Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Optimizing residential density based on water–energy–carbon nexus using UTilités Additives (UTA) method

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

High-density housing is primarily constructed to decrease per capita civil infrastructure and land resource. Multi-family residences are preferred to single-family residences for neighbourhood densification changing per capita landscaping, affecting residential water and energy demand. These alterations also affect energy-associated carbon emissions and landscaping-associated carbon sequestration, revealing the existence of the water–energy–carbon (WEC) nexus. This study has developed a holistic framework for optimal residential density based on WEC nexus. The conflicting criteria water footprint, energy use, net carbon emissions, life cycle cost, aesthetic value, and government priority, associated with the WEC nexus in various densities, were evaluated using the UTilités Additives method. The developed framework was applied to a planned neighbourhood in the Okanagan Valley (British Columbia, Canada) by preparing 11 alternative designs with different residential densities. Neighbourhood scenarios with different criteria weights were studied. Results show that per capita water footprint, energy use, net carbon emissions, and life cycle cost have a power relationship with net residential density despite a linear relationship between population and net residential density. The estimated optimal net residential density is approximately 260 persons/ha for most of the scenarios. The findings present the benefits of building medium- to high-density housing to achieve an optimal WEC nexus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AECOM (2012) National water and wastewater benchmarking initiative: public report, pp 1–87. http://www.nationalbenchmarking.ca

  • AL-Nassar F, Ruparathna R, Chhipi-Shrestha G, Haider H, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2016) Sustainability assessment framework for low rise commercial buildings: life cycle impact index-based approach. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18(8):2579–2590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athawale VM, Kumar R, Chakraborty S (2011) Decision making for material selection using the UTA method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 57(1–4):11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydin NY, Mays L, Schmitt T (2014) Sustainability assessment of Urban water distribution systems. Water Resour Manag 28(12):4373–4384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen T, Ku T (2008) Importance-assessing method with fuzzy number-valued fuzzy measures and discussions on TFNs and TrFNs. Int J Fuzzy Syst 10(2):92–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng CL (2002) Study of the inter-relationship between water use and energy conservation for a building. Energy Build 34:261–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17(3):579–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhipi-Shrestha G, Mori J, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2016) Clostridium difficile infection incidence prediction in hospitals (CDIIPH): a predictive model based on decision tree and fuzzy techniques. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31(2):417–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhipi-Shrestha G, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2017a) Impacts of neighborhood densification on water–energy–carbon nexus: investigating water distribution and residential landscaping system. J Clean Prod 156:786–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhipi-Shrestha G, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2017b) Water–energy–carbon nexus modelling for an urban water system: a system dynamics approach. J Water Resour Plan Manag 43(6):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • City of Kelowna (2007) Consolidated zoning bylaw no. 8000. City of Kelowna, Kelowna

    Google Scholar 

  • City of Penticton (2015a) The Corporation of the City of Penticton: Zonning bylaw No. 2011-23

  • City of Penticton (2015b) Energy consumption data for Penticton wastewater treatment system: 2005–2014. City of Penticton

  • Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (2016) Height calculator. http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/TallestDatabase/Criteria/HeightCalculator/tabid/1007/language/en-GB/Default.aspx. 29 July 2016

  • C-SHRP (2002) Pavement structural design practices across Canada. Canadian Strategic Highway Research Program, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuddihy J, Kennedy C, Byer P (2005) Energy use in Canada: environmental impacts and opportunities in relationship to infrastructure systems. Can J Civ Eng 32:1–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davis M, Coony R, Gould S, Mann C, Sewak B (2005) Guidelines for life cycle cost analysis. Stanford University

  • District of Peachland (2004) Subdivision, development and servicing bylaw no. 1956. District of Peachland, Peachland

    Google Scholar 

  • DoP (2014a) The district of Peachland zoning bylaw number 1375 (Amended October, 2014). District of Peachland, Peachland

