Tag: Sustainability

Can America Replicate Singapore’s Garden Cities?

February 3, 2020 / odrozd

By Lizzie Tong

In the realm of sustainability and urban planning, Singapore is often hailed as a city-state worthy of envy and comparison – a Garden City. Through 40 years of rapid economic development and a transformation into an international financial hub, Singapore has been mindful to protect its natural environment, developing a reputation as a leader in green design.

As a small island about half the size of Hong Kong, Singapore has limited resources available for agricultural production, clean water, and energy production. Thus, policymakers have been prudent about maximizing resources and maintaining a healthy and clean environment for citizens to live, work, and play. While Americans have the luxury of escaping city limits to a wild sanctuary, the urban island forces Singaporeans to have a heightened incentive to conserve energy use, minimize water waste, and prevent air pollution.

As a result, the city-state contains almost 50% green cover, over 150 acres of rooftop gardens and green walls, and at least 10% of land is set aside for parks and nature conservation. Further, 80% of households are within a 10-minute walk to a park. The Sustainable Singapore Blueprint details even more rigorous environmental targets for 2030, doubling the amount of skyrise greenery to almost 500 acres, creating over 50 more miles of park connector greenways, and cutting harmful emissions of particulate matter (PM 2.5) in half.

Vertical greenery and historically preserved trees along National University of Singapore. Photo Credit: Lizzie Tong

This path has been present since the founding Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, stated that “the blighted urban jungle of concrete destroys the human spirit. We need the greenery of nature to lift up our spirits.” Since 1967, intentional, careful, long-term master planning directed by the government and the Urban Redevelopment Authority has succeeded in building an environment that citizens are proud of. Singaporeans have an inherent trust in policymakers to succeed in building a livable environment. Simultaneously, by pursuing a green city brand, Singapore has created a one-size-fits-all approach to sustainability.

In Singapore, green roofs, green walls, and skyrise greenery take priority over any other sustainable building solution. Cool roofs, which reflect light that would otherwise be absorbed by building materials, are much less expensive and effective at decreasing city temperatures and mitigating urban heat island. 95% of Singapore’s energy comes from natural gas and yet the Singaporean government has only recently began pushing to increase targets on solar panel coverage. Alternative sustainable building solutions are being pushed to the wayside because of the limited area of rooftops and self-imposed requirements to improve city greenery. In pursuing greenery objectives, nations like the United States overlook more feasible methods of reducing urban heat island and improving other measures, like air quality and overall well-being.

Researchers at the National University of Singapore are developing innovative ways to improve individual well-being in compact, high-density environments. Projects like Cooling Singapore consist of a research team of engineers and climatologists that are determined to collect data on the optimal outdoor thermal comfort (OTC) levels for everyday citizens and create comfortable environments to follow suit. Participants in the research respond to questions on wearable devices, gauging their individuals comfort levels based on temperature, humidity, wind speed, amount of shade, vegetation, and a variety of other factors. The research team then hopes to design indoor and outdoor environments that can be adjusted to individual comfort. For Singapore, improving well-being and livability is the final frontier in urban design – and increasing integrated greenspace is the solution to this challenge.

ParkROYAL on Pickering, Singapore, by WOHA. Photo Credit: Creative Commons, HeyItsWilliam

Yet, this blanket sustainability approach of a Garden City may only be worthwhile in certain areas. Research from the Center for Liveable Cities plots cities on a chart with livability against population density and finds that Vancouver City, Sydney, Melbourne, and Singapore rank the highest. Aside from Singapore, these cities with high rankings are also low-density. Singapore is one of the few high-density, compact environments that succeed in prioritizing well-being and livability. While residents of sprawling American cities have the option of escaping to concentrated areas of greenery, integrated greenery is the only option for a nation with limited resources and finite land.

Cloud Dome in Gardens by the Bay. Photo Credit: Lizzie Tong

The 160-foot tall Supertree Grove, powered by photovoltaic cells, along with the Cloud and Flower Domes at Gardens by the Bay are notable attractions. Designs and developments like these contribute to Singapore’s green city brand, driving the city’s tourism industry. Singapore is now the 5th most-visited city in the world. Although the design is envious, a City within a Garden transformation in American cities is likely less feasible. Unless more American city governments decide to stop developing sprawling neighborhoods and start building denser and higher, maximizing a diverse range of sustainable building solutions – cool roofs, solar panels, green roofs – will be the most low-cost, effective way to mitigate urban heat island, air pollution, and improve city well-being.

