Environment

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Low-energy or zero-energy housing is international best practice, but is still considered costly.
Part of the problem is that studies of housing standards typically use only cost-benefit analysis to assess their value, and so often wrongly conclude that sustainable housing is unaffordable.
Our new research shows how such analyses may miss some flow-on financial benefits – such as reduced energy bills and lower mobility costs. Most importantly, these analyses also overlook effects on householders' health and quality of life arising from factors such as improved thermal comfort.
Sustainable housing can also have important benefits for some of the most vulnerable members of our community, as the report released this week shows.
The environmental performance of Australian housing has improved slowly, associated with changes in minimum building regulations and the creation of subsidies such as solar rebates. This is despite sustainable housing having many documented benefits, including lower (or non-existent) utility bills and greenhouse gas emissions, and improved comfort and health.
Conventional cost-benefit analyses exclude these benefits. That leaves significant gaps in the story that could be used to support investment in sustainable housing.
<h2>What did the study assess?</h2>
Our study involved a three-year, mixed-method evaluation of a small sustainable housing development in Horsham, Victoria. Commissioned by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the study used both quantitative and qualitative methods, which are rarely combined to assess housing policy and environmental performance.
Four two-bedroom, nine-star-rated (under the National House Energy Rating Scheme, NatHERS) houses were built to maximise passive solar principles. The design elements and technologies used included (partial) reverse brick-veneer construction, double-glazed windows, solar hot water, a 1.5-kilowatt solar photovoltaic system and a shared 5,000-litre rainwater tank.
The houses were built without air conditioning. They do have ceiling fans and gas heating in the living area.
We evaluated these nine-star houses against seven control houses also in Horsham and built to DHHS standards, with a six-star NatHERS rating. We also compared the results to a DHHS technical model of standard industry practice. We conducted a traditional cost-benefit analysis, technical performance analysis (utility consumption, internal temperature), three rounds of interviews with the householders during different seasons, and a personalised household sustainability assessment.
Through a traditional cost-benefit lens, the nine-star housing was not financially viable for DHHS. Even if DHHS was able to capture the savings to the householders, payback was only achieved within 40 years for one of the four dwellings in a high-energy-price future. This was due to higher-than-expected capital costs for the sustainability initiatives.
<a href="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160727-21569-1rlvkw5.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160727-21569-1rlvkw5.jpg" alt="">
<h4>
Falling short: the conventional cost-benefit outcome for the nine-star houses. RMIT Centre for Urban Research, DHHS
</h4>
However, resale value could be up to A$40,000 higher per unit. The technical performance analysis also identified significant benefits for the nine-star households. These included reduced utility consumption and bills. One occupant told us:
Look, I haven’t paid any off my power bill in six months and I’m still in credit.
We found that these households:
<ul>
<li>
were A$1,000 a year better off as a result of reduced utility consumption (including solar feed-in tariff);
</li>
<li>
purchased 45 percent less electricity than the control households (and 73 percent less than the standard industry practice);
</li>
<li>
consumed 22 percent less water (30% less than the industry standard);
</li>
<li>
had 40 percent less CO₂ environmental impact from power use (63 percent less than the industry standard); and
</li>
</ul>
<h4><a href="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160728-21558-1mcn2gn.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></h4>
<img src="/images/2016/08/29/image-20160728-21558-1mcn2gn.jpg" alt="">
<h4>
Car equivalent of environmental performance. RMIT Centre for Urban Research, DHHS
</h4>
<ul>
<li>were comfortable with the indoor temperature of their house for 10% more of the time (even without air conditioning).</li>
</ul>
<h4><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/132279/area14mp/image-20160728-21591-wyl97v.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/132279/width754/image-20160728-21591-wyl97v.png" alt=""></a></h4>
<h4>
Summary of average annual utilities consumed/generated from each dwelling. RMIT Centre for Urban Research, DHHS
</h4>
Extreme weather events magnified the comfort benefits. On a second consecutive day above 41℃, the nine-star houses were up to 16.6℃ cooler (without air conditioning) compared to the department’s standard six-star house (which had air conditioning).
This meant householders could stay at home during heatwaves rather than needing to seek alternative accommodation, which happened sometimes for the control households. One occupant said:
…in summer I would sit down at the supermarket, you know, because it was cool … [Now] I can stay home and veg out.
<h4><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/132280/area14mp/image-20160728-21574-1kidnxz.jpg"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/132280/width754/image-20160728-21574-1kidnxz.jpg" alt=""></a></h4>
<h4>
Temperature in the living rooms of monitored houses and external temperature for January 18-19, 2013. RMIT Centre for Urban Research, DHHS
</h4>
<h2>Residents confirm well-being benefits</h2>
Interviews with residents highlighted positive social outcomes from living in sustainable housing, which supported the technical data. The benefits they described included improved health and personal finances.
For example, these householders said they had extra spending money due to low (or no) utility bills. This meant they could buy children Christmas presents, avoid personal debt and lay-by, or go on a holiday.
"I do go clothes shopping on occasion now instead of thinking, “Oh God, I have to go and lay-by that.”
Householders described how this led to reduced stress and better mental health.
The research demonstrates that the housing sector’s over-reliance on cost-benefit analysis may be overlooking important benefits (and detriments) of different housing arrangements. Combining qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods can help uncover a more detailed and complete picture of how housing affects people’s lives.
Our research also highlights how sustainable housing benefits extend beyond the environment. These flow-on effects can improve the living conditions of some of the most vulnerable members of society. This, in turn, potentially reduces pressure on health and other support systems and sectors.
<h2>Combining sustainable and affordable housing</h2>
Our study is part of an emerging body of research that challenges the idea that sustainable housing is unaffordable.
The evidence increasingly shows that sustainability and good design can improve affordability when fuller cost-benefit analyses are undertaken and non-monetised social, health and well-being benefits are considered.
To date, however, there is limited “real world” research into people living in sustainable housing, particularly in the affordable housing sector. Without more multidisciplinary evaluations of this kind, we are left with an incomplete picture of the benefits of this type of housing.
Such studies will be critically important as Australia seeks to make the transition to a more sustainable future. Climate change and increased livability costs are likely to add to the challenges for social housing organisations and the tenants who depend on their services.
Trivess Moore is research Fellow, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/trivess-moore-12580" target="_blank">here</a>.
Cecily Maller is vice chancellor's Senior Research Fellow, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/cecily-maller-15732" target="_blank">here</a>.
Ralph Horne is deputy Pro Vice Chancellor, Research &amp; Innovation; Director of UNGC Cities Programme; Professor, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ralph-horne-160543" target="_blank">here</a>.
Yolande Strengers is senior Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yolande-strengers-15350" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Sustainable housing’s expensive, right? Not when you look at the whole equation

