1

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

for energy reduction in the built urban environment
Patrick Arnell
Introduction

This paper examines the potential for energy reduction in the built environment. Energy
production and consumption are closely linked to issues of sustainable development and
anthropogenic climate change (IPCC, 2007; Goldemberg et al, 1987; Nissing & Blottnitz, 2010).
Cities by association are linked to these issues; globally, cities represent the worlds biggest
consumersofenergy(IEA,2008).In2008,citiesaccountedformorethan66%ofglobalenergy
demand and by 2030 demand is predicted to increase to 73% (IEA, 2008). Over 85% of the
energy consumed by cities is derived from fossil fuel sources and projections to 2030 do not
showsignificantreductions(IEA,2008).Assessingthepotentialforenergyreductioninthebuilt
environment is therefore considered relevant, as measurable reductions in the energy
consumption of cities would generally be expected to produce corresponding improvements in
environmentalperformance.

Thecityscalewastheunitofanalysischosenforthispaper.Neighbourhoodsandbuildingsalso
represent acceptable scales for assessing the built environment (Williams & Dair, 2007).
However,theformofacityisconsideredtobeoneofthemajordeterminantsofhowenergyis
utilized(Steemers,2003;EPA,2001;Kenworthy&Laube,1999;Owens,1992),andthereforethe
city scale was considered most appropriate an assessment of energy reduction in the built
environment.

To assess the potential for energy reduction at the city scale, a single planning strategy was
evaluated. Prior to focusing on this strategy, a review of alternative reduction schemes
(IPCC,2007) was conducted. However, assessment of a single planning strategy was chosen as
planning has been shown to be a significant determinant of urban form and therefore energy
consumption (Owens, 1992). In addition, recent trends in North America and Europe indicate
planning movements based on sustainability principles are becoming more prevalent
(Williams&Dair,2007).Itisthereforeconsideredrelevanttoassesshowasustainableplanning
strategymayeffectacitysconsumptionofenergy.

The planning strategy evaluated in this paper is Smart Growth (Smart Growth, 2010). Smart
Growth is viewed as a strategy for reducing energy demand (City Mayors, 2010), and has been
adopted by cities in both the US (EPA, 2010) and Canada (Smart Growth Canada, 2010).
Principles of Smart Growth include: increasing housing choices, creating walkable
neighbourhoods, mixing land-uses, increasing transportation choices, redeveloping existing
communitiesandusingcompactbuildingdesign(SmartGrowth,2010).
2
Toexamineinmoredetailthepotentialforenergyreductionatthecityscale,theCityofCalgary
wasselectedascasestudy.TheCityofCalgarywasselectedforthreereasons.Thefirstisthat
66%ofCalgarysecologicalfootprintisattributedtoenergyconsumptionand70%isconsidered
tobestronglyinfluencedbyCalgarysurbanform(CityofCalgary,2008).ThismakesCalgarya
goodcandidateforassessingtheeffectsofSmartGrowthonenergyusage.Thesecondisthatthe
Cityhasrecentlyintegrateditsplanningpoliciesforcommunitydevelopmentandtransportation
under a single integrated strategy which uses Smart Growth principles (City of Calgary, 2007).
ThismakesanevaluationofthepotentialforenergyreductionusingSmartGrowthrelevant,as
theCitywillbeincorporatingtheseprinciplesintofutureplanningdecisions.Thethirdfactorfor
consideringCalgaryasacasestudyisproxydata(greenhousegasemissions,populationdensity
and transportation patterns) which provide converging lines of evidence suggesting that
characteristics of Calgarys urban form are similar to other North American cities. An
assessment into the potential for Smart Growth to reduce energy consumption in Calgary is
thereforeconsideredrelevantforothercitiesconsideringtheadoptionofSmartGrowth.

TocriticallyassessthepotentialforSmartGrowthtoinfluenceenergyreductionatthecityscale,
six neighbourhoods within the City of Calgary were evaluated to determine which one best
represented Smart Growth principles. Each profile included an energy audit (NRC,2009) and
therefore permitted an evaluation of the potential for energy reduction based on urban form.
TheenergyprofileoftheneighbourhoodbestrepresentingSmartGrowthwasthenextrapolated
across the entire city. The difference between the actual calculated energy budget for the city
and the energy budget calculated from the extrapolated energy profile of the selected
neighbourhood was then calculated. Using this methodology, the calculated energy savings for
the city were 62% (+/- 2%) and this result is interpreted to represent the potential for Smart
GrowthprinciplestoreducetheenergyconsumptionoftheCityofCalgary.

Based on the results outlined above, this paper contends that the adoption of Smart Growth
principles has the potential to substantially reduce energy use for the City of Calgary. By
implication, cities with similar land use and transportation profiles may also have the potential
forreducingenergyconsumptionbyadoptingSmartGrowthprinciples.Toprovidecontextual
informationonhowtheCityofCalgarycompareswithothercitiesthreemetricswerereviewed.
Thesewere:percapitagreenhousegas(GHG)emissions,urbanpopulationdensityandmodesof
transportation.ThesemetricsprovideconverginglinesofevidenceindicatingCalgaryspatterns
ofenergyuseandurbanformaresimilartootherNorthAmericancities.

