Comparing High and Low Residential Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Abstract

This study provides an empirical assessment of energy use and greenhouse gas ͑GHG͒ emissions associated with high and low residential development. Three major elements of urban development are considered: construction materials for infrastructure ͑including residential dwellings, utilities, and roads͒, building operations, and transportation ͑private automobiles and public transit͒. Two case studies from the City of Toronto are analyzed. An economic input-output life-cycle assessment ͑EIO-LCA͒ model is applied to estimate the energy use and GHG emissions associated with the manufacture of construction materials for infrastructure. Operational requirements for dwellings and transportation are estimated using nationally and/or regionally averaged data. The results indicate that the most targeted measures to reduce GHG emissions in an urban development context should be aimed at transportation emissions, while the most targeted measures to reduce energy usage should focus on building operations. The results also show that low-density suburban development is more energy and GHG intensive ͑by a factor of 2.0-2.5͒ than high-density urban core development on a per capita basis. When the functional unit is changed to a per unit of living space basis the factor decreases to 1.0-1.5, illustrating that the choice of functional unit is highly relevant to a full understanding of urban density effects.

Does urbanization lead to less energy use on road transport? Evidence from municipalities in Norway

“…Researchers applying the STIRPAT frame to carbon emissions or energy use typically include data on population, income, urbanization level, urban density, and age compositions in their analyses, summarized in the appendix A1 (Boyko and Cooper, 2011;Fan et al, 2006;Hossain, 2011;Liddle, 2004;Liddle and Lung, 2010;Martínez-Zarzoso et al, 2007;Martínez-Zarzoso and Maruotti, 2011;Menz and Welsch, 2012;Norman et al, 2006;Perkins et al, 2009;Poumanyvong and Kaneko, 2010;Poumanyvonga et al, 2012;Yang et al, 2015;Zhu and Peng, 2012). The common feature in these studies is the lack of information on the urban form which may be ascribed to the deficiency of appropriate measures of urban area level spatial structure (Lee and Lee, 2014) as well as the limited variables in the STIRPAT framework.…”

“…The common feature in these studies is the lack of information on the urban form which may be ascribed to the deficiency of appropriate measures of urban area level spatial structure (Lee and Lee, 2014) as well as the limited variables in the STIRPAT framework. Indeed, many variables describing urban form (e.g., area, share of residential building type, urban density) are identified as important driving forces with environmental impacts (Boyko and Cooper, 2011;Norman et al, 2006;Perkins et al, 2009). Further, there are two arguments supporting the idea of controlling the ratio of residential building type in a municipality space area from empirical observations.…”

“…This is questionable due to its multiple facets (e.g., urban area, urban density, residential dwelling spatial structure) across countries and geographical regions. In addition, many recent empirical studies have found that some urban form variables (e.g., urban area, residential density, housing sizes and types, urban structure) can have significant impacts on environment (i.e., carbon emission, energy use) (Boyko and Cooper, 2011;Fang et al, 2015;Lee and Lee, 2014;Norman et al, 2006;Perkins et al, 2009;Reingewertz, 2012 ;Yang et al, 2015;Yin et al, 2015). Therefore, further studies with careful considerations of the different urban forms become imperative.…”

Greenhouse Gas Implications of Urban Sprawl in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area

“…However, the differences in the average amount of GHGs, both in absolute and relative terms, between the low-rise and high-rise dwellers are rather moderate compared with the figures from earlier literature. Many authors suggest that less-dense suburban living is approximately two times more energy-or GHG-intensive than inner-city living [3,4,10,34]. VandeWeghe and Kennedy [5], for example, come up with a yearly difference of 1.3 t CO2-eq and smaller for those living in inner Toronto.…”

Evaluating the Age-Energy Consumption Profile in Residential Buildings

“…Despite all the technological advancements in energy efficiency, by 2040 world energy consumption is expected to be about 60 percent higher than its 2010 level [41]. With about 40 percent share in global energy demand [22,24,27,31], buildings are the world's largest energy consumers. Residential buildings use most of this global share.…”