but
should not be ignored.

8.3.5 Financing
The level of financing is clearly critical to the achievement of deep retrofit, and
the financing methods are also important in terms of equity and energy poverty,
among other goals. Amecke and Neuhoff (2011) note that financial policy
measures in Germany aim both to provide capital at low cost, and in advance;
and to align incentives between landlords and tenants.
Overall levels of support in Germany and Austria are high. The 2001–4
average expenditure per dwelling (combined grant and loan) was approximately
€20,000 (Korytarova, 2006), and has subsequently grown.

Generous subsidies and low-interest loans are combined with highly ambitious
standards and a ‘whole house’ approach, creating combined investments in energy
efficiency and renewable technology (at approximately €36,000 per home) far
greater than levels proposed for the United Kingdom (approximately £4,000 to
£10,000).
(Power and Zulauf, 2011: 64)

In the US, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is focused on
subsidising energy costs, but also supports the Weatherization Assistance Program
(WAP). WAP funding is available to households with incomes below two times
the official poverty line. Yet ‘the maximum level of support . . . available under
WAP is US$6,500 per dwelling, which is used to undertake an energy audit and
install the measures that are indicated from the audit as being the most cost
effective’ (Househam, 2010: 21). Rates of support in some areas have risen
following the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: for instance New York
City has powers to establish a revolving loan programme to provide up to
$13,000 per residential customer to retrofit a home (Cajina et al., 2009).
150 MCLAREN

In Germany finance is channelled through KfW (originally Kreditanstalt

für Wiederaufbau), a state development bank. The higher the energy improve-
ments, the lower the interest rate (Power and Zulauf, 2011). For the ‘efficient
house’ standard, the current interest rate is 1.75 per cent, while for individual
measures it is 2.45 per cent. The interest rate is fixed for the first 10 years.
The maximum subsidy also grows in line with the efficiency standard achieved –
from 10 per cent (for 130 per cent of new-build level) to 20 per cent (for 70 per
cent of new-build efficiency level). Only applicants who are not credit worthy
or who propose over-costly measures are excluded from financing. There is
no legal limit to eligibility, and particular subsidy programmes can apply to
exceptional cases.
The German model provides very strong incentives for comprehensive retrofit,
with higher grants and lower-interest loans. By contrast tax incentive models in
the US, Italy and the Netherlands appear ineffective at stimulating comprehensive
retrofit. For example, just 2 per cent of Italy’s tax incentives programme and
3 per cent of The Netherlands’ are used for comprehensive retrofits, while in the
US tax credits are only available on a single measure basis (Neuhoff et al.,
2011b). Neuhoff et al. (2011b) also find evidence of relatively high free-rider rates
in tax incentive regimes.
The high levels of finance in the German model are both socially and politically
motivated. Following reunification, the German government committed itself to
equalising conditions across the unified country. Yet the eastern Länder contained
up to 8 million uninsulated concrete housing units (Power and Zulauf, 2011).
This demanded a more radical approach to retrofit than found elsewhere in
Europe, one which has delivered significant social benefits and which is also now
seen as appropriate climate policy, with wider implications for climate justice.

8.3.6 Information
The concept of combining access to loans with access to impartial, professional
advice via one agency helps to simplify an often complex and overwhelming
process (Pearce and Debono, 2011). A guarantee system for the performance of
efficiency measures helps provide confidence for the quality level of renovation
measures to consumers and investors (BPIE, 2011). To ensure refurbishment meets
standards and to build trust in householders, Germany has introduced certification
and quality standards (Kraus, 2011). This provides a strong information frame-
work with clear labelling, engaging directly with the need for behaviour change.
This is further supported by retrofit of public buildings, as well as private homes
to provide conspicuous examples (Power and Zulauf, 2011).
Good information is not just a tool to stimulate participation, it is a critical
element in effective delivery of potential savings in both private and social housing.
In the latter context, FinSH (2010) highlight the importance of involving residents
in two-way dialogue about the retrofit process and outcomes; choosing measures
appropriate to both the building and the residents; and providing intelligible
post-retrofit advice and training to maximise benefits. They also highlight the
need to properly identify those at risk among tenants (e.g. via intermediaries such
as community health workers), and subsequently integrating evaluation and
monitoring of energy and social outcomes.
 ENERGY POVERTY AND URBAN RETROFIT 151

8.4 Retrofit and employment

The social justice implications of energy policy extend beyond questions of
access to energy services, notably to employment. In several countries clean
energy investments have featured in economic stimulus packages. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 allocated $5 billion dollars
to the US WAP. Every $1 million invested in the energy efficiency sector has
been estimated to create approximately 13, often local, ‘job-years’ in installation
and construction, and potentially, 4 ‘job-years’ in manufacturing (Cajina et al.,
2009).
But the jobs generated can be very poorly paid and short-lived. This is because

individual weatherisation projects are small-scale and dispersed, making them very
unattractive for the more responsible contractors to bid for. The small and poorly
resourced contractors who tend to perform this work cannot afford to pay decent
wages, provide job security, or offer other benefits such as training
(Househam, 2010: 28).

Area-based and larger-scale schemes could therefore be expected to deliver better

quality jobs as well as greater levels of employment benefit. UK research suggests
substantial local multipliers from area-based schemes, providing significant local
employment benefits in otherwise relatively deprived locations (CAG Consultants,
2010). The greater skill requirements of deep retrofit are also likely to be more
suited to the establishment of quality jobs with greater investment in training.
Retrofit is relatively employment intensive as an energy investment and can be
expected to generate jobs involving a wider range of skills and locations than new
energy supply. In four years ‘since 2006, Germany has created . . . nearly 900,000
job [years] in retrofitting homes and public buildings’ (KfW, cited by Power and
Zulauf, 2011: 8). But careful scheme design is needed to ensure quality jobs are
made available to those in most need. Sarin (2009) highlights the need for
appropriate training if retrofit programmes are to generate long-term employment
for marginalised unemployed people as auditors and installers.
In the USA, community workforce agreements have proved valuable in
this respect. Clean Energy Works Portland developed such an agreement, which
established a set of contracting, training and employment standards to ensure
that the programme creates high-quality, local employment and career oppor-
tunities for low income and historically marginalised populations (Taylor,
2011). WeatherizeDC in Washington also involved agreement ‘between a national
trade union and a local energy audit and weatherisation business, to ensure that
workers engaged under the scheme receive a decent wage and recognised training’
(Househam, 2010: 24).

8.5 Retrofit and urban transformation

Retrofit cannot be considered independent of wider processes of urban change.
Späth and Rohracher (2010) suggest that a multi-level perspective of innovation
can help explain the dynamics of urban transformation processes and the obduracy
of existing energy system configurations. They highlight the importance of creating
152 MCLAREN

new discourses or visions at a regional level, shared among stakeholders, if new

visions of energy futures are to prevail in contested socio-political domains.
Such perspectives are essential if the urban system is primarily an economic–
political one (rather than socio-technical). The latter suggests that (to some
degree) planned interventions can be assembled and implemented, while the
former emphasises the political conflicts between interests that lead to economic
expressions in urban form. Advocates of a low-carbon transformation through
retrofit must beware of the interests of financial capital in ‘tearing down and
renewing’ (Harvey, 2011) rather than refurbishing. In particular, where renewal
activity is driven by financial capital interests such as property price speculation,
it is likely to minimise development costs, rather than subsequent operating costs,
and apply quality standards based on an anticipated short building lifespan.
Neither factor promotes high efficiency.
Further, any retrofit that does happen to coincide with the interests of capital
is likely to have serious social implications. The social justice issues arising in the
planning, implementation and financing of urban redevelopment and retrofit go
well beyond energy poverty. They include the displacement of disadvantaged
groups through rising land values and rents, and the exclusion of disadvantaged
groups from public spaces and other public resources in cities through encroaching
privatisation.
Various authors have offered scenarios calculating the numbers of retrofits
required to hit particular climate targets (e.g. Boardman et al., 2005; Ekins and
Skea, 2009). Such modelling is invaluable, but without changed shared socio-
political visions, such scenarios are unlikely to be realised. The practical
conclusions are two-fold. First, effort is required to begin building shared visions
of an inclusive society where high quality of life is achieved with little energy input.
And in parallel, the material transformations needed can be started with an
integrated package of measures aiming at deep refurbishment at rates that match
the ultimate ambition, rather than incremental, market-led measures that
continually pass the cost, and the buck, to future generations.
Before concluding this section it is essential to consider briefly the potential
impact of systemic or disruptive innovations. By their nature such disruptive
innovations are hard to forecast, but in this case a plausible transformation is to
‘smart cities’ with rapid uptake of embedded information and communication
technology in buildings and the energy system, producing smart grids with smart
metering, much increased decentralised energy generation and storage, especially
linked to electric vehicles and/or fuel cells, as well as widespread deployment of
technologies such as solar PV. In such scenarios buildings become net sources
of energy, rather than net consumers. Retrofit of the most expensive efficiency
measures might be disincentivised, but deep retrofit in principle would be
encouraged, as it would enable greater excess generation for sale back to the
grid, and policy design could easily link support for micro-generation to retrofit.
Nonetheless, avoiding energy poverty would still require targeted intervention
based on a full understanding of energy poverty as a capability and recognition
issue.
 ENERGY POVERTY AND URBAN RETROFIT 153

8.6 Conclusions: learning from deep retrofit

experience and innovation
This section seeks to summarise learning from deep retrofit programmes in terms
of procedures, financing and policy, identify potential obstacles to their deploy-
ment at scale, and highlight innovations that might enable the application of this
learning elsewhere. The German model of deep refurbishment would be novel in
the UK, USA and many other countries. It is therefore worth considering further
its key elements, and obstacles to its wider deployment.
Political innovation was central to the German model, but it has also involved
technical and organisational innovation. Financial support for pilots and models
has allowed continued experimentation with techniques and methods. Effective
post-retrofit evaluation has enabled learning, especially to cut labour costs. The
German model has also delivered innovation and economies of scale in local area-
based schemes.
The proKlima cooperative in Hannover is a leading example, which pioneered
the implementation of the ‘Passivhaus’ standard in existing homes, and promotes
a city-based approach (Timm, 2009). It is also attentive to social factors. Based
on a funding partnership between the local authorities and the local energy
company, it has an advisory board including workers, suppliers, customers,
environmental and consumer protection organisations. proKlima also organises
courses for unemployed people with technical backgrounds to become energy
efficiency advisers (Timm, 2009).
Here it is suggested that three key innovations are needed in UK policy: a UK
version of ‘stick, carrot and tambourine’ in which the stick is regulatory drivers
that demand deep retrofit; the carrot, finance that extends to deep retrofit and is
available to all; and the tambourine more of a ‘choir’ that provides a framework
of mutual support through new collective models of area-based intervention and
seeks to prevent displacement of members of disadvantaged groups out of
improved properties.
The German model remains voluntary. Strong financial incentives, certification,
and early and deep engagement with quality information help overcome resistance
from occupiers. Even with these measures participation rates lag carbon targets
(although overall achievements far exceed those in countries with shallow retrofit
schemes).
In the UK, financial incentives can clearly be strengthened, but financial
cost and benefit do not uniformly motivate action. For example, the disruptive
effect of deep refurbishment on household life could easily outweigh financial
considerations. Solid wall and floor insulation cannot be installed without
major disruption (equivalent to building work). Reluctance to participate is
exacerbated by the fact that with such major interventions, especially with
innovative technologies, householders have no chance to ‘try before they buy’.
Also, ‘open house’ demonstrations schemes (Hamilton, 2009) typically only reach
the likely pioneers in terms of uptake.
Regulatory tools might also be considered. There is evidence that participation
in pro-environmental activities is hampered because the public fear that others
will free-ride and not take inconvenient steps unless required to (SDC, 2006).
Boardman (2007) outlines one option to apply this learning to retrofit with a
154 MCLAREN

‘renovation requirement’ model linked to energy labelling, in which it would

become illegal to sell or rent a property without meeting specified progressively
higher minimum energy standards (while finance would be provided for deep
refurbishment at that point).
Recent innovations in the UK policy arena in the so-called ‘Green Deal’
aim to encourage uptake of long-payback measures by attaching a charge to
the building’s energy bills, regardless of changes in ownership. This is likely
to have positive effects at the margin, but the payback rules make deep retrofit
unattractive, especially for (typically poorer) households without independent
access to capital.
Instead finance is required that extends to deep retrofit and is available to all
domestic buildings, through revolving funds, or from a strong financial institution
providing low-interest loans (rather than relying on grants or tax concessions).
In this respect the constitution of the UK Green Investment Bank is a missed
opportunity in comparison with Germany’s KfW.
Internationally, the emergence of localised co-production and sharing models
is common in the retrofit field, with many (mainly small-scale) voluntary and
community based schemes (see, e.g. Walker 2008; Househam, 2010; Pearce and
Debono, 2011), but few have reached significant scale. However, with removal
of market barriers to energy service companies, and eligibility for FITs for com-
munity enterprises, the prospect of community businesses running virtual power
plants (Bergman, 2009) in emerging models of collective or co-production could
become real. Such approaches might achieve the benefits of area-based schemes
for costs and social justice, while generating meaningful local employment.
In summary, to deliver the emissions reductions necessary for climate mitigation
and eliminating energy poverty will require a significantly elevated rate of deep
renovation. Logistics and economics suggest that doing so through area-based,
whole-house approaches is best practice, while also maximising social benefits in
reduction of energy poverty and generation of quality sustainable employment.
This would require a radical shift in current UK policy, and costs are likely to be
significantly higher than current UK plans for investment: 3–5 times more per
house than the Green Deal. To ensure that such investments can be made without
exacerbating fuel poverty, they should be funded from general taxation and
administered by a public financial institution. While properly recognising energy
poverty can help ensure effective policy, the experience from Germany and Austria
suggests that effective measures for deep renovation that overcome limitations
from access to capital can do much in practice to alleviate it, even without formal
legal definition.

Notes
* Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK, and McLaren Environmental,
Västerås, Sweden.
1 ‘Deep’ renovation is considered to be that which achieves end levels of energy demand
similar to or better than that of a modern new-build property.
2 This chapter uses the term energy poverty for the generic issues of unaffordability of
energy services for certain groups, as ‘fuel poverty’ is politically and technically
defined so as to refer to thermal energy use and particular income thresholds.
 ENERGY POVERTY AND URBAN RETROFIT 155

3 The structure of the programme and its financing are critical: for instance, mechanisms
that finance efficiency while adding the costs to energy prices could either increase or
decrease the overall incidence of fuel poverty.
4 Deep refurbishment would be unlikely to meet the payback period rule of current UK
retrofit. However, nor would demolition and rebuild.

References
A note on sources: This topic is relatively poorly covered in peer-reviewed academic
literature, so this chapter frequently cites grey literature, as well as early-stage academic
research. Those wishing to refer to INCLUESEV papers cited can find them at www.
lancaster.ac.uk/lec/sites/incluesev.

Amecke, H., and Neuhoff, K. (2011) Map of Policies Supporting Thermal Efficiency in
Germany’s Residential Building Sector. Berlin: Climate Policy Initiative.
Baker, W. (2006) Social Tariffs: A solution to fuel poverty? Bristol, UK: Centre for
Sustainable Energy; London: National Right to Fuel Campaign.
Bartiaux, F., de Menten, T., Servais, O., and Frogneux, N. (2011) ‘Policies affecting energy
poverty in Belgium: Paradoxes between social and climate policies’. Paper presented
at the InCluESEV Workshop, Durham, NC, 6–7 October 2011.
Bergman, N. (2009) Can Microgeneration Catalyse Behaviour Change in The Domestic
Energy Sector in the UK? ECEEE 2009 Summer Study. Accessed 9 October 2013 at:
www.eceee.org/conference_proceedings/eceee/2009/Panel_1/1.029/paper.
Boardman, B. (2007) Home Truths: A low carbon strategy to reduce UK housing emissions
by 80% by 2050. A research report for The Co-operative Bank and Friends of the Earth.
Oxford: Environmental Change Institute.
Boardman, B. (2010) Fixing Fuel Poverty: Challenges and solutions. London: Earthscan.
Boardman, B., Darby, S., Killip, G., Hinnells, M., Jardine, C. N., Palmer J., and Sinden, G.
(2005) 40% House. Oxford: Environmental Change Institute.
Bouzaroski, S. (2011) ‘Unpacking the institutional embeddedness of energy poverty:
A Bulgarian case study’. Paper presented at the InCluESEV Workshop, Durham, NC,
6–7 October 2011.
BPIE (Buildings Performance Institute Europe) (2011) Europe’s Buildings under the
Microscope: A country-by-country review of the energy performance of buildings.
Brussels: BPIE.
Brinkley, A., and Less, S. (2010) Cold Comfort: Fuel poverty and the winter fuel payment.
London: Policy Exchange Research Note.
Buzar, S. (2007) Energy Poverty in Eastern Europe: Hidden geographies of deprivation.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
CAG Consultants (2010) Review of Area-Based Energy Efficiency Initiatives in Scotland.
Final report to Consumer Focus Scotland. London: CAG.
Cajina, A., Pace, K. H., Patterson, A., and Randall, C. J. (2009) Policy Brief: How local
policies can support the development of green jobs. Working Paper Series, Economic
Development: Communities and regions. New York: Department of City and Regional
Planning, Cornell University.
Clear Plan UK and Logan Project Management (2008) The Scottish Renewables Heating
Pilot. Scottish Government Social Research. Accessed 9 October 2013 at: www.
scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/245506/0069193.pdf.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2011) Research Report: Evaluation
synthesis of energy supplier obligation policies. London: DECC.
Dell, G. (2011) ‘EPBD implementation: Optimising towards nearly zero buildings. O. Ö.
Energiesparverband, Austria’. Presentation at World Sustainable Energy Days, Wels,
156 MCLAREN

Austria, 2–4 March 2011. Accessed 9 October 2013 at: www.wsed.at/fileadmin/redakteure/

WSED/2011/download_presentations/31_Dell_BuildingRenovation.pdf.
Edrich, B., Beagley, K., Webber, P., and Kelling, S. (2011) Kirklees Warm Zone Final Report
2007–2010. Kirklees Council. Accessed 9 October 2013 at: www.kirklees.gov.uk/com
munity/environment/energyconservation/warmzone/WarmZoneReport.pdf.
Egger, C. (2011) ‘Stick, carrots and tambourine. Heating with pellets in Upper Austria’.
Presentation at World Sustainable Energy Days, Wels, Austria, 2–4 March 2011.
Accessed 9 October 2013 at: www.wsed.at/fileadmin/redakteure/WSED/2011/down
load_presentations/14_Egger-pellets.pdfwww.
Ekins, P., and Skea, J. (eds) (2009) Energy 2050: Making the transition to a secure and low-
carbon energy system: Synthesis report. London: UK Energy Research Centre.
EST (Energy Savings Trust), CSE (Centre for Sustainable Energy) and NEA (National Energy
Action) (2005) ‘Warm zones external evaluation final report: Executive Summary’.
Accessed 9 October 2013 at: www.cse.org.uk/downloads/file/warm_zones_external_
evaluation_exec_summary.pdf.
FinSH (Financial and Support Instruments for Fuel Poverty in Social Housing) (2010)
Affordable Warmth for All: A guide to improving energy efficiency in the social housing
stock, for social housing providers, residents and supporting organisations. Accessed
9 October 2013 at: www.ecuba.it/English%20Guide.pdf.
Hamilton, J. (2009) ‘Keeping up with the Joneses in the great British refurb: Social learning
from ecohomes open days and exemplar projects’. Presentation at RESOLVE
Conference: Sustainable lives? The challenges of low-carbon living in a changing
economic climate, London, 18 June 2009.
Harvey, D. (2011) The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism. London: Profile.
Harvey, L. D. D. (2008) ‘Reducing energy use in the buildings sector: Measures, costs, and
examples’, Energy Efficiency, 2: 139–63.
Healy, J. D. (2004) Housing, Fuel Poverty and Health; A pan-European analysis. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate.
Herrero, S. T. (2011) ‘Assessing the co-benefits of building retrofit programs: Alleviating
fuel poverty in Hungary’. Paper presented at the InCluESEV Workshop, Durham, NC,
6–7 October 2011.
Househam, I. (2010) Policies and Initiatives to Combat Fuel Poverty: Identifying
international best practice. Romania: Eco/UNDP.
Itard, L., Meijer, F., Vrins, E., and Hoiting, H. (2006) Building Renovation and
Modernisation in Europe: State of the art review. Delft, The Netherlands: OTB
Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies.
Korytarova, K. (2006) Evaluation of KfW Soft Loans for Building Modernisation within
the Framework of the Aid – ee project. Energy Intelligence for Europe Program, contract
number EIE-2003-114.
Kraus, F. (2011) ‘Pilot project: Efficient homes’. Presentation in Paris, 2 February 2011.
Berlin: DENA (German Energy Agency).
Kwapich, T. (2008) ‘Germany’s investment in energy efficient existing homes’. Presentation
in London, 10 December 2008. Berlin: DENA (German Energy Agency).
Laustsen, J. (2011) ‘Implementation of passive and zero energy buildings in Europe’.
Presentation at Passive House Institute – US Conference, Washington, DC, 28–29
October 2011. Accessed 9 October 2013 at: www.passivehouse.us/phc2011/2011%
20Presentations%20PDF/Lausten,%20Jens%20-%20301%20JL%20PHIUS%20-
%20October%202011.pdf.
Lees, L. (2008) ‘Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance?’,
Urban Studies, 45(12), 2449–70.
McLaren, D. P. (2010) 42% Better: The feasibility and added value of meeting Scotland’s
climate change target for 2020. Edinburgh: Friends of the Earth Scotland.
 ENERGY POVERTY AND URBAN RETROFIT 157

Neuhoff, K., Amecke, H., Stelmakh, K., Rosenberg, A., and Novikova, A. (2011a) Meeting
Energy Concept Targets for Residential Retrofits in Germany: Economic viability,
financial support, and energy savings. Berlin: Climate Policy Initiative.
Neuhoff, K., Amecke, H., Novikova, A., Stelmakh, K., Deason, J., and Hobbs, A. (2011b)
Using Tax Incentives to Support Thermal Retrofits in Germany. Berlin: Climate
Policy Initiative.
Neuhoff, K., Amecke, H., Novikova, A., and Stelmakh, K. (2011c) Thermal Efficiency
Retrofit of Residential Buildings: The German experience. Berlin: Climate Policy
Initiative.
Palmer, G., MacInnes, T., and Kenway, P. (2008) Cold and Poor: An analysis of the link
between fuel poverty and low income. London: New Policy Institute. Accessed 9
October 2013 at: www.poverty.org.uk/reports/fuel%20poverty.pdf.
Pearce, C., and Debono, C. (2011) Saving Energy in Europe: 15 good practice case studies.
Brussels: European Environmental Bureau.
Power, A. (2008) ‘Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help to
increase our environmental, social and economic viability?’, Energy Policy, 36:
4487–501.
Power, A., and Zulauf, M. (2011) Cutting Carbon Costs: Learning from Germany’s energy
saving program. Report for ‘What Works Collective’. London and New York.
Preston, I., White, V.,and Guertler P. (2010) Distributional Impacts of UK Climate Change
Policies. Final report to EAGA Charitable Trust.
Roberts, S. (2008) ‘Energy, equity and the future of the fuel poor’, Energy Policy, 36: 4471–4.
Sarin, A. (2009) Equitable Economic Energy Efficiency: Creating good jobs in low-income
efficiency programming. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Department of Urban Studies and Planning.
SDC (Sustainable Development Commission) (2006) I Will if You Will: Towards sustainable
consumption. London: National Consumer Council and Sustainable Development
Commission.
Sheldrick, B., and Hepburn, D. (2007) Assessing the Impact of the Central Heating
Programme on Tackling Fuel Poverty: The first three years of the programme
2001–2004. Final Report. Alembic Research for the Scottish Executive.
Späth, P., and Rohracher, H. (2010) ‘“Energy regions”: The transformative power of regional
discourses on socio-technical futures’, Research Policy, 39: 449–58.
Taylor, K. (2011) ‘Community-wide retrofit approaches: Lessons from the U.S. and U.K.
experience’. Paper presented at the InCluESEV Workshop, Durham, NC, 6–7 October
2011.
Thoyre, A. (2011) ‘Climate change and light bulbs: Examining the connections in the
discourses of environmental groups in the U.S. and North Carolina: Summary paper’.
Paper presented at the InCluESEV Workshop, Durham, NC, 6–7 October 2011.
Tigchelaar, C. (2011) ‘Do energy efficiency investments lead to lower household
expenditure? Analyses of the Dutch energy efficiency potential in ‘real’ households’.
Paper presented at the InCluESEV Workshop, Durham, NC, 6–7 October 2011.
Timm, T. (2009) ‘How Germany delivers’. Presentation at Great British Refurb Conference,
London School of Economics, 8 December 2009. Accessed 9 October 2013 at: http://
sticerd.lse.ac.uk/textonly/LSEHousing/Events/Great_British_Refurb/Session4/Tobias_
Timm_Session_4.pdf.
Walker, G. (2008) ‘What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of
energy production and use?’, Energy Policy, 36: 4401–5.
Walker, G., and Day, R. (2012) ‘Fuel poverty as injustice: Integrating distribution, recognition
and procedure in the struggle for affordable warmth’, Energy Policy, 49: 69–75.
This page intentionally left blank
9
The smart grid and the
interface between energy,
ICT and the city
Retrofitting and integrating urban
infrastructures
Andrés Luque*

This chapter is a review of the interface between smart grids and cities, highlighting
key policies, drivers, challenges, critical uncertainties and future visions. It is a
general introduction to the topic, grounded within the fields of urban geography
and infrastructure studies. The chapter looks at the smart grid as a socio-technical
process defined by digital and material technologies, as well as an assemblage of
networks and users interacting through telecommunication platforms.
Four main drivers for smart grid development are identified, setting the scene
for urban retrofit initiatives: energy and climate change, the need to integrate a
diversity of networked infrastructures, a drive to foster economic growth and the
need to respond to issues of energy security and reliability. The smart grid is
signalling pathways of transition for future urban retrofit initiatives, mostly
through three interrelated trends: a change in the way in which the production
and consumption of energy and resources is conceived; changes in how energy
and other key urban resources are governed; and a transformation of the modes
of integration between technology, resources and society. Taken together, these
trends point to the emergence of a new politics of energy and resources in the
city.

9.1 Introduction
This chapter is a brief review of the interface between smart grids and cities,
highlighting key policies, drivers, challenges, critical uncertainties and future
visions. The chapter looks at the potential and future implications of the smart
grid for urban transitions towards low-carbon and sustainable systems. Academic-
ally, it is grounded in the fields of urban geography and infrastructure studies.
160 LUQUE

However, it provides a general introduction to the topic aimed at bridging

disciplinary boundaries.
The chapter is based on a desktop review of smart grid pilot initiatives in
selected cities across the globe and a literature review of secondary sources.1 It
consists of three sections. Section 9.2 provides a general overview of the smart
grid, briefly appraising how different countries around the world are adopting it.
Section 9.3 identifies and explains the four key drivers behind smart grid
development and how they influence retrofit efforts: energy and climate change,
the integration of networked infrastructures, economic growth, and the need to
increase reliability and security in resource access. Finally, Section 9.4 elaborates
on three trends in smart grid development to 2050: the production of new
ways of thinking about resource production and consumption, the appearance of
new ways of governing resources and the rise of new ways of integrating
technology, resources and society. The last section looks at the emergence of a
new politics of energy and resources in the city, the stakeholders and automated
systems behind its formation, and the role of the smart grid in enabling the
resulting future urban scenarios.

9.2 Smart grids: an overview

The smart grid is a broad concept that describes an emerging energy distribution
mode based on the integration of information communication technologies
(ICT) and the traditional electricity network. Its defining characteristic is a
bidirectional flow of both energy and information, enabling real-time com-
munication between final energy users and the different nodes for energy
generation, transmission and distribution. The smart grid, and how it contributes
to urban retrofit efforts, is closely related to other types of ‘smart’ technological
narratives and developments such as the ‘smart city’, ‘smart buildings’ and ‘smart
meters’ (see Box 9.1).
While smart meters play a key role in enabling the smart grid, the smart grid
itself is much more than a large-scale smart meter rollout. Rather, the smart
grid is an assemblage of networks, technologies and users interacting through
telecommunication platforms. It is a socio-technical intervention that relies on
utility networks, technological equipment and digital software as well as know-
ledge networks and an emerging set of user practices. Within the smart grid,
demand and consumption are not limited to a passive final stage within the energy
network (as in the traditional grid), but become an active and integral part of the
grid itself. Thanks to its integrated nature, the smart grid can utilise information
from different locations and agents within this electricity ‘assemblage’ to make
better operational decisions, thus achieving greater energy efficiency and system
optimisation.
The smart grid is not a single entity or technological intervention, but the
digital interconnection of a multiplicity of devices and processes, with different
ownerships and located at different scales. Retrofitting urban systems through
smart grid deployment requires actions within and outside the city, intervening
in all nodes of electricity production and consumption. Rolling out the smart grid
requires a combination of material and non-material interventions, from the virtual
 THE SMART GRID 161

BOX 9.1 Smart cities, smart buildings and smart

meters
A variety of smart urban scenarios for 2050 are likely to be achieved through a
combination of ‘smart’ technologies and discourses: an important part of the urban
retrofit agenda for the years to come. The smart grid is closely related to two other
‘smart’ technological developments: smart meters (digital electricity meters with the
ability to provide real-time and remote readings on energy consumption) and smart
building technologies and appliances (automated electronic devices for running
building and household operations).
The smart meter is at the heart of any smart grid initiative, since it enables the
required two-way interface between producer and consumer. In a sense, smart
meters, smart buildings and smart appliances ‘talk’ to – and through – the smart
grid; they can be considered part of the extended assemblage of users, producers
and technological objects that make up the smart grid itself. Assemblages of these
technologies, arranged in a way that responds to urban dynamics, are often referred
to as ‘the smart city’. In a broad sense, smart city initiatives are those where
information systems play a key role in supporting city management processes. The
smart grid holds a privileged position in the emerging narratives of smart cities (see
Dodgson and Gann, 2011).

modelling of network responses to the development of specifications, standards

and regulations. It also involves, among other things, updating transmission and
distribution systems to enable digital integration, upgrading ICT and telecom-
munication networks to enhance connectivity, fitting a new set of building
technologies and home/office appliances capable of interacting with digital
networks, and promoting awareness programmes facilitating user engagement.
While smart grids are being established in all continents, their level of
development has been uneven. Pilot initiatives started with the roll out of smart
meters in the early 2000s in a few European nations (e.g. Italy and Sweden).
Regional and national legislation requiring smart meter rollout – such as in the
state of Victoria, Australia – has played a key role in promoting early smart grid
development. However, full implementation is still in pilot mode all across the
globe. National programmes for the promotion of smart grids appeared between
2006 and 2010, using cities as primary sites for testing and experimentation. The
most visible of these programmes are the American Recovery Act (an economic
stimulus package enacted in 2009), the E-Energy project of the German Federal
Ministry of Economics and Technology (funding six regional projects in
Germany), and Ofgem’s Low Carbon Networks Fund (LCNF) in the UK (pro-
viding financial assistance to private utility companies for smart grid pilots).
The drive to implement smart grids in North America, particularly in the US,
is linked to issues of economic growth and the need to foster green economies.
In contrast, the discourse around smart grid initiatives in Europe and the UK
places a greater emphasis on climate change.
162 LUQUE

Few non-OECD countries are taking significant steps towards the implementa-
tion of smart grids. However, China is the country with the highest amount of
investment in smart grids in the world, by adopting smart technologies from the
outset while developing its national grid (Lowe et al., 2011). In this way, China
is signalling a path for other non-OECD countries to leapfrog directly to smart
technologies as they improve electricity access for their populations. This oppor-
tunity stands in contrast to the dominant implementation model in OECD nations,
where investments appear to be ‘incremental improvements to existing grids and
small-scale pilot projects’ (International Energy Agency, 2011). To a large extent,
smart grid implementation worldwide will occur in a gradual and inevitable way
as aging electricity networks and equipment are updated and replaced.
The mechanisms and responsibilities for funding smart grid deployment
vary depending on the country, and, in many ways, they are contested debates
still under development. Given the amount of resources required and the large
scale of the interventions, it is expected that the public sector will make significant
contributions, both through direct investment as well as through grants and other
mechanisms to facilitate resources to the private sector. In the US, the main funding
source for smart grid development comes from federal legislation on energy
security and economic recovery. Several American cities and regions are rolling out
smart grid projects funded by grants provided by The Recovery Act of 2009, which
provides $4.5 billion towards the modernisation of the country’s power grid (US
Department of Energy, 2011). In the UK, the LCNF was established in 2009 to
enable private energy providers to experiment with smart grid technologies. This
fund provides up to £500 million to support distribution network operators
(DNOs) in testing technological and commercial arrangements for smart grid
delivery. Although in countries like the UK the responsibility for delivering smart
meters falls within private energy suppliers (Department of Energy and Climate
Change, 2011), the smart grid will require a multiplicity of other investments
drawing involvement from a wide range of public and private stakeholders. The
funding modes and the nature of the interaction between the different stakeholders
involved in smart grid deployment are likely to determine the overall socio-technical
nature of the emerging smart grid, as it is possible to see when contrasting the
emerging smart grid configurations of Amsterdam in The Netherlands, and
Durham, Newcastle, Leeds and Sheffield in the UK (see Box 9.2).
The extent to which the smart grid will benefit from emerging energy finance
mechanisms, such as the UK’s Green Deal, is unclear. The Green Deal2 provides
opportunities for the installation of some of the domestic components of the smart
grid (e.g. smart appliances). However, it is largely up to the private sector to
develop and market these smart technological packages for energy efficiency, and
in this way and generate the required cost-savings that would, within the
framework of the Green Deal, pay for the intervention (Tweed, 2012).

9.3 Socio-technical landscapes in energy

transitions: drivers behind smart grid
innovation
Landscapes of transition define the pressures and contextual dynamics that push
for change and innovation (Smith et al., 2005; Smith, 2007). Thus, this landscape
 THE SMART GRID 163

sets out the context and determines how the transition is played out in practice,
setting the scene for urban retrofit initiatives. The current landscape of transition
in electricity networks is defined by four key pressures shaping and driving smart
grid innovation: (a) energy and climate change, (b) the need to integrate a variety
of networked infrastructures, (c) a drive to foster economic growth, and (d) the
need to respond to issues of energy reliability and security.

BOX 9.2 Two modes of smart grid development in

cities: targeted and networked-based
The UK’s largest smart grid initiative (covering the cities of Durham, Leeds, Newcastle
and Sheffield) and Amsterdam’s Smart City exemplify two contrasting modes for
rolling out a city’s smart grid. While the UK’s approach is based on targeted govern-
ment funding in partnership with large-scale private utility operators, Amsterdam’s
model is characterised by a broad network alliance among a multiplicity of stake-
holders and a variety of loosely connected (small and large) projects and initiatives.
In the north-east of England, the Customer-led Network Revolution is a £54
million project managed by the regional power network operator CE Electric and
funded by the government’s Low Carbon Networks Fund. It was launched in 2010
with the objective of identifying ‘ways for customers to reduce both their energy
costs and carbon emissions in the years to come’ (Customer-Led Network
Revolution, 2010). The project is based on a smart meter rollout for 14,000 homes
and business. Solar PV panels, heat pumps and provision for charging electric
vehicles will be provided to 2,500 of these customers. The different densities of
Durham, Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield will provide points of comparison between
urban, semi-urban and rural settings. Half of the total project costs come from
Ofgem, the UK’s gas and electricity regulator, following an open bid where private
utility companies were asked to compete for government funding in order to take
a primary leadership role in modernising the country’s electricity network.
In contrast, the city of Amsterdam, through its Smart City initiative, is developing
a smart grid in a more organic and loose way. Smart City integrates a multitude of
urban ICT interventions, so that more than a smart grid project it works as a
platform connecting and developing synergies between several energy, low-carbon
and sustainability projects run by a variety of stakeholders. Smart City has four main
areas of action: sustainable living, sustainable working, sustainable public space
and sustainable mobility. Smart energy is only one of several inter-connected urban
functions, including water, transport, communications and housing (Amsterdam
Smart City, 2012). The modes of integration promoted by Smart City take two
forms: on the one hand, a physical/digital integration of social dynamics, energy
and resources; on the other, a conceptual integration of a multitude of largely
autonomous and often self-funded low-carbon measures in one single ‘low carbon
city’ package – and with one single set of targets. Smart City includes community
energy initiatives, web-based school competitions on energy efficiency, free Internet
access in public spaces powered by renewable energy sources, and new urban
developments with renewable provision, among others.
164 LUQUE

9.3.1 Energy and climate change

Cities are facing energy constraints resulting from energy price increases, the
prospect of peak oil, energy demand rises and the risks associated to aging infra-
structure. In a parallel way, climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions
act as key drivers for cities to experiment with new technologies and resource
provision modes (Bulkeley et al., 2011). The development of the smart grid is in line
with a recent trend of major cities to reconfigure networked infrastructures in
response to resource constraints and secure the key resources required for their
ecological and material reproduction (Hodson and Marvin, 2009).
The use of ICT technologies in energy networks is seen as a new possibility
for increasing energy efficiency, optimising energy systems, increasing the uptake
of renewable sources and lowering carbon emissions (see Table 9.1). Thanks to
the increased access to information resulting from the hybridisation of digital
communication systems and the traditional electricity network, utility operators
achieve greater management and control to pursue energy efficiency and low-
carbon objectives.

Table 9.1 Smart grid contributions to energy optimisation and carbon reduction
Description Energy mechanism Emission reductions mechanism
Smart power Peak demand • Smart meters, appliances and • Voltage optimisation
reduction and building systems • Peak demand reduction
load shifting • Information exchange between • Need for less energy generation
energy suppliers and users infrastructure
• Variable tariffs and pricing
mechanisms

Smart interfaces Integration with • Smart meters, appliances and • Lower consumption due to system
and integration smart building building systems optimisation
of urban systems technologies

Integration of • Optimisation of urban systems • Lower consumption due to system

urban systems (e.g. water networks) optimisation

Electric mobility • Electric charging points • Replacement of fossil fuels

• Vehicles operating as batteries

Smart use Greater user • Smart meters and web-based portals • Lower energy consumption due to
engagement • Remote control of domestic energy user awareness
use (e.g. via mobile phones)
• Demand side management
measures

Smart renewables Decentralised • Software packages and digital • Renewable technologies

renewable hardware components for
sources transmission and distribution

Energy storage • Energy storage systems (ESSs) • Enabling greater use of renewable
to account for the intermittency technologies
of renewable resources
• ESSs playing a role in power
smoothing and voltage regulation
 THE SMART GRID 165

9.3.2 Integration of networked infrastructures

The smart grid serves as a platform for the integration of different networked
infrastructures and urban processes such as waste management, water and mobility.
Examples of the integration of resources and urban processes through the smart
grid are:

• joint water and electricity metering, including leak detection and joint billing
(e.g. Smart Grid/Smart City Program, Newcastle, Australia; GridSmartCity,
Burlington, Canada);
• links to water irrigation systems (e.g. Pecan Street Project, Austin, Texas);
• electric mobility/electric vehicles (e.g. MeRegioMobil, Freiamt and Goeppingen,
Germany; Amsterdam Smart City, The Netherlands; Customer-led Network
Revolution, Durham, Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield, UK; Low Carbon
London, UK; SmartCityMalaga, Spain);
• integration between industrial processes and their residues (e.g. steam and
hot water) for power generation and/or district heating (e.g. Kalundborg
Smart City, Kalundborg, Denmark); and
• links with energy from waste initiatives (Kalundborg Smart City, Kalundborg,
Denmark).