Themajorsectionsofthispaperareorganizedasfollows.Section1presentstheobjectivesand
methods used to assess the potential for Smart Growth to influence energy consumption.
Section 2 presents data on the three metrics used to compare Calgary to other cities and
concludes with the profiles of the six Calgary neighbourhoods assessed for Smart Growth
principles.Section3presentstheresultsoftheanalysisandSection4presentsasummaryofthe
majorfindings.
3
1. Objectives&Methods

The objective of this paper is to critically assess the potential for Smart Growth principles to
influence energy consumption at the city scale. To investigate this, the City of Calgary was
chosenasacasestudy.Themethodsusedtoperformthecriticalanalysisarepresentedbelow.

Six neighbourhoods in Calgary were recently the subject of a study looking at energy
consumption patterns based on urban typology (NRC, 2009). Energy profiles for the six
communities were developed using The Urban Archetypes Project Methodology (NRC, 2009;
method available at: www.canmetenergy.nrcan.gc.ca). The methodology allows for the
comparisonofenergybudgetsbetweenneighbourhoodsandaccountsforenergyutilizedbythe
dominant housing types of a particular neighbourhood. Included in each profile is the energy
utilized for: space heating, hot water, lighting and appliances. Energy consumed by personal
vehicleuseisalsoincludedineachprofile.Forthepurposesofthispaper,theaccountingofthe
energy expended from transportation and building occupancy is considered suitably robust to
allowfortheprofilesdevelopedinthisstudytobeextrapolatedfortheentireCity.

Thesesixneighbourhoodprofileswerefirstassessedtodeterminewhichonebestrepresented
theprinciplesofSmartGrowth.Asimplemodelwasthenconstructedtoextrapolatewhateffect
theenergyconsumptionpatternsoftheselectedneighbourhoodwouldhaveifappliedacrossthe
entire City. To construct the model, the various housing typologies identified in the study
(NRC,2009) were first mapped onto the types of housing stock tracked by the City (City of
Calgary,2010), with vehicle usage averaged across all neighbourhoods. A check of the model
was then conducted by comparing the calculated GHG emissions (T CO2-eq/year), against
published and predicted GHG emissions for the City. The resulting error rate (difference
betweenobservedandcalculated)wasthenusedtoprovidetheconfidencelimitsforthemodel.

Energy usage data, as measured in gigajoules (GJ) was then used to run two simulations of the
energy budget for the whole of the City of Calgary. The first run simulated the total energy
profileforthecityunderitspresentprofile.Thesecondrunconsideredwhattheenergybudget
for the city would look like if all neighbourhoods exhibited the same energy profile as the
neighbourhood selected to represent Smart Growth principles. The difference between these
twomodelrunswasconsideredtobethepotentialforSmartGrowthprinciplestoeffectenergy
usageatthecityscale.
4
2. Background
EnergyProductionandConsumption
By 2030 global energy demand from cities is predicted to account for 73% of all energy
consumed (IEA, 2008). Of the total amount of energy consumed globally by cities, over 85% is
derivedfromnon-renewablefossilfuelsources(IEA,2008).Assumingcoal,hydro,gas,nuclear
andhydroarepredominatelyusedinbuildings(heating,cooling,lightingandappliances)andoil
consumption reflects vehicle usage, the two major sources of energy consumption in cities are
buildings at 64% and transportation at 32% (IEA, 2008). This is significant in that city form is
considered to have a important effect on the balance of the energy used by buildings and
transport systems (Steemers, 2003). Chart 1 shows global energy consumption by fuel stock.
PercentagesoftotalfuelstocksusedbycitiesarepresentedinTable1.

Chart1:ProjectedGlobalEnergyConsumptionversesWorldPopulation

Notes: 1. Mtoe: Million tonne oil equivalent
2. Source for population data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.
3. Source for energy consumption data: IEA, 2008.
0
1,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
7,000,000,000
8,000,000,000
9,000,000,000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
2006 2015 2030
Coal Oil Gas Nuclear
Hydro Biomass & Waste Other renewables World Population
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

M
t
o
e

5
Table1:PercentofTotalFuelStocksConsumedbyCities
2006 2015 2030 Fuel Stock
Cities as % of World Cities as % of World Cities as % of World
Coal 76% 78% 81%
Oil 63% 63% 66%
Gas 82% 83% 87%
Nuclear 76% 77% 81%
Hydro 75% 76% 79%
Biomass & Waste 24% 26% 31%
Other Renewables 72% 73% 75%
Total 67% 69% 73%
Source for percent of energy used by cities: EIA, 2008.

Data for comparing cities on a kt CO2-eq/capita basis has recently been made available by the
UNandWorldbank(Kennedyetal,2010).ThisGHGemissionsdatahasbeenusedasproxydata
to understand in general terms the relationship between cities in terms of their overall energy
budgets.Table2presentstherelativerankingofthetop25citiesinvolvedinthestudybasedon
ktCO2-eq/capita.

