Module 2 - 国立環境研究所 · Real Estate Developers Business Improvement Districts...
Transcript of Module 2 - 国立環境研究所 · Real Estate Developers Business Improvement Districts...
North American Tools for
Communities & Existing Neighborhoods
Module 2
Eliot Allen, Principal, AICP, LEED AP-ND
Criterion PlannersPortland Oregon USA
Module 2 Topics
• North American tools for communities &
existing neighborhoods
• Other notable tools
• Current prospects & future trends
Community & Existing Neighborhood Tools
STAR
Community
Living
Community
Challenge
EcoDistrict
Protocol
Comparative Qualities
STAR
Community
Living
Community
Challenge
EcoDistrict
Protocol
Outcome rating Outcome rating Process-basedassessment
City or county Neighborhood Neighborhood
Present, future Past, present, future Past, present, future
Geographic scale
Temporal scale
Appraisal type
Comparison Continued
STAR
Community
Living
Community
Challenge
EcoDistrict
Protocol
Top down, rigid Top down, rigid Bottom up, adaptable
framework
Elective MandatoryMandatory scope, user
selected criteria
Every 3 years Every 3 years Every 2 years
Assessment criteria
Recertification
Approach
Appraisal Scale & Type
Physical scale
• Entire municipality or county
Appraisal type
• Certification of point-based rating that awards
“stars”
Scope – Goal Areas
• Built environment
• Climate & energy
• Economy
• Education & arts
• Equity & empowerment
• Health & safety
• Natural systems
• Innovation
Local Government Motivations
• Demonstrate commitment
• National recognition
• Competitive advantage
• Improve transparency
• Fiscal strength
• Build partnerships
Certification Levels
5-STAR 600+
4-STAR 400-599
3-STAR 200-399
Reporting STAR <200
Total Points - 750Certification Levels
STAR Rating Points Allocation
Built environment 15%
Climate & energy 15%
Economy & jobs 15%
Equitable empowerment 15%
Health & safety 15%
Natural systems 15%
Education & arts 10%
Who is Using STAR?
50+
certifications
STAR Framework
7 Goals
44 Objectives
108 Outcomes
408 Actions
Built environment
Affordable housing
Document 10% of units are
affordable
Require affordable units in
new projects
Example
Notable Objectives
• Quality jobs & living wages
• Workforce readiness
• Community cohesion
• Education opportunity & attainment
Action Types
• Education & outreach
• Plan development
• Policy & code adjustment
• Partnership & collaboration
• Practice improvements
• Inventory & survey
• Enforcement & incentives
• Programs & services
• Facilities & infrastructure
Rating Procedure
• Self-assessment checklist - preliminary examination
• 2nd party certification review by STAR staff
• Recertification required every 3 years
• No public engagement in rating process
User Skill Requirements
• Familiarity with subject matter principles/practices
• Inter-departmental collaboration
• Data management & quantitative analysis
• No associated credential – relying on ISSP credential
Rating Timeframe & Cost
• Data collection & submission preparation – minimum 1 year
• Certification - 2-3 months
• Cost – approximately $10,000 fees, plus staff labor
Summary of STAR Community
• Only tool available for certifying entire jurisdiction
• Institutionalize “sustainability” in local government
• Relies on extensive tool provider support
• Valuable catalog of social, economic, environmental measures
• Difficult to scale-up for greater impact
Group Question 5:
How are Japanese municipalities rating
their sustainability?
Appraisal Scale & Type
Physical scale
• Neighborhood – increment or entirety
Appraisal type
• Two tiers of certification: 3 or more prerequisites,
or all 7
• Two certification stages: master plan & operating
Scope – Performance Areas or “Petals”
• Place
• Water
• Energy
• Health & happiness
• Materials
• Equity
• Beauty
Who is Using Living Community Challenge?
Test sites
• Seattle
• Washington DC• San Francisco
• New Orleans
• Normal, Illinois
Rating System Structure
• 7 performance areas or ‘petals’
• 20 imperatives – all mandatory
• 6 zones on a “living transect”
Notable Rating Criteria
• Net positive water, energy, waste
• Embodied energy – 1-time off-set
• 1:1 habitat protection off-site
• 100% of population within 3.6 km of shop, meet, work, learn
% of Neighborhood
for Food
Production
Off-Street
Parking
Streets &
Intersections
2 Firms on
Team Must be
JUST-certified
Notable Criteria Cont.
• Sharing programs – tools, books
• Equity off-set to nonprofit – ½ cent per project cost dollar
• Public art
• Health & wellbeing plan for each resident
Disaster Preparedness Criteria
• Emergency back-up power - all buildings except single homes
• 1 week of energy storage
• Safe gathering location – 100% of population
• 2 block captains/500 persons
• Emergency response plan to each resident
Rating Procedure
• Significant public engagement in planning process
• 1 year of performance data
• 3rd party certification review by independent assessor
User Skill Requirements
• Technical knowledge of subject matter & “Living Building
Challenge” rating system
• Data management & quantitative analysis
• Optional credential – ILFI Accreditation
Rating Timeframe & Cost
• Data collection & submission preparation - 1,000+/- person hours
• Certification - 2-3 months
• Cost - $10,000-$36,000 fees, plus labor
Summary of Living Community Challenge
• Aspirational rating criteria, all mandatory
• Beauty, disaster preparedness, equity criteria
• Performance data required for certification
Group Question 6:
Would Living Community Challenge be
suitable for Japanese neighborhoods?