However, it should be noted that, while it is well acknowledged that the

integration of different city functions is beneficial and provides efficiencies in
resource use as well as service provision, actual integration is at its infancy and
detailed research on how this integration could happen in practice is still required
(Gann et al., 2011).

9.3.3 Economic growth

The smart grid and associated activities are often portrayed as key drivers for
economic growth, local employment and regeneration (International Energy
Agency, 2011). The positive economic spill-over effects of the smart grid, such
as the promotion of high added value industries and the reacquisition of
manufacturing jobs, are highlighted by municipal and national governments
involved in smart grid implementation. Given the highly advanced technological
knowledge required, the smart grid appears to be a way to reinvigorate domestic
industries that were previously relocated overseas. Smart grids are also seen as a
vehicle for well-established firms working in traditional industrial sectors to
migrate to new areas, both in technological as well as in manufacturing fields.
Additional benefits can be obtained by generating new markets for exports and
jobs that are likely to be concentrated in high-value sectors such as engineering,
IT and system design (Lowe et al., 2011).

9.3.4 Reliability and security

The smart grid is seen as an important factor for the achievement of energy security
and the reliability of energy networks (European Commission, 2006; International
Energy Agency, 2011). In addition, given the strategic role that electricity networks
and electricity supply play in national economies, there are suggested links
166 LUQUE

between the smart grid and issues of national security. However, security within
the context of the smart grid has to be seen also from an internal risk perspective:
the cyber security risks associated with a tighter integration of a strategic utility
(electricity) with global digital-communications and computer infrastructure. This
raises issues related to the maintenance and security of privacy for consumers
(Khurana et al., 2010) as well as the vulnerability of the energy infrastructure to
cyber attacks (Amin, 2010).

9.4 Socio-technical trends for smart grid

development to 2050
Through the use of a socio-technical approach it is possible to identify three
emerging trends in the interface between smart grid development and the city,
signalling pathways of transition for urban retrofit. Over time, the smart grid is
likely to transform (a) the way we think about the production and consumption
of energy and resources, (b) how we govern energy and other key urban resources
and (c) how we further develop the integration between technology, resources
and society.

9.4.1 New ways of thinking about production and

consumption
The smart grid challenges the producer/consumer dichotomy embedded in
traditional energy networks. Academic research on the interface between infra-
structure and sustainable consumption has signalled an emerging change in the
relationship between consumer (demand) and provider (supply) in energy, water
and other urban systems. Such systems, traditionally designed with the main pur-
pose of meeting the ever-growing requirements of demand, have the power of
shaping demand itself and the actual practices of consumption. The relationship
between consumer and provider is mediated by technology, and the shift to more
sustainable modes of service provision will require both new technologies as well
as different user practices and routines resulting from a new type of interaction
between utility providers and users (Southerton et al., 2004; van Vliet et al., 2005).
The smart grid is a socio-technical system of energy provision that enables this
shift in mentality. On one hand, consumers can now become producers and vice
versa. On the other, the smart grid promotes a new set of consumption practices
through changes in the times and amounts of electricity consumed. For the first time,
a large-scale urban infrastructure network is not designed exclusively to meet a
growing demand, but also to drive and accommodate possible localised demand
reductions. The smart grid implements a model where the user is not just the passive
end of the network, but a real-time active component. Examples of this include
the ‘e-energy marketplaces’ (virtual spaces where large- and small-scale energy
producers and consumers can exchange energy) promoted by the German govern-
ment (see Box 9.3), the household energy monitoring systems of Liverpool’s
SmartGrid trial, the combination of storage, DC networks and demand manage-
ment measures promoted by Bristol’s BRISTOL smart grid project,3 and the ‘smart
homes’ fitted with in-house displays and websites to track electricity use, water use,
energy costs and CO2 emissions in Newcastle’s Smart Grid/Smart City (Australia).
 THE SMART GRID 167

BOX 9.3 MeRegio, the Minimum Emission

Region in the Baden-Wuertenburg
region, Germany
MeRegio is one of six smart energy projects supported by the E-Energy programme
of the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology. The system is
testing economic and pricing tools to support energy exchanges between the
different stakeholders involved, many of them users who have received PV and other
renewable energy equipment. Dynamic tariffs and price signals guide customers to
use energy at particular times of the day. MeRegio aims to change the nature of
the involvement of users: ‘You are your own energy manager. You are in control of
your consumption, your costs and you have the freedom to produce your own
energy or to purchase it centrally’ (MeRegio, 2010). One of the key goals of the E-
Energy programme is the development of regional electricity markets which account
for both energy prices and carbon emissions and can engage stakeholders in local
and regional energy trade at close to real-time prices (Beer et al., 2010; Schmeck
and Karg, 2010).

9.4.2 New ways of governing resources

The smart grid will foster a new politics of resource access, resource control and
urban development. In OECD countries, for example, the smart grid has become
a platform for a variety of technology-oriented stakeholders to develop new
markets through engaging with the city and with how resources are controlled
within it. Through smart grid and smart city initiatives, IT and electronic
companies are increasingly playing a role in urban planning and management, in
practice developing new models of urbanism. Companies such as General Electric,
IBM, Cisco, Hitachi and others have established dedicated departments for the
purpose of engaging with city managers and urban planners. In this context, smart
grid technologies and smart city discourses work alongside and reinforce each
other. The emphasis is on smart technology and service development, and the
implementation of platforms for the integration of urban infrastructures. Selected
examples of this are:

• Accenture launched its Smart City Strategy and the Intelligent City Network
as collaborative spaces in 2009 for the development of ‘smart’ city knowledge
and the acceleration of smart grid implementation (Accenture, 2009).
• Cisco launched its Intelligent Urbanisation initiative in 2009, ‘helping cities
use technology to cultivate sustainable, intelligent industries, citizen services,
and economic growth’ (Cisco, 2009).
• IBM has a multiplicity of smart city initiatives aimed at demonstrating the
potential of IT in city management, including the web-based platform ‘The
Smarter City’ (IBM, 2011).
168 LUQUE

• Hitachi launched its Smart City Business Management Division in 2010 to

take advantage of the business opportunities resulting from the urban retrofit
efforts of the coming years (Kohno et al., 2011).
• Toshiba developed its Smart Communities Division for supporting resource
integration and energy efficiency, which functions under the principles of zero
emissions, eco-security and integrated remote service solutions (Toshiba,
2011).

Alongside IT and electronics companies, traditional manufacturing and

technology companies within the electricity sector, also known as ‘legacy’ power
firms (e.g. ABB, GE, Cooper Power Systems, S&C Electric Company), are
upgrading their offer to provide cities with smart grid equipment and software
(Lowe et al., 2011). In practice, these companies are becoming the urbanists of
the future, and their ways of thinking are likely to provide a template for future
urban development.
In non-OECD countries the role of the smart grid is often associated with the
possibility to increase efficiency through a reduction in meter tampering and illegal
connections. In this case, the smart grid acts as a mechanism for controlling energy
access and securing distribution, unlocking the potential of new modes for
governing and exercising power over resources. In the context of ‘smart appliances’
connected to the smart grid – both in OECD and non-OECD countries, the use
of smart home technologies that ‘speak’ directly with energy distributors and
utility operators raises questions regarding who has the right and ability to
operate these technologies and impose use restrictions.
These emerging new ways of governing resources are not limited to energy
systems. They could also cover important by-products such as greenhouse-gas
emissions or other economic externalities that need to be accounted for. The smart
grid could automatically measure emissions from electricity use, travel and
mobility, water consumption and other services and report against pre-determined
targets or quotas. In the case of climate change, and thanks to the integration of
a variety of urban systems and services in one single platform, the smart grid is
likely to become not only a key mechanism for carbon reduction but also a tool
for carbon management (Rosenfield, 2010) and for the enforcement of carbon
restrictions and regulations.
Overall, this trend to 2050 highlights how the smart grid is likely to create a
new politics of energy and resources. In this new politics, resource generation,
access and use are governed in novel ways and by new stakeholders. It implies a
new way of establishing control over energy access alongside new carbon control
and accounting mechanisms. In a parallel way, and as part of this process of urban
transformation, the smart grid brings a new set of private players and monopolised
technologies into city-making and endows them with the ability of imagining and
delivering the city of the future.

9.4.3 New ways of integrating technology, society and

resources
The smart grid has also been called the ‘Internet of Energy’, one of the key
components of what is likely to become the ‘Internet of Things’ (Karnouskos and
 THE SMART GRID 169

de Holanda, 2009). These emerging modes of digital–physical interaction (both

virtual and material at the same time) signal a new form of integration between
technology, society and resources with three main implications: first, an emphasis
on communication protocols as a key domain of concern; second, an increased
need for frameworks and mechanisms for the development of digital and non-
digital ‘integration’; and third, the emergence of information feedback loops giving
rise to self-healing infrastructure and other type of automated processes.
As smart grids are developed by a variety of actors, in a variety of locations
and with a variety of technologies, one key area for research and development in
the coming years is the generation of common languages for interaction.
Integration from a purely technical perspective focuses on digital languages and
associated hardware, including data mining and capturing techniques (Savio
et al., 2010), control algorithms (Colet-Subirachs et al., 2010), communications
protocols and architectural frameworks for digital integration (Presser et al.,
2009). However, the required integration frameworks are both digital and socio-
technical. In the socio-technical world of technological implementation, integration
frameworks are the ultimate test: discussion and negotiation forums, common
policies, aligned regulations and joint initiatives that could enable a diversity of
types of users and equipment, in different geographies and with different aims,
to work together. This will require large amounts of collaboration between
utilities, governments, industries and academia (Rosenfield, 2010).
The digital world of the smart grid allows for infrastructure within the city,
in both virtual (modelled) and real forms (on the ground urban infrastructure),
to become a key site for urban experimentation. The trend to 2050 will see a
greater emphasis on the interface between digital and physical domains, which
translates into increasingly blurry boundaries between virtual domains and the
dominant material/physical world of the city. Modelling and simulation are key
operational tools within the smart grid, and these tools will continue playing a
key role in tracing the future of the smart grid and its imagined mirror image,
the smart city (Karnouskos and de Holanda, 2009; Savio et al., 2010).
Yet the ‘urban smartness’ of the smart grid is not only related to its ability to
model and imagine futures, but also to the rise of a new type of ‘self’ within urban
systems, including self-healing infrastructure. Urban infrastructures, usually
invisible, regain visibility when they break down. Previous research in urban
infrastructures has identified the role of breakdown, repair and maintenance for
urban learning and fostering infrastructure transformation processes (Graham and
Thrift, 2007). However, in the world of the smart grid, this learning is likely to
take unknown forms as the self-healing nature and ability of IT systems is
extended to the material worlds of urban infrastructure. Research on the self-
healing abilities of the smart grid focuses on preventive break down and responsive
action (Bou Ghosh et al., 2010). For example, Boulder’s SmartGridCity pilot
includes automation capabilities that enable the utility to sense and predict grid
conditions, to ‘proactively monitor the grid’s health and detect outages before
they occur’ (Xcel Energy, 2011). But, within the IT universe, the notion of the
‘self’ has not been limited to healing processes. Self-configuration, self-protection,
and self-optimisation are also common and well understood domains within IT
technologies (Klein and Kaefer, 2008). The manner in which these characteristics
will unfold in the smart grid is only a matter of speculation.
170 LUQUE

9.5 Conclusions
While smart grid projects can be found at national, regional and metropolitan
levels, their implications for the city are significant. The smart grid promotes urban
growth strategies based on ICT and low-carbon technologies, and underpins
emerging urban discourses such as the ‘smart city’. Its development implies a
gradual retrofit of local and regional electricity networks as well as new domestic
and commercial energy systems and practices. Given its use of digital com-
munication, the smart grid acts as a platform for the integration of a multiplicity
of urban infrastructures, such as water (e.g. digital water metering) and transport
(e.g. adoption of electric vehicles).
The smart grid will play a key role in enabling the development of post-
networked urbanism modes, an emerging dual dynamic characterised by a decline
of large centralised infrastructure network provision and the rise of decentralised
(and more fragmented) technological systems (Coutard and Rutherford, 2011).
Through the smart grid, smart meters, smart appliances and ‘smart’ practices will
become a fundamental part of the city’s energy network. This inevitable roll-out,
given the unavoidable need to replace existing aging infrastructure, will provide
significant opportunities for energy efficiency and carbon reduction. It will
also open-up the development of new energy markets and more sustainable
consumption practices.
However, the pervasive positive outlook of smart urban technologies such as
the smart grid should be interrogated in a more critical way, particularly in relation
to its political and social justice dimensions. High hopes are placed on the
emergent smart technologies, with the smart city and its enabling socio-technical
mind, the smart grid, heralded as the saviours of the broken modes of sustain-
ability, mobility, health, public safety, and resource distribution of contemporary
cities (see for example Klein and Kaefer, 2008). The emergent ‘smart energy
urbanism’ raises the question of whether this imagined near future is based on a
new type of utopia, or whether it is a false pathway towards greater splintering
(Bulkeley et al., 2012; see also Graham and Marvin, 2001). In the context of a
twenty-first century utopian urbanism, the smart grid carries not only material
but also symbolic power.
The smart grid represents not only a technological transformation, but also a
fundamental discourse and driver for an emerging way of urban living. It is likely
to define new ways of interaction between technology, resources and society, affect
issues of energy access and social justice, and create new models for resource
governance. This chapter highlights the extent to which current approaches to
smart grid development are overly grounded in its technological dimensions, with
only a limited social and political problematisation of the topic.

Notes
* Department of Geography, Durham Energy Institute, Durham University.
1 Primary research leading to this review is based on the project Smart City/Smart Grids:
Global Projects Database 2011 (Andrés Luque and Colin McFarlane) funded by the
Durham Energy Institute, Durham University.
2 The Green Deal is a financial mechanism launched in 2010 by the UK’s Department
of Energy and Climate Change aimed at funding energy efficiency measures via the
 THE SMART GRID 171

associated savings on the electricity bill (Department of Energy and Climate Change,
2010).
3 BRISTOL stands for ‘Buildings, Renewables and Integrated Storage, with Tariffs to
Overcome network Limitations for demand response’.

References
Accenture (2009) ‘Accenture forms intelligent city network, uniting utilities and cities to
accelerate smart-grid deployment’. Accessed 30 January 2012 at: http://newsroom.
accenture.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4811.
Amin, S. M. (2010) ‘Electricity infrastructure security: Toward reliable, resilient and secure
cyber-physical power and energy systems’, IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, 25–9 July 2010, pp. 1–5.
Amsterdam Smart City (2012) ‘Amsterdam Smart City: Projects’. Accessed 31 January 2012
at: www.amsterdamsmartcity.nl/#/en.
Beer, S., Ruttinger, H., Bischofs, L., and Appelrath, H. J. (2010) ‘Towards a reference
architecture for regional electricity markets’, it-Information Technology, 52: 58–64.
Bou Ghosh, S., Ranganathan, P., Salem, S., Jingpeng, T., Loegering, D., and Nygard, K. E.
(2010) ‘Agent-oriented designs for a self-healing smart grid’ in First IEEE International
Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), Vancouver Canada,
21–4 October 2013, pp. 461–6.
Bulkeley, H., Castán-Broto, V., Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (eds) (2011) Cities and Low
Carbon Transitions. New York: Routledge.
Bulkeley, H., Marvin, S., McFarlane, C., and Taylor, P. (2012) Smart Energy Urbanism:
Utopian vision or false dawn for 21st century cities? Durham Energy Institute.
Durham: Durham University (unpublished).
Cisco (2009) ‘Cisco unveils “intelligent urbanisation” global blueprint’. Accessed
31 January 2012 at: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2009/prod_021209e.html.
Colet-Subirachs, A., Ruiz-Alvarez, A., Gomis-Bellmunt, O., Alvarez-Cuevas-Figuerola, F.,
and Sudria-Andreu, A. (2010) ‘Control of a utility connected microgrid’, in 2010 IEEE
PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT Europe),
Gothenburg, Sweden, 11-13 October 2010, pp. 1–7.
Coutard, O., and Rutherford, J. (2011) ‘The rise of post-networked cities in Europe?
Recombining infrastructural, ecological and urban transformations in low carbon
transitions’, in Harriet, B., Vanesa, C. B., Mike, H., and Simon, M. (eds) Cities and
Low Carbon Transitions. New York: Routledge, pp. 107–24.
Customer-Led Network Revolution (2010) ‘Leading the way to lower energy bills and a low-
carbon world’. Accessed 31 January 2012 at: www.networkrevolution.co.uk/.
Department of Energy and Climate Change (2010) The Green Deal: A summary of the
Government’s proposals. London: HMSO.
Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) Smart Metering Implementation
Programme: Response to prospectus consultation. London: Ofgem.
Dodgson, M., and Gann, D. (2011) ‘Technological innovation and complex systems in cities’,
Journal of Urban Technology, 18: 101–13.
European Commission (2006) European Smart Grids Technology Platform: Vision and
strategy for Europe’s electricity networks of the future. Luxembourg: Directorate-
General for Research.
Gann, D. M., Dodgson, M., and Bhardwaj, D. (2011) ‘Physical/digital integration in city
infrastructure’, IBM Journal of Research and Development 55(8): 1–10.
Graham, S., and Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Networked infrastructures,
technological mobilities and the urban condition. New York: Routledge.
172 LUQUE

Graham, S., and Thrift, N. (2007) ‘Out of order: Understanding repair and maintenance’,
Theory Culture and Society, 24: 1–25.
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2009) ‘“Urban ecological security”: A new urban paradigm?’,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33: 193–216.
IBM (2011) The Smarter City. Accessed 31 January 2012 at: www-05.ibm.com/innovation/
uk/smartercity/index.html?csr=emuk_agspscit-20101108&cm=k&cr=google&ct=
101AE02W&S_TACT=101AE02W&ck=smart_cities&cmp=101AE&mkwid=sWN7L
6sX3_7567491043_4328nk2971.
International Energy Agency (2011) Technology Roadmaps: Smart grids. Paris.
Karnouskos, S., and de Holanda, T. N. (2009) ‘Simulation of a smart grid city with software
agents’, in Third UKSim European Symposium on Computer Modeling and Simulation
(EMS ‘09), Athens, 25–7 November 2009, pp. 424–9.
Khurana, H., Hadley, M., Ning, L., and Frincke, D. A. (2010) ‘Smart-grid security issues’,
Security and Privacy, IEEE, 8: 81–5.
Klein, C., and Kaefer, G. (2008) ‘From smart homes to smart cities: Opportunities and
challenges from an industrial perspective’, in Balandin, S., Moltchanov, D., and
Koucheryavy, Y. (eds) Next Generation Teletraffic and Wired/Wireless Advanced
Networking. Berlin: Heidelberg: Springer, p. 260.
Kohno, M., Masuyama, Y., Kato, N., and Tobe, A. (2011) ‘Hitachi’s smart city solutions
for new era of urban development’, Hitachi Review, 60(2): 79–88. Accessed 9 October
2013 at: www.hitachi.com/rev/archive/2011/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/26/r2011_02_
101.pdf.
Lowe, M., Fan, H., and Gereffi, G. (2011) U.S. Smart Grid: Finding new ways to cut carbon
and create jobs. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense Fund.
MeRegio (2010) Smart Grids: Welcome to MeRegio. Federal Ministry of Economics
and Technology. Accessed 30 January 2012 at: www.meregio.de/en/index.php?page
=index.
Presser, M., Barnaghi, P. M., Eurich, M., and Villalonga, C. (2009) ‘The SENSEI project:
Integrating the physical world with the digital world of the network of the future’,
IEEE Communications Magazine, 47: 1–4.
Rosenfield, M. (2010) ‘The smart grid and key research technical challenges’, IBM:
Generating Insights. Accessed 1 February 2012 at: www.generatinginsights.com/
landing.php?whitepaper=the-smart-grid-and-key-research-technical-challenges.
Savio, D., Karlik, L., and Karnouskos, S. (2010) ‘Predicting energy measurements of service-
enabled devices in the future smartgrid’, in 12th International Conference on Computer
Modelling and Simulation (UKSim), Cambridge, UK, 24–6 March 2010, pp. 450–5.
Schmeck, H., and Karg, L. (2010) ‘E-Energy: Paving the way for an Internet of energy’,
it-Information Technology, 52: 55–7.
Smith, A. (2007) ‘Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical
regimes’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 19: 427–50.
Smith, A., Stirling, A., and Berkhout, F. (2005) ‘The governance of sustainable socio-technical
transitions’, Research Policy, 34: 1491–510.
Southerton, D., Chappells, H., and van Vliet, B. (2004) ‘Introduction: Consumption,
infrastructures and environmental sustainability’, in Southerton, D., Chappells, H., and
van Vliet, B. (eds) Sustainable Consumption: The implications of changing infra-
structures of provision. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing
Toshiba (2011) Smart Community Division. Accessed 31 January 2012 at: www.toshiba.
co.jp/worldwide/about/company/scd.htm.
Tweed, K. (2012) ‘UK’s green deal could be a boon for US smart grid firms’. Greentech
Media. Accessed 9 October 2013 at: www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/U.K.s-
Green-Deal-Could-Be-a-Boon-for-U.S.-Smart-Grid-Firms.
 THE SMART GRID 173

US Department of Energy (2011) Recovery Act Smart Grid Programs: Overview of

programs, studies and activities. Accessed 29 January 2012 at: www.smartgrid.gov/
recovery_act/overview.
van Vliet, B., Chappells, H., and Shove, E. (2005) Infrastructures of Consumption:
Environmental innovation in the utility industries. London: Earthscan/James & James.
Xcel Energy (2011) ‘SmartGridCity: Technology overview’. Accessed 30 January 2012 at:
http://smartgridcity.xcelenergy.com/learn/technology-overview.asp.
This page intentionally left blank
10
Solar energy in urban retrofit
Stuart J. C. Irvine*

The increase in global population by 3 billion and need to reduce carbon emissions
by 80 per cent provide the context for the role of solar energy (both solar thermal
and photovoltaic) in the urban environment by 2050. Short-term scenario models
for renewable energy generation are limited when looking at a longer timescale,
and is placed in the context of the existing infrastructure. However, the approach
for a 2050 scenario has to take a different starting point where there will be radical
changes in energy efficiency of buildings and a different infrastructure will exist.
Solar energy has been proved to be the easiest form of renewable energy to be
retrofitted at the building scale but the current penetration into the market is low
and the potential contribution to energy supply is mostly underestimated. Uptake
of solar photovoltaic (PV) could be in excess of 80 GWp, with a potential for 140
GWp by 2050. This study explores the context for high efficiency and low cost
PV generated electricity combined with reduced energy demand per household.
The current view of solar energy is very much as a bolt-on of standard products
onto a roof or building façade. New developments in PV technology will enable
greater incorporation of PV into the building fabric and consider how this can
be done in the context of changes to the use of materials and design to improve
energy efficiency.

10.1 Introduction
Solar energy offers huge amounts of renewable energy across all parts of the
populated areas of the world but capturing this energy in a form that can be readily
used affordably has taken more than 30 years of development. There are different
ways in which solar energy can be captured and converted into other, usable forms
of energy.
First, solar thermal involves heating water circulating through solar radiation
absorbing pipes and storing the heat in a hot water tank. Concentrated solar power
(CSP) uses a system of mirrors to heat water to high temperature to generate steam
to drive steam turbines (Mills, 2004). The application of CSP is in regions where
there is an abundance of direct sunlight and is operated at the power plant level.
PV solar energy is the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity and has proved
to be the most versatile form of solar energy conversion. A specific sub-area of PV
176 IRVINE

is concentrator-PV (CPV) where relatively small areas of high-efficiency solar cells

are used where light is collected by concentrators over larger areas (up to 500 times
as large). This is appropriate for utility-scale PV in regions that have an abundance
of direct sunlight.
Finally there is the conversion of solar energy into a chemical energy vectors
such as hydrogen. This entails solar absorption to create charge in a semiconductor
and splitting of water via a catalyst. The two forms of solar energy conversion
most appropriate to the urban environment are solar thermal and PV. Both are
appropriate for new build and for retrofit.
The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2010) places PV solar electric generation
in the context of the potential for large-scale energy generation from CSP but
further sub-divides PV into the following categories:

1 residential, up to 20 kW and distributed generation;

2 commercial systems, offices, commercial, schools etc., up to 1 MW but still
distributed;
3 utility-scale systems, more typically ground mounted but could be large
commercial roofs, essentially characterised by the very large scale (>1 MW,
and likely to be >10 MW); and
4 off-grid applications, varying in size.

Each of these categories will affect the price of electricity generated and indeed
the price target, as will be discussed later. In the context of this article, retrofit
will affect categories 1 and 2, and potentially category 3.
The UK Feed-in Tariff (FIT) introduced in April 2010 includes a number of
different microgeneration opportunities, but by far the most popular has been
PV, which reflects the ease of installation (less than a day for a typical domestic
installation) and minimum disruption to the householder. However, this also
reflects the relatively high cost of PV where a FIT incentive has been needed to
stimulate installation. A number of European countries, led by Germany, have
successfully introduced FIT schemes and a summary of these is given in the 2009
EPIA report ‘Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2014’.
The ease of metering electricity is contrasted with the difficulty in introducing
a similar scheme for renewable heating. However, a UK government scheme has
now been introduced called the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) (DECC, 2011).
This has the potential to encourage growth with solar thermal systems in the home
but will be more complex to operate than the FIT. However, this will complete
the picture for government intervention in the microgeneration of electricity and
heat. This chapter will map out current trends in the solar installation and project
forward to 2050 for both the likely penetration of solar energy in the UK urban
environment and likely technological advances that will aid the retrofit market.

10.2 Data and trends and influence of

government policy
The growth of the global PV industry over the past few years is given in
Figure 10.1, which gives the total new installations in each year and indicates
how much is installed per region/country. Installation of PV is measured in MW
 SOLAR ENERGY IN URBAN RETROFIT 177

35000

30000

Europe
25000
APAC
America
20000
China
MEA
15000
ROW

10000

5000

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 10.1 Installed PV by region from 2000 to 2011 in MWp per year showing dominance of the
European market but rapid growth in America, China and APAC regions. Key: APAC
(Asia Pacific Countries), MEA (Middle East and Africa), ROW (Rest of the World)

peak (MWp) which is a factory measured power output assuming solar irradiance
based on air mass 1.5 (AM1.5) (Kasten and Young, 1989). The amount of energy
generated will depend on the location, weather conditions and orientation of the
PV array. In the UK the annual energy generated per kWp is 800–1,000 kWh.
This can be used as a rule of thumb, but each installation will need more detailed
estimation to predict the annual energy output.
It can be seen from Figure 10.1 that Europe has dominated the drive to
adopting PV solar energy, with Germany accounting for nearly half the global
PV installations. The only year when the rest of Europe (ROE) exceeded the
German total was 2008 when the Spanish FIT was responsible for 2,605 MWp
of new installation. The following year the total installation that could benefit
from FIT was capped and led to a dramatic decrease in new installations in 2009.
The reason for Europe and in particular Germany leading the way with new
installations has been the policy-driven incentive. The idea of the FIT is that excess
solar electricity generated can be fed to the grid and the energy supplier will pay
a higher rate per kWh than the commercial rate at which it is bought from a power
station. In the UK the FIT introduced in 2010 was actually a total energy
generation tariff for domestic installations (retrofit) up to 4 kWp paid 43 p/kWp
in 2011. This means that the energy supplier will pay for every kWh of renewable
energy generated whether it is used within the property or exported. The idea of
the national FIT schemes is to provide an incentive for householders and busi-
nesses to pay the relatively high cost for installation of the PV array. This is usually
amortised over a 20-year period to work out the cost per unit of electricity gener-
ated and pre FIT worked out at around 30p per kWh: not an attractive incentive!
178 IRVINE

With the UK FIT the return on investment was initially achieved over something
like 12 years, and following a fall in global PV module prices reduced this to
as little as 8 years by the end of 2011, based on domestic electricity prices of
12 p/kWh. The downward trend in module and PV installation prices will
be considered later in this section.
The effect on the policy driven PV installation can be seen in Figure 10.2 which
gives the predicted growth in PV installations from 2000 compared with the
achieved global installation figures for each year up to 2010. This illustrates
the difficulty in making longer-term predictions for an industry that is still in
its infancy.
Making regional predictions has been equally fraught with difficulties. In the
UK, prior to the introduction of the FIT in April 2010, the total installed capacity
was less than 40 MW and by the end of 2011 had climbed to over 500 MW,
making the UK a credible market. Interestingly, the EPIA ‘Global Market Outlook
for 2014’ updated in 2013 is predicting a ‘policy driven’ cumulative total of 284
MWp by the end of 2012, so the UK is already ahead of this target.
Although the success of the growth in PV installation has seen dramatic rises
on the back of government backed incentive schemes, this has had an impact on
scale of production and has driven prices down. This is one of the objectives of
the FIT schemes, and in the more mature markets such as in Germany it has been
possible to reduce the FiT tariff while maintaining a healthy growth in PV
installation. A regular review of the FIT rate is necessary to maintain sustainable
growth and reflect the falling prices of PV installation. This process of FIT
regression will eventually lead to removal of government intervention when the
price of PV installation reaches what is called ‘grid parity’. This is when the price

14000

12000

1000

Installed MW
MWp

8000
Predicted MW

6000

4000

2000

0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year

Figure 10.2 Global PV installations over the period 2000 to 2010 compared with predicted growth
in 2000
 SOLAR ENERGY IN URBAN RETROFIT 179

5
Price per Watt Peak

United States ($)

3
Europe (Euro)
2

0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Year

Figure 10.3 Retail module prices in USA and Europe over the period 2002 to 2012

of solar electricity generated in that region is comparable to the price of electricity

bought from the grid. However, removing incentives too early will have the effect
of stalling growth – and one consideration in retrofit is whether homeowners will
accept payback over a 20-year period when the average period of staying in one
house is around 10 years. Solar thermal is lower in cost to install and typically
achieves a payback of less than 10 years but the uptake has been nothing like
that experienced in the past year with solar PV. In fact, the UK government’s
announcement of bringing forward the date at which the reduced FIT rate would
apply to 12 December 2011 from 31 March 2012 has had the effect of accelerating
the rate of installation with over 83 kW added in just one week at the beginning
of December (PV-tech, 2011).
The price of PV modules has fallen steadily over the past 20 to 30 years and
is projected to continue falling with most regions of the world reaching grid parity
by 2020. The EPIA expect the cost of PV electricity to continue declining at 8 per
cent per year, halving in price every 8 years (EPIA, 2009). The installation cost
depends on the price of the PV modules, the so called ‘balance of systems’ (BOS)
that includes the inverter, cabling, and so on, and the cost of installation. The
proportion of cost of the PV modules relative to the total cost depends on the
scale of the installation but a rough estimate for a domestic scale installation is
around 50 per cent. So, by tracking module prices it is possible to get an idea of
the installed price. A module trend price analysis over the past 10 years for average
module prices is given in Figure 10.3.
The average prices in Europe have fallen from 5.50€/Wp in 2002 to less
than 2.50€/Wp now. Most of the global production is currently of crystalline
silicon modules with around 10 to 20 per cent of thin-film PV. The thin-film
PV modules have in the past been dominated by amorphous-silicon, but a recent
rise in cadmium telluride thin-film PV production from just one company, First
Solar, means that this is now the dominant thin-film PV technology. Currently the
lowest-price crystalline silicon modules are around 0.90€/Wp with similar price for
the First Solar thin film modules. Although the overall price trend in Figure 10.3
180 IRVINE

is downward there was a slight increase in average module prices between 2004
and 2007. This occurred because the supply of high purity silicon feedstock had
not kept pace with the increase in module production. This raises the question, with
long-term price trends and continued growth in PV production, of where potential
pinch points in the supply chain may arise. A continuing decrease in the price of
PV solar electric installation will be needed for PV solar energy to compete with
more conventional energy sources, with module prices below 0.50€/Wp and
similar falls in the BOS.
Although the rapid rise in PV solar energy has been impressive it still accounts
for less than 1 per cent of the global energy generation. The EPIA ‘SET for 2020’
study (2009) predicts that Europe could generate up to 12 per cent of its electricity
by from solar PV by 2020. For the UK, the Photonics Knowledge Transfer Centre
(PKTN) ‘UK Photovoltaic Solar Energy Road Map’ (Stafford and Irvine, 2009) was
published prior to the introduction of the UK FIT and predicted a 30 per cent
average growth of installed PV from a 2008 base figure of just 18.3 MWp, and did
not predict a significant impact by the European 2020 target date. To generate
10 per cent of our electricity requirement from PV solar would require an installed
capacity of over 44 GWp, depending on the location of the PV installation.

10.3 Current state of ‘scientific’ understanding

Over 80 per cent of the PV modules being produced are crystalline silicon where
silicon solar cells are made from wafers of silicon and these are connected together
and laminated onto glass sheets to manufacture the modules. The silicon solar
cell is a single junction device with a theoretical maximum solar energy conversion
efficiency of around 30 per cent (Shockley and Queisser, 1961). In practice the
maximum laboratory efficiency is 25 per cent and in mass production the best is
around 20 per cent (Green, 2003, 2005). Once the cells have been fabricated into
modules, a further 3 to 4 per cent conversion efficiency is lost from a number of
factors, from loss of conversion area to optical reflection losses. The cost per Wp
metric for PV modules depends a number of factors including the elements of
cost of manufacture and the conversion efficiency of the module. So, to put it
simply, doubling the module efficiency without increasing the manufacturing cost
would halve the cost per Wp of the module. Recent reduction in the price of
crystalline silicon PV modules has been largely due to reduction in manufacturing
cost by producing larger volumes and improving automation into the cell and
module manufacture. It is also a factor that over half the world supply of
crystalline silicon modules comes from China, which has seen a very rapid rise
in manufacturing capacity.
Another factor in reducing the price of PV modules has been the rapid rise of
First Solar as a thin-film PV manufacturer that exceeded 1 GWp production in
2009 and over 2 GWp in 2011. This was the first thin-film PV manufacturer
to achieve these production capacities and so benefit from economies of scale.
A further factor in the struggle for thin-film PV to keep pace with crystalline silicon
has been its poorer performance, with, in the past, conversion efficiency less than
10 per cent. The current specification on First Solar modules is 11.7 per cent with
every prospect of further improvement in the future.
 SOLAR ENERGY IN URBAN RETROFIT 181

Thin-film PV offers significantly lower cost of manufacture and uses less

semiconductor material than crystalline silicon, as the thin film materials are more
strongly absorbing, requiring only a few micron thick layer compared with 200
μm thick crystalline silicon wafer. There are further cost reductions in manufacture
where the cell and module fabrication are combined in a single line. The thin-
film PV materials divide into three different classes:

1 amorphous silicon (a-Si)

2 cadmium telluride (CdTe)
3 copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS).

Amorphous silicon modules have struggled to reach competitive conversion

efficiencies and suffer from light induced degradation called the Staebler–Wronski
effect (Staebler and Wronski, 1977). More recent improvements by forming
tandem cells involving some recrystallisation of the amorphous material, the so-
called micro-morph process, has improved the stability and moved module
efficiency over the 10 per cent threshold (Wolden et al., 2011).
Cadmium telluride is a very high absorption coefficient material, requiring a
thickness of less than 2 μm and can be deposited onto glass substrates with the
layer structure shown in Figure 10.4. The entire thin-film structure is typically
less than 5 μm and maximum cell efficiency has recently been reported at over
17.3 per cent and experimental module efficiency as high as 13.5 per cent (First
Solar, 2011). This starts to take thin-film towards crystalline silicon module
efficiency and shows the potential for further reduction in cost/Wp.

Back contact

CdTe

CdS

TCO

Glass substrate

Figure 10.4 Schematic of the thin film structure for a CdTe solar cell based on the ‘superstrates’
approach
182 IRVINE

There has been some resistance to adoption of cadmium telluride PV modules

due to the toxicity of cadmium. However, the amount of cadmium is less than
10 g/m2 and has been shown to be stable in the form of the CdTe compound,
which is fully encapsulated in the module (Fthenakis, 2009). First Solar will recycle
the modules at the end of life, and it is likely that other manufacturers will follow
suit.
The highest efficiency thin-film solar cell at the laboratory level is CIGS, with
a recorded efficiency of over 20 per cent (Repins et al., 2008). The maximum
module efficiency is some way behind this with similar efficiency to the CdTe
modules. Production scale is, however, becoming more significant with CIGS
production reaching 1.2 GWp in 2011 with a number of manufacturers (Solar
Frontier, Avancis, Global Solar and Solibro) leading the way. Predictions for
second-generation technology expect to take the module efficiency to 15 per cent
(Bosio et al., 2011).