Table2:ComparisonofCitiesBasedonktCO2-eq/capita
Rank City Year
Total kt CO2-eq/capita (excluding
marine and aviation) Total kt CO2-eq/capita
1 Rotterdam 2005 29.8
2 Denver 2005 17.88 19.38
3 Washington DC 2000 19.3
4 Minneapolis 2005 18.34
5 Calgary 2003 17.7
6 Stuttgart 2005 16
7 Austin 2005 15.57
8 Frankfurt 2005 13.7
9 Seattle 2005 13.68
10 Los Angeles 2000 9.5 13
11 Portland 2005 12.41
12 Shanghai 2006 10.9 11.7
13 Toronto 2005 10.7 11.6
14 Cape Town 2006 7.8 11.6
15 Tianjin 1998 10.9 11.1
16 Bologna 2005 11.1
17 Bangkok 2005 8.8 10.7
18 New York City 2005 8 10.5
19 Athens 2005 10.4
20 Bijing 2006 9.6 10.1
21 Veneto 2005 10
22 Hamburg 2005 9.7
23 Torino 2005 9.7
24 London 2003 6.5 9.6
25 Ljubljana 2005 9.5
Source: (Kennedy etal, 2010).
6
TounderstandCalgaryshighpercapitaGHGemissions,areviewofregionalpowergenerationis
required. The City of Calgary obtains its power generating stations located within the Province
of Alberta. Generating capacity in the province includes: 5,971 MW of electrical generating
capacity from coal fire plants, 5,149 MW of capacity from gas fired plants (Government of
Alberta, 2010), 652.95 MW of installed wind power (CANWEA, 2010), and 869MW of installed
hydro power (Bell & Weis, 2009). An overview of Albertas energy profile is presented in
Figure1.

Figure1:2007ElectricalEnergyBudgetfortheProvinceofAlberta

Source: (Bell & Weis, 2009)

The City of Calgary uses two accounting schemes in its assessment of energy usage (City of
Calgary,2006).ThefirstschemeaccountsforenergyconsumedfromCityofCalgaryCorporate
(CCCORP) operations and includes: municipal and public buildings, public transit, streetlights,
waterandseweroperationsandothermiscellaneoussources(CityofCalgary,2006).TheSecond
schemeaccountsforenergyconsumedbytheCityofCalgaryCommunity(CCCOM)andincludes
an accounting of the following: electricity (lighting and appliances), heating (space and water)
andvehicleusage(CityofCalgary,2006).

In both accounting schemes, results are reported on the basis of green house gas (GHG)
emissions.AseparatesummaryoftheenergyfeedstocksconsumedbyCCCOMisalsoavailable;
however,onlyaggregatedGHGdataispresentedforCCCORP.Thisaggregationandreportingof
energyuseintermsofGHGemissionsforCCCORPpreventsmeaningfulcomparisonofthetotal
energy utilized under the two systems. However, in a comparison of CCCORP emissions to
CCCOMemissions,CCCORPemissionsaccountforonlyabout3%oftheoverallenergybudgetfor
thecityandarenotthereforeconsideredasignificantportionoftheCitiesoverallenergybudget.
AsummaryoftheenergyfeedstocksusedbyCCCOMarepresentedinTable3.

Introduction
The Pembina Institute 8 Greening the Grid
system is wasted in the form of heat going up the stacks of coal and natural gas plants and into the
nearby lakes for cooling. An additional 3.3% of the original fuel energy (about 5% of the electricity
generated
10
) is lost in transmission lines. This energy is unavoidably lost when the electricity is
carried through long transmission and distribution lines. As a result of this combined waste, only
37.2% of the original fuel energy makes it to consumers in the form of useable electricity. The many
clean and renewable options available for meeting Albertas electricity consumption can reduce this
enormous waste of energy. Additional energy waste occurs once the electricity arrives on the
customer premises, both in the residential and industrial sectors, but this waste is not illustrated in the
figure because insufficient information exists to document its extent.

Figure 2. Total Alberta fuel energy used for electricity generation and energy delivered to customers by end
use in 2007
Source: Based on data from AESO and EDC Associates Ltd.
1.4 History of Electricity in Alberta
The first major electricity generating plant constructed in Alberta in many ways exemplified what
needs to be replicated to make the provinces electricity supply more sustainable. It was a renewable-
fuelled cogeneration plant, making efficient use of heat as well as generating electricity (see
Figure 3). Built in 1889 by Calgary entrepreneur Peter Prince, the plant provided street lighting via a
75 kW steam-driven generator fuelled by burning waste sawdust from the lumber yard he managed.
11

Waste heat was also used for process heat in the mill.
12
A coal-fired steam driven plant soon
followed in downtown Edmonton in 1891.
13

Most of the new capacity built in the first half of the 20th century was hydro capacity. Some of these
plants are the oldest generating plants still in operation. The vast majority of generating plant
capacity installed since then has been coal fired. Two main forces moved the construction of
subsequent electricity generating plants outside of the cities and to larger scales:
7
Table3:CCCOM2003EnergyConsumption
Source Amount Uni t
Coal & Gas Fired Electricity 7,869,085,000 kWh
Green electricity 59,215,000 kWh
Natural gas 77,000,000 GJ
Gasoline 1,372,929,000 litres
Diesel 415,132,000 litres
Propane 196,272,503 litres
Natural gas (vehicles) 319,323 litres
Source: (City of Calgary, 2006)

Chart 2 presents a comparison of CCCOM GHG emissions verses population growth. Projected
populationdatahasbeenaddedandfutureGHGemissionshavebeenextrapolatedforabusiness
asusual(BAU)scenariobasedonprojectedpopulationincreases.

Chart2:CityofCalgaryPopulationGrowthversesGHGEmissions

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

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

AnitemizedcomparisonofGHGemissionsforCCCOMandCCCORParepresentedinCharts3and
4respectively.