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Coal’s impact on the Great Barrier Reef by causing climate change is one of the reasons why environmentalists oppose the development of coal fields and exports in Queensland. But fossil fuels could have a more direct impact on the reef and the waters around it, through chemicals produced during their production and distribution.
When coal dust is released in the marine environment it can damage marine ecosystems. Coal contains a number of different chemicals, but it is polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are known carcinogens, that are of most concern.
Some components of coal PAHs cause biochemical changes in fish and can lead to cancer. The coal dust has a very slow degradation rate and will build up in the ecosystem from the continuous input.
Coal dust also absorbs chemicals in the coastal zone and transports things like pesticides and herbicides offshore. Oil spills are another source of PAHs in the marine environment.
It is currently impossible for Australia to assess the impact of these chemicals in marine sediments, because our sediment guidelines are out of date. They need to be updated to match the standards used elsewhere, such as in the United States.
<h2>Coal dust and Great Barrier Reef marine life</h2>
I have previously looked at how far these chemicals can travel from coal ports. I found they can be detected in suspended sediments all the way to the shelf break 200km offshore. (I also published a corrigendum to this paper to correct data errors and to explain how sediment guidelines need to be updated.)
I used the Australian and the US Environment Protection Authority (EPA) sediment quality guidelines to assess the concentration of PAHs in the sediments and suspended sediments on the Great Barrier Reef. The guidelines are meant to indicate “trigger values” for the concentration of possible toxins. If trigger values are reached then sources should be curtailed.
My study showed the concentrations were below toxic levels as then defined by the US guidelines. But it is impossible to know based on the Australian guidelines because these guidelines don’t target the PAHs contained in coal or oil. To explain why, we have to go into a bit of chemistry.
The composition of the PAHs can indicate the source from coal, oil or combustion processes.
The US guidelines use 34 key PAH groups (a total of about 290 individual compounds) and are currently the best available for assessing oil pollution incidents.
The Australian guidelines do not assess the PAHs that are the major contributor to PAHs in coal and oil. The Australian guidelines specify only 20 “parent” PAHs. These guidelines are more relevant to combustion products.
<h2>When is it toxic?</h2>
The Australian guidelines consider PAHs reach toxic levels at 10-50 milligrams per kilogram of sediment. But research suggests this is way too high.
Modern assessments of oil spills now rely on the PAH content of oils in addition to the total oil content.
PAHs make up about 1% of total oil content. If you applied these guidelines to an oil spill, the toxic level of 10mg PAH per kg of sediment would equal 1,000mg of oil per kg. This oil content would kill everything in marine sediments.
For example, I and a colleague published a detailed study of fiddler crabs after the West Falmouth oil spill. We determined that total oil concentrations of 100-200mg oil per kg of sediment were toxic to juvenile crabs. Concentrations of 1,000mg per kg were toxic to adults and/or caused a number of impacts before the crabs died.
As PAHs make up around 1% of most oils, this means that the trigger values should be 1mg PAH per kg (with a maximum of 5mg per kg). And this assessment must include the PAHs that are commonly found in oil and coal.
Commercial Australian labs don’t assess all these PAHs yet, but neither did the American labs until it became necessary for assessing major oil spills such as the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and the Deepwater Horizonspill in the Gulf of Mexico. We should not wait for the next disaster to upgrade our capability.
<h2>Cleaning up coal ports</h2>
We also need the ports to reduce their inputs. Townsville port has reduced the dust emission from its powdered zinc and lead loadings.
The train cars are covered and one at a time enter a shed which is under negative pressure. The powder is dumped in a hopper, transported to the conveyors and loaded onto the ships with no or little dust escaping the process.
The cars are then rinsed before leaving the shed. Water is retained and filtered so no dust leaves the area.
Why can’t coal be handled the same way? Improvement in loading metal powders was brought on by public objections to the previous operations.
This would eliminate coal piles in the coastal zone which blow dust all over nearby cities such as Gladstone and leach into coastal creeks. We also need the Australian sediment quality guidelines for PAHs brought up to 21st-century standard.
Do we have to wait until we have another incident like the Montara platform explosion in the Timor Sea in 2010 before we update our guidelines and response times?
Kathryn Burns is a marine scientist, James Cook University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kathryn-burns-118459" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Pollution guidelines leave a blind spot for assessing the impact of coal and oil