10.4 Key challenges

So far this chapter has concentrated on the growth of PV module production,
some of the cost and conversion efficiency drivers, and a brief description of
the current generation PV solar energy technology. It is clear that levelised cost
of installed solar energy will remain a key driver to the rate of adoption and
eventual emergence as a significant source of energy generation in a low-carbon
mix. However, the appearance of the PV installation, robustness, longevity and
multi-functionality will all play a significant role. The emergence of thin-film
PV as a serious contender opens up new opportunities to incorporate PV into
buildings in different ways, including roofs, façades and glazing. The more
uniform appearance of thin-film PV makes it easier to disguise within the structure
and PV slates are already on the market, but the structure is similar to the larger
module counterparts and the reflection from the glass surface is not a convincing
substitute.
The first challenge is to achieve at least a further 50 per cent cost reduction in
PV modules from the current lowest prices to around 0.50€/Wp. This is seen as
a major driver to large-scale adoption in a number of national road maps, and
in particular the IEA ‘Solar Photovoltaic Energy Technology Roadmap’ (2010)
identifies three stages in cost reduction.
Current cost models indicate that thin-film PV could reach this figure, but
module efficiency would have to improve to 16 per cent for CdTe and as high as
19 per cent for CIGS (Candelise, 2011). This is achievable but is not likely to
occur in the shorter term. Other sources of cost reduction could be through
reducing the materials cost; that covers not just the active semiconductor coatings
but includes the glass substrate. Reducing these costs through either better material
utilisation or finding cheaper alternatives will become increasingly important.
The second is to maintain a sustainable growth in the industry, which means
that the materials supply chain has to be assured. Very large-scale production of
CIGS would challenge the current supply of indium, and for CdTe the supply of
tellurium might not cope. A study by Candelise et al. (2011) demonstrates how
sensitive the price of CdTe and CIGS modules would be to price fluctuations in
tellurium and indium supply. They show that reducing the amount of active
 SOLAR ENERGY IN URBAN RETROFIT 183

material per module can go some way to alleviating this risk, but ultimately
improving the conversion efficiency is the most important factor. In the medium
to longer term it will be necessary to find new absorber materials and some early
work on the quaternary copper zinc tin selenide (sulphide) has produced some
promising results (Todorov et al., 2011).
The cost of the PV system has to be translated into the price of electricity and
competitiveness with other forms of energy generation once government
interventions have been phased out. The amount of energy generation per kWp
is clearly dependant on the location of the PV array. The IEA (2010) considered
a range from 1,000 kWh/kWp in lower solar insolation regions to 2,000 kWh/kWp
in higher solar insolation regions. This gives a band of cost reduction where the
higher solar insolation regions will have a lower levelised cost of electricity than
in less sunny climes, giving different dates for expected grid parity. However, the
target price has to be different if it is a domestic installation compared to utility
scale. Domestic installations reach grid parity when the levelised cost of PV
electricity is equal to retail electricity price, and for utility scale when it reaches
the lower electricity cost from large power plants. To offset this tougher target
for utility scale, the cost per kWp for installing a utility-scale PV power plant is
significantly lower than for a domestic installation. The IEA (2010) predicts that,
even for the least competitive installation (domestic in low solar insolation region),
the grid parity level will be reached by 2030, well before the 2050 scenario being
considered here.
Once the cost of electricity challenge has been met there will be a greater
emphasis on added value of PV in the building integrated context. The current
generation of PV modules are mostly in a frame with glass front surface and can
be clearly recognised as PV modules. Retrofit entails using some fixing system to
an existing surface such as a roof or façade. Again they are clearly recognisable,
potentially detract from the aesthetic quality of the building and provide no added
value beyond the primary purpose of electricity generation. The challenge for BIPV
retrofit will be to simultaneously satisfy a number of requirements, such as:

• low cost and ease of installation;

• acceptable or preferably enhancing aesthetic value;
• multi-functionality, through combining with other building materials.

Combining the functionality of PV electricity generation with other building

material functions can impact the potential for retrofit and offset cost of the PV
system. Benamann et al. (2001) considered the benefits of a PV double glazed
unit and identified additional functionality of: façade and roof elements, day-
lighting, shading and noise reduction. Partial shading can be achieved by using a
non-dense array of PV cells in a glazing structure and these have already been
deployed to good effect. A new generation of partially transparent thin-film PV
modules based on amorphous silicon is now becoming available. The so called
bi-facial PV modules, where light can be captured from both directions, have been
an active area of research in recent years and could lead to a new generation of
functionalised glazing products.
Combined solar PV and hot water systems have also been considered as most
of the absorbed energy in a PV array is converted to heat rather than electricity.
184 IRVINE

The heating of the module (above the module performance rated temperature of
25°C) leads to a reduced output efficiency and for crystalline silicon this will
decrease by 0.5 per cent per degree C of temperature rise. Thin film PV has a better
temperature coefficient of 0.25 per cent per degree C. A combined PV/T (photovoltaic
thermal) system was considered by Kalogirou and Tripanagnostopoulos (2006)
and showed that in a Mediterranean climate it was possible to extract useful
amounts of PV and solar thermal energy from the same system. The lower temp-
erature coefficient a-Si modules gave the best results but there was a significant
decrease in the electricity produced, which was compensated by the production
of thermal energy. A challenge for future generations of PV/T systems will be to
achieve lower temperature coefficient PV modules that can run hot without
significant loss of electricity output. Other approaches could look at drawing air
between the PV module and exterior liner of the building fabric. Heat could then
be extracted at the top of the cavity using a heat exchanger (Jie et al., 2007).
The developing opportunities for flexible PV to be integrated more effectively
into buildings were highlighted in a review by Pagliaro et al. (2008). The flexible
substrates range from plastics to stainless steel and can be bonded onto different
roof and building façade materials. The colour can also be modified to improve
aesthetics, and the overall effect is to blend in with the building fabric.

10.5 Key technological advances

The current PV solar energy scene has been set with a dominance of crystalline
silicon modules and a growing inorganic thin-film PV sector. It is likely that these
technologies will remain into the foreseeable future and improvements will be
made in module efficiency and reducing manufacturing cost. A longer-term
prospect for cost reduction and greater adaption to the building fabric are the
organic solar cells that include dye-sensitised solar cells (DSC) and organic solar
cells (OPV). The DSC was first reported in 1991 by O’Regan and Grätzel and
over the past 20 years has shown rapid progress from the laboratory to manu-
facturing. Although laboratory cell efficiency of over 10 per cent can be achieved,
the efficiency in production is more like 5 per cent. However, the potential for
this technology, which relies on absorption of light in dye molecules that then
transfer the charge to a nano-porous titania (TiO2) support, is huge. Other than
the sintering of the titania, the processes are carried out close to room temperature,
keeping the energy cost low. The application of different dyes can be used to make
either opaque or semi-transparent solar cells (Yoon et al., 2011).
Both DSC and OPV are attractive because they can be readily formed onto
low-cost flexible substrates, so could be manufactured in very large volume on a
roll-to-roll process. This will lead to the potential for high volume manufacture
of flexible PV that could be bonded to a variety of building materials, including
roof tiles, sheet steel and façade materials. These would be considerably lighter
than existing encapsulated PV modules and require less fixing infrastructure.
Manufacturing methods also offer opportunity for large volume manufacture of
low-cost PV product and greater integration into building products. Recent
interest in ink-jet printing for the metal conductors has extended to the deposition
of organic PV materials (Aernouts et al., 2008). The challenge for DSC and for
OPV as they enter mainstream solar energy generation will be the need to achieve
 SOLAR ENERGY IN URBAN RETROFIT 185

higher conversion efficiency; otherwise the advantages of lower cost will be

outweighed by lower efficiency. However, advantages of being more readily
incorporated into building materials could provide added value.
There are also advances with inorganic thin-film in deposition onto flexible
substrates with some impressive results (Perrenoud et al., 2009). Formation of
these cells onto polyimide substrates could be manufactured in a roll-to-roll
process and for CIGS the use of flexible stainless steel substrates is already in large
volume manufacture (Britt et al., 2008). Future prospects for DSC manufactured
onto a variety of different substrates (Hinsch et al., 2001) offers the prospect for
integration of PV into a range of different building materials. This will provide
the added value and multi-functionality characteristic of retrofit PV modules in
the future. So, retrofit of PV to a building will ideally take place when the roofing,
glazing/window frames need replacing or the building façade needs renewal.
Factors that will influence the decision for including PV functionality will involve
the added cost traded-off against the added value. By removing much of the
existing support structures these new building integrated PV materials will entail
less cost at the same time as providing added functionality such as improved
weather proofing, improved appearance, sound and heat insulation, and thermal
management. The cost of installation over and above the existing cost of building
fabric renewal will also be a factor that will require innovation. In particular the
electrical connections would need to be simple and robust with convenient
location of the power electronics. High levels of PV adoption could potentially
overload the system at peak times so the use of storage and smart grids will be
an essential part of the infrastructure. This could entail local short-term storage
of energy, load switching and increased system flexibility (Denholm and Margolis,
2007).
The current dominance of crystalline silicon modules provides a ‘bolt-on’
product where it can be clearly seen as a PV module on a roof or façade. This
provides a short-term solution for PV retrofit while the level of adoption is still
very low, but large-scale retrofit will require different solutions. The future
technological advances for using different PV materials with different degrees of
transparency/opaqueness, flexibility for integrating into different building
materials and even the ability to influence colour will be important factors in very
wide-scale PV adoption.

10.6 Change issues and critical uncertainties

Looking at the changes over the past 10 years in solar energy, including
technology, industry and government policy, it would have been very difficult to
predict the current state of affairs with any degree of accuracy. The future looks
no more certain but despite the volatility we have, not least with the general
economic environment, there are some trends worthy of comment. The desire to
install PV solar energy, providing the price is right, is very strong and other
incentivised microgeneration sources have not been taken up with the same
enthusiasm. Solar thermal has been with us for a long time and improvements in
the technology have made this efficient and reliable but have not enjoyed the same
success as the more expensive PV. The ability to monitor the flow of electrical
energy and have an effective incentive scheme has been one critical factor in
186 IRVINE

adoption of solar PV. The minimal disruption to the householder has also got to
be an important factor. It is interesting that modern inverters come with Wi-Fi
and a portable monitor, so the householder can monitor when and how much
solar energy is being generated; this puts them in control as to when to turn
appliances on to maximise their financial benefit. But, this is still a small minority
of the population, and wider public understanding and acceptance of solar energy
is still a significant uncertainty.
If the view of the general public is a critical uncertainty (Sauter and Watson,
2007), then the view of the UK government is an even larger uncertainty. The
current coalition government has a claim that it is the greenest government ever
but has consistently tampered with the FIT, which is making a real contribution
to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions (see the Solar Power Portal at www.
solarpowerportal.co.uk/policy/). The Department of Energy and Climate Change
(DECC) do not see solar energy as a major contributor to our energy needs with
an emphasis on new nuclear build and offshore wind and marine energy.
The PKTN ‘UK Photovoltaic Solar Energy Road Map’ (Stafford and Irvine, 2009)
has identified the potential for a steady growth in PV installation and action that
would be needed to develop a sustainable industry. The Road Map identifies the
potential for the rate of installation to increase to 18,700 MWp by 2040, requiring
553,500 jobs in installation and manufacturing. This shows the potential economic
benefit for a robust solar energy industry. The cumulative installed solar energy
power was predicted on this model to be in excess of 80 GWp, which represents
potential total electricity generation of 64 TWh (approximately 16 per cent of our
energy need based on 2008 consumption). A critical uncertainty is whether a growth
rate of 30 per cent per annum could be sustained over this period of time or whether
market saturation will start to kick-in. Most of this market will be retrofit and will
clearly be combined with other retrofit measures involving replacement of fossil fuel
heating, energy efficiency and energy storage. A clear understanding of the
interaction between these retrofit measures will be needed before we can understand
the potential for the retrofit of solar PV on such a huge scale.

10.7 Future visions based on current knowledge

A strength of solar energy, both solar thermal and PV, is that the technology exists
now, is readily deployable and is not waiting for new innovation to become viable.
This has given us an understanding of the benefits of installation and the
predictability of solar energy. This will surprise much of the population but the
amount of energy generation over a year is actually very predictable. Based on
our current knowledge we can predict with some certainty that the installation
of both PV and solar thermal will increase but be dominated by PV because of
the FIT and minimum disruption.
A review of future solar energy supply in the USA by Fthenakis et al. (2009)
predicts that in the USA, by 2050, 69 per cent of the electricity needs and 35 per
cent of total energy (electricity and fuel) will be supplied by solar energy. This
assumes a breakdown of solar energy supply that will include very large-scale
deployment of CSP (1.504 TW) and 1.187 TW of large-scale PV combined with
compressed air energy storage (CAES) to provide a base-load of electricity supply.
 SOLAR ENERGY IN URBAN RETROFIT 187

In addition there will be a further 2.546 TW of supporting large-scale PV with

just 258 GW of distributed PV. The IEA ‘Technology Roadmap’ (2010) sees a
global installation of 3 TW of PV capacity (large-scale and distributed) generating
4,500 TWh of electricity or 11 per cent of the global electricity demand. The
balance between the four categories of PV deployment identified in the IEA
‘Technology Roadmap’ is as follows:

1 residential: 1,794 TWh

2 commercial: 585 TWh
3 utility: 1,498 TWh
4 off-grid: 695 TWh.

The Fthenakis (2009) model only considered grid-connected, but with a much
stronger bias towards large-scale installations with less emphasis on distributed
generation. The reorientation of our electricity supply into micro-grids by 2050
will be crucial in realising the potential for BIPV. Other factors that will influence
this transition will be use and transmission of DC electricity, which will reduce
power losses in DC/AC conversion. One scenario is that retrofit of BIPV would
be combined with introduction of DC circuits in the home supplying electronic
appliances and LED lighting.
The Fthenakis (2009) review shows that, by 2050, technical saturation would
not have been reached and could go on to supply 90 per cent by 2100. This model
assumes only 10 per cent distributed PV on roofs by 2050 and the balance from
CSP and utility-scale PV. However, uncertainty is acknowledged in the roof
mounted distributed PV and recognises that these figures could be considerably
higher. This study reflects the abundance of solar energy but considerable
uncertainty in going from centralised power plants to distributed energy.
If we look at just the retrofit potential in the UK for 2050, with 28 million
buildings having the potential for some PV installation, a rough estimate can be
made of the PV energy that could be generated. Not all buildings will be suitable
in terms of shaded roofs, although due south facing is not too critical. It will
also be necessary to make assumptions about the available suitable roof area/
façade area and a projected efficiency for PV modules. Currently, domestic roof
installations are between 2 and 4 kWp and commercial roofs can generally take
at least 50 kWp. Retail parks and factories could exceed 1 MWp. Taking a
conservative figure of 5 kWp per roof would give 140 GWp or 112 TWh (over
25 per cent of our electricity needs). This simply argues that in the UK there is
an abundance of solar energy that can be captured on buildings to give a significant
energy yield.
Achieving such a high penetration of PV solar energy in the retrofit market
will require a range of new PV products and innovation in integrating PV into
the buildings. This is where thin-film inorganic and organic PV has so much
potential to essentially disguise the PV into a suitable building product such as
roof tile, steel industrial roofs, wall cladding and glazing. This also implies that
the PV module is multi-functional and hence the cost of replacement of existing
materials at the end of life is partly offset by replacing the roof tile as well as
providing PV. This is different to the current model of PV modules being discrete
objects that ‘bolt-on’ to existing surfaces. There are examples of building
188 IRVINE

integration of PV in new build and the PV façade in OpTIC Glyndŵr shows how
this can be achieved (see Figure 10.5).
This degree of integration into the retrofit market would help to add aesthetic
value and help to reduce visual impact, improving public acceptance. The scale
of production needed for new PV products, produced on a much larger scale than
for current PV module plants will help to drive down the price of PV beyond the
grid parity threshold. This will provide further incentive for installation with a
future guarantee of low-cost electricity.
Solar thermal would effectively be competing with PV for roof space and the
potential to disguise solar thermal appears to be less than for PV. Although solar
thermal is likely to increase in its rate of adoption it is not clear how it will compete
in the future with other renewable heat sources such as ground source heat pumps
(powered by renewable electricity), biomass boilers and biogas. The prospect for
a combined solar PV and solar thermal system was discussed earlier, and its success
will depend on a new generation of thin-film PV materials.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that solar energy has a tremendous potential
in the retrofit market and could provide 25 per cent of our electrical energy needs.
The current growth in solar PV is set to continue and new PV products could
accelerate the progress through accessing new markets and greater integration into
building products. The price of solar PV continues to fall and has a long-term
potential to be a very low-cost source of energy generation. Innovations in
thin-film PV and with OPV are likely to dramatically change the way we think
of solar energy, and this will be the opportunity for wide-scale deployment in the
retrofit market.

Figure 10.5 Picture of OpTIC PV wall that is an 80 kWp rated thin film CIS array that also serves
to provide a rain screen for the service access to the technology centre
 SOLAR ENERGY IN URBAN RETROFIT 189

Note
* Centre for Solar Energy Research (CSER), Glyndŵr University.

References
Aernouts, T., Aleksandrov, T., Girotto, C., Genoe, J., and Poortmans, J. (2008) ‘Polymer
based organic solar cells using ink-jet printed active layers’, Applied Physics Letters,
92: 303–6.
Benemann, J., Chehab, O. and Schaar-Gabriel, E. (2001) ‘Building-integreated PV modules’,
Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 67(1-4): 345–54.
Bosio, A., Romeo, A., Menossi, D., Mazzamuto, S., and Romeo, N. (2011) ‘The second
generation of CdTe and CulnGaSe2 thin-film PV modules’, Crystal Research and
Technology, 46: 857–64.
Britt, J., Wiedeman, S., Schoop, U., and Verebelyi, D. (2008) ‘High volume manufacturing
of flexible and lightweight CIGS solar cells’, in Proceedings of 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic
Specialist Conference (PVSC’08), San Diego, CA, 11–16 May 2008, pp. 1–4.
Candelise, C., Winskel, M., and Gross, R. (2011) ‘Is indium and tellurium availability a real
concern for CdTe and CIGS Technologies’, in Proceedings of 26th European
Photovoltaics Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (26th EU PVSEC), Hamburg,
Germany, 5–6 September 2011, pp. 3173–85.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2011) Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)
Scheme. Accessed February 2012 at: www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Whatpercent20we
percent20do/UKpercent20energypercent20supply/Energypercent20mix/Renewable
percent20energy/policy/renewableheat/1387-renewable-heat-incentive.pdf.
Denholm, P., and Margolis, R. (2007) ‘Evaluating the limits of solar photovoltaics (PV)
in electric power systems utilising energy storage and other enabling technologies’,
Energy Policy, 35(9), 4424–33.
EPIA (European Photovoltaic Industry Association) (2009) Global Market Outlook for
Photovoltaics until 2014. Accessed February 2012 at: www.epia.org/fileadmin/EPIA_
docs/public/Global_Market_Outlook_for_Photovoltaics_until_2014.pdf.
EPIA (European Photovoltaic Industry Association) (2013) ‘Global market outlook for
photovoltaics 2013–2017’. Accessed October 2013 at: www.epia.org/news/publications/.
First Solar (2011) ‘First solar sets world record for CDTE Solar PV efficiency’. Accessed
February 2012 at: http://investor.firstsolar.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=593994.
Fthenakis, V. (2009) ‘Sustainability of photovoltaics: The case for thin-film solar cells’,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9): 2746–50.
Fthenakis, V., Mason, J., and Zweibel, K. (2009) ‘The technical, geographical and economic
feasibility for solar energy to supply the energy needs of the United States’, Energy
Policy, 37(2): 387–99.
Green, M. (2003) ‘Crystalline and thin-film silicon solar cells: State of the art and future
potential’, Solar Energy, 74(3): 181–92.
Green, M. (2005) ‘Silicon photovoltaic modules: A brief history of the first 50 years’, Progress
in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 13(5): 447–55.
Hinsch, A., Kroon, J., Kern, R., Uhlendorf, I., Holzbock, J., Meyer, A., and Ferber, J. (2001)
‘Long-term stability of dye-sensitised solar cells’, Progress in Photovoltaics: Research
and Applications, 9(6): 425–38.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2010) ‘Solar photovoltaic energy’. Technology
Roadmap. Accessed February 2012 at: www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/
publication/pv_roadmap-1.pdf.
Jie, J., Hua, Y., Wei, H., Gang, P., Jianping, L., and Bin, J. (2007) ‘Modelling of a novel
Trombe wall with PV cells,’ Building and Environment, 42(3): 1544–52.
190 IRVINE

Kalogirou, S., and Tripanagnostopoulos, Y. (2006) ‘Hybrid PV/T solar systems for domestic hot
water and electricity production’, Energy Conversion and Management, 47(18): 3368–82.
Kasten, F., and Young, A. (1989) ‘Revised optical air mass tables and approximations
formula’, Applied Optics, 28(22): 4735–8.
Mills, D. (2004) ‘Advances in solar thermal electricity technology’, Solar Energy, 76(1),
19–31.
O’Regan, B., and Grätzel, M. (1991) ‘A low-cost, high-efficiency solar cell based on dye-
sensitised colloidal TiO2 films’, Nature, 353(5346): 737–40.
Pagliaro, M., Ciriminna, R., and Palmisano, G. (2008) ‘Flexible solar cells’, ChemSusChem,
1(11): 880–91.
Perrenoud, J., Buecheler, S., and Tiwari, A. (2009) ‘Flexible CdTe solar cells and modules:
challenges and prospects’, in Proceedings of SPIE, San Diego, CA, 20 August 2009,
7409: 74090L.
PV-tech (2011) ‘Incredible UK solar installation figures revealed’, 9 December 2011.
Accessed February 2012 at: www.pv-tech.org/news/incredible_uk_solar_installation_
figures_revealed_5478.
Repins, I., Contreras, M., Egaas, B., DeHart, C., Scharf J., Perkins, C., To, B., and
Noufi, R. (2008) ‘19.9 per cent efficient ZnO/CdS/CulnGaSe2 solar cell with 81.2 per
cent fill factor’, Progress in Photovoltaics, 16: 235–9.
Sauter, R., and Watson, J. (2007) ‘Strategies for the deployment of micro-generation:
Implications for social acceptance’, Energy Policy, 35(5): 2770–9.
Shockley, W., and Queisser, H. (1961) ‘Detailed balance limit of efficiency of p–n junction
solar cells’, Journal of Applied Physics, 32(3): 510–19.
Staebler, D., and Wronski, C. (1977) ‘Reversible conductivity changes in discharge-
produced amorphous Si’, Applied Physics Letters, 31(4): 292–4.
Stafford, A., and Irvine S. (2009) UK Photovoltaic Solar Energy Road Map. Photonics
Knowledge Transfer Centre (PKTN) report. Accessed 28 November 2013 at: https://
connect.innovateuk.org/documents/3248377/3710301/UK+Photovoltaic+Solar+Energy
+Road+Map.pdf/aea4fd4f-d2f7-4d28-b1d3-4ca16a334003.
Todorov, T., Gunawan, O., Jay Chey, S., Goislard de Monsabert, T., Prabhakar, A., and
Mitzi, D. (2011) ‘Progress towards marketable earth-abundant chalcogenide solar cells’,
Thin Solid Films, 519(21): 7378–81.
Wolden, C., Kurtin, J., Baxter, J., Repins, I., Shaheen, S., Torvik, J., Rockett, A., Fthenakis,
V., and Aydil, E. (2011) ‘Photovoltaic manufacturing: Present status, future prospects,
and research needs’, Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology A, 29(3): 030801.
Yoon, S., Tak, S., Kim, J., Jun, Y., Kang, K., and Park, J. (2011) ‘Applications of transparent
dye-sensitised solar cells to building integrated photovoltaic systems’, Building and
Environment, 46(10): 1899–904.
11
Pathways to decarbonising
urban systems
Matthew Leach,* Sandip Deshmukh* and
Damiete Ogunkunle*

Urban systems encompass the flows of materials and energy associated with
meeting demands for products and services within cities. The concept also includes
aspects of the physical built and transport infrastructures in urban environments.
This chapter explores possible pathways to low-carbon urban development by
investigating the influences of urban form, approaches to energy efficiency, and
the incorporation of renewable energy and waste to energy activities on urban
energy and material flows. Within this exploration, factors that influenced the
UK’s past energy transitions, recent trends, emerging policy drivers, technological
opportunities and social preferences will be addressed.
The chapter then outlines one prospective pathway to achieving a low-carbon
economy by 2050 at a city-level scale. This features highly efficient buildings,
distributed energy supply and local delivery as well greater consumer engagement.
Finally, the chapter concludes that there are many pathways in which a low-carbon
future could be pursued; however, key challenges to achieving these futures
include the need for effective stakeholder engagement, policy incentives based on
a better understanding of pertinent behavioural change issues, substantial capital
investment to finance the required infrastructural changes, and the acquisition of
relevant skills and expertise to drive the development of decarbonised urban
systems in the future.

11.1 Introduction to urban systems

Urban metabolism describes the flows of materials and energy associated with
the activities undertaken within a city. The concept of such a ‘metabolism’ has
its roots in reflections on industrialisation by Karl Marx and others in the late
19th century; it was further developed and used to explore energy and material
flows analytically in the 1960s (e.g. Wolman, 1965). However, Gandy (2004)
provides a useful critique of the evolution of urban metabolism, arguing that the
typical focus on resource flows affords insufficient attention to the relationship
192 LEACH ET AL.

between infrastructure and citizens or users. As discussed below, renewal of

infrastructure for the built environment and its supply systems, and increasing
engagement of consumers, are central aspects of the future challenge. As such for
this chapter we adopt the phrase ‘urban system’ to define a broader concept that
encompasses study of the demands for products and services; the material and
energy resources required to satisfy those; the conversion processes used as well
as aspects of the physical built and transport infrastructures; the values, lifestyles
and behaviours of the urban dwellers; and the policies affecting all of the above.
While the urban system is thus multi-sector and requires a multi-disciplinary
approach, within that totality it is possible to study particular resource flows, as
long as the key linkages to other parts of the urban system are considered. This
chapter focuses on the provision of energy to the city, with prime attention to
energy used for ‘stationary’ or non-transport purposes, typically in buildings. Such
study brings into focus issues of both demand, the nature of the built stock and
how people choose to live, and of supply, choices between large- and small-scale
energy supply and of different resources. While material flows are not considered
explicitly, energy recovery from otherwise ‘waste’ materials offers one route to
cleaner and more localised energy supply, and thus the chapter looks also at waste
management practice and policies.

11.2 Current policy issues and trends

In the UK, over 80 per cent of the population already lives in urban areas, and
the country is going through a new phase of urban development and regeneration
that will affect the way we live for decades to come. The traditional drivers for
urban planning include seeking effective use of land and better integration of
services, in order to increase productivity and competitiveness. While protection
and improvement of the human environment has always featured here too,
increased attention is now required to environmental performance, and notably
to the carbon dioxide emissions associated with an area. Responsibility for climate
change mitigation targets and activities are increasingly passed to local authorities,
and thus energy use in transport and buildings and opportunities for local low-
carbon energy supply have gained prominence. In parallel, tough sustainable waste
management targets have been passed to local authorities, and thus waste
minimisation, recycling and energy recovery policies and practices are pursued.
There are numerous policy and legislative drivers for energy efficiency, waste
management and CO2 emission reduction in the UK. The following provides an
overview of a range of policies and instruments in place.

11.2.1 Present energy mix and policy options for

decarbonisation
Figure 11.1 shows the present energy mix for power generation in Great Britain,
which highlights high dependence on gas and coal. While there are notable
exceptions, most urban areas do not have significant levels of local power
generation, and thus urban areas are currently ‘importers’ of this national mix.
The 2007 energy white paper (BERR, 2007) set out the UK government’s four
main energy policy goals:
 DECARBONISING URBAN SYSTEMS 193

1 to cut the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions – by some 60 per cent by about 2050
(which is subsequently increased to 80 per cent), with real progress by 2020;
2 to maintain the reliability of energy supplies;
3 to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond, helping to raise the
rate of sustainable economic growth and to improve our productivity; and
4 to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

In pursuing these general goals, and to meet specific UK and EU targets, the
UK faces major challenges:

• demand for electricity, which may double by 2050, even with energy efficiency
improvement;
• a need to replace a quarter of the existing, ageing, supply capacity by 2020,
to ensure security of supply; and
• a need for decarbonisation of the power sector: about 30 per cent of electricity
in 2020 needs to come from renewable sources.

Overall, this highlights a large investment challenge. Ofgem have estimated a

need for around £200 billion investment in generation, electricity networks and
gas infrastructure by 2020 (DECC, 2010a).
Reflecting the challenges above – notably the need to incentivise a considerable
increase in investment in low-carbon power – the government has been considering
the industry structures and market arrangements for the energy sector, through
a process of electricity market reform (DECC, 2010b). While the policy choices

Other 1.5%
Renewables 11.3%

Coal 39.3%

Gas 27.5%

Oil 1.0%

Nuclear 19.4%

Figure 11.1 UK electricity generation shares by type – 2012

Source: DECC (2013).
194 LEACH ET AL.

are not yet finalised, some set of mechanisms to provide premium and guaranteed
payments for low-carbon generation at the large scale will be implemented,
expected to start in 2014. Of more direct relevance to the urban environment,
the government has also enacted support mechanisms for decentralised and
micro-generation of electricity and heat, as discussed in Section 11.2.3.2, below.
The effects of a focus on local energy supply on the urban system could be
profound, helping stimulate local engagement and creating virtuous circles. The
possible outcomes of such an approach underpin the possible pathway explored
in Section 11.5.

11.2.2 Built stock and emissions

Buildings in the residential, commercial and public sectors account for an
estimated 48 per cent of total final energy consumption and 42 per cent of all
carbon dioxide emissions in the UK. The existing built stock has a large proportion
of buildings built before 1960 that have very poor thermal performance. The UK
government has made a commitment in the Climate Change Act 2008 that carbon
dioxide emissions for the year 2050 are to be at least 80 per cent lower than the
1990 baseline. Reduction in energy consumption, improvement in energy efficiency
standards and the use of low-carbon energy technologies in buildings constitute
vital parts of the government’s carbon emission reduction strategy. The Code for
Sustainable Homes (DCLG, 2008) requires that new homes are zero carbon by
2016. However, the rate of new house building in the UK is less than 1 per cent
per year compared to the existing housing stock, and the target is for 60 per cent
of new housing to be on brownfield land (DCLG, 2011a). It is estimated that
about 75 per cent of the existing housing stock in the UK will still be in use by
2050 (SDC, 2007). Therefore, a substantial reduction in the carbon emissions from
the existing housing stock is key for achieving carbon reduction targets.
Retrofitting the existing built environment to reduce energy use and to switch to
cleaner sources of energy is an enormous challenge: buildings are not uniform
and multiple and varying characteristics constrain the technical choices that can
be made.
The UK policy regarding carbon emissions from the built environment is part
of a wide ranging and complex legislative and policy matrix, which extends across
government. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) provides
input regarding energy; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra) regarding the environment; and the Department for Communities and
Local Government (DCLG) regarding buildings themselves and urban areas.

11.2.3 Policy review

In 2002, a major review of the energy sector and policy was undertaken by the
Performance and Innovation Unit (part of the Cabinet Office), and the 2003 energy
white paper ‘Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Economy’ followed
the next year. Since then the sector has been in a constant state of reviews, target-
setting, policy formulation and consultations, with a second white paper in 2007.
This cycle of activity has been influenced by the intertwined issues of carbon
emissions reduction and security of supply concerns. In 2008 the Climate Change
 DECARBONISING URBAN SYSTEMS 195

Act put in place the world’s first legally binding target, to cut emissions by
80 per cent by 2050, and a set of five-year ‘carbon budgets’ to keep the UK on
track. In 2009 the government produced a white paper, ‘The UK Low Carbon
Transition Plan: National Strategy for Climate and Energy’ (HMG, 2009). The
plan sets out how the carbon budgets will be met – so that by 2020 UK emissions
will be 18 per cent below 2008 levels and over one-third below 1990 levels. The
‘Transition Plan’ acts as an umbrella, guiding the various parts of government on
the contributions that their sectors need to make.

11.2.3.1 Energy efficiency

In the 2003 energy white paper energy efficiency was highlighted as being the
lowest-cost and most deliverable way of achieving the energy policy goals. The
2007 white paper built on the 2003 white paper’s goals and discussed action to
be taken to introduce zero-carbon homes in a much shorter timescale than
envisaged previously. The need to improve building standards through greater use
of energy efficiency and low- and zero-carbon forms of energy was strongly
emphasised.
The UK approach to energy efficiency includes a mixture of legislative and
regulatory instruments, market-based financial incentives and facilitation of
innovation and investment through information programmes. Key measures are:

Building regulations. The building regulations set out technical requirements that
the individual aspects of building design and construction should achieve. The
requirements are in 14 ‘parts’ labelled A to P, covering aspects from structure
to electrical safety, respectively and within which Part L covers ‘conservation
of fuel and power’. The recent update to the regulations tightens the energy
performance requirements for new buildings by 25 per cent and requires
installation of energy efficiency measures in existing buildings when major
changes to the fabric are made.
Code for Sustainable Homes. The Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) measures
the sustainability of a new home against categories of sustainable design, using
a 1 to 6 star rating system to communicate its overall sustainability. The code
assesses a new dwelling against nine categories (including energy, water,
material and waste), each of which is allocated a number of credits and a
weighting factor (or percentage point contribution to the overall score). At
the end of 2006, the UK Government announced proposals to make it
mandatory that all new homes are zero carbon by 2016 – effectively requiring
building to CSH star level 3 by 2010, 4 by 2013 and 6 by 2016. The
definition of code level 6 and ‘zero carbon’ is particularly stringent, requiring
net zero-carbon emissions associated with all energy consumption (i.e.
including electrical appliances). Off-site renewable contributions can be used
where these are directly supplied to the dwellings by private wire arrangements
(DCLG, 2008). There are several concerns about implementation of CSH
standards, the primary concern being the additional cost. According to
Communities and Local Government department figures, it costs up to an
extra £40,000 on top of standard build costs for a four-bedroom detached
house to reach code level 6 (Inside Housing, 2011).
196 LEACH ET AL.

CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme. The CRC is a mandatory scheme aimed at

improving energy efficiency and cutting emissions in large public and private
sector organisations. The CRC comprises three primary elements: emissions
reporting requirements, a carbon price and a ranking of participants in a
performance league table. The overall aim is to deliver carbon savings among
organisations using large amounts of energy; this is achieved most cost
effectively through greater energy efficiency. The organisations covered in
CRC are responsible for around 10 per cent of the UK’s emissions.
Energy supplier obligations. Until recently, the Carbon Emissions Reduction
Target (CERT) was the government’s main domestic energy efficiency
instrument. The Department of Energy and Climate Change had overall
responsibility for the programme, and it was administered by the Energy
Regulator, Ofgem. CERT required all domestic energy suppliers with a
customer base in excess of 50,000 customers (currently the six major supply
companies) to make savings in the amount of CO2 emitted by householders.
Suppliers met this target by promoting the uptake of low-carbon energy
solutions to households.

11.2.3.2 Renewables
There are two key barriers to the uptake of renewable energy: relatively large
investment cost per unit output and local concerns about impacts on the
environment and amenity. Much of the policy and legislation can be categorised
by which of these barriers is targeted.

Financial support (Renewables Obligation). Since 2002, the main policy instru-
ment to stimulate the deployment of renewables has been the Renewables
Obligation (RO), which places a legal obligation on each licensed electricity
supplier to produce evidence that it has either supplied a specified proportion
of its electricity supplies from renewable energy sources to customers in Great
Britain, or that another electricity supplier has done so in their stead. The
current target is 15 per cent by 2015. The eligible renewable generators receive
Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for each MWh of electricity
generated. These certificates can then be sold to suppliers, in order to fulfil
their obligation. The RO was designed as a market mechanism to increase
the uptake of renewables: ROCs have increased the profitability of renewable
energy generation as the certificates have an additional value over and above
the price of electricity itself.
Feed-In Tariff. DECC has used powers administered in the Energy Act 2008 to
introduce a system of Feed-In Tariffs (FITs) to incentivise small-scale (less than
5 MW), low-carbon electricity generation. Described as a scheme for ‘clean
energy cashback’, from April 2010 FITs allow people to invest in small-scale
low-carbon electricity, in return for a guaranteed premium payment both for
the electricity they generate and use directly and that exported. While it has
always been the intention to taper the premium paid, as installation numbers
increase and costs reduce, the government recently halved the premium at
very short notice, prompting legal challenge by the emerging small-scale
renewables installation business sector. These FITs work alongside the RO,
 DECARBONISING URBAN SYSTEMS 197

which will remain the primary mechanism to incentivise deployment of large-

scale renewable electricity generation, and a Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)
which will incentivise generation of heat from renewable sources at all scales.

11.2.3.3 Waste to energy

The overall objective of the UK government’s policy on waste, as set out in the
strategy for sustainable development (DCLG, 2011b), is to protect human health
and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever
possible. By more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste
up the ‘waste hierarchy’ of prevention, preparing for re-use, recycling, other
recovery, and disposing only as a last resort, the government aims to break the link
between economic growth and the environmental impact of waste.
About 40 per cent of waste from households is currently recycled, as of 2011,
compared to 11 per cent in 2000/1 and 52 per cent of commercial and industrial
waste was recycled or re-used in England in 2009, compared to 42 per cent in
2002/3 (Defra, 2011a). Around 55 per cent of municipal waste generated in the
UK is still sent to landfill. Figure 11.2 shows the trend in UK management
method for the total waste generated between 2004 and 2008. The direct emissions
from the waste management sector in the UK accounted for 3.2 per cent of the
UK’s total estimated emissions of greenhouse gases in 2009. The majority of waste
disposal options – including landfilling and recycling – use energy as an input. In
contrast, waste to energy (WtE) technologies use municipal solid waste (MSW)
to generate electricity and heat, contributing to meeting urban energy demands,
and contributing to the low-carbon targets reviewed previously. Therefore it is
important to assess the potential for, and the significance of, WtE in the context
of the UK’s energy and environmental policy. As wastes are typically bulky and
low in value, local treatment is often desirable. Thus local waste to energy
opportunities is of particular interest in an urban environment.

350,000 Incinceration on
land (incl. energy
300,000 recovery)

Land treatment
Thousand tonnes

250,000
and release into
water bodies
200,000
Recovery (excl.
150,000 energy recovery)

Deposit onto or
100,000 into land

50,000

0
2004 2006 2008

Figure 11.2 Total UK waste management by method

Source: Defra (2011b).
198 LEACH ET AL.

11.3 Literature review on future scenarios and

alternative pathways
In recent years, uncertainties about the evolution of the UK energy system in
response to climate change and energy security concerns have led to the develop-
ment of various future scenarios. These scenarios explore possible alternative future
situations with a view to inform and improve decisions that must be made while
the future remains uncertain or undecided (Hughes, 2009). In particular, the UK
Government’s 80 per cent CO2 emissions reduction target by the year 2050 has
generated several scenarios based on the MARKAL modelling tool that illustrate
different ways to achieving the goal. MARKAL is a least–cost optimisation model
of energy use which presents the entire energy system from primary resources to
demands for energy services as well as generating the least cost technology options
under some imposed constraints (Strachan et al., 2007; CCC, 2008). Notable
among these are the Committee on Climate Change 80 per cent and 90 per cent
scenario (CCC, 2008), the DECC ‘Low Carbon Transitions Plan’ 80 per cent
RES Scenarios (DECC, 2009) and the UKERC 80 per cent low-carbon resilient
(LCR) scenario (UKERC, 2009). The next section provides a succinct account of
these scenarios and compares them with the more recent DECC 2050 pathways.
Further common messages and challenges in these scenarios and pathways that
relate to key features of the urban system are highlighted. This gives rise to a
discussion on the possible need for a bottom-up approach to energy services in the
future, where the community takes an active role and city/community scale
decentralised technologies take up a greater proportion of the energy mix.