0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1
9
8
3

1
9
8
5

1
9
8
7

1
9
8
9

1
9
9
1

1
9
9
3

1
9
9
5

1
9
9
7

1
9
9
9

2
0
0
1

2
0
0
3

2
0
0
5

2
0
0
7

2
0
0
9

2
0
1
1

2
0
1
3

2
0
1
5

2
0
1
7

2
0
1
9

2
0
2
1

2
0
2
3

2
0
2
5

Population kt CO2-eq
BUA Forecast
k
t

C
O
2
-
e
q

P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

8
Chart3CCCOMGHGEmissionsprojected2010usingBUAForecast.

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

Chart4CCCORPGHGEmissions

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

Charts3and4showthatwhiletheCityhasbeensuccessfulinreducingCCCORPGHGemissions,
itsinitiativestoreduceCCCCOMemissionshavenottodatemetwithsimilarsuccess.Withthe
exception of a slight dip in CCCOM GHG emissions for 2004, which was attributed to an
unseasonablywarmwinter,emissionsbetween1990and2005increased29%(CityofCalgary,
2006a).Theseresultsindicatethattherehasbeennosignificantpercapitareductioninenergy
consumptionbytheCityofCalgarycommunity.
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
19901997200020032004200520062007200820092010
Waste Vehicles Natural gas Electricity Population
BUA Forecast
C
O
2
-
e
q

P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1990 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Other Water treatment facilities
Street and trafc lights City eet
City buildings Population
C
O
2
-
e
q

P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

9
PopulationDensity
ToexamineCalgaryspopulationdensityinrelationtootherUSandCanadiancitiesandevaluate
the potential effect of density on per capita GHG emissions, data from the City Mayors website
(2010) and Kennedy et al (2010) was used. The average density of all US and Canadian cities
withpopulationsover750,000was1,270people/km
2
(CityMayors,2010a).Incomparison,the
densityofCalgary(1250people/km
2
)isveryclosetotheaverage.Chart5presentspopulation
density verses GHG emission and two things are relevant to note. The first is a discernable
relationshipbetweenpopulationdensityandpercapitaCO2-eqemissions.Thesecondisthatthe
citiesclosesttoCalgaryonChart6areallUScities.Thisisinterpretedasanindicationthatthe
CityofCalgarysharesadensity/energyprofilecomparabletoseveralUScities.

Chart5:PopulationDensityversesGHGEmissions
Notes: 1. City of Calgary highlighted in red.
2. Source for per capita CO2-eq data: Kennedy etal, 2010.
3. Source for population density: City Mayors, 2010.
Denver
Washington DC
Minneapolis
Calgary
Seattle
Shanghai
Tianjin
Bejing
Seoul
R=0.33894
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
kt CO2-eq/capita
p
e
o
p
l
e
/
k
m
2

10
Transportation
As noted above transportation represents a major source of energy usage by cities. Chart 6,
belowpresentsthemodalsplitoftransportationtypesgroupedbyregion.

Chart6:ModalTransportationSplitofSelectCitiesGroupedbyRegion

Source: IPCC, 2007 p. 387

Within the City of Calgary dominant modes of transportation for 2010 included: motorized
vehicles (78% of daily trips), public transit (15%), and walking/cycling (7%) (City of Calgary,
2010a).Chart7graphicallysummarizestherelationshipbetweenvehicleownershipinCalgary
verses other Canadian cities and the United States. The data presented here are interpreted to
indicate that the City of Calgary exhibits transportation patterns similar to other US and
Canadiancities.

367
Chapter 5 Transport and its infrastructure
Income plays a central role in explaining motorization.
But cities of similar wealth often have very different rates of
motorizsation. Mode shares vary dramatically across cities, even
within single countries. The share of trips by walking, cycling
and public transport is 50% or higher in most Asian, African and
Latin American cities, and even in Japan and Western Europe
(Figure 5.17). Coordination of land use and transport planning
is key to maintaining these high mode shares.
Kenworthy and Laube (1999) pointed out that high urban
densities are associated with lower levels of car ownership
and car use and higher levels of transit use. These densities
are decreasing almost everywhere. Perhaps the most important
strategy and highest priority to slow motorization is to strengthen
local institutions, particularly in urban areas (Sperling and
Salon, 2002).
Some Asian cities with strong governments, especially Hong
Kong, Singapore and Shanghai are actively and effectively
pursuing strategies to slow motorization by providing high
quality public transport and coordinating land use and transport
planning (Cullinane, 2002; Willoughby, 2001; Cameron et al.,
2004; Sperling and Salon, 2002).
There are many other examples of successfully integrated
land use and transport planning, including Stockholm and
Portland, Oregon (USA) (Abbott, 2002; Lundqvist, 2003). They
mostly couple mixed-use and compact land use development
with better public transport access to minimize auto dependence.
The effectiveness of these initiatives in reducing sprawl is the
subject oI debate, especially in the USA (Song and Knaap, 2004;
Gordon and Richardson, 1997; Ewing, 1997). There are several
arguments that the settlement pattern is largely determined,
so changes in land use are marginal, or that travel behaviour
may be more susceptible to policy interventions than land-use
preferences (Richardson and Bae, 2004). Ewing and Cervero
(2001) found that typical elasticity of vehicle-km travelled with
respect to local density is 0.05, while Pickrell (1999) noted
that reduction in auto use become signifcant only at densities
of 4000 people or more per square kilometre densities rarely
observed in US suburbs, but often reached elsewhere (Newman
and Kenworthy, 1999). Coordinated transport and land-use
methods might have greater benefts in the developing world
where dense mixed land use prevails and car ownership rate
is low. Curitiba is a prime example of coordinated citywide
transport and land-use planning (Gilat and Sussman, 2003;
Cervero, 1998).
The effectiveness of policies in shifting passengers from cars
to buses and rails is uncertain. The literature on elasticity with
respect to other prices (cross price elasticity) is not abundant
and likely to vary according to the context (Hensher, 2001).
The Transport Research Laboratory guide showed several
cross price elasticity estimates with considerable variance
in preceding studies (TRL, 2004). Goodwin (1992) gave an
average cross elasticity of public transport demand with respect
to petrol prices oI 0.34. Jong and Gunn (2001) also gave an
average cross elasticity of public transport trips with respect to
fuel price and car time of +0.33 and +0.27 in the short term and
+0.07 and +0.15 in the long term.
The literature on mode shifts from cars to new rail services
is also limited. A monitoring study of Manchester indicated that
about 11% of the passengers on the new light rail would have
0 20 40 60 80 100%
U.S.A.
Australia/New Zealand
Canada
Western Europe
High Income Asia
Eastern Europe
Middle East
Latin America
Africa
Low Income Asia
China
non motorised motorised public motorised private
Figure 5.17: Modal split for the cities represented in the Millennium Cities Database for Sustainable Transport by region
Source: Kenworthy & Laube, 2002.
11
Chart7:Registeredvehiclesper1,000People

