Location: Salisbury, Adelaide, Australia

The scheme started in the 90’s with progressive thinkers in the City of Salisbury authority trying to find a way to store water that could be used in summer and cut water costs. This original effort has expanded to include stormwater collection, wetland treatment and aquifer injection and retrieval.

One of triggers for the project was the prospect that a major water user (a wool processing facility) was considering relocation due to the cost of bringing over 1bn L of water per year from the river Murray which would have put hundreds of jobs at risk. In a joint project with the council, stormwater is now diverted from drains flowing to the sea and treated in nearby wetlands supplying the wool processor with an alternative local source.

Another larger treatment wetland also helps clean stormwater before it is injected into an aquifer. This water is used by a nearby Holden car manufacturer and other industries.

Today, storm water is collected from hard surfaces, including from residential homes and roads and treated through 250ha of constructed wetlands. The water is then pumped into an underlying aquifer and stored for 10 days before being extracted and re-used. Due to distribution costs, extracted water was initially piped only to the main water users and sold at a nominally lower than utility rates.

Extracted water is delivered to residential users for non-potable use after being mixed with higher quality water from the utility (to reduce salt levels). Residential connection is not complete. Greenfield developments are connected but existing houses must pay for the connection. The connection cost is waved as an incentive, if existing homes purchase rainwater tanks.

The distribution pipes do not have the capacity to meet all household’s demands but act to diversify supply. Thus, a home may source its water for external use with from rainwater, supplemented by aquifer treated storm water, with the utility’s potable water the final backup. This provides a range of options and shares risk.

Community concern is the main on-going driver of the scheme. Even the Council’s current roll-out of residential water-meters is mainly being driven by community demands. This is despite its high economic cost, which could be avoided by a fixed rate charge. Part of this community pressure stems from anger at recent restrictions on potable quality water from utilities.

Locals see the uniqueness and success of the storm water treatment wetlands as a key positive aspect of the area. The wetlands not only form an integral part of the suburbs’ identity, they provide important habitat for birds and recreational, aesthetic and educational value to the community. As Salisbury has been given a poor reputation by some people in Adelaide for being a low income, working class area, which its residents understandably resent, this is a significant positive development.

While the Council has relied on a centralised storm water collection system and the size of its wetlands to create an economy of scale in favour of smaller, more localised collection and treatment areas, it has opted for installing ‘rainvaults’ for collecting stormwater in higher density locations with a higher localised flooding risk. Water from the vaults is then pumped to the wetlands. The council sees this more in line with community wishes than following economic sense but also notes that using the vaults instead of centralised distribution infrastructure means periodic infrastructure renewal costs are avoided over the long-term.

www.gtasa.asn.au/file.php?f=A9-3ik.OnaGSo.46 /

http://cweb.salisbury.sa.gov.au/manifest/servlet/page?pg=16064

www.aila.org.au/projects/SA/paddocks/docs/wetlandspaper.pdf /

Since an increasing amount of natural land is continuously being turned into developments, a growing number of conservation biologists, social scientists and other trans-disciplinary scholars have advocated the need to spread conservation efforts into urban areas.  They argue that neglecting the urban environment is neglecting a large potential of land that can facilitate in conserving biodiversity.  Other arguments that are used in support of the integration of biodiversity into urban areas is that in doing so, can close the gap between society and nature that has formed in our society.  Thus conserving biodiversity in the urban environment can both enhance the amount of conservation and also act as an education program to introduce and remind urban dwellers the presence of nature.

Despite the promising tenets of conserving biodiversity on urban land, there are several implementation problems.  Firstly, any sort of conservation project situated in the urban area must take into consideration community concerns.  An example of the importance of the community was seen with the relocation of the grey headed flying fruit bats from the Royal Botanic Gardens to Yarra Bend Park in Kew.  There were concerns from the locals of the spread of disease, disruption due to bat noise and loss of agricultural produce from nearby small scale farms.  After community consultation had occured, the project was able to be approved and has since been hailed as a success in urban biodiversity conservation.