11.3.1 Key features of the MARKAL–based future

scenarios
11.3.1.1 Committee on Climate Change scenarios
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) scenarios include the 80 per cent and
90 per cent emissions reduction scenarios. The 90 per cent scenario accounts for
sectors such as agriculture, aviation and the waste industry for which greenhouse
gases other than CO2 are particularly significant.
Both scenarios are based on technology and cost optimisation. They depict the
complete decarbonisation of electricity generation by 2030 so carbon intensity
falls to below 70 g/kWh and 40 g/kWh in the 80 per cent and 90 per cent scenario
respectively and falling further to 35 g/kWh and 20 g/kWh respectively by 2050.
Towards 2020, the scenario sees the uptake of efficiency measures in the
domestic sector, including insulation and efficient appliances that reduces
electricity demand. After 2020, the adoption of electricity-based heating systems,
such as heat pumps and the introduction of electric vehicles, reduces the carbon
intensity of the domestic and transport sector but leads to a rise in electricity
demand, which is met by increasing generating capacity using nuclear power,
renewable energy and fossil fuel plant with carbon capture and storage. During
the 2020s the build rate for nuclear and fossil fuel with CCS generation capacity
is limited to 3 GW p.a. This is increased to 5 GW p.a. for the period between
2030 and 2050 (CCC, 2008; CHPA, 2010).
 DECARBONISING URBAN SYSTEMS 199

11.3.1.2 DECC LCTP scenarios

The DECC LCTP scenarios were commissioned in preparation for the low-carbon
transition plan report. They are similar to the CCC 80 per cent and 90 per cent
scenarios but include constraints to increase uptake of renewables. For example,
nuclear, coal and gas-fired power are restricted, in favour of wind power in
particular, in order to reach 30 per cent electricity by renewables by 2020. The
DECC scenarios also indicate the electrification of the heat and transport sectors,
in the period after 2020 (DECC, 2009; CHPA, 2010).

11.3.1.3 UKERC 2050 scenarios

In the UKERC scenarios, four core scenarios are presented, based on achieving low-
carbon and resilient energy futures. They include the ‘reference’ (ref) scenario, the
‘low carbon’ (LC) scenario, the ‘resilience’ (R) scenario and finally the ‘low
carbon resilient’ (LCR) scenario. The LCR scenario is a combination of the LC and
R scenarios, i.e. a 26 per cent carbon reduction by 2020, and 80 per cent carbon
reduction by 2050 as well as a strong emphasis on energy efficiency demand
reduction and diversified energy supply to maintain a resilient system.
In the LCR scenario, energy demand reduction of at least 1.2 per cent per year
is included. This reduction helps to meet the energy intensity aspects of the resilient
system. In addition, all energy sources are restricted to a maximum of 40 per cent
share of the primary energy or power mix from 2015. These constraints make
sure that the energy mix is sufficiently balanced, meeting diversity aspects of the
resilient system. By 2050 electricity generation is significantly decarbonised in all
low-carbon scenarios. Finally, similar to the other scenarios, the residential and
transport sectors are decarbonised by a shift to electricity with the deployment
of end-use technologies such as heat pumps for space heating/hot water and electric
vehicles for transportation (CHPA, 2010; UKERC, 2009)

11.3.2 DECC 2050 pathways and the MARKAL scenarios

More recently, in 2010, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
presented the DECC 2050 pathways. These pathways give greater attention to
the dynamics and processes of change underpinning the evolution of the UK energy
system across the four decades from 2010 to 2050, compared to the scenarios
above which present snapshots depicting the required state of the system at the
critical points of 2020 and 2030 as dictated by UK and EU energy or climate
change targets. Furthermore, the DECC pathway does not use a cost optimisation
approach; rather it aims to provide options for what is practically and physically
possible in different UK sectors over the next 40 years, without explicit cost
considerations (DECC, 2010c). It also models the non-energy and non-CO2-
emitting sectors such as the waste, agriculture, industrial processes, land use and
forestry. The pathways account for factors such as level of behavioural and life
style changes, technological improvement, technology changes and fuel choices,
as well as levels of structural change by making use of a combination of trajectories
that indicate the level of effort and ambition in each factor. Thus many
combinations can be explored. Six successful pathways which illustrate different
200 LEACH ET AL.

plausible avenues by which the 2050 target could be met within a balanced energy
system are presented in DECC (2010c) and additional pathways are presented in
DECC (2011).

11.3.3 Challenges to the future energy system

In spite of the differences in method between the DECC 2050 pathways and the
MARKAL scenarios, there are common messages about some of the key features
of the urban system in the future UK energy system. These include the reduction
in energy demand, improvements in energy efficiency, and increase in penetration
of renewables, decarbonisation of electricity and to a lesser extent the role of waste
management, including waste to energy and bioenergy technologies. This section
outlines these messages and then discusses emerging challenges in achieving these
futures.

11.3.3.1 Reduction in energy demand through energy

efficiency measures
All the scenarios depict a future where the emissions reduction target is met in
part by a significant reduction in energy demand through the increased uptake of
energy efficiency measures in buildings and industry.
The CCC third progress report (2011) indicates that in 2010, there was a 7
per cent rise in CO2 emissions from buildings and industry due to an increase in
energy demand for heating during the cold winter and an increase in output in
industry. However, taking into account the cold winter in 2010, emissions
remained constant in the residential sector when compared with the previous year.
The lack of progress in emissions reduction was attributed to a number of issues,
particularly a decline in the installation rate of key measures in the residential
sector, where there was a reduction of about 30 per cent of professional loft and
cavity installations in 2010 compared to installations in 2009 and limited progress
in wall installations. This is against the current policy goal to insulate all loft and
cavity spaces by 2015 and 2.3 million solid wall installations by 2022 (CCC,
2011). The result of the past year shows that end-use barriers to uptake of energy
efficiency measures have not been fully addressed under the Carbon Emissions
Reduction Target (CERT) policy. As stated earlier, these barriers include lack of
awareness, cost, hassle factors and general lack of willingness. A study by Element
Energy (2009) reveals that up to 30 per cent of the population are not currently
interested in energy efficiency measures even if they are fully subsidised.

11.3.3.2 Electrification of the heating and transport sectors

A substantial level of electrification is required for transport and heating sectors
that should be accompanied by the decarbonisation of electricity supply as
demand for electricity increases from these sectors beyond 2020.
Success in electrification of residential heating is contingent on high levels of
insulation in homes. Given the barriers and current rate of uptake of efficiency
measures discussed above, there needs to be a significant improvement for a viable
electricity-based heating sector. Further, the retrofitting of electric ground source
 DECARBONISING URBAN SYSTEMS 201

heat pumps would require a considerable level of disruption which home owners
may not be willing to put up with. This presents a problem because up to 80 per
cent of the 2050 house stock could comprise buildings already built. Furthermore
a significant number of houses in the UK may not be suitable for the installation
of heat pumps. Examples include houses with solid wall constructions, as well as
buildings with insufficient space to install collectors for ground- or air-source heat
pumps, especially in urban areas (CHPA, 2010; CCC, 2011). Finally, in order to
avoid significant peaks in electricity demand as a result of the installations of heat
pumps, changes in end-use demand patterns may be required which may be
difficult to implement and monitor (CHPA, 2010).
In the transport sector, the latest report by the CCC (2011) indicates that in
the past year there has been good progress in government infrastructural
investment such as the Plugged-in-Places programmes as well as government
support for electric vehicle purchase through the plug-in car grant. The plug–in
grant is a consumer incentive scheme that highlights the need to motivate
consumers to purchase electric vehicles and use them. However, according to the
this report, only 167 all-electric vehicles have been taken up in 2010, although
this may also be as a result of the limited availability of electric vehicles in 2010.

11.3.3.3 Decarbonisation of the electricity supply

All the scenarios depict a decarbonised electricity supply with very significant
deployment of low-carbon technologies such as nuclear power, wind, fossil fuel
with CCC and other renewables.
This implies quite an ambitious build rate for the infrastructure and could
constitute a major impact on the physical landscape, which in turn could generate
local opposition. For instance, the CCC (2011) reports that in 2010, there were
a considerable number of on-shore and off-shore wind projects awaiting planning
approval due to low approval rates and long decision times from the local
authorities. This represents a major constraint to achieving the target of 27 GW
installed wind capacity by 2020.
Similarly in the nuclear industry, although there has been considerable progress
in the regulatory justification for the design of reactors, there have been delays
in the submission of planning applications that should have commenced by the
end of 2010. Further, given persistent public concerns over nuclear waste and
safety, these applications have been subject to further delay and have failed to
meet the deadline for commencing civil construction by the end of 2012.
Further challenges to decarbonising the electricity sector include substantial
investment required in order to reinforce the electricity network, the need to
balance and adjust peak loads and plant utilisation, which may require
considerable change in demand patterns, and as stated earlier, greater end user
demand management, which may be difficult to implement (CCC, 2011).

11.3.4 The role of waste management, waste to energy

and bioenergy technologies
Bioenergy and waste-to-energy technologies are not adequately modelled in the
MARKAL-based scenarios. As a cost optimisation model, MARKAL does not fully
202 LEACH ET AL.

account for wider energy system transformation that might involve decentral-
isation and characterisation of local conditions as well as significant upfront costs
(Hughes, 2009; CHPA, 2010). However, the three reports resulting from the
scenarios, namely CCC (2008), UKERC (2009) and DECC (2009), all acknow-
ledge this limitation and agree that sustainable bioenergy does have a role to play
in the future energy mix. For instance, bioenergy provides an alternative to
electrifying the heat and transport sectors and adds extra flexibility to meeting
the carbon reduction targets, should the other technologies and demand reduction
strategies fail, given the challenges discussed above. The use of biodegradable
waste such as agriculture and food waste to produce biogas through anaerobic
digestion is attracting particular interest. In addition, the pathways report (DECC,
2010c) states that sustainable bioenergy is a vital part of the low-carbon energy
system in sectors where electrification is unlikely to be practical, such as long haul
freight transport and aviation and some industrial high-grade heating processes.

11.4 The thousand flowers pathway

An overview of the challenges faced by these future scenarios reveals a recurrent
problem, where a lack of end user commitment and corresponding behavioural
changes pose a significant impediment to the realisation of technical opportunities.
According to Chris Huhne, then Secretary of State for Climate Change, ‘creating
a low carbon economy will require the consent and participation of citizens’
(DECC, 2010c: 2). There is a need for effective engagement with the public in
order to achieve any of the low-carbon targets in the near future. The development
of decentralised energy, where the local authorities or communities play a greater
role in energy generation and services could be a key to stimulating greater consent
and participation from the public.
A set of ‘transition’ pathways to a low-carbon, more electric economy have
been developed by the multi-institution Transition Pathways to a Low Carbon
Economy project, funded by EPSRC and EON (see Foxon et al., 2010). One
pathway depicts a bottom-up approach to energy services at the community scale.
This ‘thousand flowers’ pathway describes the evolution of the UK energy system
to a low-carbon electricity-based system over three periods to 2050, from
2008–22, 2023–37 and 2038–52.
The pathway shows a greater focus on more local, bottom-up diversity of
solutions driven by innovative local authorities and active citizens groups. It also
features a variety of more locally based technological and institutional solutions,
which challenge the dominance of the existing large energy companies.

11.4.1 The electricity generation mix for thousand flowers

The energy system is initially dominated by coal, gas and nuclear energy and to
a lesser extent CHP with natural gas. By 2015, there is a marked decline in these
technologies as other low-carbon options including onshore/offshore wind and
CHP with renewable fuels start to emerge. By 2022, biomass-fuelled CHP
establishes itself as a dominant technology, while coal and gas plants with CCS
are introduced into the generation mix. Between 2038 and 2052, distributed
generation achieves high levels of adoption, meeting nearly half of total demand
 DECARBONISING URBAN SYSTEMS 203

600 CHP – Other fuels

CHP – Renewable fuels

CHP – Natural gas

500
Pumped storage

Imports

Solar
400
Tidal

Wave
TWhr

Biomass
300
Hydro

Wind (offshore)

Wind (onshore)
200
Nuclear

Gas CCGT with CCS

Coal CCS
100
Oil

Gas CCGT

0 Coal
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Year

Figure 11.3 Electricity generation mix in thousand flowers

by 2050, with large shares from third-generation solar PV and renewable CHP
systems, largely embedded as building-integrated devices in urban areas. The
centralised generation system is now almost totally decarbonised, with onshore
and offshore wind and wave and tidal power achieving significant shares, alongside
the three large nuclear power plants still operating, largely due to the support
from local communities who would benefit from the jobs and investment created.
New ‘super-efficient’ gas and coal power stations, fitted with CCS, also provide
the remainder of centralised supply. Figure 11.3 shows the electricity generation
mix for the thousand flowers pathways from 2008 to 2050.

11.4.2 The domestic sector in the thousand flowers

pathway
Towards the year 2020 the domestic sector sees a significant emergence of Energy
Service Companies (ESCOs). This facilitates the deployment of low-carbon
technologies including fuel cell CHP, heat pumps, solar water heating and solar
PV as well as increased installation of energy efficiency measures. Further, local
initiatives such as community scale CHP fuelled by waste-to-energy schemes and
locally sourced biomass gain popularity against large centralised generation
projects. Moreover, private investment for district heating gives rise to local district
heating systems in urban areas. In the period between 2022 and 2050, entre-
preneurial activities lead to strong competition between low-carbon technologies.
By the mid 2020s, a small number of successful distributed generation technologies
are becoming ‘dominant designs’, as they out-compete other technologies. These
204 LEACH ET AL.

450 District heating from power stations

400 Geothermal

Community scale biomass CHP

350
Community scale biogas CHP
Total delivered fuel use (TWh)

300 Fuel-cell μCHP

Stirling engine μCHP

250
Solid-fuel boiler
200
Oil-fired boiler

150 Resistive heating

Ground-source heatpump
100
Air-source heatpump
50 Gas boiler (new)

0 Gas boiler (old)

2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year

Figure 11.4 Technology share for heating demand

include biomass fuelled Stirling Engine micro-CHP and fuel cell micro-CHP
technologies for domestic heat and power, as well as community-scale biogas CHP
systems, supported by local authorities working with community groups. This
period also sees significant improvements in domestic energy efficiency resulting
from both technical improvements and behavioural change. The successful
deployment of fabric-improvement building efficiency measures, and contributions
from behaviour change, reflect the closer engagement of citizens with their energy
systems in this pathway. Figure 11.4 illustrates the technology share for residential
heating demand from 2000 to 2050 in the thousand flowers pathway.

11.4.3 Implications of the thousand flowers pathways

From the above, urban areas in 2050 which have evolved along the thousand
flowers pathway would have highly energy efficient houses, with energy demand
for space and hot water in existing buildings and new build reducing by
approximately 42 per cent and 72 per cent respectively. Solar water heating would
provide up to 50 per cent of total hot water demand and there would be a
prevalence of micro-generation technologies such as fuel cell CHP and solar PV
generating local electricity supply, which can be sold to the grid to provide
supplementary income to households. On the other hand, gas boilers and heat
pumps would meet only 4 per cent and 8 per cent of total delivered fuel use
respectively, where heat pumps are mostly used in highly efficient new build
 DECARBONISING URBAN SYSTEMS 205

houses, which require low heat input. At a larger scale, some neighbourhoods
would feature community-based technologies such as anaerobic digesters, which
make use of locally collected food waste and inject the resulting gas back into the
gas grid. This would require the effective integration of waste management and
energy generation infrastructures.
In the transport sector, 80 per cent of passenger car distances would be
powered by electricity, with the remaining 20 per cent by fuel cell. Buses are a
mix of hybrid and all-electric, while the rail system is completely electrified. This
implies significant investment and changes to the city infrastructure with various
types of electric charging points, as well as charging points in residential buildings.
The increase in electricity demand from the transport sector would have implica-
tions for the management of peak loads, with active demand-side management
strategies, which may include incentives for off-peak charging as well as other
behavioural adaptations.
Finally, as mentioned above, the realisation of this pathway – or any other
decarbonising pathways – is very much dependent on people: the local community,
policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. First, strategies for successful public
engagement need to be identified, so that people are well aware of the impact of
their choices. Further, the underlying factors that drive or limit the required
behavioural changes need to be better understood in order to develop incentives
and policies that would drive people from awareness to action. Furthermore,
effective dissemination avenues and widely publicised demonstration events are
needed to display key advances in technologies. In addition, there is considerable
scope for learning, skill acquisition and expertise for practitioners in the built
environment, as well as a need for substantial capital investment to finance the
major infrastructural changes that are envisaged in the near future.

11.5 Conclusions
The challenges of climate change and increasing concerns for energy security are
presently driving a revolution in the energy system, where reduction in energy
demand, improvements in energy efficiency, increase in the penetration of
renewables and the decarbonisation of electricity are to become prominent features
of the future energy system. Therefore, this chapter has outlined one possible low-
carbon transitions pathway, dubbed ‘thousand flowers’, in which it is envisaged
that urban living would change dramatically as local communities become actively
aware of, and involved in, the management and integration of waste and energy
flows in their cities. Furthermore, it seems likely that the future will indeed be
increasingly ‘electric’, and urban areas offer the greatest potential for some aspects
of electrification, notably in transport. However, the very density of buildings and
people makes electrification of space heating problematic. Opportunities for
networked heating systems fuelled from bioenergy and wastes are myriad, and thus
the future urban metabolism may well see flows of a wider variety of energy carriers.
Finally, in order to realise any decarbonising pathway this chapter has highlighted
a few hurdles that must be overcome, such as the investments required for setting
up new distribution networks, the need for closer and different stakeholder
engagement, incentives and policies to drive behavioural changes and the
development of skills and expertise in the built environment to facilitate the changes
in infrastructures and services that are vital for a future decarbonised urban system.
206 LEACH ET AL.

Note
* Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey.

References
BERR (Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) (2003) Energy White
Paper: Our Energy Future: Building a low carbon economy. Accessed June 2011 at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.berr.gov.uk/files/file10719.pdf.
BERR (Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) (2007) Energy White
Paper: Meeting the energy challenge. Accessed June 2011 at: http://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.berr.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html.
CCC (Committee on Climate Change) (2008) Building a Low-Carbon Economy – The UK’s
contribution to tackling climate change. Accessed December 2011 at: www.theccc.org.
uk/publication/building-a-low-carbon-economy-the-uks-contribution-to-tackling-
climate-change-2.
CCC (Committee on Climate Change) (2011) Committee on Climate Change Progress
Report. June 2011. Accessed December 2011 at: www.theccc.org.uk/reports.
CHPA (Combined Heat and Power Association) (2010) Building a Road Map for Heat: 2050
scenarios and heat delivery in the UK. A report commissioned by the Combined Heat
and Power Association. February 2010. London: CHPA.
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) (2008) The Code for
Sustainable Homes: Setting the standard in sustainability for new homes. London:
DCLG .
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) (2011a) The National
Planning Policy Framework: Communities and local government committee contents.
Accessed October 2011 at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/
cmcomloc/1526/152611.htm.
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) (2011b) Planning Policy
Statement 10: Planning for sustainable waste management. London: DCLG.
DECC (Department for Energy and Climate Change) (2009) The UK Low Carbon
Transition Plan. London: DCLG.
DECC (Department for Energy and Climate Change) (2010a) Electricity Market Reform:
Consultation document. Accessed June 2011 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/42545/1344-2050-pathways-analysis-
response-pt2.pdf.
DECC (Department for Energy and Climate Change) (2010b) Electricity Market Reform
Analysis of Policy Options. A report by Redpoint Energy in association with Trilemma
UK, December 2010. Accessed July 2011 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/42638/1043-emr-analysis-policy-options.pdf.
DECC (Department for Energy and Climate Change) (2010c) 2050 Pathway Analysis. July
2010. Accessed June 2011 at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/2010050
9134746/http:/www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/publications/lc_trans_plan/lc_trans
_plan.aspx.
DECC (Department for Energy and Climate Change) (2011) Report on the Response for
Evidence Call. Accessed June 2011 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/42545/1344-2050-pathways-analysis-response-
pt2.pdf.
DECC (Department for Energy and Climate Change) (2013) Energy Trends. Accessed March
2013 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-section-5-energy-
trends.
 DECARBONISING URBAN SYSTEMS 207

Defra (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) (2011a) Waste and Recycling
– Key facts and figures. Accessed June 2011 at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/
waste/.
Defra (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) (2011b) Waste Data
Overview. Accessed June 2011 at: www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/20110617-waste-
data-overview.pdf.
Element Energy (2009) Uptake of Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Report for the Committee
on Climate Change. Final Report, 11 August 2009. Accessed June 2011 at: http://
downloads.theccc.org.uk/docs/Element%20Energy_final_efficiency_buildings.pdf.
Foxon T. J., Hammond, G., and Pearson, P. J. G. (2010) ‘Developing transition pathways
for a low carbon electricity system in the UK’, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 77(8): 1203–13.
Gandy, M. (2004) ‘Rethinking urban metabolism: Water, space and the modern city’,
City, 8(3): 363–79.
HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) (2009) The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National
strategy for climate and energy. London: HMG.
HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) (2010) Conservation of Fuel and Power (Existing
Buildings other than Dwellings). Accessed 7 October 2013 at: www.planningportal.
gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_L2B_2011.pdf.
Hughes, N. (2009) A Historical Overview of Strategic Scenario Planning, and Lessons for
Undertaking Low Carbon Energy Policy. A joint working paper of the EON/EPSRC
Transition Pathways Project (Working Paper 1) and the UKERC.
Inside Housing (2011) ‘Zero carbon homes “too expensive” to build’. Accessed June 2011
at: www.insidehousing.co.uk/sustainability/zero-carbon-homes-%E2%80%98too-
expensive%E2%80%99-to-build/6518051.article.
SDC (Sustainable Development Commission) (2007) Building Houses or Creating Com-
munities? A review of government progress on sustainable communities. Accessed
28 November 2013 at: www.sdcommission.org.uk/data/files/publications/SDC_SCP_
report_2007.pdf.
Strachan, N., Kannan, R., and Pye, S. (2007) Final Report for DTI-Defra on Scenarios and
Sensitivities Using the UK MARKAL and MARKAL-Macro Energy System Models.
Accessed December 2011 at: www.ukerc.ac.uk.
UKERC (UK Energy Research Centre) (2009) Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy: Energy
systems modelling. The UEnergy Systems Research Centre. Accessed December 2011
at: www.ukerc.ac.uk.
Wolman, A. (1965) ‘The metabolism of cities’, Scientific American, 213(3): 179–90.
This page intentionally left blank
PART III
Water, waste and urban
retrofit
This page intentionally left blank
12
Retrofitting sustainable
integrated water
management
David Butler,* Sarah Bell** and Sarah Ward*

Current water infrastructure systems and technologies, implemented in the 1850s,

must be fundamentally transformed to meet the needs of 2050. Increasing
consideration of climate change and population growth scenarios means there is
a broadening realisation within the engineering, water management and policy-
making communities, that water scarcity, flooding and pollution issues can
only be resolved with multi-objective interventions. Such interventions seek to
synergistically: reduce water demand, restore urban ecosystems, increase resource
use efficiency, develop new, sustainable resources, change water cultures and
practices, use end-use appropriate water qualities and increase the flexibility,
resilience and adaptability of our water, sanitation and drainage services. This
complex reconfiguration calls for a transition to sustainable integrated water
management (SIWM), which seeks to integrate all aspects of the urban water cycle.
Interventions under a SIWM future include smart metering, low-carbon rainwater
harvesting (RWH) systems, urine separation and planned indirect potable re-use.
Consequently, retrofitting for SIWM also means fundamentally reconfiguring our
values and practices relating to water, its quality and our intended uses. Critical
pathways to be fulfilled are therefore technical and market-based, political and
governance-based, and cultural and water-user-based. Greater integration and
partnering with other sectors, such as local planning, is also crucial.

12.1 Introduction
Provision of clean drinking water, removal of contaminated water and protection
from flooding are essential for good public health in cities. The development of
infrastructure systems to deliver these services has been a major achievement of
the engineering profession in the UK and in other economically developed
countries. In recent decades the principles underpinning the engineering systems
for managing water in cities have come under question (Bell et al., 2011; Farrelly
and Brown, 2011; Ward et al., 2012). Many cities, such as London, have reached
212 BUTLER ET AL.

the limits of available water resources and are turning to expensive and energy
intensive technologies such as desalination to provide water to meet demand.
Growing public interest in improving the ecological health and biodiversity of
urban environments has drawn attention to the impact of engineered drainage
and wastewater systems on local waterways and wetlands. In particular,
the European Framework Directive on Water has highlighted the impact of
wastewater discharge and combined sewer overflows on aquatic ecosystems.
Floods in cities and towns such as Hull and Gloucester have caused major
disruption to people’s lives and local economies, and have resulted in major
reforms to flood policy and management in the UK (Potter et al., 2011). All of
these challenges become more complicated as rainfall patterns become more
uncertain under climate change scenarios and as urban populations increase.
Water infrastructure systems and technologies that have their origins in the 1850s
must be fundamentally transformed to meet the needs of 2050.
The elements of urban water infrastructure have conventionally been managed
independently, while recognising basic interactions between the engineered
systems. Wastewater and drinking water systems intersect at the point of the
household, building or factory, where drinking water is transformed into sewage.
In cities with combined sewerage systems, wastewater systems also deal with
surface water, so that drains and treatment works are designed to respond to storm
events as well as domestic and industrial effluent (Butler and Davies, 2011). The
principles underpinning urban water systems are based on the premise that water
is either clean or dirty. Clean water must be delivered to homes and businesses
without interruption or limit, whatever use that water might be put to. Dirty water
must be removed from streets and buildings as quickly as possible, and cities must
be defended against the inflow of flood water during extreme rainfall events. Since
the 1970s there has been a public intention to minimise the impact of urban water
systems on aquatic ecosystems, but this remains secondary and separate to the
basic tasks of delivering endless clean water and rapidly removing dirty water
from human settlements, and defending them against floods (Karvonen, 2011).
Sustainable integrated water management (SIWM) responds to the challenges
of public health and safety, limits to water resources, restoration of aquatic
ecosystems, and flooding by analysing how water flows through cities and looking
for opportunities for synergistic improvements in managing the discrete elements
of urban water systems (Farrelly and Brown, 2011; Potter et al., 2011). SIWM
remains grounded in the essential public health imperative, which is the basic
purpose of urban water infrastructure, but questions many of the basic
assumptions of conventional water management. Growing demand for water by
households and industry is no longer taken for granted, such that improving water
efficiency and changing water wasting behaviour is now an important task for
public agencies and water companies (Medd and Shove, 2007). The logic of using
pure, clean drinking water for toilet flushing and gardening is no longer obvious,
and new systems are being implemented to collect rainwater or recycle greywater
for these low-risk uses. Rainwater and surface water in cities have become a
resource, rather than simply inputs to the drainage network. Urban spaces are
designed to incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) that store
stormwater and increase infiltration and evapotranspiration. These responses can
restore local ecosystems and improve the amenity of local environments, rather
 RETROFITTING SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT 213

than directing stormwater to concrete underground pipes as quickly as possible

(Butler and Davies, 2011).
This chapter outlines the principles of SIWM as a framework for retrofitting
cities to meet the needs of people and the environment under the uncertainties of
climate change and population growth by 2050. The chapter examines existing
and proposed urban retrofit interventions that assist in tackling the three
challenges of water scarcity, flooding and water pollution. It begins with an
overview of current urban water management in the UK and immediate policy
changes towards SIWM. It then outlines the vision of SIWM as the basis for
backcasting to identify the main challenges and pathways to retrofitting. The final
section concludes with a summary of the challenges ahead.

12.2 Current urban water management in the UK

In the present day UK, the bulk of the water supplied to water-using sectors,
including residential and commercial buildings, originates from the abstraction
of surface water (19,055 ML/d) and groundwater (8,127 Ml/d) (Environment
Agency, 2005). In some regions (the south-east), this is complemented with
additional resources such as desalination. At present there is limited interaction
between the water supply and drainage components of the urban water cycle.
Consequently, technological solutions to flooding, water scarcity and pollution
tend to operate in isolation and only individual water management objectives are
resolved. A more integrated water and sanitation system has the potential to
resolve these issues in a multi-objective and more sustainable way (Butler and
Davies, 2011).
The construction of new homes means that potentially a third of 2050’s overall
housing stock will be built between 2006 and 2050 (DCLG, 2006). By implication,
the remaining two-thirds of homes will be represented by the existing housing
stock, which will still be in use in 2050. Although some developers are utilising
SIWM approaches in new developments (Butler et al., 2010), retrofitting SuDS
and rainwater harvesting (RWH) systems to existing housing will form a
significant challenge. However, recognition of the need for a transition to SIWM
is emerging as the realisation is made that multi-objective solutions will be
required in the cities of the future (Ward et al., 2012).
In the UK, the introduction of the Flood Risk Management Act (2009)
(Scotland) and the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) (England and
Wales) (Defra, 2010) have facilitated the transition to the use of SuDS, mandating
provision for their design, implementation and management. New SuDS guidance
is being prepared, providing English and Welsh Lead Local Flood Authorities
with guidance on SuDS Approving Body (SAB) processes (Chatfield, 2012).
Compliance with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive is also encouraging
new approaches to dealing with sewage effluent and stormwater from separate
and combined sewer systems (Ward and Butler, submitted). Legislative drivers
for other alternative water technologies are less clearly defined, but the release of
the water white paper, ‘Water for Life’, in late 2011 (Defra, 2011) provides a
signal that water supply–demand options must diversify to facilitate transition to
an adaptable, resilient and sustainable water management future. Along with its
214 BUTLER ET AL.

sister case for support documents published by Ofwat (2011) and the Environment
Agency (2011), ‘Water for Life’ sets targets for water companies in England
and Wales. These include reducing household consumption by 5 litres per
property over 5 years and reducing leakage by a further 3 per cent. Among
other aims, these targets are outlined in order to improve water availability,
support reforms to the water abstraction regime and reduce carbon emissions
from the water sector.
Increasing interconnectivity in water infrastructure is emphasised in ‘Water for
Life’ and interconnectivity between the urban water cycle components (water,
sewage, stormwater) is implied in the following paragraphs, along with an
emphasis on increasing visibility of the role all water users have in future water
management:

We will need new technology and new ways of working to improve our resource
efficiency and use available supplies as efficiently as possible. We will need to design
more innovative ways of capturing and using water into our buildings that
maximise the potential of this resource while minimising carbon and financial costs.
When all steps to minimise existing water use have been taken, we should consider
collecting and reusing rainwater and recycling grey water, particularly in new
buildings or those undergoing major renovation. Reusing water can reduce pressure
on the supply system and our drainage infrastructure.
(Defra, 2011, 2.2: 20)

These local tailored solutions can cut costs to households and businesses by
reducing the need to invest in new supply infrastructure and to treat water to
drinking water standards when it is not needed. We will also need to consider
new supply solutions, such as considering how to best reuse treated water from
sewage works.
(Defra, 2011, 2.3: 20).

We will make it more attractive for customers to consider switching their suppliers
by using a future Water Bill to extend the WSL regime to sewerage services . . .
Extending the scope of WSL could also stimulate a market for recycled water as
an alternative to that produced to drinking water quality and provide opportunities
for new entrants to offer alternative treatment and disposal services for wastewater
and sewage sludge.
(Defra, 2011, 5.39: 71)

Clearly, awareness of the requirement for a new SIWM future has reached the
policy arena and a transition is in the making. Consequently, the future will
require:

• consideration of resource recovery (e.g. effluent re-use);

• new designs for innovative low-carbon and low-cost re-use systems at a range
of scales (rainwater, greywater, stormwater, wastewater);
• an interconnected water and drainage system; and
• all water-users to adapt to using different qualities of water for different end
uses.
 RETROFITTING SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT 215

Implementation of water efficient devices is already significant and some

alternative technologies, for example RWH systems, are increasingly being
installed in new developments as they are promoted in the Code for Sustainable
Homes (DCLG, 2010) and the Building Regulations (NBS, 2010). Consequently,
in tackling tripartite water issues, it is clear that the multi-objective benefits of
emerging technologies are being recognised.
Figure 12.1 illustrates how water scarcity, flooding and pollution overlap and
interrelate, and how existing retrofit interventions, such as water efficient appli-
ances (dish washers, washing machines), can be used to address some of these
challenges. However, between the present day, 2020 and onward to 2050, the
SIWM transition will gain momentum and the interventions of 2050 will have
evolved further.

12.3 Future sustainable integrated water

management in the UK
In addition to the interventions illustrated in Figure 12.1, new retrofit (and new-
build) interventions will be developed in the SIWM future. A range of such
interventions is illustrated in Figure 12.2.
In order to transition to the SIWM retrofit interventions of the future, a vision
for 2050 is required, along with the delineation of pathways by which the vision
could be achieved. The ‘vision’ for 2050 could be envisaged as being: ‘Integration

Flooding Water scarcity

Rainwater
harvesting
Building resilience Water
measures butts

Sustainable Water efficient

drainage appliances

Chemical source
control

Pollution

Figure 12.1 ‘Present day’ (2010) urban retrofit interventions to water challenges
216 BUTLER ET AL.

Flooding Water scarcity

Low-energy RWH
and GWR
Smart metering Planned Indirect
and real-time Potable Reuse and
systems licence trading
Sustainable
integrated water
management

Green Ultra low flush

infrastructure toilets

Urine separation
nutrient recycling

Pollution

Figure 12.2 Additional ‘future’ (2050) retrofit interventions to water challenges

of the three components of the urban water cycle for multi-objective water
quantity and quality management.’
Figure 12.3 illustrates the form this vision could take, as a theoretical supply-
demand balance for the UK. In 2050, supply-side options have diversified to
include large-scale wastewater (for indirect and direct potable re-use) and
stormwater re-use, as well as being fed by demand-side options, such as rainwater
harvesting and greywater re-use. In this future, the vision has been achieved: the
components of the urban water cycle are integrated and multi-objective benefits
are realised and water quantity and quality issues are addressed.
By achieving a transition to SIWM, water scarcity and flooding issues have been
resolved by utilising treated effluent and stormwater as a resource, enabling
abstractions from water stressed surface and ground waters to be reduced and
pressures on stormwater sewers to be reduced. In relation to pollution, benefits
are also created. For water supply, by adapting to utilising non-potable quality
water for end uses not requiring potable quality water, energy and chemical
consumption in raw water treatment processes have been reduced, with associated
savings in carbon emissions. Additionally, effluent re-use and sewer mining has
led to a more concentrated sewage effluent, lessening the load on wastewater
treatment works, extending their lifespan (Astaraie-Imani et al., 2012). For
receiving water bodies, reduced raw water abstractions and effluent discharges,
achieved by utilising various forms of re-use, has resulted in higher environmental
flows and reduced fluctuations in biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia,
phosphates and nitrates. Consequently, water bodies are healthier and riparian
 RETROFITTING SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT 217

Supply
Process
Demand
SURFACE

Water

INDUSTRY
treatment
plant
GROUND

Supply
Rainwater
storage
tank
BRACKISH

RESIDENTIAL
Desalination
plant

Greywater
storage
WASTEWATER

IPR tank

Wastewater
treatment
plant (DPR) Legend

AGRICULTURE
Surface water [m³]
Groundwater [m³]
RUNOFF

Stormwater
Brackish water [m³]
treatment plant Desalinated water [m³]
Effluent [m³]
Supply Treated water [m³]
Greywater [m³]
Stormwater [m³]
Treated greywater [m³]
Rainwater [m³]
Filtered rainwater [m³]

Figure 12.3 Future UK water supply–demand balance (2050) (illustrative only)

ecosystem health improves (Astaraie-Imani et al., 2012). By utilising SuDS and

green infrastructures as source control techniques, impacts on receiving water body
quality caused by diffuse pollution, surface runoff, combined sewer overflows and
other drainage issues, are also reduced.

12.4 Pathways to the SIWM future

The transition to the SIWM for 2050 requires not only significant change in
technologies adopted at different scales, but also significant change in social aspects
of practices involving water (Medd and Shove, 2007). For example, introducing
rainwater harvesting or greywater systems requires the technical implementation
of a new storage and conveyance system. Additionally, depending on the scale of
the system implemented, the water-user needs to develop an understanding of the
different quality of water provided by the system (to avoid adverse health effects).
Further to this, awareness of how the system functions (particularly for individual
building systems) is essential, so that the system is operated and maintained in the
correct way (to maintain its performance). Consequently, a ‘retrofitting’ of societal
values in relation to water use is required and a SIWM future involving new alterna-
tive water systems requires the development of new socio-technical pathways.
218 BUTLER ET AL.

The anticipation of potential metaphoric ‘tipping points’ is also crucial to the

achievement of the SIWM ‘vision’. Tipping points are natural or societal processes
of dramatic change, which operate on their own timescales, with often abrupt
and unpredictable consequences (O’Riordan and Lenton, 2011). In order to
transition to the SIWM vision for 2050, political, technological, social and
institutional tipping points will occur and must be anticipated. Foresight in
relation to these tipping points comes through scoping out potential pathways of
change. The transition to SIWM will require significant adaptation from
governance, policy, regulatory, financial, technological, social (moral, behavioural)
and other perspectives. A number of research projects have investigated different
scenarios, roadmaps and pathways to ‘low carbon’ futures (Dixon, 2011a).
Additionally, research has investigated high-level critical success factors (CSFs)
underpinning complex transitions (Dixon, 2011b). The critical success factors for
transitioning to the SIWM vision depend on the realisation that water scarcity,
flooding and pollution issues can only be resolved with multi-objective
interventions that seek to synergistically:

• reduce water demand;

• restore urban ecosystems;
• increase resource use efficiency;
• develop new, sustainable resources;
• change water cultures and practices;
• use end-use appropriate water qualities; and
• increase flexibility, resilience and adaptability.

Critical success factors therefore orient around the willingness and ability of
different water and planning sector stakeholders to buy into and adapt to the
SIWM vision. The corresponding critical pathways to be fulfilled are therefore
technical and market-based (Ward et al., 2011), political and governance-based
(Farrelly and Brown, 2011) and cultural and water-user based (Medd and Shove,
2007), with interactions between each pathway vital for successful transition to
retrofitting SIWM interventions.

12.5 Conclusions
In recent decades the principles underpinning the engineering systems for
managing water in cities have come under question. Existing water infrastructure
systems and technologies, which have their origins in the 1850s, must be funda-
mentally transformed to meet the needs of 2050. Sustainable integrated water
management (SIWM) responds to the challenges of public health and safety, limits
to water resources, restoration of aquatic ecosystems, and flooding by analysing
how water flows through cities and looking for opportunities for synergistic
improvements in managing the discrete elements of urban water systems. Water
supply–demand options must therefore diversify to facilitate transition to an
adaptable, resilient and sustainable water management future. In addition to
retrofit interventions such as water efficient appliances, water butts and SuDS,
the SIWM future may require widespread adoption of new interventions such as
low-carbon RWH systems, smart metering, urine separation and planned indirect
 RETROFITTING SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT 219

potable re-use. However, the transition requires not only significant change in
technologies adopted at different scales, but also significant change in social aspects
of practices involving water (a ‘retrofitting’ of societal water values). Pathways
to retrofitting for SIWM are therefore technical and market-based, political and
governance-based and cultural and water-user based. The following quote from
‘Water for Life’ (Defra, 2011) poetically summarises the future direction required
towards retrofitting SIWM interventions: ‘The challenge is not just about using
less water; it is about using water differently.’

Notes
* University of Exeter.
** University College London.