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

NeighbourhoodProfiles

ToassessthepotentialforenergyreductionintheCityofCalgaryusingSmartGrowthprinciples,
the profiles of six neighbourhoods were assessed. The neighbourhoods assessed were:
Britannia, Citadel, Rundel, Lake Bonavista, Mission and Tuscany. Data used to construct the
profiles for each of the six neighbourhoods was taken from 2010 census data (City of Calgary,
2010)andanenergyprofilingstudyconductedbyNaturalResourcesCanada(NRC,2009).

Housing Stock in Calgary is categorized into one of five types (City of Calgary 2010 p. 120).
These are: single detached family dwellings (SF), semi-detached duplexes (DUP), apartments
(APT),rowortownhouses(TWN),andconvertedstructures(CNV),(typicallyhomeswhichhave
beensuited).ThepercentofeachhousingtypeintheCityofCalgaryfor2010was:SF59%,DUP
7%,APT21%,TWN10%andCNV3%.

To assess each of the six neighbourhoods against Smart Growth principles a series of metrics
were reviewed. These were adopted from the NRC study (NRC, 2010) and a summary is
presentedinTable3.Figure3presentsamapofCalgarywiththerelativelocationofeachofthe
sixneighbourhoodsshown.

Registered vehicles per 1,000 people

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

p
e
r

1
,
0
0
0

p
e
o
p
l
e
Montreal
Winnipeg
Calgary
Ottawa
United States
KEY FINDING
After a long period of stability, the number of registered vehicles
per capita in Calgary grew at a much higher rate in 2006 and 2007.
Vehicle
ownership and
licensed drivers
in Calgary
The number of registered vehicles grew
from 717 per 1,000 people in 1987 to
735 per 1,000 people in 2005. This
was an increase of 3 per cent over this
period, or about 0.1 per cent per year.
The trend in Calgary, the United States
and other Canadian Cities suggests that
vehicle ownership may have reached a
plateau and there would be little or no
growth in the vehicle ownership rate.
The number of registered vehicles grew from
735 per 1,000 people in 2005 to 774 per
1,000 people in 2007. This was an increase
of 5 per cent over this period or about 3 per
cent per year.
This increase in vehicle ownership was
surprising. While a major factor in the growth
is a jump in the number of commercial
vehicles, the number of private vehicles has
been growing as well.
February 2008
Issue #22
Source: Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation - Ofce of Trafc Safety and The City of Calgary Civic
Census
12

Table3:MetricsUsedtoAssessNeighbourhoodsAgainstSmartGrowthPrinciples

Britannia Citadel L. Bonavista Mission Rundle Tuscany
Vehicle km
traveled

40,000km/yr 42,300km/yr 45,600km/yr 16,200km/yr 36,200km/yr 36,500km/yr Resident
Lifestyle
Average #
vehicles per
household
2.3 2.1 2.4 0.9 2.6 -
Density (units per
hectare)
6.43 14.87 7.02 55.5 11.61 14.9
Percent of single
detached homes
79% 93% 98% 4% 68% 91%
Land-use mix* 0.28 0.00 0.20 4.00 2.00 1.10
Neighbourhood
Design
Total road length 6.3 5.3 5.3 0.9 4.4 3.9
Location Distance to city
core
4.1km 13.2km 12.2km 1.6 7.2km 16.0km
Notes: 1. Source: NRC, 2009 p.10
2. *Land-use mix includes number of retail/commercial units, retail/commercial buildings, institutions and
municipal buildings. The higher the score, the more mixed the land use in the neighbourhood.

Figure3.CityofCalgaryShowingApproximateLocationsoftheSixNeighbourhoodsAssessed.

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

2. Neighbourhood Locations adapted from Natural Resources Canada, 2010.
calgary.ca/geodemographics THE CITY OF CALGARY LAND USE PLANNING & POLICY
[
67
]
THE POPULATION PICTURE
Calgary is a diverse place. Some of Calgarys
communities have been built out since the early 20th
century, while others are still plans on paper. And
some are both built out many years ago, they are
now experiencing renewal through redevelopment.
Still others are reserved exclusively for park space,
institutions or industrial use. The City is responsible
for providing services to communities of all ages and
forms.
Geodemographics maintains a typology, called
Urban Structure, which helps us to understand
how the various parts of the city are similar or
different, relative to one another. The result is
a conceptualization that helps forecast future
population growth, unit growth, employment growth
and land absorption.
Urban Structure is a collection of labels that reects
the predominant form of a community. In the case of
residential communities, the labels reect the decade
of build-out, which itself is reective of the design of
the community. For other land use types, the labels
reect the predominant use be it employment, park
space or undeveloped.
Other snapshots in this document use Urban
Structure as a tool to understand changes in
population, unit and employment totals. Please use
the adjacent map as a guide for Urban Structure
across Calgary.
Calgarys urban structure
!
Legend
Community Structure
CENTRE CITY
INNER CITY
1950s
1960s/1970s
1980s/1990s
2000s
BUILDING OUT
EMPLOYMENT
PARKS
UNDEVELOPED
OTHER
Transportation Utility Corridor
Want more information on Calgarys urban structure?
If you have any questions on this Snapshot or would like additional information, contact Matthew Sheldrake at 403-268-5929 or matthew.sheldrake@calgary.ca.
Last updated: January 2009.