Gardens by the Bay, Singapore. Photo Credit: Creative Commons, J. Philipp Krone

Feature Image: Singapore Changi Airport, The Jewel. Photo Credit: Lizzie Tong

Sources

https://www.clc.gov.sg/research-publications/publications/digital-library/view/singapore-the-first-city-in-nature

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/world/asia/

eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/a7fac49f-9c96-4030-8709-ce160c58d15c

About the Author: Lizzie Tong is a senior studying economics and computer science at UNC, with an interest in applying data science to solve challenges tied to urban sustainability. After graduating, she will be working as a research assistant for the Community Development and Policy Studies Team at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. In her free time, she enjoys trying her hand at oil painting, competitive running. and new Bon Appetit recipes.

Building with Big Cats in Mind

November 13, 2018 / odrozd

Most of us like animals. Maybe not spiders or rats (those poor guys get a bad rap), but adorable bobcats or soaring eagles? Something in these creatures captivates us in an often-unconscious way. This intrigue comes from our biophilia, or ‘love of life,’ which refers to the innate tendency of humans to be drawn to other life forms. Not only do we feel an affinity toward other species, but because we evolved in tandem with nature, we need them for our physical and mental well-being. In fact, studies show that greenspace can improve mental health, particularly through stress reduction, stimulating physical activity and facilitating social cohesion.¹

Despite its positive effects, we rarely plan nature into our urban lives. In fact, as human societies build and develop, we seem to plan other creatures out, sometimes pushing them to the very edge of extinction. During a recent stint on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, I witnessed how human land consumption suffocates Sumatran tigers. Plantations producing palm oil, which is used in everything from shampoo to ice cream, have exploded across the island. This burning of tiger habitat, along with unorganized expansion of human populations and poaching of wild animals, has left us with less than 400 Sumatran tigers total. As top predators, these tigers uphold delicate ecosystems that provide people with many life necessities. Plus, as my friend from West Sumatra explained, tigers represent an important grandmother-like figure for certain Sumatran cultures. Losing Sumatran tigers is not just bad for tigers; it is bad for people, too.

Land devastation in Sumatra. Photo Credit: Lucrecia Aguilar.

We see the negative impacts of pushing predators out of our lives in the United States as well. Pumas (also known as mountain lions or cougars) used to roam across the Eastern US, happily munching on deer and maintaining balanced ecosystems. However, as we developed most of the land in this half of the country, pumas were forced to retreat to a few strongholds in the west. Naturally, deer populations went berserk with their newfound independence and started breeding like rabbits. This imbalance not only created hordes of angry gardeners, but the increase in deer numbers also costs human lives. The heartbreaking damages caused by deer-vehicle collisions now make deer the most dangerous large mammal in North America. If we brought pumas back, they could eat enough of these ungulates to prevent about 155 human deaths and $2.13 billion in costs every 30 years.²

Singapore’s Supertrees. Photo Credit: Lucrecia Aguilar.

We can change how we develop to integrate nature. In fact, as we face a rapidly changing climate and the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event, we will have to. Examples of biophilic development and planning already exist. In Singapore, steel Supertrees create vertical gardens covered by over 162,900 plants and include canopies filled with environmentally sustainable functions (such as solar cells).³ Spotted hyenas and people coexist in the Ethiopian city of Harar, where hyenas actually help keep the city clean by eating meat waste. The Living Building Challenge, a sustainability certification program and design framework for our built environment, urges planners to create places that imitate nature’s clean and beautiful functioning. It even includes a biophilic environment imperative to “nurture the innate human/nature connection.”⁴

As we continue to build our cities and develop our societies, let us remember to plan for the well-being of humans and all other beings. We often think there exists some hard line between humanity and nature, and that each must fit into its own box for sophistication’s sake. But humans are animals; we are part of nature. Let us make it our duty to plan healthy and functional living spaces for all living things . It is not just the logical thing to do; it is the moral thing to do.

About the Author: Lucrecia Kaye Aguilar is a wildlife conservationist studying big cats and human-wildlife coexistence. Passionate about wildlife since childhood, Lucrecia completed her Bachelor of Science in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at Rice University before receiving the Thomas J. Watson Fellowship to explore big cat conservation around the world. She works to help prevent the extinction of big cat species and the detrimental effects of wildlife declines on people. Currently, Lucrecia is with cheetahs, leopards, and lions in southern Africa. You can find here on Instagram, Twitter, and on her blog.