    Google Scholar 

  • DoP (2014b) District of Peachland official community plan: consolidated bylaw. District of Peachland, Peachland

    Google Scholar 

  • Energy Center of Wiscosin (2003) Energy use at Wisconsin’s drinking water facilities energy use at Wisconsin’s drinking water facilities. Madison, Wisconsin

    Google Scholar 

  • Environment Canada (2004) Threats to water availability in Canada: NWRI Scientific assessment report series no. 3 and ACSD science assessment series no. 1. National Water Research Institute, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Environment Canada (2014) Water withdrawal and consumption by Sector. http://ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=En&n=5736C951-1

  • EPRI (2002) Water & sustainability (Volume 4): U.S. electricity consumption for water supply & treatment—the next half century. Technical report, Palo Alto

  • Ewing R, Rong F (2008) The impact of urban form on U.S. residential energy use. Hous Policy Debate 19(1):1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2014) Water withdrawal by sector, around 2006 (using AQUASTAT database). http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/globalmaps/AquastatWorldDataEng_20121214_Withdrawal.pdf

  • Filion Y (2008) Impact of urban form on energy use in water distribution systems. J Infrastruct Syst 14(4):337–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fire Underwriters Survey (2007) Water supply for public fire protection 1999. Fire Underwriters Survey, CGI Group Inc., Burnaby

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank JE (1989) The costs of alternative development patterns: a review of the literature. Urban Land Institute, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulton J, Cooley H (2015) The water footprint of California’ s energy system, 1990–2012. Environ Sci Technol 49:3314–3321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gleick PH, Haasz D, Henges-Jeck C, Srinivasan V, Wolff G, Kao Cushing K, Mann A (2003) Waste not, want not: the potential for urban water conservation in California. Pacific Institute, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasaneen R, Elsayed N, Barrufet MA (2014) Analysis of the technical, microeconomic, and political impact of a carbon tax on carbon dioxide sequestration resulting from liquefied natural gas production. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(8):1597–1613

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holden E, Norland IT (2005) Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable urban form: household consumption of energy and transport in eight residential areas in the Greater Oslo region. Urban Stud 42(12):2145–2166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet-Lagreze E, Siskos J (1982) Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. Eur J Oper Res 10(2):151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jato-espino D (2014) A review of application of multi-criteria decision making methods in construction making methods in construction. Autom Constr 45:151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JDA, DCA, GTFUGP (1989) The search for efficient urban growth patterns: a study of the impacts of development in Florida. James Duncan and Associates, Department of Community Affairs, and Governor’s Task Force on Urban Growth Pattern, Tallahassee, pp 1–147

  • Jim CY, Shan X (2013) Socioeconomic effect on perception of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Cities 31:123–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabisch N, Qureshi S, Haase D (2015) Human-environment interactions in urban green spaces—a systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environ Impact Assess Rev 50:25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardan O, Gozdyra P, Misic B, Moola F, Palmer LJ, Paus T, Berman MG (2015) Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Sci Rep 5(11610):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Karunathilake H, Perera P, Ruparathna R, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2016) Renewable energy integration into community energy systems: a case study of new urban development. J Clean Prod 173:292–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lal R, Augustin B (eds) (2012) Carbon sequestration in urban ecosystems. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Landcom (2011) Residential density guide for Landcom project teams. Landcom, Parramatta

    Google Scholar 

  • Liou T, Wang MJ (1992) Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Sets Syst 50:247–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma D, Hu S, Zhu B (2012) Carbon substance flow analysis and CO2 emission scenario analysis for China. Clean Techn Environ Policy 14:815–825

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meda A, Lensch D, Schaum C, Cornel P (2012) Energy and water: relations and recovery. In: Lazarova V, Choo K-H, Cornel P (eds) Water energy interactions in water reuse. IWA Pulishing, London, pp 21–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Environment (2013) 2013: best practices methodology for quantifying greenhouse gas emissions including guidance for public sector organizations, local governments and community emissions. BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Musikavong C, Gheewala SH (2016) Ecological footprint assessment towards eco-efficient oil palm and rubber plantations in Thailand. J Clean Prod 140(2):581–589

