Think global certify local E-Book

Anke Jurleit

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 256

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

Global comparability and regional adaptation for community certification systems ----- exemplified by the water infrastructural components in the community.

Leseprobe

A dissertation submitted to the HafenCity University Hamburg in fulfilment of the requirements of the “Promotionsordnung der HafenCity Universität Hamburg“ and for the

Degree of Doktor-Ingenieurin (Dr.-Ing.)

Dissertation by Dipl.-Ing. Anke Jurleit born in Baden / Switzerland

HafenCity University Hamburg, Hamburg, December 2013

Supervisor Prof. Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Dickhaut, HafenCity University Co-Supervisor Prof. Alexander Rudolphi, President German Sustainable Building Council Inspector Prof.Dr.-Ing.habil. Wolfgang Willkomm, Architect

DECLARATION

I certify that except where due acknowledgment has been made, the work is that of the author alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the content of the thesis is the result of work which has been carried out since the official commencement date of the approved research program; andany editorial work, paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged.

Anke Jurleit

Hamburg, 2013

Pic. 00-1: Towndevelopment in Hyderabad India - view from Golconda Fort into Hyderabad, 2013 Anke Jurleit

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“Everything is simpler than you think and at the same time more complex than you imagine.“ (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

The doctorial thesis at hand was written within the timeframe of May 2010 to October 2013 as the final scientific work of my employment at HafenCity University Hamburg and research group `Resource-Efficiency in Architecture and Planning‘.

First of all, I thank my supervisors Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Dickhaut of HafenCity University and Professor Alexander Rudolphi as the ‚Pope‘ of Certificationsystems for their constructive and target-oriented assistance and professional support in both theme selection and working period.

Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to the Indian Green Building Council in Hyderabad for generously providing time and knowledge into the certification system business in India. I want to thank the numerous people I talked to during my research on certification systems, internationalization and regionalization of such systems as well as sustainable community and waterinfrastructure planning.

In particular I want to thank: Anand, Giri, Sripati for walking his township, Shravani, Harshita, Jasveen for her free spirit, ASCI, Maheep, Nagesh, Kiran, Ajay, Kuladeep, Manjeet and Pad. I want to thank Arvind Krishan and Mohammed Asfour for getting me in touch with IGBC in the first place.

Many, many thanks also to my dad, for the numerous inspiring talks and his take on watercycles as an electrical engineer.

Without my RISE interns I never would have gotten a lot of the groundwork done: Thanks to Matt, Mike and Colin for sitting in the office during the summers of 2011, 2012 and 2013.

I also want to thank Lucy, Ismail, Janina , Verena, Dharmik, Zamna and Kathrin for their contributing work.

Thank you also to my family, friends and co-workers in particular Elke and Tobias for supporting me with stimulating criticism, indispensable motivation and by keeping me grounded.

Last but not least it was the rowing season 2013 which kept me focused.

ABSTRACT

This dissertation discusses certification systems (CS) for communities and their structure and choice of indicators and methodologies for sustainable water management. An important component of this work includes an investigation of commonly understood best practices for community scale water management and their comparability at an international level, as well as adaptability to different regional settings.

Certification systems are planning tools to foster sustainability by providing evaluation criteria and benchmarks. Historically, certification systems applied to the single building scale; however, as of 2006, these systems have expanded to encompass the certification of entire communities. In order to transition from the building to the neighborhood scale, new criteria and indicators were added to include relevant community scale aspects such as infrastructure and traffic planning, landscape architecture and social criteria.

Despite recent advances in community scale planning, the development of evaluation criteria for sustainable communities on a global level is easier said than done. At present, a variety of countries have developed their own CS with unique evaluation criteria and indicators. This dissertation identified over 20 different methodologies to assess sustainability at the water cycle management level in the community. The lack of common metrics and evaluation methods reveal that the international certification systems sector is far from being standardized. This raises three questions:

Firstly, whether current CS select, integrate and foster commonly understood best practices for water management; Secondly, the applicability of a single international CS to varying geographic, climatic and socio-economic communities; finally, the integration of relevant indicators for the documentation of sustainability progress. Sustainability indicators comprise an essential component in the overall assessment of progress towards sustainable development. (McLaren and Simonovic 1999) Based on commonly established indicators and best practices for community water quality and quantity management, a core framework will be developed. This framework will focus on the necessary steps CS must undergo for successful development on the international and regional scale, including:

Following a standardized procedure

Striving for international comparability based on appropriate indicator selection

Catering to regional adaptation

Deriving data from indicators and enabling documentation of sustainability progress

Providing comparable data for monitoring, proofing and revising measures, which in turn justifies CS credibility

The developed framework constitutes a common procedure in order to achieve best practice for community water quality and quantity management, a selection of globally accepted core and secondary indicators and a three step process for adaption to regional settings.

