Planning the urban climate of the future

What a tree needs to grow and how it affects its surroundings vary from species to species. This makes it increasingly important for cities to adapt the urban tree cover to local conditions.

A team at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) has developed the online tool CityTree. Cities, municipalities and interested individuals can use it to find out how 12 common tree species are growing in 34 German cities and how they will benefit the local climate in the future.

Trees reduce heat stress on hot days, emit oxygen into their surroundings and bind climate-damaging CO2. This adds up to a decisive contribution towards maintaining the best possible quality of life in cities as the world heats up. A team working with the forest scientist Prof. Thomas Rötzer has investigated the advantages of selected tree species for the urban climate and the conditions under which they thrive.

To conduct the study, the researchers measured more than 5,000 urban trees throughout Germany, took samples from them and analyzed their surroundings. The focus was on lime trees, locust trees, plane trees and nine other species that make up 60% of the urban tree cover in Germany.

The data were then used to create an interactive model called CityTree. Access to the tool is free of charge. It is mainly intended for cities and municipalities, but can also be used by ambitious hobby gardeners when planning tree plantings in their own gardens.

Creating virtual trees

Users can define a virtual tree with just a few clicks. After choosing from among 34 cities and 12 tree species and defining such characteristics as soil type, the level of soil sealing and light exposure, the user sees how much CO2 the tree will bind, how much it will cool its surroundings and the quantity of water it will use.

The preview can also reflect various climate scenarios. The period from 1991 to 2000 simulates tree performance in the current climate, while 2003 represents a dry year. For the period from 2081 to 2090, the user can choose between climate scenarios based on 1°C or 4.8°C of global heating.

The data illustrate the importance of detailed planning for urban greenery. Cities like Berlin and Würzburg, with low precipitation and high temperatures, benefit more from plane trees and other drought-tolerant species. A city like Munich, with relatively high rainfall, can plan for species such as small-leaved lime and horse chestnut trees if the tree pit is large enough.

Planning for 2081 starts now

Although 2081 might seem like a long way off, "It is urgent for cities to take action now and critically assess their tree cover. Planting decisions shouldn't be based solely on aesthetics," says Thomas Rötzer.

"A tree has to grow for many years before it has a noticeable impact on urban climate. In the past, cities and municipalities lacked concrete information for planning optimized tree plantings and to assess the performance of existing trees. Through the app, we have converted scientific data into a usable format with practical benefits that can address this urban planning shortfall."

The research team recommends that local authorities develop a systematic overview of their trees. So far, there are only a few resources that would represent an "urban tree cadastre." With this knowledge, cities could establish programs with concrete targets and measures for optimal adaptation to the challenges of climate change.

The research team is currently working toward that objective. Using satellite images, they are surveying the tree population of Munich and assessing its potential growth and the benefits to the urban climate. These data can then be used for the sustainable management of the city's tree cover.

Source: Phys Org

Developing a new metric for inclusive cities

Four urban personas: developing a new metric for inclusive cities

A study from Cushman & Wakefield sets a global benchmark for how inclusive cities really are across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific

As the urgency to develop more sustainable cities across the world heightens, Cushman & Wakefield has embarked on a study to measure the social, economic, environmental and spatial inclusiveness of almost 80 global cities across the EMEA and APAC regions.

The global real estate firm has developed the ‘Inclusive Cities Barometer’ to quantify the social value of our cities by mapping, tracking and measuring how inclusive our cities really are.

Across the dimensions

The study measures the inclusivity of 44 cities in EMEA and 35 in APAC based on 9,000 data points, and 110 metrics across four dimensions and 12 sub-dimensions. These dimensions include:

Social inclusion – measuring 58 variables including health and wellbeing, tolerance, respect and personal freedom, education, and population and density growth.

Economic inclusion – a measure of 22 variables including employment, economic vitality and growth, and innovation.