Lake Bonavista
Britannia
Mission
Rundle
Citadel
Tuscany
13
3. Results

To critically assess the effect that the principles of Smart Growth could have on the energy
budget for the City of Calgary, published data characterizing the energy profiles of six Calgary
neighbourhoodswasused.ThedatawascollectedbyNaturalResourcesCanadausingtheUrban
ArchetypesProjectMethodology(NRC,2009).Themethodinvolvesthedevelopmentofenergy
profiles for the major housing typologies representative of each of the neighbourhoods and
accountsfortheenergyexpendedwithinbuildings(spaceheating,hotwaterandenergyusedfor
lighting and operation of appliances) as well energy used for personal transportation (Natural
ResourcesCanada,2009).Thesixneighbourhoodsassessedinthestudywere:Britannia,Citadel,
LakeBonavista,Rundel,MissionandTuscany(Figure2).

Based on the data reviewed in Table 4, the neighbourhood of Mission was selected as best
representingtheprinciplesofSmartGrowth.TheprinciplesofSmartGrowthconsideredinthis
assessment included: housing choice, walkable neighbourhood, mixed land-use, transportation
choices,redevelopmentofexistingcommunitiesandcompactbuildingdesign.Therationalefor
choosing Mission was based on the number of these Smart Growth principles reflected in its
urbanform(Table4)versestheotherneighbourhoodsassessed.Asummaryofthisassessment
ispresentedinTable5below.

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

SmartGrowth
Smart Growth
Pri nci pl e
Fact or
Consi dered*
Bri t anni a Ci tadel L.
Bonavi st a
Mi ssi on Rundl e Tuscany
Housing Choices Percent of
single family
homes



Walkable
Neighbourhoods
Total road
length and
vehicle km
traveled



Mixed Land-use Land-use mix


Increasing
transportation
choices
Average
vehicles per
household



Redeveloping existing
communities
Distance to city
core



Compact Building
Design
Density


Note: * See Table 3 for details.

14
ToestimatethepotentialenergysavingsfortheCityofCalgaryadoptinganeighborhoodprofile
similartoMissions,asimplemodelwasdevelopedbasedonhousingtypographiesandaverage
vehicleusage.Housingtypographiesidentifiedintheenergyauditstudy(NRC,2009)werefirst
mappedontothehousingtypographiestrackedbythecity(CityofCalgary,2010).Theresultsof
thismappingexercisearepresentedinTable6.

Table6:HousingTypesfromNRCStudyMappedontoCityofCalgaryHousingTypes
City of Calgary Housing Types Neighbourhood Natural Resources Canada
Housing Types Single
Family (SF)
Duplex
(DUP)
Apartment
(APT)
Townhouse
(TWN)
Converted
Unit (CNV)
A. Single detached one storey


B. Single detached two storey


Britannia
C. Single detached two storey


A. Single detached two storey

Citadel
B. Single detached two storey


A. Single detached one storey


B. Single detached two storey


L. Bonavista
C. Single detached two storey


A. Apartment four storey


B. Apartment six storey


Mission
C. Single detached two storey


A. Single detached one storey


B. Single detached one storey


Rundle
C. Row house two storey



Tuscany A. Single detached two storey

Next,themodelwascheckedforaccuracybytestingitagainsttwodatapoints.Greenhousegas
emissions for each of the NRC housing types were mapped onto the City of Calgary housing
types. Values were averaged by housing type and these values were then multiplied by total
dwelling counts based on City census data. Vehicle emissions for each of the neighbourhoods
was also averaged and this value was multiplied by the total number of citizens. Finally these
twovalueswerethensummedandcomparedtoGHGemissiondata.Table7presentshowGHG
emissions were mapped across housing types and Tables 8a and 8b present the results of the
GHGemissionscalculatedbytheModelagainst2003reportedCCCOMGHGemissionsand2010
projectedGHGemissions.

15

Table7:GHGEmissions(TCO2-eq/yr)byHousingType+VehicleEmissions(TCO2-eq/yr)
City of Calgary Housing Types Neighbourhood Natural Resources Canada
Housing Types (SF) (DUP) (APT) (TWN) (CNV) Vehicle
A. Single detached one storey 15.5
B. Single detached two storey 17.2
Britannia
C. Single detached two storey 15.9
13.7
A. Single detached two storey 12.4 Citadel
B. Single detached two storey 9.3
13.8
A. Single detached one storey 14
B. Single detached two storey 15.3
L. Bonavista
C. Single detached two storey 15.7
15.1
A. Apartment four storey 7.1
B. Apartment six storey 11.9
Mission
C. Single detached two storey 19.1
5
A. Single detached one storey 10.6
B. Single detached one storey 12.3
Rundle
C. Row house two storey 11 11 11
11.9
Tuscany A. Single detached two storey 11.2 11.3
AVERAGE 14. 4 11 9. 5 11 11 11. 8
Notes: 1. Vehicle column added. Values represent average T CO2-eq for transport by neighbourhood.

