OnePlanetLivingManual PDF

PROGRAMME MANUAL
ONE PLANET LIVING COMMUNITIES

Programme Manual – One Planet Living Communities
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Contributors to this manual include various past and present members of BioRegional’s Communities
Team, including Pooran Desai, Jane Durney, Anna Francis, Ben Gill, Nick James, Sumeet
Manchanda, Sue Riddlestone and Jules Siedenburg. Any comments on this manual should be sent to
Ben Gill, Programme Manager for One Planet Living Communities at ben.gill@bioregional.com
Funders
Funding for this manual has been very generously provided by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.
2
Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Contents 3
Introduction 4
The One Planet Living Vision 4
1. Defining and addressing the sustainability challenge 7
1.1 Background to Ecological Footprinting ................................................................................................. 7
1.1.1 The situation globally............................................................................................................ 9
1.1.2 How can we use Ecological Footprinting?.......................................................................... 10
1.1.3 Ecological Footprinting ....................................................................................................... 11
1.2 The One Planet Living Principles........................................................................................................ 13
1.2.2 Why they have been chosen? ............................................................................................ 14
1.2.3 How can they be used? ...................................................................................................... 14
2.1 Defining traits ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Tailoring communities to local challenges .......................................................................................... 17
2.4.1 Positive criteria ................................................................................................................... 22
2.4.2 Negative criteria.................................................................................................................. 24
2.5 Components of an OPL community.................................................................................................... 25
2.5.2 User group matrix ............................................................................................................... 28
2.5.3 Future vision: Life in an OPL Community.......................................................................... 30
Section 3: OPL Sustainability Action Plans 33
3.1 The SAP development process .......................................................................................................... 33
3.2 The route to One Planet Living – targets and indicators .................................................................... 35
Section 4: Frequently Asked Questions 52
4.1 One Planet Living – basics ................................................................................................................. 52
4.2 One Planet Living Communities (OPL/C) programme........................................................................ 54
4.3 Implementation ................................................................................................................................... 57
4.4 Organisational aspects ....................................................................................................................... 58
4.5 Partnerships with developers.............................................................................................................. 58
Annex 1: Staffing 60
Annex 2. Future Prospect? “Coupling Urban OPL Communities with Designated Rural Areas” 61
3
Introduction
The One Planet Living Vision

Globally we are consuming resources at a faster rate than the planet can replenish them, causing great
damage to the planetary ecosystem such as climate change, deforestation and declining fisheries. If
everyone in the world lived as most Europeans do, we would need three planets to support us. People in
other parts of the world are consuming natural resources and polluting the environment at different levels.
The average North American lifestyle requires the equivalent of five planets. China, although currently at the
one planet level, has such a large population that its rapid development is likely to lead to a massive
increase in its impact upon the planet’s natural resources.
The challenge facing humanity, therefore, is this: “How can people everywhere enjoy a high quality of life
while living within the carrying capacity of one planet?”
For people living in developed countries, this means finding ways to reduce their impact or ‘Ecological
Footprint’. In Europe, a two thirds’ reduction in consumption of virgin materials and fossil fuels is needed to
achieve a sustainable, globally equitable lifestyle. For developing countries, this means enabling growth, but
in a way that looks after the natural systems on which the economy and life ultimately depend. If sustainable
lifestyle patterns are to become a normal way of life around the world, it must appeal to a diverse range of
people and cultures, and must address key needs such as housing, food, healthcare, energy, transport and
leisure. One Planet Living must also be easy, since few people actually want to live unsustainably. It is often
too easy however, to make decisions that have damaging, unsustainable consequences, and too difficult to
choose more sustainable options.
One Planet Living (OPL) is a global initiative based on ten principles of sustainability developed by
BioRegional and WWF. The initiative aims to demonstrate how sustainable living can be easy, attractive and
affordable throughout the world. The OPL vision is of a world in which people everywhere can lead happy,
healthy lives within their fair share of the Earth’s resources, whilst also leaving space for wildlife and
wilderness.
Specifically, this initiative aims to
• Work with local partners to build a worldwide network of OPL Communities that demonstrate One Planet
Living in action.
• Establish One Planet Living Centres in each OPL community as a focus for education and training.
• Promote One Planet Living and its guiding principles to bring about change in governments, businesses
and individuals.
Under the One Planet Living global initiative, BioRegional is establishing a set of sustainable communities in
diverse contexts across the globe. Projects are delivered via partnerships with private developers,
community groups and the public sector who must commit to and adopt the challenge and principles of One
Planet Living. Via these communities and associated initiatives, the programme aims to have a
transformative effect on the surrounding region and inform policy changes at national and international
levels. As of February 2008, projects are underway in Portugal, UK, USA, Canada, China and South Africa.
Purpose, audience, scope

The purpose of the One Planet Living Communities Manual is to provide a regularly (we anticipate annually)
updated ‘one stop shop’ for information on the OPL Communities programme. Much of this information is
also available via the OPL website.
The Manual’s intended audience is both those working to deliver OPL Communities and the wider public, as
a means for stimulating awareness, debate and further initiatives to deliver sustainability.
The manual provides an overview of the OPL strategy for delivering sustainability, conveying a broad,
integrated view of challenges and solutions.
4
Given the ambition of the programme, this Manual is a ‘living document’ that will evolve over time as the
programme develops, as our understanding becomes more refined and technologies change. This is
particularly true of the procedures and tools section of the Manual.
The Manual provides the following information:
The introduction identifies the OPL vision and provides an overview of the Manual’s purpose, audience
and contents.
• Section 1 describes how Ecological Footprinting helps to define the sustainability problem and how One
Planet Living offers a holistic, market-based solution to address this problem.
• Section 2 highlights the defining characteristics of OPL Communities and paints a picture of life in such a
community.
• Section 3 describes an OPL Sustainability Action Plan (SAP), which spells out the strategies used to
deliver community-level sustainability. It also discusses questions of setting targets and measuring
progress.
• Section 4 describes how OPL fits into the development process, including providing a detailed
breakdown of roles and responsibilities among partners.
• Section 5 provides a list of frequently asked questions about OPL and the OPL Communities
programme.
5
Section 1
DEFINING AND ADDRESSING THE
SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGE
6
1. Defining and addressing the sustainability challenge
Humans rely on the Earth for the resources we need to sustain our economy and lives and to absorb our
wastes; our well-being is inexorably linked to the well-being of the planet. Living unsustainably means
exceeding the rate at which the Earth’s resources naturally regenerate and renew themselves, resulting in
the degradation of our environment. Environmental degradation may be defined as a reduction in the
quantity or quality of natural resources, due for instance to overexploitation of wild game, forests, soils or
pastures, or to pollution of air or water. People depend on the Earth’s resources, and consequently such
degradation results in diminished human wellbeing, and may ultimately leave future generations a planet that
cannot sustain its entire human population.
Before people can learn to live sustainably, several key issues must be resolved:
How do we measure our impact, and therefore benchmark ‘sustainable living’?

What constitutes a sustainable community or lifestyle?
Ecological Footprinting and One Planet Living have been developed to help answer these questions.
1.1 Background to Ecological Footprinting

Sustainable development has become such an overused term, and used in so many different contexts, that it
has become devalued, and its meaning is unclear. Similarly, defining what constitutes a sustainable lifestyle
or community is clouded by the wide ranging, and often hidden, impacts of our globalised lifestyles such as
the diverse sources of the products we use and the widespread impacts of the wastes we generate. If we are
to persuade people to live sustainably, we need a clear way of judging what constitutes a sustainable
lifestyle.
Ecological Footprinting1 has been developed with the ambitious aim of bridging this gap. Simply put,
Ecological Footprinting measures humanity’s demands upon nature. Specifically, this methodology estimates
whether the impacts of our lifestyles − the processes, products and services we use as individuals or
communities, fall within the Earth’s regenerative capacity. It is essentially an accounting tool that can be
used to calculate the total impact of our various activities in terms of the area of biologically productive land
and water required to sustain them. Every component of our lifestyle is thus broken down into the land or
water area required to provide us with this good or service. For instance, the number of ‘global hectares’
(gha) needed to produce our food, sequester the carbon we emit, absorb the pollution we produce and meet
our energy demands can all be calculated. The resulting total can then be compared to our ‘fair share’ of
land and water, which is the world’s biologically productive land and water divided by the global population,
while leaving some designated proportion of land for wildlife and wilderness.
1
For more information about Ecological Footprinting visit www.Footprintnetwork.org
7
Box 1: An example of how Ecological Footprints are calculated
How do we calculate the land area required to provide us with the food we eat?
Food is an interesting example because getting food onto our plates impacts nature in diverse ways:
Area to grow the food

Energy and minerals required to produce agricultural inputs
Energy to transport the food
Materials to package the food
Methane emitted when the food is thrown away
The Ecological Footprint of our food is the sum of all these parts. For a loaf of bread the land area required
to grow the wheat can be calculated. In reality the area required will vary from place to place due to differing
fertility levels of the soil, differing climate and other factors. To account for such differences, a global
average yield is calculated for each major foodstuff, and these numbers are used when calculating impacts
involving that crop or products derived from produce. Similarly, the average global productivity is calculated
for products such as timber or fibres. The land area of forest that would be needed to absorb carbon dioxide
from fossil energy use is likewise calculated, based on the idea that biomass can absorb the emitted
equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.
Examples of land and water areas required to meet specific needs include:
25 hectares of fishing grounds / tonne of fish

3
1.3 hectares of forest / m timber
0.35 hectares forest / tonne CO2 from fossil fuels
Table 1: Global measures of biologically productive land and water

Cropland 1.3 billion hectares
Grazing land 4.6 billion hectares
Forest 3.3 billion hectares
Fishing grounds 3.2 billion hectares
Built-up areas 0.2 billion hectares
TOTAL 12.6 billion hectares
TOTAL – 10% for biodiversity 11.3 billion hectares
Per capita allowance (assuming 1.8 global hectares
global population of 6.15 billion)
8
1.1.1 The situation globally

The Living Planet Report 20062 includes data from Global Footprint Network which shows that the average
inhabitant of Western Europe requires on average 4.8 hectares of biologically productive land and water (i.e.
4.8 gha) to sustain their current lifestyle. Yet the actual available capacity per person is about 1.8 gha, as
seen in Table 1. Thus, if everyone in the world lived like the average Western European resident, humanity
would need about three planets to provide us with all our goods and services and assimilate all of our wastes
(Figure 1). The report highlights that the Ecological Footprint of an average North American is double that of
a European, and seven times that of the average Asian or African.
Figure 1: Western Europe’s three planet challenge
The challenge facing Western Europe is not unique, though different countries and regions are presently
consuming and polluting at very different rates. China is currently at the one-planet level, but with such a
large population and its rapid pace of economic development, China’s total Footprint is already large and is
set to grow massively. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of many countries are living, on average, well below their
allowable land and water area, as shown in Table 2. Although people in these countries consume and pollute
relatively little and hence have a small impact on global phenomena such as global warming, their lifestyles
may nonetheless pose serious sustainability challenges. Poor farm households for example degrade locally
available resources out of sheer need. The aggregate country statistic disguises an uneven breakdown of
impacts, whereby for example some Chinese or South Africans consume far above the one planet level,
while many others consume significantly less, creating diverse sustainability challenges.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of the world’s population lives below their fair share of resource use,
the Ecological Footprint of the entire population nonetheless exceeds the total area of the Earth’s biologically
active land and water. As a global population, we are thus no longer living off the interest of the Earth (i.e. its
sustainable production of renewable resources), but have started eating into its capital. Although the idea
that we are eating into the world’s natural capital may seem fanciful, the fact that the area of biologically
productive land decreases significantly each year while deserts expand appears to support this theory, as do
reports of declining world forests and depleted fisheries.
Table 2: The Ecological Footprint of selected countries

Country: Ecological Footprint of average resident (gha) No. of planets
UAE 11.9 6.6
USA 9.6 5.3
Australia 6.6 3.7
Sweden 6.1 3.4
France 5.6 3.1
Canada 7.6 4.2
UK 5.6 3.1
Portugal 4.2 2.3
South Africa 2.3 1.3
Mexico 2.6 1.4
China 1.6 0.9
India 0.8 0.4
Afghanistan 0.1 0.06
Global average 2.2 1.2
2
WWF International (2006) ‘Living Planet Report 2006’ Avenue de Mont-Blanc, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
9
Given current trends, each year global population grows while the world’s total biologically productive land
(i.e. its natural capital) decreases. So while one person’s ‘fair share’ is about 1.8 gha today, the Ecological
Footprinting specialists Best Foot Forward3 have estimated that this will fall to approximately 1.5 gha by
2050. They have calculated that the residents of ‘developed’ countries need to reduce their fossil fuel
consumption and use of virgin materials by, on average, between three-quarters and four-fifths in order to
live sustainably within a fair share of the Earth’s resources. To achieve this target and successfully live at a
‘one planet’ level, major changes in consumption patterns and lifestyles will be required.
Globally, we are collectively living at a 1.25 planet level, and the challenge that faces us all is how to address
this overshoot. Framing things positively, the question is how can people everywhere enjoy a high quality of
life, within the carrying capacity of the only planet we have? This challenge forms the mandate of the One
Planet Living Communities programme.
1.1.2 How can we use Ecological Footprinting?