A case study of Hyderabad, India, will describe the application to a certain regional settings.

The results of the case study show that it is important to first have an understanding of commonly understood best practices, and that a set of comparative indicators can provide valuable input when it comes to comparing best practices as well as monitoring their progress. The case study also shows the associated restrictions and uncertainties when it comes to the assessment of sustainability at a global level. Ultimately, a core framework with common methodologies and shared data sets across different regions will help to make informed decisions, monitor progress for possible revision making and justifies the further existence of CS themselves.

keywords: Certification systems, sustainable communities, water infrastructure planning for sustainable communities, Ecoblock, key performance indicator, water budgeting

Summary

This paper discusses the practice of community certification systems (CS) at an international level towards gaining a best practice understanding of their ability to perform at a regional level. Certification systems are planning tools to foster sustainability by providing evaluation criteria and benchmarks. Historically, certification systems applied to the single building scale; however, as of 2006, these systems have expanded to encompass the certification of entire communities. In order to transition from the building to the neighborhood scale, new criteria and indicators were added to include relevant community scale aspects such as infrastructure and traffic planning, landscape architecture and social criteria.

Despite recent advances in community scale planning, the development of evaluation criteria for sustainable communities on a global level is easier said than done. At present, a variety of countries have developed their own certification systems with unique evaluation criteria and indicators. This dissertation identified over 20 different methodologies to assess sustainability at the water cycle management level in the community. The lack of common metrics and evaluation methods reveal that the international certification systems sector is far from being standardized.

The main objective of the dissertation was the development of a Best Practice framework of key planning steps for water cycle planning in communities with relevant Key performance indicators (KPI) and the integration of both tools into certification. Both tools attempt to create a common ground of understanding at a global level and therefore reduce complexities associated with the different approaches apparent in certifying. Different approaches show the comparative analysis of selected CS (cf. chapter 3.3). Stemming from the variety of national backgrounds, the lack of a common understanding raised the question of whether the systems operate towards best practices and their original purpose of:

being able to compare across places and situations

assessing conditions and trends in relation to targets

providing early warning information

• anticipating future conditions and trends (Gallopin, 1997, p.15)

Critics describing this problem see one of the main reasons in the brisk development of CS fueled by rapid urbanization and point out “signs of cracks and fissures (...) ranging from concerns about the quality of multiple new services, to larger issues about maintaining environmental and scientific integrity.” (Baker, p.2, 2004).

Consequently the following hypothesis with research questions were developed:

“Certification systems (CS) have neither the necessary structure nor the appropriate sustainability criteria to be comparable at an international level nor are they applicable at regional scales.”

Leading research questions therefor are:

How are commonly understood best pracitce standards and procedures for sustainable water cycle management in the community described? Can a global common denominator for best practice in sustainable water cycle plan ning be defined?

Do the criteria and indicators given in the CS conform with commonly understood best pracitce standards and procedures for sustainable water cycle management in the community?

What structure and criteria would be necessary for CS to be applicable at an internaitonal level and adaptable for regional use? What are existing strategies for international comparability and regional adaptation and how can they be optimized?

Is a core structure and criteria for internaitonal comparability possible, and what are uncertainites and objecitons of this concept?

Since this paper considers CS as a tool to enable “comparability across places and situations” and “providing a common ground for discussion.” (cf. Gallopin), the initial step was the development of a Best Practice framework of key planning steps in order to speak the “same language and ask the same questions.” (Dickhaut, personal conversation, 2013) The developed framework was based on global key policy questions, commonly understood responses at planning and policy levels, and what Trinius points out as an important part in sustainability standardization: to relate to existing approaches and based on known and established sustainability indicators. (UNEP, OECD)

Commonly understood responses to the question of “Is there a common denominator worldwide for best practice in sustainable water cycle management in the community?” were formulated as followed:

With the current environmental and anthropogenic pressures of fast rates of urbanization, accordant missing or aging infrastructure as well as the consequences of climate change and extreme weather events, there is a common ground and global understanding for action to reduce, reuse, recycle and recharge our water resources (subchapters 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.6). As “.. it is becoming increasingly apparent that centralized systems are vulnerable where there are social factors such as high population density and high levels of water demand, and environmental factors such as water stress and flooding. […] A decentralized approach to water management to supplement the centralized system is becoming increasingly attractive, creating a society where water is also managed at a local scale to incorporate the three universal actions for sustainability: Reduce, reuse, recycle” (Wand, 2010, p.2)

This trend towards decentralization and downscaling to guarantee system success on a technical level is introduced as the ECOBLOCK (subchapter 2.1.5), a concept of “an integrated combination of centralized and decentralized management technologies with emphasis on reuse.” (Burian et.al, p.58, 2000).

With this planning concept, neighbourhoods can become their own micro-utilities, supplying most if not all of their resources while treating and recycling their water and waste.

While the ECOBLOCK represents an appropriate tool at the urban and project planning level, on a policy level, indicators are the response to the above question.

Organizations in several sectors have developed Key performance Indicators (KPI) already, leaving out the community scale. As Gallopin (1997) defines indicators as „variables which represent operational attributes, such as quality and characteristics of a system“, they also become a management tool. While describing complex system characteristics in a quantitative way, they help define and measure progress toward system goals. As indicators tend to bridge the gap between complex systems and decision making (Gallopin, 1997), they enable comparative analysis, benchmarking efforts and the support of decision makers.

Key performance Indicators in this paper were defined as tools to be able to monitor success of sustainable water cycle systems in new communities and a total of nine indicators were derived from existing and similar models (cf. ch.2.1.7.1)

In a next step, the Best Practice framework of key planning steps and nine Key performance Indicators served as a backbone for CS comparability analysis and responding to the question:

„Do the criteria and indicators given in the CS conform with commonly understood best practice standards and procedures for sustainable water cycle management in the community?“

The initial analysis of the CS at first compared the systems amongst each other and revealed, that each system had their own approach. Although a core system structure for certification could be identified, (cf. Fig. 03-10) each system chooses different categories, criteria and indicators to rate. Point distribution and rating mechanisms differ significantly from each other due to weighting, priority, and benchmark setting.

When comparing selected community CS with the Best Practice framework of key planning steps, it was revealed that oftentimes ‘not all questions according to the framework were asked.’ Criteria often stand separate from each other despite coherencies and necessary feedback loops are missing; this ‚linear approach‘ was identified as not representative of the complexity of sustainability (see 3.2.3 for example and FIG. 03-11 for overall systemstructure).

When comparing the CS with the nine identified KPI, it showed that they were not explicitly represented in most systems; however, often the computations formed part of the certifying process that would eventually feed into the KPI. Comparability is given at the level of defined Key Performance Indicators (KPI, cf. ch.3.2.3). This meant that CS at this point already provide the information necessary to be able to compare performance through KPI.

The additional instrumental value of KPI measuring progress towards defined benchmarks through the PSR cycle (cf. subchapter 3.1.4) was not installed in most CS. This cycle of setting benchmarks and revising them throughout the performance of a project is seen as a major contributing factor to make CS themselves credible (cf. chapter 4.4) As Lang and others note the difficulties of the choosing and weighting of indicators as a subjective act, it becomes clear, that standards must be subjected to permanent revision. They become credible by continuously being believably observed, measured and reported upon. A lot of the documented CS have already gone through several rounds of revisions. However, the necessary flexibility and adaptability of the standards revision through the PSR cycle (cf. subchapter 3.1.4) for many CS is not yet in place. Doing so would guarantee the credibility of the standards set. (also refer to Point 3: credibility of the CS itself, cf. to subchapters 2.1.3 and 2.1.3 Benchmarking - the first step to rating in particular)

Based on this analysis the following was defined as steps CS must undergo for successful development on the international and regional scale:

Follow a standardized procedure (

Best Practice framework of key planning steps

, cf.

chapter 2.2

)

guarantee international comparability by incorporating appropriate indicator selection (cf.

Key performance indicators

,

ch. 2.1.7.1

)

Follow regional identified adaptation mechanisms through adding impact factors, weight, and benchmarks according to local understanding and conditions (cf. casestudy,

ch. 4.2.1

,

Fig. 04-7

)

based on the PSR cycle derive data from indicators, enabling documentation of sustainability progress (cf.