Featured Image: A male lion with his cubs in Botswana. Photo Credit: Lucrecia Aguilar.

1. Vries, S. D., Dillen, S. M., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2013). Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Social Science & Medicine, 94, 26-33. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.030

2. Gilbert, S. L., Sivy, K. J., Pozzanghera, C. B., Dubour, A., Overduijn, K., Smith, M. M., . . . Prugh, L. R. (2016). Socioeconomic Benefits of Large Carnivore Recolonization Through Reduced Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions. Conservation Letters, 10(4), 431-439. doi:10.1111/conl.12280

3. Supertree Grove: Facts & figures. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2018, from http://www.gardensbythebay.com.sg/en/attractions/supertree-grove/facts-and-figures.html

4. Health & Happiness Petal Intent: Living Building Challenge. (2018, April 20). Retrieved November 13, 2018, from https://living-future.org/lbc/health-happiness-petal/

A utopian, sustainable N.C. city

October 26, 2018 / odrozd

Columbia, North Carolina: A Sustainable Example

In April 2018, Viktor Agabekov wrote a fictional, first-person account of life in a utopian, sustainable North Carolina city of the future. Read his story below.

As dawn rolls through the transparent solar panel of my bedroom window, I start another day in the historic downtown of Columbia, North Carolina. Once a tiny settlement with less than 900 people, the city is now a national leader in adapting to sea level rise. Situated near the mouth of the Scuppernong River in northeastern North Carolina, Columbia first experienced irregular flooding in the late 2010’s, and city leaders boldly decided to reshape the image of the town to ensure it would have a future.

It is now 2040, the city has swelled past 4,000 residents, and the policies adopted in the past 20 years make it sustainable to live and thrive in the city. In addition to environmentally-minded designs, the city has shaped development to capture the benefit of social capital as part of its mission.

I work as an environmental consultant for the town, and start each day with a 5-minute commute to the city center by bicycle. The design of the town follows the “garden city” layout proposed by Ebenezer Howard in the late 19th century, as the town has capitalized on the nearby abundance of green space surrounding it (figure 5). The total size of the city is just over 25 square miles, with most of the area being dedicated to green space. Several “spokes” of transit that include three-lane roads and separated bike paths stretch to compact residential neighborhoods, such as the one I live in.

I leave my tiny home in the morning without having to lock my door, as the Internet of Things lets me do that remotely from my phone as I’m on the way to work. The roads and bike paths are elevated over the saltwater wetlands below, and are made of permeable material to limit flooding when heavy storms saturate the area.

As I ride up to my company building, I lock my bike in an elevated bike rack and head up the stairs to my office space. It’s not a long walk, however, as the city has a height limit of 4 stories for buildings by the waterfront as to preserve the profile of the riverfront. My office building has passive lighting and large windows, which offset its electricity use even on hot summer days by letting the sun do the electricity generation and lighting work.

The building facades of downtown Columbia are mandated to appear similar to historic buildings previously constructed, to keep up the historic charm of the city. My building, along with all others in the downtown area, also has a green roof to reduce the heat absorbed in the hot summer months planted with crop plants that can be harvested by workers for food. The roof captures rainwater in a cistern, which is then used for secondary non-potable purposes including flushing and irrigation.

Water in the city literally surrounds the core of downtown every day. As sea level rise has caused the height of the Scuppernong River to increase by 2’, Columbia has adopted strict building codes that minimize losses due to seasonal flooding and constant water presence. The riverbank is lined with a living shoreline, mostly made up of oyster reefs and vegetation beds. The river water isn’t fresh, as saltwater from the ocean mixes in during tide changes. This made obtaining fresh water a priority for the city, so a single large desalination plant was built in 2030 in the northern limits of the city to solve this problem. The rising water forced the city to condemn several older structures that became total losses over time, and these structures were torn down and converted into wetland park open spaces.

Water also serves as a means of transport to Columbia, and the city has a central transit hub on the downtown waterfront that links a ferry terminal, boat marina, bicycle path, and arterial road. It’s easy to get around the downtown by walking from this transit hub, and it’s a popular public space for people to meet up at and watch boats go by. The city is small and walkable to the point where local buses aren’t required, and all buildings are made inclusive for all people through accessible ramps, doors, and elevators to upper floors.

