CNC Report 08.26.24 8.5x11 - Flipbook - Page 75
methodology and tool generation
Working within the district-scale of the 2 mile corridor of study, two separate but synchronized
evaluation methods and metrics were developed aiming to more completely address the carbon
impacts at scale. Using both methods, different values and challenges for varying stakeholders can be
considered.
Per Capita (Persona Tool)
The persona tool represents an individual’s whole carbon emissions in all sectors, including those that
are not influenced by the corridor including food, waste, water, medical and data storage. This is done
to maintain perspective of how much a person’s whole carbon footprint the corridor can impact. It is
important to note that some categories have not been included such as goods and services, military,
and industrial since these vary or are difficult to assign to an individual person.
The Personal Footprint Tool provides an annual balance of differing personas of people depending
on their dwelling size and quality, driving habits and location within the corridor.
Starting with the person, this approach evaluates how people both contribute to and can take
responsibility for carbon within their lives. It is more considerate of the people living directly on the
corridor and those within a ¼ or ½ mile of the site to demonstrate the carbon and lifestyle implications
of design proposals to the corridor. Focusing on one person offers the point of view to further consider
design and design opportunities that meet goals for people and the environment in tandem.
Reference Appendix p127 for more detailed information regarding each of these factors.
Spatial / Over-Time (Timeline Tool)
To inform and evaluate the design measures of the corridor, the interdependencies of the buildings,
street-scapes, and eGrid are captured through the Timeline Tool, which provides a cumulative
accounting of carbon emissions over a designated length of time (i.e. 25 yrs, 50 yrs, etc.). This point of
view offers the projected effects and impact of each design for designers and stakeholders to assess
implementation strategies based on its investment and return. It can account for factors like changing
grid carbon intensity, and better represent the impact of embodied carbon at the time when the carbon
emissions are occurring. It also provides possible design input to address city-wide growth and
climate goals.
Although a ‘per capita’ output is possible from this tool, this metric does not include sectors of carbon
emissions that are not significantly influenced by the design of the district including food, waste, water,
flights, medical and data storage. Therefore, it is not a complete picture of a person’s carbon footprint.
Additionally, the collective emissions of all buildings and infrastructure within the corridor boundary
is attributed to the residents living there, even though in reality roads and amenities would be shared
among the population of the surrounding area.
Reference Appendix p129 for more detailed information regarding each of these factors.
CASE STUDY TOWARD A CARBON NEUTRAL CORRIDOR
75