2.1.7

,

Fig.02-11

)

Provide comparable data to international umbrella organisatin (WorldGBC) for monitoring, proofing and revising measures, which in turn justifies CS credibility (cf. casestudy,

ch. 4.2

,

4.3

,

Fig. 04-6

)

The visit to Hyderabad allowed for the examination of contextual building and certification alike. Several interviews with green building staff and various other stake- and shareholders gave insight into the status of community water cycle planning at large, as well as at the township level. Visited sites gave a picture of how certification impacted the planning, construction, and maintenance of the projects. Taking the status of the township CS into account, conclusions could be drawn towards international comparability and regional operational capacity. Green building staff gave much insight into the further regional actions necessary to “make the case of certifying in its entirety successful.” (Anand ,personal conversation, 2013)

Together with IGBC staff steps to elevate the IGBC community CS to an international level were discussed and in addition to the above steps a cohesive roadmap for overall regional success in building “green” was developed.

This step described as ‚total regional success‘ involves the broad spectrum of necessary stake- and shareholders. One interviewee pointed out the importance of Post occupancy evaluation (POE) and the involvement of residents as a checkpoint of how green the project really is: „Another very important aspect missing in the CS is to set actual benchmarks for consumption. However, it is not enough to require low flush toilets in the certification systems when you later on realize that residents demand up to 200 l per person per day.“ (Anand, personal conversation, 2013). „This aspect is just one of many reasons to put Post occupancy evaluation (POE) on the top of our priority list for green building activity and rating. We need to make sure even more, that green building is an economical success by involving and educating residents and associated project developers.“ (Anand, personal conversation, 2013). ‚Educating green‘ is well described in a network Australia news article on ‚India‘s youth‘: „The quality of higher education in India is poor. Accreditation for universities and colleges is voluntary, and a bill to regulate them has spent the past three years caught up in a parliamentary logjam.“ (Australia network, 2013), which ultimately leads to students „not learning what the new technologies and market is about“. (Australia network, 2013) IGBC‘s broad and widely recognized student initiatives are a response to this gap. Only a three month stay in Hyderabad allowed to extensivley discuss IGBC‘s ‚Road-map to total regional success‘ gathering the important aspects which are key for an overall regional implementation of green building and certification alike. Council business segments and various other layers, such as involving partner from academia and research, industry and planning, were put into context for a capacity building strategy (cf. ch. 4.3, Fig. 04-7)

As discussions and talks confirmed the need for cohesive data and indicator computation, one major hurdle of the visit to Hyderabad was to immediateley test developed KPI and proposed CS adjustments. The KPI developed in this paper could only partially be tested due to limited data availability: townships were either in planning or pre-certification state and not all components of the Best Practice framework of key planning steps were taken into account. In interviews, however, there was no apparent hesitation to provide such data in the future. Older townships in operation could not provide data because accordant metering devices for results reporting were not installed yet.

This become the ultimate crux of the case. As different sets and initiatives of performance measurement and monitoring have been defined in India, the process itself turns out to be rudimentary.

Jane Henley, CEO of the World Green Building Council and widely recognized thought leader in the green building industry, points out the necessity of data retrieval: “Capturing more data on how spaces perform and impact people is the next step in understanding the value of green building.” (McGraw, 2013, p.60) And in the handbook Service Level Benchmarking, the Urban Ministry of India describes the limitations to this aspect, mainly due to the lack of performance monitoring not having been institutionalized: „Every sector has a few key performance indicators that are understood by most stakeholders in that sector. Similarly, in the urban sector too, there have been a number of performance indicators related to urban management and service delivery that have been defined, measured and reported. However, most initiatives in performance management so far have been observed to have some key limitations:

Different sets of performance indicators have been defined under different initiatives;

The definition or the assessment method may vary for the same performance indicator, thus inhibiting inter-city or intra-city comparisons;

Most measurement exercises have been externally driven (by agencies external to the agency responsible for delivery against those performance parameters), leading to the key issue of ownership of performance reports.“

(cf. Handbook of service level benchmarking, Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, 2010)

The indicator approach is easy as long as a particular aspect is measurable (e.g. water consumption l/day/capita). However, when it comes to rating aspects which are not easily measurable, such as cultural and social aspects, Lang says ”The complexity of sustainability, the integration of the different dimensions (environmental, socio, economic) and the open and diffusing content structure of it is the main hurdle for developing a comprehensive indicator set. She later on claims: „indicators are (...) only truly useful if they are ‚owned‘ by the local community and measure issues of relevance locally.“ (The local government management board 1995, p.5) and points out the importance of a multifactoral strategy for building and certifying green.

