Content uploaded by Maarten Van Reeuwijk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maarten Van Reeuwijk on Apr 03, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Blue Green Solutions
A Systems Approach to Sustainable, Resilient
and Cost-Efficient Urban Development
Credits
Mr Ranko Bozovic, EnPlus consultancy
Contributed to all chapters using his expertise in
the field of Blue Green planning methodology and
BG solutions optimisation processes.
Prof. Cedo Maksimovic, Imperial College London
The founder and leader of the Climate-KIC Blue
Green Dream project, Cedo provided strategic
oversight and contributed to the BG Systems im-
plementation framework both for this guide and
in practice.
Dr Ana Mijic, Imperial College London
Ana’s expertise is in urban water management
and modelling of integrated urban water systems
(groundwater, land surface, drainage and green
infrastructure) for climate change resilience. She
contributed to chapters two and four.
Dr Karl M. Smith, London South Bank University
Karl managed the Blue Green Dream project be-
tween 2013 and 2014 and has an established
track record in environmental engineering re-
search. He has provided copy writing/editing in-
put to the guide.
Mr Ivo Suter, Imperial College London
Ivo is currently conducting a doctorate on simu-
lating the effect of green roofs on the urban mi-
cro-climate. He contributed to the Imperial Col-
lege Case Study.
This guide was funded by Climate-KIC. We wish
to thank Sean Lockie, Aled Thomas and Gina
Lovett from Climate-KIC for their strong support
and their astute and insightful feedback on the
guide’s content and presentation.
We would like to acknowledge all project partners
of the Climate-KIC Innovation project The Blue
Green Dream (BGD), which ran from 2012 to 2015.
Dr Maarten van Reeuwijk, Imperial College London
Maarten specialises in the modelling of wind, air
quality and heat transfer in the built environment.
He contributed to all chapters and was the editor
for the guide.
Graphics: Mikser
Creative direction: Maja Lalic
Graphic design: Jovan Pavlovic
Illustrations: Natalia Zwick
www.mikser.rs
Contributors
Acknowledgements
Foreword
Urbanisation is a hallmark of the modern world.
As we so often hear, more than 75 per cent of the
global population will live in cities by 2030. This
pace and scale of urbanisation is transforming
landscapes: metros run where rivers once mean-
dered, motorways have replaced tracts of forest,
and tall buildings increasingly cast their shadow.
Glittering skyscrapers and the glow of city lights
may have come to symbolise progress, but in the
face of climate change, masses of glass, concrete
and tarmac can render the city a hostile place.
Sweltering temperatures, urban heat islands, im-
permeable surfaces, swollen drains, flooding and
air pollution all pose severe threats to the health
and stability of our cities.
The simple truth is we can’t keep building bigger
tunnels or covering over surfaces in ways that en-
courage downstream flooding, suffocate biodiver-
sity and cause our cities to overheat. The solution
is to re-introduce nature back into our cities.
An increasingly mobile global workforce is looking
for high quality, healthy urban environments – re-
source-efficient, climate-friendly infrastructure,
green space and clean air. Pocket parks, trees as
shading and cooling, and natural drainage systems
all have highly desirable environmental benefits,
but making the case economically is not always
easy.
It involves transition from old ways of perceiving
nature in our cities as costly maintenance or nui-
sance to understanding the myriad value – lower
life cycle costs, enhanced property values, and im-
proved health. While cities have the talent, knowl-
edge and ambition to make this transition, putting
this holistic perspective into practice is an entirely
different matter.
As a leader in climate innovation, the Climate-KIC
community is working to explore and develop nov-
el solutions for cities. We believe that integrating
nature into urban development offers vital restor-
ative potential and can deliver attractive world
class urban environments.
Our new Blue Green Solutions guide, which con-
solidates nearly three years of research led by
our partner Imperial College London, is aimed at
planners, developers and consultants working in
cities. It paves the way for nature-based solutions
– Blue Green Solutions – providing crucial insights
into how cities can harness the power of nature to
meet the challenges of today.
What’s remarkable about this particular approach
is its holistic planning framework that considers
city functions at the systems level, quantifying
both the tangible and non-tangible performance
of nature-based solutions.
This guide challenges the status quo. As biomim-
icry expert and architect Michael Pawlyn says, “if
we can learn to do things the way nature does, we
could achieve factor ten, fac tor 100, or maybe even
factor 1,000 savings in resource and energy use”.
Urbanisation might be the hallmark of today, but
by scaling and integrating nature-based solutions,
the blue green city can be the hallmark of tomor-
row.
Sean Lockie
Director of Urban Transitions, Climate-KIC
Contents
Credits ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2 Blue Green Solutions for Urban Transition ......................................................................................................... 9
3 Integrated Design and Pre-planning ....................................................................................................................17
4 Quantification of the Benefits of BG Solutions ...............................................................................................23
5 Case Studies .....................................................................................................................................................................28
Case study 1: Zagreb University Campus ...............................................................................................30
Case study 2: London Decoy Brook ............................................................................................................32
Case study 3: Budapest City Park (Varos Liget) ...................................................................................34
Case study 4: Marlowe Road, London ........................................................................................................36
Case study 5: City of Šabac .............................................................................................................................38
Case study 6: Imperial College London .....................................................................................................40
6 Outlook ...............................................................................................................................................................................43
References ...........................................................................................................................................................................46
Short on time? We give a brief overview of the main principles of the BG Systems
Approach in the accompanying video. To access it, either scan the QR code or use
the following URL: http://bit.ly/2mM18H0
7
Blue Green Solutions Guide
1 Introduction
Between 1950 and 2014, the global urban
population underwent a five-fold increase,
rising from 0.75 billion to 3.9 billion. Increased
urbanisation brings with it a host of problems:
increased pressure on essential resources such
as food and water; increased air pollution due to
transportation; loss of biodiversity; and increased
risk of ill health (Figure 1).
The challenge posed by urbanisation is, however,
magnified when coupled with climate change.
Climate change is expected to lead to more
extreme weather events in the form of severe
floods, droughts and heat waves1-6. Such events
can spell disaster for a city, especially when
it is already dealing with the challenges that
increasing urbanisation presents.
Urban pressures
1
Flood Risk
Water Pollution
Drought
Air Pollution
Urban Heat Island
Health & Comfort
Noise
Crime
Resource
Inefficiency
$
8
Urban planners and local governments are
working to address these challenges. Many
recognise that bringing Nature Based Solutions
into the city is a powerful remedy for alleviating
urban pressures and achieving resilience to
climate change.
Proven benefits of Nature Based Solutions7-12
include reduction of water and air pollution,
mitigation of flood risk and heat islands, increased
resource efficiency, as well as provision of areas
for recreation/amenity and urban agriculture. A
key advantage is that being vegetation based,
their construction and operation has a low carbon
and materials footprint. Other benefits include
improved financial and aesthetic property values,
job creation, reduced building running costs and
lower health and insurance premiums.
However, at present we are not getting the best
out of Nature Based Solutions (NBS), neither
for new developments, nor for retrofits. NBS
are often used in a mono-functional way, e.g. to
provide shading or detain stormwater runoff, or
simply for their aesthetic value. Moreover, they
are usually valued only in terms of their benefits
to the developer/principal stakeholder(s).
In fact, a key advantage of NBS is that they
can provide multiple benefits to multiple
stakeholders. Many of these co-benefits only
arise when NBS are planned so as to utilise their
beneficial interactions (synergies) with the local
urban environment. The challenge therefore,
both for new developments and for retrofits, is to
enable current urban planning practice to realise
the synergistic benefits of NBS.
The Climate-KIC Innovation project Blue Green
Dream (2012-2015), led by Imperial College
London, initiated a step-change in how we map
and exploit the potential benefits of NBS. A
key focus was the use of NBS to achieve urban
sustainability and climate change resilience. What
really set the Blue Green Dream project apart
from other NBS (especially, green infrastructure)
projects were two key innovations:
Its holistic, integrated planning
methodology, which entails engaging
with a wide panel of stakeholders across
the whole planning process.
The concept of modelling, quantifying and
optimising potential synergies between
NBS, local water resources, the local built
environment and climate, innovations
in urban design and architecture, etc.,
to achieve lower life-cycle costs and
enhanced benefits.
The Blue Green Dream project was awarded
the 2015 Business Green Technology Award for
Research and Development Programme of the
Year13.
