Iterative 'what-if' neighborhood simulation: Energy and emissions impacts

Salter, J; Lu, Y; Kim, J C; Kellett, R; Girling, C; Inomata, F and Krahn, A (2020) Iterative 'what-if' neighborhood simulation: Energy and emissions impacts. Buildings & Cities, 1(1), pp. 293-307. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

As efforts to address climate change shift to action at local scales, municipalities are called upon to develop locally specific action plans. Many municipalities lack the resources to develop energy and emissions-reducing policy interventions appropriate to their characteristics. This research synthesises urban form, scenario analysis and energy simulation into a cohesive workflow for evaluating energy and emissions policy interventions across a range of urban forms. A geospatial and census analysis of six cities across British Columbia, Canada, led to the development of seven urban neighborhood patterns. These represent neighborhood forms and densities found in cities of various sizes, densities, forms and climates. To test the approach of an urban built environment model (UBEM), retrofit and infill redevelopment 'what-if' scenarios were applied iteratively to two sample patterns comparing the relative efficacy of building technology-improvement policies versus land-use intensification policies. The future 'what-if' policy scenarios were spatially tested and validated using relevant policy. The simplified UBEM methods applied to typical patterns and development demonstrates a step towards an accessible and flexible modeling approach. Small and medium-sized municipalities can use this approach to assess and compare potential energy and emissions policy options and outcomes at building and neighborhood scales. Practice relevance A new, simple method has been created for municipalities to understand multiple 'what-if' scenarios for reducing energy demand and emissions from buildings. This is based on profiles from census data, geospatial analysis and energy data that characterise urban neighborhood patterns. The approach integrates building-scale and neighborhood-scale energy and greenhouse gas simulations. It can simulate a variety of policy scenarios and strategy interventions in order to show the interactions between and among urban form and retrofit options. This enables planners and decision-makers to compare the relative magnitudes of different interventions at the neighborhood or city level for energy and emissions performance. The model was developed for use by a variety of communities in British Columbia, Canada. There is potential for adapting this method for use in other locations.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: buildings; energy demand; energy model; energy policy; neighborhood; urban morphology; 'what-if' scenarios
Index terms: energy model, strategy, Canada, energy policy, density, energy simulation, energy demand, building technology, interaction, redevelopment, modelling, workflow, land, option, greenhouse gas, geospatial analysis, municipality, climate change, urban form, urban morphology, scenario analysis, built environment, planner
Subjects: Geography, management, urban form and morphology, spatial and geospatial analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, administrative law, behavioral psychology, decision analysis, engineering systems, climate science, profession, policy studies, energy systems, analytical methods, modelling and simulation, real estate economics, public policy
Topics: Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Governance, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here