Lunchtime calls for a trip down to the local food co-op in downtown Columbia, and I walk across the main circular plaza at the core of the city. The streets here are made of cobblestone filled with permeable gravel, which slows down drivers and adds a cozy, historic element to the atmosphere of downtown. This allows water to quickly dissipate during rain events, and helps bring the total runoff from the city center to almost zero. The food co-op has a large open lawn that is open to the public, and is a popular spot to relax and enjoy the sights of the city at. It is lined with fruit trees that are grown in large containers, as the soil across most of the city is too salty for fruit trees otherwise.

Container gardens like this also line the windows of downtown buildings, and it is town policy to allow any citizen or visitor to freely harvest these gardens as part of an equal access to fresh foods initiative. Because the city is easily walkable, there are no recognized food deserts in Columbia.

Agriculture was once the backbone of Tyrrell County, but rising sea levels and saltwater intrusion have caused it to retreat inland within North Carolina. This has caused Columbia to rely on many crops to be imported from other locales, but several salt-tolerant crops such as sugar beets and barley are still farmed beyond the green belt band of the city. Lunch also includes a refreshing non-alcoholic craft beer from a Columbia brewery, which has become a cultural staple for locals.

The fishing industry on the Scuppernong River has also surged to cultural prominence, as the farming of oysters and blue crabs have made the city internationally recognized for its seafood products. Sustainable culling and size restrictions have allowed these populations to flourish near the town, and the fishing economy has become one of the largest employers in the region.

Another industry that has become integral to the city has been research in climate adaptation for agriculture and city resiliency planning. A large research institution sits at the core of downtown Columbia, bordered by a cobblestone woonerf plaza that gives its students access to labs and high-paying research jobs. This reflects the progressive ideology of the city, as the rise from a poverty-stricken town to a global leader in climate adaptation has caught the eye of many inspired planners.

Columbia is also home to the a significant government presence, as it is the county seat of Tyrrell county and hosts a US Coast Guard search and rescue base. The presence of this large amount of industry is the source of employment for most of the town’s 4,000 residents, including me. My company helps developers set up microgrids in new communities, and works with electric utilities to allow net metering of residential surplus electricity to take place. The city offers net metering in all of the low-income housing neighborhoods it maintains, allowing residents to gain supplemental income and proving that Columbia values them and is invested in their success, a commitment to social capital.

The emergency services of the city including the fire department, police, and paramedic, are all centrally located behind the city hall at the core circular plaza of the city. This allows them to respond to all emergencies in the city’s radius from a single, central point, and thus equalizes response times to neighborhoods despite their demographics.

The energy portfolio of Columbia is entirely made of renewable sources, primarily fed from a large offshore wind farm near the Outer Banks. The rest of the city’s electric needs, including a full charging infrastructure for electric cars, are met by solar microgrids that use transparent window-panels, much like my home neighborhood.

Columbia city schools are also powered by microgrids, and use electric school buses to get kids to and from their schools. Renewable technologies are taught to all kids enrolled in Columbia, and are favored in city policy. In fact, the city has a ban on internal-combustion-engined vehicles, including lawn mowers and carts, as the volatile compounds created by those emissions are precautionary blocked from impacting the wetland ecosystems that surround the town.

Since most of the former agricultural lands near Columbia became unfarmable due to saltwater intrusion back in the 2020s, the city bought them at fair market value and raised funds through taxes to convert them to a green belt, reverting them back to their natural pocosin wetland biome type. These delicate ecosystems are degraded by combustion emissions, and the city has opted to justly protect them since they are an ecotourism destination, provide ecosystem services to the city, and are a cultural staple.

Wetlands have come to define Columbia: they have naturally resisted climate change and rising sea levels, are entirely unique compared to other ecosystems, and provide valuable services that other regions can benefit from. The city knows this very well, and recognizes this through an annual celebration called “Wetland Day,” which involves completely closing the downtown of the city to cars and having local artisans, scientists, and teachers show visitors the benefits that wetlands provide the town. Because the scale of the downtown area is very human-centered, visitors are fully comfortable walking around historic buildings and bringing their families as well.

The city has a comprehensive CCTV network that monitors streets, neighborhoods, and the green belt, and thus creates a network of safety that wasn’t previously seen in such a coastal community. The monitoring of wetlands specifically deters any poaching of endangered animals such as the red wolf, which has become a local symbol of pride and resilience. The conservation of a wetland buffer around the city also provides many ecosystem services for residents, ranging from cooler temperatures in the summer, to protection from flood surges and hurricane winds. This protection extends to all residents of Columbia, regardless of their demographics, and is an example of the city’s commitment to nature and valuing social capital.