This guide presents the integrated planning
methodology developed from the Blue Green
Dream Project, referred to hereafter as the Blue
Green (BG) Systems approach.
We showcase several case studies, each
demonstrating a different element of our
approach. The case studies show that through
applying this holistic, quantitative approach to
their planning and design, NBS can be highly cost-
effective. Not only do they increase the value
of developments, but they deliver substantial
savings in operational costs.
This guide contributes to Climate-KIC’s ‘Urban
Transitions’ theme, sh owcasing its novel a pproach
to creating low carbon and resilient cities.
9
Blue Green Solutions Guide
2 Blue Green Solutions for Urban
Transition
Increasing urbanisation, climate change and
extreme weather conditions are resulting in
increased urban stresses. These include water
and air pollution and resource scarcit y, all of which
are reducing urban liveability. Adaptation to, and
mitigation of these pressures is a major concern
at EU and international levels.
Initially, Nature Based Solutions (NBS)14,1 5 such
as green roofs and walls, rain gardens, swales,
etc., were conceived as a means of both locally
managing rainfall (surface) runoff and improving
amenities. Such interventions are commonly
termed Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
(SUDS)16. More recently, macro-scale concepts
such as Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)17,
have enhanced and broadened the SUDS concept
by recognising the role that NBS can play in
holistically managing urban water resources.
The Blue Green Dream (BGD) project18,19 built
upon and expanded the SUDS and WSUD
Historical development of Blue Green Solutions (BG-S) via SUDS and WSUD
2
concept (Figure 2) to produce a systematic22,
quantitative framework for utilising the full
range of ecosystem services that NBS provide,
yielding Blue Green Solutions. Within the urban
context, ecosystem services provide a means of
mitigating not only water related problems, but
also urban development pressures such as urban
heat islands, air pollution and resource scarcity
(Figure 3).
A range of successful examples of the
implementation of associated aspects of the
NBS concept exist worldwide. These include: the
Gardens by the Bay, Singapore20; the High Line
Park, New York21; the Blue Green Wave, Paris 22;
City Park, Budapest23 ; the Village Nature Resort,
Paris24; the Multifunctional Urban Water System
in Lindenhof in Berlin-Lichtenberg; Curitiba city,
Brazil25; the Multifunctional roof garden and
campus, Yuntou Co, China; the Wild West End
project, London26; and the Smart Sustainable
Districts development, Utrecht27.
Water
Supply City
Sewered
City
Drained
City
Waterway
City
Water Cycle
City
Water Sensitive
City
Blue Green
Dream
SUDS WSUD BG-S
2000 20121990
10
NBS-related ecosystem services
3
Resources
efficiency
Air quality
UHI mitigation
Well-being
Noise reduction
Flood mitigation
Biodiversity
Water quality
Aesthetics
NBS-related
Ecosystem Services
11
Blue Green Solutions Guide
Augustenborg, Malmö, Sweden.
The Augustenborg development in Malmö
is designed to be a socially, economically
and environmentally sustainable
neighbourhood. It is one of Sweden´s
largest urban sustainability projects, was
supported by the government´s Local
Investment Programme and also financed
by key local partners within Malmö City and
the MKB housing company.
The project’s results indicate that
Augustenborg has become an attractive,
multicultural neighbourhood in which
the turnover of tenancies has decreased
by almost 20 per cent and adverse
environmental impacts have decreased by a
similar degree.
Blue Green Wave, Paris, France.
The Blue Green Wave28 is a one hectare
green roof (the largest in the Paris region)
located at Cite Descartes, at the École des
Ponts ParisTech campus. Initially designed
to deliver only amenity/aesthetic related
functions, it has been transformed into a
research-oriented demo site. Completed
in 2014, it is equipped with monitoring
equipment to understand the roof’s
hydrological behaviour and with sensors
collecting data on rainfall, soil water
content, temperature and run-off. The
ultimate objective is to understand the
interactions between water and green
infrastructure and hence, optimise the
use of such assets for storm water
management and urban cooling.
12
Wild West End, London, UK.
Gardens by the Bay, Singapore.
This project in London’s West End will
ultimately create an extensive network of
green corridors which form connections
between large areas of parkland in London
in order to enhance biodiversity and
improve ecological connectivity. One of
the unique features of the project is that it
involves a collaboration between several
land owners: The Crown Estate, Grosvenor
Britain & Ireland, Shaftesbury, the Howard
de Walden Estate and The Portman
Estate. Each partner has committed to
setting green infrastructure objectives
for their portfolios and working together
to share information and data on green
infrastructure projects across their estates.
The “super trees” act as a tourist attraction,
provide recreational areas for locals
and encourage biodiversity. As well as
supporting many different species of plants,
some are also equipped with photovoltaics
and/or act as air intake and exhaust vents
(for the neighbouring cooled conservatory
complex) to make them more sustainable.
With the Gardens by the Bay project,
Singapore benefits from a large recreational
area with many environmentally
advantageous functions: e.g. water run-
off from the gardens is filtered by reed
systems and lakes before being discharged
into the sea. Additionally, all the cooling
energy needs and circa 80 per cent of
the conservatory complex’s energy
consumption is created on site.
13
Blue Green Solutions Guide
The large-scale implementation of NBS has
faced various barriers. Traditionally, cities have
tried to achieve various sustainability targets
using planners’/architects’/designers’ perception
of sustainability and their knowledge and
experience. These individual targets include
improvement of vegetation/green space
coverage and energy efficiency, creation of “green
corridors” for enhanced biodiversity, etc. Whilst
implemented solutions have been successful
from the perspective of achieving individual
sustainability targets, they have left much of the
multi-functional potential of NBS untapped.
In order to achieve a successful transition to a
sustainable, resilient and cost-effective city, it is
necessary to integrate NBS systematically and
more efficiently with other urban components
(e.g. streets, roofs, façades, infrastructure - see
Figure 4). This requires consideration of the city
and its functions at the systems level. In doing
so, the performance of the NBS in terms of all
the ecosystem services they provide can be
quantified, both in terms of tangible (e.g. flood risk
reduction) and non-tangible (e.g. health and well-
being) benefits and costs.
Examples of urban components
4
BG Systems Approach
Interactions-Based Planning
The Blue Green (BG) Systems approach for
innovative urban planning produces optimised
urban solutions, hereafter referred to as Blue
Green (BG) solutions. These harness the synergy
benefits between urban components and
ecosystem services, resulting in significantly
more efficient and cost-effective, multifunctional
urban solutions (Figure 5).
The BG Systems approach is applicable to all
climates (with the possible exception of the
polar regions) and socio-economic conditions.
Moreover, it is applicable at different scales: from
an individua l building to an entire city. It ca n also be
1
1Building
2
2Street
3
3Trees 4Solar water heating
4
5"Multi-functional" green wall
5
6"Multi-functional" roof garden
6
7Storm water harvesting and recycling 8Food production
8
9Ground water aquifer 10 Constructed wetland Pocket park
9
11 Urban streams and ponds
12
11
12
10
7
14
used to help corporations and public institutions
achieve stringent sustainability targets.
Figure 6 gives an illustration of the multiple
interactions and the resulting benefits for a
“multifunctional” tree. In addition to the tree’s
aesthetic value, its benefits include urban
heat island mitigation (via both shading and
evaporative cooling), storm water flood risk
reduction, noise and air pollution reduction and
acting as a wind barrier. These functions interact
with the urban microclimate, building massing,
indoor comfort, energy consumption and outdoor
environment quality.
In many cases, the tree’s functions can be
enhanced/maintained without excessive use
of potable water: for example, by irrigation with
harvested roof and street rainfall runoff and
recycled grey water. If integrated adequately,
many synergy benefits will result29. Under the
BG Systems approach these interactions are
modelled and quantified to inform the choice and
positioning of trees for the area. This includes
careful selection of t he tree species bas ed on their
characteristics and the specific requirements
they will need to fulfil.
