1. An integrated planning framework for the development of sustainable and resilient cities (the EU FP7 InSMART project)
Rocco De Miglio
Alessandro Chiodi
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no

2. The InSmart Project: “framework”
Outline and definitions
The InSmart Project: “framework”
Goal of the project: Establish and implement a comprehensive methodology for enhancing sustainable planning (focusing on energy).
Framework: Combination of tools, data, expert judgment/preferences, practices, engagement procedures, etc. used for and beyond energy/emission projections and aiming to better support decision makers (for energy planning at city level).
The InSmart Project: “tool(s)”
- Paradigm of the integrated tool
- MCDA

3. Project details (1) WP1 WP4 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 Work Packages
WP1: Development of the city’s GIS platform on energy use and needs
Analyse the current status of the cities’ energy strategy and data availability, design and conduct city specific surveys and develop a GIS energy database for each city.
WP2: Analysis of the city building stock
Provide the necessary techno-economic input for the energy modelling of the building sector in each city.
WP3: Transport and mobility analysis
Analyse the transport and mobility system of each city, identify possible measures for energy saving and sustainable transport and propose actions for further investigation.
WP4: Analysis of the cities’ energy systems and networks
Analyse the current status of urban spaces, water/sewage system, waste chain and decentralised energy supply at city level, identify applicable technical solutions and develop the GIS energy database for each city.
WP1
WP4
WP2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6

4. Project details (2) WP1 WP4 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 Work Packages
WP5: Integrated planning tool for the development of Strategic Sustainable Energy Plans
Develop city specific energy system models in order to optimise the system’s path towards sustainability targets identifying the economically optimum mix of the measures. Multi-criteria approach taking into account stakeholders’ and decision makers’ input.
WP6: Development of mid-term Implementation Action Plans
Analyse further the economics of the mid-term sustainability measures and develop realistic and feasible implementation action plans indicating specific capacity needs at city level.
WP1
WP4
WP2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6

5. InSMART partners

6. Geographical representation
Key: identification of the basic geographical entities (zones) representing the most suitable geographical distribution of the information for planning purposes.

7. Structure and data breakdown
Surveys + Calibration to a reference year + simulation of alternative savings options

8. Structure and data breakdown
- Surveys
- Analysis of the existing and future private/public demand of transportation (by mode).
from zone to zone
from/to external areas

9. Technology explicitness - households
Several “services” are demanded by the key agent (responsible of investment decisions) placed in the dwelling (dw).
 A budget constraint “per household” can be modelled

10. Integrated scenario analysis for cities
Approach
A Reference projection of the city energy system is calculated and then modified through a number of actions, measures, or targets aiming at representing alternative planning hypotheses.
Benefits and trade-offs of the tested measures can be seen comparing the key outputs of the scenarios.

11. Results (examples)
…...and many other quantitative indicators (eg costs, emissions, consumption profiles, etc.) to provide more information to the local decision makers !

12. Sustainable Energy Action Plans
Approach
The prioritised planning hypotheses identified through the MCDA with the stakeholders’ participation (alternatives, criteria, preferences), are used to formulate the cities’ Sustainable Energy Action Plans.
Implementation plans includes the necessary steps, the required resources and the monitoring procedures.

13. Key elements of novelty Existing SEAP approach
Existing SEAP approach
INSMART approach
Approach
Top-down. Downscaling of national targets, policies and measures.
Bottom-up & multi-criteria Driven by urban specific needs.
Sectors (coverage)
Residential, Commercial, Public Administration (very limited analysis of agriculture and industry). Transport is often not included.
Residential, Transport, Public Administration.
Emissions (location)
Direct (within the urban area) and indirect (e.g. due to the generation of electricity consumed in the urban area).
Direct (within the system). All the emissions “directly” generated by the players of the system (e.g. households) are taken into consideration.
Emissions (type)
CO2, CH4, N2O
CO2, particulate
Measures
Simulation. Cost-benefit analysis of individual stand-alone measures.
Optimisation/Simulation (what-if analysis). Integrated system approach.
Urban / Energy
Urban planning and energy planning are carried out separately.
Urban planning and energy planning are carried out together.
Representation by “zone”.

14. Key message
The “framework” is a general integrated planning approach that can be applied to a variety of case studies (municipalities), and can use different/other tools, as long as the “principles” of the method are maintained.