My day at work wraps up as I collect the compost bins from around my office and send them down a vacuum chute into a central composting and waste management center in the north of the city. Composting, along with recycling has lowered the city’s total waste destined for landfills to just 2% of the total waste produced by residents each year. Because the city’s low-lying topography and sensitive ecosystems make landfills unfavorable, it exports this trash inland to Person County, and pays for this service through a waste disposal fee levied on citizens. This makes everyone want to generate as little landfill garbage as possible, and most neighborhoods around Columbia even hold competitions to see if anyone can lead a truly zero-waste lifestyle.

My final stop before I leave for home is a small drugstore in a mixed-use building at the edge of downtown, to pick up some protein powder. I debated seeing my friends who live above the drugstore in an apartment, but decided against it as I still have to prepare dinner and harvest vegetables from my container garden back home.

As I cycle back home on the raised wooden bike path, I remember visiting Columbia when I studied on the Outer Banks in college. The town was entirely different back then, and didn’t have a single value of sustainability at its core. The Columbia I know now is at the forefront of sustainable living and development, and to see how successful policy has been for this city is humbling; it was an effort by the residents who denounced isolationism and banded together to outlast the changing climate that threatened their very homes.

As I look over my shoulder at the bright sunset, I pull up my bike to my house and check my net electricity meter. My house generated 3-kilowatt hours of extra power, which was used by my neighborhood microgrid to light a basketball court for a kids’ scrimmage game. I tend my garden and prepare dinner, winding down after a long day of analyzing sustainable policy.

I finally wrap up my night by stargazing with my telescope through my open window, a hobby I picked up since the wetland buffer around the city limits the sprawling light pollution, right as the sun finishes setting on my sustainable city.

About the Author: Viktor Agabekov graduated UNC in 2018 with dual Bachelor of Arts degrees in Economics and Environmental Studies, along with a minor in Entrepreneurship. A proud son of North Carolina, he has worked with state and local public entities along with student organizations and start-ups to find solutions to the question of what it means to be sustainable. He is now the Project Coordinator for the UNC Three Zeros Environmental Initiative. Aside from his official roles, he enjoys hiking, fresh and saltwater fishing, sustainable cooking, and organic gardening.

Featured Image Photo Credit: Viktor Agabekov.

Stormwater and the Stadium: How Carolina Became More Resilient and Sustainable

February 13, 2018 / odrozd

During the drought in 2002, it became clear that UNC-Chapel Hill would need to improve water conservation efforts on campus. In addition to viewing water conservation as a good business practice and good for the environment, Carolina also began to think of it as a means to make the University more resilient to drought and supply disruptions.

In 2009 the University invested in the construction of several innovative systems that would allow it to reduce potable, or drinkable, water use. One such system collects wastewater that would be discharged through creeks off campus, provides additional treatment and disinfection, and then pumps the water to campus. This reclaimed water is used to flush toilets and irrigate campus landscaping, and it is also used in the cooling towers for the University’s chilled water plants, which provide air conditioning to most campus buildings. Additionally, chiller plants at UNC Hospitals, which use 90 million gallons of water per year, are served by the system. Both the UNC campus and UNC Hospitals are now more resilient to drought and supply disruptions, which in turn benefits the entire community.

In the Fall of 2016, under Chancellor Carol Folt’s leadership, UNC-Chapel Hill furthered its commitment to environmental stewardship with the launch of the Three Zeros Environmental Initiative, consisting of three goals — water neutrality, zero waste to landfills and greenhouse gas neutrality.

Thanks, in part, to the important work done in 2009 in response to the drought, Carolina is already water neutral by one measure- the University uses less water than falls on campus annually. The infrastructure in place reduces potable water use on campus and helps to recycle stormwater and treated wastewater.

Reclaimed stormwater is used to irrigate Kenan Stadium at UNC. Photo credit: Jon Gardiner/UNC-Chapel Hill.

Walking around campus, you would never know that one of the many ways that UNC-Chapel Hill reduces water usage is through cisterns that collect and hold rainwater. Buried underground on campus, these enormous cisterns can hold up to 350,000 gallons of water.