The Casestudy of Hyderabad showed, that any rating system or indicator system should never be a finished product. In fact, it needs to be a flexible system, open to changes and opportunities for optimization and further methodogical development. It also needs the involvement of people - system developers and green building residents alike, not mentioning the various stake- and shareholders of the green building industry to make the entire case of building green communities successful.

The paper concludes, that

Measuring alone will not lead to success

In 2007, a report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated: “While much discussion and effort has gone into sustainability indicators, none of the resulting systems clearly tells us whether our society is sustainable. At best, they can tell us that we are heading in the wrong direction, or that our current activities are not sustainable. More often, they simply draw our attention to the existence of problems, doing little to tell us the origin of those problems and nothing to tell us how to solve them.” (Hecht, 2007, p.12)

Under the guiding principles of sustainability, in most cases a more detailed examination is necessary, which goes beyond the complementary indicators. “It is absolutely essential to describe, document and explain the interdependencies of complementary and opposing aspects. This documentation rarely happens.” (Birkmann, 1999, p. 104)

Birkmann points out, what has been described earlier and what is an ongoing discussion in urban sustainability assessment. “most currently available methods still fail to demonstrate sufficient understanding of the interrelations and interdependencies of social, economic and environmental considerations. Many reports on sustainability assessment methods point to the absence of truly integrated urban sustainability assessment methods.” (Adinyira et. Al, 2007, p.6)

This paper suggests a framework and KPI as a first step towards an agreed-upon platform for discussion. However, to make the entire case successful, a range of complex steps is necessary

How can the KPI proposed in this paper feed into or more complex sustainabillity understanding, taking into account water-related sustainability complexities, such as the water - energy nexus, as well as a social and economic understanding?

What else beside the role suggested in this paper can strengthen an international umbrella organisation, such as the WorldGBC, under the influence of more or less competing national green building councils and other larger organisations?

How can the long-term effects of CS be measured and how are they situated among the various other planningtools, regulations and policies? Which policies are supporting of and which are decreasing the effectiveness of CS?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Summary

Abbreviations

Common Terminologies

List of Pictures/Images

List of Figures

List of Tables

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The broader context

1.2 Research design of the dissertation

2.0 Best practice attempt for sustainable water infrastructure in the community

2.0 Introduction and main objectives of the chapter

2.1 Sustainable water cycle management for new communities

2.1.1 Background: the sustainability journey in water infrastructure planning

2.1.2 Pressures - environmental and social-economic

2.1.3 Responses - global policies and guiding principles

2.1.4 Responses - policies and guiding principles in India

2.1.5 Responses at the planning level - the Ecoblock concept

2.1.6 Responses at the project planning and design level - the 4 RRRRs

2.1.7 Responses - indicators for measuring progress

2.1.7.1 Overview – resources, main criteria and approach to choosing and designing KPIs for community water cycle management

2.2 Best Practice framework of key planning steps and indicator development

2.2.1 Overview – conceptual framework of key planning steps for community water cycle management

2.2.2 Step One - Recharge

2.2.3 Step Two – Reduce

2.2.4 Step Three – Reuse + Recycle

3.0 Certification systems for communities

3.0 Introduction and main objectives of the chapter

3.1 Background

3.1.1 Certification - a popular tool

3.1.2 The challenge - green noise and market confusion

3.1.3 The goal of certification and associated difficulties - making sustainability measurable

3.1.4 Certification as the final step ...and then what?

3.2 System development / system structure

3.2.1 Critical assessment of system development process

3.2.2 Comparison of system structure of community certification systems

3.2.3 Criterium (credit) and indicators

3.2.4 Setting benchmarks - another first step to set the bar

3.3 Comparative analysis - comparing selected certification systems with best practice

3.4 Certification systems - performance at an international level and regional adaptation strategies - status quo

3.5 Conclusions and guiding thoughts for case study approach

4.0 Case Study

4.0 Introduction and main objectives of the chapter

4.1 Case study of Hyderabad, India – signifying rapid urbanization in developing countries

4.1.1 Hyderabad and its water sources – depleting and polluted

4.1.2 Wastewater management

4.1.3 The Indian Green Building Council in Hyderabad and typical townships

4.2 Internationalization – finding a common language for comparability

4.2.1 Regionalization

4.3 Case study – steps to evaluate to the international level and guarantee ‘regional success’

4.4 Institutionalizing internationalization – keeping targets and strategy on track through KPI

5.0 Conclusion

Sources and Appendices

Bibliography and References

Appendix A: Overview of community certification systems around the world

Appendix B: formulary

Appendix C: HafenCity Universität – Administrative Documents and Interview Questions

