General approaches for assessing urban environmental sustainability

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.003Get rights and content

Urban environmental sustainability assessment is increasingly a part of urban planning, from the perspective of mitigating local and global impacts and for adapting to regional and global resource constraints and anticipated climate events.

We examine general techniques under three categories: consumption-based, metabolism-based and complex systems approaches. We sample recent and salient applications at spatial scales ranging from neighbourhoods to metropolitan regions.

The scope and strengths of applications in these categories are complementary especially with regards to the attribution of impact. The first approach assesses environmental sustainability as a function of urban consumption, the second uses a more limited concept of consumption but better represents local and trans-boundary production activity and the third attributes cause and effect through quantifying relationships and feedbacks throughout the urban system.

Highlights

► We examine useful methods for urban planning under three categories: consumption-based, metabolism-based and complex systems approaches. ► Applications for each category at relevant urban scales are discussed. ► The scope and strengths of applications are complementary, the use of hybrid or multiple approaches is recommended.

Introduction

Environmental sustainability has become an essential part of urban4 performance reporting and planning. Population pressure and proximity to resource limitations, current or anticipated exogenous environmental impacts and a greater sense of global responsibility have catalysed those planning or governing cities to be guided by studies of environmental sustainability.

This review is about recent developments in general approaches for environmental sustainability assessment specifically for cities. The criterion of ‘generality’ in our selection of methods includes applicability across scales and portability to different locations. We acknowledge the utility of other concepts and approaches that do not necessarily pass this test, for example, of urban ecology or regional science with emphases on history and geography. Often these approaches have case-specific or location-specific analysis that is not scalable or portable. We must also acknowledge that our scope excludes important location-specific indicators, for example, regarding biodiversity.

We review a selection of studies concerned with direct or indirect material and energy flows and place them into three categories based on their differences in concept and purpose (Figure 1). Consumption-based accounting (CBA) captures economy-wide impacts of urban consumption and lifestyles. Metabolism-based accounting (MBA) addresses direct consumption and production impacts within geopolitical boundaries though we include methodological extensions that record impacts from important cross-boundary supply chains. A third and more recently developed category we propose is ‘complex systems approaches’ which includes attempts at modelling the underlying dynamics of cities at various scales.

Our purpose is to survey these reporting and simulation tools and to present current examples of their actual or potential application for urban planning under reasonable conceptual headings. Our classification concurs with other recent views and reviews in the literature [1, 2•, 3, 4•, 5, 6••, 7•, 8, 9, 10•].

Environmental sustainability assessment may have two general purposes: monitoring and measuring the past or current environmental pressures, states, or impacts of urban areas, or simulating possible future scenarios of change. The monitoring and measurement functions of CBA and MBA are essentially retrospective in that they report what has happened. As ex-post methods they can indicate whether past policies have been successful or are on target to achieve the desired outcome. Their representation of the urban system is usually less complex than for simulation methods as only certain output indicators (e.g. emissions or water use) are recorded without the need to describe (dynamic) cause-effect relationships. The main purpose of simulation tools is exactly to represent dynamic, cause-effect relationships for generating and evaluating possible future scenarios. The deeper epistemic uncertainty inherent in simulation is a limitation but the aim is not precise prediction so much as understanding the urban system and the action of endogenous impacts, for example, increased population or economic activity and exogenous impacts, such as climate change [10•, 11, 12, 13, 14].

Environmental sustainability assessments should produce outputs about processes and performance at relevant urban scales for management interventions, recognising the limitations of management at those scales and appropriate levels of precision in reporting. We comment on the abovementioned techniques as they apply at various scales.

Section snippets

Consumption-based approach

CBA at the city scale establishes a link between the consumption levels and patterns of urban residents and the associated embodied environmental impacts, whether those impacts occur inside or outside the city boundary. The most commonly used method for CBA is environmentally extended input–output analysis (IOA) capable of assessing direct and indirect water [15••, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21], and energy use [22•, 23, 24], ecological footprinting [16, 17, 25, 26, 27] and most notably greenhouse gas

Metabolism-based approach

MBA studies that record the material, water, waste and energy flows of an urbanized area have previously been defined by geo-political boundaries (the ‘territory’ of the area) but are increasingly being extended to include trans-boundary flows. We collect all these approaches within ‘metabolism-based accounting’, because of their roots in urban metabolism studies [50]. These have been concerned with aggregate environmental performance measures for cities at a macro-scale [51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

Complex systems approach

Reporting about urban performance and sustainability that concentrates on current or past aggregate data does not necessarily convey a better appreciation of urban dynamics, offer intervention points, or help address dynamic problems.

Complex systems approaches are not an amalgam of CBA and MBA, they recognize features such as system interactions [83], feedbacks [84], network relationships [85] and agency [86] and are intended for simulation and understanding of the dynamics more than for

Conclusions

We have presented examples of material and energy flow assessment approaches useful for environmental sustainability planning at the city scale. These have been arranged into three categories.

CBA has the most comprehensive system boundary but input–output databases rarely exist at the urban level and some additional scaling information is required to resolve environmental sustainability measures at urban or suburban scales. This adds some degree of uncertainty, for example, sampling errors in

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • • of special interest

  • •• of outstanding interest

Acknowledgement

The writing of this paper was funded by the Integrated Carbon Pathways project of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia.

