Sustainable urban infrastructure in China: Towards a Factor 10 ...

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 15 (2008) 288–301 DOI 10.3843/SusDev.15.4:2

Sustainable urban infrastructure in China: Towards a Factor 10 improvement in resource productivity through integrated infrastructure systems David Ness Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, Australia Key words: Sustainable infrastructure, services, systems, innovation, resource productivity, ecological footprint, circular economy

SUMMARY This paper emphasises that more holistic infrastructure systems are of great importance to achieving sustainable development of China and hence of the planet. Whilst rapid urbanisation brings the prospect of economic growth and a higher standard of living, it may also involve unsustainable consumption of scarce resources (land, materials, energy and water), accompanied by environmental degradation (such as pollution, emissions and waste). The challenge is to achieve the necessary economic growth but with far lower resource use, and thus reduce the ecological footprint, as recognised by China’s Circular Economy policy. Whilst developed nations should rightly aim for a Factor 10 improvement in resource productivity, Factor 4 is often seen as a more appropriate target for developing countries – a fourfold increase. This involves doubling wealth while halving resource use in order to return to an ecological balance. Arguably, even greater resource productivity is required. China’s economy will need to achieve at least a sevenfold increase in efficiency of resource use to achieve the goal of ‘all-round well-being of society’ set for 2050, although some have argued that a tenfold increase (90% improvement) will be required. The paper highlights the significant contribution of transport, energy, water and built infrastructure to resource consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and the ecological footprint. It examines ways that China can move towards a Factor 10 improvement in resource productivity. This involves viewing infrastructure as ‘a system to facilitate the delivery of services’ to support social and economic development in an integrated, eco- or resource-efficient, cost-effective and socially inclusive manner, coupled with extending the principles of a ‘product service system’ more widely to an ‘infrastructure service system’. It is argued that a revolution in thought and action is required to achieve the necessary paradigm shift in China, with the West leading by example.

Correspondence: David Ness, Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, Mawson Lakes Campus, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes SA 5095, Australia. Email: [email protected]

288

Sustainable urban infrastructure in China

Ness

INTRODUCTION The challenge in China and other developing countries is to provide more services to enable economic growth, but with less resource use, less environmental impact and less cost. The magnitude of the challenge is first portrayed, using measurement of the ecological footprint and greenhouse gas emissions, whilst introducing the concepts of Factor 4 or Factor 10. Building upon previous papers for the UN, this paper then seeks to respond to the challenge by introducing some novel concepts concerning urban infrastructure, viewing this as an integrated system to support the delivery of services. Hitherto, infrastructure has been largely seen as hard physical structure and in terms of individual components, such as transport, energy and water. Taking a systems view opens up opportunities to consider elements of infrastructure in a more holistic manner, with greater connectivity between the elements, enabling more to be achieved with less. In addition, the principles of resource or ecoefficiency, as reflected in product service systems, are extended to ‘infrastructure service systems.’ More efficient patterns of multi-use and integrated infrastructure are examined, including means of delivering services that reduce the need for ‘hard’ resource consumption and capital-intensive infrastructure and involve their more intensive utilisation. New economic drivers are also considered, as are means of measuring the resource consumption and environmental impact of infrastructure in relation to services delivered. Some Australian and other examples of integrated and efficient infrastructure are then described, with the possibility for their translation to a developing country context. The paper highlights areas for further research and concludes by stressing that no less than a revolution in thought and action is required to respond to the huge challenge.

THE CHALLENGE: ENABLING CHINA’S GROWTH WITH A REDUCED ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT The ecological footprint represents the amount of biologically productive land and water that a population requires for the resources it consumes and to absorb its waste using prevailing technology (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Resources include land, materials, energy and water. Due to its large

Figure 1 Asia-Pacific's ecological footprint. Source: WWF (2005)

population and rapidly increasing levels of consumption, the Asia-Pacific region is a significant contributor to the global footprint. If this region, with more than half the world’s population, can achieve the right balance between natural resource consumption and production, it can significantly halt the environmental degradation of the planet. The region’s total ecological footprint almost trebled between 1961 and 2001 (Figure 1). Energy (and emissions) from fossil fuels comprises the greatest proportion of this increasing footprint. As reinforced by an ESCAP report (2005), the region is already living beyond its environmental carrying capacity and is in ‘overshoot’. The world average ecological footprint is 2.2 global hectares per person, 20% more than what is available on the planet. China has a relatively low footprint at present (around 1.6 global hectares per person but this is increasing) when compared with many Western countries with footprints of 5.0–7.0 (WWF International et al. 2006). However, China has moved from using, in net terms, about 0.8-times its domestic biocapacity in 1961 to twice its own biocapacity in 2002. If its booming population growth follows the extravagant resource-consuming pattern of the West, both China and the planet will be unable to cope with the pressure on resources. This has already been recognised by the introduction of the Circular Economy (CE) Policy. As reported by UNEP (2003), ‘China has the need and potential to quadruple its economic growth over the next decades in a sustainable way’ – an ambitious development target intended to raise the majority of the country’s population into ‘the all-round wellbeing society’. This means that by 2050 a larger population of 1.8 billion would reach a per capita