Situating a conservation project amidst the urban environment also presents numerous management problems.  These problems are presented as an increase in environmental weeds escaping from private backyards, increased number of cats and other domestic animals which prey on the conservation land and increased visitors which bring their own set of management challenges such as rubbish and degradation to the natural environment.  These factors then contribute to a loss of quality to the overall conservation area.   All these elements combined transform into an increased costs of managing an urban conservation project compared to a rural or natural conservation project.  Thus, it is more economically efficient to devote resources into conserving a prsitine, natural environment than implementing an urban conservation project.

Urban conservation projects may have numerous social benefits, however, in terms of economic efficiency and the limited budgets of most conservation projects, urban conservation projects may not be the most viable option.

In essence, both these initiatives are interlinked. Biodiversity concerns are due to habitat degradation because of an ever increasing land required for urban developments. Urban developments in turn forces the relocation of land that had been traditionally used for farming into increasing wilderness areas therefore exacerbating biodiversity problems.

The Alex Wilson Community Garden(AWCG) established in Toronto in 1998 sought to rectify the divergence of ecology and community gardens by attempting to consolidate the two goals into one project. In trying to achieve this, the AWCG planted exclusively native species whilst maintaining space for a community garden.

Alex WIlson Community Garden

The AWCG can be used as a model for future community gardens to demonstrate the importance and feasibility of integrating biodiversity values with community garden initiatives.

The Vertical Farm is a concept of a thirty-story urban farm producing fruit, vegetables, and grains with a greenhouse on every floor. Citing factors such as the need for reforestation and the future growth of world’s population, Despommier believes that cities must learn to feed themselves. Depending on the crops being grown, a single vertical farm could allow thousands of farmland acres to be permanently reforested.

With about 160 of these buildings, you could feed all of New York. Despommier

The Vertical Farm would use hydroponic methods to feed 50,000 people. By growing crops in a controlled environment there would be minimum risk of disease, weather related disasters, less likelihood of genetically modified “rogue” strains infecting crops, and all food could be grown organically, without minimum waste.

Features of Despommier’s design include solar panels, a wind spire, glass panels, a central control room (allowing for yearround,24-hour crop cultivation), circular design, an evapotranspiration recovery system and pipes (to collect moisture which can then be bottled and sold), a blackwater treatment system, and a pellet power system (to turn nonedible plant matter into fuel).

However, as Despommier concedes, it would cost hundreds of millions to build a full-scale skyscraper farm due to construction and energy costs. For more information visit http://www.verticalfarm.com/index.html.

This is from “Social Innovations in Victorian Food Systems”, case studies by Ferne Edwards.

TFPC partners with business and community groups (including City Councillors and volunteer representatives from consumer, business, farm, labour, multicultural, anti-hunger advocacy, faith, and community development groups) to develop policies and programs promoting food security – the TFPC has been instrumental in putting Food Security and Food Policy development squarely on the municipal agenda in Toronto

aim is a food system that fosters equitable food access, nutrition, community development and environmental health. They operate as a sub- committee of the Toronto Board of Health, have a small staff and modest budget. They have no authority to pass or enforce laws yet are free to make their own decisions on food policy issues.

This innovative and effective arrangement has gained international respect from public health, community food security and sustainable agriculture organisations. The staff and council members serve as catalysts and brokers bringing people from different organisations together to help them find new ways to solve old problems.

The Council is a forum for discussing and integrating policy issues that often fall between the cracks of established
departments and research specialities. Staff and members advocate for policy change at the municipal, provincial and federal level.

To find out more about the Toronto Food Policy Council visit http://www.toronto.ca/health/tfpc_index.htm.

This is from “Social Innovations in Victorian Food Systems”, case studies by Ferne Edwards.

BAA have funded the development of the system to reach the pilot phase, which started in December 2008. The goal is to transport passengers from the N3 carparks, and locals from nearby Longford village to Terminal 5 for connections with flights, other transport systems and facilities at the airport.

The electric vehicles recharge their batteries at stations while waiting for passengers. The trip takes around 3 to 5 minutes and the service will remove 9 buses per hour from the surrounding roadways.

