Upload
aisha
View
20
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Why is MORECO of interest to you?. Facts Background Trends. komobile stadtland. Peak Oil and Energy Prices. Regular. Plus. Diesel. komobile stadtland. Peak Oil. Oil demand. Shortage and increasing prices. Oil supply. 2003 2030. komobile stadtland. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Why is MORECO of interest to you?
komobile stadtland
Facts Background Trends
Peak Oil and Energy Prices
Diesel
Regular
Plus
komobile stadtland
Peak Oil
Oil demand
2003 <> 2030
Oil
supp
ly
Shortage and increasing prices
komobile stadtland
Traffic & Transport: Main reason for oil consumption
0
100.000
200.000
300.000
400.000
500.000
600.000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Jahr
Ter
ajo
ule
/ Ja
hr
Traffic & Transport
Domestic heating, hot water
Industry, steam generation, ...
e.g. Oil consumption in Austria 1995–2010
source: Statistik Austria, Energiestatistik, Energiebilanzen Österreich 1970 - 2010
Ter
ajo
ule
/ ye
ar
komobile stadtland
Traffic & Transport: Main reason for oil consumptionPreview of main petrochemical demand, Italy 1990 – 2025 (billion tons)
Traffic & Transport Number of private cars per person, French examples
RHONE ALPES
Traffic & Transport: Energy consumption in France
RHONE ALPES
One third of the total French energy consumption is due to transport
36% of CO2 emissions are due to transport (2008)
Increasing energy prices = increasing costs for accomodation and mobility!
Possible short-term and long-term adaptive reactions on rising energy prices (SOURCE: Gertz et al. 2008 zitiert in Frehn, Dittrich-Wesbuer, Verkehrsfolgenabschätzung der Siedlungsentwicklung, Dortmund, im April 2012)
Private households: course of action
limited usage of cars
reduction of other budgets
spatialreorganisation
switching reduction of activities
efficient Vehicles
efficientvehicles
higher degree
of occupation
fuel-efficientstyle
of driving
choosing shorter
destinations
transferring domicileor place of work
publictransport
nonmotorized
traffic
new media
new kinds of transport
Unwanted effect: meaning heavy individual constraints causing loss of welfare
Preserving structure: useful option, but dependency on oil remains
Changing structure: option supports independence of oil
komobile stadtland
Necessity to use the car
residence
place of work
leisure
supply
social contacts
others
komobile stadtland
Settlement Patterns that Leave no Choice!
Extensive settlement patternsMonofunctional residential areas
Disproportionate land consumption compared to population growth
Maximized distances
Low density = bad coverage by public transport
No shops or services, no places of employment
foto: SAGIS
komobile stadtland
Jobs far away from residential areasShopping centres on the outskirts of the city
Far away from residential areas
Inaccessible for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users
Dedicated to car accessibility, vast parking-sites
VOGIS (C) Land Vorarlberg
komobile stadtland
Fragmented residential areas
City: 20 m road / housing unit
Area of single-family-detached houses: up to 150 m road / housing unit
foto: SAGIS
komobile stadtland
Reduced and fragmented agricultural areasless local high-quality food
Far away from residential areas
for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users
Dedicated to car accessibility, vast parking-sites
Purple SIR
Foto: Pascale Margot Rougerie
Under-utilised central locations
Deserted city and village-centres
Missed chances
komobile stadtland
foto: VOGIS (C) Land Vorarlberg
Architecturally sophisticated, energy efficient, built ecologically!