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

289


Ness

GDP of US$4000 per year, five times the current level. Some estimate that this increase could occur within the next 30 years, demanding a tremendous increase in production and multiplying pressure on natural resources and the environment (Lowe 2006). China’s economy will need to achieve at least a sevenfold increase in efficiency of resource use to achieve the goals set for 2050, although some have argued that a tenfold increase will be required (CCICED 2003). Developing countries, though, need to go through a process of economic growth to reach a similar standard of living to developed countries, with an increase in natural resources demand to be expected (Manzini and Vezzoli 2002). Factors 4 and 10 are eco-efficiency targets for world economies at large (WBCSD 2000). Whilst developed nations should rightly aim for a Factor 10 improvement and lead by example, Factor 4 has been seen as the more appropriate target for developing countries – meaning that ‘resource productivity’ can, and should, grow fourfold. Factor 4 involves doubling wealth to solve the problems of poverty and, on the other hand, halving resource use to return to an ecological balance (Von Weizsacker et al. 1998). This concept has much in common with ‘Green Growth’ (ESCAP 2006) and, indeed, with achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, Newton (2007) warned that Factor 4 is likely to fall short of delivering the outcomes needed for sustainable urban development, noting that this poses significant challenges for urban planning. Redevelopment and expansion of established built up areas, such as China’s many fast-growing cities of around 500 000 population, represents more of a challenge than innovation in greenfield settings such as Dongtan. Striving for a Factor 10 improvement, rather than just Factor 4, may present an opportunity for China not only to avoid and to ‘leap-frog’ the mistakes made by Western countries, but also to achieve massive productivity improvements and economic benefits. As noted by the Living Planet Report (WWF International et al. 2006), ‘the amount of resources used in the production of goods and services can be significantly reduced.’ Whilst the WBCSD and others have paid attention to improving resource efficiency within industry, far greater gains may be expected if similar principles are applied to infrastructure, a very large contributor to the ecological footprint, emissions and waste.

290

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE Arguably, transport, energy, water and other infrastructure offer the greatest opportunity for moving towards a Factor 10 shift in resource productivity and associated reductions in ecological footprint. The area used for infrastructure, including hydropower, housing and transportation, is included as the ‘built up land’ component in Figure 1. However, this is just the land occupied by infrastructure. The footprint due to infrastructure is far greater, and relates to much of the energy/emissions component in the diagram, e.g. energy associated with construction and operation of transport and building infrastructure. The total contribution of infrastructure systems, including all the structural and operational elements that contribute to delivery of transport, energy and water services, is likely to be well over 50% of greenhouse gas emissions (Ness 2007b). Its importance in achieving global targets (e.g. emissions reductions) appears to have been greatly underestimated. In fact, it may be one of the greatest contributors, especially when taken over the life of the infrastructure, that locks in consumption patterns for decades to come (ESCAP 2006). Operational energy and emissions receive most attention, but Pullen (2006) has shown that 30% of the energy/emissions in an Australian urban residential area can be related to construction. Given the massive resource and energy consumption associated with infrastructure, there are opportunities to achieve significant savings in energy and emissions through more eco-efficient infrastructure patterns, greatly reducing the region’s ecological footprint.

CHINA’S CIRCULAR ECONOMY POLICY The Western or Fordist ‘production–consumption model’ is based on growth and throughput. Increase of productivity only becomes possible by using more fixed capital and consuming growing quantities of matter and energy (Altvater 1993). This model reveals a linear material flow: resource extraction, production, consumption and waste. China, on the other hand, coined the notion of the Circular Economy (CE) to represent a new economic growth model that operates in the way of resource extraction, production, consumption and



regenerated resources. By organising economic activities in a closed loop of materials, the CE policy promotes harmony between the economic system and the ecosystem (CCICED 2003). This is consistent with the notion of a ‘cyclical restorative economy’ (Hawken 1993) and the global 3R Initiative (reduce, reuse and recycle). Thus, improving resource efficiency is an important element of the CE (the subject of research by the China Research Centre for Economic Transition) and of a pilot study to develop and implement the policy within the city of Guiyang (Kuhndt et al. 2007). As another aspect of implementing its CE policy, China’s State Council issued a circular on Organising Resources-Saving Activities (State Council of P.R. China 2004). This promotes new types of industrialisation, including ‘product and service design to promote reduce, reuse and recycling of materials’ and ‘sustainable product and service design’. In this regard, Stahel (1982) developed a conceptual and methodological framework of great value to planning and implementing a more CE in China, based on product life extension, the service or functional economy, and the notion of products as service carriers. Lowe (2006) saw this approach as offering a ‘systems framework’ for gaining the multi-factor improvements required by the CE.