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Going green has gone from being a luxury option to a necessity for the built environment sector today.
For cities around the world it has a key role to play in helping to cut their long-term carbon footprint. In Singapore, for example, the built environment is responsible for almost a quarter of our carbon emissions.
To reduce this we need to change not just the way buildings are constructed and run but also the perception of sustainability.
In the early stages of Singapore’s green building movement, green building practices were not perceived to offer any competitive advantage. However, today, we are seeing a shift in mindset with green buildings now regarded as a form of value creation for developers. Adding green building certifications such as Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority’s (BCA) Green Mark to a development’s list of credentials can help boost the developer’s corporate image and the prestige of such developments.
Singapore: A green work in progress
Such moves are driving rapid change. Over the past decade, Singapore has greened almost one-third of its building stock including improving energy and water efficiency, using eco-friendly construction material and creating healthier indoor space. It is well on track to achieving the target of greening 80 percent of all the buildings by 2030 to meet the standards set by the BCA Green Mark certification process.
Other cities can learn from the initiatives used to make progress. The Singapore government, for example, offers incentives for higher green building ratings. One of the most popular for developers is to obtain up to 2 percent additional Gross Floor Area when they achieve higher Green Mark ratings for new developments.
For older buildings, BCA also provides support to building owners to co-fund up to 50 percent of the energy efficiency retrofit cost. We’ve seen that retrofitted commercial buildings can benefit from an increase in their capital value of about 2 percent.
This is proof that profit and eco-consciousness can go hand-in-hand for green real estate.
The rise of green-minded tenants
It’s not just developers embracing sustainability; increasingly, green real estate is driven by tenants. Businesses which strongly advocate corporate social responsibility are increasingly expecting a better indoor environment, lower operating costs and enhanced market value for their spaces.
Once again, governments can help boost demand for sustainable buildings by extending green building certifications to tenants. In Singapore, the public sector champions this by leasing office spaces only from buildings which are at least certified Green Mark GoldPLUS. Public sector events are also required to be held in Green Mark-certified venues.
Real estate intermediaries are also stepping up to meet such demands. Through green leases and green facilities management, they now offer prospective building tenants a way to differentiate themselves by making a positive commitment to the environment, without undermining the viability of their business.
However, there’s a flipside to this as more buildings meet green standards, the additional value these currently provide is likely to decrease. To truly reflect the advantages offered by green buildings, more efforts by real estate appraisers will be required on how best to capture the value of green attributes.
All of this is just the start of a long-term sustainability commitment. The next challenge for cities is to ensure that green building practices are self-sustaining. A critical factor is to have a business environment that values green spaces and the people who created them.
Building for the future
Regulation will have huge impact on the future of green real estate around the world. Following the Paris agreement which came into force on 4 November 2016, sustainability regulations will become even more relevant to global real estate investors. For example, in the European Union, cities will be going beyond just greening buildings, to having net-zero buildings as a regulatory requirement.
Jurisdictions will also be created to mandate public disclosure of building energy use data, further intertwining energy use into decision-making on leasing and investment.
Stepping out of the “business as usual” approach may appear daunting, but with strong industry leadership and greater collaboration among all stakeholders, coupled with a forward-looking mandatory framework, the road to having “future-ready” green buildings and cities is a promising one.
This article by Ang Kian Seng, group director (Environmental Sustainability) at the Building and Construction Authority in Singapore, appeared in <a href="https://www.jllrealviews.com/viewpoint/why-green-real-estate-is-the-way-forward/" target="_blank">JLL Real Views</a>.
 
</body></html>

Why green real estate is the way forward

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75840/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Access to high-quality public open space is a key ingredient of healthy, liveable cities.
This has long been recognised in government planning policy, based on a large body of academic research showing that accessible green spaces lead to better health outcomes.
However, cities are home to more than just people. We also need to accommodate the critters and plants who live in them. This includes the species who called our cities home before we did.
Greening cities that are becoming denser is a major challenge. Green spaces and density are both good for health outcomes when designed well. However, higher-density development can place added pressure on green space if not well planned and managed.