B U T
High consumption of land, car-dependent, not sustainable!
komobile stadtland
Good architecture! Good location?
photo: Erika Mahoney
UIRS
The role of motivations in residential site and mobility mode decisions
Private / social benefits and costs of choosing housing locationand mode of transport types which motivate travel behaviour
UIRS
Choosing a housing locationin the city
photo: Mario Mariordo
Private benefits
-Physical proximity to urban amenities
-Working place / living placein close proximity
-No need for a car
-Good living qualityin high priced areas
Private costs
-Too high density
-Traffic congestion
-Environmental pollution
-Only high priced areas offervery good quality for living
-Large share of income spent on living expenses
-Less leisure opportunities without a car
author: unknown
UIRS
Choosing a housing locationin suburban areas/villages
P benefits• Realized preference for low-density living• Proximity to natural areas, private garden• Lower crime rates• More living area for the same money• No costs for inherited building sites• Quality of life is higher than in urban areas
P costs• High mobility costs in the long run• High dependency on car• Greater stress due to long journeys to work• High time costs for all family members• Risk of loss of property value due to
changing travel conditions (energy prices)
illustration: Kevin H.
Private benefits
-low-density living
-natural areas, private gardens
-Lower crime rates
-More living space
-No costs for inherited building sites
-Quality of life is higher
Private costs
-High mobility costs in the long run
-High dependency on cars
-Greater stress due to travelling to work
-High time costs
-Risk of property value loss
photo: Barbara Jordan Dettweiler
UIRS
Choosing mode of transportCommuting by car
costs• Long commuting times• High travel costs• Health problems• Psychological problems• Less opportunities to meet people
and get new experiences
Private benefits
-Better access to employment opportunities
-Combining trips to work + other daily chores
-More opportunities for accessto desired or affordable housing
Private costs
-Long commuting times
-High travel costs
-Health problems
-Psychological problems
-Less opportunities to meet and interact with people
source: Dealer Refresh
source: alamy
UIRS
Choosing mode of transportCommuting by public transport
photo: Salvatore VuonoSource: Photosynth
Private benefits
-Reduction in commuting costs
-Reduction in road accidents
-Reduction in noise and air pollution
-Enhancement in work productivity
-Reduction of stress
Private costs
-Greater time costs
-Forces people to follow precise timing
-In some areas not all public transports modes are available
UIRS
Choosing mode of transport:Walking and cycling
source: Lovingthebike.comsource: Cortina
Private benefits
-Daily physical training
-Lower risk of obesity
-Independency of traffic congestions
-Opportunity to use routes with good environmental quality
-Stress-less time
Private costs
-Built environment features can affect the amount of time a trip takes, but also the comfort, safety and enjoyment of the walking environment
-Good equipment is needed
-Facilities and time for changing clothes and washing/showering is required
UIRS
photo: Mario Mariordo
source: Cortina
source: Lovingthebike.com
photo: Andrej Gulič
photo: Andrej Gulič
Social benefits
-Lower fiscal costs for infrastructure
-Higher density settlements are more socially sustainable
-High density urban livingfor social interaction
-Inner-city redevelopments on ‘brownfield’ sites
-Presence of supra-local services
Social costs
-Degradation of public spaces
-Greater health and safety risks
-High cost of renovation
-Lack of interest of real estate agents
Choosing a housing locationin the city
UIRS
Choosing a housing locationin suburban areas/villages
source: BabyCentre Blog photo: Andrej Gulič
Social benefits
-Suburbanization creates separation of land uses
-Superstores are feasible on the outskirts
-Inhabitants bring money to municipalities
-More opportunities for development of social and welfare nets
-Social integration is stronger
Social costs
-Degradation of public spaces
-Loss of open space
-Larger ecological footprint
-High demands on public infrastructure
-High dependency on car traffic
-Commuting can be considered a huge social cost
UIRS
Choosing mode of transportCommuting by car
source: The Ohio State University
source: EntitySolutions
Social benefits
-Increased productivity and individual welfare
-Better functioning of labour markets
Social costs
-Long daily commuting times
-Increased traffic congestion and environmental pollution
-Unfavourable socio-physical condition of commuters; accident costs
-Roads’ construction and maintenance
-Surface taken up by road infrastructure
-Decline and abandonment of city centres
UIRS
Choosing mode of transportCommuting by publ. transport
photo: Andrej Gulič
photo: Andrej Gulič
Social benefits
-Cost efficiency for the travelers
-Environmentally more friendly modes of transport
-External benefits of public transport
-Reduction of social and environmental costs
Social costs
-Congestion costs
-Overcrowding in peak hours
-Poorly coordinated timetables
UIRS
Choosing mode of transportWalking and cycling
source: Cortina
photo: Andrej Guličsource: Grist
Social benefits
-Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
-Lower consumption of space
-Improvement of the psycho-physical well-being
-Greater equity and solidarity between traffic participants
-Promotion of tourism and recreation
Social costs
-Construction of walking + cycling routes
-Allocation of local services along the routes
-Reconversion of roads to walking and cycling routes
-Introducing new mobility management tools
UIRS
Broader social impacts on motivations
source: Lipman, B.