References
Astaraie-Imani, M., Kapelan, Z., and Butler, D. (2012) ‘Risk-based water quality
management in an integrated urban wastewater system under climate change and
urbanisation’, in Proceedings 6th International Congress on Environmental Modelling
and Software (iEMSs) 2012, Leipzig, July.
Bell, S., Chilvers, A., and Hillier J. (2011) ‘The socio-technology of engineering sustain-
ability’, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability,
164: 177–84.
Butler, D., and Davies, J. (2011) Urban Drainage. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Butler, D., Memon, F.A., Makropoulos, C., Southall, A., and Clarke, L. (2010) WaND:
Guidance on water cycle management for new developments. CIRIA Report C690.
Chatfield, P. (2012) ‘Managing surface water: The planners role in SuDS’. Paper presented
at the Water and Planning: Crossing boundaries and bridging gaps workshop, Bristol,
UK, 24 February 2012.
DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) (2006) Building a Greener
Future: Towards zero carbon development. London: DCLG.
DCLG (2010) Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical guide 2010. Accessed 26 March 2011
at: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/codeguide.
Defra (2010) Flood and Water Management Act. Accessed 26 March 2011 at: www.defra.
gov.uk/environment/flooding/legislation/.
Defra (2011) Water for Life: A water white paper. Accessed 28 November 2013 at:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/29/contents.
Dixon, T. (2011a) ‘Low carbon’ Scenarios, Roadmaps, Transitions and Pathways: An
overview and discussion. EPSRC Retrofit 2050 Working Paper WP2011/6. Accessed
12 December 2011 at: www.retrofit2050.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Knowledge
Mapping6.pdf.
Dixon, T. (2011b) Sustainable Urban Development to 2050: Complex transitions in the
built environment of cities. EPSRC Retrofit 2050 Working Paper WP2011/5. Accessed
12 December 2011 at: www.retrofit2050.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/complex
transitions5.pdf.
Environment Agency (2005) UK Water Consumption. Accessed 12 May 2007 at: www.
environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/103196/s3-3a_houseuse?referrer=/yourenv/
432430/432434/432453/434390/.
Environment Agency (2011) The Water White Paper and Case for Change. Accessed 14 February
2012 at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/135501.aspx.
220 BUTLER ET AL.

Farrelly, M. and Brown, R. (2011) ‘Rethinking urban water management: Experimentation

as a way forward’, Global Environmental Change, 21: 721–32.
Karvonen, A. (2011) Politics of Urban Runoff. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Medd, W., and Shove, E. (2007) The Sociology of Water Use. London: UK Water Industry
Research.
NBS (National Building Specification) (2010) The Building Regulations 2000: Sanitation,
hot water safety and water efficiency, Part G. RIBA Enterprises. Accessed 26 March
2011: www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/100312_app_doc_G_2010.pdf.
Ofwat (2011) Future Price Limits: A consultation on the framework. Accessed 14 February
2012 at: www.ofwat.gov.uk/consultations/pap_con201111fpl.pdf.
O’Riordan, T., and Lenton, T. (2011) ‘Tackling tipping points’, British Academy Review,
18: 21–7.
Potter, K., Ward, S., Shaw, D., Macdonald, N., White, I., Fisher, T., Butler, D., and
Kellagher, R. (2011) ‘Engineers and planners: Sustainable water management alliances’,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability, 164(4):
239–47.
Ward, S., and Butler, D. (submitted) ‘Compliance with the urban waste water treatment
directive: European Union city responses in relation to combined sewer overflow
discharges’, Water Policy.
Ward, S., Memon, F. A., Butler, D., and Barr, S. (2011) Rainwater Harvesting in the UK:
Thinking Outside the Tank – A report on recent research. Exeter, UK: University of
Exeter.
Ward, S., Lundy, L., Shaffer, P., Wong, T., Ashley, R., Arthur, S., Armitage, N.P, Walker,
L., Brown, R., Deletic, A., and Butler, D. (2012) ‘Water sensitive urban design in the
city of the future’. Paper presented at the International Conference on Water Sensitive
Urban Design, Melbourne, 21–3 February 2012.
13
Retrofitting sustainable
integrated water
management at household,
building and urban scales
Sarah Bell,* Sarah Ward** and David Butler**

Retrofitting cities for sustainable integrated water management (SIWM) will

involve new technologies at personal, building, neighbourhood and urban scales,
which will also be associated with social, economic and institutional change.
Retrofitting for domestic water efficiency involves installing water meters and
water efficient devices, improving the efficiency of appliances and encouraging
changes in water-using practices and cultures. Water efficiency is being encouraged
through water company targets and building codes, but the volume of water saved
by various measures remains highly uncertain. Rainwater harvesting (RWH)
systems provide a distributed water resource that can be collected at building and
development scale for non-potable uses. Successful retrofitting of RWH requires
novel designs to reduce pumping energy and can be installed in roof spaces and
on the outside of existing buildings, and a consistent approach to subsidies and
wastewater service charges. Recycling water at an urban scale through planned
indirect potable re-use (IPR) involves treating wastewater effluent using reverse
osmosis and advanced filtration, then deliberately re-introducing it into water
resources immediately prior to drinking water treatment. Planned IPR schemes
in other parts of the world have met with significant public opposition, neces-
sitating a move from expert-led decision-making to greater levels of public
participation. Retrofitting cities for SIWM requires socio-technical change across
all scales of urban activity. Conventional models of expert-led, centralised
provision of water and sanitation infrastructure are undergoing significant reform
to address the complexity of new arrangements and changes in the flows,
institutions and cultures of water in cities.

13.1 Introduction
Urban water management has conventionally been the responsibility of large
utilities and municipal governments. Management of water systems has been
222 BELL ET AL.

centralised to enable the high levels of control required to deliver good public
health outcomes, and to improve efficiency of investment and operation. The
transition to sustainable integrated water management (SIWM) will require
changes to urban water systems at different scales, with increased importance given
to decentralised systems. Retrofitting cities for SIWM may involve changes to
individual fittings and appliances, building-scale non-potable water supply systems
such as rainwater harvesting, water sensitive urban design, neighbourhood supply
schemes including non-potable distribution networks, and urban-scale potable
water recycling. Changes to the physical scale of the technologies and infra-
structure of water supply, treatment and use will require economic, social, and
institutional reform.
SIWM analyses the quality and quantity of flows of water through cities to
maximise opportunities to enhance public health and wellbeing, improve water
efficiency and restore local ecosystems. It involves reducing demand, using water
of an appropriate quality, restoring urban ecosystems, improving flood resilience
and developing new sources of water. It is a departure from conventional
management systems that draw clear lines of demarcation between the supply of
pure drinking water to meet urban demands, the rapid removal of urban
wastewater and surface water, and defence against flooding. SIWM looks for
opportunities to synergistically address the three core urban water challenges of
scarcity, flooding and pollution.
This chapter addresses retrofitting for SIWM at different scales. It begins with
an overview of SIWM principles to highlight the need for retrofitting and reform
at multiple scales. It then outlines three cases of retrofitting for SIWM at three
different scales – the personal, the building and the city. Personal water use is
addressed through domestic demand management, the building scale is addressed
through the retrofitting of rainwater harvesting (RWH), and the urban scale is
considered through the case of planned indirect potable water re-use (IPR). Each
case is described in terms of the technical, social, economic and institutional
changes required to enable retrofitting. The analysis identifies opportunities and
drivers for change, as well as obstacles to retrofitting and reform.

13.2 Scales of sustainable integrated water

management
The vision for SIWM for 2050 involves the integration of drinking water, surface
water and wastewater systems to enable management of water quality and
quantity to achieve multiple objectives. SIWM simultaneously addresses the
problems of water scarcity, water pollution and flooding in urban areas and the
catchments that urban areas are situated within. SIWM recognises the connections
across different scales of water flows in cities and their catchments.
As SIWM increases the complexity and uncertainty of water flows, it also
requires new systems of ownership, regulation and management. Centralised
management of water resources has enabled economic efficiency and high levels
of control. As climate change increases the uncertainty of rainfall patterns, the
systems of control of water resources and flooding may become less reliable.
Systems for operating and regulating centralised water systems have developed
over the last 200 years. Developing operational and management systems across
smaller scales is a major challenge to retrofitting for SIWM by 2050.
 SIWM AT HOUSEHOLD, BUILDING, URBAN SCALES 223

Comparing the efficacy and efficiency of systems for retrofitting at different

scales will involve trade-offs between water and energy consumption and
redistribution of ownership and control of water systems. Comparison of
decentralised retrofitting with centralised resource development is made more
difficult due to the disparity in availability of data and the sophistication of
management systems. Socio-technological lock-in in water infrastructure involves
not only the physical elements of infrastructure but also well-established ownership
and regulation structures, engineering knowledge and skills, data availability, and
social patterns of water use. Retrofitting for SIWM requires reform of institutions
and social relationships, and rapid development of new data, knowledge and
technical expertise.
The opportunities and challenges for retrofitting for SIWM at different scales
will now be analysed in three case studies – managing domestic demand at the
scale of the household and individual, implementing rainwater harvesting at
building and development scale, and indirect potable re-use at urban scale. These
cases highlight the potential contribution of retrofitting to improve SIWM, but
also demonstrate that retrofitting requires economic, institutional and social, as
well as technical change, at multiple scales.

13.3 Domestic demand management

Reducing per capita and total consumption of water is an important element of
SIWM. Demand management can take many forms including legal restrictions
on water use, water metering and charging, education campaigns and improving
the efficiency of water using appliances (Butler and Memon, 2005). Demand
management activities are most common during periods of water stress, but are
also important to achieve longer-term, stable reductions in per capita water use.
In England the government has set a goal to reduce per capita water consumption
from 150 litres to 130 litres by 2030 (Defra, 2008). The water industry economic
regulator Ofwat requires water companies to have an annual target of saving 1
litre of water per property per day through water efficiency activities between 2010
and 2015 (Ofwat, 2009).
Reducing water consumption is also important if the UK is to meet its carbon
emission reduction targets. Heating water is the second biggest user of energy in
homes after space heating, accounting for a third of household energy use, and
producing 5 per cent of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions (Energy Saving Trust
and Environment Agency, 2009). In addition to the general benefits of reducing
water wastage, saving hot water in homes through more efficient hot water
appliances and behaviour change will immediately impact on carbon targets.
Water metering has been shown to reduce demand by 10–15 per cent in the
UK, yet less than one-third of households in the UK are metered (Herrington,
2006, 2007). Water metering allows consumers to measure their use and pay for
the volume they use. With appropriate billing information, they can also see how
their use changes over time or compares with average use in their local area. In
order for water metering to have a significant impact on water demand it needs
to be accompanied by appropriate water pricing. Rising block tariffs, for instance,
have increasing charges per unit of water as the level of consumption increases.
This still allows for basic needs to be met at a relatively low cost, but provides
224 BELL ET AL.

penalties for increasingly profligate use. Water charges might also be varied
seasonally to allow utilities to charge more during times of water shortage to
further encourage households to reduce their use (Herrington, 2007).
Improving the efficiency of household appliances and fittings is important in
water demand management (Waterwise, 2011). Education campaigns may be
accompanied by provision of small water saving devices for users to install in their
homes. These include cistern displacement devices, which can be placed in toilet
cisterns to reduce the volume of water stored in the cistern and used each flush.
Low-flow shower heads are also a common device provided to households for
free or at a subsidised price to reduce the flow rate of water from showers. More
extensive demand management campaigns involve replacing existing fittings with
more water efficient devices, such as the toilet replacement programme in New
York, which installed more than 1 million water efficient toilets in three years
during in the 1990s (USEPA, 2002). Households can be encouraged or subsidised
to replace existing washing machines and dishwashers with more water efficient
models. Providing water efficiency information by labelling such devices is
important to allow consumers to take account of water efficiency in their
purchasing, but this will only be one element of their purchasing decision.
Improving the water efficiency of appliances must not be at the expense of
reduced performance, or there is a risk that overall water consumption will remain
high. For instance, low-flush toilets that do not clear the toilet bowl are likely to
be flushed twice instead of once, and washing machines that do not rinse clothes
properly may result in rinse cycles being run again. Design and installation of
water efficient devices should also consider potential rebound effects. If people
are aware that their appliances are water efficient they may use them more often,
negating improvements in efficiency. For instance, if users know that their toilet
has a low flush volume, they may flush it unnecessarily to dispose of household
waste; they may be less reluctant to wash relatively clean clothes in a water efficient
machine; and they may stand under their low-flow shower for longer.
Water efficiency can also be promoted through building codes or standards for
new buildings and major renovations. Plumbing standards that have previously
been based entirely on public health concerns are now being adapted to incorporate
water efficiency measures. Specifications can apply to individual devices or fittings,
or overall calculations of building water consumption, which allows designers
flexibility in meeting overall standards for consumption. The UK ‘Code for
Sustainable Homes’ is an example of a building code that allows flexibility in how
designers choose to meet set standards for water efficiency in new homes. In the
code, the overall per capita consumption of the house design is calculated based
on the assumed use and performance of fittings, and the designer can choose
between a range of water efficiency measures to meet standards required for
different levels of rating in the code scheme (DCLG, 2011).
Attention to individual behaviour, pricing and water efficient technologies in
managing demand are useful starting points but fail to address the importance of
relationships between technology, infrastructure, culture and consumption.
Elizabeth Shove (2003) has demonstrated the importance of social and cultural
expectations that shape everyday water using practices, and have co-evolved with
technologies and infrastructures. Achieving significant, long-term reductions in
per capita demand for water requires redesigning water systems to account for
 SIWM AT HOUSEHOLD, BUILDING, URBAN SCALES 225

the connections between culture, technology, infrastructure and water using

practices. This requires reconfiguring infrastructure and household systems to not
only conserve water, but also to shift expectations and practices that lead to high
water consumption (Medd and Shove, 2007).

13.4 Rainwater harvesting

RWH systems facilitate the collection, filtration and storage of runoff, usually from
roof catchments. The stored rainwater is then either gravity-fed or pumped to
supply non-potable points of use within a building to save highly treated potable
water (Ward et al., 2010). Some studies suggest RWH may also provide storm-
water attenuation, as rainwater is released over a period of time, rather than
entering the sewer system as peak load (Kellagher, 2011). RWH systems can be
implemented at both the individual building scale, as well as on the ‘communal’
(several buildings) scale. Where rainwater is collected from surface water sewers
or other infrastructure at the development or larger scale, the term stormwater
re-use is utilised and this is not covered within this chapter.
Conflicting messages in relation to the utilisation of RWH systems have recently
emerged in UK national policy and guidance. For example, they are promoted
within DCLG’s ‘Code for Sustainable Homes’ (2011), but a recent Environment
Agency study (Parkes et al., 2010) concluded systems may result in extra carbon
emissions. However, a more recent study by Environment Agency Wales (2011b),
which included gravity-based systems (omitted from the previous study), showed
that low-energy pumping and gravity-fed RWH systems had the potential to yield
significant water-saving benefits with low environmental cost. This highlights the
case-by-case requirement for assessing life-cycle costs in relation to RWH systems.
Further to this, water companies have concerns regarding water quality and water-
user perceptions (this is discussed further in the following section on planned
indirect potable re-use). In contrast, the water white paper (WWP) ‘Water for
Life’ (Defra, 2011) alludes to a future water management landscape where
increasing use of appropriate re-use techniques and systems is envisaged.
Within the overall SIWM vision, the vision for RWH systems is an increase in
the appropriate and successful implementation of RWH systems at a range of
scales. The WWP presents an opportunity for a re-use vision to become integral
to water management practices in England and Wales, which potentially sets a
positive scene for the appropriate retrofitting of RWH systems. However, there
remain a series of potential challenges and opportunities for retrofitting RWH
systems, from a number of perspectives.
Recent research (Ward et al., 2012) highlights the need for a greater range of
retrofittable RWH products with increased flexibility, relating to two main areas:
(a) the physical structure of the system and (b) its ownership. In relation to the
physical structure of the system, it was identified that potential RWH system
implementers who wanted to retrofit RWH were restricted in what they could
feasibly do. This related to the amount of outside space available for storage tanks
or due to the unsuitability of the underlying land type. Conventional permanent
above or below ground RWH systems were identified as being inappropriate, due
to space limitations or restrictions to excavation. The British Standard for RWH
Systems (BSi, 2009) provides guidance on the design and implementation of
226 BELL ET AL.

conventional RWH systems and some critics argue this acts as a deterrent to
innovation. Regarding ownership of a RWH system, case study evidence identified
that conflicts of interest in maintenance provision can reduce a system’s operation
and performance. Recent research also demonstrates that the willingness of
householders to undertake and pay for maintenance activities can be low (Ward
et al., 2012). This implies that product development would benefit from greater
interaction with prospective system purchasers, even in cases when conventional
systems would be logistically suitable. In addressing these issues and turning them
into opportunities, innovation in future RWH systems is key. A number of
advances are being made in this area, addressing novel storage systems on the
outside of buildings, in roof spaces and using easily deployable, expandable bag-
like storage (Dao et al., 2009; Wherlock, 2009; Hardie, 2010). These innovative
systems are primarily gravity-based systems and therefore overcome the concerns
about energy consumption outlined earlier.
Capacity building activity is required within the potential retrofit RWH
system user community, not only to overcome potential specific implementation
difficulties, but to facilitate people’s receptivity to non-potable water use in
general. Creation of a ‘buddy database’, where different building owners could
identify and visit a functioning RWH system, was a specific suggestion made in
recent participant research (Ward et al., 2012). This would build capacity and
confidence with potential users, expanding the potential of the RWH retrofit
market. Consequently, appropriate organisations need to develop stakeholder-
specific interventions that address their needs in relation to the implementation
of RWH. This will enhance their receptivity to RWH in advance of appropriate
technical innovation being enabled.
Economic issues relate to two main aspects for retrofitting RWH: system cost-
benefits and subsidies for implementation. Metered customers benefit most from
having RWH as they receive the direct benefits of paying for the lower volume
of mains water used and subsequently a reduced sewerage charge. However, those
not on meters can benefit in some water company areas, which have revised surface
water drainage charging arrangements. However, few stakeholders are aware of
this and the process of calculating the discount varies. Standardisation of this
process and increasing its visibility would potentially broaden the appeal of RWH
to certain stakeholders. Additionally, universal domestic metering could increase
the attractiveness of RWH in areas where water charges are relatively high.
The experimental systems illustrated in Figures 13.1–13.2 demonstrate
that future RWH systems will look very different to those we are familiar with
today and will be more easily retrofittable. This means that there will be new
markets opening up, nationally and internationally. If the UK wants to be
seen as both innovative and ahead of the game in both product development and
the implementation of ‘new’ RWH systems, action needs to be taken now.
Development in the retrofit RWH sector represents an excellent example of how
the current emphasis on economic growth can be coupled with an environmentally
sustainable technology. However, many different aspects of the sector require
significant attention, support and investment if the UK is to feature in and exploit
these future markets and RWH is to be readily retrofitted in the UK built
environment. This is where links with policy, organisations and people need to
be made. It is clear that if household-scale systems are to be implemented,
 SIWM AT HOUSEHOLD, BUILDING, URBAN SCALES 227

particularly retrofitted, then substantial product development is required and some

sort of financial incentive will be key. This requires recognition at the policy level
that current incentive schemes (of which there is only one and it only applies to
businesses) are not far-reaching enough and require adapting to generate future
markets – similar to those created for renewable energy (Ward et al., 2011).

Rainwater storage zone

Mains water top-up zone

Figure 13.1
External view and cross section of the ‘gutter’ storage
Sludge collection zone RWH system from Australia
Source: Hardie (2010).

Figure 13.2 Components of the innovative ‘plastic bag’ RWH system from Korea
Source: Dao et al. (2009).
228 BELL ET AL.

13.5 Indirect potable water re-use

Security of supply is the highest priority for water utilities. Water utilities must
ensure a continuous flow of consistently high quality water to a city, under all
rainfall conditions and allowing for growth in population and demand. While
they may work with regulators, policy-makers, local governments, designers and
others to promote water efficiency, non-potable supplies and other measures to
relieve pressure on centralised water resources, their ultimate responsibility is to
ensure continuity of supply through the potable water system. A legacy of over
allocation of water resources in the south-east and east of England means that
water companies in those regions cannot abstract any more water from their local
environment to meet higher demand from population growth, or to respond to
the uncertainties of climate change in the future.
Options for addressing water scarcity through the centralised infrastructure
system include increased storage, water transfers, water trading and technologies
for water supply such as water recycling and desalination. New reservoirs
may provide some capacity to store water during rainy periods and periods of
high river flows for use in drier months, but the development of reservoirs is
constrained by land-use conflicts and environmental impacts. Water companies,
regulators and other water users are investigating the potential for water
transfers and trading between regions, companies and industries (Defra, 2011).
This might enable the use of market-based instruments to allocate and distribute
water as a scarce resource, but transfers from regions with abundant water to
water scarce regions are politically and ecologically contentious, and would
require significant investment in new infrastructure. The use of advanced water
treatment technologies such as reverse osmosis and microfiltration provides the
final option of creating a new source of freshwater from wastewater effluent or
brackish water, which are otherwise unsuitable for conventional drinking water
treatment systems.
IPR, along with desalination, is an important technical option for water utilities
to create new water resources for a city where conventional resources are
constrained. Through the use of advanced technologies, water utilities can
effectively overcome local hydrological constraints and continue to meet growing
demand. Creating new water resources using systems that are owned and operated
by the centralised water utility may be a more reliable means of ensuring security
of supply than demand management and decentralised systems. However, these
technologies are energy intensive compared with both conventional supplies and
decentralised alternatives (Kenway et al., 2008; Parkes et al., 2010). Desalination
has been a controversial technology in London, Sydney and elsewhere as a result
of its energy intensity and cost (Bell, 2009). IPR is less energy intensive and
potentially less expensive than desalination but has been more controversial due
to public concerns about drinking recycled wastewater.
The re-use of wastewater for potable supply is a socially contentious option
for retrofitting urban water systems, but is essentially consistent with the
conventional logic of centralised water systems (Hartley, 2006). It involves treating
effluent from wastewater treatment plant using advanced treatment technologies,
such as reverse osmosis and microfiltration, then deliberately reintroducing the
 SIWM AT HOUSEHOLD, BUILDING, URBAN SCALES 229

treated water into drinking water resources, such as a reservoir, aquifer or river,
upstream from conventional drinking water treatment and distribution. The
treated wastewater is mixed with conventional water resources immediately
before entering the drinking water treatment and distribution network. These
systems are known as indirect potable re-use (IPR) because the treated wastewater
is mixed with conventional water resources prior to potable water treatment,
rather than being directly distributed as drinking water. In many urbanised
catchments in the UK, rivers are already used as both receiving waters for effluent
and drinking water supplies, which is thought of as unplanned IPR. Planned IPR
effectively short circuits these catchment-scale processes, with the effluent treated
to a much higher standard and having a much shorter residence time in the
environment. Effluent from wastewater treatment works that would usually be
discharged to the environment is treated to become a new water resource for a
city. In cities such as London, where wastewater is discharged to an open estuary
or the ocean, this could provide a significant new source of freshwater without
placing further pressure on the freshwater ecosystems.
Surveys of public attitudes to water recycling have been undertaken around
the world since the early 1970s. Bruvold (1972; Bruvold et al., 1981) pioneered
public acceptability studies in the United States, starting a trend to examine how
the public perceive different uses for recycled water, particularly concerning the
degrees of contact. More recent studies have continued this research, consistently
reproducing the pattern of acceptability whereby support for the use of recycled
water declines as the level of contact increases. For example, high contact uses
such as laundering and drinking elicit responses of low support, whereas low
contact uses such as irrigation of public gardens are generally highly acceptable
(Hurlimann, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Ward et al., 2012). This effect has been
observed in UK, USA, Australia and Israel, and is usually found to be independent
of basic demographic factors such as gender, age, and income (Robinson et al.,
2005; Friedler et al., 2006; Marks, 2006; Marks et al., 2006). Public opposition
to planned IPR has resulted in proposals being rejected or delayed, such as in
Toowoomba, Australia, where a proposal was defeated in a referendum by local
residents (Bell et al., 2011).
Surveys conducted by water companies in the UK indicate higher levels of
acceptance here than internationally, but that this is dependent on good public
engagement to ensure that concerns about risks are adequately addressed. Public
acceptability of controversial technologies is also dependent on the perception that
water resources are being well managed, as people are less likely to accept planned
IPR if they perceive that other water issues, such as leak reduction, are not being
adequately managed.
The controversy about IPR highlights changing institutional arrangements
between the public, regulators and water utilities (Colebatch, 2006; Bell and
Aitken, 2008). Retrofitting new technologies to water supply systems is no longer
merely a matter of water companies implementing the most technically or
economically rational supply option. The water industry must respond to a wider
loss of public trust in the institutions of science and engineering and increased
public interest in potential risks to human health and the environment that has
been observed since the 1960s. Whereas current water systems have largely been
230 BELL ET AL.

designed and operated based on the engineering expertise, retrofitting centralised

water systems for 2050 will require greater levels of public engagement and will
be subject to much higher public scrutiny.

13.6 Conclusions
SIWM for 2050 involves the integration of drinking water, surface water and
wastewater systems to enable management to address the problems of water
scarcity, water pollution and flooding in urban areas and their catchments.
SIWM promotes collection, storage, treatment and distribution on multiple
scales, requiring significant reform of existing socio-technical arrangements
for water management in cities. Retrofitting for SIWM involves the diffusion of
new technologies to households, buildings, neighbourhoods and centralised
infrastructure facilities, but more fundamentally challenges how water flows, is
used and managed in cities, and viewed as a valuable resource by the public at
large.
Reducing the wastage of water by people in their homes is a fundamental
starting point for SIWM. Domestic water use is part of everyday habits and
routines, and changing water use patterns is a technical, institutional, economic
and cultural challenge. Technological interventions to improve water efficiency
include water metering and retrofitting appliances and plumbing fixtures. Institu-
tional change includes new efficiency targets in building codes and water
company business plans. Economic changes involve smarter water pricing
schemes and improving the statistical certainty of water savings to enable better
comparison with supply side options. Cultural change addresses water-using
practices and expectations that extend beyond an understanding of water as a
commodity to consider its role in everyday experiences of hygiene, cleanliness
and comfort.
Retrofitting buildings for RWH provides potential benefits as a new source of
water for non-potable use and as a means of attenuating surface water runoff
during storm events. Widespread retrofitting of RWH will be based on a number
of different system designs that are adaptable to the existing built stock and
minimise energy used for pumping. RWH has been encouraged through recent
building codes, but a significant increase in the technical and managerial capacity
of plumbers, designers, engineers, building managers and householders is required
for widespread adoption of these systems. Retrofitting RWH across cities will be
further encouraged by a consistent approach to wastewater service charges and
investment in capacity building.
Planned IPR is an option for water utilities to retrofit existing centralised water
supply systems by recycling wastewater at the urban scale. This provides security
of supply with much greater certainty than is possible with current levels of
knowledge about water efficiency and RWH and other smaller-scale interventions,
but with higher energy intensity for treatment. IPR has met with significant public
opposition in the US and Australia, highlighting the need for water utilities and
water companies to acknowledge broader shifts away from public trust in expert-
led decision-making to greater public participation.
Retrofitting for SIWM by 2050 requires change across every scale of urban life
– from our most private bathroom habits to the most public regulation of water
 SIWM AT HOUSEHOLD, BUILDING, URBAN SCALES 231

resources and technologies. There are significant technical challenges to be

addressed, and improvements in design and operation of technologies must also
be associated with institutional, economic and cultural change. SIWM represents
a fundamental shift in how water moves through cities and the relationships
between water, people, technologies and the environment. Retrofitting bathroom
fittings, building systems and water supplies to address water scarcity, pollution
and flooding is a major challenge for design, planning, policy and the connection
between everyday lifestyles and the environment.

Notes
* University College London.
** University of Exeter.

References
Bell, S. (2009) ‘The driest continent and the greediest water company: Newspaper reporting
of drought in Sydney and London’, International Journal of Environmental Studies,
66(5): 581–9.
Bell, S., and Aitken, V. (2008) ‘The socio-technology of indirect potable water reuse’, Water
Science and Technology: Water Supply, 8: 441–8.
Bell, S., Chilvers, A., and Hillier, J. (2011) ‘The socio-technology of engineering
sustainability’, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering
Sustainability, 164: 177–84.
Bruvold, W. H. (1972) Public Attitudes Towards Reuse of Reclaimed Water. University of
California, Berkeley, CA: Water Resource Centre.
Bruvold, W. H., Olson, B. H., and Rigby, M. (1981) ‘Public policy for the use of reclaimed
water’, Environmental Management, 5, 95–107.
BSi (2009) BS 8515:2009 – Rainwater harvesting systems – Code of practice. London: BSi.
Butler, D., and Memon, F. (2005) Water Demand Management. London: IWA Publishing.
Colebatch, H. K. (2006) ‘Governing the use of water: The institutional context’,
Desalination, 187: 17–27.
Dao, A., Han, M., Nguyen, V., Ho, X., and Kim, T. (2009) ‘Flooding mitigation plan at
downtown of Hanoi by rainwater harvesting’. 8th International Conference on Urban
Drainage Modelling and 2nd International Conference on Rainwater Harvesting and
Management. 7–12 September, Tokyo, Japan.
DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) (2011) Code for Sustainable
Homes. Accessed 20 January 2012 at: www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/
sustainability/codesustainablehomes.
Defra (2008) Future Water: The governments’ water strategy for England. London: The
Stationery Office.
Defra (2011) Water for Life: A water white paper. London: The Stationery Office.
Energy Saving Trust and Environment Agency (2009) Quantifying the Energy and Carbon
Effects of Water Saving. Hereford, UK: Elemental Solution.
Environment Agency Wales (2011a) RWH & SuDS Carbon Implications: Summary of
scoping study for Wales. Issue April 2011. Arup report no. 216200-00.
Environment Agency Wales (2011b) Position Statement. Accessed 14 October 2013 at:
http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.
rackcdn.com/geho0611btyb-e-e.pdf.
Friedler, E., Lahav, O., Jizhaki, H., and Lahav, T. (2006) ‘Study of urban population
attitudes towards various wastewater reuse options: Israel as a case study’, Journal of
Environmental Management, 81, 360–70.
232 BELL ET AL.

Hardie, M. (2010) ‘Rainwater storage gutters for houses’, Sustainability, 2: 266–79.

Hartley, T. W. (2006) ‘Public perception and participation in water reuse’, Desalination,
187: 115–26.
Herrington, P. (2006) Critical Review of Relevant Research Concerning the Effects of
Charging and Collection Methods on Water Demand, Different Customer Groups and
Debt. London: UK Water Industry Research.
Herrington, P. (2007) Waste Not, Want Not? Water Tariffs for Sustainability. Godalming:
WWF-UK.
Hurlimann, A. (2006) ‘Melbourne office worker attitudes to recycled water’, Water:
Journal of the Australian Water Association, November: 32–6.
Hurlimann, A. (2007a) ‘Attitudes to future use of recycled water in a Bendigo office building’,
Water: Journal of the Australian Water Association, September: 42–6.
Hurlimann, A. (2007b) ‘Is recycled water risky? An urban Australian community’s
perspective’, The Environmentalist, 27: 83–94.
Kellagher, R. (2011) Stormwater Management Using Rainwater Harvesting: Testing the
Kellagher/Gerolin methodology on a pilot study. HR Wallingford, Report SR 736.
Kenway, S., Priestley A., Cook, S., Seo, S., Inman, M., Gregory, A., and Hall, M. (2008)
‘Energy use in the provision and consumption of urban water in Australia and New
Zealand’. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship.
Marks, J. S. (2006) ‘Taking the public seriously: The case of potable and non potable reuse’,
Desalination, 187: 137–47.
Marks, J. S., Martin, B., and Zadoroznyj, M. (2006) ‘Acceptance of water recycling in
Australia: National baseline data’, Water, 33: 151–7.
Medd, W. and Shove, E. (2007) The Sociology of Water Use. London: UK Water Industry
Research.
Ofwat (Office of Water Services) (2009) Water efficiency targets 2010–11 to 2014–15.
Accessed 13 February 2012 at: www.ofwat.gov.uk/pricereview/pap_pos_pr09sup
dempolapp1.pdf.
Parkes, C., Kershaw, H., Hart, J., Sibille, R., and Grant, Z. (2010) Energy and Carbon
Implications of Rainwater Harvesting and Greywater Recycling. Final Report.
Environment Agency.
Robinson, K.G., Robinson, C.H., and Hawkins, S.A. (2005) ‘Assessment of public
perception regarding wastewater reuse’, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply,
5: 59–65.
Shove, E. (2003) Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience. Oxford: Berg.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2002) Case Studies in Water
Conservation. USEPA Office of Water. Accessed 28 November at: www.epa.gov/
WaterSense/docs/utilityconservation_508.pdf.
Ward, S., Memon, F. A., and Butler, D. (2010) ‘Harvested rainwater quality: The
importance of appropriate design’, Water Science and Technology, 61: 1707–14.
Ward, S., Memon, F. A., Butler, D. and Barr, S. (2011) Rainwater Harvesting in the UK:
Thinking Outside the Tank – a report on recent research. University of Exeter.
Ward, S., Barr, S., Butler, D. and Memon, F. A. (2012) ‘Rainwater harvesting in the UK:
Socio-technical theory and practice’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
79(7): 1354–61.
Waterwise (2011) Evidence Base for Large Scale Water Efficiency in Homes: Phase II.
London: Waterwise.
Wherlock, J. (2009) Dwr Cymru Welsh Water Surface Water Management Strategy.
Experiences with rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling and their future
prospects. Treharris, UK: Aqua Enviro.
14
Re-engineering the city for
sustainable solid waste
resource management
Geoff Watson* and William Powrie*

This chapter reviews historic and current waste arisings then, drawing on work
carried out under the EPSRC funded SUE waste consortium and the Defra New
Technologies Demonstrator Programme for Biodegradable Waste, it assesses
current options for waste management within the urban environment, based on
the appropriateness of the technology and the scale. Recommendations are made
regarding future strategies for urban waste management. The challenges to
implementing such a strategy, including retrofitting to existing building stock, are
then addressed.

14.1 Introduction
The world’s population is gradually migrating to cities and urban areas
characterised by a high density of living. In the developed world, much of the
2050 urban infrastructure is already with us. Thus the challenge is to make this
infrastructure fit for a future in which a high population density is the norm and
resource and energy efficiency are paramount, by the retrofitting of appropriate
remedial measures. This chapter considers how that challenge might be addressed
for solid waste management.

14.2 Historical context: the development of the

science and practice of waste management
Waste management is primarily a problem associated with population growth,
settlement and concentration into cities, industrial development and high levels
of production and consumption. Historically, waste management has been at the
bottom of the list of priorities of any growing and developing society – even when
the effects of a failure in waste management have been all too obvious.
234 WATSON AND POWRIE

Thus responsible waste management has been driven primarily by legislation

rather than by economics or any sense of social or environmental responsibility.
In Britain, the first waste management was practised by the Romans, with much
rubbish and waste discharged into their sewers. However, no systematic attempt
was made to control waste in Britain until the Public Health Act of 1875, which
gave local authorities responsibility for arranging the removal and disposal of
household wastes. By the late 1800s household waste was hand sorted and a large
proportion of the waste was recovered, including glass and metals, as well as ash,
which was used in building materials (Wastewatch, 2004).
A combination of factors such as the high level of re-use, the low percentages
of biodegradable material and the very large percentage of apparently inert
materials such as ash and cinders (Figure 14.1) meant that there was little
perceived need to manage solid household wastes much beyond collection and
sorting, with a small amount of largely inert material then being landfilled.
However, the composition of waste began to change in the mid-1950s following
the introduction of the 1956 Clean Air Act.

14.3 Waste arisings

14.3.1 Current data
In the UK, waste arisings are usually divided into sectors such as household;
commercial; industrial; construction and demolition (C&D); agriculture; mining
and quarrying; sewage sludge; and dredged material. The split between these is
shown in Figure 14.2.

100
95
90
85
80
75
wood
70
65 plastic
textiles
Percentage (%)

60
55 misc
50 glass
45 kitchen/organic waste
40 paper
35 metals
30
dust and cinders
25
20
15
10
5
0
1892 1925/26 1935 1966/67 1985/86 2002

Figure 14.1 Variation in UK household waste composition 1892–2002

Source: reproduced with permission from Gandy (1993) with additional data from Wastewatch (2004).
 SOLID WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 235

Agriculture <1%

Demolition and
construction Mining and quarrying
32% 30%

Sewage sludge
<1%
Dredged material
5%

Industrial 13%
Household 9%

Commercial 11%

Figure 14.2 UK waste arisings by sector

Source: data from Defra (2007).

For the purposes of this chapter, only household, commercial, industrial and
C&D wastes will be considered as being of most relevance to the urban environ-
ment. Household waste along with the local authority collected commercial and
industrial wastes are usually referred to as municipal solid waste (MSW), of which
household is by far the largest component. Commercial and industrial (C&I)
wastes are usually combined for reporting purposes.
According to the latest figures (Table 14.1), the UK produced nearly 200 Mt of
C&D, C&I and MSW in 2008. The figures for C&I and C&D waste arisings both
showed significant reductions between 2004 and 2008 but household waste
production has remained essentially constant. It should be noted that the data for C&D
and C&I wastes are based on limited information, e.g. English C&I figures are
extrapolated from a single national survey in 2002/03 and subsequent regional surveys.

Table 14.1 UK annual waste production (megatonnes)a

Sector 2004 2006 2008

C&D 113.2 109.6 101.0

C&I 81.4 76.1 67.3
Household 31.0 32.5 31.5
Total 225.6 218.1 199.9

a Differences in summed totals due to rounding.

Source: www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env23-uk-waste-data-and-management. Accessed November
2013.
236 WATSON AND POWRIE

14.3.2 Historical trends

Figure 14.3 shows how UK MSW arisings have increased in the post-war period
alongside the per capita GDP and population figures. Figure 14.4 shows per capita
English MSW arisings since the early 1990s and the apparent correlation between
per capita GDP and per capita MSW arisings between 1995/6 and 2002/3. It is
not clear whether or not a decoupling between waste generation and economic
growth occurs after 2002/3.

70 35
Annual UK MSW arisings (Mt)
Population (millions)
Annual MSW Arisings (Mt) & population (millions)

60 30
Per capita GDP (£ 000s/yr)

50 25

Per capita GDP (£ 000s)

40 20

30 15

20 10

Figure 14.3
Post-war UK MSW 10 5
arisings
Source: data from Brown 0 0
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
et al. (1993) and Defra
(2011b).