The South Australian government is leading the way in the design of public green spaces in denser cities by bringing together the multiple actors needed to create change. This includes the Heart Foundation, Departments of Health and Ageing, Environment Water and Natural Resources, Office for Recreation and Sport, the South Australian Local Government Association and the Office of the Chief Architect, as well as researchers from RMIT University and the University of Melbourne.
This is the new shift required for urban greening practice – led by practitioners with support from research evidence provided by (and in collaboration with) academics.
In Victoria, Planning Minister Richard Wynne has called for the suburban backyard to be maintained in the refreshed Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. This policy recognises the importance of private green space by establishing minimum garden areas in new developments.
Another major challenge is increasing urban heat and climate change. Some tree species we know and love will no longer be viable in cities that are several degrees warmer than they were.
Suitable species for future climates need to be selected, as the City of Melbourne has recently demonstrated. Increasing temperatures and the resulting loss of old trees will have adverse consequences for public health, ecology and biodiversity.
Understanding how best to achieve these benefits, and the trade-offs involved in delivering them, is particularly important today. Our cities are growing rapidly. We are seeing increasing populations, greater housing density, rising temperatures, growing rates of obesity, diabetes, stress and depression, and declining native biodiversity.
Why is greening on the agenda?
Urban greening is now recognised as a public health issue. New research has found its benefits include:
<ul>
<li>lower rates of anti-depressant prescriptions in neighbourhoods close to woodlands in the UK;
</li>
<li>happier people living in areas with more birdlife; and
</li>
<li>better health outcomes with increased neighbourhood tree coverage in the US.
</li>
</ul>
Ecological research also shows that urban green spaces can support many kinds of birds, bats, bees and plants. Urban greening has even been found to lead to safer neighbourhoods.
Australian urban planning and policy need to embrace these findings. Multiple government portfolios must work together to better plan for green cities that achieve maximum impact for economic, environmental and public health outcomes.
What do we mean by green space?
Green spaces are areas of public and private land covered with vegetation. This includes most areas we traditionally see as public open space: parks, gardens and sports ovals.
Green space also includes other areas of public land: street trees and streetscapes, nature conservation reserves, community gardens, school grounds and public buildings with green walls, facades and roofs. On private land, green spaces include residential gardens, golf courses and greening on and around private buildings.
All these green spaces together provide multiple benefits. The Heart Foundation and South Australian government recently commissioned an evidence review of how quality green space is supporting health, wellbeing and biodiversity. This report shows that green spaces can be designed to provide multiple benefits.
These benefits are delivered by including features that are known to influence physical activity, mental health, social, cultural, environmental and biodiversity outcomes. For example, planting trees in parks, gardens or streets can have many benefits:
<ul>
<li>cool cities;
</li>
<li>slow stormwater runoff;
</li>
<li>filter air pollution;
</li>
<li>provide habitat for some animals;
</li>
<li>make people happier; and
</li>
<li>encourage walking.
</li>
</ul>
Greening solutions aren’t simple
The benefits green spaces provide are also influenced by local context: climate, inequity and social disadvantage, culture, or resident/user age and gender.
However, if green spaces are well designed with community input, these local factors can provide opportunities to maximise impact. For example, green space can be more beneficial when provided in areas of social disadvantage with limited existing green space, and trees provide more cooling benefits in hotter cities.
There are no magic bullets. If green spaces aren’t well designed, for example, trees can:
<ul>
<li>reduce the area available for some active sports;</li>
<li>shade rooftop solar panels;
</li>
<li>reduce flower, fruit and vegetable production;</li>
<li>create mess through fallen leaves; and</li>
<li>create unsuitable habitat for other kinds of plants and animals.
</li>
</ul>
These complex interactions highlight the need for academics and practitioners to work collaboratively across disciplines and sectors. These should include urban planning, public health, urban ecology, urban forestry, engineering, community development and economics. Knowledge needs to be shared and translated into action.
Our green cities of the future need to be designed to benefit human (and non-human) residents equitably. We need to move beyond a reliance on backyards and parks that were designed according to 19th-century principles (and using 19th-century species).
Cities need green spaces that are well designed, creatively delivered, accessible to all, and managed and maintained with appropriate resources to ensure long-term quality and availability.
 