- Motivations depend on the prevailing cultural and value system in a given area (state, region, local community
UIRS
Variablesthat influence the development of motivations / preferencesfor specific housing location and modes of transport
source: Lipman, B.
source: Sergio Pecanha author: Jill Andrews- Social and cultural context
- Characteristics of labour force / employment decentralisation
- Advancements in communication technologies
- Types of households/ position in the life cycle
- Characteristics of current housing / potential new housing
source: The WTM Blog source: Shirt.Wootsource: getty images I corbis
Increasing land consumption despite stagnant population
foto: SAGIS
komobile stadtland
Urban Sprawl / Land Consumption
source: Umweltbundesamt (UBA), 9. Umweltkontrollbericht, Wien 2010 / data Austria
inh
abit
ants
(m
io)
sett
lem
ent
area
per
inh
abit
ant
(m
² / i
nh
)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
population
settlement area
komobile stadtland
Development of settlement area per inhabitant
food production
recreation
habitat
ecological balance
increasing distances
damaged environment
inefficient use of supplies
extensive systems for supply and disposal
Separation, fragmentation, loss of area
–
options
+costs
municipality
komobile stadtland
100 47 2563
Single family detached houses: 12 housing units/ha floor space ratio: 0,23
Single family houses coupled: 21 housing units/hafloor space ratio: 0,40
Row houses:
34 housing units/hafloor space ratio: 0,61
Multi-storey appartment houses: 75 housing units/hafloor space ratio: 0,88
source: SIR„Infrastrukturkostenstudie Salzburg, SIR-Konkret 4/2007
Traffic accessibility, water supply, sewage disposal, electricity, street lights
Infrastructure costs per housing unit in %
komobile stadtland
Infrastructure costs depending on development density
Fewer children in an aging society!New demands on infrastructure!
komobile stadtland
Demographic Change
Structure of the population, by age group and sex, EU-27; in % of total population
source: Eurostat (Online-Datencode: demo_pjangroup, proj_10c2150p)
men (2010)
women(2010)
men(2060)
women(2060)
> 85 years
80 – 84 years
75 – 79 years
70 – 74 years
65 – 69 years
60 – 64 years
55 – 59 years
50 – 54 years
45 – 49 years
40 – 44 years
35 – 39 years
30 – 34 years
25 – 29 years
20 – 24 years
15 – 19 years
< 5 years
5 – 9 years
10 – 14 years
komobile stadtland
Aging society ...
Requirements of older people on the living environment
Within walking distance
• daily consumer needs (freedom of choice)• public transport• recreation areas• social network• medical supplies
Accessibility of• mobile services• regional services and supplies
functional diversitysafe paths
barri
er-fr
ee e
nviro
nmen
t
komobile stadtland
Increasing Health Expenditures
31,
4 B
IL E
UR
/ ye
ar
source: STATISTIK AUSTRIA
The cost-share of the health care system exceeds 10 % of economic output and are continuing to rise!
Health expenditures in % of GDP
komobile stadtland
Health expenditures caused by road traffic
komobile stadtland
source: VCÖ 2012