800 32.00
WS 2007 targets for waste not recycled, composted or reused
recycled, composted or reused
700 not recycled, composted or reused 28.00
Household waste generation (kg/person/yr)

GDP/capita (£ 000s)
600 Landfill Tax (p/kg)t 24.00
GDP/capita & landfill tax

500 20.00

400 16.00

300 12.00

200 8.00

100 4.00
Figure 14.4
English per capita 0 0.00
1991/2
1992/3
1993/4
1994/5
1995/6
1996/7
1997/8
1998/9
1999/0
2000/1
2001/2
2002/3
2003/4
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

2020

household waste
generation and GDP
 SOLID WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 237

14.3.3 Possible future arisings

The data presented here comes from the authors’ work for the Infrastructure
Transitions Research Consortium (ITRC) and is described in more detail in Hall
et al. (2012). Three scenarios were provided by the ITRC: high economic and
population growth; low economic and population growth; and business as usual,
with population and economic growth projections adapted from ONS and
PricewaterhouseCoopers. For each waste type and nation, best- and worst-case
scenarios were developed. In each case, the worst-case scenario was high growth
(e.g. for English MSW, arisings were assumed to be linked to GDP). Much more
detail can be found in Hall et al. (2012). For the sake of brevity, all that has been
produced here are the graphs of future British waste arisings for MSW and C&D
wastes as examples to show ranges of possible values. No C&I graphs are
included here as there is only a single year of data for Welsh C&I data.

14.4 Governance of the waste sector: policies

and legislation
In the early 1970s, two UK Government reports concluded that there was
insufficient control of UK waste disposal in terms of environmental protection.
On the basis of these reports, the Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act 1972 and the
Control of Pollution Act 1974 were passed, creating stricter controls for waste
management and, in particular, the operation of landfill sites. Regulation prior
to this was intended, primarily, to protect human health.
Through the 1980s and 1990s, developing British and European legislation
drove major changes to waste management in the UK. It became compulsory to

100000
Low growth MSW tracks GDP
90000
Low growth static MSW/capita

80000
Annual MSW generation (000s tonned)

Business as usual MSW tracks GDP

70000 Business as usual static MSW/capita

High growth MSW tracks GDP

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Figure 14.5 Projections of British MSW generation to 2050

238 WATSON AND POWRIE

180000

160000

Annual C&D generation (000s tonnes) 140000

120000

100000

80000

60000 Low growth C&D high

Low growth C&D low
40000 Business as usual C&D high
Business as ususal C&D low
20000 High growth C&D high
High growth C&D low
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

Figure 14.6 Projections of British C&D waste generation

produce environmental assessments when planning new landfill sites. In 1995, the
DoE revised its guidelines and adopted a risk-based approach for landfill design,
which is essentially the same as that being used today.
In 1999, the European Union put into law the Landfill Directive (EC, 1999).
The main aim of the Directive was to reduce fugitive emissions of methane by
setting targets for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) away
from landfill (DETR, 2000: 54). Methane is a potent greenhouse gas generated
when biodegradable waste decomposes in the anaerobic conditions typical in
landfill. Augenstein et al. (2005) stated that landfill gas emissions are responsible
for up to 5 per cent of the greenhouse effect.
The UK strategies for waste management follow the waste hierarchy from the
EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) (EU, 2008) (Figure 14.7).
One of the major drivers for reducing the amount of waste going to landfill is
the landfill tax, currently (2011/12) £56/tonne, increasing annually to £80/tonne
in 2014/15, and will persist at this level until at least 2020. A possible ban on
the disposal of all biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) to landfill in the next
10–15 years would further reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, and may
also require the construction of new infrastructure. As commodity prices continue
to rise, waste will be increasingly seen as a valuable resource to recover (Defra,
2011a), rather than material to be disposed of, which will impact on UK waste
management.
The 2007 Waste Strategy for England (Defra, 2007: 127) gave targets for
recycling and recovery of MSW and for reduction of MSW going to landfill. In
terms of recovery of resources from waste, the UK lags behind other EU countries,
as can be seen in Figure 14.8 (however, it should be noted that UK per capita
 SOLID WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 239

Includes:

Minimizing material use in design & manufacture.

Increasing design life; re-use.

Repairing, refurbishing and dismantling for

spares.

Using wastes as raw materials for manufacturing.

Incluaes composting if quality protocols are met.

Includes anaerobic digestion and all EfW

processes.

Landfill and incineration without energy recovery.

Figure 14.7 The waste hierarchy

Source: based on (Defra, 2011a) and the Waste Framework Directive (EU, 2008).

800
Composted
Recycled
700 Incinerated
Landfilled

600
Destination of MSW (kg/person/yr)

500

400

300

200

100

0
nm s
k
ce

ng ly
m
er in

N Au y
he ria

Lu M s
m lta

Ire rg
C nd
Po lic

L ia
m ia
th a
G ia
un e
Sl ary
Bu nia

rtu a
lg l
Es m
Sw nia

Fi en
Fr d
Be ga
Re U27

Sl nd

an

nd

De pru
ar
Li ani

H ec

Po ari

an

Ki Ita
ak
Ro atv

G a
do
iu

u
b

xe a
an

et st
ed

la
Sp
ua

to
g

bo
la
pu

m
re

lg

rla
nl
ov

ov

y
ch E

d
te
ze

ni
C

Figure 14.8 Graph showing per capita mass of MSW treated by different routes in the 27 EU
countries in 2008
Source: Eurostat.

MSW arisings are in line with those of our European competitors). This is because
of the UK’s legacy of a large number of landfill sites and historical reliance on
this type of waste management, as well as a very strong public antipathy towards
waste combustion. There is very little data available for C&I or C&D wastes,
with the bulk of the data coming from surveys of companies in a single region
240 WATSON AND POWRIE

(e.g. north-west England) which is then extrapolated both spatially and

temporally. Without good data, targets cannot be imposed or checked. This is
recognised in the 2011 National Infrastructure Plan (HM Treasury and
Infrastructure UK, 2011), which requires C&I data to be shared with Defra by
2014. The latest targets can be found in Hall et al. (2012).
The UK government has supported a number of initiatives to help increase
recycling (e.g. the creation of WRAP – the waste and resources action pro-
gramme); reduce the production of waste; and to promote the use of alternative
waste treatment technologies (e.g. through the Defra NTDP) such as mechanical
biological treatment (MBT), mechanical heat treatment (MHT), anaerobic
digestion (AD) and composting. Thermal treatment plays a significant part in
waste management and the production of solid recovered fuel (SRF) from waste
will be increasingly important as the percentage of energy recovery from
renewables increases in line with government policy.

14.5 Current infrastructure

The solid waste infrastructure system includes both waste and resource manage-
ment facilities (i.e. associated not only with waste going to landfill, but also with
the reclamation of resources by recycling and processing). There are three main
sub-systems: collection and transportation, treatment, and final disposal.
For MSW, collection is from the kerbside or household waste recycling centres
(HWRCs). Licenced waste management companies collect the majority of C&I
waste. The main type of facility associated with waste collection and transporta-
tion is a transfer station or bulking facility, where collected wastes are aggregated
for onward transportation.
The number of transfer stations and processing facilities involved in the
recovery of recyclables from waste has increased over recent years. For example,
the number of treatment facilities in England and Wales increased from 950 in
2007 (EA, 2007) to 1380 in 2009 (EA, 2009).
Final disposal, where needed, is almost exclusively to landfill.

14.6 Waste treatment technology: options for

the future
Most urban waste is collected and transported in a traditional way: from
individual households, businesses or residential/commercial blocks by specialist
vehicles on a weekly/fortnightly basis. Bulky wastes and green wastes are often
dealt with separately, for example, at HWRCs. Most local authorities operate
source-segregated collection systems (often separating mixed recyclables from
refuse). The success of these schemes depends primarily on buy-in from the
participants, to ensure effective use. This is a particular issue with schemes aimed
at recovering high quality recyclables, and collection of wet organic wastes
suitable for AD (Banks et al., 2011; Powrie, 2011). Constraints associated with
the current urban architecture, for example, high density housing, and how these
may be overcome, were addressed by the Sustainable Urban Environment (SUE)
Waste Consortium (Alexander et al., 2009; Powrie et al., 2009).
 SOLID WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 241

Current and future treatment facilities are likely to be selected from the
following types:

Materials recycling facilities (MRFs). Take dry, commingled recyclables which are
mechanically and/or hand-sorted. Outputs include recyclable fractions
including paper, cardboard and metals. The non-recyclable residue will either
be sent for further processing to reduce biodegradability, or be used as SRF
or sent to landfill.
MBT facilities. An MRF with an anaerobic or aerobic biological treatment stage
to reduce the biodegradability of residual material. Outputs include
recyclables, sometimes SRF, and treated residual waste, which may go to
landfill. Recovered recyclables may be of poor quality and purity; greenhouse
gases may be emitted during the process unless effort is made to capture them;
the residue may only be suitable for landfilling; they may be large consumers
of energy (e.g. Stentiford et al., 2011); and the landfilled residue may continue
to emit methane at a rate that is significant yet not sufficient to justify its
capture and use (Siddiqui et al., 2011).
MHT Facilities. An MRF where the mixed residual waste is heat treated to sanitise
it. Outputs include recyclables, SRF and a residual waste fraction to landfill.
These may represent a viable option for the treatment of black bag waste.
They are energy intensive. Materials recovered are clean and of high purity,
and (depending on the balance between plastics recovery and sacrifice) the
SRF residue may have a high calorific value. Both the materials recovered and
the SRF are highly marketable. In the Defra NTDP plant analysed by
Stringfellow et al. (2011), the whole process may potentially be energy neutral
(including the energy savings associated with the use of recovered rather than
virgin materials).
Composting facilities. Large-scale open windrows treating garden waste.
In-vessel composting (IVC) for food and green waste. Outputs include mature
compost that may be used for soil improvement. It is clear from the results
of the Defra NTDP monitoring (Eades et al., 2011; Fletcher et al., 2011;
Powrie, 2011; Stentiford et al., 2011), however, that to produce high-quality
compost requires a source segregated waste; that the process is a net energy
user (potentially emitting fossil CO2) and a net producer of CO2 (non-fossil
from the aerobic degradation); that markets for the compost produced may
be limited and will not necessary be robust enough to cover the cost of the
process; and that the best argument for composting is the potential energy
saving associated with the recovery of trace elements such as phosphorus and
nitrogen without mining or expensive fixation from the atmosphere (Powrie,
2011).
AD plants. For treatment of food waste and green wastes. Outputs include
digestate (which may be used for soil improvement) and biogas (CO2 and
methane), which is used to generate electricity and heat. The Defra NTDP
Biocycle pilot plant analysed by Banks et al. (2011) demonstrated the viability
of this process, in financial, technical, social acceptability and energy terms,
at a scale suitable for urban use. It would be entirely feasible to collect local
organic waste (food waste and non-woody green waste) at the district scale,
anaerobically digest it at an industrial estate site, use the gas for electricity
242 WATSON AND POWRIE

generation and potentially also utilise the waste heat (combined heat and
power, CHP). This was shown to be a very promising technology worthy of
further development and exploitation.
Thermal treatment. In the UK at least, these are currently almost exclusively
incineration plants. They may be combined with an MRF to recover
recyclables prior to burning the remaining waste. Outputs include electricity
(and heat, which may be usable in a suitably located CHP facility), recyclables,
aggregate and ash, as well as large amounts of fossil and non-fossil CO2 and
nitrous oxides. Combustion with energy and heat recovery makes sense for
woody wastes, unrecyclable plastics and contaminated plastic/paper/card and
textile wastes, and there are examples of successful city-scale plants in the
UK (e.g. Sheffield) that operate as CHP plants. Work needs to be done to
overcome public antipathy, but this could be largely addressed by (a) not
making the plant too big, so that transport movements onto the site are not
intrusive and there is no sense of being a dumping ground for the entire city’s
waste; (b) independent emissions monitoring; and (c) low-cost provision of
heat to nearby homes.

Other thermal energy from waste technologies, such as gasification and pyrolysis,
are relatively immature and did not fare well in the Defra NTDP (Powrie,
2011).
Any residual waste not recovered by treatment is almost certain to go to a
landfill. Landfill operators currently make most of their profits from the sale of
landfill gas (LFG) and/or the energy it produces. The amount of biodegradable
wastes being landfilled (which emit LFG as they degrade) is declining due to the
EU Landfill Directive, and it is likely that future regulation will lead to decreased
production of LFG and hence profits for operators, making landfill less attractive
to investors. While this may not be problematic in the near future, there will be
some requirement for landfill for the foreseeable future to dispose of residual
wastes (e.g. 5–10 per cent of waste input into MRFs is not suitable for recycling)
and to deal with waste backlogs due to one-off events or disasters (e.g. floods,
terrorist attack) or treatment plant failure. There may be a need for a publicly
funded and operated landfill as a contingency in this respect.
From an energy and resource perspective, Powrie and Dacombe (2006)
demonstrated that the best approach to waste management would involve:

• Responsible consumption and goods to be designed for end of life demanu-

facture; re-using/recycling what is sensible, taking into account markets,
material scarcity and degradation on recycling; as well as transport, energy
and societal costs. In general, metals, plastics and (unless transport distances
rule it out) glass are all worth recycling.
• Using high calorific value wastes as fuel, especially if the waste is dirty, the
resource is common or renewable. Paper, card, wood wastes, irrecoverable
textiles and unrecyclable/mixed plastics would all fall into this category.
• AD with biogas recovery from wet organic and non-woody green wastes,
creating a high-quality residue suitable for application to land for trace
element recovery.
 SOLID WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 243

This is all in principle achievable with current technology, although opportunities

for resource and energy efficiency gains through advances in technology are of
course present. However, achieving this vision – especially by retrofit into the city
environment – is challenging for the reasons addressed below.

14.7 Key challenges

The main challenges for the future of waste management in the UK are likely to
take a number of forms. As has been shown earlier, it is not clear if per capita
MSW production will continue to rise, if it does the amounts of MSW alone being
produced by 2050 could be almost three times higher than today, leaving society
to deal with about 60 Mt/yr more than today.
The challenges ahead can be grouped into the following categories: technical,
social, political and financial.

14.7.1 Technical challenges

In a sense, the main technical challenges are to do with waste management as a
whole system, including that:

• Waste generation, the way in which it is collected and treated, and the fate
of processed materials are all interdependent. For example, successful recycling
requires that waste is collected appropriately, a sufficiency of suitable
treatment plants, and a market for the recyclate produced. If any one of these
is deficient, the whole system will fail. A change to an established system needs
to start somewhere, but where?
• Waste infrastructure is expensive and has a long lifetime. Appropriate
collection systems take time to become established, because of the need not
only for the physical infrastructure to be right but also for people to accept
them and become accustomed to using them. Treatment facilities are expected
to last for typically 25 years, which tends to lock in a commitment to a
particular technology even if changing circumstances and advances elsewhere
mean it is has become inefficient and inappropriate.

Individual technologies will always develop, improve and change. This is true
generically and particularly. For example, automatic sorting of mixed wastes is
now hugely more advanced than it was even 10 years ago; while experience with
operating a particular facility may lead to enormous efficiency gains (Stringfellow
et al., 2011). The key to meeting these challenges at city and retrofit scale is to
match the technology to the type of waste as outlined by Powrie and Dacombe
(2006), and to ensure both agility and social acceptance by not making treatment
plant too big and locating it appropriately within the urban environment where
there are benefits in doing so (e.g. the use of otherwise waste heat).
The biggest remaining individual challenge is then the provision of appropriate
domestic architecture and infrastructure to enable people to source separate
wastes easily and conveniently, and the education of people to do so. While
improved automatic sorting techniques may render source segregation by the
producer unnecessary, taking mixed wastes to a central location for sorting
244 WATSON AND POWRIE

would involve additional infrastructure and transport costs and should ideally
be avoided (e.g. ADAS, 2008). Furthermore, the Powrie and Dacombe approach
requires only that most household wastes are segregated into at most three broad
categories: dry recyclables (metals, glass and high grade textiles and plastics),
combustibles (paper, card and non-recyclable or low-grade textiles and plastics),
and wet organics (food and non-woody green waste). With modern sorting
technology, the first two could reasonably be combined by householders for later
separation provided the additional infrastructure and transport costs were not
prohibitive, although impending changes in legislation might prevent this.

14.7.2 Political challenges

Perhaps the main political challenge is the need to meet current legislation, which
is often not scientifically based, without investing heavily in large-scale infra-
structure that locks us into 20 or 25 years of waste treatment technology, which
may no longer be the most effective. EU legislation, which is not scientifically
based, includes:

• The Waste Incineration Directive (EU, 2000), which sets combustion

emissions limits for waste incinerators and co-combustion with non-waste
fuels which are much more stringent than those for combustion of other,
non-waste fuels (IMechE, 2010).
• The EU Landfill Directive (EC, 1999), which allows the partial treatment
of biodegradable wastes prior to landfilling such that they may continue to
degrade, giving off methane at a rate that is insufficient for financially viable
recovery for beneficial use, and hence contributing more to fugitive green-
house gas emissions than a traditional landfill with LFG recovery. Taking into
account the energy costs of treatment and the loss of recoverable energy from
LFG collection schemes makes this policy appear even worse.

According to CIWM (SLR, 2005) and AEA (AEAT, 2007), local governance
and planning problems prevent strategic decisions on waste being made in the
most efficient way. A move to strategic regional planning authorities with
integration of planning across waste types and compensation for communities
hosting waste facilities (and other strategic infrastructure) (SLR, 2005) could
significantly improve planning, remove potential local authority biases and ensure
efficiencies of scale are accessed. An ad hoc version of this has already happened
in, for example, the South East 7 – a partnership of five county councils and two
unitary authorities (Defra, 2011a). Changing waste governance by moving to a
single government department responsible for solid waste rather than the current
split of departmental ownership between planning (DCLG) and policy (Defra)
might facilitate strategic planning.
Weekly bin collection is still seen as an important objective by central
government policy. However, it is unnecessary and may even be a disbenefit to
recycling. WYG (2011) and Eunomia (2011) found that recycling rates were
significantly higher when recyclables were comingled (as wheelie bins have much
larger capacity than the green boxes required for kerbside sort schemes) and
collection was fortnightly rather than weekly. This suggests the need for waste
management policy to be separated from politics.
 SOLID WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 245

At present some of the material that is collected for recycling is transported

out of the UK. According to Defra (2011a), over 13 Mt of waste material is
exported annually, including 0.79 Mt of plastics, 7.54 Mt of metals and 4.27 Mt
of paper. While this may make economic sense, and is to some extent a
manifestation of the ‘system’ problem that requires suitable source materials,
process plant and markets all to be in place together, it is not the most environ-
mentally sustainable option and the removes a potential benefit of greater raw
materials supply security accorded by closed loop recycling where the recycling
is carried out as close as possible to the source of the material.

14.7.3 Societal challenges

At present, there is often a strong antithesis to the construction of waste infra-
structure, particularly any kind of waste combustion, among the local populace.
The big waste operators attempt to avoid this by trying to get buy-in at the earliest
possible stage of planning. Despite this, the planning process can still take several
years and success is not guaranteed. An approach as outlined previously, involving
the sensitive siting of a suitably sized plant; strict environmental controls with
independent verification that they are being met; and proximity benefits such as
low-cost heat, might encourage community buy-in if local benefits can be seen.
There is some evidence in the UK (see Figure 14.4) and in Europe that MSW
arisings may be decreasing although it is far from clear whether or not this is a
temporary effect of the current economic climate. It is difficult to see what driver
would lead to reduction in total MSW arisings. It seems likely that the Courtauld
Commitment (WRAP, 2010b) with the retail industry to reduce packaging would
have had some effect as packaging accounts for a fifth of household waste (Defra,
2011a). Similarly the supply of subsidised composting bins to households has led
to a reduction in apparent waste arisings, but unless the compost is needed the
waste might be better collected and used in a local AD plant. What is not clear
is where the drivers for householders to actively try to reduce their waste will
come from without charging directly for waste services (which was ruled out by
the present government (Defra, 2011a)), or at least making the tax burden
apparent by publishing figures that show how much could be saved by council
taxpayers if they each reduced the waste they generate. With discarded food
costing UK householders £12 billion/year (£480 per household per year; Defra,
2011a), it might be expected that self-interest in straitened times might lead
householders to reduce this waste without input from government, and yet this
doesn’t seem to have happened.

14.7.4 Financial challenges

The nature of municipal waste finance has meant that in order to secure funding
for large infrastructure projects (e.g. thermal treatment plant), long-term contracts
(typically of 25 years) are often required. This could lead to a waste disposal
authority being locked into a treatment technology even when better waste
disposal options may become available. The reluctance of financial institutions
to lend money against what they view as less well-proven technology is also a
potential barrier to progress in the waste sector.
246 WATSON AND POWRIE

14.8 Key technological advances

At present, accepting that landfill is in decline for primarily legislative reasons,
current ‘safe’ options for waste treatment are mainly materials recovery through
a simple MRF, mass burn incineration and some form of MBT. Of these,
incineration is probably the least readily accepted socially in the UK; MRF
depends for its viability on a combination of gate fees and the robustness of
markets for the recyclate (figures from letsrecycle.com1 seem to show fairly low
price fluctuation for most recyclates) and MBT has previously been primarily a
way of meeting the legal requirements of the EU landfill directive rather than an
effective means of waste resource management, although this seems to be changing
as some plants focus on SRF production.
New technologies are established in principle or elsewhere, at various scales.
The Defra NTDP demonstrated the viability of large-scale AD, and the potential
benefits of MHT for dirty mixed wastes. Advanced thermal techniques such as
pyrolysis and gasification are some way behind, but with development could be
useful in the future for the versatility of their products (storable char and syngas).
Composting is very well established, and is commercially viable as long as the
waste stream is source segregated, the process complies with relevant regulation
(e.g. PAS 100; BSi, 2005: 47), and there is a need and a robust market for the
product. However, there is a need to develop confidence in and gain acceptance
of these technologies, even AD, which, although proven, is still seen as high risk
and esoteric, although the February 2012 announcement of £65 million of funding
for a UK AD start-up (Waste Management World, 2012), suggests that this view
may now have changed. Improvements in process and efficiency will come with
experience as new technologies and systems become more widespread.
Technology developments outside the waste sector could also impact on
collection technology, for example in determining the contents of different bins
and matching collection to specific need. Smart bins and/or automated kerbside
sorting could increase recycling rates and improve the quality of recyclates. At
the moment, comingling waste into wheelie bins produces larger amounts of
recyclables but of a lower quality than obtained from kerbside sorting systems.
Assuming that the appropriate treatment plant were in place, a change in
collection systems to two bins – one for green/kitchen waste and the other for
everything else, with the former going to AD and the latter to an automated MRF
for sorting – would probably work technologically, but there are potential social
issues if this is taken as a fundamental change in message from the pre-eminence
of recycling that people have become accustomed to in recent years. The Defra
NTDP MHT (Stringfellow et al., 2011) demonstrated the technical feasibility of
automated sorting and the recovery of high quality recyclates from black bag
waste, but at a high energy opportunity cost. Ideally, source segregation is
preferable but MHT may have a role to play in areas where this is not feasible,
from either a sociological or an infrastructure point of view.

14.9 Change issues and critical uncertainties

Although the waste industry may appear to operate as a free market, most
changes are brought about by legislation (e.g. the Landfill Directive created a
massive increase in recycling and composting; EC, 1999) or taxation (e.g. increases
 SOLID WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 247

in the landfill tax have made the cost of landfilling comparable with the most
expensive waste treatment technology; WRAP, 2010a). Future changes in
legislation are likely to be the largest driver of change.
The traditional method of waste management was landfill: this has fallen from
favour because of changes in legislation and taxation. It has been replaced by mass
burn incineration and MBT, neither of which may represent optimal waste
management techniques, as already discussed. However, it may be difficult for
emerging technologies to gain acceptance, as has previously been mentioned. The
long life of waste infrastructure is also problematic, with long contracts keeping
local authorities locked into technologies that may cease either to meet their needs
or represent the best way of processing wastes.
As has been previously stated, it is not clear whether or not MSW arisings are
reducing, or whether growth in MSW arisings have been decoupled from
economic/GDP growth. This has a huge impact on future waste arisings. Increasing
scarcity of certain metals and elements will shift the balance of economics in
favour of their recovery and recycling, even where this is at present not financially
viable. Alternatively, it may drive technology to develop away from the use of
such materials.
EU directives and other legislation related to producer responsibility and
manufacturer take-back for end of life goods (e.g. WEEE, ELV) should encourage
design for demanufacture and ease of materials or component recovery from post-
consumer artefacts. To be fully effective, these principles and regulations would
need to be adopted on a worldwide basis, or at least apply to all goods sold (rather
than just manufactured or assembled) in a particular economic region.

14.10 Future visions based on current knowledge

It is of course possible to articulate a variety of scenarios based on current
knowledge, ranging from an uncontrolled upward spiral of consumption, waste
and resource depletion through to the utopian world of responsible consumption
and resource management envisaged by most European national waste manage-
ment strategies and espoused by Powrie and Dacombe. Elements of these include:

• Business as usual, with a steadily continuing increase in recycling, composting,

AD and thermal treatment with concomitant reductions in landfilling.
• Landfill may become no longer commercially viable with small numbers of
government/LA run strategic landfills to cope with emergencies and materials
which have no other disposal route. Hazardous landfill will continue in the
private sector.
• New towns will be designed for much more efficient waste collection; possibly
with pneumatic systems as in Finland and Korea. They may also be designed
for district heating, assuming that waste combustion and AD with combined
heat and power rise to prominence. Similar measures may be retrofitted to
existing cities and urban environments.
• Changes in rules to allow co-combustion of wastes could potentially reduce
waste treatment costs by removing the need to build new infrastructure, as
well as providing supply security for energy generators.
248 WATSON AND POWRIE

Our preferred vision for the future, in terms of sustainable waste and resource
management and the retro-fitting of the necessary infrastructure to the existing
urban environment, would include:

• A reduction in waste arisings, through measures including:

– More reusable packaging. Glassware would seem to be an obvious
candidate for this; however, despite some consumer pressure in this
direction, it was ruled out by the government (Defra, 2011a: 34, 98),
stating that the costs to establish and run a deposit and return scheme
for beverage containers would be ‘very high . . . and much higher than
alternative measures’. While there is nothing to stop the market moving
in this direction, the extra costs are likely to be a deterrent unless seen
as a premium service and unique selling point for the company launching
it. Transporting bulk liquids (e.g. wine from Australia) long distances in
large containers, and bottling them nearer the point of sale, allowing the
development of locally based closed loop recycling, for example, of green
glass, which has been a problem with wine bottles in the UK.
– Reducing the number of different plastics used in packaging, and avoiding
mixed or laminated plastics might make recycling easier. At the moment
there is a lack of clarity in many areas as to which plastics can and cannot
be recycled.
– A reduction in food waste, which currently accounts for about 18 million
tonnes of biodegradable waste every year (WRAP, 2011): the CO2
avoided by not producing the food in the first place is over eight times
that associated with the energy that can be recovered by the best currently
available treatment technology, AD (Defra, 2011a).
– Reducing C&D wastes through greater re-use of wastes on sites; designs
based on what is available rather than an unavailable ideal; changes to
both design (i.e. all walls, floors and ceilings designed around a whole
number of standard sized boards) and construction practice (e.g. joined-
up site planning to minimise waste generation), as well as the mind-set
within the industry.
• Changes in recycling and re-use, including:
– Reducing C&I wastes through finding uses for recyclable materials
within other sectors, and the creation of synergistic industrial areas
(e.g. Kalundborg and Australia’s Kwinana Industrial Area) to utilise
waste materials and heat.
– Increased producer responsibility for end of life goods, and design for
demanufacture for materials and component recovery.
– Development of urban networks for re-use of clothes and artefacts,
including component recovery and repair.
• Changes in collection, treatment and recovery, including:
– Simple source separation of wastes into (a) dry recyclables (i.e. metals,
glass and recyclable textiles and plastics) and combustibles (wood waste,
paper, card and non-recyclable plastics); and (b) wet organics/green
wastes.
 SOLID WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 249

• Modern, simple to use collection architecture and systems.

• Provision of local-scale thermal and AD energy from waste plant, sensitively
sited (e.g. on an industrial estate), with robust environmental monitoring and
enforcement, with electricity generation and local heat recovery via low-cost
of free-to-use district heating schemes.
• Small, local authority owned landfills for unrecoverable residual wastes.

All of this is achievable through a combination of sensitive retrofit, in consultation

with local communities whose engagement and participation is essential.

14.11 Conclusions
Changes in waste management practice in the UK and Europe have been driven
by legislation – first to protect human health, then the environment and finally
natural resources. Some recent changes in legislation may however have perverse
effects, because the consequences have not been thought through in a systematic
and scientific way. Changes in legislation and taxation have driven the default
waste management option in the UK away from landfill towards recycling,
incineration and most recently towards MBT. Recycling and MBT are probably
the waste treatment facilities most readily accepted by the public. MBT is unlikely
to be optimal in terms of energy and resource efficiency, but meets the
requirements of the EU landfill directive. The viability of recycling depends on
the presence and robustness of markets for the recycled materials.
A sound waste management strategy should be based on responsible consump-
tion, which includes waste minimisation, design for re-use and demanufacture to
facilitate artefact, component and material recovery. Wastes should be collected
according to the appropriate treatment method for each material type, namely:
(a) dry recyclables (i.e. metals, glass and recyclable textiles and plastics) and
combustibles (wood waste, paper, card and non-recyclable plastics); and (b) wet
organics/green wastes. Recyclables should be sorted using modern technology and
sent for materials recovery; combustibles should be used for local thermal energy
recovery and wet organics/green wastes should be sent to local AD plant. Modern
sorting and collection facilities can be retrofitted on a case-by-case basis to
buildings in the urban setting. Energy recovery – whether thermal or by AD –
can be local, on a suitable site (e.g. an industrial estate), at a scale that limits site
activities, including waste movements, to an acceptable level. The heat associated
with electricity generation can then be used in a district heating system, at low
or even zero cost, thus providing local benefits to those living in the vicinity of
the site and helping to increase public acceptance. Robust environmental controls
would also need to be specified and enforced.
The main barriers to achieving this are the current structure of the waste
industry (with long-term contracts favouring the continuing use of the same
methods of waste management for periods up to 25 years, because the infra-
structure is in place and has to be paid for); the disjointed planning framework,
which means that it is difficult to engage local communities in a constructive way;
and the unwillingness of financial institutions to lend money against facilities based
on what they view as untried technology, which inhibits technical innovation and
incremental improvement. It is unsatisfactory that waste management practice is
250 WATSON AND POWRIE

driven by pragmatism in the face of public opinion and scientifically flawed

legislation, but the long-term (25-year) nature of waste treatment facilities means
that there is little incentive to those in the industry to change the status quo.

Acknowledgement
This chapter draws on work that the authors have carried out or been involved
with that has been made possible by funding from EPSRC, Defra and Veolia.
However, the views expressed are the authors’ own.

Notes
* Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton.
1 See www.letsrecycle.com/prices/.

References
ADAS (Agricultural Development Advisory Service) (2008) Energy Audit of the Kerbside
Recycling Services: London borough of Camden. Accessed 28 November at: www.
adas.co.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=r1z9i6a8TSs%3D&tabid=235.
AEA Technology (2007) Economies of Scale: Waste management optimisation study.
London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Alexander, C., Smaje, C., Timlett, R., and Williams, I. (2009) ‘Improving social technologies
for recycling’, Proceedings of the ICE – Waste and Resource Management, 162(1):
15–28.
Augenstein, D. C., Yazdani, R., Kieffer, J., and Benemann, J. (2005). ‘Yolo County,
California, controlled landfill program: A summary of results since 1994’, in
Cossu, R., and Stegmann, R. (eds) Proceedings Sardinia 2005, Tenth International
Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy,
CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy, 3–7 October 2005 (electronic
resource).
Banks, C. J., Chesshire, M., Heaven, S., Arnold, R., and Lewis, L., (2011) ‘Biocycle anaerobic
digester: Performance and benefits’, Proceedings of the ICE – Waste and Resource
Management, 164(WR3): 141–50.
Brown, K. A., Smith, A., Burnley, S. J., Campbell, D. J. V., King, K., and Milton, M. J. T.
(1993) Methane Emissions from UK Landfills. London: AEA Technology.
BSi (British Standards Institute) (2005) PAS 100:2005 Specification for composted materials.
Accessed 28 November at: www.wrap.org.uk/content/bsi-pas-100-producing-quality-
compost.
Defra (Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2007) Waste Strategy
for England 2007. London: HMSO.
Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2011a) Government Review
of Waste Policy in England 2011. London: HMSO.
Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2011b) ‘Municipal waste
generation in England from 2000/01 to 2009/10 tables 1–5’, Table 4. Accessed
16 October 2013 at: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/municipal-waste-generation-in-england-
from-2000-01-to-2009-10.
DETR (Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions) (2000) Waste Strategy
2000. London: HMSO.
EA (Environment Agency) (2007) Waste information 2007. Accessed 28 November 2013
at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/data/97400.aspx.
 SOLID WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 251

EA (Environment Agency) (2009) Waste information 2009. Accessed 28 November 2013

at: www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/library/data/123472.aspx.
Eades, P., Banks, C. J., Heaven, S., and Walker, M., (2011) ‘Mass and energy balance for
a rotating drum composting plant’, Proceedings of the ICE – Waste and Resource
Management, 164(WR3): 151–9.
EC (European Union) (1999) Directive 1999/31/EC on the Landfill of Waste. Council of
the European Union, Official Journal of the European Communities, L182, pp. 1–19.
EU (European Union) (2000) Waste Incineration Directive. 2000/76/EC. Official Journal
of the European Union.
EU (European Union) (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Luxembourg: Official
Journal of the European Union.
Eunomia (2011) Kerbside Collections Options: Wales. Cardiff: WRAP Cymru.
Fletcher, L. A., Stentiford, E.,I., Hobbis, P. G., and Barton, J. R. (2011) ‘Performance of
tunnel composters fitted with heated walls’, Proceedings of the ICE – Waste and
Resource Management, 164: 161–7.
Gandy, M. (1993) Waste and recycling: An exploration of contemporary environmental
policy. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
Hall, J. W., Henriques, J. J., Hickford, A. J., and Nicholls, R. J., (Eds) (2012) A Fast
Track Analysis of Strategies for Infrastructure Provision in Great Britain. Oxford:
Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford.
HM Treasury and Infrastructure UK (2011) National Infrastructure Plan 2011. London:
HM Treasury.
IMechE (Institution of Mechanical Engineers) (2010) Energy from Waste: A wasted
opportunity? London: IMechE.
Powrie, W. (2011) ‘Evaluation of treatment technologies for biodegradable municipal
solid waste’, Proceedings of the ICE – Waste and Resource Management, 164(3):
127–39.
Powrie, W., and Dacombe, P. (2006) ‘Sustainable waste management: What and how?’,
Proceedings of the ICE – Waste and Resource Management, 159(3): 101–16.
Powrie, W., Riley, K., and Salter, A. M. (2009). ‘Briefing: Overview of the work of the SUE
waste consortium’, Proceedings of the ICE – Waste and Resource Management,
162(3): 119–27.
Siddiqui, A. A., Richards, D. J., and Powrie, W. (2011) ‘Investigation into the landfill
behaviour of pretreated waste’, Waste Management, 31(7): 1420–6.
SLR Consulting (2005) Delivering Key Waste Managment Infrastructure: Lessons learned
from Europe. London: Chartered Institution of Wastes Management.
Stentiford, E. I., Fletcher, L. A., Barton, J. R., and Hobbis, P. G. (2011) ‘Performance of a
prefabricated concrete tower composter’, Proceedings of the ICE – Waste and Resource
Management, 164: 169–77.
Stringfellow, A., Powrie, W., Castano-Tejada, W., Whatmore, S., Gilbert, A., Manser, R.,
and Maslen, R. (2011) ‘Mechanical heat treatment of municipal solid waste’,
Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers – Waste and Resource Management,
164(3): 179–90.
Waste Management World (2012) ‘Ambitious AD start up secures £65m towards 100 MW
capacity’. Last updated: 22 February 2012. Accessed 22 February 2012 at: www.waste-
management-world.com/index/display/article-display/5335844825/articles/waste-
management-world/markets-policy-finance/2012/02/Ambitious_AD_Start_Up_Secures_
p65m_towards_100_MW_Capacity_.html.
Wastewatch (2004) History of Waste. Last updated: October 2004. Accessed 15 Februaury
2008 at: www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/HistoryofWaste.pdf.
WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) (2010a) Comparing the Cost of
Alternative Waste Treatment Options. Banbury, UK: WRAP.
252 WATSON AND POWRIE

WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) (2010b) The Courtauld Commitment.
Banbury, UK: WRAP.
WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) (2011) Waste Arisings in the Supply of
Food and Drink to Households in the UK. Banbury, UK: WRAP.
WYG Environment (2011) Review of kerbside recycling collection schemes in the UK in
2009/10. Lyndhurst, UK: WYG Environment.
PART IV
Emerging themes in
urban retrofit
This page intentionally left blank
15
Conclusions
Financing, managing and visioning the urban
retrofit transition to 2050
Malcolm Eames,* Tim Dixon,** Miriam Hunt* and
Simon Lannon*

15.1 Introduction
This book has examined the key trends in urban retrofitting which are likely to
transform cities over the next 20–30 years and beyond to 2050. The chapters have
also analysed the key drivers and trends in the energy, water and waste and
resource use arenas that are underpinning this transition. From these chapters a
number of key themes emerge.
First, recognising the importance of strong local governance structures, and
how the policy landscape is changing and needs to change, are vital considerations
if we are to manage the urban retrofit transition successfully. As Theobald and
Shaw point out in Chapter 5, city governments will need to be given wider
regulatory powers in planning and retrofit and have the resources to back them
up, which, in a changed political landscape and an era of austerity, is extremely
challenging. Second, and linked to this first point, it is clear that the capacity to
develop institutional, financial and governance innovations and to share and
manage risks and benefits, will be critical to scaling up urban retrofit activities
and delivering systems-wide change at the city scale (see for example Gouldson
et al. in Chapter 4). Third, in understanding urban retrofit we also need to
recognise that a socio-technical framework provides us with a powerful lens
to see systems innovations not only in the context of disruption to existing
systems (see for example Luque in Chapter 9) but also in terms of social justice
implications (McLaren in Chapter 8). Fourth, understanding which emerging key
technologies in energy, water and waste may impact and disrupt existing systems
and which technologies might simply ‘sustain’ existing systems is also vital if we
are to understand the future of urban retrofit (see Irvine in Chapter 10; Butler
et al. in Chapters 12 and 13; and Watson and Powrie Chapter 14). Fifth, if we
are to understand the prospective evolution of urban retrofit to 2050 we also
need to deploy techniques that can create shared visions and expectations of the
256 EAMES ET AL.

key urban retrofit problems and their potential solutions (see Butina Watson in
Chapter 7 and Leach et al. in Chapter 11). Finally, it is clear that ‘one size does
not fit all’ for urban retrofit. Every city is different in its requirements, and there
can be no single blueprint for success: the experience in the global south is very
different from the global north (see Dixon and Eames in Chapter 2 and Silver in
Chapter 6). Nonetheless, there are transferable and comparative lessons that be
taken from such studies and there are, as we have seen in Chapter 2, key ‘critical
success factors’ which need to be achieved for urban retrofit (as part of sustainable
urban development) to have a chance of success in the context of a managed urban
transition.
In the final chapter of this book therefore we explore the following questions
in the context of the UK, but also drawing on relevant international experience:

• How is the policy landscape developing, and what needs to change if we are
to undertake urban retrofit at scale?
• How can we identify the key disruptive and sustaining technologies in energy,
water and waste within urban retrofit?
• What would a retrofit sustainable city future look like?
• What techniques can be used to scope out city level visions, for the strategic
navigation and governance of urban transitions?