Appendix D: List of Contacts/Interviewees

ABBREVIATIONS

BHWBasic Human Water Indicator (by Gleick)BMPBest management practices (refer to ‚common terminologies‘)BPBest PracticeBREBritish Research EstablishmentBREEAMBritish Research Establishment Environmental Assessment MethodCASBEEComprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental EfficiencyCSCertifiaction System(s)CSECenter for Science and Environment, IndiaDGNBDeutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges BauenEEAEuropean Environment AgencyESTIDAMAArabic word for sustainabilityGBCGreen Building CouncilGBCAGreen Building Council of AustraliaGBIGreen Building IndexIGBCIndian Green Building CouncilIN 1Indicator 1 / WAI - Water availability IndexIN 2Indicator 2/ WA ratio - Internal vx. external available resourcesIN 3Indicator 3 / W prod - total waterproduction of recycled resources indicatorIN 4Indicator 4 / D ratio - demand against Gleick IndicatorIN 5Indicator 5 / D ratio - demand coverage ratioIN 6Indicator 6 / RW share - Rainwater useIN 7Indicator 7 / WW prod - % of treated water for re-useIN 8Indicator 8 / WW cov - wastewater to demand coverageIN 9Indicator 9 / WW treat - wastewater treatment quality indexISOInternational Organization for StandardizationKPIKey Performance Indicator(s)LEEDLeadership in Energy and Environmental DesignLEED-NDLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design - Neighborhood DevelopmentLIDLow impact design (refer to ‚common terminologies‘)OECDOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPOEPost occupancy evaluationPSRPressure-State-ResponseSISustainability indicatorTAGTechnical Advisory GroupUNEPUnited Nations Environmental Protection agencyUSGBCUnited States Green Building CouncilWGBCWorld Green Building Council

COMMON TERMINOLOGIES

What is a Sustainable Community?

There are many definitions for what constitutes a sustainable community, but the Sustainable Community Roundtable of Olympia, Washington explains a sustainable community most succinctly as a place where “resource consumption is balanced by resources assimilated by the ecosystem” (Sustainable Community Roundtable, Olympia, Washington, 2012). Beyond prudently balancing resources, sustainable communities strive to achieve social equity and cohesion, protect and enhance existing ecosystems, and provide for sustainable economic growth (Bonham-Carter, 2010). “To ‘green’ their own operations,” sustainable communities often practice sustainable development and aim to reduce the carbon footprint of its residents, business, buildings, and vehicles through capital projects, and community outreach and education (Nolon, 2009, p. 4).

Why a community focus? Community, township, neighborhood discussion

For this dissertation the word “community” has been chosen to refer to a residential grouping of homes, local businesses, and other amenities that provide the basic physical, social, and economic needs for individuals living there. The term community is popular among authors and researchers (e.g. Patrick Condon, Woodrow W. Clark II, and Claire Bonham-Carter), who are looking at sustainability on this scale. Other sources such as the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) refer to these mixed-use residential areas as “townships,” but in addition to the consensus around the term “community” a township instills the idea of governance and administration over several village or community areas. Alternatively some sources refer to mixed-use residential areas as neighborhoods, like the US-GBC in their LEED Neighborhood Design rating system (U.S. Green Building Council, 2009). Since the scale of communities described in this dissertation comes from the ECOBLOCK notion of a residential are that can be largely self-sustaining in energy and water, the neighborhood scale of “400-10,000 units of housing,” has the potential to be too large to accurately meet these closed loop goals (Fraker, 2013).

Ecoblock

The Ecoblock concept was developed by a research team at UC Berkeley’s College of Environmental Design under Harrison Fraker. The concept revolves around the idea of self-sufficiency, or semi-sufficiency in energy and water needs for a mixed-use residential area. The size of this residential area is largely dependant on the level of resource and energy self-sufficiency the residential area can achieve, and will be the scale of community development referred to throughout this dissertation (Fraker, 2013).

Water infrastructure