Spatial inclusion – a measure of 25 variables including housing and property, security, safety and social infrastructure, accessibility and urban attractiveness.

Environmental inclusion – a measure of five variables including climate, pollution, and the United Nations SDG score.

The cities represented in the research are at varying stages of their journey towards more inclusive and vibrant urban environments. Instead of ranking them by performance, the Inclusive Cities Barometer measures progress relative to starting points, highlighting an actionable roadmap for improvement.

Cushman & Wakefield defines inclusive cities as ‘urban environments that prioritize diversity, equity, and accessibility for all residents, regardless of their background, identity or socio-economic status.’

The four city personas

The cities were categorized into personas representing different stages of their journey towards developing inclusive urban environments, reflecting varying degrees of maturity.

Mature urban centres: These are cities with a longstanding commitment to social inclusion, that prioritize the needs of all citizens. They focus on equal distribution of wealth alongside strong but balanced economic growth. In EMEA this includes four Nordic capital cities, as well as Amsterdam and Rotterdam in the Netherlands, and Edinburgh and Glasgow in Scotland. In APAC, Australian cities such as Brisbane, Perth, Sydney and Melbourne sit firmly in this category.

Social drivers: These cities are demonstrating strong rates of social inclusion across many of the dimensions, although not as mature in their journey to reduce wealth and lifestyle inequity. Cities in this category include global economic powerhouses such as London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Tokyo, Singapore and Seoul.

Rapid risers: Rapid risers are cities previously less active on equitable economic and social development that are now rapidly advancing social inclusion initiatives. This includes cities such as Athens, Budapest, Milan and Warsaw in Europe, and Chinese cities such as Beijing, Shenzhen and Shanghai, as well as Hong Kong.

Emergers: Emergers are at the beginning of their journey to increase rates of inclusivity throughout, but with strong ambitions. In EMEA, these cities are predominantly based in the Middle East and Africa and include Abu Dhabi, Cairo, Istanbul, Lagos, and Johannesburg. In APAC, these cities are located in South and South East Asia amongst whom are Bangkok, Bengaluru, Chennai, Ho Chi Minh City, Kuala Lumpur and Mumbai.

The path forward

As governments chart a course towards building cities that account for the needs of all citizens, the report argues that alongside governance, the real estate and construction sectors have a critical role to play in the future of the urban environment. They can influence the development, management, occupation and strategic planning of cities – thus spreading the burden of responsibility for developing sustainable, inclusive cities more evenly.

In recognizing that the scale and complexity of delivering inclusive cities can be overwhelming, the report urges that the real estate industry takes a more straight-forward approach – to recognize inclusiveness as an asset, not a cost. The report sets out a checklist for developers, investors and corporate occupiers to consider when developing inclusive cities.

The checklist asks developers and investors to consider working with local resident groups to ensure than the consequences of the development on the wider community is co-managed. They should also create destination places that inspire and represent the city’s identity and respond to the needs of the community.

‘Consider employee needs outside the office, factoring in leisure activities ‘

For corporate occupiers, they should consider employee needs outside the office, factoring in leisure activities such as restaurants, entertainment and retail. The building itself should promote health and wellbeing, and offer a diverse range of settings so everyone can find a space they feel comfortable working in.

The report concludes with statement that ‘engaging in socially responsible real estate practices not only enhances community social value but also fosters long-term economic success by building more resilient and vibrant neighborhoods’.

Access the Inclusive Cities Barometer from Cushman & Wakefield here.

Source: Worktechacademy

Roads are for people

Because our roads and bridges are arguably our most visible, ubiquitous and valuable public asset and because their use is generally offered for free, it is important to ensure that they are developed and used in a fair and efficient manner that delivers the greatest good for the greatest number. Unfortunately, this is not the case because most of our roads and bridges have been designed to move mainly four-wheeled motor vehicles, often to the exclusion or endangerment of other travel modes.