There are several cisterns that collect rainwater across campus. There are two cisterns installed under the historic quad in front of Hanes Hall, one beneath the parking lot at Boshamer Stadium, another beneath the Bell Tower, which serves Kenan Stadium, and also under the lawn at the FedEx Global Education Center. At the former Bell Tower parking lot, an integrated, non-potable water system features a comprehensive water management strategy. Rainwater that falls on the roof of the Genome Sciences Building is stored in a lined, stone-filled cistern. This roof water, once treated with UV and salt electrolysis, is used to flush toilets in the Genome Sciences Building, and to irrigate the Kenan Stadium football field and the surrounding landscapes.

At UNC, reclaimed water irrigates several National Collegiate Athletic Association grass fields, using 10 million gallons of water per year. This water is also used to irrigate the turf at Boshamer Baseball Stadium, Anderson Softball Stadium, and Fetzer Soccer Stadium.

“By August 2018 we plan to have all of our fields on reclaimed water,” said Casey Carrick, director of athletic grounds and turf management. “We can save a lot of money since using reclaimed water is a fraction of what it costs to use potable water, and reclaimed water is close in minerals to the potable water. There isn’t any odor.”

The reclaimed water system was initially put in place as a collaborative project between the University and Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) as a water conservation project that would save costs for the University and expand the water supply capacity for the community. The proximity of the UNC campus to OWASA Reclaimed Water plant saves OWASA energy in cleaning potable water. UNC Athletics was able to benefit from the new lines running from the OWASA plant and began using the same water for field and turf irrigation.

“We don’t want to impact services to the community,” Carrick said. “By using reclaimed water, we’re helping the town become more drought resistant and leaving more potable water for the surrounding areas.”

Not only does using this system reduce the amount of potable water used by the campus annually, but reclaiming the water also recycles the fertilizer and avoids sending nutrients downstream, improving the water quality in the Jordan Lake.

Using reclaimed water is not the only net-zero water practice put in place within Athletics. Low flow fixtures are used in showerheads and toilets in multiple athletic facilities across campus.

“The greater benefit of the Three Zeros Initiative is being felt throughout our region,” said Brad Ives, associate vice chancellor of campus enterprises and chief sustainability officer. “Whether it is working with Athletics to improve water quality downstream through reclaimed water, or collecting rainwater for the athletic fields, this partnership is having a direct impact on improving North Carolina’s environmental footprint.”

In addition to using less potable water, Carolina also maintains the goal of improving water quality for water exiting campus. The recently completed Battle Grove restoration project turned a piped stream behind McIver residence hall into a beautiful, thriving brook. Not only is it beautiful, but it functions as a way to remove excess nutrients from the water before it flows off-campus, and provides a living-learning laboratory for students.

The UNC Energy Services Stormwater Management group was awarded a grant with which they will be able to retrofit the pond at the Outdoor Education Center and reduce sediment and nutrients in runoff sent to Chapel Creek, which eventually empties into Jordan Lake. Reducing nutrient runoff from campus will improve the quality of Jordan Lake, which has been a goal of the State.

Carolina hopes to move forward in all aspects of the Three Zeros Environmental Initiative through a variety of projects. In the coming year, the University will reduce coal use at its cogeneration facility and will implement a solar storage project at Carolina North. For more information about the Three Zeros Initiative, visit the Three Zeros Environmental Initiative website.

About the author: Olivia James is the Communications Manager for Campus Enterprises at UNC-Chapel Hill, as well as the Three Zeros Environmental Initiative.

Featured image: Panoramic view of UNC Bell Tower. Photo credit: Jon Gardiner/UNC-Chapel Hill.

Where does the UNC campus get its energy?

January 30, 2018 / odrozd

The Renewable Energy Special Projects Committee (RESPC) is a branch of student government that funds renewable energy projects on campus. The group is funded by the green fee, a $4 fee assessed on all UNC students. In November 2017, several RESPC members toured the UNC Co-Generation plant on West Cameron Street with Time Aucoin, the Regulatory Compliance Coordinator at the plant. Many students do not realize that this facility produces much of the University’s energy. The Co-Generation plant keeps UNC’s energy exceptionally cheap ($0.05/kWh compared to the NC average of $0.12/kWh). Given that the University has its own plant, what are the implications for disincentivizing alternative energy sources?