15.2 A changing policy landscape

15.2.1 Austerity and localism
Local authorities are key actors in the urban retrofit process and, as Gouldson
et al. point out (Chapter 4), they can seek to finance low-carbon cities directly,
through some sort of partnership arrangement with the private sector, or rely on
the private sector to provide financing (EST, 2011). Increasingly local authorities
in the UK have to draw on other actors’ resources, finance and the means of
delivering urban retrofit, but continue to play a key role in the transition to a
low-carbon future. For example, The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), set
up under the Climate Change Act to monitor government progress against the
carbon budgets, regards local authorities as well-placed to ‘drive and influence
emissions reductions in their wider area through the services they deliver, their
role as social landlords, community leaders and major employers, and through
their regulatory and strategic functions’ (CCC, 2012: 15). This might involve
driving the development of a low-carbon economy in their area through such
practical measures as managing their property portfolio and public procurement
policies; delivery of services such as housing, education and waste; control over
local planning policy and building regulations; and partnership arrangements and
public investment in infrastructure (Roberts, 2010). UK cities are responding not
just to this legislation, but also to pressures to invest in low-carbon infrastructures,
the need to manage low-carbon budgets, and the opportunities for growth offered
by low-carbon markets (Bulkeley et al., 2012). Local authorities also have a major
role to play in influencing climate change policy directly through delivery of
services, strategic influence and network relations, and, to co-ordinate this, they
are establishing corporate, cross-departmental responses (IDeA, 2011).
 CONCLUSIONS 257

But political changes in the UK in the period 2011–12 have created a different
landscape, and these are likely to present new drivers and barriers to local
authorities and the way in which they tackle climate change and the low-carbon
agendas (Green Alliance, 2011; CCC, 2012; Dixon and Wilson, 2013).
First, English local authorities took full control of local area agreements,
allowing them to drop any centrally driven targets that they wished (which
included carbon emissions targets), and which also prompted a major shift in policy
and performance appraisal in this area. Central government no longer monitors
any targets that local authorities decide to retain, and the national indicator set,
which previously included National Indicator (NI) 185, NI 186 and NI 188 carbon
emission target measures, is now replaced with a single ‘data requirement list’ for
local authorities, which no longer includes these carbon emissions targets.
Second, in England, the new localism agenda has been given force as the
Localism Act 2011 (HMG, 2011a), intended to be the first in a wave of measures
to localise and decentralise power to local government and across housing and
planning policies in England. The Act is designed to initiate six actions that the
government considers are required to drive its decentralisation agenda forwards,
including lifting the burden of bureaucracy; empowering communities; increasing
control of public finance; diversifying public services; opening government to
public scrutiny; and strengthening accountability to local people. The Act,
however, makes no reference to the low-carbon agenda, although there clearly
are potential impacts through, for example, the planning and siting of local
renewable energy projects, which is an issue where local authorities are seen as
playing a very important role.1 In parallel with this there has been a drive from
the UK Government to devolve powers to English city regions through mayoral
elections and City Deals, the latter of which are designed to build economic
capacity and, in some instances, link with a low-carbon and green growth agenda
(Green Alliance, 2012).
Third, the impacts of sustained cutbacks in public expenditure as a domestic
economic policy could significantly undermine the scope for local autonomy
or central state control in moving to a low-carbon economy (Green Alliance,
2011; Monaghan, 2011). The Local Government Association (LGA) reports
that councils are facing a 28 per cent reduction in the monies received from
central government for the period 2010/11 to 2014/15 (LGA, 2012). This raises
broader issues about how long-term funding can be secured for low-carbon
cities, and it should be stressed that a tightly-focused local authority view of
financial risk for a city-wide project in an age of austerity will differ from that
of the private sector, which may see investing in city-wide energy efficiency
as just one of a range of potential alternative investments (Sullivan et al., 2012,
see Chapter 4, this volume).
Fourth, the introduction of a major new legislative arrangement, the Energy
Act, 2011, driven by national government, is likely to alter the way in which local
authorities promote energy efficiency measures. For example, the Green Deal
(DECC, 2012), which forms part of the Energy Act, is an essentially market-led
approach (based on similar schemes in the USA and elsewhere that attach
the debt to the property rather than the occupant; Rosenow and Eyre, 2012), by
which UK energy customers will be able to pay back the upfront costs of energy
258 EAMES ET AL.

efficiency measures through the lower bills that may result (Richards, 2012). In
light of austerity measures from the centre, which have placed local authorities
under severe financial pressure, this may mean that for some local authorities the
economic imperative for pursuing energy efficiency measures as Green Deal
providers may become more important than their environmental motives (Green
Alliance, 2011). Indeed, this also comes at a time when hybrid models for
financing low-carbon cities are being vaunted, which combine strong partnership
arrangements around a range of bottom-up project pipelines funded through top-
down cascade funding (Sullivan et al., 2012).

15.2.2 The Green Deal

The Green Deal,2 which is described by the current government as a ‘flagship piece
of legislation which will deliver energy efficiency to homes and buildings across
the land’ came into effect in October 2012 and is enshrined in the Energy Act
(2011). In simple terms there is now a legal framework in place that will enable
energy customers in England, Wales and Scotland to receive loans to carry out
energy efficiency improvements. The repayment of loans attaches to the property
and the ‘golden rule’ states that repayments should not exceed the savings on an
average energy bill. In addition a new energy company obligation (ECO) is also
available to tackle those in fuel poverty and for measures falling outside the golden
rule. Existing schemes (CERT and CESP) ended in 2012 and the Green Deal will
be financed through a not-for-profit Green Deal Finance Company, bringing
together 16 companies, led by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
However, there are a number of problematic issues with the Green Deal in its
existing form, which commentators and observers have highlighted (see Theobald
and Shaw, Chapter 5; McLaren, Chapter 8; Dixon et al., 2013a). These are
summarised as follows:

Overall impact. Under the new Green Deal regime, grants are replaced by market-
based loans. The government’s own impact assessment of the Green Deal
suggests that loft and cavity insulation are set to fall dramatically, by 83 per
cent and 67 per cent respectively, after the Green Deal commences. This is
effectively the result of a transition from zero costs insulation to full cost plus
the market rate of interest. Indeed recent research (Rosenow and Eyre, 2012)
suggests that Green Deal/Eco will only deliver carbon reduction at a rate of
one quarter of the rate of the policies it replaces.
Barriers to uptake and operational issues. Although the government has recently
introduced a range of incentives to attempt to ‘kickstart’ the Green Deal, there
are a number of generic barriers. Research for EPSRC Retrofit 20503 found
that: (a) some of the key barriers to retrofit continue to revolve around
perceived disruption and upheaval when energy efficiency measures are carried
out; and (b) that people and businesses are more concerned with other
priorities in the current economic climate (Britnell and Dixon, 2011).
Moreover, as Rosenow and Eyre (2012) suggest, other related barriers include
uncertainty over the ability of existing UK supply chain capacity to undertake
the level and extent of installation required.
 CONCLUSIONS 259

Non-domestic sector. In the non-domestic sector there are also concerns that the
Green Deal will not provide sufficient energy savings for the scheme to be
worthwhile, with the golden rule running the risk of being a ‘deal breaker’
because technologies and building improvements which do not meet the rule
are not likely to feature on the accredited list of improvements. Therefore
only very poorly performing buildings will be worth retrofitting under the
Green Deal (Quartermaine, 2012).
Roll out at scale. In its current form, the Green Deal relies very much on ‘self-
directed’ market-based initiatives to achieve capacity and scaling up at
community and city level. This is perhaps the area where city-based local
authorities, in terms of the move to city-regional status, have the biggest
potential role to play (Dixon, 2012). However, this is not easy in an age of
‘austerity’.

Although the Green Deal is potentially a significant step forward in enabling

energy efficiency measures to be carried out at a large scale in the UK, in its current
form it suffers from a number of major defects and there is even a danger that it
may reduce rates of insulation in the domestic sector, and provide little likelihood
of success in the commercial property sector.
For the Green Deal to have a better chance of success than it currently has
there needs to be a reconfiguration of the existing architecture of the scheme. This
should be based around the following principles (Dixon et al., 2013a):

• A bigger and more direct role for the Green Investment Bank (GIB)4 is needed.
The important direct role that the GIB could play in the Green Deal, both in
terms of underwriting and aggregating finance scheme is well-recognised
(BIS, 2011).
• Green Deal incentives should be wide-ranging and permanent. Although the
government recently announced a package of incentive measures, these are
temporary. More permanent and wide-ranging incentives are needed, and
additional possible incentives might include differential stamp duty, council
tax rebates, or tax breaks.
• The Green Deal should offer more flexibility to homeowners. Penalising those
who pay back early under the Green Deal is unfair, and this should be
amended under the Consumer Credit Act.
• A national Green Deal Roadmap is needed. The Green Deal in its current
form is almost entirely market-based. This means that clear guides through
the process are needed for homeowners and businesses to feel comfortable
about uptake. Although the new DECC guides are helpful, there is no clear
strategic roadmap in place that shows how the variety of policies and funding
streams fit together, and indeed the overarching framework for the UK Green
Economy (‘Enabling the Transition to a Green Economy’; HMG, 2011b) lacks
a long-term vision.
• Flexible city-based Green Deal initiatives should be encouraged on a wide
scale. There is now a complex city-level policy landscape in place. Greater
consideration needs to be given as to how cities across the UK can play an
important role in rolling out the Green Deal at scale given that the level of
trust in local authorities is higher than in the private sector (Hildyard, 2012).
260 EAMES ET AL.

• A more integrated approach is needed within government to planning

regulations, building regulations, and the low-carbon transition. Currently
there is a disconnection between these three elements that needs to be urgently
resolved. This requires a much more strategic approach to low-carbon
transition in the built environment so that energy efficiency measures at scale
are incentivised and not prevented by contradictory planning and building
regulations.
• The role of the Green Deal needs to be more closely defined in the commercial
property sector. There is considerable doubt as to whether the commercial
sector will use the Green Deal to carry out the energy improvements needed.

This raises the important point that, when it comes to large-scale retrofitting,
the focus is often on residential property or public sector uses rather than
commercial property, as commercial property is frequently seen as complex,
diverse (i.e. offices, retail, warehousing) and difficult to integrate successfully in
large-scale retrofit programmes.
The barriers that inhibit change in the commercial property sector are often
seen as more problematic than in the residential or public building sectors. In the
UK, for example, some 51 per cent of commercial property (worth some £717
billion) is rented, with 49 per cent owner-occupied, which creates a real issue in
terms of a ‘split incentive’ (Dixon, 2009). Energy costs are still a relatively low
proportion of operational costs in many service sector companies (up to 6 per
cent), and falling lease lengths (4.8 years on average in the UK) may also prevent
the deployment of technologies that do not pay back within a certain timescale.
Despite this, at a company, portfolio, or individual building level, many
corporates are leading by example. Larger companies are being driven by
corporate social responsibility (CSR) imperatives, rising energy costs, shareholder
value issues and legislative requirements. So companies such as Marks & Spencer
(as an owner and an occupier with its ‘Plan A’) and PRUPIM (as an investor and
developer) have developed cutting-edge approaches to ensure retrofit programmes
are at the heart of their corporate strategies. But what would make these
companies and other businesses really engage with the retrofit agenda at city level
and take a helicopter view? Four critical success factors have been identified
for commercial retrofit to work more effectively at urban level (Dixon, 2013a,
2013b):

1 Mandatory regulation. In a free market, it is optimistic to expect business to

self-regulate. Mandatory energy performance display should be an imperative
in order to drive change in the sector. In the UK, this would mean a
requirement for Display Energy Certificates in commercial buildings, which
replicate some of the best features of the NABERS programme in Australia.
2 ‘Sticky’ infrastructure. Business is more likely to see the benefits of large
retrofit programmes if commercial property benefits from projects, which
provide citywide benefits, such as district heating or tri-generation projects.
3 Sustainable financing. Innovative and creative financing solutions are also
needed and these may include citywide partnership deals that bring together
a range of actors, as well as ‘climate bonds’ and tax increment financing deals
for low-carbon innovation (see Section 15.2.3).
 CONCLUSIONS 261

4 Scalable technologies. Technologies that can be rolled out at scale, and that
also benefit commercial property, will be attractive. Companies have already
realised that ‘low hanging fruit’ (i.e. simple energy efficiency measures such
as LED lighting and building management systems) can create annual savings
of 30 to 40 per cent, and more disruptive technologies such as ‘spray on’ PV
could provide further opportunities in the near future (see Section 15.3).

15.2.3 Alternative partnership and financing models

At the time of writing it is still too early to say whether substantial numbers of
households and businesses will take advantage of the Green Deal. In a landscape
in flux, it is clear that those cities that make best use of policy leverage across a
range of scales are more likely to be successful in developing coherent low-carbon
action plans. ‘Competition’-based innovations are therefore likely to be common.
As previous research has shown, low-carbon plans require timetables, targets and
dates for implementation; they require resources and funding; and they need to
have a clear designation of responsibilities from key stakeholders with an effective
monitoring and review system (Dixon, 2012; Dixon and Wilson, 2013). The com-
bination of localism and economic resource constraints might encourage larger
authorities to innovate more (Dunleavy et al., 2011, see Section 15.2.1 above).
Moreover, constraints suggest that larger urban authorities and cities will seek
to prioritise access to resources (for instance, through the Green Deal), and
hence the economic driver might be stronger, or as strong, as the environmental
imperative. Therefore ‘neo-liberal’ re-structuring of the state through the use of
market-based instruments such as the Green Deal might alter the role of city-based
local authorities into operating more as private sector agencies and seeking new
forms of partnership (Dixon and Wilson, 2013).
But without an integrated, area-based approach to retrofitting and programmes
focusing on a single outcome the potential for scale change will be limited
(Sustainable Development Commission, 2010). As the Sustainable Development
Commission (2010) pointed out, a key barrier to the large-scale roll out of urban
retrofit is the lack of a single body driving and co-ordinating the planning and
delivery of work. However, in a changed political landscape, partnerships under-
pinning this model will also be key to success. Recent research (Dixon, 2012;
Dixon and Wilson, 2013) has highlighted three examples of good partnership
working in Bristol, Plymouth and Glasgow (see Table 15.1).
Despite these successes, there is considerable uncertainty in the way in which
Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) will work together to take over some of the
roles of the now defunct Regional Development Agencies, and also how they will
work with existing Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs). For example, the new West
of England LEP is led by Bristol, Bath and NE Somerset, North Somerset and
South Gloucestershire Councils. This potential fragmentation could prove
dangerous for an integrated approach to mitigation and adaptation within and
between cities and their city regions in England.
Looking overseas similar partnerships between private, public and research
partners have proved successful, and the low-carbon Nordhavnen Copenhagen
project, the planned sustainable neighbourhood in the former docklands, is one
of the most ambitious urban development projects in Scandinavia, bringing
262 EAMES ET AL.

Table 15.1 Examples of low-carbon partnerships in UK cities

Bristol Informal arrangement through the Bristol Partnership, which is a local strategic partnership. Targets
expressed in the Sustainable Community Plan Bristol 20/20 plan, which has four primary objectives of
which ‘sustainable prosperity’ is one, and which is designed to place Bristol in the top 20 European cities
within 10 years. Informal arrangement on sub-regional basis, project focused. The city has recently (2013)
been awarded £3 million in funding through the Technology Strategy Board as a Future Cities
Demonstrator.
Plymouth Plymouth has a 186 Low Carbon Network of local businesses (190+ members) and a semi-independent
Climate Change Commission comprising some of the city’s (and UK’s) leading climate change
academics, decision-makers and business leaders. The 186 Network is based on knowledge transfer and
a bottom-up approach to establishing best practice in local carbon management – with a view to the
outcomes contributing to Plymouth’s future low-carbon economy. The Commission supports this and
acts as an advisory team for decision-makers within the Council and Local Strategic Partnership. Both
were deeply involved with establishing the Climate Change Action Plan 2009/11, the Climate Change
Framework (2008) and are currently the editorial guide for the Local Carbon Framework 2011/2020 (in
development).
Glasgow Sustainable Glasgow is a city-wide partnership to make Glasgow one of the most liveable and
sustainable cities in Europe. It brings together partners from the public and private sectors to work with
citizens, communities and businesses. The City is committed to reducing its carbon emissions by 30 per
cent within 10 years and building a greener and more sustainable future for Glaswegians. The Sustainable
Glasgow partnership includes Glasgow City Council, the University of Strathclyde, Clyde Gateway,
Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, Glasgow Housing Association, Scottish Enterprise, Greater
Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, IBM, BT, Honeywell, Scottish Power, Scottish & Southern Energy,
Scottish Water and the City of Glasgow College. Sustainable Glasgow is chaired by Councillor Gordon
Matheson, Leader of Glasgow City Council. The city has recently (2013) been awarded £24 million in
funding through the Technology Strategy Board as a Future Cities Demonstrator.

Source: based on Dixon (2012); Dixon and Wilson (2013).

Table 15.2 Examples of low-carbon funding mechanisms for UK cities

Pay as you save A way of allowing home owners, local authorities, housing associations, community organisations and
SMEs to attract capital. Frequently designed for upfront capital provision and then recoupment of energy
savings. Examples: Green Deal and Birmingham’s BES.
Regional JESSICA Joint Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (JESSICA) allows member states to use some of
Funds their EU funding to enable repayable investments in projects. Funds can be recycled; there is no public
debt and, provided there is an integrated plan for sustainable urban development, choice can made as to
focus. Examples: JESSICA, London.
ELENA funds European Local Energy Assistance is used to help fund technical assistance, and can include such items
as feasibility and markets studies, business plans, energy audits and preparation for tendering
procedures.
Community Frequently framed around development trusts, co-operatives and mutuals, charities, and community
investment funds. Often institutional finance is hard to generate.
ESCO delivery Programmes which oblige energy suppliers to reduce carbon emissions in buildings by organising,
models financing and delivering energy efficiency and supply measures in buildings. Examples: London RE:NEW
and municipal ESCOs, including Birmingham.
Neighbourhood Public sector revolving fund which supports high-risk projects through initial high risks. Example: Salix
funds Finance established through Carbon Trust. Can provide funding of up to £500,000 provided criteria on
payback are met.
Non-revenue Local authorities can create local funds to finance schemes through for example, s106 agreements, and
generating revenue from community renewables.
Special purpose Local authorities, housing associations and community organisations can take an active role in forming
vehicles PPPs to unlock private finance. Example: London RE:FIT.

Source: Dixon (2012).

 CONCLUSIONS 263

together a range of partners (Sustainability West Midlands, 2010). Similarly,

Stockholm’s ambition to become fossil fuel free by 2050 is underpinned
by dedicated climate change groups that are backed by the public and private
sectors.
Given the recognition of retrofitting, waste management and energy efficiency
as being important drivers for a low-carbon future in UK cities, it is perhaps not
surprising that a range of new funding mechanisms besides the Green Deal have
been developed in response to growing demands to assist local authorities in
attracting private sector finance. Some of these include those listed in Table 15.2
(Aldersgate Group, 2009; Sustainable Development Commission, 2010; Climate
Group, 2011). For example, in London city-wide energy efficiency retrofit schemes
have been introduced that comprise the RE:FIT (non-domestic) and RE:NEW
(domestic programmes) (underpinned by European Investment Bank funding
through a London ‘Green Fund’; Dixon, 2012). In Birmingham, Birmingham
Energy Savers (BES) was originally set up as a non-profit organisation launched
by Birmingham City Council to roll out domestic energy retrofit programmes across
the city using the government feed-in tariffs to subsidise the installation of renew-
able technologies. More recently, the programme has been bought by Carillion, with
plans to develop this into a £1.5 billion programme of Green Deal city-wide
domestic property energy efficiency retrofitting (CCC, 2012; Dixon, 2012).
In recent years several other potential sources of finance for urban retrofit have
emerged which include:

• Green Investment Bank. The Coalition Government has committed to the

establishment of a Green Investment Bank, which is designed to address
‘market failures’ and therefore unlock significant new private investment into
green infrastructure projects. The government will enable the Green
Investment Bank to have borrowing powers from 2015–16, and once the
target for debt to be falling as percentage of GDP has been met.5
• City Investment Funds. These are funds that are city-based and designed to
attract overseas investors, and could use a range of instruments such as ‘green
city bonds’,6 ‘city futures’ or ‘green infrastructure investments’ to attract
capital.

When we look at overseas experience it is clear that cities have developed

innovative ways of financing the transition to a low-carbon future. For example,
Copenhagen has used a ‘mixed market’ approach to develop its district heating
network that supplies 98 per cent of the city’s needs. The system is Combined
Heat and Power, but in contrast to the UK, ‘dumping heat’ is forbidden and all
of it has to be used. Power stations that generate only electricity are not allowed
and transmission companies have to buy heat from the power stations. The Danish
government is responsible for overall energy policy, legislation, tax and subsidies
and the local municipalities are responsible for heat planning, project imple-
mentation and connections to the network (Engineering Times, 2011). The power
plants and networks are in effect municipally owned companies (CTR and VEKS),
although the power plants were acquired by Vattenfall and DONG in 2006
(Grant Thornton, 2011). Interestingly, in a UK context, in Glasgow, there is a
requirement that major new development where possible, will be designed to
264 EAMES ET AL.

connect to existing or planned district heating networks and/or to develop

opportunities for decentralised and local renewable or low-carbon sources of heat
and power to meet their own on-site needs and potentially those of others in a
local heat network.
In summary, despite the immense challenges, given the fact that cities also have
control over land use, transport, buildings, waste management and other services,
they are well positioned to use their influence to create a step change towards a
low-carbon future. Furthermore, cities anchoring their low-carbon agenda
alongside eco-innovation, green growth and green jobs, can also help drive change
across the local and regional economy (Dixon and Wilson, 2013).
Indeed, the focus on green technologies as a rationale for economic growth is
logical given that the UK’s low-carbon and environmental market is already worth
£112 billion, 3 per cent of the global total, and employs around 900,000 people
(Workplace Foundation, 2012). It is therefore important to examine which urban
retrofit technologies might be part of a future low-carbon landscape.

15.3 Disruptive and sustaining technologies in

urban retrofit
Both new build and retrofit of the built environment are increasingly focused
around ‘eco innovation’ technologies (Kemp and Foxon, 2007) or what otherwise
are termed ‘environmental technologies’, ‘clean technologies’ (Andersen and
Foxon, 2009), or ‘green innovation’ (Hordern et al., 2008). Innovations, and
indeed, ‘eco-innovations’, may be categorised in a number of ways (Hockerts
and Morsing, 2008). For example, a typology based on ‘Technological Innovations
Systems’ (Greenacre et al., 2011) categorises innovations according to their
economic and social effects: ‘incremental’, ‘radical’ and ‘disruptive’ (Arundel
et al., 2011). ‘Incremental’ innovations are based on discoveries that occur within
existing technology paradigms which do not significantly alter them (Foxon, 2003)
(for example, increasing wind turbine efficiency through longer blades; Arundel
et al., 2011). In contrast a ‘radical’ or ‘transformative’ technology involves
fundamental changes to the way things are done, and require new knowledge bases
and new infrastructures with perhaps even shifts in ‘regime’ but which are not
necessarily ‘disruptive’ (for example, fuel injection for the internal combustion
engine). In comparison, a ‘disruptive’ technology involves new knowledge bases
that replace existing ways of doing things, but do not require significant regime
change (for example, replacing petrol with biofuels would disrupt business
models based on petrol, but would have minimal effect on social practices;
Greenacre et al., 2011).
The term, ‘disruptive technology’, is also used within the aegis of ‘Disruptive
Innovation Theory’ (DIT) to describe a technology that results in a sudden change
affecting established technologies or markets (Bower and Christensen, 1995; Yu
and Hang, 2010). It is also suggested that the relationship between ‘disruptive
innovation’ per se and ‘systems innovation’ is particularly close, and this viewpoint
recognises that there are strong interactions between the different disciplinary
lenses of management studies, innovation studies and transition theory (Tyfield
and Jin, 2010). In further DIT work ‘disruptive’ technologies are distinguished
from ‘sustaining’ (or ‘incremental’) technologies (Christensen and Raynor, 2003).
 CONCLUSIONS 265

In this arena, ‘sustaining’ innovations occur in the core market of a firm and result
in a product that delivers better quality at lower prices, whereas ‘disruptive’
technologies occur at the margins of established markets. At first these products
(which may well not exhibit ‘radical’ characteristics) are ignored by the majority
of the market, although some consumers buy them because they may like a
distinctive feature, and in time these ‘niche’ markets may be extended as quality
rises and costs fall (Hockerts and Morking, 2008; Bower and Christensen, 1995).
For example, using the ‘DIT’ typology (as we do in this chapter) a more specific
case of a potentially ‘disruptive’ technology in urban retrofit is high efficiency,
cost-effective LED lighting (Mulki and Hinge, 2010). LEDs, which rely on
semiconductors, benefit from rates of improvement dictated by Moore’s Law, and
software increases their value by adjusting their energy use based on required
lighting levels. Moreover, the decline in cost of LEDs is expected to render
incandescent and compact-fluorescent bulbs obsolete, with LED’s global share of
the market expected to increase from 25 per cent today to 30 per cent by 2015
and 80 per cent by 2020 (Rogers, 2011).
Other examples of disruptive technologies relevant to the energy retrofit
domain include (a) phase change materials that may offer advantages for thermal
storage and air conditioning in buildings and load shifting of power demands;
and (b) plastic electronics that have applications in lighting, photovoltaics and
integrated smart systems. In the water sector nanotechnology membranes have
been highlighted as a disruptive innovation for water purification (including
advanced treatment of grey water for portable use), and smart and biomimetic
materials for a range of sectors (Foresight Horizon Scanning Centre, 2010).
Moreover, such technologies can impact co-laterally on existing business
models and the operation of broader networked infrastructures. Such secondary
‘disruptive’ impacts could arise from the effect of ‘disruptive’ technologies on both
the energy efficiency of buildings and operation of the electricity network. So, for
example, as a result of improving building energy efficiency through urban retrofit,
energy utilities’ revenues and profits may be reduced, especially in markets where
prices are high and where regulatory regimes underpin energy efficiency.
Indeed, the large-scale deployment of distributed renewable generation
technologies such as photovoltaics (PV) may impact the wholesale (peak) price
of electricity (as has recently occurred in Germany). This would undermine
current utility business and investment models and at the same time drive the
reconfiguration of existing top-down network (grid) infrastructures, creating a
need both to reinforce local grids and provide new regional interconnections
(Parkinson, 2012). In the future, therefore, utility companies may need to cope
with uncertainty and discontinuity by seeking new sources of revenue from new
markets in building fabric, decentralised systems and distributed generation,
advanced metering infrastructure, and ‘smart’ appliances and applications
(Busnelli et al., 2011).
Using the same distinctions, we can also see that the chapters in this book have
identified key disruptive urban retrofit technologies. For example, McLaren
(Chapter 8) suggests that technologies providing smart grids and smart metering,
in parallel with decentralised energy systems could lead to buildings being net
producers rather than net consumers of energy. This is also identified by Luque
(Chapter 9) as an important innovation that might create a utopic future or one
266 EAMES ET AL.

which could create greater splintering and fragmentation in existing systems. Irvine
(Chapter 10) also suggests that PV employing thin-film and organic technologies
could have the power to disrupt existing systems. Moreover, in a wider sense
technology pathways can influence the future in a variety of ways. Leach et al.
(Chapter 11) suggest that their ‘thousand flowers’ scenario would place a much
greater emphasis on the community-led management and integration of waste and
energy flows. For Watson and Powrie (Chapter 14) disruptive changes could come
through waste combustion and heat and energy recovery, while for Butler et al.
(Chapters 12 and 13) indirect potable water supply technologies and desalination
could also prove disruptive.
These findings are also confirmed by the results from other work in the research
programme on which this book is based. As part of the EPSRC Retrofit research,
and to underpin the expert reviews which form the basis of this book, we
conducted an online national UK ‘horizon scanning’ online survey of respond-
ents from the private sector, local government, other public sector/NGOs and
academics to help identify key urban retrofit technologies in energy, water
and waste and resource use through to 2050 (Dixon et al., 2013b). Table 15.3
summarises the findings from this survey (Dixon et al., 2013b), which show a
range of sustaining and more disruptive technologies at building, neighbourhood
and city levels.

15.4 Retrofit city futures: visions for urban

sustainability
The final section of this book turns to the question ‘what would a retrofit sustain-
able city future look like’? We address this question through presenting three
contextual visions developed through a participatory backcasting and foresight
process undertaken by the EPSRC Retrofit 2050 project (Eames et al., 2013a).
While our understanding of what makes a city and how cities develop have
changed (see Dixon and Eames, Chapter 2, this volume), so our visions of cities
have also evolved and developed. Cities have frequently been the focus for utopian
visions and imaginations, promoting hopes for a better future, but cities have also
been imagined in dystopian and apocalyptic terms as hellish places, where poverty
and despair prevail.
For example, Thomas More’s Utopia was published in 1516, building on other
utopic visions such as Plato’s Republic. Literally translated as ‘no place’ (or in
other interpretations, ‘good place’), Utopia was a book that, written in Latin,
depicted a fictional island society and its religious, social and political customs.
Indeed much of the visionary thinking that evolved from the city vision thinking
of Thomas More, Leonardo and others, is also very closely linked with urban
planning theory. So for example, in the 20th century we have seen the emergence
of Garden or Social Cities, which promoted the idea of a metropolitan, polycentric
region (for example, Ebenezer Howard); the Contemporary or Radiant City, which
emphasised urban monumentality (for example, Le Corbusier); Broadacre City,
which unintentionally led to urban sprawl (for example, Frank Lloyd Wright);
and the Ecological or Spiritual City (biopolis), which captured the concept of
workplace-people (for example, Patrick Geddes) (Daffara, 2006; Eames and
Dixon, 2012).

Table 15.3 Key ‘multi-scale’ energy, water and waste urban retrofit technologies to 2050
Domain Building scale
I Energy
Building fabric
Sustaining Green roofs and walls
Disruptive High-performance thin
insulation
Controllable optical films
for windows
Modular construction
Phase change materials
Building services
Sustaining PVs, ground source heat
pumps, solar thermal
Greater efficiency of plant/
equipment and more
intuitive systems
and controls
Smart meters and micro
CHP
Disruptive LED lighting
II Water
Sustaining Low water demand
fixtures, fittings and
appliances as standard.
Grey water harvesting
Water metering
Green roofs
Recycling systems
Disruptive
III Waste
Sustaining Improved storage space
for waste within buildings
Incentivising home
composting and recycling
schemes to reduce
waste production
Improved segregation and
collection schemes.
Food waste collection
and composting
Source: adapted from Britnell and Dixon (2011).
Neighbourhood scale
Optimising building layouts
to minimise energy demand.
Improved insulation to
whole blocks of buildings
with mixed tenure resulting
in improved construction
detailing
Improved green
infrastructure
Heat capture and storage
materials
PVs, community district
heating and CHP
Anaerobic digestion/
micro-generation
Hydrogen networks
Sustainable Drainage
Systems (SuDS), rainwater
and grey water harvesting
Green roofs
Micro-hydro technology
Energy from waste, e.g.
anaerobic digestion
Neighbourhood composting,
waste to cash schemes
and improved recycling
CONCLUSIONS 267
City-regional scale
Increased use of green
infrastructure to regulate
temperatures in cities
PVs, waste to energy heat and
steam systems, CHP and
district heating schemes Smart
grid technology
Large-scale district heating
and CHP
LED lighting in buildings and
streets
Sustainable Drainage Systems
(SuDS), rainwater and grey
water harvesting
Water resource management
planning
Waste water to heat
technologies
Energy from waste, e.g.
anaerobic digestion, biomass
gasification – feeding gas into
national grid, advanced
thermal conversion
268 EAMES ET AL.

In contrast to these visions, Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1926), for example,

portrays a future of ‘perfected technology in a New Babel with multilevel
proletariat subterranean hells’ (Cole, 2001: 375), and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner
(1982) depicts a dystopian Los Angeles in November 2019, in which genetically
engineered organic robots called ‘replicants’ must be hunted down.
Within this creative tension, it seems fair to say that ‘utopic’ visions have tended
to focus on building new cities (or ‘ideal cities’), while, in contrast, ‘dystopic’
visions envisage a world where existing cities reach a point of no return and
ultimate social, economic or ecological collapse. Indeed such dystopic visions
feature particularly prominently within the genre of science fiction. Re-engineering
or large-scale retrofit of existing cities has therefore generally not been a feature
of utopian visions.
Now more than ever, however, our existing cities need to envision and strive
for a more sustainable future. Visioning, generating a picture of a desirable future
(or futures), is a key step in any backcasting process, and is also key to dealing
with uncertainty in steering socio-technical transitions. It allows a shared set of
expectations of the future(s) to be articulated. More broadly, shared expectations
or ‘guiding visions’ are recognised as playing an important role in shaping both
the speed and direction of technological and social change. Unlike the ‘blind’
evolution of biological processes, the quasi-evolutionary processes that underpin
the dynamics of change in complex socio-technical systems include an element of
premeditation and choice (Eames and Dixon, 2012). Guiding visions then play a
generative or ‘performative’ role: providing legitimacy, mobilising investment,
promoting network formation, and reducing risk by aligning R&D priorities and
production activities (Van Lente 1993; Dierkes et al., 1996; Eames et al., 2006).
The question is then, ‘What would a future retrofit sustainable city look like?’
However, the future is uncertain and sustainability an inherently contested and
irreducibly political concept, informed both by incomplete and competing
knowledge and the diverse values and interests of different social groups (Stirling,
2007). No single vision can possibly encompass the multiple and competing views
of the city and of urban sustainability. The challenge is therefore to envisage a
range of prospective futures, each encompassing a distinctive understanding
of a retrofitted sustainable city, which, taken together, provide a reasonably
comprehensive description of the future possibility space.
The EPSRC Retrofit 2050 project combined foresight (literature reviews, expert
reviews, and roadmaps) and participatory backcasting processes (working with
a panel of UK experts from industry, government, academia and civil society) in
order to produce a set of three long-term (2050) visions for the sustainable retrofit
of core UK city regions (for a detailed discussion of the research methodology see
Eames et al., 2013b; Dixon et al., 2013b).
Each vision is intended to explore a distinctive framing or articulation of urban
sustainability with respect to the future retrofitting of core UK city regions. They are
not intended as predictions or to represent the future of particular cities. Rather
they suggest possible futures though which to explore potential technological,
infrastructure, land use, socio-economic and cultural change. Moreover, while the
visions represent competing, to some extent incompatible, views of urban sustain-
ability, they are far from exclusive. One can certainly imagine how elements of these
visions might exist alongside each other, all be it at different scales within a city region.
 CONCLUSIONS 269

Each of these futures is located within a ‘possibility space’ described by two

key dimensions of change for systemic urban retrofitting (Figure 15.1):

• Change in land use and urban form. This dimension describes the extent of
change in patterns of land use and urban form within the city region, on an
axis from ‘Low’ to ‘High’. At the low end of this axis changes in the built
environment and urban infrastructure are largely overlaid upon or accom-
modated within existing patterns of land use and urban forms. At the high
end, land use and urban form are radically reconfigured.
• Social values and institutions. This dimension describes the structure of social
relations and patterns of economic activity, including policy styles and
consumption behaviour. At one end of this axis market oriented solutions to
delivery of public goods predominate, together with individualist values empha-
sising short-term private consumption. At the other end public goods are
delivered through cooperative and collective institutions, with a strong role for
civil society. The individual is seen as part of a wider community and mechanisms
for the allocation of resources are aligned with long-term social goals. Between
these two, communitarian values couple with strong local governance institutions
to drive social investment at neighbourhood and city scales.

The three Retrofit 2050 city visions are briefly summarised below.

Vision I: Smart-Networked City (Figures 15.2 and 15.3). The city as a hub within
a highly mobile and competitive globally networked society. Pervasive,
information-rich virtual environments integrate seamlessly with the physical

High

Self-Reliant
Green
City
Change in land use
and urban form

Compact
City

Smart-
Networked
City

Low

Market Communitarian Cooperative

Social values and institutions

Figure 15.1 Locating the Retrofit 2050 visions

270 EAMES ET AL.

Improving Roll out of smart grids Smart water metering Retrofitted new technologies and
performances of and appliances and appliances infrastructure, which are layered
existing building onto the existing built environment
envelopes

Figure 15.2 The Smart-Networked City vision

SMART-
NETWORKED CITY
The city as a hub
within a highly mobile
and competitive
globally networked
society

Low-moderate densification
Market orientated values
with emphasis on private
consumption
Pervasive IT: Omnipresent
real-time monitoring and
information
Highly mobile
Capital investment in
centralised infrastructure
systems
Widespread diffusion
of building integrated
renewables
Decarbonisation of private
transport: Electric/hydrogen
fuelled private car prevalent
Market based mechanisms
for recycling and resource
recovery

Figure 15.3 The Smart-Networked City vision

 CONCLUSIONS 271

Efficiency gains Investment Walking, cycling and Intensive use of green Intensive improvements to
sought through in SUDs public transport space through green individual building envelopes:
systems integration predominate roofs and walls biogas, industrial hear, solar
thermal, PV, heat pumps

Figure 15.4 The Compact City vision

COMPACT CITY
The city as a site
of intensive and
efficient urban living

Moderate densification
Mixed use neighbourhoods
– increase in neighbourhood
infrastructure
Area based initiatives of
rainwater harvesting
Reduced need to travel
Social and community
engagement at the
neighbourhood level
Heat and power from waste

Figure 15.5 The Compact City vision

272 EAMES ET AL.

Insulation and Diverse range of distributed Pockets of green in the city: Low capital cost rain
improvements to building renewables are shared by Rise of urban culture water harvesting
envelopes using recycled community nnetworks: PV,
and local materials micro hydro, wind, local
biomass, solar thermal

Figure 15.6 The Self-Reliant Green City vision

SELF-RELIANT
GREEN CITY
The city as a self-
reliant bio-region,
living in harmony with
nature

Low economic growth

Cooperative and collectivist
values underpin new models
of shared ownership
Significant decrease in
overall energy consumption
Outward migration from
urban centres – green
fingers extensification
Very little motorised
transport, private or public
Re-localisation of production
and consumption
Green and blue space, local
biomass and biodiversity are
all harnessed
Holistic, decentralised
approach integrate water
management into urban
design
Mend and make do culture
– low capital cost solutions

Figure 15.7 The Self-Reliant Green City vision

 CONCLUSIONS 273

world. ICTs provide real time information to drive efficiencies through auto-
mation and intelligent control, and advanced market oriented solutions allow
for the internalisation of environment costs. This is an open, outward looking
society in which the mobility of people, goods and services remains high.
Vision II: Compact City (Figures 15.4 and 15.5). The city as a site of intensive
and efficient urban living. Urban land use, buildings, services and infra-
structure provision are optimised in order to create dense urban settlement
forms that encourage reduced demand and more efficient use of energy and
resources. Concentration in urban centres reduces pressures on the periphery.
Significant efficiencies are obtained through systems integration and re-design.
Vision III: Self-Reliant Green City (Figures 15.6 and 15.7). The city as a self-reliant
bio-region, living in harmony with nature. A self-replenishing, largely self-
reliant system of circular metabolism, where resources are local, demand is
constrained, and the inputs and outputs of the city are connected (cradle to
cradle). In many ways this is an inward facing society, but one conscious of
its global responsibility to ‘live within its limits’.