BG Solutions concept
5
The multi-functional interactions and benefits of a tree
6
Ecosystem
Services
BG System
Approach
Urban
Components
BG
SOLUTIONS
Pedestrian
Shading Heat Island
Shading Building
Shading Adiabatic
Cooling Evapo-
transpiration
Flood Risk
Reduction
INTERACTING WITH
TREE FUNCTIONS
RESULTING SYNERGY BENEFITS
Wind
Barrier
Micro
Climate Building
Massing Indoor
Comfort Energy
Consumption Outdoor
Environment
Quality
Urban heat island effect reduced
Outdoor air evaporative cooling
Buildings more comfortable
Buildings using less energy
Building envelope cheaper
Surface flood risk reduction
Higher property value
Healthier environment
Reduced noise and air pollution
Better conditions for pedestrians
Enhanced scope for socialising
Water management more effective
15
Blue Green Solutions Guide
Stakeholder Benefits
The holistic nature of the BG Systems approach
ensures benefits for all stakeholders. Key
stakeholders, listed in order of their potential
influence for enabling change, are presented in
Figure 7. For example, Figure 7 shows that if policy
makers introduce BG Systems compliant planning
standards, then benefits would be created at the
Systems, Project and User levels.
It is envisaged that existing development
certification schemes, such as BREEAM and
LEED, will need to be augmented with BG
Systems concepts and criteria. Engagement of
policy makers will be key to achieving this shift.
Discipline Integrators: the BG Team
The BG Systems approach differs substantially
from current planning practice. Its full
effectiveness will therefore be achieved only if
a transition in operations occurs to safeguard
compliance with the systematic methodology
presented in this guide. The success of the
approach is fo unded upon centralise d coordination
of and communication between multidisciplinary
teams.
The BG Systems approach adds a new
part icipatory group to t he urban planning process:
The BG team. The BG team’s prime responsibility
is to work with and coordinate the different
disciplines (Figure 8). The experts in the BG team
will be fully familiar with BG Systems approach.
The shading of four trees can save 25 per cent of the energy needed for cooling a building. In doing so,
they offset about 3-5 times more carbon than a tree in a forest30.
7Benefits of the BG Systems approach for stakeholders involved in urban planning
Reduction of
Life Cycle Costs
Maximised
System
Performance
Higher Level
of Sustainability
& Environmental
Quality
More Efficient
Design Process
Market Leadership
Corporate Prestige
New Construction Standards
Increased Profitability
Reduced Resource Usage
Increased Resilience
Improved
Quality of Life
and Reduced
Living Costs
Stakeholder Benefits
Policy and Law Makers
Strategic Planners
Developers
Consultancies
Asset Owners
Users
Enabling Change
System Level
Project Level
User Level
16
8Shifting from silos to integrated systems: the BG Systems approach
Landscape
Architect
Architect
Climate
Specialist
Energy
Planner
Environmental
Engineer
Water
Engineer
Urban
Planner
BS SYSTEMS APPROACH
17
Blue Green Solutions Guide
3 Integrated Design and
Pre-planning
The development of a design brief is one of the
most important phases in the design process,
as it will determine to a large extent the overall
quality and sustainability of the project.
A standard design brief outlines the client
requirements. However, it does not necessarily
represent the needs of all stakeholders. It
therefore does not guarantee a solution that
meets everyone’s needs. We advocate a Blue
Green (BG) Design Brief, which presents detailed
requirements from all stakeholders, together
with a selection of optimised concept solutions.
This guarantees higher quality design for the city
and helps the developer to come to informed,
compliant and robust project decisions. The
project will not only be more sustainable but will
also deliver significant savings, especially with
respect to operational costs.
In this section we outline the differences between
a standard design brief and the BG Design Brief.
We discuss the systematic approach in which the
BG Design Brief is developed through a new, BG-
specific planning tool: the Goal Driven Planning
Matrix (GDPM).
Stakeholder Involvement
The production of a Design Brief will involve the
following stakeholders:
Project Strategy Planners (PSPs). In the
case of city planning, they are normally
part of the city management group and
define the requirements that lead directly
to a Design Brief.
Project developers. They have the same
role as PSPs but act within private or
private-public partnership (PPP) projects.
Project planners. These are involved in all
planning stages.
Evaluator communit y. They are responsible
for financ ial quantific ation of differ ent parts
of the project. This usually happens during
the viability study (without parametric
analysis of the effects of interactions) and
the design development phase.
Potential project users. These are the
people that will occupy and use the
developments.
Asset managers. They run the assets once
the development has been completed.
City / project approval bodies. These
stakeholders check the design’s
compliance wit h regulations and st andards
and issue permits.
The degree of involvement of the stakeholders in
the production of the BG Design brief, as compared
to a standard design brief, is shown in Table 1.
18
Challenges of the Standard Design
Process
The standard design process ensures that all the
basic client requirements set out in the Design
Brief are met. However, when BG solutions are
proposed, this process inhibits the delivery of
optimal solutions for the following reasons:
Information gap. City management and
developers often don’t have access to the
latest knowledge and expertise to realise
the potential of BG solutions.
Silo solutions. NBSs are often used to
provide solutions to specific aspects of a
problem (e.g. utilising a tree for aesthetic
reasons or SUDS for flood prevention
only), but the full scope of the interactive
functions of an NBS (shading, evaporative
cooling, flood risk reduction, air quality
improvement etc.) is often overlooked.
This results in “silo” solutions, in which
opportunities to exploit the wider benefits
of an NBS are missed.
Problem solving vs problem pre-emption.
The standard design methodology is
oriented towards mono-functional
problem solving, rather than a holistic,
horizon scanning approach to pre-empting
problems that uses single interventions
to tackle multiple issues. For example, in
the “silo” approach an intervention will
be applied to tackle a single identified
issue. Under the BG Systems approach,
the holistic perspective will involve
assessing how the intervention could be
used to tackle the bulk of, or even all of,
the potential problems (urban heat island,
surface water flooding etc.) in the area and
thus create multiple benefits with lower
costs.
Fragmented design. Conventionally,
different branches of the same design
team will often meet only out of
necessity. The design process is therefore
fragmented – solutions do not take
advantage of synergies that can occur
when different urban components are
integrated or different expert disciplines
work together.
BG Systems Approach
The BG Systems approach deviates from the
standard approach in that it places a strong
emphasis on having a highly analytical pre-
planning phase. During this pre-planning phase,
optimised concept solutions are produced that
become part of the BG Design Brief.
Level of stakeholder involvement
in production of design briefs
t1
Standard
Design Brief
BG
Design Brief
Strategy Planners
Developers
Evaluators
Users
Asset Managers
Approval Bodies
Full Involvement
Limited Involvement
No Involvement
Project planners
19
Blue Green Solutions Guide
The BG Systems planning methodology ensures:
Full scoping of problems and solutions via
systematic stakeholder involvement. By
engaging multiple stakeholders across the
planning process, the quality of the design
will be better, to the advantage of all involved.
Enhanced resource identification and
integration. This process makes full use of
available technological and nature-based
resources and plans them in an integrated
manner, thus reducing life-cycle costs and
increasing operating and resource efficiency
and sustainability.
Resilience. A key element of BG Solutions is
resilience to climate change and weather
extremes.
The BG Design Brief is prepared in three stages
(Figure 9):
Stage 1. Definition of project goals, performance
targets and indicators. Gathering and mapping of
project requirements and Design Data (e.g. potential
NBSs, problems, planning opportunities, local
climatic conditions and available water resources).
Stage 2. Analysis and optimisation. Development
of metrics for target indicators. Analysis of
potential synergy benefits between urban
components. Design of candidate solutions.
Detailed comparative analysis to develop
optimised integrated solutions.
Stage 3. BG Design Brief production. Completion
of detailed BG Design Brief, containing project
requirements (based on all stakeholders’ input)
and agreed optimised concepts and solutions.
9Development stages of the BG Design
Brief and stakeholder involvement
STAGE 2
ANALYSIS AND OPTIMISATION
PROJECT FUNCTIONS, CONCEPTS
STAGE 3
DESIGN BRIEF PRODUCTION
DETAILED BG DESIGN BRIEF
AND CONCEPTS
PROJECT FACILITIES
INDICATORS AND
QUANTIFICATION ANALYSIS
SCENARIO ASSESSMENT
AND OPTIMISATION
STAGE 1
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
AND DATA COLLECTION
PROJECT GOALS AND TARGETS
Project Developers
Planning Team
BG Team
Approval Bodies
Public
Project Developers
BG Team
BG Team
Project Developers
Planning Team
BG Team
Planning Team
BG Team
Project Developers
Planning Team
BG Team
URBAN COMPONENTS:
Urban Solutions
Greenery
Water
Building Solutions
Energy
Pollution
Climate Variability
20
Metrics for indicators. The BG Team will
determine what metrics are required for
the indicators and which type of analysis
is required to obtain these metrics - both
for the existing area and for candidate
concept solutions for the site, in order that
quantitative comparisons can be made.