RESOURCE OR ECO-EFFICIENCY Principles To deal with the rapid urbanisation in the developing world, aspiring to a standard of living comparable to the developed world, ‘we can expect that eco-efficiency will become the leading economic principle for the 21st century’ (Van Halen et al. 2005). Eco-efficiency is primarily a business concept, concerned with three broad objectives: reducing the consumption of resources; reducing the impact on nature (including emissions and waste); and increasing product or service value, focusing on selling the functional needs that customers want – with fewer materials and less resources. However, as Kanda and Nakagami (2006) pointed out, ‘increased efficiency does not reduce environmental loads when total activities increase.’ In this regard, the principle of ‘sufficiency’ – involving reduced consumption – is most important. In addition, as noted by the WBCSD (2000), ‘eco-efficiency is not

Ness

sufficient by itself because it integrates only two of sustainability’s three elements, economy and ecology, while leaving the third, social progress, outside its embrace.’ This is a most important point when considering eco-efficiency as a means towards sustainable infrastructure. In this regard, the Wuppertal Institute sees ‘resource efficiency’ as involving reduced use of land, materials, water and energy, while at the same time leading to increased economic and social well-being: ‘Resource efficiency is . . . closely related to economic and social dimensions of sustainability’ (GTZ et al. 2006). Thus, in this paper, the term resource efficiency is favoured over eco-efficiency.

Resource efficient infrastructure The key concept behind resource efficient infrastructure is to maximise service delivery, whilst minimising resource use and environmental impact. Hence, as discussed at a recent UN Meeting on Sustainable Infrastructure (Ness 2007b), A sustainable infrastructure system is one that facilitates the delivery of transport, energy, water and other services to support social and economic development in an integrated, resource-efficient and socially inclusive manner. Following this line of thought, a resource efficient transport system is one that enhances mobility of people and freight so as to support quality of life and reduce resource use and pollution. Delivering services with efficient and closely aligned infrastructure is also likely to be cost-effective.

Strategic asset management The key concepts of strategic asset management (SAM) involve achieving a close or ‘lean’ fit between infrastructure and the service provided, and gaining the most service out from a given piece of physical infrastructure, whether it is a building, a road or a pipeline, such as by shared or multiple use or increased utilisation. This is a fundamental principle of SAM, where physical assets (whether manufactured products, buildings or wider infrastructure) are seen not as ends in themselves, but as components in a system to facilitate the delivery of services. Being strategic requires a focus on the outcome or purpose of an asset, whether the needs can


291


Ness

be met by another means, and whether they should be provided at all (University of NSW 2007). SAM includes key decisions concerning procurement of new assets, reuse or refurbishment of existing assets, and sale/disposal, with a life-cycle perspective. To date, it has not been widely recognised that strategic asset management is an important element of sustainability. It may not only deliver improved services, but also will do so with reduced physical assets. Better management or stewardship of a stock of assets over their life, with consideration to their reuse or adaptation, can also lead to greater resource efficiency and cost-effectiveness. This is in keeping with the notion of the CE, described earlier.

INFRASTRUCTURE: A SYSTEM TO DELIVER SERVICES It is important that physical infrastructure is seen not as an end in itself, but as part of a system related to the provision of services that are essential for growth and poverty alleviation. Infrastructures can be viewed as systems that facilitate the delivery of services (Howes and Robinson 2005), making use of resources such as energy, water, materials and land, and having interactions with the surrounding environment, which may involve waste and emissions. This reflects Ayres’ (1999) view of products (in this case infrastructure) as ‘service carriers.’ The system includes the hard, physical infrastructure plus the operations of this infrastructure, which together provide the services. For example, an access or mobility system may have the overall purpose of access or journeys, with the performance measure being the number of passengers transported per day. The system components or sub-systems may include the road or other public transport ‘hard’ infrastructure, together with vehicles (personal and public transport), fuel, refueling stations, congestion taxes and the like. There may be connections between the components and different modes of transport, such as transport interchanges. Finally, the transport system will have a boundary between the system and the outside environment. These reflect the elements of a theoretical system, as described by Checkland (1981). A good, healthy system will also have a degree of tension between the elements. Thus, transport, energy and water may all be seen as parts of a larger system, the urban infrastructure system. In turn, this may be seen as part of

292

a service system. Russell Ackoff, a leader in systems thinking, saw subsystems functioning in service of the next level system. In other words, he advocated holistic approaches and looking beyond the boundaries of a particular system, to open up opportunities for efficiencies and innovation (Ackoff 2004). Thus, various subsystems may include water, transport and energy infrastructure. But ‘zooming out’ and looking beyond individual infrastructure to a wider urban infrastructure system, opens up opportunities for innovation, integration and, consequently, resource efficiencies. This approach may also be applied to components of the wider infrastructure system, such as transport – with its own components of road, rail, public transport vehicles, private vehicles, and so on. As Acharya (2007) said: A system-based approach may be useful in understanding the complex dynamics of an urban transport system and thereby may identify strategies and effective policy levers that can lead the overall system towards a more eco-efficient path. This wider, holistic and system-based view is at the core of thinking regarding the ‘system innovations’ that will be necessary to achieve Factor 4/ Factor 10 improvements in resource efficiency. The Stockholm Environment Institute (2007) has also called for a ‘systemic approach’, saying: Urban environmental problems involve complex webs of interconnected and changing problems, which cannot be addressed in isolation. Urban strategies must recognize these interconnections . . . In most cities, this requires a fundamental shift in approach, greater inter-sectoral cooperation, and more forward-looking strategies. Similarly, WWF International et al. (2006) noted that: Systems thinking . . . helps to identify synergies and ensure that proposed solutions bring about overall footprint reductions, rather than shifting demand from one ecosystem to another. According to a recent report evaluating the World Bank transport projects, transport strategies must now focus more attention on cross-cutting issues such as traffic congestion, environmental damage, efficiency, safety and affordability: ‘This focus