Appraisal Scale & Type
Physical scale
• Neighborhood
Appraisal type
• Formative, process-based self-assessment
• Certification of process completion &
performance reporting
ScopeImperatives
• Equity
• Resilience
• Climate
Priorities
• Place
• Prosperous
• Health & Wellbeing
• Connectivity
• Living Infrastructure
• Resource Restoration
Imperatives Woven Into Priorities
Priorities
Imperatives
Equity
Resilience
Climate Protection
PLC PRS HWB CON LIV RES
Primary Users
Government
Redevelopment Authorities
Planning Agencies
Transportation Departments
Housing Authorities
Developers
Real Estate Developers
Business Improvement Districts
Campuses/Institutional Developers
Civic-Led Organizations
Community Development
Corporations
Non-Profit Groups
Community-Based Organizations
Operating EcoDistricts
Emerging Districts• Atlanta• Austin• Cambridge• Denver• Detroit• Los Angeles• Washington DC
Seattle
Portland
San Diego
Saint Paul
Ottawa
Washington DC
Atlanta
Protocol Framework
3 IMPLEMENTATION PHASES
6 PRIORITIES
3 IMPERATIVES
• Pledge to pursue equity, resilience, climate protection
• Must commit before starting certification of
implementation phases
Imperatives Commitment
Equity Imperative
“Cities that embrace equity identify and acknowledge the
populations most vulnerable to change. These cities experience
stronger and longer-lasting growth.
District teams must ensure their population has the opportunity
to meaningfully participate, lead, and thrive.”
Types of Equity
• Procedural
• Structural
• Distributional and cross generational
Resilience Imperative
“Resilience is the capacity of cities to function so that all people
are able to withstand the stresses and shocks they encounter.
Districts must address resilience with a broad lens that prepares
for social, economic, and environmental stresses and shocks.”
Resilience Assets
• Knowledge & expertise
• Organizations & networks
• People
• Place
Climate Protection Imperative
“Cities are responsible for a majority of global carbon dioxide
emissions, the dominant greenhouse gas contributing to climate
change.
District teams must build a pathway to carbon neutrality.”
Collaborative Governance
Commit to
collaborate
Co-define
dilemma
Co-deliver
actionsCo-create
solutions
Co-design
process
Increasing trust ->
Building relationships ->
Enhancing capability ->
Requires appreciative mindsets
Embraces deliberative processes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Declaration of collaboration:
• Decision-making body & procedures
• Backbone organization
• Committed stakeholder resources
Formation Phase
Each Priority:
• Objectives
- Indicators
- Current baseline
- Future targets
- Strategy to achieve targets
Roadmap Phase
Assessment Method
• All imperatives & priorities must be addressed,
extent is up to district
• District establishes baseline, sets targets, reports progress
• Certification using 3rd party verifiers is pass/fail completion of
process - no points or scoring
Notable Assessment Criteria
• Stakeholder engagement & inclusion
• Cultural celebration
• Active living
• Digital connectivity
• Nature connection
Performance Certification – Biennial Progress Reports
Capitol Hill EcoDistrict Seattle WA
User Skill Requirements
• General familiarity with subject matter
• Public outreach, process facilitation, leadership
• Optional credential – EcoDistricts Accredited Professional (AP)
Summary of EcoDistricts Protocol
• Neighborhood regeneration through equity,
resilience, & climate protection
• People-centered, multi-year process
• Assessment framework, locally calibrated
• Performance data required to maintain
certification
Group Question 7:
Would the EcoDistricts Protocol be
suitable for Japanese neighborhoods?
Other Notable Tools
Other Notable U.S. Tools for Neighborhoods
• Enterprise Green Communities - affordable housing
• Envision - infrastructure
• LEED-ND - green neighborhood
• SITES - landscape
Other Notable Neighborhood Tools Internationally
• BREEAM Communities – UK
• DGNB Urban Districts - Germany
• Green Star Communities - Australia
• HQE for Urban Planning & Development - France
Group Question 8:
Other Notable Tools?
Current Prospects & Future Trends
Prospects
Sectors with planned green activity next 3 years
Global Average
Trends
• Globalization of tool marketing & brands
• Consolidation of tool providers
• Big data & the Internet of Things
LEED Dynamic
Plaque
Environmentaldashboard.org
OBERLIN, OHIO
We Cannot Afford to Not Appraise Urban Sustainability
Sustainability Savings
SocialEnvironmental Economic
Vitality Gains
Prosperity Improvements
International Mandate – New Urban Agenda
• “We will put in place…mechanisms for cooperation, consultation, and review
processes that create ownership among different stakeholders, for the
elaboration, monitoring, and continuous review of urban policies…”
• “We will foster the creation, promotion, and enhancement of open and
participatory data platforms using technological and social tools…to transfer
and share knowledge among…local governments and other
stakeholders…to enhance effective urban planning and management…”
National Mandate – Japan Future Cities Initiative
Neighborhood
Accounting of
Sustainability
Transactions
Neighborhood Accounting of Sustainability Transactions
Capacity Credit Payments• Less traffic• Less energy• Less water• Less waste
Ecosystem Service Revenues• Stormwater mgmt.• Urban forestry• Wastewater treatment• Pollination
NeighborhoodRegeneration
Funds
Continuous ImprovementSocial &
EconomicImprovements
Improving Appraisal Tools
• Bottom-up approach, greater relevance to daily life
• Affordable cost & simplicity
• Dynamic
• Monetize & account for benefits - GHG, water, waste,
transportation, health
Taking Appraisal Tools Into the Future
• People-centered - relevant to daily life
• Simple, affordable, efficient
• Dynamic, sensor-based
• Transactional – benefits accounting
Group Question 9:
What Are Other Future Prospects for Tools?