Included in this analysis are consultations
with Quantity Surveyors on costs/
economics.
Solution optimisation and selection. Using
the outputs from the previous activity,
the planning team and city management,
with the BG Team’s assistance, will select
optimal solutions to produce a detailed
design brief. The optimisation process is
based on a matrix of interactions between
urban compo nents, which will be discuss ed
in the next chapter.
The Goal Driven Planning Matrix
The BG Systems approach facilitates the
systematic participation of all key stakeholders in
the formulat ion of the client requirements/project
design brief. Act ive stakeholder involvement in t he
preparation of the Brief is achieved through their
role in completing the Goal Driven Planning Matrix
(GDPM). This includes a systematic process for
defining the developer’s requirements, consulting
with approval bodies and holding consultative
workshops with the public. Through this process,
we make sure that the needs of all stakeholders
are represented to deliver a solution of maximum
stakeholder benefit.
The GDPM has been developed to ensure a
systematic analysis of the developer’s goals, the
available resources, and full participation of all
relevant stakeholders. The GDPM (an example of
which is shown in Figure 10) is populated through
the following six activities (Figure 9):
Goal definition. These are the strategic
project/city goals as determined by
strategy planners/makers.
Target identification. To reach each goal, a
number of targets have to be developed.
The BG tea m work with the st rategy maker s
and planners to define these targets.
Definition of indicators to meet targets.
The BG Team will define quantifiable
indicators for each target.
Project functions and concepts. Project
planners, together with members of the
project/city management team, personnel
from the cit y approval b odies and members
of the wider public, work with the BG Team
to specify required project functions and
potential conceptual solutions designed to
meet each target.
21
Blue Green Solutions Guide
Excerpts from a sample Goal-Driven Planning Matrix 10
GOALS TARGETS
FUNCTIONS
& CONCEPTS
/ INDICATORS
CITY FACILITIES
/ BG ANALYSIS
1. EU POLICY
COMPLIANCE
......................................
Cheaper to buy
......................................
Value for money
Profiling of market
Tourist attractions
Promotion of culture
5. CLIMATE CHANGE
RESILIENCE
3. SUSTAINABILITY
4. ..............................
6. ..............................
7. PROFITABILITY
8. ..............................
9. INTERNATIONAL
PROFILE
Lower running costs
Integration of local
community
Enhanced indoor
comfort
Sustainability and
urban resilience
1. Outdoor
Environmental Quality
appraisal for all
comfort indicators
3. Analysis of project
enhancements
delivered against
standard (business as
usual) conditions
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
Improved outdoor
comfort
Outdoor Environmental
Quality Indicators for
each comfort category:
Thermal comfort;
Auditory comfort;
Visual comfort.
......................................
......................................
......................................
2. MARKETING
Other influences:
Urban (street) canyon
effect; Wind direction;
Building orientation;
Ratio
building height/width
Secondary side street
effects; Combination
with temperatures.
23
Blue Green Solutions Guide
4 Quantification of the Benefits
of BG Solutions
A central feature of the BG Systems, planning
methodology is quantification of the key project
interactions and their effects on project quality
and life-cycle costs. Practically, this is achieved by
systematic implementation of three specifically
designed tools, namely:
Interaction matrix. Maps all possible
interactions between urban components.
Cost dependence matrix. Maps possible
capital cost reductions utilising synergy
benefits identified by the interaction
matrix.
Climate resilience matrix. Applies all
possible climate change scenarios to the
interaction and cost dependency matrices
and quantifies resilience indicators.
The Interaction Matrix
The central tool for identifying all relevant
interactions between urban components,
including BG solutions, is the matrix of
interactions. Within the matrix, urban
components are categorised as follows (Figure 11):
Urban Solutions. Building orientation
and massing. Street orientation and
shapes. Topography and urban amenities.
Infrastructure services (e.g. sewers).
Greenery. Grass, gardens, meadows,
shrubs, trees and other vegetated areas
including those on roofs and façades.
Combinations with other materials.
Water Management (potentially integ rated)
of rainfall, drinking wastewater and treated
effluent, ground (sub-surface) and surface
water bodies.
Building Solutions. Efficient building
envelopes, energy systems, indoor water
services.
Energy. Locally available renewable energy,
conventional energy and waste (heat)
energy.
Pollution. Thermal pollution, air pollution
(quality), sound pollution and visual
pollution etc.
Climate Variability. Weather extremes: heat
and cold waves, droughts, extreme rain,
snow and storms.
Urban components interact with each other
and some interactions produce synergies that
can be exploited for the benefit of the project.
All interactions are therefore systematically
mapped, modelled and quantified to enable the
design team to make a decision using quantified
performance indicators.
24
The city is comprised of urban component s, which
collectively act to create “Living Environment
Quality”: an aggregate of all factors (indicators)
influencing the quality of our living environment.
The ultimate aim of the BG Systems approach is
to achieve the highest level of Living Environment
Quality, at close to optimal cost. This is achieved
by optimising the interaction between urban
components, including BG solutions.
Under the standard planning/design approach,
a landscape architect would typically plan
greenery to have an aesthetic effect and possibly,
provide adequate shading for buildings’ thermal
comfort and heat island reduction. Selection
for other functions such as evaporative cooling
and phytoremediation (i.e. soil and water
decontamination) would often not be considered.
The BG Systems approach eliminates the
possibility of these opportunities being missed.
Interactions between different urban components
Synergy Examples
The interactions between urban components are
modelled in order to quantify and optimise the
beneficial effects of their synergies, e.g.:
Reduce flood risks. To reduce flood
risk, one may create a swale or other
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
(SUDS) element such as retention ponds or
a multifunctional roof garden (Figure 12 a).
These interventions involve interactions
between Urban Solutions (topography),
Water, Greenery and Climate Extremes.
The model would quantify how much of
the flood risk is being mitigated by this
urban solution for a given return period
11
Water Greenery
Climate
Variability
Living
Environment
Quality
Urban
Solutions
Energy
Pollution
Building
Solutions
25
Blue Green Solutions Guide
(e.g. 50 years). The type of greenery
and the scale of the BG solution would
influence its interactions and effects. The
stored water will be used for irrigation of
greenery, which will enhance biodiversity,
urban agriculture and create natural noise
barriers etc.
Maximise the value of a tree. When
planting trees in front of the south-facing
Examples of BG synergies and their benefits
façade of a building, key interactions to
map are those between Greenery (i.e. the
tree and other vegetation on the site),
Energy (building energy consumption)
and Building Solutions (façade etc.). It is
therefore vital to analyse the interactions
and benefits of each species to determine
how to achieve best performance against
the set of prescribed functions (Figure 12)
12
$
Interaction of Individual BG Solutions
Benefits for healthier, more sustainable cities and developments
Using harvested storm water
to support greenery
Biodiversity
Living Environment QualityJob Creation
Using recycled water for
energy efficiency and building solutions
Improved Urban Environment
26
Optimisation Process
The optimisation starts with the definition of a
number of promising scenarios with different
combinations of p ossible BG solut ions. Simulatio ns
are then used to carry out a comparative analysis.
A systematic optimisation is then carried out to
rank the BG solutions and the optimal scenario
is selected based on the criteria agreed with the
client. Optimised solutions will be accepted if
they offer lower Life-Cycle Costs, a higher level
of resource efficiency, resilience and an enhanced
Living Environment Quality.
Reduce air pollution. To reduce residual air
pollution from traf fic, in addition to tackling
vehicle emissions, one could (for example)
change access to and exits from the road
area, as well as the movement of vehicles
along the road itself. Determination of the
best option involves mapping interactions
between Urban Solutions, candidate BG
Solutions and Pollution. One can use
the matrix to look at the effect of using
multiple BG Solutions and technological
interventions: for example, combining
pocket parks with trees, a rain garden and
bio-filters, with some of these measures
also being used as traffic calmers in order
to yield road safety benefits.
Cost-effectiveness of BG Solutions
A key advantage of the BG Systems approach is
that it yields plans that are more cost-effective
in terms of their Life-Cycle Costs. Thus, the BG
Systems approach offers a win-win situation: the
developer will be interested because of increased
client satisfaction (through intensive stakeholder
involvement), higher Return On Investment
(ROI), better sustainability, resilience and (green)
credentials, whilst the city and local stakeholders
benefit from a more sustainable, climate change
resilient and greener cityscape.