References (97)

  • T. Wiedmann et al.

    A definition of ‘carbon footprint’

  • J. Heinonen et al.

    Case study on the carbon consumption of two metropolitan cities

    Int J Life Cycle Assess

    (2011)
  • T. Wiedmann et al.

    Quo Vadis MRIO? Methodological, data and institutional requirements for multi-region input–output analysis

    Ecol Econ

    (2011)
  • M. Lenzen et al.

    The Ecological Footprint – Issues and Trends

    (2003)
  • C.T. White et al.

    Chapter 6: the total carbon footprint of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, England, UK

  • K. Newcombe

    Nutrient flow in a major urban settlement: Hong Kong

    Hum Ecol

    (1977)
  • EUROSTAT

    Economy-wide Material Flow Accounts and Derived Indicators – A Methodological Guide

    (2001)
  • N. Codoban et al.

    Metabolism of neighborhoods

    J Urban Plan Dev

    (2008)
  • L. Parshall et al.

    Modeling energy consumption and CO2 emissions at the urban scale: methodological challenges and insights from the United States

    Energy Pol

    (2010)
  • B. Güneralp et al.

    Can gains in efficiency offset the resource demands and CO2 emissions from constructing and operating the built environment?

    Appl Geogr

    (2012)
  • T. Hillman et al.

    Greenhouse gas emission footprints and energy use benchmarks for eight U.S. cities

    Environ Sci Technol

    (2010)
  • C. Kennedy et al.

    Greenhouse gas emissions from global cities

    Environ Sci Technol

    (2009)
  • C. Kennedy et al.

    Methodology for inventorying greenhouse gas emissions from global cities

    Energy Pol

    (2010)
  • P. Waddell

    UrbanSim: modelling urban development for land use, transportation and environmental planning

    J Am Plan Assoc

    (2002)
  • J.D. Hunt et al.

    Current operational urban land-use-transport modelling frameworks: a review

    Transp Rev

    (2005)
  • H.T. Odum

    Environmental Accounting – Emergy and Environmental Decision Making

    (1996)
  • D. Li et al.

    Hybrid Emergy-LCA (HEML) based metabolic evaluation of urban residential areas: the case of Beijing, China

    Ecol Complexity

    (2009)
  • C. Kennedy et al.

    Chapter 2 greenhouse gas emission baselines for global cities and metropolitan regions

  • A. Ramaswami et al.

    Two approaches to greenhouse gas emissions foot-printing at the city scale

    Environ Sci Technol

    (2011)
  • H. Weisz et al.

    Reducing energy and material flows in cities

    Curr Opin Environ Sustain

    (2010)
  • S. Kennedy et al.

    Rigorous classification and carbon accounting principles for low and Zero Carbon Cities

    Energy Policy

    (2011)
  • A. Chavez et al.

    Progress toward low carbon cities: approaches for transboundary GHG emissions’ footprinting

    Carbon Manage

    (2011)
  • D. Dodman

    Forces driving urban greenhouse gas emissions

    Curr Opin Environ Sustain

    (2011)
  • L. Lebel et al.

    Management into the development strategies of urbanizing regions in Asia: implications of urban function, form, and role

    J Ind Ecol

    (2007)
  • M. Batty

    The size, scale, and shape of cities

    Science

    (2008)
  • V. Viguie et al.

    Trade-offs and synergies in urban climate policies

    Nat Clim Change

    (2012)
  • M. Lenzen et al.

    How city dwellers affect their resource hinterland – a spatial impact study of Australian households

    J Ind Ecol

    (2010)
  • ACF, ISA: Consumption Atlas: Edited by: Australian Conservation Foundation and Centre for Integrated Sustainability...
  • C. Dey et al.

    Household environmental pressure from consumption: an Australian environmental atlas

  • S.J. Kenway et al.

    The connection between water and energy in cities: a review

    Water Sci Technol

    (2011)
  • Z. Zhang et al.

    Analyses of water footprint of Beijing in an interregional input–output framework

    Ecol Econ

    (2011)
  • K. Hubacek et al.

    Environmental implications of urbanization and lifestyle change in China: ecological and water footprints

    J Clean Prod

    (2009)
  • Y. Wang et al.

    Analysis of water consumption using a regional input–output model: Model development and application to Zhangye City, Northwestern China

    J Arid Environ

    (2009)
  • T.M. Baynes et al.

    Comparison of household consumption and regional production approaches to assessing urban energy use and implications for policy

    Energy Pol

    (2011)
  • M. Lenzen et al.

    Energy requirements of Sydney households

    Ecol Econ

    (2004)
  • M. Lenzen et al.

    Direct versus embodied energy – the need for urban lifestyle transitions

  • A. Chavez et al.

    Response to: low-carbon cities, GHGs and ‘footprints’

    Carbon Manage

    (2012)
  • T. Wiedmann

    Carbon footprint and input–output analysis – an introduction

    Econ Syst Res

    (2009)
  • Cited by (97)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text