1. Update on EIC project – smart cities and the environment

2. Purpose To assess whether the ‘smart city’ agenda will enable UK cites to make real progress in tackling with entrenched environmental challenges such as Greenhouse gas carbon emissions Waste management Air quality Water use

3. Task Force members include:

4. Definitions Smart city initiatives/applications are those which are based upon using the power of networked devices (both centrally controlled and citizen controlled) and analysis of ‘big data’ to improve the functioning and capability of cities.

6. City environmental challenges CarbonAir qualityRecyclingWater London Birmingham Leeds Glasgow Sheffield Bradford Edinburgh Liverpool Manchester Bristol

7. Water use in a city Average per capita daily water use in the UK is 150 litres. Gov’s target for England is 130 litres by 2030 (or possibly even 120 litres) - consistent with Part G of the Building Regs and the (voluntary) Code for Sustainable Homes. Within this national context, cities face specific problems: 1) Urban population density means risk of water stress especially acute. 2) Mains water leakage can be harder to tackle when pipes are beneath congested city streets. 3) Flood risk exacerbated by the volume of paved surfaces. It is not standard practice to monitor these issues on a city-wide basis – regulators opt for much wider catchment areas or areas that fall within responsibility of water companies.

8. Severn Trent - Birmingham

9. Water use in a city Without being able to measure these water issues effectively at a city level, or in a consistent way as with other environmental challenges, makes it difficult for city leaders to take appropriate action. However, better quality, more granular data collation is a key benefit of smart technologies and this can play an important role in filling this knowledge gap. As a reduction in water use is a key strategic aim for the government, we have included it this report as one of the major environmental challenges faced by cities.

10. Smart can offer: Higher awareness can encourage political will to take action

11. Smart water case studies Water smart meters are used to track and monitor water consumption levels. Through the use of real-time dashboards and the immediate sharing of information it can help local authorities and/or emergency services prepare for imminent difficulties and co-ordinate response efforts. Thames Water ‘Leakfrog’ boundary meters is a device fitted to a customer's water meter overnight and work like stop-watches, showing the longest period of time it has taken for one litre of water to pass through a household's water meter. The shorter the time the bigger the leak. Ambiental flood risk modelling uses smart data to more accurately undertake flood modelling and flood risk consultancy, helping government bodies and commercial companies to improve their flood planning and decision making. This analysis and modelling enables the customer to understand flooding and more agile and responsive in their automated decisioning in response.

12. But little evidence of impact to date (max 10- 15%). Why? Smart not always the best answer…

13. Is smart always the right answer? Smart is not always effective at cutting pollution at source. (eg vehicle emissions cut more effectively through retrofit of diesel engines.) Hard engineering solutions eg SuDS may be needed Veolia/LSE ‘Imagine 2050’ emphasises nanotechnology and eg micro-scale plant based effluent cleaning over smart ‘ICT systems’.

14. But little evidence of impact to date (10-15%) Why? Smart not always the best answer… Environment not prioritised in ‘smart thinking’

15. Smart city case studies by environmental relevance ReportEnviro-relatedIndirectly enviro- related Non environmentTOTAL FCC: UK smart cities1236 BIS International case studies 1247 Arup: Smart solutions 2057 CfC Smart policy paper 1056 B’ham smart action plan 732939 TOTAL1274665

16. But little evidence of impact to date (10-15%) Why? Smart not always the best answer… Environment not prioritised in ‘smart thinking’ Smart city/environment market not developing effectively?

17. Limited smart impact on the environment An effective market in smart environmental solutions is not appearing: Funders won’t invest without evidence of impact but evidence can not be created without funding Cities may lack procurement skills and resources to interact with providers and make judgements Lack of motivation/incentive to tackle environmental externalities can undermine business models for smart environmental solutions Limited impact of smart solutions on the environment Barriers/limitations to smart environmental solutions include: Environment not prioritised in smart initiatives Smart solutions do not by themselves create motivation to act Sometimes non-smart solutions are more effective City governance/structures can inhibit smart solutions

18. Conclusions The smart city concept is relatively new, and the environmental aspect of smart city thinking even more so. There is a lack of clear evidence that smart technologies and applications have a major role in improving environmental outcomes in cities. However, there are encouraging signs that smart has a role to play, and the encouragement of smart environmental solutions should continue. It is important not to ‘oversell’ the impact of smart technology itself. In many cases the most effective approaches will be the blending of smart elements with more traditional engineering solutions.

19. Conclusions The immaturity of the market for smart technologies, and the number of applications still in R&D, means hard evidence of real world impacts is limited and dissipated. A central case study depository needs to be established to enable a better understanding of where knowledge and tested best practice can be deployed elsewhere. The smart city market will develop better and costs come down if there is more standardisation within the industry. BSI Smart Cities Framework could have a role in encouraging spread of good practice. While the aim is to develop city-wide approaches, this can be technically and commercially challenging in the short term. There is value in piloting smart solutions at sub-city. An example might be a university campus, or an area of a city with a small number of major landlords/developers who could be encouraged to sign up to common implementation of a smart initiative.

20. Next steps Nov 2014 – Jan 2015 EIC staff and JB to finalise report Pre – publication copies of report to go to cities Aiming to have report ready to launch at EIC conference – 2 Dec Cities session at EIC conference – Mark Watts C40 and JB speaking Seminar on report early 2015 – who should be invited? Feb 2015 onward Follow up report reviewing progress? Survey of cities? EIC smart city/sustainability hub?