The quantification of the Life-Cycle Costs is
done using the Cost Dependence Matrix, which
determines the possible cost reductions deriving
from specific interactions between Urban
Components. In quantifying these Life-Cycle
costs, the full effectiveness of BG solutions can
be demonstrated.
Consider a hypothetical example for surface flood
reduction (Figure 13), which explores the interaction
between a proposed Urban Solution (a combination
of changing the street permeability and green roof
substrate thickness) with Water (surface flood
management). Apart from reducing surface runoff
and thus flood risk, significant cost savings ca n arise
from exploiting the following co-benefits:
The option of using smaller, or even the
avoidance in their entirety of, storm drainage
and potable water pipes (savings in material
and labour).
Water captured in tree pits and in surface and
underground storage provide an additional
water source for irrigation, leading to savings
in the irrigation costs.
The storm water used to ir rigate the greener y
will lead to evaporative cooling and enhanced
shading, thus reducing building cooling costs.
27
Blue Green Solutions Guide
A sample cost dependence matrix
13
COMPONENT A
Urban Solutions
Street
permeability and
roof substrate
thickness
COMPONENT B
Water
Surface flood
management
BENEFIT 1 BENEFIT 2 BENEFIT 3
Surface runoff
smaller
Material and
labour savings
due to smaller
sewer pipes
Storm water
harvesting
Reduced potable
water costs due
to free irrigation
water and toilet
flushing
Storm water
harvesting
Energy savings
due to shading
and evaporative
cooling by
greenery
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
TOTAL OPERATIONAL COST
Standard Cost
BG Cost
Operational Cost
Capital Cost
Climate Resilience
Climate change is associated with more frequent
and more extreme weather events. Achieving
urban climate change resilience therefore requires
adaptation of urban planning practice in order to
protect against these events31. For this purpose,
a Climate Resilience Matrix has been developed
that identifies potential weather extremes
affecting different urban categories, applicable in
various parts of the world.
The BG Systems approach will investigate
proposals for remedial measures designed
to enhance the resilience of the BG Solutions
themselves to weather extremes. This means
that interventions such as tree pits and green
roofs are b etter equipped to ma nage, for example,
extreme rainfall events.
The BG planning approach is guided by the A2R
climate resilience approach (Anticipate, Absorb,
Reshape)32 and is designed to augment city/
project climate vulnerability assessment with a
combined sustainability and resilience analysis.
This process identifies appropriate resilience
measures and integrates them with the BG
sustainability measures already planned for that
area. Integration of sustainability and resilience
measures is instrumental to maximising the
operating/resource efficiency and minimising the
costs of the implemented urban BG solutions.
The BG Systems approach ensures that the BG
solutions will provide:
Decrease of risk, exposure and hazard.
Increase of coping capacity.
Compatibility with proposed project
sustainability strategies.
28
5. Case Studies
The case studies demonstrate how the BG Systems approach can substantially enhance the
sustainability, resilience and cost-effectiveness of BG Solutions in both new and existing urban
developments.
1. Zagreb University Campus
Page 30
Demonstrates the multiple benefits of
the BG Systems approach, via the Goal
Driven Planning Matrix (GDPM), at the
district/master planning level.
2. London Decoy Brook
Page 32
Illustrates how monetising the wider
benefits of BG solutions facilitates their
use for managing environmental risks to
urban infrastructure.
3. Budapest City Park
Page 34
How to achieve a closed loop (urban
metabolism) system for water, energy
and waste using the BG System
approach.
29
Blue Green Solutions Guide
4. Marlowe Road London
Page 36
Demonstrates the application of the BG
Systems approach to the planning of a
residential area.
5. Šabac city Masterplan
Page 38
Describes how the BG Systems
approach has been utilised to develop a
regeneration plan for an entire city.
6. Imperial College London
Page 40
Demonstrates how to monitor and
model the operational performance of
BG solutions at the level of an individual
building.
30
Case study 1: Zagreb University Campus
Deployment of the BG Systems approach to deliver an enhanced master
plan.
Background
BG Systems Approach
Main Outcomes
In 2011, the University of Zagreb held a
competition for the design of a flagship campus
on a former military airfield located inside a
forest. Sustainability, environmental quality and
resource efficiency were the key judging criteria.
Njiric Architects and EnPlus won this competition
and were commissioned to create a Master Plan.
A full-scale analysis was conducted using the
BG Interaction Matrix (see page 23). The analysis
identified a number of potential interaction
synergies that could provide significant Life-cycle
cost savings for the campus. The integration of
groundwater resources, underground storage of
energy and specially planned vegetation proved
to have significant potential. In particular, by
integrating the campus with the forest, with
the addition of selected tree species planted
in optimally configured positions, the natural
functions of the forest could be harnessed to the
benefit of the campus.
Trees with large leaf surface areas were
positioned to align with summer winds, hence
maximising evaporative cooling of the buildings.
The southern façades of the buildings were
protected from summer solar radiation using
trees that lose their leaves early in October, thus
also enabling solar passive heating in the winter.
Evergreen trees were positioned perpendicular to
predominant winter winds to reduce heat losses
in the winter.
The optimisation of the master plan via the BG
Systems approach yielded a near-zero-energy
campus, with overall energy savings of 68 per
cent for heating, 92 per cent for cooling and 60
per cent for electricity.
Due to the st rategic posi tioning of the tree s, indoor
summer temperatures were 4oC lower and indoor
winter temperatures were 6oC higher, relative to
a zero-tree (i.e., absence of trees) scenario. The
energy consumption of the buildings was 26 per
cent lower.
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis found that the payback
time for the additional investment required,
compared to standard construction costs, was
approximately 4.8 years.
Figure 14 demonstrates the campus’s integrated
approach to local reuse of water, localised energy
production and recovery for the campus, and use
of greenery for passive building design.
The energy for the campus was harvested from
nature by means of using solar energy for passive
heating, hot water production and (via the use of
photovoltaic [PV] panels), electricity production.
Underground energy storage (in deep rock), as
well as ground water, are combined with the solar
energy harvesting system to create a unique,
natural energy production plant for the campus.
31
Blue Green Solutions Guide
Energy flow diagram and related annual energy savings for Zagreb University Campus.
14
15
Multi-purpose water use and reuse and its interaction with localised energy production and
recovery, and vegetation.
Water return to aquifer
Grey
water
Black
water
Decentralised
WW treatment
Natural ventilation &
FA heat recovery
Waste water
treatment
Heat island
mitigation
Waste
water heat
recovery
Ground water aquifer
Mains
Artificial
Natural
Building energy
systems
68%
60%
92%
Heating
Cooling
Electricity
P
a
y
b
a
c
k
P
e
r
i
o
d
:
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
5
y
e
a
r
s
A
n
n
u
a
l
E
n
e
r
g
y
S
a
v
i
n
g
s
Passive
Heating
2000MWh/y
Sun Collectors
3400MWh/y
Photovoltaic
5000MWh/y
Seasonal
Ground
Energy Storage
2000MWh/y
Ground Water
3500MWh/y
32
Case study 2: London Decoy Brook
Monetisation of the wider benefits of retrofitting BG solutions for
management of environmental risks to urban infrastructure.
Background BG Systems Approach
BG solutions, in the form of integrated, vegetated,
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS),
improve flood alleviation capacity. However, they
also provide wider, ecosystem service derived
benefits. The wider benefits are usually not
included in cost-benefit analyses, thereby greatly
undervaluing BG solutions’ use as strategic
assets.
Imperial College London worked with the
London Environment Agency (EA), London
Borough of Barnet and AECOM to provide
compelling and robust evidence for BG Solutions’
cost effectiveness within the UK Flood Risk
Management Planning Framework33.
To develop and deliver a framework for quantifying
the wider benefits of BG solutions, the Decoy Brook
catchment in London (UK) was used as a case study.
The brief for Decoy Brook was to protect the critical
infrastructure assets Golders Green and Finchley
Road junctions, Golders Green tube st ation, Finchley
Road police station and electrical substations. A set
of BG solutions (Figure 16) were co-designed with
the stakeholders via a workshop, with the aid of
the Adaptation Support Tool software42 developed
during the Blue Green Dream project.
