Grace YEPEZ – Fabien FILLIT – Nicolas SALMON / NOBATEK nsalmon@nobatek.com

www.nobatek.com

Environmental assessment of sustainable urban projects through NEST, a tool for urban planning actors

5 critical parameters: -Defined: centre and limits -Compact -Complete -Connected -Allow human-nature link

[ Sustainable neighbourhood ] Urban neighbourhood, designed to have a low environmental impact on environment while insuring high quality of life for its inhabitants. It is based on long terms objectives, aims at a functional autonomy and at a consistent integration in the city [G.Yépez,2011]

2

REQUIREMENTS > Consistent with architects’ ways of working and the level of information in an early design phase > Evaluation through understandable and objective (quantitative) indicators > Evaluation base on 3D modelling and impact visualisation clearly linked to design options > To allow comparing design scenarios

MASTERPLAN early phases > need for better EVALUATION tools

LEVEL OF DATA in an early phase > Early phase: urban planning competition or outline proposals > Site of construction + urban program + sustainability objectives

> General geometry of buildings, land occupation, roads and circulations > General characterization of roads composition, green areas and available public transportation

State of the art : tools for evaluating urban planning impacts

+ +

Workability: sites/actors/projects

QUALITATIVE evaluation

QUANTITATIVE evaluation

District planning scenario Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)

LCA Infrastructure

LCA buildings

LCA transport

LCA land use

+ + +

LCA Neighbourhood

Designing a new district: how to evaluate quickly and effectively a design scenario ?

NEST Indicators Calculated per user and per year

ENERGY Total primary energy consumption (MJ) of the district It includes: Buildings construction, buildings use, infrastructure construction, public lighting, transportation

CO2 Green house gases (GHG) emitted by the district (IPCC 100). It includes: Buildings construction, buildings use, infrastructure construction, public lighting, transports

LAND USE Land use (impact on biodiversity) (eco-indicator 99) It includes: land transformation; land consumption

WASTE Waste generation and valorization It includes: construction and demolition waste, household waste

AIR QUALITY Volume of polluted air generated by the district (m3) It includes air pollution from: transports, buildings heating fumes (gas and wood boilers).

WATER Water consumption in the district It includes consumption from: construction of the dwellings, use of dwellings, maintenance of gardens It includes separately: drinking water, rain water

ECONOMY Cost of the project It includes the cost of : roads, green areas, buildings (per categories), other street elements

SOCIAL IMPACT Evaluation of users 'satisfaction It includes evaluation from : accessibility, availability of green areas, size of dwellings, means of transports, availability of parking

Indicators > (mostly) based on a LCA approach

Evaluation: example

Roads and pavements

design

Materials consumption Land occupation Water runoff Transportation scenario Accessibility Initial investment

Energy CO2 Waste

Land use (biodiversity)

Water

Energy CO2

Social satisfaction

Economy

Sustainability issue Indicators

Air quality

Nest: plug-in in Trible sketchup

Objective > ability to evaluate quickly planning scenarios during the design phase

Project characteristics

Import / export of models

Land use parameters

Buildings creation

Buildings properties

Street elements

Infrastructures (roads) properties

Transport scenario

Calculation

Comparison of scenarios

Report

INPUTS

RESULTS

Example of INPUTS: Buildings characteristics…

Example of INPUTS: Roads properties…

Example of INPUTS: Transportation scenario…

RESULTS: sustainability indicators

RESULTS: reporting

Example of application analysis of a urban planning scenario for a new neighborhood

Project characteristics: - located in the Pyrénées Atlantiques (Fr), 2.6 ha - Closed to the (small) town center, closed to the highway - Area occupied by a football field, few houses, a small agriculture company and empty fields - Initial definition of the land use: 50% artificial area, 30% agriculture fields, 10% urban area, 10% empty urban areas - Distance to the main working area: 10 km - Objective: housing 300 inhabitant + shops + offices

Planning proposal: scenario 0 -based on integrated urban gardens, pedestrian areas, smaller roads for cars, fewer parking spaces per dwelling, vegetated parks, buildings shops and offices creating a wall against the noise from the highway - Quite high density -All buildings are energy efficient (completion of 45 kWh / m² / year) and include solar energy production on rooftops - large areas of green spaces and green roofs (> water management) - All buildings include a place to facilitate waste sorting, have local bicycles shelters, and are equipped with systems to reduce water consumption - Grey water reuse is also considered in some buildings - 20% of housing is social housing - 1 bus line and creation of bicycle connection to the town center

RESULTS: scenario 0 > energy and climate change

-Impact of density - high performance of buildings - quite low level of transport impact - low impact from infrastructures

- French electricty mix leads to low CO2 emissions from electricty uses (buildings) - High impact of transportation is consequent of the project localization

RESULTS: scenario 0 > Waste production

- Good result on recycling capacity - Important potential of waste reduction through the reduction of waste for the construction and demolition works

RESULTS: Water management (consumption/ infiltration)

- Low level of potable water consumption

- Improvements can be realized to further avoid water runoff

Planning proposal - Based on low density, individual houses, large lots, large and numerous roads

- Mostly mineralized areas

- Minimized public spaces

- Performance of building: based on current regulation, no renewable energy production neither rain water recovery.

- 1 bus line

- The construction proposed reaches only 215 inhabitants

Alternative: scenario 1 =business as usual

RESULTS Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual)

- Main differences generated by the buildings performance strategy and by the ability to use alternative transportation for a little part of the transport needs

> PRIMARY ENERGY

RESULTS Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual)

- Main differences generated by the buildings performance strategy and by the ability to use alternative transportation for a little part of the transport needs

> CO2 EMISSIONS

RESULTS Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual)

> WATER CONSUMPTION

- Efforts realized on water reuse is clearly visible for scenario 1

RESULTS Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual)

- The proposal 1 would gain with more natural green spaces

> LAND USE

RESULTS Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual)

scenario 0 scenario 1

Scenario 1 - 41% energy consumption -16% CO2 emissions -25% non recyclable waste -47% potable water consumption -20% outside air pollution + 40% housing capacity + 40 % initial investment

Siège Social NOBATEK 67, rue de Mirambeau 64600 ANGLET Tél. : 05 59 03 61 29 Fax. : 05 59 63 55 41 www.nobatek.com Site Ecocampus ENSAM Esplanade des Arts et Métiers 33405 TALENCE Tél. : 05 56 84 63 70 Fax. : 05 56 84 63 71