Our Ecological Footprints can be sliced in different ways to highlight different issues, leading to different
conclusions, so care must be taken to ensure that the representation chosen is appropriate to the challenge
faced. Looking at Ecological Footprints from an individual and not sectoral perspective highlights the
importance of our lifestyle choices. These lifestyle and behaviour choices such as food, transport options and
recycling can be compared with factors over which individuals have less immediate control to shed light on
the different aspects of the sustainability challenge. Examples include the types of buildings people live in
and the collective responsibility for shared infrastructure such as roads and airports. Detailed Footprinting
analysis has currently only been conducted for some areas; such as the South East of England. This section
of the manual will therefore use these data as a Footprinting example. Figure 2 represents the impacts of a
typical resident of South East England. These data support the suggestion that transport is a major
contributor to environmental damage, but also highlight the impact of our food system. The energy used to
heat and power our buildings is often the primary focus for the sustainable development agenda in urban
areas. Framing our Footprint in terms of our lifestyle impacts highlights however, that what we do with our
waste, where our food comes from, and how we transport our goods are just as important.
The modern food system is very energy intensive. Factors that contribute to increasing its environmental
impact include greater meat consumption, the production of agricultural fertilisers and pesticides, the vast
distances that food is transported, and the processing and packaging of food. The end result is that in South
East England nearly one quarter of a typical resident’s Ecological Footprint is due to the food and drink they
consume.
Figure 2: Breakdown of Ecological Footprint for a typical resident of South East
In addition to highlighting the impacts of our food consumption, Figure 2 shows the considerable contribution
that our shared services and infrastructure make to our Ecological Footprint.
‘Shared infrastructure’ encompasses the impacts of the materials used to construct and maintain our
buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, power plants, shops, banks, etc). Shared services’ represent the
impacts of operating shared services which includes commerce and public services. Together, these two
components contribute more than one planet’s worth of the 3-planet total in South East England.
Consequently unless steps are taken to tackle the environmental impact of our shared infrastructure and
services, one planet living will remain unobtainable. Motivated individuals can reduce many of their
3
www.bestfootforward.co.uk
10
environmental impacts through lifestyle choices, irrespective of the type of home or community in which they
live. At a community-scale however, various key impacts lie beyond our immediate personal control. These
impacts are a collective responsibility for society and a governmental and political issue.
Illustrating our Ecological Footprint in terms of lifestyle impacts highlights the important role community
infrastructure needs to play in enabling residents to live sustainably. Well-planned environments with efficient
local services can help people make sustainable lifestyle choices. Examples include integrated transport
strategies aimed at minimising private car use and plans to promote local and organic produce. Indeed, such
systems can turn sustainable urban development from a lofty dream into an attainable goal.
1.1.3 Ecological Footprinting

Ecological Footprinting has been designed as a user friendly methodology that can demonstrate visually and
in a readily understandable fashion the scale of individual’s, region’s or country’s environmental impact. This
simplicity is both its main strength and its key weakness.
Although gathering and analysing all the relevant data is not a straightforward task, the end result is a simple
aggregate indicator of environmental impact that can be readily understood by diverse audiences. Ecological
Footprinting is able to cut through the various arguments in the environmental debate by providing one
simple figure that allows people to compare their impact to others people’s, as well as to see what it would
be in a more equitable world.
The value of the Ecological Footprint as a trusted sustainability indicator depends not only on the scientific
integrity of the methodology, but also on consistent application of the methodology across analyses. It also
depends on communicating results of analyses in a manner that neither distorts nor misrepresents findings.
The Global Footprint Network4 has been established to standardise Ecological Footprinting methodologies
worldwide so that comparisons can be made between countries and studies conducted by different
organisations. This has helped to resolve and standardise some key issues such as how to account for
nuclear energy and landfill gas. Work by GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK on improving standardisation
procedures is however ongoing since this is a complex area.
Ecological Footprinting is also a very flexible tool and can be used to measure the impact of individuals,
regions and countries. Prospects for measuring the impacts of companies are also currently being explored.
As it becomes better understood and more widely accepted, Ecological Footprinting is coming into ever
wider use. The EU’s European Environment Agency has begun using Ecological Footprinting, while various
Footprinting tools are available via the internet, such as a personal eco-Footprinting calculator
(www.earthday.net/Footprint) and different types of carbon calculators (www.climatecare.org, www.bp.com).
5
Another tool available on the internet is Regional Stepwise™ , which allows users to make quick and
accurate estimates of a region’s Ecological Footprinting by comparing regional statistics (e.g. on local
transport, waste disposal) to national averages. Clearly, Ecological Footprinting is rapidly becoming a well-
understood and widely used sustainability indicator.
Public engagement is essential to sustainability and communication is fundamental to this. Ecological

Footprinting is the most widely accepted ‘single figure’ measure of sustainability and as a result is an
excellent communications tool. However, Ecological Footprinting is by no means perfect. For example,
aggregating data masks important differences between countries and districts, including inequalities in both
population density and the fertility of land. For example residents of France are calculated to live at a 3.5
planet level, but this figure is calculated using global yield factors for production and population density,
whereas land in France has higher fertility than this global average. As a result, comparing the bioproductive
area of France to the impact of its residents, we find that they are actually living ‘only’ 1.5 times beyond the
means of France. In comparison China, where residents are currently living at the one planet level, is
actually living at twice the level that its own natural resources allow, due largely to its high population density.
The use within Ecological Footprinting of global averages ignores such differences between places6. This is
4
http://www.Footprintnetwork.org/
5
www.bestfoorforward.com
6
While resource productivity and assimilative capacity per unit land or water are thus averaged out over the globe, such measures
actually vary greatly depending both on natural factors such as soil type and precipitation and on whether land is pristine, degraded or
improved.
11
not to suggest that the Footprint’s use of global aggregates is incorrect, but simply to highlight the
complexities inherent in attempts to generate a single aggregate indicator.
Another problem involves the applicability of Ecological Footprinting to diverse national and regional
contexts. The danger is that it may, on the surface, be an inappropriate sustainability indicator in some
places, notably in poor countries and districts where peoples’ Ecological Footprint is well below the one
planet level. Superficially, the implication of Ecological Footprinting for such areas is that sustainability
demands that they increase resource consumption and pollution, yet this conclusion can be unhelpful,
particularly since such people often live in areas where the environment is already degraded. A related
problem is that the Footprint does not take account of socio-economic factors which could make it
unacceptable to local people if it led to government decisions that de-prioritised considerations such as
livelihood needs or local culture.
Although Ecological Footprinting is slowly becoming accepted as a legitimate, rigorous measure of

sustainability, there are still a number of contradictions in the methodology. For instance, globally the per
capita fishing ground requirements are 0.13 gha/person, and the allowable area is 0.52 gha/person. This
suggests we are a long way from overexploiting the sea, yet fish stocks are falling globally.
Water supply essentially falls outside the scope of Ecological Footprinting, accounting for less than 0.5% of
our Ecological Footprint, mostly because it requires little energy to process. Yet globally water shortages are
often the greatest natural threat to human and environmental health. Ecological Footprinting also does not
address the issue of toxicity. Water and toxicity therefore need to be given separate consideration alongside
the Ecological Footprint, as do socio-economic factors. There is no one single indicator we can use to
measure sustainability holistically defined.
Global Footprint Network are seeking to resolve some of these issues, for example by generating better
estimates on the impact of fish consumption. WWF tackle water in their Living Planet Report by including a
section on water abstraction, demonstrating that even though Footprinting provides a useful composite
indicator of many environmental issues, other indicators will always be needed. In summary, aggregating
environmental impacts is inherently complex and controversial, and it depends on deciding how much land or
sea is needed to account for different products or services. Yet such approximations are necessary, since
without numeric measures environmental impacts might simply be ignored.
Nuclear energy is another area that provokes controversy, since the disposal of radioactive waste is
impossible to quantify in terms of land area. Some organisations overcome this by suggesting that the impact
of nuclear is equal to that of fossil fuel energy production. Global Footprint Network and its partners are
currently working to improve this assumption.
Finally, Ecological Footprinting becomes more problematic the smaller the unit of analysis due to ‘leakages’
from the system in question, i.e. the difficulty of allocating impacts in cases where many different actors are
involved in a process for example producing, transporting, selling and consuming a carton of milk.
12
1.2 The One Planet Living Principles

The One Planet Living programme is based on the ten OPL Principles which act as a framework to highlight
the sustainability challenge in a given situation and as a mechanism for developing and presenting solutions.
OPL PRINCIPLE OPL GOAL and STRATEGY

GLOBAL CHALLENGE
Achieve net CO2 emissions of zero from OPL developments
Climate change due to human-
Implement energy efficiency in buildings and infrastructure;
induced build up of carbon Zero Carbon
supply energy from on-site renewable sources, topped up by
dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere
new off-site renewable supply where necessary.
Eliminate waste flows to landfill and for incineration
Waste from discarded products
Reduce waste generation through improved design;
and packaging create a huge
Zero Waste encourage re-use, recycling and composting; generate energy
disposal challenge while
from waste cleanly; eliminate the concept of waste as part of
squandering valuable resources
a resource-efficient society.
Reduce reliance on private vehicles and achieve major
reductions of CO2 emissions from transport
Travel by car and airplane can
Sustainable Provide transport systems and infrastructure that reduce
cause climate change, air &
Transport dependence on fossil fuel use, e.g. by cars and airplanes.
noise pollution, and congestion
Offset carbon emissions from air travel and perhaps car
travel.
Destructive patterns of resource Transform materials supply to the point where it has a net
exploitation and use of non- positive impact on the environment and local economy
Local and
local materials in construction Where possible, use local, reclaimed, renewable and recycled
Sustainable
and manufacture increase materials in construction and products, which minimises
Materials
environmental harm and reduce transport emissions, spurs investment in local natural
gains to the local economy resource stocks and boosts the local economy.
Transform food supply to the point where it has a net positive
impact on the environment, local economy and peoples’ well-
Industrial agriculture produces
being
food of uncertain quality and
Local and Support local and low impact food production that provides
harms local ecosystems, while
Sustainable Food healthy, quality food while boosting the local economy in an
consumption of non-local food
environmentally beneficial manner; showcase examples of
imposes high transport impacts
low-impact packaging, processing and disposal; highlight
benefits of a low-impact diet.
Local supplies of freshwater are Achieve a positive impact on local water resources and supply
often insufficient to meet human Implement water use efficiency measures, re-use and
needs due to pollution, Sustainable Water recycling; minimise water extraction and pollution; foster
disruption of hydrological cycles sustainable water and sewage management in the landscape;
and depletion of existing stocks restore natural water cycles.
Loss of biodiversity and habitats
Regenerate degraded environments and halt biodiversity loss
due to development in natural Natural Habitats
Protect or regenerate existing natural environments and the
areas and overexploitation of and Wildlife
habitats they provide to fauna and flora; create new habitats.
natural resources
Local cultural heritage is being Protect and build on local cultural heritage and diversity
lost throughout the world due to Culture and Celebrate and revive cultural heritage and the sense of local
globalisation, resulting in a loss Heritage and regional identity; choose structures and systems that
of local identity and wisdom build on this heritage; foster a new culture of sustainability.
Some in the industrialised world Ensure that the OPL community’s impact on other
live in relative poverty, while communities is positive
Equity and Fair
many in the developing world Promote equity and fair trading relationships to ensure the
Trade
cannot meet their basic needs OPL community has a beneficial impact on other communities
from what they produce or sell both locally and globally, notably disadvantaged communities.
Increase health and quality of life of OPL community
Rising wealth and greater
members and others
health and happiness
Health and Promote healthy lifestyles and physical, mental & spiritual
increasingly diverge, raising
Happiness well-being through well-designed structures and community
questions about the true basis
engagement measures, as well as by delivering on social and
of well-being and contentment
environmental targets.
13
1.2.2 Why have they been chosen?

BioRegional takes a holistic view that sustainability is about promoting the well-being of people and planet;
that sustainable development is about meeting the needs of local communities and the environment, in a
way that is economically viable and attractive to the market. If we are to achieve One Planet Living, we need
to rise to the sustainability challenge as individuals, as communities and as organisations. We need to
consider every aspect of how we live, and to plan and build in ways that enable us to make lifestyle choices
that reduce our environmental impact – and ultimately have positive impacts on the environment and the
people around us.
The OPL principles were selected to go beyond purely environmental concerns to address social, cultural
and economic issues as well.
Health and Happiness, the tenth principle, may to a great extent be seen as arising out of the application of
the other nine principles. At first glance, the task of linking this principle to the practical work of designing and
building a community may seem unusual, since how does one design for health and happiness? Thoughtful
consideration however, suggests it is essential that we consider what really makes people healthy and
happy, and ensure we do our utmost to facilitate this outcome. This may mean diverse actions, from
ensuring air quality to providing opportunities for social interaction and exercise. For some people, if the
remit of OPL is viewed in terms of achieving well-being, then the links become clearer. Scientific evidence
suggests a clear correlation between the state of our environment, health and well-being, while the planet’s
long-term health depends critically on the sustainability of our lifestyles. Thus, living unsustainably not only
leads to diminished quality of life for people today, but also threatens to jeopardise our children’s quality of
life. OPL communities are designed to be inclusive, to provide a family friendly-environment and to be a
great place to bring up children.
1.2.3 How can they be used?

Given their holistic approach to sustainability, the OPL principles can be readily adapted to diverse initiatives
and adopted by any institution interested in sustainability. BioRegional has used them in a range of
situations, from working with developers to offering sustainability guidance to the London Olympics Bid. The
principles could also be used by individuals to develop their own personal OPL plan. .
Within the OPL Communities programme, the principles provide the basic framework on which the
community’s Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) is built (see Section 3).
Examples of projects where the OPL Principles have been used are:
14
One Planet Olympics
BioRegional Development Group was commissioned by

London 2012 to develop proposals for maximising the
sustainability characteristics of the Olympic and Paralympic
Games as part of the successful host city bid for 2012.
BioRegional worked in partnership with WWF-UK and
London 2012 to create a vision for a One Planet Olympics.
The work involved understanding and creating strategies for
environmental sustainability in the build-up to the Games,
during the Games and as part of their legacy.
The sustainability strategy was widely commended for its

holistic nature and skilful communication of a host of
environmental issues, as well as its practical strategies for
delivering and assessing performance.
Development of holistic sustainability indicators and

targets for a sustainable community at Reading
BioRegional used the OPL principles to produce a set of

regionally specific indicators to measure and track, over 15
years, the environmental performance of a 7,500 home
development in Reading, England. This was accompanied
by a strategy to deliver sustainability benefits from day one,
with a breakdown of the intermediate targets that was
consistent with achieving sustainable ‘one planet living’ by
2020. This strategy included a monitoring programme to
ensure that progress was being made and targets met.
One Planet Schools
BioRegional used the OPL approach to convey the

applicability of environmental sustainability principles to
school design and teaching practice. The report highlighted:
· The need for linkages between the school, its
environment and the local community
· Schools should be ‘human scale’, so the connections are
visible and pupils/teacher relationships are supported
· Critical thinking should be emphasised
· Action learning should be practiced, with pupils working
collaboratively on project-based tasks.
· School should be designed to encourage pupils to
participate in decision making, so they gain the skills and
confidence to make sound decisions in their adult lives.
One Planet Offices
BioRegional has used the OPL principles to develop a

sustainability action plan for its own company management.
This has ensured the social and environmental performance
of the organisation actually reflects our core values. Due to
the success of this process, BioRegional have been
commissioned to repeat this process for other private
organisations and charities.
15
Section 2
ONE PLANET LIVING COMMUNITIES
16
Section 2: OPL Communities
The aim of this section is to describe the various characteristics envisaged as essential to OPL communities.
This will provide a ‘bare-bones’ picture of a community, which will be elaborated based on the opportunities
and constraints presented by the local context.
2.1 Defining traits

The vision of One Planet Living is of
“A world in which people everywhere can lead happy, healthy lives within
their ‘fair share’7 of the Earth’s resources”.
The aim is to make sustainable living easy, attractive and affordable throughout the world, by building a
worldwide network of One Planet Living Communities to demonstrate One Planet Living in action.
Therefore, the defining trait of all OPL communities is that they offer easy, attractive and affordable choices
in terms of accommodation, facilities and services of a type that enables residents and users to reduce their
Ecological Footprint to a one planet level.
Tailoring communities to local challenges

A community’s accommodation, facilities and services need to target the various components of the
Ecological Footprint of a ‘typical resident’ of the wider region where the OPL community is located. It is vital,
therefore, to understand these components as far as possible before deciding the facilities and
accommodation to be provided within the development.
An individual’s Ecological Footprint is made up of the Footprints of all of their activities, products consumed
and waste produced. An individual’s energy consumption has an Ecological Footprint, as does their food
consumption, transport, work activities and leisure activities, as shown in Figure 2 above for South East
England. Food consumption alone accounts for around a quarter of this Footprint, while personal transport
habits account for about one-sixth of the Footprint. For this reason, OPL communities based in South East
England will need to emphasise providing sustainable food and transport options to residents, including on-
site employment opportunities to reduce travel needs through the provision of commercial and office
accommodation.
The diagram in Figure 2 also illustrates that the shared services, shared infrastructure and waste are major
contributors to the Footprint. For this reason, any OPL community built in South East England will need to
address these issues by looking to provide some or all of these within the development or finding ways of
engaging with the wider area. This “infrastructure-led” approach of providing sustainable options for energy,
waste, water and social infrastructure, both for now and into the future, is a key aspect to enable the delivery
of One Planet Living communities and enabling greener choices.
Scale
BioRegional wish to show the full scope of what a sustainable community would look like. As such, OPL
communities will be of a scale that can support the provision of at least some shared services and
infrastructure, such as schools, shops, community facilities and health services. This enables the community
to influence their operations in a substantial manner, thereby reducing their contribution to residents’
Footprints while also reducing residents’ travel needs.
In the UK it has been estimated that a development of at least 2,000 homes (with approximately 5,000
residents) is necessary for the provision of a primary school to become financially and technologically viable.
Moreover, a significant proportion of new house building in the OPL priority countries is occurring through
projects of this scale and above, while new services and infrastructure are being created to meet the
7
‘Fair share’ resource use involves consuming and producing in such a way as to leave sufficient ecological capacity to satisfy the core
needs of other communities, future generations and other species.
17
resulting demand. Figure 3 reveals the metabolism patterns for such a community, based on the Z Squared
(zero carbon, zero waste) for a proposed 2000 home community in the Thames Gateway in London, UK.
The programme aims to have one “flagship community” of this scale in each target country. Yet OPL can
also be used with smaller communities, though these may include fewer shared services.
Figure 3: Metabolism diagram for Z-squared
Target countries
In response to the global need and to develop and demonstrate One Planet Living in action throughout the
world, our target is to establish at least one OPL community on each inhabited continent. We will address
populations that currently have among the highest Ecological Footprints such as in Europe and North
America as well as populations with small Footprints such as in Africa. We will also work in countries with
large populations and growing Footprints, such as China and India in Asia and Brazil in South America,
which are likely to have the most significant impacts on global Footprint trends in the future. The first phase
of the programme is targeting Portugal, UK, South Africa, China, USA/Canada and Australia.
Locations within countries

OPL communities are primarily envisaged as being located in urban or peri-urban areas (Figure 4) in and
around high-profile cities, e.g. Durban, Johannesburg or Cape Town in South Africa; or Beijing, Shanghai or
Guangzhou in China. Chosen sites should be readily accessible via public transport to encourage visits by
policy makers, interested professionals and the wider public.
18
Figure 4: Vision for a sustainable peri- urban community in South Africa
Why emphasise cities?

OPL’s emphasis on cities rather than towns or rural areas stems from several observations:
There are high levels of urbanisation in some parts of the world and rapid urbanisation in most
others.
In many parts of the world, cities are the site of aspirational lifestyles − e.g., housing, consumption
patterns − exemplifying the ambitions and dreams of the wider population. As such, emphasising
cities presents an opportunity to inform and perhaps redirect peoples’ desires and ambitions.
Major cites offer good prospects for a powerful demonstration effect, in their role as a hub for
business, politics, media, culture, etc.
Initially many green technologies and strategies are made more financially viable in cities given the
many potential users found in cities and their relatively high earning power.
Given a large, concentrated population with a correspondingly large Ecological Footprint, cities
present great scope for reducing a country’s Footprint.
For sustainable urban development, it is desirable to have high density housing with mixed use
developments around good public transport nodes. Such development helps reduce transport impacts by
encouraging the use of walking, cycling and public transport as well as providing the jobs, services, and
amenities people require all within close range. This approach is often referred to as the ‘compact city’
approach. In the OPL priority countries, this type and scale of development is already being pursued in
urban and peri-urban areas.
In order that they may be replicated, OPL communities aim to follow local trend in terms of housing style –
particularly aspirational housing – in priority countries. Within these models, OPL seeks to define
sustainable housing options.
Why favour high-profile cities?

One of the aims of One Planet Living is to “promote One Planet Living and its guiding principles to bring
about change among governments, businesses and individuals”. OPL communities will be of significant
scale and host a cross-section of society and thus, they will have the potential for significant outreach and
interaction with wider local communities. OPL aspires to tap this potential in order to disseminate its
concepts and solutions widely into the mainstream and help raise the demand for local and sustainable
services and products. Taken together, such steps will lead towards a way of living that corresponds to
19
bioregionalism, or utilising local resources for living and working. This will be aided by establishing “One
Planet Living Centres in each OPL community as a focus for education and training”8.
Being located in high profile areas will increase the visibility of OPL communities, while the likelihood of
higher visitor numbers will help OPL demonstrations and information centres be more effective.
Target residents
Within each country, OPL will aim to appeal to a wide audience. In many cases this will mean addressing
those groups who are setting standards of living and lifestyles that the majority, or at least a large
percentage, of the population aspires to and seen as a desirable benchmark for the rest of society. In some
contexts, these groups may be the ones who already have among the highest Ecological Footprints in those
countries. In other contexts, they may be growing groups with rapidly increasing Footprints, such as the
burgeoning middle income groups in China and India.
While the focus is on the above mentioned target groups, it is important to remember that OPL aims to make
sustainable living not only easy and attractive, but also affordable to people. There will need to be some
recognition of a great degree of equity and a “fairer sharing” of resources and as such, OPL communities
seek to host a variety of income groups. This may be achieved in different ways. In some cases, there may
be affordable or subsidised homes scattered throughout a development; in others, there may be different
blocks within a development hosting social housing for people on lower incomes. It may even be that a
middle- to upper-income OPL development becomes associated, or ‘twinned’, with a lower-income OPL
development adjacent or in the same country. Together they would promote OPL principles through a
common OPL information centre. Although a completely diverse integrated community is the ideal, it may
not always be possible due to cultural, security or marketing issues. However, partners and projects in the
OPL programme will only be selected on the basis of a genuine commitment to promote greater equity.
In the interests of inclusion and wider relevance, OPL communities also seek to host a good mix of people of
different ages and abilities. It is OPL’s aspiration that conditions will be created in all OPL communities to
enable families, older people, and the disabled to live there as comfortably as anywhere else. In communities
of significant scale, as envisaged under OPL, it should be feasible to create such conditions.
Linking to rural areas and diverse social challenges

While cities represent the focus of OPL, the OPL Communities programme is exploring prospects for some
rural One Planet Living communities, or for linking urban OPL projects with selected rural areas (see Annex
1). Such areas could be either a site of natural resource-based production (e.g. forestry, herding,
agriculture) or a conservation area devoted to biodiversity.
Potential advantages of such coupling arrangements include:
1. An holistic interpretation of OPL and how the community fits into the wider world and the need for
cities to be supported by their hinterlands and bioregions
2. Providing a means to meet more ambitious targets, e.g. for biodiversity, rural social equity, food
production or amenity, beyond what is possible within an urban site.
3. Good publicity, via demonstrating the power and wider relevance of ‘sustainability as the solution’
and OPL as a means to this end.
As well as large scale “flagship” projects, other OPL projects will form part of the OPL Communities
programme. These communities may be smaller, and may be used to explore the relevance of OPL to
diverse sustainability challenges. They may be “pathfinders” testing the environmental, technical, social,
financial and marketing aspects that can contribute towards development of the flagship. They may also be
used to convince public bodies to release a strategic site for a One Planet Living project. As an example, the
OPL flagship community in Portugal is an aspirational tourism / residential development, while affiliated
projects there target urban regeneration of a deprived neighbourhood. A second example is the OPL
community in Brighton in the UK, which may be seen as a pathfinder for a London or Thames Gateway
flagship.
8 One Planet Living brochure, 2004, BioRegional and WWF.
20
Figure 5: Vision for a sustainable rural community in South Africa that may be twinned with an urban
development
2.2 Different types of OPL communities
The OPL Communities programme aims to establish a set of OPL Communities, some of which will be
Flagship Communities.
Defining traits of OPL Communities and those considered Flagships
Common traits of all OPL Communities
Have an endorsed Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) addressing all 10 One Planet Living principles
Report against the SAP annually and submit to periodic monitoring by BioRegional.
Elaborate a holistic sustainability vision and set ambitious targets, including for sharing lessons
learned
Beyond meeting these core criteria, project-specific criteria will be defined on case-by-case basis by
partners working together with BioRegional staff.
Distinguishing traits of “flagship” communities
Large scale mixed-use developments (e.g. exceeding 2,000 housing units)

Located in or near to a leading city for maximum visibility and ready access by decision makers and
the public
Aspirational new-build developments with socially inclusive component and possibly also
refurbishment / retrofit component.
Hosts a high-profile visitor and information centre that provides training activities
Targets, monitoring requirements and auditing implications (and hence OPL costs) are unchanged.
The initial focus of the OPL Communities programme is on new build communities, but we are exploring how
best to include retrofitting and urban regeneration into the programme. We are presently engaged in exciting
preparatory work in this area with partners in Portugal and the UK. In time, it is envisaged that OPL
Communities will include new build, retrofit and municipal-scale projects.
Given the appeal of the ‘One Planet Living’ concept (and because BioRegional want the principles to
become widely adopted), it is inevitable that projects will arise that will want to follow the ten principles yet
have no formal relationship with the OPL Communities programme. In some instances, BioRegional may not
be directly involved because of resourcing issues or because they do not meet the programme’s key aims. In
21
anticipation of this eventuality, we have defined a set of guidelines for dealing with such “unaffiliated”
initiatives.
Unaffiliated initiatives will be welcomed as the programme evolves, but they must clearly state that
using the ten OPL principles does not imply endorsement by BioRegional and WWF. Such initiatives
will not be allowed to use the OPL, BioRegional or WWF logos on any promotional or published
materials. They will however be requested to post a short summary SAP with the key project targets
on the OPL website.
Specifically, such initiatives must state the following in a font size and location that make it readily
visible: “We have employed the ten One Planet Living principles developed by BioRegional and
WWF as a framework for creating a sustainability plan for this development. This does not imply the
development is endorsed by BioRegional or WWF. More information on OPL is available at
www.oneplanetliving.org”
2.4 Brief guidelines for site selection and project design of ‘One Planet Living’
communities
The following is a list of general guidelines for site selection and project design for prospective partners
interested in launching an OPL community. The emphasis is on flagship communities which are the key
target for the programme. This list is not comprehensive, since it cannot anticipate all possible eventualities
occurring in developments across the world. Therefore, partners must not think they can simply follow this list
then have prior promise of OPL endorsement on any given initiative. OPL endorsement can only be granted
following submission and positive assessment of a detailed SAP, while continued OPL status depends upon
periodically verified progress towards implementation. Moreover, some of these guidelines may conflict in
particular cases, underlining the need for case-by-case assessments.
2.4.1 Positive criteria
Large-scale
· OPL communities should be of sufficient size and scale to support local services such as shops, schools
and healthcare facilities, and infrastructure such as local renewable energy supply and water treatment
works, in order to generate large-scale measurable gains to the local economy, community and
environment.
· While large-scale is a key criteria for flagship communities, other OPL communities may be smaller-
scale.
Sustainable design
· The community should be designed and developed by private and/or public partners working together
with BioRegional staff. The design process should include a local design team to ensure locally
appropriate solutions.
· Design should be based on ‘compact city’ principles including building mixed-use schemes at high
densities around transportation nodes with convenient walking/cycling access to local services.
· Site to include areas of open space and/or water for both amenity and wildlife.
Good connectivity
· The selected site should be located in or within easy access to/from a high-profile city, preferably the
country’s capital or leading city.
· The site should be easily-accessible via local transport infrastructure, whether existing or planned.
· Via this system, it should be well connected to other local communities, allowing for a powerful
demonstration effect.
· The site should also be readily accessible to others (e.g. policy makers, construction industry
representatives, the wider population), as part of its role in awareness raising, information dissemination,
and lobbying.
· Such access-related factors are particularly important for OPL ‘flagship’ communities, given their role in
hosting OPL Information Centres.
22
Replicability
· Each OPL community must be an exemplar development demonstrating viable sustainable solutions for
the mainstream. Any site chosen for a flagship community should preferably not have exceptional
characteristics that restrict its relevance to mainstream application. Notably, the replicability of solutions
demonstrated could be compromised by unique geophysical characteristics such as topography or local
climate. However, an OPL response to unusual conditions can be great value within an international
portfolio of communities.
· Other factors affecting replicability involve the degree to which the community is representative of the
country’s wider population, notably (i) whether the community is urban, suburban or rural, (ii) whether it
is high-income, middle-income or low-income.
· OPL communities should seek to combine these diverse concerns. That is, technologies and strategies
demonstrated should ideally be both attractive to affluent groups and accessible to poorer groups, while
OPL communities should grapple with both ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ concerns (e.g., commuting and waste
disposal; food production and wildlife).
Lifestyle focus
· OPL will deliver a range of solutions to contemporary sustainability challenges. While OPL has a
residential focus, it also has initiatives in other areas such as tourism and municipal planning. Tourism is
a critical sector (10% of global jobs, 11% of global GDP, growing at 4.5% annually), representing a key
opportunity for making positive change via defining ways to deliver tourism sustainably.
· There is a role within OPL for sustainable tourism, yet projects must be assessed on a case-by-case
basis. Tourism within a given nation or continent is more likely to be sustainable than tourism to more
distant destinations, but the key factor is that it should preferably not depend on air travel.
‘Brownfield’ sites
· Given the extent of development across the globe, selection of previously developed ‘brownfield’ sites is
encouraged.
· A ‘greenfield’ site need not be a barrier to OPL endorsement, however, and sites must be assessed on a
case-by-case basis.
· Notably, some ‘greenfield’ areas are pristine and rich in biodiversity, while others have been used for
intensive agricultural production or are severely degraded, both reducing its biodiversity value.
· Moreover, in some rapidly urbanising countries there may be no realistic alternative to continued
‘greenfield’ development, up to a point.
Ecological value
· The impact of OPL communities on local ecology is a key facet of site choice. Yet this is not a simple
relationship. Notably, sites may be chosen either for their proximity to areas of high ecological value or
for their paucity of ecological value.
· Sites adjacent to areas of high conservation value:
OPL projects could help protect these areas in cases where development is already approved,
offering a sensitive approach to development and improved habitat conservation.
· Sites in areas of low ecological value, such as previously developed land or agricultural land
Siting OPL projects in such areas could minimise ecological damage, since there is little left to
lose. They should also provide abundant opportunities for habitat restoration and/or creation.
Social integration
· Community location and design should reflect a commitment to generating a socially mixed and
integrated community.
· The project should provide a degree of affordable housing either within the site itself or in neighbouring
areas.
23
Equity impacts
· Projects should have the capacity to deliver positive equity9 impacts, both locally and more widely.
· A particular emphasis is positive economic impacts on disadvantaged populations, notably via the local
economy.
· Means to achieve such positive impacts include:
a) Preferential purchase of either local products and services or certified ‘fair trade’ imports.
b) Initiatives to preserve local cultural heritage.
c) Initiatives to directly address deprivation via sustainability interventions.
2.4.2 Negative criteria
We will be building OPL communities in a wide range of countries and contexts. Pre-specifying negative
criteria for site selection goes against the spirit of OPL, and the programme wants to find solutions to
problems and to adapt to local conditions.
This being said, one particular factor is very likely to prevent a site being endorsed as an OPL development,
regardless of its other merits. Namely, this could occur where the development poses a direct threat to
meeting biodiversity conservation objectives. Such a case would contravene the core philosophy of both
BioRegional and WWF. Finally, this restriction is in keeping with the idea of preserving a certainpercentage
of land for meeting biodiversity objectives for which protecting areas of high conservation value will be
essential.
Sometimes, it may be ambiguous whether a development poses a threat to conservation. In these cases, the
developer must seek an early response from BioRegional. Certainly no areas legally designated for
conservation, or likely to be so designated, will be considered for OPL developments.
Various other factors pose interesting environmental, social or public perception challenges for prospective
developments which, are overlaid by personal and cultural interpretations and priorities such as previous
toxic or nuclear contamination of an area, GMO cultivation in neighbouring fields, or construction of mobile
telephone masts. These do not represent a reason for not endorsing a proposed OPL development per se
and each factor will be treated on a case by case basis.
9
Equity is defined as justice or fairness, notably securing justice in cases where existing arrangements fail to deliver it. While ‘fairness’
is subjective, one safe interpretation is improving the welfare of disadvantaged populations.
24
2.5 Components of an OPL community

From the discussions above, it becomes clear that preferably OPL communities need to have the following
components:
Homes
Community facilities such as landscape and leisure facilities
Commercial space including offices
Shared services such as schools and health centres
Sustainable infrastructure services comprising sustainable energy, water and waste services
An OPL information centre
A sustainable land use component
2.5.1 Components in detail
COMPONENT: HOMES
Reason for • To provide homes which offer the chance to live attractive, affordable lifestyles within
inclusion a fair share of the Earth’s resources.
• To demonstrate aspirational living that is also sustainable living.
Specific • The homes should be attractive, of the types that are aspired to by the majority of the
characteristics local population.
• Homes provided should cater to a variety of income groups and should contain some
‘social housing’ / ‘affordable homes’. These may be scattered throughout the
development, or provided in a separate block or a neighbouring area, as most
appropriate to the local context.
• The homes should be designed and fitted out in such a way that they optimise their
energy and water demands.
• The homes should also be designed to encourage sustainable behaviour, e.g. the
kitchens should be designed to encourage food preparation from fresh produce and
recycling.
COMPONENT: COMMERCIAL SPACE, SHOPS, SCHOOLS, HEALTH FACILITIES, LANDSCAPE &

LEISURE, OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Reason for • To ensure that as many common facilities and shared services as possible are
inclusion included in the sustainable infrastructure and facilities provided on site, helping to
reduce this component of residents’ Footprints.
• To reduce residents’ travel needs by providing on site opportunities for employment,
shopping, education and other activities.
Specific • In all cases, the infrastructure and facilities should be provided such that energy and
characteristics water demands of all the types of space on site are optimised, and preferably
minimised.
• While no general guidance can be given that will be applicable to all contexts, some
aspirations for the different types of spaces are detailed below. Context-specific
solutions will need to be created along these lines.
COMMERCIAL SPACE
• There should be an attempt to provide offices and commercial space of varying kinds
to suit different types of enterprises that may provide employment to the different
income groups residing in and around the development: lower specification workshop
type accommodation, e.g. for craft based trades; ‘starter units’ to encourage
entrepreneurs to set up sustainable businesses; temporary office spaces for hire (to
encourage flexible working, e.g. for parents); and offices for ‘white collar’ workers.
• Non-residents who come in regularly to work in the commercial spaces will also act
25
as ambassadors of the community, helping achieve the outreach goals.
RETAIL SPACE
• Similar to the commercial spaces, retail spaces must offer opportunities for different
types of outlets which encourage the sale of products and services which meet the
ethos of OPL and / or are endorsed as such, e.g. small local food stores, recycling
centres; and not simply high-end retail space.
• Retail spaces tend to renew their internal fit-outs very often – steps should be taken
to minimise the need for this and to be able to offer solutions emphasising reclaimed
materials.
• Fair trade suppliers would be encouraged to take space in OPL communities.
SCHOOLS
• Schools should serve the following functions:
o Act as living examples of sustainable design, where students gain hands on
experience of sustainable technologies and processes.
o Have sustainability integrated within their curriculum
o Act as community hubs by hosting community-level facilities and activities
• The basic aims of the design should be as below:
o Designing for interconnectedness
o Designing learning environments at human scale
o Designing learning environments for action learning
o Designing learning environments for participation in decision making
o Making the school locally based
o Reducing the environmental impacts of the school
A detailed report has been prepared which details the design requirements to fulfil the
functions above – this report is available from the OPL team at BioRegional.
HEALTH FACILITIES10
• The aim of OPL communities is to actively enhance health and quality of life. The on-
site health facilities should play a pivotal role in this and should act as centres of
health promotion rather than just treatment.
• Health facilities should address mind care as well as physical healthcare. Concept of
health centres as regenerators of human spirit could be developed.
• Health centres could lobby for ethical purchasing practices within the wider healthcare
provision system, since these systems typically tend to be very large consumers of
goods and services.
• As for the schools and other buildings, the health centres would need to be designed
to high environmental standards to achieve the lowest possible environmental
impacts.
LANDSCAPE, LEISURE & PLAY
10 The report MedZED Medical Zero (Fossil) Energy Development prepared by BioRegional and ZED Factory was referred to for this section.
:
26
• Attempts must be made to provide positive, attractive landscape, leisure and play
areas in all OPL communities. This would help in generating more interaction among
community members and in fostering community spirit; play areas are extremely
important to provide opportunities for healthy pastimes.
• Soft landscaping on site should also be designed to enhance the biodiversity of the
site.
OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES

• There may be other community facilities on site such as a crèche, community hall/
centre, library etc. All community facilities should be designed to the highest
sustainability standards and should serve as sustainability exemplars for other
buildings of similar scale and use. All OPL developments should be designed to be
‘family friendly’, provide an attractive space to bring up children and foster a sense of
community.
COMPONENT: SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE

Reason for • To help reduce the environmental impacts of shared infrastructure, which is difficult to
inclusion achieve at individual level but can be achieved at larger scales.
Specific • The main aims of sustainable infrastructure should be that (i) from day one, it uses the
characteristics most sustainable technologies practicable for the provision of energy, water and waste
services; and (ii) it is flexible enough to take advantage of more sustainable
technologies in future.
• One way of achieving these aims is to provide a community-wide integrated network
of energy, waste and water services; for example a Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
plant fuelled by local biomass and distributing the heat through a district heating
system. If in the future, a better technology for heat and power was to emerge, it
would be easier and cheaper to convert one community-level plant rather than many
individual plants and to plug in the new technology into the existing district heating
system.
• More details of taking an infrastructure-led approach are available from the report “Z-
Squared: Enabling One Planet Living in the Thames Gateway” produced by
BioRegional Development Group.
COMPONENT: INFORMATION CENTRES

Reason for • To provide a focus for education and training.
inclusion • To act as a hub for outreach activities.
• To promote One Planet Living and its guiding principles to bring about change among
governments, businesses and individuals.
Specific • The OPL information centre should showcase the different sustainable technologies
characteristics and strategies used on site, as well as other strategies potentially useful in the area.
• It should preferably have the following facilities:
o Exhibition area
o Seminar room(s)
o Small office space
o Café area
• Since the OPL centre will act as the focal point for outreach activities and will hopefully
have a large number of visitors, special care should be taken to make it an attractive
place.
27
Taking the bare bones of the components as outlined above, each OPL community will need to detail out
further facilities that it needs to offer to genuinely deliver choices that enable its users to live sustainably, as
has been done for Mata de Sesimbra. As another example, the vision for the Z-squared OPL community
planned for London’s Thames Gateway has examined every aspect of life within the community from the
points of view of the various user groups envisaged, and taken care to detail their requirements from a
sustainability perspective.
2.5.2 User group matrix

Taking key aspects of the development into account − i.e. transport, food, energy, waste and waste, the
principal issues facing diverse resident groups are listed, as are some of their implications for the design of
the community.
User group Key issue Implication for design

Zero Child / teenager Affordable warmth and Reduced energy demands – insulation,
Carbon Single parent coolth energy-efficient appliances and lights
Family Economic / affordable energy supply
Retired
All Sustainable energy Inter-seasonal thermal storage-based
district space heating and cooling / CHP
serving development / wind turbines /
solar panels
Energy-efficient building design
All Education about best Induction / manual and ongoing support
options for appliances & from Energy Services Company
how to use energy systems (ESCO), Green Lifestyles Officer or
Green Caretaker
Track and promote future improvements
Zero Waste Child Nappies Real nappy laundering scheme
Compostable nappies
All Simple and convenient to Internal and external segregated bins
recycle Convenient bring sites for items not
Bring sites collected
Reuse of products / Community tool share / hire scheme, cf.
resources library
Reclamation yard
Education Residents manual / induction / support
provided by Green Lifestyles Officer or
Green Caretaker
Local and Child / teenager Affordable, quality, healthy and
Sustainable interesting food such as local organic
Food school meals
Retired Affordable, quality, healthy and
interesting food such as local organic
meals on wheels
All Access to convenient Internet ordering
sustainable food Home deliveries / convenient collection
point e.g. school
Café / restaurant / bar selling local
organic food
Farmers market
Local organic produce available in
supermarket / convenience stores
Grow your own
Allotments and mini-allotments on roof
gardens
Communal greenhouse
28
User group Key issue Implication for design

Sell surplus to local market
Education & support provided by
residents association / Green Lifestyles
Officer
Sustainable All Flooding / drainage Land use strategy
Water Sustainable Urban Drainage System
Permeable paving
Soft landscaping
All Reduced water usage & Efficient appliances & fittings in all
cheaper bills buildings
Central nappy-laundering scheme
Laundry
All Reuse Rainwater harvesting
Sustainable Child / teenager Journey to school / college Walking buses
Transport Meeting friends Safe, secure, well-lit footpaths and cycle
paths
Regular, convenient and safe public
transport
Young Getting to work & journeys Regular, convenient and safe public
professional for work transport
Leisure Cycle storage at home and work
Showers, changing and storage
facilities at work
Convenient cycle storage near places
used
Car club access – during day for work,
at evenings and weekends for leisure
Family Access to car to transport Car share club
children & associated Regular, convenient and safe public
paraphernalia transport
Getting around
Single parent Access to shops and Locate facilities centrally
childcare facilities Safe, secure, well-lit footpaths and cycle
paths
Regular, convenient and safe public
transport
Retired Access to healthcare and Locate facilities centrally
leisure facilities Regular, convenient and safe public
Visiting friends and family transport
Car club
All Information about transport Intranet with local transport information
options and timetables Mobility package – smart card giving
Flexible options – mode access to public transport, car club,
and route cycle storage facilities
Affordability
29
2.5.3 Future vision: Life in an OPL Community
Child
I like living in an OPL Community. Mum doesn’t mind me walking cycling to

school because there aren’t many cars – I sometimes catch the “walking bus”
with my friends.
We live in one of the houses near the park. There’s a play area made from old
tyres and ramps that my friends and I ride and skateboard on. I know some of
it came from the Ford site nearby. When I grow up I want to work for Ford and
drive a biodiesel sports car like my uncle.
School is more fun here. We learn about the planet and the things we can do
to stop harming it. At lunchtime, we have a choice of fresh meals; no chips - which I do miss a bit - but now
we get to eat vegetables that we’ve grown in the school garden. I hadn’t realised that carrots came out of
the ground. Last term, we went on a school trip to a farm that sells its fruit and vegetables to the
supermarket down the road – it’s specially labelled.
Mummy and Daddy seem much happier and less stressed since we moved to the Community. I like it here.
Family with young children
We moved to the OPL Community because of the quality of the home, the
access to open space, and the opportunity to live in a community in which we
can reduce our impact on the planet for the sake of our kids, and their kids in
turn.
OPL suited our lifestyle too. I work from home for most of the week while my
partner commutes to the city for her job – the transport links here are
excellent. Now that I don’t commute to work, I’m able to spend more time
with the kids and sometimes walk them to school.
The good public transport services here, the cycle paths and the convenient car club mean that we got rid of
our second car when it was due for replacement. We don’t miss it and are saving money as well. We’re also
more likely now to go for walks and bike rides or visit the leisure centre at weekends, so we’re fitter too.
Our electricity, heating and hot water are produced on-site using a combination of wind turbines and a power
plant running on waste wood chips. It’s all managed from the energy centre, which you can visit to see how
things work. Apparently our heating is provided from the ground where summer heat is stored and then used
in winter. Our waste water is treated in gravel beds, which are part of the landscape and attract wildlife.
We do our bit by recycling as much of our waste as we can. The kids help out with this too; they learn about
recycling at school and sometimes come up with ideas for new uses for some of the things we throw out.
Once the kids are a bit older, I’m thinking about getting a job at the eco-industrial park nearby.
There are a lot of community events here, and local residents often attend. They’re a great way of getting to
know new people. I feel we know far more neighbours than where we used to live. Perhaps it’s because
fewer people use cars; you just don’t need to when so many things are within walking distance.
30
Retired person
I have lived nearby for most of my life and was glad when I had the opportunity
to move to the OPL Community. I’d followed its progress since the very first
public meeting. Some people were a bit concerned that it wouldn’t fit in with
the surrounding area but I’m glad that we’re making the most of new
technologies so that we have less impact on the planet.
My home is very warm and comfortable and has a great view. It’s much
warmer in winter than my previous house but the clever heating system means
that it stays cool in summer. My bills are much lower than my friends living
elsewhere; this has become more noticeable as oil and gas prices have risen over the past few years. My
apartment is designed as part of a “co-housing” nucleus. This means that I have access to communal space
as well as my own private space, which gives me the benefits of having more space without the costs – and
is friendlier too. It’s a bit like being back at college which is great!
Most of the facilities I need are a short walk away. When the weather is good, I walk in the park. I also enjoy
a quiet pint at the microbrewery. As a retired engineer, I enjoy visiting the energy centre to find out about all
the different technologies that are used here. I find it amazing that all our sewage and waste water is treated
on site.
There is a strong sense of community here – my neighbours come from all walks of life. I enjoy growing
vegetables in my allotment and I help out at the school, where the kids have a community garden. I use the
community intranet to keep up to date with what’s going on in the community. There are courses at the City
Academy, events at the One planet Living centre and a regular farmer’s market. I even trade my gardening
skills on the time bank.
I’d like to stay here as I grow older, and my home has been designed so that it’s easily adaptable for when
I’m less mobile. There’s even a local organic meals-on-wheels service so I can still eat healthily. But I think
that’s a long way off, I’m more active now than I’ve ever been!
31
Section 3
SUSTAINABILITY ACTION PLANS
32
Section 3: OPL Sustainability Action Plans
The Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) forms the cornerstone of every One Planet Living project and provides
the basis for partnership between the different stakeholders. The purpose of the SAP is four-fold:
To provide a holistic framework for thinking about sustainability, ensuring that a full range of
sustainability issues are considered before establishing a community.
To highlight site-specific opportunities and challenges. This list of factors will help communities
decide on how best to set stretching sustainability targets for the development.
To provide a checklist of strategies to be considered by the design and development team. If
desired, the SAP can be adapted to create specific briefs for different partners – such as an
architectural brief, or a sustainability brief to feed into the estate management or conditions of sale
for the property.
To summarise the key targets, performance indicators and route map to One Planet Living in line
with the Common International Targets; and to provide the basis for formal OPL endorsement and
annual review.
3.1 The SAP development process

The SAP development process will generally begin with workshops run by BioRegional, in collaboration with
the developer partner and key stakeholders, following the charrette11 model. The workshops introduce the
concept of OPL, the principles and the common international targets. The SAP is then developed, led by the
developer partner and their design team with support from the OPL technical team at BioRegional, and
preferably involving key external stakeholders like NGOs and municipal authorities. It may be deemed better
to develop a draft SAP “internally”, then go through a refining process with the external stakeholders, before
presenting the final SAP. The SAP proposal is presented to and reviewed by OPL Directors and only once it
has been approved does the project formally become known as an ‘OPL Project’. Figure 6 summarises a
possible SAP development process.
Figure 6: Schematic diagram of the OPL process
Draft Internal SAP Draft External SAP OPL SAP

Initial agreement among Ultimate agreement Basis of OPL
Internal project partners based on endorsement
consultations with
stakeholders
Drafted via collaboration Iterative process Amended based on
among internal project facilitates consultations with key
partners, e.g. developer, information flows external stakeholders, e.g.
design team, OPL staff on relevant issues local and national authorities
among
stakeholders, thus
facilitating ultimate
success of
development
11
for more information on the charrette process see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charrette
33
Components of the completed SAP should include:
1. Summary of relevant current national and international benchmarks

2. Summary of the background context highlighting the need to address each OPL principle at the
national and regional level.
3. Interpreting the aim of each OPL principle for the proposed OPL project given local context.
4. Initial country-specific key performance indicators, targets and strategies for addressing each
principle, and strategy for updating these over the life of the development. This is a limited set of
indicators which are set as part of the SAP and which are used for quality control and review of
projects.
5. Key certifiable standards to be used (e.g. BREEAM, LEED, FSC, etc).
6. Useful tools and guidance on each principle and inter-relationships between them.
7. Methodology for monitoring performance against targets.
8. A long-term operations and management strategy.
9. Community engagement and external communications.
10. Any policy engagement and lobbying plans which may be needed to help meet the targets.
34
3.2 The route to One Planet Living – targets and indicators
3.2.1 Achieving OPL will require a step change and vary from place to place
The OPL approach acknowledges that the transition from our current lifestyles – e.g., a three planet level in
Western Europe – to a one planet level will require a step change in our understanding, behaviour and
culture. It will involve creating buildings and lifestyle solutions which address best practice now, but in a
flexible fashion that facilitates adopting improved sustainability technologies as they emerge. Examples
include emerging options for converting to renewable domestic energy and for reducing reliance on
motorcars, industrial agriculture or imported produce. Uptake of these technologies will vary among
residents and may take time, but the general trend must be of a continuously falling Ecological Footprint for
residents of the site, and hopefully for the wider region in time. All endorsed OPL projects will require targets
to be set so that by 2020 it is easy for residents in an OPL community to achieve a Footprint of 1.5 gha.
Although the early years of this route map may be well thought through, it is recognised that it may not be
completely clear how later targets may be met given, for instance, that they may be dependent on issues
such as infrastructure changes in the wider region and emergence of new technologies and strategies. This
is where the value of the partnership approach with BioRegional comes into play – where a coordinated
effort of engagement with the wider region and learning from other OPL projects in the international
programme – may be able to support development of the strategies to achieve the One Planet Living targets.
In this section, OPL targets and indicators will be explored, while monitoring methods will be considered in
the following section. Such measures will vary from country to country and internally within countries due to
differing local context and pressures. After a general introduction to the international targets, we will focus on
two principles (‘Sustainable Transport’ and ‘Equity and Fair Trade’) and two countries (United Kingdom and
Portugal) to outline the broad approach to measuring and monitoring the transition to One Planet Living.
Similar processes are being undertaken in each country in which OPL will operate.
For OPL communities, 2020 has been chosen as the date by which One Planet Living should be achieved –
i.e. where it is easy for residents to achieve a Footprint of 1.5 gha. We recognise that we cannot force
people to adopt a One Planet Lifestyle, but all the components required for residents to easily achieve this
sort of lifestyle must be in place. Tables 8 and 9 below indicate one possible route to achieving One Planet
Living. Table 8 shows endpoints or long-term targets for the two principles selected, thus painting a picture of
the lifestyle we will need to be living in 2020 to be at a One Planet Living level. It also suggests possible
strategies for achieving them, though these are bound to change as technologies evolve over time.
Once again, these tables only represent one possible solution to OPL and though there is likely to be broad
agreement between countries on the most effective means of utilising each OPL site, there will be significant
local variation as well. Examples include bio-physical factors such as solar or wind levels and soil fertility,
and socio-cultural or economic factors such as cultural values and wealth levels.
3.2.2 The need for Common International Targets (CITs)
OPL is a partnership initiative and is as much about the process of co-creating the future while learning in the
process, as about achieving specific targets. However, common international targets are needed to ensure
that there is some common direction towards a common end-point for 2020 and quality control in the
international network, within an overarching target of making it easy for people in the community to reduce
their Ecological Footprint to 1.5 gha by this date. An endorsed SAP formally accepted by BioRegional must
be in place before the project can be promoted as an endorsed One Planet Living project and the OPL brand
used in relation to the project. .
The CITs will be universally applied across the OPL Communities programme, but exactly how they are
expressed within particular OPL SAPs will necessarily remain flexible to cope with very different local
contexts and projects involving retrofitting or urban regeneration, given that current work in these areas is
exploratory. Such answers will only become clear in time, and developing these methodologies is just one
aspect of the international programme. All partners must respect the need for flexibility between countries.
35
3.2.3 One Planet Living Community targets
Common International Targets

Table 3 below summarises the OPL Common International Targets which aim to be achieved in the flagship communities by 2020. Examples of OPL project
specific targets will be provided using examples from the UK and Portugal in the following section.
Table 3: The Common International Targets of OPL
Principle Common International Targets, by 2020

All buildings and their fittings and fixtures must be energy efficient and supplied by renewable energy.
Zero
Carbon
All buildings and structures should be zero carbon preferably from day 1 of occupation but certainly by 2020 at the latest. Renewable energy
can either be generated on site or purchased from a dedicated off-site source representing new renewable energy capacity. This ensures we
are adding to total renewable energy capacity, not diverting it from other uses. Country specific agreements on the profile to meet the 2020
target can be negotiated, but the profile must demonstrate rapid and clear progress towards the zero carbon target, especially given current
rapid advances in the introduction of renewable energy technology globally.
All buildings and structures are designed or retrofitted to be energy efficient to country-specific best practice standards. Where such standards
don’t exist, apply a suitable standard from a neighbouring country within the region.
Although nuclear fission may be a bridging technology to reduce climate change in the medium term, it is not considered a renewable energy
source for the purposes of OPL. Similarly, use of fossil fuels with new technologies may be a useful way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions,
for example on-site gas Combined Heat and Power systems. Such solutions however, are not considered suitable for the purposes of
demonstrating OPL, even if the resulting fossil fuel emissions from buildings are offset by carbon sequestration (contrast with Sustainable
Transport).
Long term the aim is to “eliminate the concept of waste”.

Zero Waste
By 2020, the following targets must be achieved:
at least 70% of waste by weight generated by residents and commercial operations within the developments should be reclaimed,
composted or recycled
per capita waste production should be monitored and targets set for reduction in per capita waste
clean energy from waste plant may form part of the zero waste strategy providing careful monitoring of emissions is in place and
international best practice standards on operations are employed
36
ideally no more than 2% of waste by weight should be sent to landfill by 2020

country based best practice standards in waste minimisation during construction should be employed
CO2 emissions of persons travelling to and from the site and within it must be reduced relative to an agreed regional benchmark.
Sustainable
Ideally all unavoidable CO2 emissions from transport should be offset by a certified carbon sequestration scheme.
Transport
Country specific differences and location issues mean that it is difficult to set a common international numerical target. Most importantly,
whereas industrialised countries will need to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) from transport, poor countries may need to increase per capita CO2
emission from transport, at least in the short to medium term. BioRegional will agree sustainable transport targets on a case by case basis,
ensuring these are consistent with the overall target of achieving One Planet Living. These targets will be based on a transport CO2 per capita
and will need to show reduction over an agreed regional benchmark and progression year on year towards a “One Planet Living” level. Given
the CO2 contribution from transport in industrialised countries, these targets are likely to be very stretching. A simple sampling process for
residents to monitor against this target must be developed.
Targets for travel within the site and to and from the site need to be set, in particular for projects with a major tourist component. For
developments with a tourist component, CO2 per person per night can be used as an indicator. CO2 emissions from all remaining transport
should preferably be offset by a certified carbon sequestration scheme, ideally meeting the WWF Gold Standard reference. For tourism
projects, all air travel to and from the site must be offset by a certified carbon sequestration programme. Moreover, no OPL partner may
formally oppose introduction of taxes on aviation fuel.
Use of local, reclaimed, renewable, recycled and low environmental impact materials
Sustainable
materials
Via the common process guidelines detailed below, country-specific targets should be determined to increase and optimise the use of local,
reclaimed, renewable, recycled and low environmental impact materials for construction and estate management phases of the development.
Healthy diets should be promoted and minimum targets achieved for supply of organic or low-environmental impact food and local
sourcing.
Local and
sustainable By 2020, a significant proportion of food should be locally sourced from low environmental impact farming with reduced packaging from a radius
food of 50 to 100 km from the centre of the site. Given the importance of food to eco-Footprints, stretching targets are essential to achieving OPL.
Specific targets will be set via the process guidelines detailed below, but a minimum target of 25% of food by weight must meet these criteria,
and ideally 50% of food by weight.
Key Performance Indicators should be set for organic and fair trade food.
37
Country specific profiles to hit this target need to be agreed.

Water efficiency and recycling must be promoted in line with country-specific best practice. Where water supply is critical, wherever
Sustainable
possible water for non-potable use should be sourced from rainwater catchment/treated greywater (or even blackwater) sources.
water
Country-specific best practice standards in water efficiency and recycling must be agreed, following the process guidelines detailed in section
4.3.2 above. These targets will need to be stricter in areas with water shortage problems. All residents must have access to safe potable
water. Projects in areas of flood risk should have an acceptable 100 year flood risk strategy.
The development must make a net positive contribution to local native biodiversity and natural habitats
Natural
Habitats
Any key species must be identified and monitored, as part of a local conservation plan. A site-specific action plan to maintain, enhance or revive
and Wildlife
valuable aspects of biodiversity must be elaborated, following the process guidelines detailed below.
At least one opportunity must be identified to regenerate degraded local natural resource stocks (soils, trees, fisheries, native fauna species etc)
and a plan implemented. At least 2 case studies should be showcased, one for biodiversity and one for natural resource stocks.
Valuable aspects of local culture and heritage must be maintained, enhanced or revived.
Culture and
Heritage A site specific action plan to maintain, enhance or revive valuable aspects of local culture and heritage (including anything from local buildings
and building techniques to local produce or arts and crafts) must be produced, following the process guidelines detailed below.
At least 2 case studies should be showcased.
Targets must be set to boost the local economy, notably in disadvantaged areas, and to ensure a set ratio of imported goods is fair
Equity and
trade certified.
Fair Trade
Country-specific priorities of equity and fair trade must be identified and targets set, following the common process guidelines detailed below.
Where products are imported from developing countries, targets should be set for the proportion that must be certified fair trade12. At least 2
case studies should be showcased.
Health and happiness of residents must be promoted based on emerging findings from ‘happiness’ research and periodic residents’
Health and
surveys.
Happiness
A plan for promoting the health and happiness of residents must be produced, building on emerging findings from happiness research, following
the process guidelines detailed below. Residents’ satisfaction levels and concerns must be regularly monitored. Partners should also explore
the feasibility of meeting UN standards for health, security and environmental quality. At least two examples of strategies to promote health and
happiness must be showcased.
12
‘Fair trade’ certified products are assured to meet certain social and environmental criteria, most notably that often poor primary producers receive a wage that affords them a decent standard of
living, including having access to sufficient food throughout the year and being able to pay school fees for their children.
38
For some principles, such as ‘zero carbon’ and ‘zero waste’, there are clear quantitative common international targets. For other principles, such as
‘sustainable transport’ and ‘culture and heritage’, targets need to be set for a given community based on local opportunities and constraints via a reasonable
process. This process should be straightforward and readily incorporated into the task of drafting the community’s sustainability action plan (SAP). Steps in
the process of setting community-specific targets should ideally include:
1. Set the project in national context using standardised datasets (e.g. Ecological Footprint, socio-economic indicators, carbon emissions, etc).
2. Generate any critical community-level data for principles in question, using existing data or proxy data where possible.
3. Convene meeting of key local and national actors (government, NGOs, etc) to brainstorm on priorities & prospects for the community, ideally as an
integral part of the SAP production process.
4. Work with partners to develop SAP internally first, and then in consultation with external stakeholders agreeing community targets
5. Review SAP with BioRegional for endorsement as the basis for an OPL project.
To re-iterate, BioRegional reserve the right to have the final say on whether the project can be OPL endorsed. By keeping in close touch with BioRegional, it
should be possible to avoid any “surprises” in this process.
39
Community-specific targets
Table 4 below summarises the targets for the Mata de Sesimbra OPL community in Portugal. Although the targets are specific to the community it is felt that
similar targets could be applied to OPL communities elsewhere.
Table 4: OPL targets for Mata de Sesimbra
Principle Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Global CO2 Balance Global CO2 Balance Global CO2 Balance Global CO2 Balance
Zero 70% of standard rate 60% of standard rate 40% of standard rate OgCo2
Carbon “Green” kWh/kWh of on-site “Green” kWh/kWh of on-site “Green” kWh/kWh of on-site “Green” kWh/kWh of on-site consumption
consumption 15% consumption 40% consumption 80% >90%
Percentage of waste sent to Percentage of waste sent to Percentage of waste sent to landfill Percentage of waste sent to landfill – no
landfill – no more than 50% landfill – no more than 40% – no more than 30% more than 25%
Reduction of waste production by Reduction of waste production by Reduction of waste production by

Reduction of waste production by 25%
10% 15% 20%
Zero Waste Percentage of waste sent to Percentage of waste sent to Percentage of waste sent to Percentage of waste sent to composting –
composting – no less than 35% of composting – no less than 50% of composting – no less than 70% of no less than 90% of the total organic
the total organic production the total organic production the total organic production production
Percentage of waste recycled – Percentage of waste recycled – Percentage of waste recycled –
Percentage of waste recycled – 25%
3% 10% 15%
Identify average CO2/person/year Reduce 10% CO2/person/year for Reduce 25% CO2/person/year for Reduce 50% CO2/person/year for journeys
for Sesimbra residents journeys in Sesimbra /regional journeys in Sesimbra/regional trips in Sesimbra /regional trips
Sustainable trips
Transport Identify CO2/person/year inside Reduce 40% CO2/person/year Reduce 45% CO2/person/year Reduce 50% CO2/person/year inside
benchmark tourist site (e.g. inside tourist site inside tourist site tourist site
Quinta do Lago – Vilamoura)
40
Less 10% CO2 embodied in the Less 20% CO2 embodied in the Less 35% CO2 embodied in the
Less 50% CO2 embodied in the materials
Sustainable materials construction, transport materials construction, transport materials construction, transport
construction, transport and use (computed
materials and use (computed with the and use (computed with the and use (computed with the
with the available information)
available information) available information) available information)
• Keep increasing percentages of goods
and services produced locally (i.e. at
regional level)
• Increase the percentages of • Keep increasing percentages of
• Keep decreasing percentages of goods
Identify percentages of goods and consumed goods and services consumed goods and services
and services produced at international
services consumed by local of produced locally (i.e. at regional produced locally (i.e. at regional
level
Local and production, for different types of level) level)
• 25% of food consumed inside tourist site
sustainable products and categories of • Decrease percentages of • Keep decreasing percentages of
produced at regional level
services consumed goods and services consumed goods and services
food • 25% of food consumed inside tourist site
produced at international level produced at international level
produced at national level
• 15% of key services are provided by
local entities
Identify percentages of Local Increase the percentages of Local Keep increasing percentages of
Increase Local Economic Growth
Economic Growth Economic Growth Local Economic Growth
Sustainable Water taken out of aquifer 3 3 3

3 0.106 (m /day/person) 0.155 (m /day/person) 0.150 (m /day/person)
water (m /day/person) – 0.162
Increase Specific richness of Specific richness of relevant Overall Specific richness of Increase Specific richness of relevant
relevant fauna and flora species species relevant species increase fauna and flora species
Natural Specific richness of relevant Specific richness of relevant Overall Specific richness of Specific richness of relevant species
Habitats species increase due to species increase due to relevant species increase due to increase due to availability of a new type
and Wildlife availability of a new type of availability of a new type of availability of a new type of of structured habitat, specially in water
structured habitat, specially in structured habitat, specially in structured habitat, specially in dependent fauna (e.g. aquatic birds and
water dependent fauna (e.g. water dependent fauna (e.g. water dependent fauna (e.g. amphibians)
aquatic birds and amphibians) aquatic birds and amphibians) aquatic birds and amphibians)
41
• Transformation of recovering
• Better recovering preservation
preservation programmes in
programmes than in year 1,
• Set of recovering preservation maintenance programmes
considering results and the • Good set of maintenance programmes
programmes aimed to target • Better recovering preservation
processes regarding both results and the process.
different objects of preservation programmes than in year 5,
• Larger set of programmes that
considering results and the
the existent in year 1
processes
Culture and • Raise the number of supported
• Solid programme of supported activities
• Raise the number of supported activities to promote local heritage
Heritage activities to promote local heritage • Larger set of activities that the
that promote local heritage
• Set of supported integrated • Solid programme to support new
• Performance or presentation of existent in year 5 and with
activities to promote local heritage activities that aim to promote local heritage
activities that promote local improved quality, regarding those
• Programme that distinguishes quality of
heritage inside the tourist site performed or presented inside the
activities that promote local heritage
tourist site
• Identify volume of profits of • Increase the volume of profits • Increase the volume of profits in
• Increase the volume of profits in a
local culture shops inside tourist in a similar percentage to tourists’ a similar percentage to tourists’
similar percentage to tourists’ increasing
site increasing increasing
• High global satisfaction for
project users and workers • Moderate to high global • High global satisfaction for all
• High global satisfaction for all groups
• Moderate global satisfaction satisfaction for all groups groups
for Sesimbra residents
Health and • Moderate values for the
Environmental Quality Index (this
Happiness • Improve values of
• Improve values of
index is achieved by a composite
Environmental Quality Indices • Improve values of Environmental
formula of the environmental Environmental Quality Indices to a
comparing with the ones identified Quality Indices to a level of ‘very good’
indices presented on Plans’ level of ‘good’
for Sesimbra and bench mark site
Chapter
42
Table 5 below summarises some of the strategies and targets for an OPL community in the South East of the UK. Again, although the targets and strategies
are specific to the community it is felt that many of the measures highlighted could also be applicable to OPL communities elsewhere.
Table 5: Strategies and targets for reaching OPL
Sustainability Start Point End Point

Principle < 2010 2015 2020
>
Green Transport Plan developed
Facilities located within walking Masterplan developed over time to ensure provision of a balanced mixed-use community Majority of journeys made on foot
distance to reduce the need to travel providing community, retail and employment opportunities or by bicycle
Excellent public transport Public transport running All vehicle movements are using
provision with communication on bio-diesel and/or carbon neutral modes of transport
interface hydrogen fuel cell
Car club established Car club expanded to Most car club vehicles First year’s club
encompass surrounding running on carbon-neutral membership paid for all new
communities fuels residents
Sustainable Incentives for residents to buy Electric vehicle charging Discount purchase Private cars all run on
alternative fuel cars points provided; are power arrangements negotiated with alternative fuel
Transport from renewable sources vehicle suppliers
Walking and cycling promoted New homes and commercial buildings constructed to support cycling, including storage and
through provision of route networks, changing/washing facilities
home zones and support facilities
High performance ICT facilities High performing ICT technology fitted in new homes and facilities to best support
incorporated to enable home- opportunities to reduce the need to travel
working and community intranet
Opportunities for internet ordering Adequate facilities provided within community spaces to support this concept
and coordinated deliveries of food
and goods
Equity and Fair Trade Plan Designed to provide access to a range of facilities and opportunities for all Create a sense of community.
established Developed to maintain a variety of residence size and configurations Provide accessible, inclusive and
Equity and Fair affordable facilities and services
Diverse and inclusive community with a sense of identity and of place
Trade
Fair trade retailers and goods promoted
Contractors/development partners selected who promote local employment /training
43
Community Trust established Trust maintained over time to reflect growing community and changes to the infrastructure &
services offered. Ongoing funding provided via leasehold charges
Proposals developed with
reference to Thames Valley West
Key Worker Strategy and the
Reading Fair Trade Town initiative
Table 6 below summarises the targets and associated Footprint reduction for each of the principles for an OPL community based on a development in South
East of the UK with the first full monitoring post occupancy being 2010. As with the table above, although the targets are specific to the community they
provide an example of what might be done and a basis for targets for OPL communities located elsewhere.
Table 6: Targets and Footprint reduction over time

2005 Baseline 2010 2015 2020
Principle Factor No. of percentage No. of percentage No. of percentage No. of planets?
planets? reduction planets? reduction planets? reduction
Households 0.31
Zero Carbon Commercial 0.14
Total 0.45 -75% 0.11 -90% 0.05 -100% 0.0
Durables 0.07
Zero Waste Consumables 0.19
Total 0.26 -25% 0.20 -60% 0.10 -80% 0.1
Passenger 0.42
Sustainable Transport
Total 0.42 -50% 0.21 -70% 0.13 -80% 0.1
Construction 0.62
Local and Sustainable
Materials Freight 0.31
Total 0.93 -25% 0.70 -55% 0.42 -66% 0.31
Local and Sustainable Food Household 0.81

Catering 0.08
44
Total 0.89 -20% 0.71 -50% 0.45 -66% 0.29

Household 0.006
Sustainable Water Commercial 0.001
Total 0.007 -50% 0.004 -65% 0.003 -75% 0.002
Built land 0.05
Natural Habitats and Wildlife
Total 0.05 0% 0.05 0% 0.05 0% 0.05
Consumer
Culture and Heritage 0.55
services
Public
Equity and Fair Trade 0.07
services
Health and Happiness Total 0.62 -15% 0.53 -40% 0.37 -66% 0.20
3.64 2.5
Total 1.6 planets 1.0 planets
planets planets
Table 7 below shows some of the targets and indicators generated for the sustainable transport and equity and fair trade principles in both the UK and
Portugal. This demonstrates the different levels of indicators ranging from building specific up to international targets. It also shows that a number of local or
regional sustainability checklists have also been used. This demonstrates that many of the indicators and targets have already been generated, but normally in
checklists with specific goals and not in the holistic manner that OPL takes.
Lifetime homes has the specific goal of ensuring houses are built that are useable by elderly and disabled people therefore removing the need to move in the
case of an accident or later in life, this therefore has many of the strategies for creating equitable communities. It does though conflict with sustainable
transport as one of the requirements is that houses have a parking space as close to the house as possible. In contradiction, if you are trying to reduce
dependence on the car, and also reclaim the development from the car, it will often be preferable to have the car parking in blocks some distance from the
houses. This therefore demonstrates the tradeoffs that will be needed in order to generate communities that are both economically and environmentally
sustainable.
45
Table 7: Indicators used for different principles in different countries