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/melanie-davern-144750" target="_blank">Melanie Davern </a>is Senior Research Fellow, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University.  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alison-farrar-357347" target="_blank">Alison Farrar </a>is Research Assistant, School of Ecosystem &amp; Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne.  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dave-kendal-180942" target="_blank">Dave Kendal </a>is Research Fellow, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences and the Clean Air and Urban Landscape hub of the National Environmental Science Program, University of Melbourne. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lucy-gunn-146721" target="_blank">Lucy Gunn </a>is Research Fellow, Community Indicators Victoria, McCaughey VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit, University of Melbourne.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Higher-density cities need greening to stay healthy and liveable

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77393/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Half of the world’s people now live in urban areas. This creates competition for resources and increases pressure on already limited green space. 
Many urban areas are still experiencing active degradation or removal of green space. To reverse this trend and ensure the multiple benefits of green space are realised, we urgently need to move toward on-ground action.
However, there is no clear guidance on how to translate the evidence base on green space into action. There is limited information to guide green-space practitioners on how much is “green enough”, or on how to manage and maintain green space. There is also a lack of guidance on how to deliver the multiple benefits of green space with finite resources.
<h2>Why we need green spaces</h2>
A recent World Health Organisation (WHO) report aims to provide guidance on how to tackle the uncertainties of providing such spaces.
There is a substantial evidence base to show that green space is good for us. It is associated with many health benefits, both physical and mental – including reductions in illness and deaths, stress and obesity – and a range of positive social, environmental and equity outcomes.
Providing adequate green space within our urban areas is therefore paramount. We need to preserve, enhance and promote existing green spaces and create new spaces.
Various political frameworks underscore the need for these spaces in our cities. For example, the New Urban Agenda calls for an increase in safe, inclusive, accessible, green and quality public spaces. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development pledges to:
… provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular, for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities.
<h2>Moving toward action</h2>
The WHO report carried out a systematic review of the published evidence on green-space interventions. The review found a variety of intervention types have strong evidence for delivering a range of health, social and environmental outcomes.
These intervention types range from smaller green spaces, such as street trees and community gardens, to larger, more interlinked spaces, such as parks and greenways. This signals the need to think beyond the traditional urban park when considering how to meet the demand for green space among growing urban populations.
Another finding of the review was that urban green-space interventions seem to be most effective when a physical improvement of the space is coupled with social engagement.
This highlights the importance of understanding the intervention’s target audience. Sufficient time and resources must be devoted to engaging with this audience. This should happen both during the design and implementation phases and when the intervention is completed – and promoted.
<h2>Learning from others</h2>
The WHO report compiled case studies of urban green-space interventions from across Europe, and documented the common lessons from these. 
This unearthed a range of findings. For example, fostering multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaborations during planning, implementation and evaluation is a key factor in creating a successful green space.
Another key finding was the importance of understanding that urban green-space interventions are long-term investments. They therefore need to be integrated within local development strategies and frameworks – such as urban masterplans, transport policies and sustainability and biodiversity strategies.
An example of an urban green-space intervention that showcases good practice, and which features as a case study in the WHO report, is the Connswater Community Greenway in Northern Ireland. This project adopted a bottom-up approach and emphasised community engagement. A full-time community support officer was employed. 
Having public engagement embedded from the start ensured the local community’s needs were well understood. The intervention’s design was responding to these identified needs. 
Coupling this local understanding with the latest thinking on good practice led to an evidence-based design that was fit-for-purpose in the local context.
The project was also understood to be a long-term investment. A 40-year management and maintenance plan for the greenway was developed from the outset. 
The WHO report represents an important step forward. As worrying trends in mental ill-health, obesity, social isolation, health inequalities and environmental degradation grow globally, there is a pressing need to implement equitable solutions – and green space has a key role to play in this. 
Urban green-space interventions can deliver health, social and environmental benefits for all population groups – particularly among lower socioeconomic status groups. There are very few – if any – other public health interventions that can achieve all of this.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anne-cleary-310766" target="_blank">Anne Cleary</a> is nature and health PhD Candidate, Griffith University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ruth-hunter-376963" target="_blank">Ruth Hunter</a> is lecturer, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Green space – how much is enough, and what’s the best way to deliver it?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Individually, we use thousands of chemicals in our households and very few of us think about whether they are harming the environment. We often think about buying a “green” detergent to wash our clothes, but the simple act of shampooing and conditioning our hair, even with green products, results in more than 30 chemicals being washed into our sewers.
Despite our best efforts in the supermarket, our waste water treatment systems are well designed for removing most of these chemicals, as the majority are biodegradable. However, a number of household chemicals are difficult to remove and end up being discharged into our coastal environments and waterways.
In the past, dilution was the solution for dealing with these long-lived chemicals that don’t break down. But with rising populations and non-coastal communities, dilution is not the solution of choice.
Regulations on discharge from our waste water systems means that any chemical that is not degraded will be at very low levels but many are residual in sediments and are chronically harmful to our waterways, even at low concentrations.
This includes being toxic to benthic organisms that live in sediments and binding to hormonal receptors in fish. So which chemicals cause problems and which ones are OK?
<h2>From shower to sewer</h2>
Our everyday lives introduce a wide range of chemicals into our waste water systems. The most common are surfactants and soaps associated with simple cleaning agents and detergents.
Choosing highly biodegradable “green” detergents is a good start in any household since they easily break down in the environment, but this is only the starting point in clearing your environmental conscience.
We also need to consider pharmaceuticals and their metabolites (the breakdown product of these pharmaceuticals), disinfectants, skincare products, deodorants, fragrances, flame retardants, pesticides, insecticides and plasticisers (the chemicals we add to plastics to make them easier to mould). For some of these, there are no “green” choices and use is a medical necessity rather than a social choice.
Detailed analysis of the discharge of waste waters from around Australia, and indeed the world, shows a list of around 70 chemicals that regularly find their way into the environment (recalcitrants).
Some of these are toxic and form a group known as “chemicals of concern”. All waste water is treated before being released into the environment, but advanced treatment is now becoming common to reduce the impact of these chemicals, although this is not available to all communities.
“Source” control, or stopping input into the waste collection system, remains the best option. However, some chemicals have become so ubiquitous to our society that additional waste water treatment may be the only solution.
<h2>The problem chemicals</h2>
Some problematic chemicals of concern that find their way into our waterways are avoidable or their use can be drastically reduced.
Examples include:
<ul>
<li>
triclosan: a highly effective biocide and antimicrobial now used in a range of mouthwashes, soaps, plastics and hand cleansers. It is debatable as to whether there is a case for its use outside of clinical environments.
</li>
<li>
DEET: the active ingredient of many personal insect repellents. As with many other skin products, it is washed into the sewer via the shower.
</li>
<li>
bisphenol A: a common plasticiser that mimics the hormone estrogen. Alternatives are available.
</li>
</ul>
There is a long list of such chemicals and these are just a few examples.
<h2>Removing stubborn chemicals</h2>
Our research looks at how we can remove these chemicals from water. Wastewater treatment systems rely on the fact that molecules are either biodegradable or are removed in treatment.
If the molecule is not removed by these means, there is a propensity for environmental discharge. Typical addition treatment involves ozone treatment to destroy or fragment the molecule through oxidation and/or use of a physical barrier such as a reverse osmosis filtration membrane.
Using a combination of biodegradation, removal, oxidation and filtration is very effective and has been shown to break the pollution cycle for all but a very small number of molecules.
These molecules that still get through are highly problematic and one questions if such molecules should not be more heavily regulated. Not because they are any more toxic than others, but because they are hard to remove.
Interestingly, these are usually fragrances and biocides that we use everyday and not the detergents and pharmaceuticals you might expect. Moving to advanced water treatment as the norm, rather than the exception looks to be the only way forward if we don’t want to stop using spray disinfectants, insecticides and fragrances.
Peter Scales is professor, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation.
He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-scales-190381" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Down the drain: we need to rethink how we clean our homes

