Australian Cities: Liveable and Sustainable?
Presentation to NatStats 2010 Conference
Sydney, 16 September 2010
Session: Sustainable Communities in a Global Context
Professor Peter Newton
Institute for Social Research
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne
21st CENTURY ≠ 20th CENTURY:
LIVING IN A CROWDED, URBAN WORLD
21st CENTURY SETTLEMENT TREND :
THE RISE AND RISE OF THE MEGA-METROPOLITAN REGION
>
The nation’s key economic
engines generating 75% of
national economic activity
(Allen Consulting, 2002)
>
Key demographic attractors /
absorbers, forecast to
accommodate 80% of nation’s
additional expected population
2002 – 2011 (Approximately 1.5
out of 1.9 million)
>
Key governance challenge
Objectives for Future Australian Cities (COAG, Dec.2009)
“The future strategic planning of cities should ensure that
cities
are:
globally
competitive,
productive,
environmentally sustainable, liveable and socially
inclusive and are well placed to meet future challenges and
growth”.
COAG Minister’s Meeting, Dec. 2009
A Plethora of City Performance Indicators
City Indicators:
• Productivity
• Sustainability
• Liveability
• Social Inclusion
Measuring Australia’s Progress
Source: ABS (2009)
Model for Delivering Sustainable Urban Development
Source: Newton (2006)
City Liveability Rating (Economist Intelligence Unit)
Category 1: Stability (25%)
Category 3: Culture & Environment (25%)
Category 2: Healthcare (20%)
Category 4: Education (10%)
Category 5: Infrastructure (20%)
SOURCE: EIU (2009)
Liveability Ratings of Australian Cities 2009
SOURCE: EIU (2009)
Linkages between Liveability and Competitiveness
Source: VCEC (2008)
MEASURING URBAN PERFORMANCE : LIVEABILITY _
SUSTAINABILITY NEXUS
Liveability –
Sustainability Nexus ?
Ecological Footprint of Australia’s Capital Cities
Per Capita Resource Consumption
City
Ecological Footprint
(ha per person)
Sydney
6.6
Melbourne
6.4
Brisbane
6.7
Perth
7.4
Adelaide
6.8
Canberra
7.0
Hobart
5.7
Darwin
7.1
Australia
6.5
World
2.2
Source: Turner & Foran (2008)
= 3+ Planet Living
The Liveability-Sustainability Nexus -- 2010
Liveability
Mean 76.18
St.Dev: 17.34
Ecological Footprint
Mean: 4.39
St.Dev: 2.83
Source:Newton(2010)
Liveability – Sustainability Quadrants
Source: Newton (2010)
Liveability – Sustainability Quadrants
Source: Newton (2010)
21st Century Challenge for High Income Societies
Maintain Liveability
AND
Wind Back
Unsustainable Consumption
Pathways to More Sustainable Cities
> 1. Where technological innovation can deliver infrastructure for the
sustainable provision of urban resources and services
• (TRANSITIONS, Springer, Dordrecht, 2008)
> 2. Where new planning and design paradigms can underpin a
transition to more sustainable urban development
• (TECHNOLOGY, DESIGN & PROCESS INNOVATION IN THE BUILT
ENVIRONMENT, Taylor & Francis, London, 2009)
> 3. Where interventions can be identified to trigger behaviour change
among individuals and households to modify their patterns of
resource consumption
• (LANDSCAPES OF URBAN CONSUMPTION, CSIRO Publishing, 2011)
Technological Innovation
3 HORIZONS OF URBAN INNOVATION
Urban
Environmental
Domain
H1
H2
H3
Energy
Energy efficiencies in
housing and industry;
house energy rating
Distributed renewable / low
emission energy; methane
bridge
Renewables-based
solar-hydrogen economy
Water
Water-smart appliances
Sewer mining; water
sensitive urban design
Integrated urban water
systems (recycled
stormwater, wastewater)
Buildings
Check box system for
green building design
(e.g. LEED)
nBL real-time life cycle
sustainability performance
assessment during design
– via 3D CAD and GIS
Ultra-smart buildings
and linked
infrastructures;
embedded intelligence
Waste
Product stewardship
;kerbside recycling
Extensive cradle to cradle
production – single
enterprise
Eco-industrial clusters
as new engines for
mega-metro economies
Transport &
Road pricing;
telepresence via
broadband
communications
Hybrid vehicles; smart land
use-transport planning
;high speed rail
Intelligent transport
systems (ITS);
integrated land use and
transport; eco-mobility
Communications
Source: Newton, (2007)
H2/3 TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE
AND DISTRIBUTED ENERGY
Transition to renewable and distributed energy generation in context of national grid
EXISTING CENTRALISED INDUSTRY
NEW DISTRIBUTED INDUSTRY
Transition to Renewable Energy
Wind Turbines
Solar Thermal
Source: Melbourne Energy Institute (2010)
Built Environment Innovation
Innovation at Building
Scale: Hybrid Buildings?