will necessitate more innovative, multisectoral approaches’ (World Bank Independent Evaluation Group 2007). In this regard, relationships can be established between the transport system, the water management system, the energy system and the like. For example, Newton highlighted the interdependence between water and energy, with desalination, wastewater treatment and recycling all requiring significant inputs of energy (cited in Henderson 2007). The OECD (2007) has also highlighted how various infrastructure systems – including land transport, electricity and water – have for many years shown signs of increasing convergence: The various systems interact ever more closely with one another and engender all kinds of synergies, substitution effects and complementarities . . . policy makers need to

Ness

take a holistic approach to infrastructure development. Taking a wider systems approach, therefore, can lead to synergies, major innovations, and a better use of resources expended in infrastructure. Any gains from insular thinking (e.g. viewing transport corridors solely in terms of transport purposes rather than serving multiple functions) are likely to be restricted to that component of the transport system. On the other hand, ‘zooming out’ to the next level system as advocated by Ackoff (2004), thus taking a wider and more holistic view, is likely to open up opportunities for efficiencies through connections (Figure 2). Most importantly, ‘systems thinking’ enables us to focus on the purpose or required service (e.g. socially inclusive urban environments) and how all the elements of the system may work together towards achieving this end.

Figure 2 A sustainable infrastructure system


293


Ness

transport infrastructure. As described by Stoughton et al. (in press),

EXTENDING THE CONCEPT OF PRODUCT SERVICE SYSTEMS Product service systems (PSS) The concept and methodology of ‘product service system innovation’ has been well documented by Van Halen et al. (2005), and is being applied in the products field in the European Union, Japan (Stoughton et al. in press) and elsewhere, with applications including lighting, chemicals, floor coverings and other services. Lowe (2006) has introduced the concept to China. There are now opportunities to extend and ‘scale up’ this thinking to infrastructure, with infrastructure being viewed as a product service system (PSS) in the broadest sense. PSS aims at ‘a cultural change from productoriented to service-oriented consumer patterns’ – a move from a supply-driven to a demand-driven economy, as ‘too many customers’ needs today are met in a material and energy intensive way.’ PSS calls for businesses ‘to achieve more value for their clients, at lower production costs and, preferably, lower energy and/or materials inputs and with reduced emissions (thus contributing to ecoefficiency)’ (Van Halen et al. 2005). Extrapolation of the findings of previous research by the University of South Australia, based upon Interface modular carpets, indicated that service systems may enable resource consumption to be decoupled from growth and hence constitute an important part of China’s CE, towards Factor 10 (Ness and Pullen 2006). The University of South Australia and the SA Government are currently developing a joint research proposal with Hewlett Packard (HP) to examine the environmental benefits of its ‘service solution’ for business equipment (especially computers). HP is able to manage a fleet or stock of computer assets so that they all perform more efficiently, with increased utilisation, reduced numbers of machines and with expected lower energy and a lower footprint – demonstrating the strategic asset management principles described earlier.

Infrastructure service systems (ISS) PSS can be categorised as various types, including ‘use-oriented services’ (e.g. rental) and ‘resultoriented services’. Car sharing is an example of the former, with considerable implications for

294

Car sharing is a ‘personal mobility PSS’ that provides short-term use of cars located in special reserved parking spaces distributed throughout an urban area. Compared to traditional car rental, car-sharing is characterised by short rental periods, decentralised location of vehicles, and fee structures that combine membership and time-based usage fees. In this PSS, the product is the vehicle and service is the mobility provided by the vehicle, as well as the insurance and maintenance included in the fee. Such services intensify the use of cars, meaning a lower number of cars are needed in a given context for a given demand of mobility. It has been estimated that every shared car on the road replaces five to six privately owned cars, whilst being cheaper than purchasing a private car for those who travel less than 12000 km per year by car. In addition, there is a corresponding reduction in parking space and the use of land (Manzini and Vezzoli 2002; Salon et al. 1998). Such a mobility service, involving vehicles, can be even more effective when seen as part of a wider mobility service integrated with public transport (Figure 3). For example, AutoShare (Toronto, Canada) is involved in a joint promotion scheme with the Transport Authority, where people who buy annual metro passes from the authority are given a substantial discount on their subscription to AutoShare (Manzini and Vezzoli 2002) – demonstrating connectivity and integration between the components of a transport or mobility system. Result-oriented services, on the other hand, focus on providing customers with a specific result or function rather than a specific product. In this area, we find waste management services, energy services and the like. In relation to energy services, the Asia Pacific ecological footprint report (WWF International 2005) highlighted areas for transformation to sustainability, including a ‘unique opportunity for a shift to sustainable energy.’ A key factor was ‘switching the sectoral focus from energy supply to provision of energy service’ (italics added), which would provide affordable energy services and ‘unlock huge efficiency potential across the region.’ It was noted that Japan’s economy was