The co-gen plant has a special use permit for operation, which is reviewed every 12-18 months by the Town of Chapel Hill. On site, there are two coal silos that have the capacity to hold 5,000 tons of coal each, but approximately 8,000 tons are kept on site at any time (in total). There is one additional silo with 10,000 tons on hand. These surpluses are not actively used, but kept on site in the event of lack of supplies. The plant would be able to operate for 30 days without any supplies.

One of the main focuses of the tour in November was the ways in which the co-gen plant is working to limit the environmental impacts of energy production.

The buildings where energy is produced have a negative draft, ensuring that no coal dust is released into the atmosphere. The plant also takes other safety measures to avoid environmental contamination. The baghouse houses six enormous nomex (same material used to make fireman suits) bags, which catch the toxic ash, called “fly ash,” from the burning process. These bag houses last about 6 years, and cost approximately $250,000 each to replace. The University replaces one bag every year. Inside the bags, the temperature is ambient to prevent condensation, and thereby acid rain. Fly ash is kept on site in a silo until shipment to Virginia.

“I’m glad to see the co-gen plant is taking measures to be responsible and control emissions, but climate change is a serious concern of students and coal is a generation method we’d like to move away from,” said Environmental Finance Center Student data analyst Erin Danford, after the tour.

The co-gen plant cannot sell electricity, it can only subsidize the University’s use.

The University uses approximately 100,000 lbs of steam per hour. The co-gen plant produces steam for the hospital for sterilization purposes. Approximately 80% of the steam that the University provides for the hospital comes back as hot water, usually around 180 degrees. The plant takes advantage of this heat by removing contaminants with a magnet, and reusing the water to create more steam. Since the water is already hot, it requires less energy to create steam. Co-gen staff are currently working to get a reverse osmosis machine so that they can remove contaminants from OWASA gray water for more sustainable steam production.

For the future, the plant is working on a coal reinjection program to reduce coal use and transition to gas and potentially biomass. On May 1, 2010, Chancellor Holden Thorp announced that the University would be coal-free by 2020, but it is unclear whether this goal will be seen to fruition. Information on progress toward this goal or how plans to achieve this goal were scrapped are difficult to find. Aucoin suggests that the University will only ever move away from coal if it is “financially prudent for students.”

“Coal is not clean nor sustainable, and I’d like to see our University taking greater steps to move towards renewable energy,” said Danford.

The co-generation plant is integral to the daily operations of the University, and more students and staff should learn about its role. “The tour was pretty interesting in terms of learning about the industrial side of energy and what goes on in the factories,” said RESPC member Jonathan Gonzalez.

Other articles about the UNC Co-Generation Plant by The Daily Tar Heel, The News & Observer, and Sustainability @ UNC.

Feature Image: CC0 MichaelGaida

About the Author: Olivia Corriere is an undergraduate student from Ann Arbor, Michigan, majoring in Environmental Studies (Sustainability Track) and minoring in Geography. She is particularly interested in the implementation of sustainable practices of all kinds in the daily lives of the public. During Summer 2017, she interned with the Huron Waterloo Pathways Initiative with the Karen’s Trail campaign. In her free time, she enjoys running, creating music playlists, and spending time in coffee shops with friends.

Editor: Katy Lang

A New Perspective on Resilience: The Importance of Context in Durban, South Africa

June 2, 2016 / odrozd

As planners, many of us are familiar with Scott Campbell’s sustainable development triangle, which calls for a balance between ‘Social Justice,’ ‘Economic Growth,’ and’ Environmental Protection’.¹ During the planning process, should we focus on bus services that are cheaper and accessible to lower income citizens? Or train lines that produce fewer carbon emissions? Are new developments that revitalize a neighborhood’s economy worth the risk of displacement due to rising property values? Or should retaining the spirit of the community take precedence over economic advancement?

As two North American university students hailing from Baltimore, Maryland, and Vancouver, Canada, our views of city structures are shaped by our personal experiences with these conflicting priorities. In our quest to expand our perspectives, we discovered the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities Project, focused on “helping cities around the world become more resilient to the physical, social and economic challenges that are a growing part of the 21st century.” Urban resilience refers here to a city’s ability to bounce back from shocks, that nature of which can vary widely. We felt particularly intrigued by Durban, South Africa, where a 40% unemployment rate, a divided post-apartheid social sphere, and massive housing backlogs create a storm of sustainable development challenges. We planned interviews with seven key actors in Durban’s resilience challenge, and travelled to the southern hemisphere to meet them and hear their views on Durban’s progress.