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The sky is blue and you are walking through a park, speaking with a colleague, discussing a new project. You feel energised, puffing slightly as your pace speeds up with the excitement of tossing around ideas as you walk among the trees.
This is how the Nature Conservancy envisages you may spend an hour of your working week this week. April 18-24 is Work with Nature Week, a campaign to encourage Australians to engage with the natural environment. The hope is that you will come to appreciate nature – if you don’t already – and support conservation efforts.
Nature, according to the campaign, can improve your concentration and make you a sharper and more creative thinker. What boss wouldn’t want their employees to “work with nature”?
The health and ecology research literature brims with examples of the positive effects of nature on well-being. Exposure to nature helps us recover from stress and mental fatigue and restores concentration. Lower blood pressure, improved concentration and more positive emotions are identified when people go for a walk in a natural environment compared with an urban environment.
Attention Restoration Theory (ART) explains that restoration requires a different experience – such as “getting away” – in an environment that is together interesting, non-threatening and realistic. If you have spent your morning in a meeting room or office, a park with trees and perhaps a pond or fountain is about as different as you can get.
<h2>Finding nature in the heart of the city</h2>
If you work in the middle of the city, how practical is it to spend an hour of your working week surrounded by roads and concrete, pollution and the occasional rat? Even if you can go and sit among the pigeons for an hour, how “natural” is that experience of nature?
Urban ecologists have realigned thinking about nature in cities. Cities are novel environments that have the potential to support surprising amounts of nature. Parks, surrounding national parks, street trees and even private gardens create a large-scale urban forest that wildlife can use.
For example, in Sydney vulnerable Powerful Owls have been sighted in the Royal Botanic Gardens in the middle of the city. Australian cities have even been found to act as hotspots for threatened species.
Conserving any local native areas and species is important to maintain the unique natural identity of a city. In addition, manicured parks and gardens provide new kinds of plants with the potential to support both local and native species. Nature is dispersed through our cities, even if we don’t notice it.
<h2>What supports well-being in cities?</h2>
We have published research that identified the aspects of urban environments that support human well-being. Being able to move safely around a city (walkable space) and enabling space for social interaction are known factors of good urban design. Green space is another factor that, for the reasons discussed above, is important to ensure we can survive in cities.
We add biodiversity and ecosystem services to the equation as both are necessary if we are also to thrive in cities. Without sufficient biodiversity, the nature we encounter may not be realistic enough for a successful restorative experience, according to ART. Biodiversity can also keep species in check – for example, reducing the numbers of animal vectors of disease such as mosquitos and ticks.
Ecosystem services are critical to our survival. More than the air we breathe and the water we drink, when ecosystems fail, this has serious consequences for human well-being. Environmental degradation has been found to affect people who work in rural environments, but cities are already degraded landscapes. Urban nature has never been more important.
If you are considering how to spend an hour working in nature this week but your calendar is hectic and you are facing a wall of meetings, don’t despair. You could even benefit from nature just by glancing at it. In a recent Australian study, a glance at a green roof has been found to be more restorative than a glance at a concrete roof.
Working with nature is not limited to sitting in a lush garden with your laptop. A walking meeting through a landscaped area, which would provide the added benefits of exercise, or even a glance at a natural view might help you to recover from your day’s stress.
The Work with Nature campaign has another function: to remind decision-makers that we need nature in our cities. There are many forms it might take. An atrium or view from your office has the potential to help you function more effectively at work, but a large inner-city park offers us the realistic green space that provides the full benefits of nature.
Lucy Taylor is doctoral candidate in Urban Ecology, University of Sydney, and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lucy-taylor-112010" target="_blank">here</a>.
Dieter Hochuli is associate professor, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dieter-hochuli-135191" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Reducing stress at work is a walk in the park

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/79419/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Land clearing is accelerating across eastern Australia, despite our new research providing a clear warning of its impacts on the Great Barrier Reef, regional and global climate, and threatened native wildlife. 
Policies in place to control land clearing have been wound back across all Australian states, with major consequences for our natural environment. 
One of the recent policy changes made in Queensland and New South Wales has been the introduction of self-assessable codes that allow landholders to clear native vegetation without a permit. These codes are meant to allow small amounts of “low-risk” clearing, so that landholders save time and money and government can focus on regulating activities that have bigger potential impacts on the environment. 
However, substantial areas of native forest are set to be cleared in Queensland under the guise of vegetation “thinning”, which is allowed by these self-assessable codes. How did this happen?
Thin on the ground
Thinning involves the selective removal of native trees and shrubs, and is widely used in the grazing industry to improve pasture quality. It has been argued that thinning returns the environment back to its “natural state” and provides better habitat for native wildlife. However, the sciencesupporting this practice is not as clear-cut as it seems.
Vegetation “thickening” is part of a natural, dynamic ecological cycle. Australia’s climate is highly variable, so vegetation tends to grow more in wetter years and then dies off during drought years. These natural cycles of thickening and thinning can span 50 years or more. In most areas of inland eastern Australia, there is little evidence for ongoing vegetation thickening since pastoral settlement.
Thinning of vegetation using tractors, blades and other machinery interrupts this natural cycle, which can make post-drought recovery of native vegetation more difficult. Loss of tree and shrub cover puts native wildlife at much greater risk from introduced predators like cats, and aggressive, “despotic” native birds. Thinning reduces the diversity of wildlife by favouring a few highly dominant species that prefer open vegetation, and reduces the availability of old trees with hollows. 
Many native birds and animals can only survive in vegetation that hasn’t been cleared for at least 30 years. So although vegetation of course grows back after clearing, for native wildlife it’s a matter of quality, not just quantity. 
Land clearing by stealth?
Thinning codes in Queensland and New South Wales allow landholders to clear vegetation that has thickened beyond its “natural state”. Yet there is little agreement on what the “natural state” is for many native vegetation communities.
Under the Queensland codes, up to 75% of vegetation in an area can be removed without a permit, and in New South Wales thinning can reduce tree density to a level that is too low to support natural ecosystems.
All of this thinning adds up. Since August 2016, the Queensland government has received self-assessable vegetation clearing code notificationstotalling more than 260,000 hectares. These areas include habitat for threatened species, and ecosystems that have already been extensively cleared.
It may be that the actual amount of vegetation cleared under thinning codes is less than the notifications suggest. But we will only know for sure when the next report on land clearing is released, and by then it will be too late. 
Getting the balance right
Vegetation policy needs to strike a balance between protecting the environment and enabling landholders to manage their businesses efficiently and sustainably. While self-regulation makes sense for some small-scale activities, the current thinning codes allow large areas of vegetation to be removed from high-risk areas without government oversight. 
Thinning codes should only allow vegetation to be cleared in areas that are not mapped as habitat for threatened species or ecosystems, and not to an extent where only scattered trees are left standing in a landscape. Stronger regulation is still needed to reduce the rate of land clearing, which in Queensland is now the highest in a decade. 
Protecting native vegetation on private land reduces soil erosion and soil salinity, improves water quality, regulates climate, and allows Australia’s unique plants and animals to survive. Landholders who preserve native vegetation alongside farming provide essential services to the Australian community, and should be rewarded. We need long-term incentives to allow landholders to profit from protecting vegetation instead of clearing it.
Our research has shown that Australian governments spend billions of dollars trying to achieve the benefits already provided by native vegetation, through programs such as the Emissions Reduction Fund, the 20 Million Trees program and Reef Rescue. Yet far more damage is inflicted by under-regulated clearing than is “fixed” by these programs.
Imagine what could be achieved if we spent that money more effectively.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/april-reside-9817" target="_blank">April Reside</a> is Researcher, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anita-j-cosgrove-382757" target="_blank">Anita J Cosgrove</a> is Research Assistant in the Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-silcock-385018" target="_blank">Jennifer Silcock</a> is Post-doctoral research fellow, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/leonie-seabrook-98778" target="_blank">Leonie Seabrook</a> is Landscape Ecologist, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/megan-c-evans-4271" target="_blank">Megan C Evans</a> is Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Environmental Policy, The University of Queensland.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Land clearing on the rise as legal ‘thinning’ proves far from clear-cut