Ness

Figure 3 New Mobility System, Source: Salon et al. (1998)

already three times as energy efficient as the USA and almost eight times as efficient as China. Steps have already been taken to introduce result-oriented PSS approaches to utilities, as described by Mont (2001). Utility industries provide electricity, heating, cooling and water through infrastructure to society. The functionality approach comprises activities that are aimed at reducing overall energy or water consumption, providing an opportunity to achieve cost effectiveness for both utilities and customers. As Mont (2001) pointed out, ‘the profit centre is not in the amount of electricity sold, but in the provision of a constant input of products and in the reduction of this flow. So the customer pays for efficiency.’ Mont also suggested that the profit centre could be shifted towards the function provided, e.g. ‘keeping temperature in the house to 20°C during the day.’ The service provider then has an incentive to widen the scope of the service to check whether the building design includes insulation (Figure 4).

Rogers (2007) of Duke Energy, USA, introduced an innovative ‘Save a Watt’ proposal, an evolution of demand-side management. This would reward utilities for the kilowatts they save customers by improving their energy efficiency rather than rewarding them for the kilowatts they sell to customers by building more power plants: ‘The most environmentally sound, inexpensive and reliable power plant is the one we don’t have to build because we’ve helped our customers save energy’ (Rogers 2007). The utility would be ‘incentivized’ to ensure homes were more energy efficient, deriving its earnings from the actual watts it saves. Customers would pay more for each watt but their bill would be less because they would use less electricity. This concept could be applied to water and other utility services. In the transport sector, ‘third party logistics’ (3PL) optimises the customers’ utilisation of hard infrastructure. Reducing vehicle-km travelled is a major source of efficiency gains and this will tend to reduce resource consumption and emissions – as reflected by Japan policies promoting 3PL


295


Ness

Figure 4 PSS model for utilities. Source: Mont (2001)

(Stoughton 2007). Stoughton highlighted a set of performance-based services business models in which the profits of the service provider derive from improving the operational resource efficiency of the infrastructure. These include Energy Services Companies (ESCOs) that are often third party utility providers rather than utilities – a key distinction from the ‘Save a Watt’ approach described above. ESCOs supply energy efficiency services, making their profits via the reductions in energy consumption they are able to obtain for their customers; that is, more profit from less resource use to deliver a required service. Similar performance-based services exist in the areas of water efficiency and waste management. In the Japanese context, Stoughton et al. (in press) found that, as a class, these business models had high potential to increase eco-efficiency of key economic activities at the national economy level; as businesses, these models exhibit strong similarities in value proposition, drivers and barriers, suggesting the need for an integrated policy approach to fully exploit their eco-potential (Stoughton 2007). Research currently in progress for the US

296

Environment Protection Agency is evaluating, in part, whether these findings also hold true for the US economy. Introduction of such services can assure that a given piece of infrastructure provides its services (or is utilised) in the most resource efficient manner possible. Possibly, this concept could be encapsulated in a new term such as ‘infrastructure service system’ (ISS). In a wider sense, governments are turning to service providers to manage water, energy and transport infrastructure. In addition, we have witnessed the growth of public–private partnerships and build-own-operate (and transfer) schemes, where private sector service providers are engaged to construct as well as manage infrastructure. Hitherto, the link has not been made between such schemes and PSS. On a macro level, therefore, PSS innovation strategies can pave the way towards a more sustainable society, contributing to decoupling economic growth from resource use and to minimising the use of land, materials, energy and water, enhancing recyclability and product durability, and/or closing material loops (Van Halen et al. 2005).



MEASUREMENT AND INDICATORS An important element of a system is a means of assessing performance and this applies to assessing and comparing the service delivery, resource efficiency and cost of various configurations. The most efficient system will be that which delivers the most services (e.g. in terms of passengers moved per day) with the least resource use, least environmental impact and least cost. The concept of Material Input Per Service unit (MIPS or MI/S) was developed by Schmidt-Bleek (1993) and has a strong relationship to Factor 4 and Factor 10. The reciprocal of MIPS (i.e. S/MI) is known as ‘resource productivity’. The MIPS concept can be applied to measuring resource efficiency at a product or company level, as has been mainly the case till now, or can even be applied more widely – such as at a regional or infrastructure level. It is a very useful indicator to accompany assessments of the relative resource efficiency of various patterns of infrastructure development. It is also claimed that MIPS ‘helps to show up the positive as well as financial potential of resource-conserving schemes’ (Ritthoff et al. 2002). Whilst the focus of MIPS is upon material input, this eventually becomes an output in terms of waste and emissions. Thus, ‘by measuring the input, we can arrive at an estimation of the environmental impact potential’ (Ritthoff et al. 2002).