15. More information Project Book Available from: WP deliverables
WP deliverables
Available from:

16. ”Tools” for policy evaluation
Ideal City Planning Platform for the INSMART application
Technology explicitness
Microeconomic realism
Macroeconomic robustness
Consumer behavior
Regulatory instruments (e.g. in the building sector)
Financial incentives (in the building sector, in renewables, …)
“Integrated”
“Participatory”
City Planning Platform
ESM
Energy System Model
MCDA
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis
“Essentially, all models are wrong but some are useful” (G. Box)

17. Energy System Model (ESM) at city level
A technology-explicit model of the city is designed to be used as a test-bed for exploring the evolution of energy-environmental variables in the urban area and assess the impacts of different energy strategies.
Developed using the TIMES modelling framework
Integrated modelling of the entire energy system
Cost-optimal technology selection
Combines both technical/engineering and economic approaches
Explores possible energy futures based on contrasted scenarios
Reproduces environmental/financial/policy constraints
Links with Transport models & MCDA tools

18. Energy System Model (ESM) at city level
Chains/substitutions/interdependencies

19. Multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
Analisi multicriteriale
The expectation of any decision-maker is to identify the best strategy.
There is no “absolute” best alternative (generally), solution depends on individual preferences of each decision maker.
The relevant criteria against which decisions are taken, are sometimes conflicting each with other.
The objective of MCDA is thus to identify the best “compromise” decisions.
MCDA involves the participation of stakeholders to:
Identify the relevant criteria
Evaluate criteria based on priorities and perceptions

20. Criteria identification and performance
Scenario
Unit: TJ
Unit: t
Unit: kg
Unit: kEuro
Unit: Mpass-km S1
1,965
273,868
11,296
2,353,204
1,358
1.168 S2
1,809
255,730
10,924
2,471,972
1.123 S3
1,828
272,480
12,324
2,787,580
1.165 S4
1,877
254,160
9,542
2,228,977
1,361
1.151 S5
1,874
305,136
13,055
2,846,468
1.198 S6
1,886
227,719
6,901
2,118,472
1.076 S7
1,838
246,819
9,624
2,381,794
1,673
Quantitative (determined by running the City-ESM) C7 C8 C9
Scenario
Qualitative S1
Average
Very good
Very bad S2
Good S3 S4
Bad S5 S6 S7
Qualitative
(determined in collaboration with an independent group of technicians of the municipality and experts)
Local stakeholders are called to specify priorities and perceptions between criteria ( “outranking” method).

21. MCDA: selection of the alternatives
Software: Visual Promethee
Method: Outranking relation from pairwise comparison of the alternatives
 Generation of “flows of preference”
Ranking
Alternative planning hypotheses
Phi
Phi+
Phi- 1 S7
0.2871
0.4777
0.1906 2 S2
0.1986
0.381
0.1824 3 S4
0.0455
0.3863
0.3408 4 S3
0.2729
0.3066 5 S6
0.3121
0.4674 6 S5
0.5407
The planning hypotheses which ranked high will form the basis of a deeper explorations and will feed the technical part of Sustainable Energy Action Plan for the city
Ranking
Alternative planning hypotheses
Results / Decisions 1 S7
Shortlisted 2 S2 3 S4
Below the threshold 4 S3
Likely not of interest 5 S6 6 S5
Discarded

22. Key message
Large numbers of “tools” with different approaches and philosophies are available for energy planning. The choice of specific applications shall be always guided by the planning and policy questions that the planner aim to answer to.

23. More details in the next webinar
Join us!
October 25th, 2017 (14.00 CET)
Webinar on INSMART applications:
“Exploring integrated energy action plans for a sustainable transition in the InSmart project: The case of Cesena (Italy), The case of Nottingham (UK), and The case of Évora (Portugal)”
Cesena (Italy)
Nottingham (U.K.)
Évora (Portugal)

24. Thank you! Rocco De Miglio rocco.demiglio@e4sma.com Alessandro Chiodi
Via Livorno 60 – Environment Park
Torino, Italy
e4sma.com
Rocco De Miglio
Alessandro Chiodi
Twitter:
@E4SMAsrl
LinkedIn:
E4SMA