    Google Scholar 

  • Natural Resources Canada (2014) Energy use data handbook: 1990–2011. In: Office of Energy Efficiency, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa

  • Norman J, Maclean H, Kennedy C (2006) Comparing high and low residential density: life-cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. J Urban Plan Dev 132(1):10–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OBWB (2016) Okanagan Water supply and demand project: water use. http://www.obwb.ca/wsd/key-findings/water-use. 2 Aug 2016

  • Okadera T, Chontanawat J, Gheewala SH (2014) Water footprint for energy production and supply in Thailand. Energy 77:49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Ministry of Environment (2008) Design guidelines for drinking-water systems 2008. Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt D (2013) Evaluating the greenhouse gas reduction benefits of compact housing development housing development. J Environ Plan Manag 56(4):588–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruddell DM, Dixon PG (2014) The energy–water nexus: are there tradeoffs between residential energy and water consumption in arid cities? Int J Biometeorol 58:1421–1431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salat S (2009) Energy loads, CO2 emissions and building stocks: morphologies, typologies, energy systems and behaviour. Build Res Inf 37(5–6):598–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senbel M, Zhang K (2014) Compact development without transit: life-cycle GHG emissions from four variations of residential density in Vancouver. Environ Plan A 46:1226–1243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speir C, Stephenson K (2002) Does sprawl cost us all?: isolating the effects of housing patterns on public water and sewer costs. J Am Plan Assoc 68(1):56–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada (2011) Households and the environment: energy use. Ottawa, ON

  • Steemers K (2003) Energy and the city: density, buildings and transport. Energy Build 35:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EIA (2017) Use of energy in the united states explained: basics. U.S. Energy Information Administration

  • Wackernagel M, Monfreda C (2004) Ecological footprints and energy. Encycl Energy 2:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island

    Google Scholar 

  • Ye G, Soga K (2011) Energy harvesting from water distribution systems. J Energy Eng 138(1):7–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Li SS (2012) The time-series study of Xiangjiang river water carrying capacity based on the ecological footprint of water resource—the ChangZhuTan Region, for example. Adv Mater Res 518–523:4362–4370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou X, Rana MP (2012) Social benefits of urban green space: a conceptual framework of valuation and accessibility measurements. Manag Environ Qual 23(2):173–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zirkle G (2010) Assessment of carbon sequestration in the U.S. residential landscape. Thesis, Ohio State University

  • Zirkle G, Augustin B, Lal R (2011) Modeling Carbon Sequestration in Home Lawns Modeling Carbon Sequestration in Home Lawns. HortScience 46(5):808–814

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zirkle G, Lal R, Augustin B, Follett R (2012) Modeling carbon sequestration in the U.S. residential landscape. In: Lal R, Augustin B (eds) Carbon sequestration in urban ecosystems. Springer, New York, pp 265–276

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial assistance of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the financial and in-kind support of the industrial partners (New Monaco Enterprise, District of Peachland, Focus Engineering, Urban Systems, and FortisBC) for this research under NSERC Collaborative Research and Development Grants. Also, authors would like to thank NSERC for providing the Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship (CGSD) to the first author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, 3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC, V1V1V7, Canada

    Gyan Chhipi-Shrestha, Manjot Kaur, Kasun Hewage & Rehan Sadiq

Authors
  1. Gyan Chhipi-Shrestha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manjot Kaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kasun Hewage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rehan Sadiq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gyan Chhipi-Shrestha.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 112 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Kaur, M., Hewage, K. et al. Optimizing residential density based on water–energy–carbon nexus using UTilités Additives (UTA) method. Clean Techn Environ Policy 20, 855–870 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1506-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1506-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation