Towards a Net-Zero Energy District Transformation in a

Mono-criterion Scenario Analysis

The Case of Bo01, Malmö District

Sesil Koutra

, Vincent Becue

, Jean-Baptiste Griffon

and Christos Ioakeimidis

1(*)

ERA Chair (*Holder) 'Net-Zero Energy Efficiency on City Districts', Department of Architecture and Urban Planning,

University of Mons, Rue de l'Epargne, 56, Mons, Belgium

Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Mons, Rue d'Havre 88, Mons, Belgium

Keywords: Case, Criterion, District, Energy, Tool.

Abstract: Transforming cities to deal with the resource scarcity and the threats of the climate change remain major

challenges in the urban development. Hence, districts are already taking an active key role in European

policies. Buildings are a key consumer of energy worldwide representing over than 40% of the overall

energy consumption at European level. In this current context of arising interest, reducing energy

consumption is an important target. During the last years, the ‘zero energy idea’ has been introduced in

international scientific literature review aiming at a more sustainable urban and built environment focusing

on individual buildings by articulating the requirements for an annual basis of an energy balance equal to

zero. ‘U-ZED’ (Urban-Zero Energy Districts) methodological assessment tool focuses on the challenge of

zero energy objective on a district scale. In this paper, the analysis emphasises the ‘transformation’ of Bo01

Malmö area in a mixed-use zero energy district.

1 INTRODUCTION

Modern cities deal with many challenges in regards

to phenomena of climate change, greenhouse gas

emissions, pollution, scarcity of renewable

resources, increase in urbanisation growth forecasted

to over than 75% by 2030, lead to an increased

demand for infrastructure, energy consumption, etc.

In this current context of the arising interest in

environmental impacts, European Union proposes

initiatives, directives and policy targets (i.e. EPBD

recast, etc.) for reaching energy efficiency and a

high level of its autarky in its Member States. Thus,

there is a need to rethink the urban development

strategies in holistic visions and approaches, where

energy and effective building retrofitting have a key

role (Becchio et al., 2016).

Already in 2008, the European Union published

its 2020 climate and energy objectives, including:

20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,

compared to ‘90s levels, increase in share of energy

consumption from natural resources to 20% and

20% of the improvement of the European energy

efficiency (Große et al., 2016). Along with this

track, the concept of ‘zero energy’ is gaining

international interest in the scientific literature

review focusing more on individual autonomous

buildings and aiming at long-term and concrete

applications in larger territorial scales (i.e. district)

(Marique and Reiter, 2014).

Notwithstanding, due to the complexity of the

context, the challenge of its application in a cohesive

whole is the ‘district’ as a subset and micrograph of

the city able to evaluate the energy patterns and

identify solutions towards the sustainable strategic

urban planning. ‘U-ZED’ (Urban-Zero Energy

Districts) assessment tool deals with the challenge of

the ‘zero energy’ objective by translating the district

into a systemic approach to establishing a simplified

(and simulation) methodology for the

conceptualisation of the zero energy standards in a

multi-criterion and parametrical context in the

district scale.

In this paper, the ‘zero energy’ objective is

fostered in a mono-criterion level (social and

functional mixing) within the case-study of Bo01,

Malmö district (Sweden) (as evaluated by the U-

ZED tool as potential for zero-energy applications).

The purpose of the paper is, therefore, to identify the

principal drivers towards the ‘district retrofitting’

180

Koutra, S., Becue, V., Griffon, J-B. and Ioakeimidis, C.

Towards a Net-Zero Energy District Transformation in a Mono-cr iterion Scenario Analysis - The Case of Bo01, Malmö District.

DOI: 10.5220/0006301901800187

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS 2017), pages 180-187

ISBN: 978-989-758-241-7

with zero energy targets via the formalisation of a

scenario analysis and a modelling procedure

according to them within the analysis in the

particular case-study of Bo01, Malmö district and its

conversion towards the direction of ‘zero energy

standards’.

The paper is structured accordingly: Section 2

develops the principle methodological holistic

approach of the U-ZED tool, Section 3 describes

further the context of a ‘mixed-use’ district and its

importance for its labelisation as ‘zero energy’,

Section 4 outlines the three scenarios developed

towards the zero energy standards and the modelling

procedure in the Bo01, Malmö district, while

Section 5 concludes with the main critical discussion

and the further analysis towards the future

conceptualisation of the net-zero energy idea in a

district level.

2 ‘U-ZED’ METHODOLOGICAL

ASSESSMENT TOOL

‘U-ZED’ (Urban-Zero Energy Districts) as a

methodological assessment district approach

contributes to the establishment of a simplified

simulation tool on the basis of contextualisation of a

district’s urban structure (typology and morphology)

with zero energy attributes and completes the

existing approaches by developing a methodological

tool in diverse steps and a multi-criterion and

parametrical context. The tool explores the linkage

of the beneficial influence of the urban structure and

the patterns of the achievement of the increase in

energy efficiency and the zero energy standards in

five (5) steps (Figure 1).

Figure 1: U-ZED methodological approach.

In this paper, the analysis is restricted to the step of

‘Scenario Analysis/Modelling’ (Figure 1) in a mono-

criterion context at the simplified exemplar case of

Bo01, Malmö district in three interesting conceptual

terms proposed by the authors: the ‘smart location’,

the ‘smart typology’ and the ‘smart morphology’

corresponding to three of our research questions:

 ‘Where are we going to ‘locate’ our district

(‘smart location’)?’

 ‘What is the the ‘optimal type’ of the district

(‘smart typology’)?’

 ‘What is the ‘optimal urban structure’ of the

district (‘smart morphology’)?’

2.1 The Role of the ‘District’

A comprehensive problematic and challenge that the

study had to deal with, has been the ‘territorial scale’

to apply zero energy solutions. The strategy of the

identification of the territorial scale for an effective

energy planning takes into account the strategic

decisions in a ‘city level’ to ensure a more integral

diagnosis (Barbano and Egusquiza, 2015).

For this study, the district is understood as an

‘urban block’ and a complicated system with diverse

key parameters of its ‘internal’ and ‘external’

environment as presented below (Figure 2).

Figure 2: District approach, interconnections with

‘internal’ and ‘external’ environment.

2.2 Diagnosis of Ten European Cases

The analysis focuses on representative European

case studies (Figure 3) selected with an ‘eco’

character for the following reasons:

 More than 50% of the cases are implemented.

 The availability of the information.

 The geographical criterion of their localisation in

Europe.

Towards a Net-Zero Energy District Transformation in a Mono-criterion Scenario Analysis - The Case of Bo01, Malmö District

181

Figure 3: State-of-the-art-analysis. diagnosis & review of

ten European case studies.

2.3 Definition of Key Parameters

A compilation of criteria and key parameters

strategically significant for the urban structure of the

NZED (Net Zero Energy Districts) synthesis is the

subsequent step divided into two groups (qualitative

and quantitative) described and analysed in three

axes: (1) the ‘smart’ location, (2) the ‘smart’

typology and (3) the ‘smart’ morphology.

2.3.1 ‘Smart Location’

Key parameters in regards to the ‘smart location’:

 Geographical site/Topography: proximity to the

city centre and neighbouring districts.

 Connectivity/Accessibility: emphasis on the

physical connectivity (boundaries).

2.3.2 ‘Smart Typology’

Key parameters in regards with the ‘smart typology’:

 Buildings: physical composition and attributes

(i.e. geometrical dimensions, etc.)

 Mixed-use land uses ‘optimal’ combination of

residential and non-residential land-uses by

promoting a variety of dwelling typology and

resulting in more efficient urban environments.

 Density: highly-dense districts are effective tools

related to mobility and transport issues.

 Household synthesis: a typology of household

(number of persons per household).

2.3.3 ‘Smart Morphology’

Key parameters in regards with the ‘smart

morphology’:

 Compactness: dense structures for lower energy

use and carbon emissions per capita, less air,

water and lower resource (Fertner and Große,

2016).

 Geometry: geometry of the building (i.e.

dimensions, etc.) to determine the building's

energy use (Masmoudi, 2004)

 Orientation: spatial parameter to analyse the

accessibility of (Dujardin, Marique and Teller

2014).

2.3.4 Introduction of ‘Smart Ground’

Along with the axes analysed previously, the study

carries out the introduction of the ‘smart ground’

implying that the development of a NZED demands

the analysis of the ‘optimal’ and ‘intelligent’

location, typology and morphology before the

application and/or installation of any technological

realisation. To the above principles and prerequisites

of significance importance is the role of residents’

participation to maintain a fully engaged

sustainability, collaborative and strategic planning

from the conception till the implementation of the

urban project (Figure 4):

Figure 4: Introduction of the notion of ‘smart ground’ for

the description of a NZED.

2.4 District Evaluation

Within the past decades, an arising interest in

diverse assessment tools around the world has been

developed to evaluate the energy performance and

efficiency of the built and urban environment in a

district (Ayyoob, 2013). Already since 2000, the

development of the early approaches has been

launched with the certification and labelisation tools

(Yepez-Salmon, 2011).

In this context of district evaluation, U-ZED tool

assesses the potential of zero energy retrofitting via

three pillars to reach a high level of energy autarky

by introducing (Figure 5):

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

182

 Pillar 1. Optimisation of residents’ energy

requirements

 Pillar 2. Energetic hybridisation: Combination of

the capacity of the renewable resources and the

energy systems installed at the district.

 Pillar 3. Organisation of energy storage: Demand

for energetically efficient systems in function

with the peak periods of consumption to achieve

an optimal balance.

Figure 5: Pillars of NZED Evaluation (U-ZED tool).

3 THE CRITERION OF ‘MIXED-

USE’ DISTRICT

In a broad sense, the ‘mixed-use’ context in a district

is the combination of residential and non-residential

activities and functions on the basis of a multi-

functional and efficient territory. As a goal, the

‘mixed-use’ district aims at promoting the economic

growth in relation to the sustainable development to

achieve uniform distribution of the population and

the residential development in spatial conditions

(Vorontsovab and Salimgareevc, 2016). ‘Mixed-use’

(or heterogeneous) areas enhance the compatible

land-uses to be located in proximity and decrease the

car dependency (Arroyo Group, 2009)

4 CASE OF BO01, MALMO

Malmö is the third largest city in Sweden by

population after Stockholm and Gothenburg divided

into ten (10) districts (Anderson, 2014). Western

Harbour is located in the northwest of the city center

of Malmö (318,000 inhabitants in 2014 and center of

a metropolitan area with approximately 700,000

inhabitants). The 175ha area consists of a peninsula

stretching out into the Öresund Straight and

Universitet Sholmen located between the peninsula

and the old city center of Malmö (Figure 6)

(Anderberg and Foletta, 2015):

Figure 6: Geographical site of Bo01, Malmö district.

For the last 15 years, Western Harbour has been the

major flagship of the Swedish international eco-city

ambitions. These city projects are presented both as

leading examples of the conversion of former

industrial harbor areas and of environmental

adaptation of densely built urban environments.

Western Harbour is a centrally-located former

shipyard area developed into a mixed area for

housing, schools, offices, shops and other

workplaces as well as for recreational areas with

public spaces, etc. By 2031, when the area has been

completed, it is expected to accommodate more than

25,000 residents (Anderberg, 2015).

4.1 Scenario Analysis

The paper analyses the criterion of functional and

social mixing in the Bo01, Malmö district in regards

with three scenarios: motivations and reasons for its

realisation (scenario 0), current situation and

achievements (scenario 1) and potential to a NZED

transformation (scenario 2):

4.1.1 Scenario 0. First Phase: Bo01 Malmö

District Housing Exposition

Scenario 0 includes the early first approach of the

urban initiative of the Bo01, Malmö district realised

as a redevelopment of the post-industrial Western

Harbour area of Malmö (Figure 7) for the

international housing exhibition (Bo01) and the

Towards a Net-Zero Energy District Transformation in a Mono-criterion Scenario Analysis - The Case of Bo01, Malmö District

183

subject of the ‘City of Tomorrow’ (Austin, 2009) as

a result of public and private entities (Klas, 2004).

Figure 7: Western Harbour area before 1998.

The vision for Bo01 was to create a modern mixed-

use district committed to sustainable principles. The

350 residential dwellings exposed at the Housing

Expo (2001) comprised a mixing of tenures with

particular architectural design, patterns and

construction materials to minimise the energy

consumption and promote the sustainable mobility.

Bo01 Housing Expo served as a model for the

successive urban development of the Västra Hamnen

area (Anderson, 2014).

Bo01 district has been to create a compact, mixed-

use and lively district with reduced mobility

requirements by favoring environmentally friendly

transport and a self-energy (autonomous)

community based on 100% local renewable

resources.

4.1.2 Scenario 1. Second Phase: Completion

of the Bo01, Malmö District, and

Current Approach

After Bo01 housing exposition, the area was

completed and expanded as a second phase with the

goal to create an attractive district in terms of

(Anderberg, 2015):

Energy

An important part of the energy concept of the

district is the low energy use in buildings. Each unit

is only allowed to use 105kWh/m

/year including

electricity. A system for a district energetically

autonomous is installed for Bo01 (Sydkraft) (Figure

8) powered by the wind, solar, biogas and heat

pumps (production of 6,200MWh of heating,

3,000MWh of cooling and 6,300MWh of electricity)

including heat recovery from ventilation systems,

triple-glazed windows and energy-efficient

appliances and equipment.

Figure 8: Description of the energy system in Bo01,

Malmö district.

Transport

Stakeholders in Bo01 Malmö planned to minimise

the future mobility requirements by emphasising the

cycle paths (8,185m). The district is well-served by

mild public transport and by interesting mobility

concepts, i.e. car sharing supported and introduced

by the CIVITAS Initiative (Figure 9), etc. At least

one bus stop is located within 300m of every

dwelling and buses pass at seven-minute intervals

throughout the day. Additionally, from the southern

border of the district, the Malmö Central Station

abstains 1km (Foletta, 2015). The study analyses in

detail the transportation system in the Bo01 district

(almost 50% of the road network, more than 20% of

cycle paths and 20% of pedestrian routes).

Building Housing

The city focuses on the demonstration of innovative

green solutions with interesting building typology

including almost 60 different housing patterns

(CMHC, 2005) and more than 1,000 dwellings

covering an area of 30ha. Most of the buildings

cover residential requirements (3-4 storeys)

combined with several commercial and community

amenities (Fais, 2009; NK Architects Sustainability

Archives, 2015). Among the existing buildings, the

remarkable case remains the ‘Turning Torso’ tower

(2005) of 190m (the tallest residential building in

Scandinavia) and 54 storey designed by S. Calatrava

consisted of 147 apartments and conference facilities

(Figure 10). However, the high construction costs

and the weak interest about condominiums lead the

tower to an economic failure (Anderberg, 2015).

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

184

Figure 9: Diverse Building Typology in Bo01, Malmö

district.

Figure 10: Building Typology and ‘Turning Torso’ Tower

in Bo01, Malmö district.

The study analysed further the criterion of

‘functional mixing’ with regards to the land-uses and

the building typology with the aid of ‘Google Earth’

application. Figure 11 includes the attributes of the

‘functional mixing’:

Figure 11: Functional mixing in Bo01, Malmö district.

Figure 12 illustrates the building typology with the

emphasis on the residential dwellings: almost 20%

of row houses, 70% of collective houses

(apartments) and the rest for detached houses.

Figure 12: Building typology in Bo01, Malmö district.

Figure 13 highlights the parameter of ‘number of

floors’ in the district: the majority of the residential

dwellings include R+3 or R+4 (21% and 26%

respectively).

Figure 13: Number of floors in residential dwellings of

Bo01, Malmö district.

4.1.3 Scenario 2. towards a NZED Bo01,

Malmö District

Scenario 1 proposed an approach of the Bo01,

Malmö district in terms of the ‘functional’ and

‘social’ mixing criterion. Scenario 2 completes the

idea of the Bo01 Malmö district transformation via

Roger’s theory as a basis for the definition of the

location of the new equipment and land-uses in the

district in a multi-functional and mixed-use concept

and the re-arrangement of the existing (Figure 14)

5 CONCLUSIONS

Bo01 district in Malmö began as an international

exhibition housing in 2001 and was transformed into

a viable and sustainable area. The district is the

Towards a Net-Zero Energy District Transformation in a Mono-criterion Scenario Analysis - The Case of Bo01, Malmö District

185

Figure 14: Proposal for Bo01 Malmö ‘transformation’ towards the net zero energy concept.

result of cooperation among several public and

private entities in a mixed-use urban development.

Much of the experience gained in the Bo01 project,

both positive and negative, is being directly applied

to further development in the Western Harbour area

of Malmö city.

Up to now, a research methodological study has

been developed to contribute to the establishment of

a simplified, scripting and simulation tool (U-ZED)

for the definition of the urbanisation strategies and

simplified urban models with zero energy attributes.

Five preliminary steps develop the constraints and

the opportunities towards the feasibility of the

application of zero energy idea at a district level by

completing the existing approaches limited on

individual autonomous buildings. An analytical

literature review diagnoses ten representatives, in the

scientific literature, case-studies with sustainable

and ecological context and interesting

accomplishments and evaluates them in regards to

three pillars (optimisation of energy requirements,

energetic hybridisation and organisation of energy

storage).

A critical selection of key parameters and criteria

(and sub-criteria) that influence the structure

(typology and morphology) of a district in response

to the reduced energy consumption is defined as an

initial step in accordance with the prerequisites of

the ‘smart ground’ (‘smart location’, ‘smart

typology’ and ‘smart morphology’).

The paper contributes to the existing literature on

the ‘zero energy’ objective via the U-ZED

methodological approach towards the

‘transformation’ of the Bo01 Malmö district in zero

energy attributes. A scenario analysis of three cases

investigates the feasibility of this objective at a

district scale in a mono-criterion frame (‘functional

and ‘social’ mixing). This work highlighted the

opportunities to extend the boundaries of a

sustainable ‘eco-district’ to a zero energy concept in

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

186

the general perspective of the principle of ‘mixing’.