Table8a:2003ReportedGHGEmissionsversesGHGEmissionsCalculatedbyModel
2003 Total T CO2-eq/year Total kt CO2-eq/year
Population 922,315 11.8 10883
Housing Units* 371,756 12.2 4535
Total Calc. GHG Emissions 15418
Total Reported CCCOM GHG Emissions 15748
Difference 329
Percent Difference -2%
Notes: 1. Housing Units by type not available for 2003. Average T CO2-eq/yr for all housing types used.
2. Source 2003 census data: City of Calgary, 2010.
3. Source total CCCOM GHG Emissions: City of Calgary 2006a.

Table8b:2010EstimatedCCCOMGHGEmissionsversesGHGEmissionsCalculatedbyModel
2010 Total SF DUP APT TWN CNV Vehicle Total kt CO2-eq/year
Housing units 440,856 257,854 28,507 93,730 45,543 15,222
Population 1,050,415
T CO2-eq/yr 14.4 11 9.5 11 11 11.8
Total kt CO2-eq/yr 3707 314 890 501 167 12395*
Total Calc. GHG Emissions 17974
Total Est. CCCOM GHG Emissions 18146
Difference 172
Percent Difference -1%
Notes: 1. * Value in this cell equals average Vehicle T CO2-eq/yr multiplied by total population.
2. Source 2010 census data: City of Calgary, 2010.
3. Total estimated CCCOM GHG Emissions based on population data.
16
The results of these two data checks of the model showed good agreement with actual and
estimated CCCOM GHG emissions. For 2003 the percent difference between the model and the
reported CCCOM GHG emissions was 2%. A similar comparison to 2010 census data and
projected GHG emissions showed the model underestimated GHG emission by 1%. Additional
testing would be required to confirm the robustness of the model but based on data checks at
tworeferencepoints(2003and2010)themodelestimatedGHGemissionswithinamaximumof
2%ofobservedGHGemissions.

GiventhemodelsaccuracyincalculatingGHGgasemissions,themodelwasrerunusingenergy
values(GJ).Table9presentshowtotalenergyvaluesweremappedontoHousingTypes.Table
10apresentsthecalculatedenergybudgetfortheCitybasedonaveragevaluesforhousingtype
an vehicle usage. Table 10b presents the calculated energy budget for the City assuming all
neighbourhoodsinCalgaryexhibitthesameenergyprofileasMission.

Table9:EnergyBudget(GJ)byHousingType
City of Calgary Housing Types Neighbourhood Natural Resources Canada
Housing Types (SF) (DUP) (APT) (TWN) (CNV) Vehicle
A. Single detached one storey 246
B. Single detached two storey 279
Britannia
C. Single detached two storey 254
197
A. Single detached two storey 186 Citadel
B. Single detached two storey 125
199
A. Single detached one storey 218
B. Single detached two storey 238
L. Bonavista
C. Single detached two storey 250
218
A. Apartment four storey 33
B. Apartment six storey 67
Mission
C. Single detached two storey 321
72
A. Single detached one storey 147
B. Single detached one storey 163
Rundle
C. Row house two storey 164 164 164
172
Tuscany A. Single detached two storey 163 163
AVERAGE 222 164 50 164 164 170

Table10a:2010CalculatedEnergyBudgetforCityofCalgary(GJ)
2010 Total SF DUP APT TWN CNV Vehicle Total kt
CO2-eq/year
Housing
units
440,856 257,854 28,507 93,730 45,543 15,222
Population 1,050,415
GJyr 222 164 50 164 164 170
Total GJ/yr 57308052 4675148 4686500 7469052 2496408 178745619
Total Calc. Energy Budget for City of Calgary (GJ) 255380779
Notes: Table contains rounding errors for raw data set see Appendix B.

17
Table10b:2010CalculatedEnergyReductionApplyingSmartGrowthforCityofCalgary(GJ)
2010 Total SF DUP APT TWN CNV Vehicle Total kt
CO2-eq/year
Housing
units
440,856 257,854 28,507 93,730 45,543 15,222
Population 1,050,415
GJyr 50 50 50 50 50 170
Total GJ/yr 12892700 1425350 4686500 2277150 761100 75629880
Total Calc. Energy Budget for City of Calgary (GJ) 97672680
Notes: Table contains rounding errors for raw data set see Appendix B.

The difference between the total energy budget in Table 10a and Table 10b is considered the
potential for energy reduction in Calgary using the principles of Smart Growth. Based on these
results,totalenergyreductionsof157,708,099GJor62%(+/-2%)wereachievable.

18
4. Conclusions
Cities globally are the largest consumers of energy and the majority of this energy is derived
from non-renewable fossil fuels. By extension, city use of energy is closely linked to issues of
sustainabledevelopmentandanthropogenicclimatechange.Strategiesforreducingtheenergy
consumption of cities is therefore relevant when considering potential solutions for improving
theenvironmentalperformanceofcities.

An assessment of how the principles of Smart Growth could influence energy consumption was
completed using the City of Calgary as a case Study. The City of Calgary was chosen based on
several factors including the contribution of its current urban form to the consumption of
energy, the Citys recent adoption of Smart Growth principles and converging lines of evidence
indicatingthatthecityexhibitscharacteristicstypicalofmanyUSandCanadiancities.

