One Planet Living in the suburbs written by Anna Francis and Joanne Wheeler, November 2006 Contents Acknowledgements 2 Introduction 4 One Planet Living 8 Section A: The Suburban Context 12 Sustainable communities 24 Section B: One Planet Living in the Suburbs 28 Zero carbon 29 Zero waste 45 Sustainable transport 54 Sustainable water 67 Sustainable materials 72 Local and sustainable food 77 Natural habitats and wildlife 84 Culture and heritage 87 Equity and fair trade 90 Health and happiness 94 Key findings and conclusions 97 Ecological Footprint Summary 97 Key Recommendations 100 Appendices 108 References 111 1 Acknowledgements This report was funded by WWF and co-authored by Anna Francis (BioRegional Consulting) and Jo Wheeler (WWF). We would like to thank everyone who inputted into the report and in particular the Solihull Residents Association and the Stockholm Environmment Institue who provided the baseline footprinting data. List of Tables Table 1 - OPL principles Table 2 - Types of suburb Table 3 - Local areas by density Table 4 - Barriers and incentives needed to minimise energy demand Table 5 - Average costs and savings from typical energy efficiency improvements Table 6 - Barriers and incentives needed to increase use of sustainable energy sources Table 7 - Ecological footprint of domestic energy for each scenario showing savings compared to scenario 1 Table 8 - Barriers and incentives needed to implement zero waste in the suburbs Table 9 - Ecological footprint of waste and consumer items for each scenario with savings over scenario 1 Table 10 - Barriers and incentives needed to minimise transport demand in the suburbs Table 11 - Barriers and incentives needed to maximise use of sustainable transport options in the suburbs Table 12 - Ecological footprint of mobility for each scenario showing savings compared to scenario 1 Table 13 - Barriers and incentives needed to minimise water use in the suburbs Table 14 - Water demand for each scenario showing savings compared to scenario 1 Table 15 - Environmental impact of window frame materials Table 16 - Ecological footprint of waste and consumer items for each scenario with savings over scenario 1 Table 17 - Barriers and incentives needed to increase provision and procurement of local sustainable food in suburbia Table 18 - Ecological footprint of food for each scenario showing savings compared to scenario 1 Table 19 - Barriers and incentives needed to protect and enhance natural habitats and wildlife in suburbia Table 20 - Barriers and incentives needed to enhance equity and fair trade in suburbia Table 21 - Barriers and incentives needed to enhance health and happiness in suburbia Table 22 - Summary of actions, incentives and policies needed at individual, local and national level to facilitate One Planet Living in suburbia List of Figures Figure 1 - Ecological footprint of Solihull Figure 2 - Population and housing location in the UK Figure 3 – Solihull’s location Figure 4 - Solihull’s population by age group Figure 5 - Solihull multiple deprivation score by ward Figure 6 - Solihull housing stock by tenancy type Figure 7 - Solihull ethnic composition Figure 8 - Solihull’s top 10 ecological footprints Figure 9 - Comparison of Solihull’s and the West Midlands’ ecological footprint Figure10 - DCLG vision for sustainable communities Figure 11 - Kilograms of CO2 for different house ages Figure 12 - CO2 emissions from household heat loss Figure 13 - Per capita energy consumed by north-east households of different sizes Figure 14 - Energy consumption in households by end use 2 Figure 15 - House types in Solihull by ward Figure 16 - Carbon saving and cost per carbon unit saved Figure 17- Average household waste streams Figure 18 - Waste and recyclables according to affluence and area type Figure 19 - Money spent on wasted goods and services in the West Midlands Figure 20 - UK individual transport by purpose Figure 21 - Personal transport patterns by purpose and mode Figure 22 - Transport modes by ward, Solihull Figure 23 - Facilities supported by 5,000 suburban homes 3 Introduction THE CHALLENGE WWF’s Living Planet Report1 tells us that if everyone around the world consumed natural resources and polluted the environment as we currently do in the UK, we would need three planets to support us. The Living Planet Report uses Ecological Footprinting (EF) analysis to reach this conclusion. EF is an accounting tool that represents the environmental impacts of a process or a person’s lifestyle in terms of the area of land or sea that is required to produce sustainably a particular natural resource or to absorb waste from its consumption; or, in the case of energy, to absorb the corresponding CO2 emissions generated, using prevailing technology. EF measures the area of biologically productive land that is required to meet the needs of a given product, person or population; it compares this area with the available area on Earth, and informs us whether we are living within the Earth’s regenerative capacity. The areas of land or sea calculated by EF could be anywhere in the world, and Ecological Footprints are measured in ‘global hectares’. Ecological Footprint figures in the Living Planet Report inform us that it currently takes around 5.6 global hectares of biologically productive land to support each person in the UK. A sustainable Ecological Footprint or ‘Earth Share’, taking into account the protection of biodiversity and areas deemed unproductive, is approximately 1.8 global hectares per person; this figure is falling due to decreasing bioproductivity and increasing human population. Hence, it can be concluded that if everyone on the planet consumed as much as the average person in the UK, we would need three planets to support us. We need to develop sustainable lifestyles that help us reduce our Ecological Footprint to a level that our one planet can sustain – this is vital to ensure the health of our planet and our long-term survival. OUR IMPACTS AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The image below shows the relative contributions of different lifestyle elements that make up the ‘three planet’ lifestyle of an average resident of Solihull in the West Midlands: 4 Figure 1: Ecological Footprint of Solihull2 3% 4% 22% 19 13 11% 8% 13% 7% % % Food and Drink Energy Land Travel Housing Consumables Services Holiday Activities Capital Investment Government and Other It is evident that all aspects of our lifestyles that contribute towards our Ecological Footprints are inextricably linked to our local and regional physical infrastructure and built environment. We travel to work and school, for leisure, and to access services; we travel to purchase food, which is made available to us through a system that uses roads, warehouses and airports; we use energy and water in our buildings as well as on our roads and in public spaces; we use services such as schools and hospitals that are part of our local built environment and with which we share infrastructure such as energy, waste and telecommunications networks. The built environment offers us many opportunities to live sustainably but also throws up potential barriers to doing so. When our local services are not close by, we tend to drive to them; poorly insulated buildings make us consume more energy than is necessary. However, when given the opportunity, many people choose sustainable lifestyle options: we increasingly choose organic products as they become more easily available in ordinary markets; incentives such as the Clear Skies Grant catalysed actions from a variety of stakeholders and made a substantial contribution to micro energy generation; at BedZEDi the car club helped residents cut their transport 3 related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 1.3 tonnes per resident per year . It is thus crucial that we create places, and put in place incentives, that make it easy for residents and users to choose sustainable lifestyle options. New house-building initiatives (such as the new ‘sustainable communities’ in growth areas such as the Thames Gateway) offer clear opportunities to capitalise on sustainability thinking and put in place energy-efficient, well- connected neighbourhoods, where residents will find it easier than average to live in a sustainable manner, with a reduced Ecological Footprint. These opportunities have been documented in detail by two BioRegional Development Group studies, One Planet Living in the Thames Gateway (2003) (conducted with WWF), and Z- Squared: Enabling One Planet Living in the Thames Gateway (2004)ii. i Beddington Zero (fossil) Energy Development – BedZED – is a mixed-use eco-village in South London. The village comprises 82 homes, live work units, commercial space and community facilities. In addition to the high performance buildings, BedZED offers services and facilities, such as a car club and food-growing areas, to support the residents in living sustainably. ii Both study reports are available from BioRegional’s website, www.bioregional.com 5 Given the predicted timescales of the environmental challenges and climatic changes we face and the significant impact of existing dwellings, we cannot afford to focus solely on new house-building initiatives. EXISTING STOCK IN THE SUBURBS Existing housing stock in the UK contributes 27% of national CO2 emissions, uses half of all public water and generates 8% of total waste4. In addition, renewal rates of existing housing stock are low, at approximately 1% a year, and it is predicted that two-thirds of the dwellings that will be standing in 2050 are already in existence5. Improving the performance of existing communities is therefore vital in helping to reduce the ecological footprint of the UK as a whole. A recent study by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) examines the CO2 emissions and Ecological Footprint of existing and new buildings in the Leeds city region, looking at how 15 different policy scenarios will affect the CO2 emissions associated with housing between 2003 and 2026. The study concludes that “retrofitting the existing housing stock is the single most important housing policy with regard to CO2 reductions – on a per household basis as well as in reducing long-term overall emissions.