SOME EXAMPLES AND OPPORTUNITIES: MORE EFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE Australian examples The circumstances of Australian cities are very different from those in China. The problem is largely one of dealing with declining rates of population growth and of replacement of ageing infrastructure. Nevertheless, some principles being explored and applied in Australia may have applications to China. More efficient land-use patterns The Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia (OMPI 2005) outlines opportunities for better use of public assets, stating that ‘the shared use of better located facilities will help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a wide range of

Ness

services.’ To this could be added ‘improved resource efficiency.’ The Plan, which encompasses transport, energy, water, health, education, recreation and other infrastructure, highlights opportunities that may arise from more collaborative approaches, such as shared use to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a wide range of services. In pursuit of these objectives, the South Australian Government is undertaking strategic assessments of various geographic areas, focusing upon infrastructure and government property holdings/built assets, with a view to more efficient use of government assets, land-use patterns and locational benefits. Various properties are being examined to ensure that they may all work together towards achieving service outcomes in those areas. Spare capacity is being considered for sharing with other agencies, and surplus assets converted into higher performing uses or divested. The principles of sharing and co-location are fundamental, reducing the need for infrastructure and achieving more with less resource use and less cost. For example, co-location of a new secondary school with a state sports park may enable gymnasium and other facilities to be shared and used more intensively; clustering child health services with schools may achieve better health and education outcomes; or land not being used by one government agency may be transferred and used more effectively by another. Most of all, this South Australia work demonstrates the benefits and efficiencies of taking a holistic approach to strategic assessment and planning of urban areas; not only integration and collaboration between various government agencies, but between various government services (e.g. education, health) and their property holdings, land-use patterns and density, transport, walkways and cycleways, open space and linear parks, flood-prone areas and the like. A wider systems approach has opened up opportunities for innovation and efficiencies. Transit-oriented development There are examples of transit-oriented development (TOD), including Joondalup in Western Australia, and South Australia is considering this strategy to accommodate population growth within existing urban boundaries. TODs involve more compact, higher density and consolidated urban development, clustered around transport


297


Ness

interchanges, electrified and light rail systems, linked to a range of co-located and integrated government services. Such forms of urban development and infrastructure are seen to have resource efficiency, social and economic benefits; but the supposition is yet to be fully tested. Multi-use transport corridors Taking a wider, systems approach, transport corridors may be integrated with other infrastructure such as energy, water and recreation and with housing, as in TODs discussed above and as illustrated in Figure 5. In this regard, the University of South Australia is conducting research (Beecham 2003) – under the theme of ‘water-sensitive urban design’ – on the use of roads for rainwater harvesting and reuse, with permeable pavements designed to enhance water quality treatment and integrated rainwater storage beneath the pavement surface. Following this multi-use theme, noise barriers along highways could double as solar collectors,

with direct heating of neighbouring building – all demonstrating wider systems thinking, ‘interconnectedness’ and, again, resource efficiency.

Decentralised versus centralised infrastructure systems Developed countries are accustomed to considering infrastructure in terms of massive central power plants, sewage treatment and water filtration plants and multi-lane highways. But the opportunity cost of large capital investment may be better allocated to smaller distributed systems at the local community level (Ness 2007a). This approach seems especially relevant for developing countries and presents an opportunity for involvement of the urban poor, both in the development and management of such systems and in their use. It may be more cost and resource efficient to generate power, provide water supply, and deal with ‘waste’ close to the community they serve. The vision has been expressed well by UNEP (2003):

Figure 5 Integrated transport, energy, water, recreation and housing corridor. Source: Beecham (2003)

298



In some communities, large distribution grids and remote treatment and generation facilities are giving way to a network of distributed or ‘on-site’ management systems, with shared elements integrated into the fabric of the built environment. More diverse land use and building types can complement these on-site infrastructure systems, creating self-reliant, mixed developments . . . In these communities, each new housing development is seen simultaneously as a centre of employment, communications and food production, as well as a facility for power generation, water treatment, stormwater management and waste management. Importantly, local production of energy, food and water (through harvesting and reuse) will obviate the need for extensive infrastructure networks, including pipes, wires and large plant. Local production may feed into existing networks, rather than being a drain upon them.

Ness

Wallbaum and Buerkin (2003) noted that resource efficiency is only one important path towards sustainability. In the broader context of sustainable development there are also economic targets, environmental targets and social targets. In this regard, the University of South Australia has developed a major research proposal based on ‘integrated sustainability assessment,’ with research strands associated with the environmental/resource efficiency and social and economic dimensions of more compact forms of urban development and TODs. It is planned to explore the synergies, tensions and tradeoffs between the three aspects of sustainability. Thus, there appear to be gaps in the literature in relation to the resource efficiency of urban infrastructure, its measurement and the relationship of resource efficiency measures/indicators to social and economic indicators.