The methodological framework will be extended and

completed, namely to take into account other

parameters in a multi-criterion analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by the EC under the FP7

RE-SIZED 621408 (Research Excellence for

Solutions and Implementation of Net-Zero Energy

City Districts) project.

REFERENCES

Anderberg, S. 2015. Western Harbor in Malmö.

Anderson, T. 2014. “Malmo: A City in Transition.” Cities

39: 10–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.01.005.

Arroyo Group. 2009. Mixed Use-Neighborhood District.

http://www.arroyogroup.com/ncsp/documents.html.

Austin, G. 2009. “Case Study and Sustainability

Assessment of Bo01, Malmo, Sweden.” Journal of

Green Building 8: 34–50.

Ayyoob, S. 2013. “Sustainability at the Neighborhood

Level : Assessment Tools and the Pursuit of

Sustainability.” Nagoya University.

Barbano, J., Egusquiza, A. 2015. “Interconnection

between Scales for Friendly and Affordable

Sustainable Urban Districts Retrofitting.” In 6th

International Building Physics Conference, IBPC

2015, 1853–58. http://ac.els-cdn.com/

S1876610215020640/1-s2.0-S1876610215020640-

main.pdf?_tid=85a868e8-8c70-11e6-8b49-

00000aab0f01&acdnat=1475832738_f258b982f0e1eb

f1367d29f4d6cab5be.

Becchio, C., Corgnai, S., Delmastro, C., Fabi, V.,

Lombardi, P. 2016. “The Role of Nearly-Zero Energy

Buildings in the Transition towards Post-Carbon

Cities.” Sustainable Cities and Society 27: 324–37.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.005.

CMHC. 2005. “Bo01 Sustainable Housing Development,

Malmo, Sweden.” Innovative Buildings: 1–11.

Dujardin, S., Marique, A.F., Teller, J. 2014. “Spatial

Planning as a Driver of Change in Mobility and

Residential Energy Consumption.” Energy and

Buildings 68: 779–85.

Energy Cities. 2001. “Bo01 City of Tomorrow (Malmö -

SE).”: 1. http://www.energy-cities.eu/IMG/pdf/

BO01_EN.pdf (October 26, 2016).

Fais, L. 2009. “Ecological City Districts in Malmo:

Bo01.” Educate. https://www.educate-sustainability.

eu/kb/content/ecological-city-districts-malmo-bo01-

bo02-flagghusen-bo03-fullrigaren (October 26, 2016).

Fertner, C., Große, J. 2016. “Compact and Resource

Efficient Cities? Synergies and Trade-Offs in

European Cities.” European Spatial Research and

Policy 23(1).

Foletta, N. 2015. Västra Hamnen, Malmo, Sweden.

Große, J., Fertner, C., Groth, N. 2016. “Urban Structure ,

Energy and Planning : Findings from Three Cities in

Sweden, Finland and Estonia.” Urban Planning 1(1):

24–40.

Klas, T. 2004. BO01 Malmö, Sweden. www.malmo.se.

Marique, Anne Françoise, and Sigrid Reiter. 2014. “A

Simplified Framework to Assess the Feasibility of

Zero-Energy at the Neighbourhood/community Scale.”

Energy and Buildings 82: 114–22.

Masmoudi, S. 2004. “Relation of Geometry, Vegetation

and Thermal Comfort around Buildings in Urban

Settings, the Case of Hot Arid Regions.” Energy and

Buildings

36: 710–19. https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/

elsevier/relation-of-geometry-vegetation-and-thermal-

comfort-around-buildings-xVrbdPO5Zv.

NK Architects Sustainability Archives. 2015. “Visiting the

City of Tomorrow: Malmo’s Western Harbor.”

http://www.nkarch.com/category/blog/sustainability/

(October 27, 2016).

Saunders, T. 2008. A Discussion Document Comparing

International Environmental Assessment Methods for

Buildings.

Vorontsovaa, A., Vorontsovab, V., Salimgareevc, D.

2016. “The Development of Urban Areas and Spaces

with the Mixed Functional Use.” In International

Conference on Industrial Engineering, ICIE 2016,.

Yepez-Salmon, G. 2011. “Construction D’un Outil

D'évaluation Environnementale Des écoquartiers: Vers

Une Méthode Systémique de Mise En Oeuvre de La

Ville Durable.” Bordeaux 1.

Towards a Net-Zero Energy District Transformation in a Mono-criterion Scenario Analysis - The Case of Bo01, Malmö District

187