PRT systems have supporters as well as detractors, but this recent trial may be able to address some of the difficulties experienced by others in the past.

While the current pilot phase doesn’t yet meet some of the goals of the original PRT concepts, as an emerging transport system the ULTra is well worth watching.

This system allows Terminal 5 to become a transport hub for locals as well as air passengers. In addition, it supports an emerging proposal that metropolitan transport hubs could be used to provide services and facilities such as fresh food markets, banking and post offices for local and transitionary customers.

In July 1998 the European Commission and the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) came to an agreement that committed ACEA to reduce the CO₂ emissions from new passenger cars by over 25% .

In the UK, a number of steps have been taken to promote the purchase and use of more fuel efficient vehicles:

Since March 2001, a system of Graduated VED (vehicle excise duty) has been applied to new cars, based primarily on their level of CO₂ emissions. Since April 2002, company car tax has been based on the CO₂ emissions of the vehicle provided to an employee for their private use. In 2006 a new zero rate for cars with the lowest carbon emissions and a new top band for the most polluting cars was introduced. This has partially been the result of the failure by car manufactures to significantly reduce CO₂ emissions from vehicles.

A new colour-coded environment label for all new cars began appearing in UK car showrooms from July 2005. The consumer-friendly label has been designed to help car buyers assess the climate change impacts of different cars. It will also emphasise that – increasingly – better environmental performance means lower road tax and lower running costs. The gradations on the label are consistent with the CO₂ bandings used for Vehicle Excise Duty

More information on the labels.

More information on the Excise Duty.

From “Innovation in mobility for sustainable outcomes” case studies by Geoff Browne.

In 2001, Calgary Transit entered into a partnership with electricity companies to develop a program that supports wind-generated electricity. The light rail transit system “Ctrain” (similar to Melbourne’s trams) comprises of 223 vehicles operating on two routes using 45 kilometres of track. Although CTrain does not produce tailpipe CO2 emissions, the system originally used power from coal and natural gas (producing greenhouse gases). Under the new arrangements, 12 windmills located in Southern Alberta generate wind-power, and the equivalent amount used by the CTrain is contributed to the main power grid.

The transition to the use of wind-generated power reduced CO2 emissions by 26,000 tonnes annually. As the CTrain lines are extended, the savings in emissions will also increase.

Mass transit, especially under conditions of high occupancy, invariably produces lower emissions than motor vehicles, on a passenger:kilometre basis. This eco-advantage is further improved when traction electricity is generated using emission free sources.

Calgary Transit Ride the Wind

From “Innovation in mobility for sustainable outcomes” case studies by Geoff Browne.

Certain motorised vehicles which drive within a clearly defined zone of central London between 7am and 6pm have to pay a daily Congestion Charge of ₤25, for a day’s use of the zone. The zone is well mapped and signposted, and was extended west in 2007. Residents of the zone are exempt from the charge.

Impetus for the introduction of the fee included the following statistics:

• London suffered the worst traffic congestion in the UK and amongst the worst in Europe
• Drivers in central London spent 50% of their time in queues
• Every weekday morning, the equivalent of 25 busy motorway lanes of traffic tried to enter central London
• It was estimated that London lost between £2-4 million every week in terms of lost time caused by congestion

The main objectives of the charge are to reduce congestion and raise funds for investment in London’s transport system. The scheme is part of a broader sustainability transport plan. Congestion pricing can only be effective when viable alternatives are made available.

From “Innovation in mobility for sustainable outcomes” case studies by Geoff Browne.

Buses are fitted with bike racks, usually at the front of the bus, for bicycles to be loaded onto. In some cases the front plate of the bus needs to be modified so that the bicycle does not block the headlights. Current systems have restrictions and difficulties. Buses can only carry a few bikes, not all buses in existing systems are fitted with racks and the turnaround time at stops appears to be adversely affected.

This is an emerging system with as-yet unrealised potential.

ACTion Bus Network, Canberra

PeopleMover, Anchorage Alaska

From “Innovation in mobility for sustainable outcomes” case studies by Geoff Browne.