1. Stockholm Royal Seaport
Christina Salmhofer, Sustainability Manager SRS
Development Administration, City of Stockholm

2. 2010
 Oil depot
 Container terminal
 Port
 Gasworks
2030
 12,000 apartments
 35,000 work-places
 600,000 m2 commercial
space
 Modern port and cruise
terminal
 New infrastructure
 236 hectares (660 acres)
sustainable urban district

3. Different pieces of the puzzle
Management tools
 Sustainability program SRS, targets:
 By 2030, SRS will be fossil fuel free
 By 2020, CO2 emissions < 1.5 t/person
 SRS will be adapted to future climate change
 Requirements on developers
 Monitoring and evaluation process
 CCI road-map
Incentives
 Stakeholder involvement
 Capacity-building program
 Good-will

4. Experiences:
Road-map - scenarios for decision making
• As an assessment method
• Adopting emission reduction targets
• Preparing actions plans
• Implementing measures
• Monitoring and verifying results (long
term)
• A tool for prioritisation of actions
• The initial prioritisation may change over
time as the calculated impact of one
action may change
• Focus on climate
• Missing other urban/regional (benefits)
challenges: sustainability much more
than just climate issue

5. Experiences
• Difficult to assess and measure the
impact of transport-related
requirements
• transport systems are complex.
• added impact of two or more actions are
difficult to assess even if the impact of one
actions may be known.
• A sustainable transport system relies on
individual choices – how to predict
behavioural change?
• Will require a good set-up of “carrots and
sticks”

6. Experiences
• The future is difficult to predict
• Future energy mix depends more on fuel costs
than environmental impact
• Future car fleet – depends more on vehicle and
fuel costs than environmental impacts
 we depend on strong political intervention to
reach our targets
• Credits – no useful tool
• CCI System Boundary
• Difficult to reach climate neutrality within a given
geographical boundary
• Missing effects of embedded materials
• Missing the main problem – consumption

7. Challenges
• Involvement of key stakeholders and policy-makers
• Overcoming the barrier of long-term thinking and decision-making
• Assessment of behavioral change
• The transport sector
• Reflection of other urban benefits
• Improving the link between scenario development and robust
strategies
• How best to communicate results to the general public?

8. stockholmroyalseaport.com
twitter.com/royalseaport
Welcome!
”Together we can move
things to a new scale
across city and national
borders”

9. Baseline Energy
• Energy use in buildings: max 80 kWh/m2 (including heating, cooling, hot
water, building electricity)
• Use of energy efficient appliances & systems (household appliances,
lighting, elevators, ventilation systems, etc)
• District heating and district cooling
• Electricity - Nordic energy mix
• Eco-labelled electricity used in all amenities
Swedish preconditions
 Efficient energy-utilities for district heating and cooling
 Very low fossil content in the Nordic electricity-mix
 A very good understanding of energy efficiency among the general
public since the 70-ties

10. Strategies: Energy
Non-area specific changes in the systems
• Bio-fuels in district heating – lower CHG emissions
• Increased renewable electricity – lower CHG emissions
Area specific requirements – Scenario 1
• Energy efficient buildings: 55 kWh/m2 (heating, cooling, hot water,
building electricity)
• Local energy production
• 2 kWh/m2 Solar PVs or
• 6 kWh/m2 heat exchanger
• 100 % eco-labelled electricity for all technical installations in buildings
• Reduced energy use in water and wastewater distribution
• Biogas production – from sewage and food waste (wastegrinder to
sewer)

11. Strategies: Energy
Area specific requirements – Scenario 2
• Energy efficient buildings: 45 kWh/m2 (heating, cooling, hot water,
building electricity)
• Local energy production Solar PVs or heat-exchange ??
• Increased biogas production
• food waste (separate collection)
• organic waste from cruise ships (separate collection)
• 100 % eco-labelled household- and operational electricity

12. Baseline: Transport
 Fairly good public transport in the area (subway and buss)
 Fairly good infrastructure for pedestrians/cyclists
 Parking for bicycles, residential: 1-2 parking/unit
 Car-pools in the area with well-situated designated parking
 Inner city location => high percentage using public transport (approx.
50% commuting to work)

13. Strategies: Transport
Non-area specific changes in the systems
• Natural changes in the vehicle fleet
• ???
Area specific requirements – Scenario 1
• Reversed traffic hierarchy (physical planning, enabling)
• ICT for behavioural change (planning tools, information systems, etc)
• Limited access to parking
• Car pools
• Consolidation centre for goods
Area specific requirements – Scenario 2
• Implementation of traffic hierarchy through legislative measures
• Area specific restriction on vehicles (electrical vehicles for distribution, etc)
• Mobility management (congestion fees, smart box, proactive advisory service,
etc)

14. Baseline: Waste (solid + liquid)
Solid Waste
• Residential: Vacuum waste collection system (3 fractions), separate recycling
room for remaining waste, e.g. electronics, glass, bulk waste
• Commercial: actors manage their own waste
• Organic waste mixed with combustible waste
• Waste generation about 10% lower than Stockholm average
• Very high volumes to recycling
• 0% to landfill
• Recycling of packaging (not materials)
Water / wastewater
Water and wastewater system in Stockholm is already CO2-positive!
• Water use: 150 l/person (residential) 45 l/person (offices and retail)
• Centralised wastewater treatment (99% BOD and P-removal and >50% N-
removal)
• Biogas generation from sludge (sludge used to cover mining landfill)
• Leakage into sewers estimated to 10% (Stockholm average 40%)
• Losses from water mains estimated to 10% (Stockholm average 25%)

15. Strategies: Waste
Non-area specific changes in the systems
• Vacuum systems are required in all new developments
Area specific requirements – Scenario 1
• Local vacuum operated waste collection system with increased no of fractions
=> increased material recovery
• Food waste from homes and workplaces is collected (through churns)
• Gardening waste is recycled locally
• Local Reuse Center – decrease in residential bulk waste
• Lower waste generation in total (conscious consumption, lighter materials).
• Water use: 100 l/person (residential) 30 l/person (offices and retail)
Area specific requirements – Scenario 2
• Reduce waste generation in total (more IT - less paper, shifting packaging
materials, etc
• Material recovery
• Reuse nutrients from organic waste and water closets

16. Strategies: Waste
Phase 2
Solid waste
• Source separation of organic waste from residential and commercial areas for
biogas production (a potential risk: minimising waste => reduced biogas
production)
• Active incentive system to avoid waste generation and promote reuse instead of
recycling (computers, furniture, appliances, etc.)
• Water fountains in public areas, offices, etc to reduce use of water bottles
• Collection of aluminium packaging and products (excl cans)
• Replace locally distributed printed material with digital media
• Organic waste from public open space used as mulch to avoid composting
Water and Wastewater
• Source-separation of nutrients at toilet (vacuum system) and recycling of
nutrients to replace commercial fertilisers
• Collecting organic waste and black-water from ships to produce biogas and
replace commercial fertilisers (A-credit)
• Stormwater management