While it is true that road and bridge development helps to reduce the cost and time of transporting goods and services, benefiting all Filipinos, there is a negative and harmful side to road development when it ends up mainly serving and benefiting people in cars, neglecting the transportation needs and safety requirements of those in the vast majority.

When roads and bridges are designed to serve mainly four-wheeled motor vehicles, it deprives other users of adequate and safe road space; it also ends up encouraging people to choose private motor vehicles as soon as they can afford to — a damaging trend that goes against the country's health, environment, road safety and mobility objectives.

This pattern of road development also delivers a huge subsidy for the more affluent and privileged segments of the Philippine population (Filipinos who own cars) at a time when limited public resources should prioritize the needs of the vulnerable and disadvantaged. This is an anomaly and injustice that needs to be rectified urgently, given that a huge part of our public spending continues to be devoted to road and bridge infrastructure.

Most roads are built without considering the travel needs and behavior of the majority of road users — those who travel on foot, by bicycle or by public transportation. Even though only 6 percent of Filipino households are car owners, Philippine roads and bridges are constructed as if the main road user is the person inside a car while the most efficient, clean and health-inducing modes of travel are hardly given any attention.

Despite road design standards that require safe and sufficient spaces for pedestrians, sidewalks even on the busiest roads are considered "optional" and often missing. Many new roads are constructed as simply high-speed carriageways for motor vehicles (excluding any sidewalk or bicycle lane). Pedestrians and cyclists are endangered because they are forced to mix in the same space with motor vehicles (this includes the numerous schoolchildren walking or biking to school daily).

When roads are expanded to create more lanes, sidewalks are removed or are reduced to almost nothing. The conversion of a sidewalk into parking spaces for cars is a violation of both the traffic and building codes, but such violations are committed everywhere with impunity. Safe and fully accessible sidewalks that can be used by persons with disability are a rarity in the Philippines, even though several long-standing laws have made it a requirement.

Not only is this practice of vehicle-centric road design unjust — it also means that our most significant infrastructure asset is dedicated to serving, and promoting the least efficient and most environmentally damaging mode of transportation — the private car — while the specialized road infrastructure needs of road-based public transportation, which can move large numbers of people efficiently, are largely neglected or ignored.

When roads are built or expanded, even the busiest urban ones, there is no thought to planning proper transit stops or stations. Even though more Filipinos use buses and jeepneys every day than private cars, the only example of a dedicated lane for public transport exists in the EDSA Busway. Apart from the waste and inefficiency related to this omission, it also sends the message that public transportation is not important and that the needs of those in private cars come first.

We have already observed our downward spiral of declining mobility and the many Filipinos who endure very long and costly commutes. With more motor vehicles on limited road space, traffic, heat and pollution get worse, affecting even those in cars. More Filipinos avoid walking, cycling and going outdoors, leading to physical and mental health issues. With so much inefficiency and hardship to move around cities, productivity diminishes and with it our competitiveness and attractiveness as an investment destination.

We need to be concerned, not only about the quantity of our road infrastructure, but more importantly its quality and inclusivity. Turning things around begins with recognizing that roads are for people. Roads and bridges need to serve the needs of different users. Roads need to be designed (or rehabilitated) to give full meaning to the directives in the National Transport Policy and in the Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028 that public transport, pedestrians and cyclists deserve priority over private motor vehicles.

We need roads that offer safe pathways for Filipinos to walk or cycle, especially in urban areas. We need roads that enable public transportation to move efficiently, as much as possible without friction with private vehicles. To reduce the volume of motor vehicles on already congested roads, we need to begin applying mechanisms to influence the travel modes that people choose — measures like road congestion pricing and parking charges. If we can do this, we will also be encouraging car users to leave their cars at home, which ultimately will deliver a better travel experience for those who have no option except to use a private car.

The future that we need, and the future that will be better for all in our society, is one where public transport, walking and cycling are the preferred travel options instead of a private motor vehicle, even if one owns one. We need to work toward that future.

Source: Manila Times