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/73914/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A key question amid the consternation over the current state of Australia’s east coast energy market has been how much renewable energy capacity to build, and how fast.
But help could be at hand from a surprising source: electric vehicles. By electrifying our motoring, we would boost demand for renewable energy from the grid, while smoothing out some of the destabilising effects that the recent boom in household solar has had on our energy networks. 
Australia’s electricity infrastructure was built largely without renewable energy in mind, and primarily to maintain reliability for when demand peaks. The high uptake of solar panels, while good for reducing carbon emissions, has reduced grid demand by 5-10% in Australia, and as a side-effect has lowered the value of network assets, raised power prices, and made the grid trickier to manage. 
Electric vehicles can ease the pressure on spikes in electricity prices by adding storage capacity. They are effectively a distributed storage system - with smart meters they can feed electricity back into the grid when prices are high. These vehicles’ battery reserves can thus help with the balancing of the grid and provide energy in the peak period. Electric vehicles would also add battery storage to the grid at the same time, which can reduce the need to size the grid for demand peaks. 
One way to think of electric vehicles is essentially as batteries you can drive. So before the government pursues plans such as spending A$2 billion on expanding the Snowy Hydro scheme, it should do a cost-benefit analysis comparing the returns from similar infrastructure investment in electric vehicles. 
According to the Office of the Chief Economist, Australia produced 6 billion kilowatt hours of solar PV in 2015 – enough to run almost 2 million cars, equivalent to 10% of Australia’s total current passenger vehicle fleet. Increasing demand for grid-sourced electricity will put downward pressure on network prices, which typically are roughly half of the cost of a household energy tariff. At a time when demand has declined and policy settings have created lots of investor uncertainty, the increased demand will also encourage investment in new generation capacity.
Electric vehicles can also increase economic activity in Australia and improve air quality and health. Australia has nearly 20 million cars that together drive 280 billion km each year. Passenger vehicles alone consume 20 billion litres of fuel each year in Australia. At A$1.50 per litre, that is A$30 billion per year that is burned, with roughly half the revenues going to multinational oil companies and the other half going into federal coffers as fuel tax.
The health costs of pollution from vehicle emissions adds a further A$1,450 per household per year in major cities, an annual impost of some A$14.5 billion on household and government budgets – roughly the same as what the government earns in fuel tax.
If all vehicles were electric, the same distance could be driven with electricity costing less than A$15 billion, because electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines (although this is slightly offset by minor grid losses). This would thus deliver a double saving, in terms of both household fuel bills and reduced health costs. 
Changing gear
Of course this won’t happen overnight, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The electricity grid will need time to adjust and add extra renewable capacity, as the cost of electric cars comes down and coal power stations get old. 
Both economic analysis and recent political experience suggest that encouraging investment in renewable energy is expensive, especially if the only driving factor is the need to cut greenhouse emissions (important though that is).
Here is where electric vehicles can really help the grid. Swapping petrol or diesel cars for electric ones on a large enough scale will increase Australia’s flatlining electricity demand, making it more lucrative for energy suppliers to invest in new generation capacity. Given the increasing cost of gas, and the declining support for coal, on balance most of this demand will be met with new renewable capacity, facilitated by the addition of all these new “batteries you can drive”. 
Click to enlarge
A suggested pathway to energy sustainability via electric cars. Adapted from Andrich et al. Inequality as an obstacle to sustainable energy use, Energy for Sustainable Development
Government policy should be to set some high-level national interest objectives, such as maintaining gas for domestic use, and then simply not interfere with the market as much as possible. But political leaders are struggling to keep up with the rapid changes in technology and the market. The pathway to sustainability would have been smoother and faster if governments had looked to WA for a gas reservation policy, not intervened by closing coal, and reduced the subsidies that allowed solar power to grow so disruptively fast (particularly in wealthier households). 
Making more effort to promote electric cars would also have allowed a more successful transition to renewable energy and reduced the price shocks being suffered by eastern Australia in areas such as the gas market. Fortunately, it is not too late.
Hitting the road
Investing in a new car is not a decision most households take lightly. This is especially true of electric cars, which are expensive, are not marketed widely, are available in only a limited range of models, and are subject to concerns about charging and range.
Presently, electric vehicles are only affordable for higher-income households, which is ironic given the benefits they would offer lower-income households in terms of fuel budgeting and reduced exposure to urban pollution and health costs. 
One-third of an electric vehicle’s cost is batteries, which are rapidly coming down in price. Bloomberg New Energy Finance predicts that by 2022, electric models will cost the same as their petrol counterparts. That will be the point of liftoff for sales. 
Meanwhile, electric cars have an undoubted cool factor. Buying one is a powerful way to show you care about your community’s future. Pardon the pun, but just look at the way Tesla founder Elon Musk electrified the debate over South Australia’s electricity problems.
For governments, electric vehicles offer an opportunity to make significant inroads on environmental and health problems, not to mention urban planning and infrastructure. The demand for car batteries could also boost related industries, such as lithium mining, in which Australia is a world leader.
Feeling electric
Simple, inexpensive policies could encourage electric vehicle uptake, such as reducing registration fees and stamp duty on electric cars and allowing them to drive in bus or other priority lanes, while also hiking the tax on diesel cars that cause cancer.
Other emerging transport trends, such as car-sharing clubs and ride-sharing apps, could also hasten the uptake of electric vehicles. Sharing increases the number of kilometres driven by each individual vehicle, meaning that the upfront costs are paid back more rapidly, leaving the owner with a car that is paid off and cheaper to run than a petrol or diesel model.
These facts are not lost on the car manufacturers themselves. But given the potential co-benefits to the electricity grid and community health, we might expect power utilities and health agencies to join the push to actively promote electric vehicles – not to mention politicians who are looking to deal with our energy issues and win a few votes along they way.
Mark Andrich is director, Sustainability and Finance Specialist, University of Western Australia and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-andrich-146801" target="_blank">here</a>. Jemma Green is research fellow, Curtin University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jemma-green-105891" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