The 100 Resilient Cities project discusses Durban’s issues with flooding, aging infrastructure, and rising sea levels (‘100 Resilient Cities’, 2016).

Resilience as a term can be understood in different ways. In engineering, resilience refers to returning back to an original form. Ecological resilience means transforming into a new stable state/equilibrium. Social resilience, on the other hand, is the process of communities and groups withstanding shocks without significant upheaval (Mehmood, 2016, Beilin et al., 2015). Given these variations in meaning, the usefulness of the term in planning depends heavily on how it is understood and enacted in a regionally specific context.

Stakeholders we interviewed in Durban were generally critical of the term resilience. The city’s Chief Resilience Officer described resilience as a “bad word” in Durban because it implies returning to the city’s undesirable status quo. She prefers the word “transformation” to describe the work they do. Dr. Catherine Sutherland of the University of Kwazulu-Natal offered a similar critique, questioning the relevance of planning-focused urban resilience in dealing with informal settlements or traditional Zulu territories, neither of which abide by eThekwini Municipal planning regulations. Dr. Tasmi Quazi of the nonprofit Asiye eTafuleni, which assists informal workers, cautioned that building resilience could become a neoliberal effort to offload government responsibility for supporting the vulnerable onto individuals and communities.

Barbed wire fences and large gates characterize Durban’s urban landscape, for
widespread crime necessitates thorough security measures. Photo Credit: Martha Isaacs

The question therefore is whether there is truly a place for resilience planning in the context of Durban’s development. This depends on whether the term, despites its flaws, contributes any new understanding or perspective to city planning. Dr. Aldrich, Co-Director of the Security and Resilience Studies Program at Northeastern University, adamantly advocates for resilience as a relevant concept. He explained to us in an interview over the phone that, previously, disaster planning was only about preparation for extreme events. ‘Resilience,’ as advocated by organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, pushes us to look instead at long-term characteristics of communities. Dr. Aldrich further argued that the irreversible reality of climate requires planners to drive behavioral change (adaptation), as well as continue mitigation efforts. While ideas about social capital and ecosystem services existed before, resilience brings these concepts together in the framework of planning for disaster – something new and valuable.

Nevertheless, groups such as the Rockefeller Foundation cannot push formulaic resilience plans on cities with contexts vastly different from US cities such as New Orleans and New York City. Indeed, planners in Durban expressed frustration with the requirements to fit structured pathways defined by international funders. However, they also spoke highly of the funding and international profile that the Rockefeller Foundation program brings to the city. Durban’s Preliminary Resilience Assessment lauds resilience for its “potential to provide a framework to synergize a range of agendas in a way that increases the probability of cities ‘bouncing forward’ to an improved state” (eThekwini Municipality, p. 18).

We completed several interviews at the City of Durban’s Development and Planning office, analyzing collaboration between the Climate Change and Environmental Protection Department, the Human Settlements Office, and the Energy Office. Photo Credit: Martha Isaacs

Resilience can be used as a framework to tackle issues in Durban including poor social capital, crumbling physical infrastructure, and degradation of biodiversity. The concept links separate objectives – dealing with drug use, decreasing crime and fortification, providing better services to informal settlements – to create an integrated strategy with which to approach change and disaster. While we found that ‘resilience’ as a term is not widely supported in Durban, the funding and support from the Rockefeller Foundation have the potential to create real change in the city if, and only if, implemented in deference to regional and political contexts.

Durban’s vibrant street art and informal markets reflect its social capital and cultural richness. Photo Credit: Martha Isaacs

Footnotes:

Scott Campbell, “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development,” Journal of the American Planning Association (1996), accessed April 20, 2016, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sdcamp/Ecoeco/Greencities.html

About the Authors:

Martha Isaacs is a third year undergraduate studying the Geography of Human Activity and City and Regional Planning. Her current areas of interest include analyzing diversity in communal living and making mass transit more accessible for disabled riders. When not making short films about public spaces or exploring cities through running, she enjoys tea parties, ducklings, and listening to podcasts.

Ariana Vaisey is a third year Economics and Geography major. She is interested in understanding how the places where we live affect our health and economic opportunity and is writing her senior honors thesis on the spatial distribution of heat-related illness in North Carolina. Growing up in the rain-soaked shadow of British Columbia’s coastal mountains, Ariana’s favorite sound is the patter of rain on skylights.