CLOSING COMMENTS REQUIRED RESEARCH Knowledge within the field of sustainable and resource efficient infrastructure is in its infancy and warrants a much increased and coordinated research effort, involving collaboration between universities and governments within the developed and developing world. Schiller (2007) is one of the few to have assessed resource efficiency of urban infrastructure. This was primarily related to roads and utilities associated with housing, and he questioned whether his model could be applied to other areas. Schiller noted ‘a strong correlation between material consumption and building density’ and concluded that the parameter ‘cost efficiency’ is an argument for more dense and less resourceintensive settlement structures. According to Newton (2006), a transition to higher levels of residential density within cities is seen as a means of achieving a number of key environmental objectives, e.g. ‘medium density housing has approximately two-thirds the material intensity of detached single family housing.’ Newton acknowledges that more compact styles of development are the subject of debate in respect of the perceived benefits in areas other than resource consumption – namely neighbourhood character and amenity (although he does not mention affordability).

Infrastructure systems are central to economic and social development, as they support economic growth and deliver services to communities, and are also critical determinants of environmental impacts because they lock in consumption patterns for decades to come. The key message from this paper is that viewing infrastructure as an integrated system to deliver services (‘infrastructure service systems’), applying systems thinking and extending the concept of product service systems, opens up many opportunities for integration and innovation, leading to much increased resource or eco-efficiency. The approach may also enable China to embrace the challenge of moving towards a Factor 10 improvement. In addition, the sustainable ‘infrastructure service systems’ outlined may address not only environmental sustainability but also social inclusiveness, access to services (e.g. potable water, transport and electricity), affordability, poverty alleviation and maximising long-term economic growth for the benefits of all (Green Growth). A most important element of the paper has been the use of systems theory, to enable a wider, more holistic viewpoint and better integration between individual infrastructure systems such as transport, land use, water harvesting and reuse, energy and the like. Perhaps this may be encapsulated in another new term such as ‘interstructure’.


299


Ness

To achieve the necessary paradigm shift, what is required is ‘a real revolution that doesn’t involve just incremental improvements, but actually transformational exponential improvements. Without that, we’re never going to catch this monster truck of a global economy which, in energy terms, is growing exponentially’ (ABC 2007). The West needs to lead by example, dramatically reducing its own ecological footprint and emissions, and to support developing countries such as China in responding to the massive challenges they face.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the kind assistance and comments provided by the following: Dr Penny Burns, infrastructure economist; Associate Professor Mike Metcalfe, School of Management (Systems Management), University of South Australia, in relation to systems theory; and Dr Mark Stoughton, Senior Associate, Cadmus Group Inc, in relation to the ‘service’ approach.

REFERENCES ABC. US journalist and author Thomas Friedman talks about climate change. Australian Broadcasting Commission, Lateline. http://www.abc.net. au/lateline/content/2007/s2039213.htm; 2007 Acharya S. Developing eco-efficient urban transport systems in Asian megacities. In: ESCAP Expert Group Meeting on Sustainable Infrastructure Development in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: 2007 (unpublished) Ackoff RL. Transforming the Systems Movement. http://www.acasa.upenn.edu/; 2004 Altvater E. The Future of the Market. London: Verso; 1993 Ayres RU. Products as Service Carriers: Should we Kill the Messenger – or Send it Back? http://www.unu.edu/ zef/publications_e/ZEF_EN_1999_01_D.pdf; 1999 Beecham S. Water sensitive urban design: a technological assessment. Waterfall, Journal of the Stormwater Industry Association 2003;17:5-13 CCICED. Strategy and Mechanism Study for Promotion of Circular Economy and Cleaner Production in China, Task Force of Circular Economy and Cleaner Production. Beijing: China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development; 2003 Checkland P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York: John Wiley; 1981 ESCAP. State of the Environment in Asia and the Pacific 2005 – Economic Growth and Sustainability. Bangkok: UN Economic & Social Commission for Asia & Pacific; 2005 ESCAP. Green Growth at a Glance: the Way Forward for Asia and the Pacific. http://www.unescap.org/esd/ water/publications/sd/GGBrochure.pdf; 2006 GTZ, CSCP and the Wuppertal Institute. Policy Instruments for Resource Efficiency: Towards Sustainable Production and Consumption. http://www.scpcentre.org/uploads/media/GTZ-CSC Policy InstrumentsResourceEfficiency_01.pdf; 2006