The key technological and social characteristics (with respect to energy, water,
and waste and resource use) and contextual indicators for each vision are
summarised in Table 15.4.7 For a full description of each vision see Eames et al.
(2013b). The economic growth, population and density assumptions also differ
according to the visions offered, and these figures have been derived from
compatible assumptions in other studies. Thus, a Self-Reliant Green City is likely
to have slower economic growth, a lower population, and lower densities than a
Smart-Networked City, for example.
It should be stressed that these three visions (and their related ‘possibility space’)
have not been developed to be either comprehensive or mutually exclusive. Rather,
they are intended to capture distinct aspects in which a hypothetical retrofitted city
differs from the current status quo. For example, much of the change in the Self-
Reliant Green City is predicated on significant change in the way social values and
institutions operate; much of the Smart-Networked City vision is concerned with
overlaying new technologies onto existing infrastructures. The goal here therefore
is to draw focus towards key aspects of change rather than to generate a set of
‘compartmentalised’ or ‘all-encompassing’ visions (Dixon et al., 2013).
The research also suggests that foresight-based techniques are needed to
supplement backcasting techniques, where the latter may be prone to consensus
and therefore a more limited and constrained identification of disruptive
technologies. Thus we see a less wide range of disruptive technologies identified
in Table 15.3 than we do in Table 15.4 because of the more open, performative
nature of backcasting, in contrast to the closed nature of the online survey.
The next stage of the project will examine each of the visions in the context
of the case study regions of the Cardiff city region and Greater Manchester. As
well as grounding the visions in a real-world context, this will allow for a more
detailed exploration of the relationship between the ‘what’ of urban retrofitting
– here represented by the city visions – and the ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’
of change through exploring pathways of transition in each of the case studies
with relevant regional experts, and social interests including community groups
(which have been sourced from a detailed stakeholder analysis).
Table 15.4 Key characteristics and indicators of the Retrofit 2050 visions
Energy
Water
Waste and resource use
Change in land use
and urban form
Social values and
institutions
Economic growtha
(% p.a.)
UK population by 2050
(million)
Urban density (2050)
(assuming a large city)b
a Economic growth and population projections are in line with scenarios developed by the UK Infrastructure Transitions Research Consortia (Hall et al., 2012).
b Figures are approximate and are taken from CABE (2005). See also www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/land-use/jlup/10_space_per_person_in_the_uk_-_a_review_of_densities_
trends_experiences.pdf.
Smart-Networked City
Improvements in end-use efficiency;
total energy use remains high.
Smart grids and appliances;
improvement to performance
of buildings. Focus on micro-
generation at the building scale
Smart metering and appliances
coupled with market instruments
drive improvements in efficiency.
Continued capital intensive
investment in centralised
infrastructure systems
Novel materials and continued growth
in consumption require high levels of
investment in waste infrastructure.
Advances in ICT facilitate the
development of market based
mechanisms to enhance incentives
for resource recovery
Low–moderate
Market oriented values, with emphasis
on private consumption. Light touch,
networked governance with public
sector, local authority and intermediary
organisations acting as facilitators
for business
3.0
86.4
No significant change
40 dwellings per ha
(or 160 people/ha)
Compact City
Individual building envelopes, micro-
generation and building integrated
renewables alongside community
and city-scale heat and power
networks. Reductions in transport
energy use
Area based initiatives link deployment
of rain water harvesting (RWH)
technologies and investments in
SUDS with stricter regulation of
individual consumer behaviour
Efficiency gains are sought through
systems integration. Heat and power
from advanced waste (including
sewage) treatment technologies
make a significant contribution at
an urban scale
Moderate (densification)
Communitarian and localist values
expressed at a city and neighbourhood
level, coupled with strong local
governance and planning systems
and an emphasis on social investment
2.3
76.4
Dense
70 dwellings per ha
(or 275 people/ha)
Self-Reliant Green City
Demand reduction; a diverse range of
distributed renewables coordinated at
the community level; extensive use of local
biomass and solar thermal
Holistic, decentralised approach integrates
water management into urban design.
Changing social norms support demand
reduction. Decentralisation of water
treatment and provision
Reduced demand coupled with a mend
and make do culture. Small-scale, low
capital cost solutions for waste treatment.
Focus on optimising sustainable use of
renewable resources, including locally
sourced carbon neutral and negative
materials
High (extensification)
Cooperative and collectivist values
underpin new models of participation and
shared ownership, in which mutualism and
local self-reliance are coupled with strong
concerns for social equity and a
questioning of materialism
< 1.6
66.8
Less dense
30 dwellings per ha
(or 120 people/ha)
 CONCLUSIONS 275

The conceptual framework used in EPSRC Retrofit 2050 has provided an

accessible and relevant way through which to engage key stakeholders in exploring
the socio-technical construction of both emergent and purposive retrofit processes
across multiple scales and domains. It should, however, be recognised that while
transitions theory and the multi-level perspective (MLP) offers a helpful framework
for analysing major sociotechnical change, the complexity of cities, the relative
inertia of the built environment, and strong sunk investment costs all present
formidable challenges for a managed transition towards sustainability (Naess and
Vogel, 2012). The transitions which occur at city level may themselves be ‘fuzzy’
and less clear cut than much of the generic transitions literature suggests (Naess
and Vogel, 2012). Nonetheless, as Rotmans (2006) argues, uncertainty in itself
also offers a higher potential for change and influence in cities than if the processes
themselves had been more ‘certain’. Set against these potential constraints,
backcasting and visions-based methodologies also offer powerful tools for
exploring the ‘what’, ‘how’, ‘why’ and ‘who’ questions that long-term transitions
at city level in complex inter-related domains require to be answered. In this sense
our starting point is consistent with Quist and Vergragt (2011: 747) who suggest
backcasting does not assume that a group of experts or a group of stakeholders
can develop a finalised vision of the future, which then will act as an ‘immovable
utopia’. Rather, in terms of urban futures and our scenarios process, the research
sought to create a ‘space of communication’ in which imagined futures could be
both considered and populated. As participants in the workshops recognised, the
opportunities for cross-sectoral dialogues of this type are, unfortunately, rare. The
problems faced are multi-sectoral and multi-level and require cooperation across
normal boundaries. Existing visions of sustainable cities have relatively little to
tell us about processes of systemic urban retrofit because they frequently overlook
these important questions. The research in this chapter demonstrates the potential
contribution that more fluid and performative foresight processes can make to
‘opening up’ the strategic navigation of urban sustainability transitions through
making explicit competing expectations and framings of both the city and
sustainability.
Retrofit 2050 visions highlight three distinctive and competing articulations of
urban sustainability, associating each with differing governance structures
(including social values and institutions) and changing patterns of land use and
urban form, some of which (while recognising the very different national contexts
for urban retrofit (WBCSD, 2010) may have resonance with urban retrofit
trajectories outside the UK (Inayatullah, 2011). Each vision also draws attention
to a differing portfolio of technological and social innovations and governance
structures. So the intention here is not to provide ‘self-contained’ predictions of
the future, but rather to highlight and ultimately make explicit (often hidden)
societal choices using a socio-technical approach. Exploring alternative expecta-
tions and ‘guiding visions’ can therefore not only assist in ‘opening up’ societal
dialogue around such questions, but also can play a role in mobilising resources
and innovative activity around desired outcomes.
The challenge then becomes one of understanding how such visions ‘touch
down’ in specific regional contexts (with for example their particular natural and
built environments, infrastructure, demographic, socio-economic, institutional and
governance structures). To this end future work under the EPSRC Retrofit 2050
276 EAMES ET AL.

project will explore and evaluate their prospective implementation in two specific
case study city regions (Cardiff/South East Wales and Greater Manchester).
This will employ both participatory–deliberative approaches to help visualise the
prospective regional futures and formal modelling to quantify and evaluate
the regional scenarios in each case.

Notes
* Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University.
** School of Construction Management and Engineering, Reading University.
1 Moreover, in England the establishment of 37 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs),
which are designed to bring local authority and other public sector partners together
with private sector partners in order to create local economic growth, have added to
the complexity of the current multi-governance system. Some 29 of the LEPs refer to
the ‘low carbon economy’ or ‘climate change’ (for example, setting emissions reduction
targets or elaborating on how they plan to realise their low-carbon ambitions; Green
Alliance, 2011).
2 See also Chapters 5 and 8 of this book.
3 See www.retrofit2050.org.uk.
4 The Green Investment Bank’s mission is: ‘to accelerate the UK’s transition to a green
economy and to create an enduring Institution, operating independently of Govern-
ment.’ The bank was formed as a public company in May 2012 and became fully
operational in October 2012 when it was granted State Aid approval by the European
Commission to make investments on commercial terms. The UK Green Investment Bank
is the first bank of its kind in the world, with £3 billion of funding from the UK
Government to invest in sustainable projects.
5 See also note 4 above and Section 15.2.2.
6 Climate Bonds are another category of green bond that have received extensive
coverage (see, for example, http://climatebonds.net/).
7 Under each of the visions the working assumption is that the UK will meet its 80 per
cent carbon reduction target by 2050 (against a 1990 baseline), alongside very signi-
ficant improvements in water use and waste and resource efficiency. However, in each
case the manner in which these objectives would be achieved (i.e. the likely portfolio
of policy, technological and social innovations) varies. The robustness of these
assumptions and practicality of achieving these objectives under each scenario will be
subject to detailed investigation and analysis in subsequent stages of the project.

References
Aldersgate Group (2009) Financing the Future. Accessed May 2013 at: www.aldersgate
group.org.uk/asset/download/118/financing_the_future.pdf.
Andersen, M., and Foxon, T. (2009) ‘The greening of innovation systems for ecoinnovation:
Towards an evolutionary climate mitigation policy’. Paper presented at the DRUID
Summer Conference on ‘Innovation, Strategy and Knowledge’, (2009), Copenhagen
Business School, Denmark, 17–19 June 2009. Accessed May 2013 at: http://www2.
druid.dk/conferences/papers.php?cf=32.
Arundel, A., Kanerva, M., and Kemp, R. (2011) Integrated Innovation Policy for an
Integrated Problem: Addressing climate change, resource scarcity and demographic
change to 2030. PRO INNO Europe: INNO-Grips II report Brussels: European
Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry.
BIS (Business, Innovation and Science) (2011) The Economics of the Green Investment Bank:
Costs and benefits, rationale and value for money. London: BIS.
 CONCLUSIONS 277

Bower, J., and Christensen, C. (1995) ‘Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave’,
Harvard Business Review, January–February: 43–53.
Britnell, J., and Dixon, T. (2011) Retrofitting in the Private Residential and Commercial
Property Sectors: Survey findings. Work Package 2: Urban Technology Foresight
(2020–2050). Accessed November 2012 at: www.retrofit2050.org.uk/sites/default/files/
resources/WP20111.pdf.
Bulkeley, H., Caston Broto, V., and Edwards, G. (2012) ‘Bringing climate change to the city:
Towards low carbon urbanism?’, Local Environment, 17(5): 545–51.
Busnelli, G., Shantaram, V., and Vatta, A. (2011) ‘Battle for the home of the future: How
utilities can win’, McKinsey Quarterly (Sustainability and Resource Productivity),
Summer: 44–53.
CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) (2005) Better Neighbour-
hoods: Making higher densities work. London: CABE.
CCC (Committee on Climate Change) (2012) How Local Authorities Can Reduce
Emissions and Manage Climate Risk. London: CCC.
Christensen, C., and Raynor, M. E. (2003) The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and
sustaining successful growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Climate Group (2011) Low Carbon Cities: An international perspective. London, New York:
Climate Group.
Cole, S. (2001) ‘Dare to dream: Bringing futures into planning’, Journal of the American
Planning Association, 67(4): 372–83.
Daffara, P. (2006) Global and Local (Glo-Cal) Visions of Human Habitation for 2100 and
their Defining Cultural Paradigms. Ph.D. Thesis. University of the Sunshine Coast,
Australia.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2012) Green Deal. Accessed May
2013: www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/green_deal/green_deal.aspx.
Dierkes, M., Hoffmann, U., and Marz, L. (1996) Visions of Technology: Social and
institutional factors shaping the development of new technologies. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Dixon, T. (2009) ‘Urban land and property ownership patterns in the UK: Trends and
forces for change’, Land Use Policy (DIUS Foresight Land Use Futures Programme),
26(supp. 1): S43–53.
Dixon, T. (2011) ‘Low Carbon’ Scenarios, Roadmaps and Pathways: An Overview and
Discussion. EPSRC Retrofit 2050 Working paper 2011/6. Accessed May 2012 at:
www.retrofit2050.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/WP20116.pdf.
Dixon, T. (2012) Hotting Up? An analysis of low carbon plans and strategies for UK cities.
Vol. 1: Main Findings. London: RICS.
Dixon, T., and Wilson, E. (2013) ‘Cities’ low carbon plans in an “Age of Austerity”: An analysis
of UK local authority actions, attitudes and responses’, Carbon Management, 4(6).
Dixon, T. (2013a) ‘4 Steps to Commercial Retrofitting UBM Future Cities Blog’. 4 March.
Accessed October 2013 at: www.ubmfuturecities.com/author.asp?section_id=328&
doc_id=524467.
Dixon, T. (2013b) ‘The role of commercial property retrofitting in low carbon urban
transitions’. Paper presented at Ecobuild, London, 5 March 2013. Accessed May 2013
at: www.ecobuild.co.uk/seminars/session/refurbishing-britain/96/tuesday-05-march/
seminar-room-4.html.
Dixon, T., Connaughton, J., Shao, L., Sexton, M., and Hughes, W. (2013a) All Party
Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment Inquiry into Sustainable
Construction in the Built Environment: Consultation response from the School of
Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading. University of
Reading. Accessed May 2013 at: www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/press/tim-dixon-green-
deal-paper.pdf.
278 EAMES ET AL.

Dixon, T., Eames, M. Britnell, J., Watson, G, Hunt, M. (2013b) ‘Urban retrofitting:
Identifying disruptive and sustaining technologies using performative and foresight
techniques’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, in press; corrected proof
available online 23 September 2013.
Dunleavy, P., Rainford, P., and Tinkler, J. (2011) Innovating out of Austerity in Local
Government: A SWOT analysis. London: LSE. Accessed May 2013 at: http://eprints.
lse.ac.uk/37742/1/Innovating_out_of_Austerity_in_Local_Government_(LSERO).pdf.
Eames, M., and Dixon, T. (2012) Visioning Retrofit Futures. EPSRC Retrofit Working Paper
2012/1. Accessed May 2013 at: www.retrofit2050.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/
WP20121.pdf.
Eames, M., McDowall, W., Marvin, S., and Hodson, M. (2006) ‘Negotiating generic and
place-specific expectations of the hydrogen economy’, Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, 18(3–4): 361–74.
Eames, M., Dixon, T., May, T., and Hunt, M.(2013a) ‘City Futures: Exploring urban retrofit
and sustainable transitions’, Building Research & Information, 41(5): 504–13.
Eames, M., Hunt, M., Dixon, T., and Britnell, J. (2013b) Retrofit City Futures: Visions for
urban sustainability. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
Engineering Times (2011) Copenhagen’s Network. Environmental Change Institute,
University of Oxford. Accessed May 2013 at: www.engineering-timelines.com/why/
lowCarbonCopenhagen/copenhagenDistrictHeating_03.asp.
EST (Energy Savings Trust) (2011) Local Energy Efficiency Finance. London: EST.
Foresight Horizon Scanning Centre Government Office for Science, Technology and
Innovation Futures (2010) UK Growth Opportunities for the 2020s. London:
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Foxon, T. (2003) Inducing Innovation for a Low-carbon Future: Drivers, barriers and
policies. London: Carbon Trust.
Grant Thornton (2011) Sustainable Cities: A vision of our future landscape. London.
Accessed May 2013 at: www.environmental-finance.com/download.php?files/pdf/4e73
6194ca201/Sustainable%20Cities%20-%20full%20report.pdf.
Greenacre, P., Gross, R., and Speirs, J. (2011) Innovation Theory: A review of the
Literature. ICEPT Working Paper, Imperial College, London.
Green Alliance (2011) Is Localism Delivering for Climate Change? Emerging responses from
local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and neighbourhood plans. London: Green
Alliance.
Green Alliance (2012) Green Cities: Using city deals to drive low carbon growth.
London: Green Alliance.
Hall, J. W. et al. (2012) A Fast Track Analysis of Strategies for Infrastructure Provision in
Great Britain. Report. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Hildyard, L. (2012) The Green Deal and Eco in London: Borough Challenges – Briefing
Paper Two. London: Future of London.
HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) (2011a) Localism Act 2011. Accessed May 2013 at:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents/enacted.
HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) (2011b) Enabling the Transition to a Green Economy.
London: HMG.
Hockerts, K., and Morsing, M. (2008) A Literature Review on Corporate Social
Responsibility in the Innovation Process. Denmark: Copenhagen Business School.
Hordern, T, Börjesson, S., and Elmquist, M. (2008) Managing Green Innovation. CBI
Working Paper Series. London: CBI.
IDeA (Improvement and Development Agency) (2011) Growing the Low Carbon Economy:
A Companion Guide to Driving Economic Growth. London: IDeA.
Inayatullah, S. (2011) ‘City futures in transformation: Emerging issues and case studies’,
Futures, 43, 654–61.
 CONCLUSIONS 279

Kemp, R., and Foxon, T. (2007) Eco-Innovation from an Innovation Dynamics Perspective:
Measuring eco-innovation. Maastricht, The Netherlands: EU Sixth Framework
Programme.
LGA (Local Government Association) (2012) ‘Popular council services under threat, LGA
warns.’ LGA Media release, June. Accessed May 2013 at: www.local.gov.uk/web/
guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10171/3624637/news-template.
Monaghan, P. (2011) Sustainability in Austerity: How local government can deliver during
times of crisis. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
Mulki, S., and Hinge, A. (2010) Green Investment Horizons: Effects of policy on the market
for building energy efficient technologies. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World
Resources Institute.
Naess, P., and Vogel, N. (2012) ‘Sustainable urban development and the multi-level
transition perspective’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 4: 36–5.
Parkinson, G. (2012) ‘Why generators are terrified of solar’, RE New Economy. Accessed
May 2013 at: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/why-generators-are-terrified-of-solar-
44279.
Peyman, H. (2010) Achieving Vancouver’s Green Goals through Low-carbon Economic
Development Zones. Green Economy Working Paper 2. Vancouver, BC: ISIS Research
Centre at the Sauder School of Business, UBC.
Quartermaine, R. (2012) ‘Sustainability: The Green Deal’, Building Magazine, 1 April,
pp. 52–5.
Quist, J., and Vergragt, P. (2006) ‘Past and future of backcasting: The shift to stakeholder
participation and a proposal for a methodological framework’, Futures, 38, 1027–45.
Richards, P. (2012) The Green Deal. House of Commons Library Standard Note,
SN/SC/5763. London.
Roberts, S. (2010) ‘The role of local authorities in galvanizing action to tackle climate change:
A practitioner’s perspective’, in Peters, M., Fudge, S., and Jackson, T. (eds) Low Carbon
Communities: Imaginative Approaches to Combating Climate Change Locally.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 75–88.
Rogers, M. (2011) ‘Energy=innovation: 10 disruptive technologies’, McKinsey Quarterly
(Sustainability and Resource Productivity), Summer: 10–15.
Rosenow, J., and Eyre, N. (2012) ‘The Green Deal and the Energy Company Obligation:
Will it work?’. Paper presented at 9th BIEE Academic Conference, European Energy
in a Challenging World: The impact of emerging markets, St John’s College, Oxford,
19–20 September 2012.
Rotmans, J. (2006) ‘A complex systems approach for sustainable cities’, in Ruth, M. (ed.),
Smart Growth and Climate Change, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 155–81.
Stirling, A. (2007) ‘Deliberate Futures: Precaution and progress in social choice of
sustainable technologies’, Sustainable Development, 15(5): 286–95.
Sullivan, R., Gouldson, A., and Webber, P. (2012) Funding Low Carbon Cities: Mapping
the risks and opportunities. Leeds, UK: Centre for Low Carbon Futures, University of
Leeds.
Sustainability West Midlands (2010) Good Practice in City Regions Developing the Low
Carbon Economy. Birmingham, UK: Sustainability West Midlands.
Sustainable Development Commission (2010) The Future is Local: Empowering
communities to improve their neighbourhoods. London: Sustainable Development
Commission.
Tyfield, D., and, Jin, J. (2010) ‘Low-carbon disruptive innovation in China’, Journal of
Knowledge-based Innovation in China, 2(3): 269–82.
Van Lente, H. (1993) Promising Technology: The dynamics of expectations in technological
development. Enschede, The Netherlands: Department of Philosophy of Science &
Technology, University of Twente.
Vergragt, P. J., and Quist, J. (2011) ‘Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special
issue’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78: 747–55.
280 EAMES ET AL.

WBCSD (World Business Council on Sustainable Development) (2010) Vision 2050.

Geneva: WBCSD.
Workplace Foundation (2012) Low Carbon Jobs for Cities. London. Accessed May 2013
at: www.theworkfoundation.com/reports/317/low-carbon-jobs-for-cities.
Yu, D., and Hang, C. (2010) ‘A reflective review of Disruptive Innovation Theory’,
International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4): 435–52.
Index

Page numbers in italic refer to a figure/table.

‘Acquis Urbain’ 22 CAG Consultants 148–9, 151
Amecke, H. 145, 147, 149 Camco 92–3
Amsterdam 127, 163 Canada 33, 35, 36–7, 42, 42n7
anaerobic digestion (AD) Plants 241, 242, Candelise, C. 182–3
246, 247, 248, 249 Cape Town 101–2, 104
austerity and localism 256–8 carbon emissions 77, 88
Austria 146–51 Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT)
96, 148, 196, 200
Bai, X. 3, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 carbon footprint reduction: LCR 77
Banks, C. J. 240, 241 Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) 75,
Bell, S. 211, 228, 229 196
Bentley, I. 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 Castells, M. 4
bioenergy 201–2 Cisco 167
Boardman, B. 146, 153–4 cities
Booz & Co. 26, 27 concepts and theories 27–8, 29–30, 31
Boston, USA 122, 123, 124–5, 126, 129, 130 transitions 2–4
Buildings Performance Institute Europe views of 4–5
(BPIE) 147, 148, 150 City Investment Funds 263
Brazil city-scale retrofits 80
Curitiba 33, 34 finance see economics and finance
São Paulo 102, 104, 105, 107, 109 climate change
BRICS cities, retrofit landscapes of 99–111 BRICS cities 104–6
Bristol: low-carbon partnerships 262 CCC 73–4, 75, 198, 200, 201, 256
Britnell, J. 258, 267 energy and 164
Bruvold, W. H. 229 smart grids 164
building regulations: UK 195 urban governance and 89–90
building stock and emissions: UK 194 Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) 194,
built environment, knowledge mapping in 24 195, 215, 224, 225
Burdekin, R. 51 Colantonio, A. 36–7
Butina Watson, G. 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, commercial low carbon measures 84–5
122, 126, 131 commercial property, retrofitting 260–1
Butler, D. 212, 213, 223 Committee on Climate Change (CCC) 73–4,
75, 198, 200, 201, 256
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) Community Energy Saving Programme
2, 25, 42, 105, 107, 111 (CESP) 148, 258
282 INDEX

Community Interest Company (CIC) 79 domestic water demand 223–5

Compact City vision 271, 273, 274 Downtown Artery: Boston 122, 124–5
composting facilities 241 Dye-Sensitised Solar Cells (DSC) 184–5
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) 175
construction and demolition waste 234, 235, 238 Eames, M. 5, 9, 10, 31, 49–50, 56
consumers and smart grids 166–7 economics and finance 71–85
Copenhagen 263 BRICS cities 103–4
CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme 196 investment, finance and risk 78–82
critical success factors (CSFs) 37, 38, 39, 40, 218 low-carbon measures 84–5
Curitiba, Brazil 33, 34, 126–7 mini-Stern review 73–6
outcomes 76–8
Dacombe, P. 242, 243, 244, 247 smart grids 165
Dao 226, 227 electricity generation: UK 193, 202, 203
decarbonising urban systems: UK 191–205 electricity supply 201
deep retrofit electrification: heating and transport 200–1
financing 149–50 electronic companies 167–8
or demolition 146–7 emissions: UK building stock 194
Defra employment: retrofit 63, 64, 78, 151
waste management 197, 235, 238, 239, energy
244, 245, 248 BRICS cities 106–7
‘Water for Life’ 213–14, 219, 225 CCC 201
water management 223, 228 and climate change 164
Defra New Technologies Demonstrator retrofit technologies 267
Programme (NTDP) 233, 235, 241, smart grids see smart grids
242, 246 Energy Act, 2011 257–8
De Laurentis, C. 31 energy companies obligation (ECO) 92–5
demolition or deep retrofit 146–7 energy consumption
Department of Energy and Climate Change Neath Port Talbot 59, 62, 63, 64, 65
(DECC) 88, 199–200, 202 see also smart grids
2050 pathways 199–200 energy efficiency: UK 195–6, 200
electricity generation 193 energy mix: UK 192, 193
Green Deal 92–5, 154, 162, 257, 258–61 energy policy: UK 194–7
retrofitting incentives 91, 92, 93, 96, 148, energy poverty and retrofit 143–55
176, 196 employment 151
Department of Communities and Local policy, practice and financing 146–50
Government (DCLG) 88, 90, 92, 194–5, retrofitting and 144–6
197, 213, 215, 224, 225, 244 urban transformation 151–2
Department of Energy and Climate Change Energy Service Companies (ESCos) 53,
Low Carbon Transmission Plan (DECC 203, 262
LCTP) 199 energy sources: Thousand Flowers 204
digital-physical interaction 168–9 energy system: UK 200–1
Disruptive Innovation Theory (DIT) 264–5 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Dixon, T. Council (EPSRC): Retrofit 2050 6–8, 9,
Green Deal 258, 259, 260 11
low-carbon partnerships 261, 262, 263 EU countries: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
research 9, 10, 268 239
retrofit technologies 267 EU Landfill Directive 244
SUD 21, 35, 36–7, 38, 266 Eyre, N. 257, 258
Dockside Green, Canada 33
Dodd, N. 93, 94 Feed-In Tariff (FIT) 91–2, 145, 176, 177–8,
domestic low carbon measures 84 196–7
domestic sector finance 256–8
carbon emissions 88 city-scale retrofits 78–82
smart grids 166–7 deep retrofit 149–50
Thousand Flowers 203, 204 Germany 150
 INDEX 283

low-carbon 262 International Energy Agency (IEA) 176, 182,

models 79 183, 187
waste management 245 Internet of Energy 168–9
see also economics and finance investment: city-scale retrofits 78–82
FinSH 150 Irvine, S. 180, 186, 266
flooding: UK 213, 215, 216 Islington, London 131, 132, 133, 134–6
Flynn, Raymond 122, 123 IT and electronic companies 167–8
Forrester, J. 50 Itard, L. 143, 146
Fthenakis, V. 182, 186, 187
fuel poverty 144 job opportunities 63, 64, 65, 78, 151
Future Resilient One Planet Living City
(FREE) 64, 66 Kalogirou, S. 184
Keenan, M. 11
Gandy, M. 234 Kelly, M. J. 25, 88, 90, 95
Geels, F. W. 30, 31 Kemp, R. 3, 264
Germany 146–51, 167, 177 Kessler, L. 131, 133
Glasgow: low-carbon partnerships 262 Kohler, N. 22
GMB: local authority scale 63, 64–6, 67 Korytarova, K. 147, 149
Gouldson, A. 73 Kwapich, T. 147
governance and planning
BRICS cities 108–10 landfill 238, 242, 246–7
CSFs 37, 38 landscape pressures: BRICS cities 107–8
solid waste 237–9, 240, 244–5 Leeds city region (LCR) 76–8
government incentives 91–5 legibility 118, 126
Graham, S. 5, 100, 110, 169 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) 261,
Green Deal 92–5, 154, 162, 257, 258–61 276n1
Green finance 39, 41–2 localism 257–8
Green Investment Bank 39, 259, 263, 276n4 Loorbach, D. 3
Group Model Building (GMB) 63–4, 64–6, 67 Loveridge, D. 11
Low Carbon Economic Area (LCEA) 25
Hall, J. W. 237, 274 low-carbon financing 262, 263
Hall, P. 4 low-carbon measures 73–6, 84–5
Hammarby Sjostad, Sweden 32, 33 low-carbon partnerships 262
Harvey, D. 4 Low Carbon Transition Plan 91, 93, 199
Haughton, G. 28
heating and transport: electrification 200–1 McNulty, E. 4–5
heating demand 204 Manchester 25
Herrero, S. T. 147 MARKAL-based future scenarios 198–200
Hitachi 167 Marvin, S. 7, 20, 25, 31, 100, 110
Hodson, M. 7, 20, 25, 31 Masdar City, Abu Dhabi 127
household waste 234 Materials Recycling Facilities (MRFs) 241,
Houseman, I. 145, 149, 151 246
mechanical biological treatment (MBT)
IBM 167 facilities 241
ICT: smart grids see smart grids mechanical heat treatment (MHT) facilities
incineration plants 242 241
Indirect Potable Water Re-use (IPR) 217, MeRegio, Germany 167
221, 228–30 Miles, L. 11
industrial low carbon measures 84–5 Moffatt, S. 22
infrastructures, networked 165 More, Thomas 267
Infrastructure Transitions Research multi-level perspective (MLP) 3–4, 29, 30,
Consortium (ITRC) 237 31
Integrated Sustainable Urban Development Mumbai 103, 105, 107
(ISUD) 20–1, 22 municipal solid waste (MSW) 235–6, 237,
integration: CSFs 38, 39 238, 239, 245
284 INDEX

Naess, P. 6, 31, 49 Ravetz, J. 23, 24

Neath Port Talbot recycling 248
building stock 60–2 Reeves, A. 94
case study area 58–9 renewable energy: UK policy 196–7
energy consumption 59, 62, 63, 64, 65 Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) 92
GMB 63–4, 65–6, 67 Renewables Obligation (RO) 92, 96n1, 196
job opportunities 63, 64, 65 resources
networked infrastructures 165 governing 167–8
Neuhoff, K. 145, 149, 150 technology and society 168–9
New Deal for Communities (NDC) 131 Responsive Environments (Bentley) 118
New Technologies Demonstrator Programme Retrofit 2050 visions 268, 269–72, 273, 274,
(NTDP) 246 275–6
Newton, P. 2, 21, 28, 29, 32 retrofit city: future 266, 268, 269–72, 273,
North End park 128 274, 275–6
retrofit: definition 5
open spaces, neighbourhood 131, 132, 133, retrofit interventions 215, 216
134–6 retrofit technologies 267
Organic Solar Cells (OPV) 184–5, 188 retrofitting
Oslo 36 commercial property 260–1
energy poverty and 144–6
Pagliaro, M. 184 job opportunities 63, 64, 78, 151
Peabody Energy Model 94 and urban design see urban design
permeability 118, 123, 137 richness 118
photovoltaic (PV) solar energy see solar risks: city-scale retrofits 78–82
energy Ritchie, A. 116, 121
Pieterse, E. 22, 23 Roberts, S. 146
planning robustness 118–19
for retrofitting 90–1 Rohracher, H. 148, 151–2
temporal scale 24 Romero-Lankao, P. 90
planning policy 119–20 Rosenow, J. 257, 258
Plymouth: low-carbon partnerships 262 Rotmans, J. 2, 3, 5, 29, 50
Polese, M. 36
Policies, UK see UK policies safety 118
policy landscape 256–64 São Paulo 102, 104, 105, 107, 109
austerity and localism 256–8 SdSAP model 52–3
Green Deal 258–61 case study house 55
partnership and finance 261, 262, 263–4 fuel costs 56, 57, 58
pollution: UK 215, 216 future weather conditions 56, 57
population, urban 19–20 schematic view 54
poverty: BRICS cities 101–3 simulation view 55
Power, A. 146, 148, 149, 150, 151 Self-Reliant Green City vision 272, 273, 274
Powrie, W. 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 247 Shaw, K. 89, 90
private sector models: city-scale retrofits 79 Shove, E. 212, 217, 218, 224
Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs): CSFs SIWM see sustainable integrated water
40 management (SIWM)
public-private model: city-scale retrofits 79, slums 102–3
83n4 smart buildings 161
public sector finance: city-scale retrofits 79 Smart City: Amsterdam 163
PV solar energy see solar energy smart grids 159–71
carbon reduction 164
quality places 118–19 climate change 164
Quist, J. 275 development 163, 166–9
overview 160–2
Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) 215, 216, 221, socio-technical landscapes 162–6
225–6, 227, 230, 274 smart meters 161

Smart-networked City vision 269–70, 273,
274
social and economic issues: CSFs 38–9
social sustainability 36
societal challenges: MSW 245
solar energy 175–88
cost of 179–80, 183
data, trends, government policies 176,
177–9, 180
future 186–7, 188
issues and uncertainties 185–6
key challenges 182–4
technological advances 184–5
solid waste resource management 233–50
Späth, P. 148, 151–2
Splintering Urbanism (Graham and Marvin)
110
Stafford, A. 180, 186
Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) 52–3
Stockman 36
Stren, R. 36
Stringfellow, A. 241, 243
Sullivan, R. 80
sustainability and urban design 119–21
Sustainable Development Commission (SDC)
261
sustainable development: definition 21–2
Sustainable Energy Action Plan (SEAP) 89
Sustainable Integrated Water Management
(SIWM) 221–31
RWH 225–6, 227
scales of 222–3
water re-use 228–30
Sustainable Integrated Water Management
(SIWM): infrastructure
current UK management 213–15, 215–17
Defra 244, 245
future management 215–17
future SIWM 217–18
Sustainable Urban Development (SUD) 21, 23
sustainable urban development to 2050
19–42
case studies 32, 33–4
conceptualising and theorising 27–8,
29–30, 31
CSFs 31, 38–9, 40
definitions 21–2, 23
fragmentation 26–7
lessons from cities 35, 36–7
scale and fragmentation 22–3, 24, 25
Sustainable Urban Drainage systems (SUDs)
212–13, 267, 271, 274
Sweden 32, 33
Swyngedouw, E. 109
synergy in urban policy 38
INDEX 285
Synthesis, Comparison and Knowledge
Exchange (WP4) 9
system integration 26
systems dynamics 49–70
group model building (GMB) 63, 64–6, 67
local authority scale 58–9, 60–3
modelling 51–2
SdSAP model 52–3, 54–5, 56, 57–8
technology, society and resources 168–9
Theobald, K. 89
thermal treatment 242
thin-film structure 181
Thomas, R. 116, 121
‘Thousand Flowers’ pathway 202, 203–4,
205
Thrift, N. 5
Toshiba 167
transitions 27–8, 29–30, 38
Transitions Analysis (TA) 7
transitions theory 3, 29, 30, 31
transport 84–5, 200–1, 205
Tripanagnostopoulos, Y. 184
UK
building stock: and emissions 194
retrofit interventions 215, 216
smart grid development 163
waste management 197
water management 213–15, 215–17
UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) 2050
199
UK Photovoltaic Solar Energy Road Map
180, 186
UK policies
building regulations 195
Carbon Emissions Reduction Target
(CERT) 196
Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) 195
CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme 196
energy efficiency 195–6
energy policy 194–7
Feed-In Tariff (FIT) 196–7
renewable energy 196–7
Renewables Obligation (RO) 196
Waste to Energy (WtE) 197, 201–2, 267
urban design 115–38
concept of 117–19
large spacial areas 122, 123, 124–5, 126–7,
128–30
neighbourhood open spaces 131, 132, 133,
134–6
and sustainability 119–21
urban environmental problems, stage model 29
Urban Environmental Transition (UET) 28
286 INDEX

Urban Foresight Laboratory (2020–50) visual appropriateness 119

(WP2) 7, 9, 10, 11 vitality 118, 127
Urban Foresight Panel workshops 9–10 Vogel, N. 6, 31, 49
urban governance 87–96
Cape Town 108 Ward, S. 225, 226, 227
and climate change 89–90 waste arisings 234–6, 237
context 88–9 Waste Framework Directive (WFD) 238, 239
future 95–6 waste hierarchy 239
government incentives 91–5 Waste Incineration Directive (EU) 244
Mumbai 109 waste management 197, 201–2
and retrofitting 90–1, 108–10 see also solid waste resource management
São Paulo 109 waste reduction 248
urban infrastructure and usage expenditure Waste and Resources Action Programme
27 (WRAP) 240, 245, 247, 248
urban infrastructures: energy see smart grids waste: retrofit technologies 267
urban metabolism 191–2 Waste to Energy (WtE)
Urban Options: Modelling, visualisation and Sao Paulo 107
pathways analysis (WP3) 8, 9 UK policy 197, 201–2, 267
urban population 19–20 waste treatment 240–3, 248–9
urban retrofitting Wastewatch 234
BRICS cities 108–11 water
changing policy landscape 256–64 consumption 223–4
disruptive and sustaining technologies retrofit technologies 267
264–64, 276 supply-demand balance 216, 217, 228
modelling 51–2 water efficiency 223–4
retrofit city futures 266, 268, 269–72, 273, ‘Water for Life’ (Defra) 213–14, 219, 225
274, 275–6 water management: domestic consumption
socio-technical process 5–6 223–5
systems dynamics see systems dynamics water scarcity: UK 215, 216, 228
technologies 267 Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)
urban systems, decarbonising see 149, 151
decarbonising urban systems Wheeler, S. 21–2
Urban Transitions Analysis (WP1) 7–8, 9 Wherlock, J. 226, 227
USA 149, 151, 186–7 whole-building approach 147–8
Utopia (More) 267 Wilson, E. 262
work packages 7–8, 9
Vancouver 35, 36–7, 42, 42n7 World Bank 105
variety 118, 127 World Business Council for Sustainable
Vensim 53, 63 Development (WBCSD) 35
Vergragt, P. 275
visions of cities 266, 268 Zulauf, M. 146, 148, 149, 150, 151