HYBRID BUILDING / PRECINCT
Energy
Efficient
Building
Shell
Energy
Efficient
Appliances
Local
Energy
(Distributed/
Embedded)
Generation
Hybrid
Building /
Precinct
Link to
National
Energy Grid
Source: Newton & Tucker (2009) Hybrid Buildings.
DOES ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDING DESIGN MATTER ?
Building Shell
>
2.5 to 5.0 Star =56% reduction in annual
energy use for heating
and cooling
>
5.0 to 7.0 Star =18% reduction in annual
energy use
>
2.5 to 7.0 star =74% reduction in annual
energy use (equivalent
to saving of 48,300 MJ/yr
per detached dwelling)
DO ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES MATTER ?
Built-in and Plug-in Appliances: Potential Savings
with Substitution of Technology/Product
>
92% reduction in annual CO2 from hot water heating
with substitution of solar thermal gas boosted for
electric storage
>
28% reduction in annual CO2 from plug-in appliances
(eg. TVs, refrigerators etc) with substitution of ‘best-ofbreed’ for average energy efficiency
>
72% reduction in annual CO2 with shift from all electric
(cooktop+oven) to all microwave kitchen
>
89% reduction in annual CO2 with shift from all halogen
to all compact fluorescent lighting
LOCAL ENERGY GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES
>
Photovoltaics (PV)
>
Solar gas boosted thermal
>
Wind
>
Fuel Cell (gas, solar)
>
Gas CCHP (combined cooling, heat
and power)
>
Ground source heat pump
NET CO2-e EMISSIONS FOR SELECTED SCENARIOS IN
TRANSITION TO ZERO CARBON DWELLINGS
Net CO2-e for Hybrid buildings scenarios
50
47.3
Scenarios
Melbourne average (11.1)
CO2-e (t/yr/dwelling)
40
30
20
9.5
10
2.9
-0.2
0
-1.3
-10
Worst case 2.5 New 5 star house DG enhanced 2.5
star house
star house
5 star carbon
neutral house
7 star zero
carbon house
POLICY ARENAS
FOR GREENING THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
Policy Focus
Domain Focus
Building
Appliances
Energy
Innovation in
Technology &
Design
7+ energy star
rated
Smart, low energy
appliances
Local renewable
energy generation
Household
Behaviour Change
Smaller floor
space
Fewer appliances,
simpler life
Energy conservation
strategies; attitudes
to environment, local
energy systems etc
BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
PROSPECT OF
CHANGING ATTITUDES,
LIFESTYLES,
BEHAVIOUR?
Behaviour Change: Theory and Reality
Barriers to Environmental Action
Ownership of Problem
•
•
•
•
Not my responsibility (22.5%)
I rent – its up to my landlord (28.5%)
It won’t help Melbourne’s environment (19.7%)
No regulation requiring me (27.9%)
Information Shortage/Access
Organisational Challenges
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of information (55.4%)
Can’t work out what’s best (47.9%)
Too difficult to organise (54.6%)
Can’t work out what’s best (47.9%)
Difficult to get right trades people (39.3%)
Time Constraints (Level of Priority)
Financial
•
•
•
Lack of money (68.2%)
Expense not work benefits (52.3%)
I rent – up to the landlord (28.5%)
•
•
Planning to, but haven’t got to it yet (54.4%)
Lack of time (51.1%)
SOURCE: Living in Melbourne Survey (2009)
IN CONCLUSION : DATA NEEDS
WHERE CAN ABS
ASSIST ?
• LONGITUDINAL SURVEYS TO
SUPPORT EVALUATION OF
BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
PROGRAMS, PRICING ETC.
•HARMONISING DATA
COLLECTIONS FOR STATE OF
ENVIRONMENT REPORTING
AUSTRALIA’S CURRENT TRAJECTORY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
IS UNSUSTAINABLE – AND REMAINS A CHALLENGE
2006 State of Environment Report : Human Settlements (Newton, 2006)
The nation’s perception
of limitless resources is
a large obstacle to change
THE MAGIC PUDDING NORMAN
LINDSAY
20–25 tonnes/pc/pa
>
gross material flows:
>
biodiversity loss:
>
energy use:
>
water use:
>
travel:
>
housing:
>
GHG generation:
27.5 tonnes/pc/pa
>
waste generation:
approximately 1.6 tonnes/pc/pa
50% of native species (MSD)
260GJ/pc/pa
115kl/pc/pa
8,000km/pc/pa car travel
235m2 per dwelling
> national ecological footprint:
6.5ha/pc/pa
an UNSUSTAINABLE pattern
of resource consumption
HOW COULD AN AUSTRALIAN STATE OF THE CITIES/STATE OF ENVIRONMENT
CAPACITY EMERGE? TOWARDS A COLLABORATIVE NETWORK?
National State of the Cities / SoE ‘Reporting’
State-Level System of Data Assembly/Reporting
Regional-Level System of Data Assembly/Reporting
(e.g. Metro region, provincial city region etc.)
Municipal-Level System of Data Collection, Assembly/Reporting
THANK YOU
CONTACT
Professor Peter W Newton
PHONE
+ 61 – 3 - 9214 4769
EMAIL
WEB
pnewton@swin.edu.au
www.swinburne.edu.au