300

Hawken P. The Ecology of Commerce. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson; 1993 Henderson H. Sustainable cities: 21st century city challenges. Ecos Magazine 2007;135:14-7 Howes R and Robinson H. Infrastructure for the Built Environment. UK: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2005 Kanda Y and Nakagami Y. What are product–service systems (PSS)? A review on PSS approaches and relevant policies. IGES Kansai Research Centre Discussion Paper. http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/ modules/envirolib/view.php?docid=469; 2006 Kuhndt M, Herrndorf M and Fernandez A. Activating Policy Instruments for Resource Efficiency in the Asia Pacific Region: Encouraging Sustainable Consumption and Production and Promoting ‘Green Growth’. UNEP and the Wuppertal Institute Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production; 2007 Lowe E. China Seeks to Develop a ‘Circular Economy’ (CE). Indigo Development; www.indigodev.com/ Circular1.html; 2006 Manzini E and Vezzoli C. Product–Service Systems and Sustainability: Opportunities for Sustainable Solutions. Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (UNEP); http://www.unep.fr/pc/sustain/ reports/pss/pss-imp-7.pdf; 2002 Mont O. Introducing and Developing a Product–Service System (PSS) Concept in Sweden. Sweden: International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund University; 2001 Ness D and Pullen S. Decoupling resource consumption from growth: a new business model towards a sustainable built environment in China. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment Conference (SASBE06). Shanghai; 2006 Ness, D. Sustainable infrastructure: doing more with less by applying eco-efficiency principles. Sustainable Infrastructure in Asia. Bangkok: UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;



2007a:87-96. http://www.unescap.org/publications/detail.asp?id=1227 Ness D. Smart, sufficient and sustainable infrastructure systems. Background Paper. Expert Group Meeting. Bangkok: UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; 2007b:11-13 (unpublished) Newton P. Human Settlements, Theme Commentary. http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/commentaries/settlements/settlementpressures.html#resource-consumption; 2006 Newton P. 2006 Australia State of the Environment – Human Settlements. BDP Environment Design Guide 2007;Gen 77. Canberra: Australian Council of Building Design Professions; 2007 OECD. Infrastructure to 2030: Telecom, Land Transport, Water and Energy. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,2686,en_2649_362 40452_1_1_1_1_37465,00.html; 2007 OMPI. Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia. Office for Major Projects and Infrastructure, Government of SA; http://www.infrastructure. sa.gov.au; 2005 Pullen S. A tool for depicting the embodied energy of the Adelaide urban environment. Proceedings of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors 2007 International Transitions Conference. Adelaide; 2006:224-42 Ritthoff M, Rohn H and Liedtke C. Calculating MIPS: Resource Productivity of Products and Services. North Rhine-Westphalia: Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy; 2002 Rogers J. Investing in an energy-efficient future. Energy Efficiency Finance Forum. New York City. https://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/EE-FinanceForum.pdf; 2007 Salon D, Sperling D, Shaheen S and Sturgess D. New Mobility: Using Technology and Partnerships to Create More Efficient, Equitable and Environmentally Sound Transportation. A1E14: Committee on New Transportation Systems and Technology; http:// www.meeting-minds.org/docs/UCD-ITS-RR-99-1. pdf; 1998 Schiller G. Urban infrastructure: challenges for resource efficiency in the building stock. Building Research & Information 2007;35(4):399-411 Schmidt-Bleek F. MIPS – A universal ecological measure. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 1993; 2:306-11 Stahel W. The Product-Life Factor. Geneva: Product-Life Institute; 1982

Ness

State Council of P.R. China. No 30 Circular of the State Council on Organising Resource-saving Activities. Beijing: State Council of P.R. China; 2004 Stockholm Environment Institute. Applied Sustainability Modelling. Stockholm: SEI; 2007 Stoughton M. Input to the ESCAP Expert Group Meeting on Sustainable Infrastructure Development in Asia and the Pacific. The CADMUS Group Inc. Bangkok: 2007 (unpublished) Stoughton M, Yuhta H and Yuriko N. Service-led Businesses for Sustainability? Evaluating the Potential of and Policy for Innovative Product Service Systems in Japan. Kobe: IGES Kansai Centre; in press UNEP. Conclusions and Recommendations of First International Forum on Sustainable Consumption and Production in China. http://www.uneptie.org/pc/sustain/events/ draft%20changsha%20conclusions.pdf; 2003 University of NSW. Strategic Asset Management. www.facilities.unsw.edu.au/Planning/sam.htm; 2007 Van Halen C, Vezzoli C and Wimmer R. Methodology for Product Service System Innovation: How to Develop Clean, Clever and Competitive Strategies in Companies. Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum; 2005 Von Weizsacker E, Lovins A and Lovins H. Factor 4: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use – A Report to the Club of Rome. London: Earthscan Publications; 1998 Wackernagel M and Rees WE. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers; 1996 Wallbaum H and Buerkin C. Concepts and instruments for a sustainable construction sector. UNEP Industry and Environment 2003;4-9:53-7 WBCSD. Eco-efficiency: Creating more Value with Less Impact. World Business Council for Sustainable Development; http://www.wbcsd.org/web/ publications/eco_efficiency_creating_more_ value.pdf; 2000 World Bank Independent Evaluation Group. A Decade of Action in Transport: An Evaluation of World Bank Assistance to the Transport Sector, 1995–2005. Washington DC: World Bank Publications; 2007 WWF International, Zoological Society of London and Global Footprint Network. Living Planet Report 2006. Gland, Switzerland: WWF; 2006 WWF International. Asia-Pacific 2005: The Ecological Footprint and Natural Wealth. Gland, Switzerland: WWF; 2005


301