How electric cars can help save the grid

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/68170/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Recent floods in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria have reminded us of the power of our weather and rivers to wreak havoc on homes, business and even, tragically, lives. 
As Dorothea Mackellar poetically pointed out, “droughts and flooding rains” have been a feature of Australia throughout history, so maybe we shouldn’t be all that surprised when they happen.
However, we also know that the reported costs of flooding in Australia have been increasing, most likely through a combination of increased reporting, increased exposure through land use change and population growth, and changes to flood magnitude and severity. So it is critical that we understand what might be causing these changes.
This was the question we asked in our review on how flood impacts have changed over time in Australia and how they may change in the future. We found that despite decades of research in these areas, there are still many gaps in what we know.
<h2>Copping a soaking</h2>
We know that floods depend not just on how much rain falls, but also on how wet the ground is before a heavy rainfall, and how full the rivers are. We also have evidence that the storms that generate heavy rainfall will become more intense in the future, because as the atmosphere warms it can hold more moisture. 
This is particularly the case for storms that last just a few hours; in fact we think that these storms are the most likely to show the largest increases. In urban environments this translates to an even greater flood risk, because the concrete and hard surfaces allow this intense rain to run off quickly through storm drains and into creeks and rivers, rather than seeping into the landscape.
In larger catchments and rural areas the story is more complicated than in cities. If the soil is very wet as a result of rain over the previous weeks and months, then when a big storm hits there will be a lot of runoff. In contrast, if the soil is dry then flooding is less likely to be a problem. 
Engineers currently use simple models to estimate this relationship between soil wetness and storm rainfall. But our research indicates that these simple models will need to be replaced with longer-term simulations that model all of the previous rainfall leading up to the storm. 
Simple models use simple assumptions to translate rainfall risk into flood risk. But if these assumptions are incorrect, our estimates of flood risk (that is, the probability of a given flood magnitude occurring in any particular year) could be wrong. Flood risk is used to guide infrastructure assessment through cost-benefit ratios, so getting it right is important.
One of the reasons that catchment wetness varies is because of climate cycles like El Niño and La Niña. We have some idea how these and similar ocean cycles affect our climate, including the fact that they can cause fluctations in flood risk over decades-long timescales. 
The difficulty here is that for most locations we only have 50 to 60 years of recorded river flow data. This makes it hard to separate out the influences of these climate cycles from other trends in flood data, such as the effect of increasing urbanisation. 
There has been progressively less monitoring of streamflow in Australia over the past few decades, and this makes it even harder to understand regional changes in flood risk. Governments need to prioritise investment in data collection to allow us to improve our estimates of the risk of flooding and the associated damages now and in the future. 
The recent work by the Bureau of Meteorology to develop a comprehensive set of high quality streamflow gauge data is a step in the right direction, but much more investment is needed in these areas.
Finally, we recommend that continued research into the fundamental changes likely from climate change is required. This requires climate models to be run at a range of resolutions to enable all the important climate processes for extreme rainfall to be properly represented. 
Recent pressure on CSIRO’s climate modelling capabilities is concerning – the scientific questions are by no means fully answered on these topics. It is great to see the recent funding of the ARC Centre of Excellence on Climate Extremes. The work of these researchers, combined with ongoing efforts across Australia, will be important to provide better assessments on climate changes. This can help engineers and hydrologists continue to provide accurate flood risk estimates.
Fiona Johnson is senior lecturer, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNSW Australia and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fiona-johnson-313721" target="_blank">here</a>.
Christopher J. White is lecturer in Environmental Engineering, University of Tasmania and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/christopher-j-white-272905" target="_blank">here</a>.
Seth Westra is associate professor, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, University of Adelaide and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/seth-westra-19720" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Environment

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Environment

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News