ToevaluatehowCalgarysbuiltenvironmentmightperformiforganizedaroundtheprinciplesof
Smart Growth, a simple model was constructed. The usefulness of the model was checked by
comparing calculated GHG emissions to observed and predicted values. The model was then
used to calculate the energy budget for the City of Calgary given its present urban form and
finally under the scenario that Calgarys urban form was constructed using the principles of
Smart Growth. The total calculated reduction for the City of Calgarys energy budget using this
method was 62% (+/-2%). This result is considered the potential for Smart Growth to reduce
energyconsumptionfortheCityofCalgary.
19
References

BELL,J.,WEIS,T.,2009.GreeningtheGrid-PoweringAlbertasFuturewithRenewableEnergy.
ThePembinaInstitute,DraytonValley,Alberta.

CANWEA(CanadianWindEnergyAssociation),2010.Website:
http://www.canwea.ca/farms/wind-farms_e.php.AccessedDecember272010.

CITYOFCALGARY,2006.CalgaryClimateChangeActionPlanTarget50.CityofCalgary,July
2006.

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

CITYOFCALGARY,2006a.2003CalgaryCommunityGreenhouseGasEmissionsInventory.Cityof
CalgaryJuly2006.

CITYOFCALGARY,2006b.ImagineCalgaryPlanforLongrangeurbansustainability.Cityof
Calgary.

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

CITYOFCALGARY,2007.PlanItCalgary,IntegratedLandUseandMobilityPlan.CityofCalgary.

CITYOFCALGARY,2008.TowardaPreferredFuture,UnderstandingCalgarysEcological
Footprint.CityofCalgary.

CITYOFCALGARY,2010.2010CivicCensusResults.ElectionandInformationServices,Cityof
Calgary,2010.

CITYOFCALGARY,2010a.CalgarySnapshots2010.CityofCalgary.

CITYMAYORS,2010.Website:http://www.citymayors.com/environment/smartgrowth_us.html.
AccessedJanuary1,2010.

CITYMAYORS,2010a.Website:http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-
125.html.AccessedDecember30,2010.

EPA(UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY),2001.OurBuiltandNatural
Environments,ATechnicalReviewoftheInteractionsbetweenLandUse,Transportation,and
EnvironmentalQuality.WashingtonDC,January2001.
20

EPA(UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY),2010.Website:
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/sg_network.htm.AccessedDecember18,2010.

GOLDEMBERGJ.,JOHANSSONB.,REDDYA.,WILLIAMSR.,1987.EnergyforaSustainableWorld.
WorldResourcesInstitute,NewDelhiIndia,September,1987.

GOVERNMENTOFALBERTA,2010.AlbertaEnergyIndustry,AnOverview2009.Alberta
Environment2010.

IEA(INTERNATIONALENERGYAGENCY),2008.WorldEnergyOutlook2008.International
EnergyAgency,ParisFrance.

IPCC,2007:SummaryforPolicymakers.In:ClimateChange2007:Mitigation.Contributionof
WorkingGroupIIItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimate
Change[B.Metz,O.R.Davidson,P.R.Bosch,R.Dave,L.A.Meyer(eds)],CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge,UnitedKingdomandNewYork,NY,USA.

KENNEDYC.,RAMASWAMIA.,CARNEYS.,DHAKALS.,2010.GreenhouseGasEmissionsBaselines
forGlobalCitiesandMetropolitanRegions.Reportavailableat:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-
1256566800920/6505269-1268260567624/KennedyComm.pdf.AccessedDecember28,2010.

KENWORTHY,J.R.&LAUBE,F.B.,1999.Automobiledependenceincities:Aninternational
comparisonofurbantransportandlandusepatternswithimplicationsforsustainability.
EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview,16,279-308.

NRC(NATURALRESOURCESCANADA),2009.TheUrbanArchetypesProject,CommunityCase
Study:TheCityofCalgary.NaturalResourcesCanada.

NISSING,C.&VONBLOTTNITZ,H.2010.Renewableenergyforsustainableurbandevelopment:
Redefiningtheconceptofenergisation.EnergyPolicy,38,2179-2187.

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

STATISTICSCANADA,2010.Website:http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-
eng.htm.AccessedDecember27,2010.

STEEMERS,K.2003.Energyandthecity:density,buildingsandtransport.EnergyandBuildings,
35,3-14.

21
SUSTAINABLECITIES,2010.Website:http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-
projects/cases/copenhagen-cities-can-run-on-wind-energy.AccessedDecember20,2010.

SMARTGROWTH,2010.Website:http://www.smartgrowth.org/default.asp.Accessed
December28,2010.

SMARTGROWTHCANADA,2010.Website:http://www.smartgrowth.ca/partner_e.html.
AccessedDecember20,2010.

U.S.CENSUSBUREAU,2010.InternationalDataBase(IDB).Website:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.php.AccessedDecember26,2010.

WILLIAMS,K.&DAIR,C.2007.Aframeworkofsustainablebehavioursthatcanbeenabled
throughthedesignofneighbourhood-scaledevelopments.SustainableDevelopment,15,160-
173.

WILSON,J.,ANIELSKI,M.,2005.EcologicalFootprintsofCanadianMunicipalitiesandRegions.
PreparedfortheCanadianFederationofCanadianMunicipalities.Edmonton,Alberta,January
2005.

WORLDBANK,2010.CitiesandClimateChange:AnUrgentAgenda.WashingtonDC.

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