1. Grace YEPEZ – Fabien FILLIT – Nicolas SALMON / NOBATEK
nsalmon@nobatek.com
www.nobatek.com
Environmental assessment of
sustainable urban projects through
NEST, a tool for urban planning
actors

2. 5 critical parameters:
-Defined: centre and limits
-Compact
-Complete
-Connected
-Allow human-nature link
[ Sustainable neighbourhood ]
Urban neighbourhood, designed to have a
low environmental impact on environment
while insuring high quality of life for its
inhabitants. It is based on long terms
objectives, aims at a functional autonomy
and at a consistent integration in the city
[G.Yépez,2011]
2

3. REQUIREMENTS
> Consistent with architects’ ways of working and
the level of information in an early design phase
> Evaluation through understandable and
objective (quantitative) indicators
> Evaluation base on 3D modelling and impact
visualisation clearly linked to design options
> To allow comparing design scenarios
MASTERPLAN early phases > need for better EVALUATION tools
LEVEL OF DATA in an early phase
> Early phase: urban planning competition or
outline proposals
> Site of construction + urban program +
sustainability objectives
> General geometry of buildings, land occupation,
roads and circulations
> General characterization of roads composition,
green areas and available public transportation

4. State of the art : tools for evaluating urban planning impacts
+ +
Workability: sites/actors/projects
QUALITATIVE
evaluation
QUANTITATIVE
evaluation

5. District planning scenarioLife Cycle Analysis (LCA)
LCA
Infrastructure
LCA
buildings
LCA
transport
LCA
land use
+ + +
LCA Neighbourhood
Designing a new district:
how to evaluate quickly and effectively a design scenario ?

6. NEST Indicators Calculated per user and per year
ENERGY
Total primary energy consumption (MJ) of the district
It includes: Buildings construction, buildings use, infrastructure construction, public lighting, transportation
CO2
Green house gases (GHG) emitted by the district (IPCC 100).
It includes: Buildings construction, buildings use, infrastructure construction, public lighting, transports
LAND USE
Land use (impact on biodiversity) (eco-indicator 99)
It includes: land transformation; land consumption
WASTE
Waste generation and valorization
It includes: construction and demolition waste, household waste
AIR QUALITY
Volume of polluted air generated by the district (m3)
It includes air pollution from: transports, buildings heating fumes (gas and wood boilers).
WATER
Water consumption in the district
It includes consumption from: construction of the dwellings, use of dwellings, maintenance of gardens
It includes separately: drinking water, rain water
ECONOMY
Cost of the project
It includes the cost of : roads, green areas, buildings (per categories), other street elements
SOCIAL IMPACT
Evaluation of users 'satisfaction
It includes evaluation from : accessibility, availability of green areas, size of dwellings, means of transports,
availability of parking
Indicators > (mostly) based on a LCA approach

7. Evaluation: example
Roads and
pavements
design
Materials consumption
Land occupation
Water runoff
Transportation scenario
Accessibility
Initial investment
Energy CO2 Waste
Land use (biodiversity)
Water
Energy CO2
Social satisfaction
Economy
Sustainability issue Indicators
Air quality

8. Nest: plug-in in Trible sketchup

9. Objective > ability to evaluate quickly planning scenarios
during the design phase
Project characteristics
Import / export of models
Land use parameters
Buildings creation
Buildings properties
Street elements
Infrastructures (roads) properties
Transport scenario
Calculation
Comparison of scenarios
Report
INPUTS
RESULTS

10. Example of INPUTS: Buildings characteristics…

11. Example of INPUTS: Roads properties…

12. Example of INPUTS: Transportation scenario…

13. RESULTS: sustainability indicators

14. RESULTS: reporting

15. Example of application
analysis of a urban planning scenario for a new neighborhood
Project characteristics:
- located in the Pyrénées Atlantiques (Fr),
2.6 ha
- Closed to the (small) town center, closed
to the highway
- Area occupied by a football field, few
houses, a small agriculture company and
empty fields
- Initial definition of the land use: 50%
artificial area, 30% agriculture fields, 10%
urban area, 10% empty urban areas
- Distance to the main working area: 10 km
- Objective: housing 300 inhabitant + shops
+ offices
Planning proposal: scenario 0
-based on integrated urban gardens, pedestrian areas, smaller roads for cars, fewer parking spaces per
dwelling, vegetated parks, buildings shops and offices creating a wall against the noise from the highway
- Quite high density
-All buildings are energy efficient (completion of 45 kWh / m² / year) and include solar energy production on
rooftops
- large areas of green spaces and green roofs (> water management)
- All buildings include a place to facilitate waste sorting, have local bicycles shelters, and are equipped with
systems to reduce water consumption
- Grey water reuse is also considered in some buildings
- 20% of housing is social housing
- 1 bus line and creation of bicycle connection to the town center

16. RESULTS: scenario 0 > energy and climate change
-Impact of density
- high performance of buildings
- quite low level of transport impact
- low impact from infrastructures
- French electricty mix leads to low
CO2 emissions from electricty uses
(buildings)
- High impact of transportation is
consequent of the project localization

17. RESULTS: scenario 0 > Waste production
- Good result on recycling capacity
- Important potential of waste reduction through
the reduction of waste for the construction and
demolition works

18. RESULTS: Water management (consumption/ infiltration)
- Low level of
potable water
consumption
- Improvements can be
realized to further avoid
water runoff

19. Planning proposal
- Based on low density, individual
houses, large lots, large and
numerous roads
- Mostly mineralized areas
- Minimized public spaces
- Performance of building: based on
current regulation, no renewable
energy production neither rain
water recovery.
- 1 bus line
- The construction proposed
reaches only 215 inhabitants
Alternative: scenario 1 =business as usual

20. RESULTS
Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual)
- Main differences
generated by the
buildings performance
strategy and by the
ability to use alternative
transportation for a
little part of the
transport needs
> PRIMARY ENERGY

21. RESULTS
Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual)
- Main differences generated
by the buildings performance
strategy and by the ability to
use alternative transportation
for a little part of the
transport needs
> CO2 EMISSIONS

22. RESULTS
Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual)
> WATER CONSUMPTION
- Efforts realized on water reuse is
clearly visible for scenario 1

23. RESULTS
Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual)
- The proposal 1 would
gain with more natural
green spaces
> LAND USE

24. RESULTS
Scenario 0 (performance oriented) vs. scenario 1 (business as usual)
scenario 0 scenario 1
Scenario 1
- 41% energy consumption
 -16% CO2 emissions
 -25% non recyclable waste
 -47% potable water consumption
 -20% outside air pollution
 + 40% housing capacity
 + 40 % initial investment

25. Siège Social
NOBATEK
67, rue de Mirambeau
64600 ANGLET
Tél. : 05 59 03 61 29
Fax. : 05 59 63 55 41
www.nobatek.com
Site Ecocampus
ENSAM
Esplanade des Arts et Métiers
33405 TALENCE
Tél. : 05 56 84 63 70
Fax. : 05 56 84 63 71