The financial appraisal of the wider benefits of
the BG solutions, such as amenity, air quality,
biodiversity and surface water charges reduction,
was done using CIRIA’s Benefits for SUDS Tool34.
This encompasses the standard approach to
appraising flood risk in the UK (as defined in the
Multi-Coloured Manual Handbook35).
16 Selection and grouping of BG solutions for the cost-benefit analysis
Catchment-Scale Solution
BG-S 1
BG-S 4
BG-S 5
BG-S 2
BG-S 3
· Infiltration Strips
· Urban Wetland
· Rainwater tank at
Golders Green Station
· Infiltration Strips
· Bio-swale
· Roof disconnection
· East pond
· West pond
Police
station
detailed
solution
33
Blue Green Solutions Guide
Finally, the project explored potential funding
mechanisms to promote the wider uptake of BG
solutions in London.
Main Outcomes
The economic viability of BG solutions increases
considerably when wider benefits are considered
(Table 2): for the case study area, compared to
flood-risk benefit estimations only, they increased
the value of the benefits provided by the selected
options by between 60 and 184 per cent.
The pathway towards wider scale BG solutions
retrofit in London is to “cost-share” i.e. split the
investment costs among multiple stakeholders
(including critical infrastructure owners) by
highlighting the additional services provided to
each stakeholder (Figure 17).
17
t2
Benefits breakdown per stakeholder group
Cost effectiveness of BG solutions – flood only vs. wider benefits comparison
OPTIONS FLOOD-ONLY
BENEFITS COST RATIO
WIDER BENEFITS
COST RATIO
INCREASE OF BCR WHEN
INCLUDING WIDER BENEFITS
BG-S 1
BG-S 2
BG-S 3
BG-S 4
BG-S 5
0.32
0.66
0.64
0. 47
0.65
0.91
1.06
1.82
0.97
1.46
184%
60%
184%
106%
125%
100%
35%
84%
184% increase in economic value of SUDS
benefits can be achieved if wider benefits are
included in analysis.
35% of total BG solution benefits can be
related to commercial sector and
infrastructure owners
34
Case study 3: Budapest City Park
(Varos Liget)
Use of the BG systems approach to create a closed loop, zero waste, urban
metabolism system for a mixed-use district and park.
Background
The Budapest City Park area covers
approximately 100 hectares. Within its perimeter
it hosts restaurants and a number of institutions:
a thermal bath, city-zoo, hospital, and several
museums. The area is being redeveloped, with
key aims being to significantly reduce water &
energy consumption and waste generation, and
to increas e annual visitor number s (approximatel y
2 million at the time of the study) to 4 million by
2019.
BG Systems Approach
For this project, the local BG Team (Biopolus)
developed and applied a Metabolic Mapping
Methodology. This involves the systematic
analysis of water, energy and waste flows (inputs
and outputs) for the park, taking into account
daily and seasonal variations. The “metabolic”
(i.e. material/energy transformation) processes
covered bioenergy, waste heat, materials, and
water recovery.
Aerial view and location map of the Budapest City Park
18
35
Blue Green Solutions Guide
Main Outcomes
Key figures
The integrated waste and energy recycling
solution developed delivers potential water
savings of 95 per cent, organic waste reductions
of 65 per cent, an d a thermal energ y recovery of up
to 12 megawatts (MW) or 35 per cent. The overall
payback period is potentially less than 6 years
with respect to the cost of the infrastructure.
19 Schematic of the Urban Metabolic flow
Energy
Organic
materials
Water
Heat recovery
Bioenergy recovery
Primary energy
Losses
Other products
Fresh materials
Fresh water
Rain water
Water recycling
Wastewater
Water products
Energy products
Losses
Drinking water
Materials recovery
Waste
36
Case study 4: Marlowe Road, London
Applying the BG Systems approach to maximise energy efficiency and
human comfort for a residential district.
Background
The architectural practice Pollard Thomas
Edwards (PTE) was commissioned to complete
the concept design for the master plan of a
new, 41,000 m2 residential area in London. The
plan’s aim was to demonstrate how integrated
BG solutions can be employed to deliver a
traditionally planned neighbourhood with a
premier, 21st century sustainability level. Key
Performance Indicators for the design included
urban heat island mitigation, low building energy
consumption, enhanced outdoor microclimate,
indoor comfort and the efficient use of water.
BG Systems Approach
The BG Team scoped and a ssessed design opt ions
via the use of the GDPM (see page 20). The
preliminary analysis identified potentially useful
interactions that could be exploited to inform the
positioning of buildings and trees and the design
of building envelope shading, materialisation and
storm water management facilities.
Trees were selected and positioned to: 1) facilitate
adiabatic cooling (along the predominant direction
of the summer winds); 2) shade the building
envelopes; and 3) mitigate heat island effects.
Orientation and spacing of housing units was
adjusted to enhance wind effects throughout the
site by disconnecting them at strategic points to
avoid wind blocking. This intervention not only
enhances natural cooling of the site through
modifying the microclimat e, but also by increasing
convective heat transfer from the buildings. The
result is an improvement of both the outdoor and
indoor comfort during the summer period.
Enhanced storm water management was
achieved by tailoring the street design to facilitate
better drainage, and harvested water was used
for watering of the plants. Some of the buildings
were designed with roof gardens that feature
community gathering points
Main Outcomes
Applying the BG systems approach yielded
a solar load reduction of 38 per cent, a heat
island effect reduction of 33 per cent and an
outdoor microclimate reduction of 3.5⁰C for
summer temperatures, relative to a standard
development. As a result, the buildings’ summer
energy consumption was reduced by 24 per cent.
Moreover, these above benefits were realised
without incurring substantial additional costs.
Key figures (graphic presentation)
37
Blue Green Solutions Guide
Reduction of solar radiation on building envelope
Positioning of trees on south façades of buildings
20
21
38
Case study 5: City of Šabac
Application of the BG systems approach to the conception of a Master
Plan for the regeneration of an entire city.
Background BG Systems Approach
Šabac (population 80,000) is a city in central
Serbia. Situated close to three national borders
and with two main highways in its vicinity, it has a
long tradition of being a centre of trade.
The city’s government is pursuing an urban
regeneration agenda, as part of which they have
enlisted the BG Systems approach to produce
a visionary Master plan for the area. The aim is
not only to transition to state-of-the-art urban
design, but to deliver a redevelopment model
(exemplar) for other towns across the region.
The BG team ran workshops to familiarise the city
planning teams with the BG Systems approach,
especially the Goal Driven Planning Matrix (GDPM).
The city’s targets were entered into the GDPM in
order to facilitate a bespoke, BG Solutions based
Master plan. Public workshops were held to gather
further inputs and work-up candidate design
concepts, via the use of the GDPM. The conclusions
of these workshops are being incorporated into
the final version of the Master plan, which is in
progress at the time of writing.
Goal Driven Planning Matrix form and outline results
22
1. CITY INNOVATIVE
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
3. SOCIALLY
BALANCED
4. ENVIRONMENT
MANAGEMENT
5. SUSTAINABILITY
7. CITY
ADAPTABILITY
TO WEATHER
EXTREMES
9. SMART
GOVERNMENT
11. CITY STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING AND
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
CITY GOALS
Agreed with
Mayor’s team
TARGETS
FOR EACH GOAL
FUNCTIONS
& CONCEPTS
/ INDICATORS
CITY FACILITIES
/ BG ANALYSIS
6.1. Selection of city
industries based on
specific, agreed criteria
6.3. Create integrated
food production
6.4. Create particular
economy orientated
education
6. COMPETITIVE
ECONOMY
8. REPLICABILIT Y
10. AVOID SHOCKS
2. QUALITY OF LIFE
WORK IN PROGRESS
6.2. Identif y available
resources at
locations for the
development of
specific industries.
1. Geographic location (trade)
2. Sustaina ble energy
resources (geothermal energy)
3. Undeveloped land (strong
real estate potential)
4a. A tradition of local
craftmanship and
entrepreneurship
4b. A tradition of industrial
manufacturing
5. Developed industries
6. Already established
infrastructure, large working
areas
7. Brownfield locations
8. Planning documentation
9. Data on number of citizens
and the education
10. Educational structure and
curriculum of local schools
11. Already started
refurbishment of city port on
river Sava
12. Planned construction of
intermodal terminal and
logistic centre.
13. Data on the quantity and
quality of free land owned by
the city.
14. Resources for tourism
39
Blue Green Solutions Guide
Main Outcomes
The public workshops were highly valuable. They
identified, for example, several new city resources
that would not have been tapped into using a
standard design process.
A number of BG Solutions were embedded into
the plans. One solution of particular interest is
the multi-functional use of irrigation canals in the
city and parks (Figure 23 ). In the past, they would
be empty for most of the time, and so would have
no aesthetic and recreational value. Under the BG
Systems plan, they deliver areas for recreation,
biodiversity and flood protection36.
Under dry conditions, water to the irrigation
canals/streams is supplied from a shallow
groundwater aquifer, driven by pumps powered
by solar energy. This ensures a minimal water
flow for supporting aquatic life throughout
the year at no energy cost (Figure 23). The
surrounding vegetated floodplain area is used
for recreation and to support biodiversity. Under
conditions of heavy rain or high ground water
level the floodplain retains its groundwater flood
retention capacity. Under normal conditions, part
of the floodplain remains immersed, implying
that it can be used for water sport recreation
activities. Thus, instead of being reserved for
flood management only, floodplains also serve as
attractive open spaces for year round use.
23 Multi-functional use of floodplains under: a. Dry weather conditions, b. Flooding conditions
a
b
Solar-powered pump for
groundwater extraction
40
Case study 6: Imperial College London
Monitoring and modelling of the operational performance of BG solutions
at the level of an individual building.
Background
BG Systems Approach
Main Outcomes
Monitoring and modelling the performance
of BG solutions is crucial to: 1) quantify the
difference between their actual and potential
(design) performance; and 2) optimise their
design to maximise their benefits. At Imperial
College London, a living lab (Figure 24) has
been established, focussed around three
multifunctional roof gardens, for measuring and
modelling the water-energy interactions outlined
in Chapter 4.
The data collected was used to create new, or
improve existing water and energy balance models,
that describe the interaction of the multifunctional
roof with its environment. Precipitation, runoff
and temperature data were used to assess/model
benefits of roof gardens. These benefits comprise
reduction of flood risk due to delayed, reduced peak
storm water runoff and cooling due to transpiration
by plants and related evaporative processes.
In addition to analysing observed data, the
evaporative cooling of roof plots was investigated
using simulation tools of varying complexity: 1) the
Improved water balance (hydrologic) model 37; 2) an
Urban Energy Balance model38; and 3) Large Eddy
Simulation (LES)39. Furthermore, the monitoring
results are currently used for development and
testing of a Blue Green module for Building
Information Management (BIM) software
systems40.
Water retention capacity was assessed for the
three experimental green roof plots roof gardens,
of which two are extensive (A – 70/25mm and
B – 70/32mm substrate/drainage layer depths,
respectively) and one is intensive (C – 150/45 mm
substrate/drainage layer depth). Observed data
showed that for the London climate, rainwater
retention is high (>45 per cent of incoming rainfall
captured), with intensive green roofs retaining
as much as 82 per cent of rainwater. In addition,
the high temporal resolution of the logged data
(i.e. measurements are recorded at frequent
intervals over each hour of operation) enables the
modelling of multifunctional roof dynamics, which
is important for analysis of flood management
processes.
The simulations of the evaporative cooling effect
of the green r oofs using the Urban Ener gy Balance
model41, sh owed that the cooling effec t of the roof
surfaces in summer is considerable. Vegetated
surfaces are 10°C colder than a conventional roof
on a daily mean, and up to 30°C colder during the
hottest hours. The heat transfer through green
roof is thus reduced considerably compared
to a conventional roof, leading to substantial
energy savings due to reduced demand for air
conditioning and ventilation.
volume
41
Blue Green Solutions Guide
The roof is equipped with instruments to measure weather conditions rainfall
water quality runoff soil moisture soil and roof temperature
Multifunctional roof plots on the Eastside building at Imperial College London
Cumulative rainfall (in black) and runoff for the roof plots during the year 2015
24
25
1
2
5
6
3
4
12
3465
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
800
400
0
Jan DecJun / Jul
Average annual water retention [%]
46%
- Green roof A - 70/25mm
- Green roof B - 70/32mm - Green roof C - 150/45mm
59%
82%
A
*
B
C
A
*
BC
- Conventional roof
Cumulative run-off [mm]
43
Blue Green Solutions Guide
Bridging the Information Gap:
the BG Team
Blue Green (BG) Solutions, if planned
and implemented in sympathy with their
surroundings, are transformative for the
resilience, resource efficiency and quality of life
of the host city and its overall sustainability. In
this guide we have presented the innovative, BG
Systems planning framework for systematically
integrating BG Solutions with the cityscape to
maximise both their benefits and their cost-
effectiveness.
Our case studies illustrate the added value that
the BG Systems approach brings to different
urban contexts. Key conclusions are:
The systematic incorporation of BG
solutions into urban plans yields
substantial reductions in Life-Cycle costs
(case studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Through mapping and unlocking potential
synergies with the local built environment,
the BG Systems approach ensures that
BG Solutions provide cost-effective,
sustainable enhancements to quality of
life and resilience to extreme weather
events (case studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
The added value of the BG Systems
approach is fully realised through looking
beyond the principal purpose of BG
Solutions installations to embrace their
wider (co-) benefits – e.g. wellbeing
improvement (case study 2).
Stakeholder consultation and engagement
is crucial to maximising effectiveness of
BG Solutions (case studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Continuous monitoring of installed BG
Solutions is crucial for building an evidence
base for the effectiveness of their
ecosystem service derived benefits (case
study 6).
The BG Systems approach primarily
realises the potential of BG Solutions via its
reconceptualisation of the planning and design
process. BG Solutions are inherently cross-
sectorial. To optimise their benefits, it is therefore
necessar y to conduct an ex tensive, systems-level
analysis at the pre-design stage. This analysis
presents t wo challenges: firstly, there needs to be
a driver/incentive for carrying it out and secondly,
assigning responsibility for this task.
The driver for this pre-design analysis is saving
costs, improving sustainability and boosting
resilience. The analysis itself involves full life-
cycle analyses of the design/planning options. As
described on page 20, the Goal Driven Planning
Matrix (GDPM) has been developed to aid this
process. However, to deliver maximum benefits,
client and stakeholder requirements both need
to be mapped and aligned. This is a crucial
component of the BG Systems approach, termed
the BG Design Brief.
The key innovation here – apart from the
tools described in Chapters 3 and 4 – is the
introduction of a new participatory group in the
6. Outlook
44
design process: the BG Team. This is a group of
experts responsible for leading the pre-design
analysis. A key role of theirs is to exploit beneficial
interactions between the various disciplines
present in the planning team and especially,
bridge information gaps within the planning team.
Retrofit
Cities are largely undergoing continual expansion
and regeneration. The majority of the built
environment however - especially in Europe
- that will be present in 2050 has already been
built. Existing, especially 19-20th century
building stock, is typically less energy-efficient
and resilient than new-build. In order, therefore,
to meet stringent carbon emission reduction
targets, and protect against climate change,
the focus must be on upgrading and enhancing
existing building stock. The BG Systems approach
has a critical role to play in enabling the retrofit
sector to meet its sustainability/environmental
targets and obligations.
Legislation for Urban Sustainable
Development
The most effective means for expediting
a BG systems paradigm shift is, without
doubt, enhancing and implementing planning
standards and legislation that fosters or even
mandates resource efficient practices. Possible
interventions include:
Requiring additional analyses for project
approval – e.g. cost dependence analysis
(Page 26).
Upgrading compliance criteria. National,
regional and city building regulations can
be revised to tighten minimum compliance
criteria relevant to resource efficiency,
resilience to extreme weather events and
quality of life.
Revision/supplementation of certification
schemes. This involves introducing
performance criteria specific to BG
Solutions and stipulating post-construction
performance monitoring and approval.
Ideally, environmental (BG Systems specific)
quality standards should be factored into
national and local governments’ key performance
indicators for the attainment of international
standards and targets such as the Sustainable
Development Goals. It is vital also to recognise
that the higher the level at which action is taken,
the larger the impact will be (Figure 7– page
15). Hence, for a Blue Green revolution to drive
the envisioned transformation of our cities,
policy and law makers operating at national and
international levels need to be engaged.
The Need for Post-Construction
Monitoring
Changes in legislation and standard practice
require a strong evidence base. The cases
presented here comprise a sound foundation, but
there is a world-wide need for evidence collection
from full-scale developments that feature BG
Solutions . This data is a potent means of disp elling
some of the myths surrounding Blue Green
Solutions (e.g. that they are not cost-effective,
especially for developers) and aiding the accurate
calculation of the benefits and cost-savings that
they deliver to all stakeholders.
45
Blue Green Solutions Guide
Final Remarks
There is a broad and growing consensus that BG
solutions have the potential to mitigate many
current and future urban pressures. Achieving
this potential requires multi-sector, systematic
planning and detailed analysis of interactions
between all components of a cityscape to
identify the most cost-effective, sustainable
interventions. The BG Systems approach
facilitates this process, across different climates
and types of cities.
This guide is a call for the joined-up thinking and
holistic, rigorous analyses pioneered by the BG
Systems approach, to future-proof our cities
and deliver an urban environment that is truly
sustainable and is liveable for all.
46
References
1. Barata, M., E. Ligeti, G.D. Simone, T.
Dickinson, D. Jack, J. Penney, M. Rahman, and
R. Zimmerman, Climate change and human
health in cities. Climate Change and Cities: First
Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change
Research Network. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 2011.
2. United Natio ns Department of Econ omic,
Social Affairs, Population Division, World
Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. (ST/
ESA/SER.A/366), 2015.
3. United Nations Human Settlements
Programme, Global report on human settlements
2011 - Cities and climate change. 2011.
4. IFRC, World Disasters Report 2010:
Focus on Urban Risk. International Federation
of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC),
Geneva, Switzerland, 211 pp, 2010.
5. Heaviside, C., S. Vardoulakis, and X. Cai,
Attribution of mortality to the urban heat island
during heatwaves in the West Midlands, UK.
Environmental Health, 2016.
6. Revi, A., D.E. Satterthwaite, F. Aragón-
Durand, J. Corfee-Morlot, R.B.R. Kiunsi, M. Pelling,
D.C. Roberts, and W. Solecki, Urban areas. In:
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA, 2014.
7. ARUP, Cities Alive - Green Building
Envelope. 2016.
8. UK Green Building Council, Demystifying
Green Infrastructure. 2015.
9. European Commission - Environment,
The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure.
Science for Environment Policy | In-depth
Repor ts, 2012.
10. UNEP, Green Infrastructure Guide
for Water Management: Ecosystem-based
management approaches for water-related
infrastructure projects. (DEP/1827/NA), 2014.
11. Tzoulas, K., K. Korpela, S. Venn, V. Yli-
Pelkonen, A. Kazmierczak, J. Niemela, and P.
James, Promoting ecosystem and human health
in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A
literature review. Landscape and urban planning,
2007.
12. Maksimović, Č., M. Kurian, and R.
Ardakanian, Rethinking Infrastructure Design
for Multi-Use Water Services, Springer Briefs in
Environmental Science. 2015.
13. businessGreen technology award 2015.
R&D Programme of the Year. 2015; Available
from: http://events.businessgreen.com/
technologyawards/static/winners-2015.
14. Cohen-Schacham, E., G. Walters, C.
Janzen, and S. Maginnis, Nature based Solutions
to Address Global Societal Challenges. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland, 2016.
15. IUCN, The IUCN Programme 2013-2016.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2012.
16. Charlesworth, S.M., E. Harker, and
S. Rickard, A Review of Sustainable Drainage
Systems (SuDS): A Soft Option for Hard Drainage
Questions? Geography, 2003. 88(2): p. 99-107.
17. Wong, T.H.F., An overview of water
sensitive urban design practices in Australia.
Water Practice & Technology, 2006.
18. Maksimović, Č., S. Stanković, R. Božović,
C. Makropoulos, I. Mirosavić, and M. Mirosavić,
Trends in sustainable design of future cities, Proc.
of the Workshop: Cities of the Future. University
of Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2014.
19. Blue Green Dream. Available from:
http://bgd.org.uk/.
20. Gardens by the bay
Available from: http://www.gardensbythebay.
com.sg.
21. High Line. Available from: http://www.
thehighline.org/.
22. Blue-Green Wave. Available from:
47
Blue Green Solutions Guide
https://hmco.enpc.fr/Page/Blue-Green-Dream-
Wave/en.
23. Liget Budapest. Available from: http://
www.ligetbudapest.org.
24. Village Nature. Available from: http://
www.villagesnature.com/.
25. Curitiba. Available from: http://www.
curitiba.pr.gov.br.
26. Wild West End. Available from: http://
www.wildwestend.london/.
27. Smart Sustainable Districts. Available
from: http://ssd-utrecht.nl.
28. Versini, P.A., A. Gires, G. Fitton, and I.
Tchiguirinskaia, Schertzer, D., ENPC Blue Green
Wave : a Blue Green Dream pilot site to assess
spatio-temporal variability of hydrological
components in green infrastructures. Urban
Water Journal, 2016(under review).
29. Rozos, E., C. Makropoulos, and Č.
Maksimović, Rethinking urban areas: an example
of an integrated blue-green approach, Water
Science and Technology. Vol. Water Supply,
November 2013, 13 (6) 1534-1542. 2013: IWA
Publishing.
30. Akbari, H., Shade trees reduce building
energy us e and CO2 emissions from p ower plants.
Environmental Pollution, 2002. 116, Supplement
1: p. S119-S126.
31. IPCC, Summary for policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA, 2014.
32. United Nations Secretary-General.
Climate Resilience Initiative A2R — Anticipate,
Absorb, Reshape. Available from: http://www.
a2rinitiative.org/.
33. Environmental Agency UK. Flood Risk
Management. Available from: https://www.
gov.uk/government/collections/flood-risk-
management-plans-frmps-2015-to-2021.
34. Ciria - susdrain. Available from: http://
www.susdrain.org/.
35. Multi-Coloured Handbook. Available
from: http://www.mcm-online.co.uk/manual/.
36. Maksimović, Č. a nd B. Jandri ć, Interac tions
of Flood Management and Innovative Spatial
Planning (interakcije upravljanja poplavama
i novih metoda prostornog planiranja). 2014,
UNPDP BiH project.
37. Liu, X., A. Mijic, and Č. Maksimovic, A
conceptual model for simulating the hydrologic
performance of extensive green roof systems,
in The seventh international conference for
SuDBE2015. 2015: Reading.
38. Lemonsu, A., V. Masson, L. Shashua-Bar,
E. Erell, and D. Pear lmutter, Inclusion of vegetation
in the Town Energy Balance model for modelling
urban green areas. Geosci. Model Dev., 2012. 5(6):
p. 1377-1393.
39. Fock, B.H., RANS versus LES models for
investigations of the urban climate. 2014.
40. Huang, C.H., H.J. Kuo, S.H. Hsieh, and
C. Maksimovic. Methodology for Collaborative
Development of BIM-enabled Blue-Green Design
Tools. in The Twenty-Sixth KKHTCNN Symposium
on Civil Engineering. 2013. Singapore.
41. Suter, I., C. Maksimovic, and M. van
Reeuwijk, A neighbourhood-scale estimate
for the cooling potential of green roofs. Urban
Climate, 2017 (in press).
42. Voskamp IM, FHM van de Ven (2015)
Planning support system for climate adaptation:
Composing ef fective sets of b lue-green measures
to reduce urban vulnerability to extreme weather
events. Building and Environment 83, p 159-167
Climate-KIC
Climate-KIC is Europe’s largest public–
private innovation partnership focused on
climate change. Our partnership consists
of dynamic companies, the best academic
institutions and public authorities. We
drive innovation in tackling climate change
through creative partnerships large and
small, local and global, and between the
private, public and academic sectors.
All rights reserved. This paper is supplied
for the information of users and it may
not be distributed, published, transmitted,
reproduced or otherwise made available
to any other person, in whole or in part,
for any purpose whatsoever without the
prior written consent of Climate-KIC UK.
© Climate-KIC Limited
Registered office: 21 Great Winchester
Street, London EC2N 2JA United Kingdom
VAT number 224195323
www.climate-kic.org
For editorial content, contact Gina Lovett:
gina.lovett@climate-kic.org
www.bgd.org.uk
To watch our video with an overview of the main principles
of the BG Systems Approach, scan the QR code or use the following URL:
http://bit.ly/2mM18H0