South East of England Portugal, near Lisbon South East of England Portugal, near Lisbon
Sustainable Transport Sustainable Transport Equity and Fair Trade Equity and Fair Trade
International – OPL CO2 emissions of persons travelling to and from the site and Targets must be set to address country-specific equity priorities
targets within it must be reduced relative to an agreed regional and for the ratio of imported goods and services that is fair trade
benchmark. certified.
Ideally all unavoidable CO2 emissions from transport should be
offset by a certified carbon sequestration scheme.
International 12.5% reduction in CO2 8% reduction in CO2
Targets emissions by 2012 emissions by 2012
National Targets 20% reduction in CO2 emissions
by 2010, 60% by 2050
Regional Targets
Building Specific EcoHomes – transport Building for Life
Targets Building for Life Lifetime Homes
3.3.4 Measuring progress
Measurable indicators
Establishing robust indicators and ensuring successful, cost-effective monitoring of performance against these is critical to measuring progress towards
meeting objectives and informing decision-making on future issues. It is also critical to ensuring integrity of the OPL programme. The pragmatic approach
taken by OPL is to consider how a ‘one planet level’ community may be achieved over time. Monitoring is therefore not geared towards producing academic-
grade material, though if academic institutions can be involved in the process, this is to be welcomed. Monitoring can also be a useful way to feed back to
residents and stakeholders, leading to a commitment to adopt lifestyle changes and to support the community’s evolution towards achieving a ‘one planet
level’ by 2020. It may thus encourage development of the wider infrastructure and services needed to enable residents to reduce their environmental impact
from day one.
To facilitate the measurement and analysis of the community’s progress over time, a set of indicators – not necessarily exhaustive, but addressing key aspects
of performance − must be developed for each of the ten One Planet Living Principles. These indicators will need to be SMART (Specific, Measurable,
Achievable, Realistic and Time-related). Monitoring must be appropriate to the scale of development; a flagship can sustain a greater level of monitoring (on
resourcing and cost grounds) than a smaller OPL project. Monitoring must not end up being unnecessarily onerous; hence wherever possible it should be
linked to existing monitoring resources such as data from the local energy supply company, residents’ satisfaction surveys carried out by the estate
management company, or recycling monitored by the green caretaker. Furthermore, a balance will need to be struck between high-level headline targets
46
(such as total transport-related carbon emissions per capita), and more detailed supporting targets (such as total distances travelled by different modes and
membership rates for car clubs). On this basis, suggested headline indicators are highlighted in yellow shaded cells in the matrices below. It should be noted
that although it may ultimately be decided that only the headline indicators should be reported upon, performance against many of the other indicators will
need to be determined to calculate the headline figure. It is also proposed that an OPL developer’s club is established to facilitate peer reviews of other OPL
projects.
Indicator Matrices
The two matrices below (Tables 8 and 9) list possible indicators for measuring the performance characteristics of a community in the South of England en
route to achieving a sustainable ‘one planet level’ by 2020. These are divided into headline indicators (shaded in yellow) and subsidiary indicators (unshaded).
The matrices note relevant sources or links to existing standards/guidance, as well as the trend required over time against each indicator to achieve the
sustainability aspirations in the long term. Shorthand codes used in the matrices include:
‘SDS’ – UK government sustainable development strategy (Securing the Future, March 2005),
‘QOL’ – UK government Quality of Life sustainability indicators (Defra, 1999-2004),
‘IRF’ – Integrated Regional Framework (SEERA, 2004).
The ‘benchmark’ column records relevant contemporary figures (where appropriate data has been sourced), with three further columns suggesting a trend of
continual improvement from ‘development day one’ − anticipated to be 2010 − leading towards 2020. In refining the monitoring approach, a benchmarking date
will need to be determined. The authors currently consider that a 2005 benchmark date is preferable if adequate data can be identified.
In establishing a benchmark date, it should be noted that as consumption rates in the UK are predicted to rise over the next five years, setting a target of
reducing domestic waste arisings by 10% on day one (2010) compared to 2005 levels may equate to a reduction of 22% compared to expected 2010 levels in
the region. This scenario is based upon the current trend for domestic waste arisings to closely follow GDP, which has been assumed to grow at an annual
rate of 3%.
For some of these indicators, measures would not be expected to change significantly over the period from ‘day one’ to 2020, as best practice will have been
achieved during construction (e.g. domestic heating energy consumption levels reduced through high performance building fabric). For other indicators, large
gains could be made up to 2020, as residents become more accustomed to the sustainable lifestyle that the development enables, services become more
established over time (e.g. local food networks), and new ‘green’ technologies become available.
The matrices below (Table 8 and 9) are specific to a community in the South East of England, therefore the indicators chosen relate to targets set either by the
UK government or the regional development agency (SEEDA). This level detail would only be applicable to a flagship project and is only indicative. Targets
would be set after identification of a specific site. For communities in a different region or country, matrices may take the same format, yet data sources − and
sustainability challenges − will be different, therefore it is likely that different indicators and benchmarks will be used.
Table 8: Indicators for sustainable transport for the South East of England
47
Sustainable Transport Reducing the need to travel and providing sustainable alternatives to private car use
Indicator / Metric Link / Need over OPL approach

Source time
Benchmark Day 1 2015 2020 Monitoring
3a % of homes with access to key services SDS 57 Maintain a Bespoke data to be developed
QOL J1 higher level from QOL J1 and National Reporting of local
IRF 8 Travel Survey planning and
3ai % homes with access to healthcare IRF 3.2 Maintain a Mean travel time (UK) service-provision
services by non-car means higher level GP: 14-26 min walk issues to be made
3aii % homes with access to education IRF 5.9 Maintain a Shop: <6 min. walk a requirement for
Pharm: 7-13 min walk all design teams
services by non-car means higher level
3b Ratio of roads : cycle ways : foot paths - Increase Bespoke - - -
3di Distance for commuting / capita / pa IRF 15 Reduce 1280 miles13 -5% -10% -15%
Monitoring of
3dii Distance for education and escort SDS 56, Reduce 305 miles -10% -10% -10% community in use
education / capita QOL G2 (source as above) to be a undertaken
3f % of trips made by mode and distance QOL G1, Increase Calculate levels from Department of Transport statistics for by independent
G3, G5, D17 walking, personal transport consultants funded
SDS 8, 55 cycling, public via developer
IRF 15 transport contributions
3g Overseas travel distances by air QOL D18 Reduce extent Bespoke -5% -10% -15%
3h Cost of transport QOL T4 Reduce / level Bespoke14
* Monitoring of
3j Car club participation levels - Increase Bespoke 10% 20% 40%
performance to
3k Parking provision on-site - Maintain low Bespoke include travel
3m % of alt-fuelled vehicles on-site - Increase Bespoke 5% 10% 15% surveys and
3n Total transport-related carbon and ghg SDS 7, 8 Reduce (to To be identified gathering of
-25% -60% -80% comparator data
emissions QOL D15 zero)
3p % of homes/businesses receiving - Maintain at -
100% 100% 100%
guidance on transport issues 100%
*
3q Ecological Footprint - Reduce Derived from
0.42 planets -50% -70% -80%
figures above
13
UK average data per person per annum, Department for Transport – Focus on Personal Travel (2002-03). Headline indicators are highlighted in yellow
14
Household spending data from Office of National Statistics records that in UK, average individual spends 12% of their income on motoring
48
Table 9: indicators for Equity and Fair Trade for the South East of England for a flagship project
Equity and Fair Trade Create a sense of community. Provide accessible, inclusive and affordable facilities and services
Indicator / Metric Link / Source Need over time OPL approach

Benchmark Day 1 2015 2020 Monitoring
9a % of affordable units IRF 1 Maintain 35% - - -
responsive levels Reporting of
9b Ratio of average HH income : average - Maintain £183,175 : £39,734 planning, costing and
house price equitable ratio = 4.61 specification issues
(SE, 2003 Q4, Source: JRF) to be made a
9c Buildings built to best practice in terms of QOL J1, J3 Maintain high bespoke requirement for all
accessibility SCL 2.7.6 level design teams
9d % of homes which are built to lifetime - Maintain high bespoke
homes standards level
9e % of people of working age in employment SDS 40 Increase 74.7% Monitoring process to
QOL C7 UK average, 2003 (ONS) be undertaken by
9f 16-19 year olds not in education, IRF 5, 25, SDS Reduce To be identified independent parties
employment or training 44, QOL C3 funded via developer
contributions
9h Childhood poverty IRF 4 Reduce 30%
(% of children in HH below 60% median SDS 43 UK average, 2001/02
income after housing costs) QOL H4 DWP
Community Trust to
9j Pensioner poverty IRF 4, SDS 45, Reduce To be identified
work in partnership
QOL H4
with local authority
9k Health Inequalities(life expectancy) QOL F3 Reduce 75.9 (M) 81.1(F) and RSL partners to
Reading, 2001-03 (ONS) undertake residents
9m Social justice SDS 59 Increase To be identified surveys
9n Environmental equality SDS 60 Increase To be identified
*
9p Value of Fair Trade goods purchased QOL C11 Increase bespoke Retailers survey by
9q Fairtrade community Status
*
QOL C11 Ensure bespoke Community Trust
9r % of homes/businesses receiving - Maintain at 100% - 100% 100% 100%

information on fair-trade issues
49
Section 4
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
50
Section 4: Frequently Asked Questions
4.1 One Planet Living – basics
1. Is OPL an organisation? A programme? A movement?
OPL is a global initiative based on ten principles of sustainability developed by BioRegional and WWF.
Both BioRegional and WWF run their own One Planet Living programmes – BioRegional’s programme
is developing exemplary projects around the globe, while WWF is developing campaigns around One
Planet Living.
2. Where did the term ‘One Planet Living’ come from?
The term ‘One Planet Living’ has come from BioRegional’s work and book “BioRegional Solutions for
Living on One Planet”, and the work around Ecological Footprinting and in particular, the Living Planet
Report published by WWF with data from Global Footprint Network and the Zoological Society of
London. The premise of Ecological Footprinting is that people must live within their ecological means,
i.e., within the resource production and waste assimilation capacity of one planet. From this logic, it
was a short – but happy – leap to the phrase ‘one planet living’, which quickly proved its worth as a
simple phrase that conveys the idea of ecological limits in an appealing light.
3. What are the ‘ten principles’ and how are they prioritised?
The ten principles are
1. Zero Carbon
2. Zero Waste
3. Sustainable Transport
4. Local and Sustainable Materials
5. Local and Sustainable Food
6. Sustainable Water
7. Natural Habitats and Wildlife
8. Culture and Heritage
9. Equity and Fair Trade
10. Health and Happiness
There is no formal prioritisation of the principles, which evolved from early discussions with the
developer Pelicano SA in Portugal, the Global Founding Partner for OPL Communities programme.
Each principle represents a different aspect of sustainability that is considered essential to achieving
‘one planet living’. Neglecting any of these principles could lead to overlooking a key aspect of
sustainability and hence failing to deliver sustainability, since sustainability depends upon taking a
holistic view of a problem or situation. In practice, projects may initially focus on certain aspects of
sustainability. Yet to move towards ‘one planet living’, such work must be set in the context of the ten
principles, and must have a plan in place to address all the remaining principles.
4. If OPL involves environmental, social and economic goals, then what happens when these
compete?
There is no set formula on this, but an integrated solution, not a trade-off compromise must be found.
The environmental targets are non-negotiable, since ultimately if we don’t protect the environment,
society cannot exist. We have to find attractive ways of living that are compatible with the
51
environment. Proposed OPL projects in different parts of the world will obviously differ in many ways,
including in how they integrate environmental and social objectives. Given this complexity, projects will
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Yet all ten principles are important, and all OPL projects must
make firm commitments under each principle and demonstrable efforts to meet them. By definition,
this means that OPL communities must meet both environmental and social criteria.
5. Is OPL a standard or certification scheme?
OPL is not an accredited certification process or standard. Rather, it is a set of guiding principles and
endorsed projects that show how these principles might be applied. Projects should use existing
certification schemes insofar as possible, so that they complement and build on such efforts rather
than duplicating them.
Trying to establish a formal international standard or certification scheme for an OPL Community that
would be acceptable to a large range of stakeholders would be extremely difficult, time-consuming and
expensive. If it could be done at all, the time taken would mean we might fail to address pressing
issues of today, while the world would have moved on by the time the standards were set. We need to
recognise that the world is not only complex but also dynamic, and although formal standards have
their place, they also have serious limitations. Moreover, standards tend to follow innovation rather
than lead it, and One Planet Living is about innovation. Standards also involve developing clear
mechanisms for verifying that a given output – typically a product or service, meets certain criteria. In
the case of OPL, the most important output in question would be the lifestyle of people in the OPL
community, since sustainable lifestyles is the ‘product’ that OPL Communities deliver. Even if it were
possible, certifying a lifestyle in a rigorous way does not sound very attractive for the freedom of the
residents!
This being said, One Planet Living Communities will seek to incorporate existing formal standards into
their sustainability plans and endorsement and monitoring procedures. These include standards for
green buildings (such as BREEAM and LEED), for design (Lifetime Homes and Home Zones) and for
products and services (such as Organic and FSC).
In contrast to a standards-based approach, OPL takes a partnership approach involving partnerships

with selected public or private partners, typically leading private firms. Instead of specifying a
bureaucratic evaluation procedure based on accredited assessors, it proposes a limited number of key
performance indicators based on meeting the Common International Targets and addressing the 10
OPL principles. (see point 27).
OPL projects aim to show how it might be made easy for people to live within their ‘fair share’ of the
Earth’s resources. Yet since both environmental challenges and available technologies will continue to
change over time, OPL can be viewed as much a process as an endpoint. We prefer to avoid making
OPL itself into a bureaucratic scheme that gets tied up in red tape, becomes expensive and loses all its
fun! Otherwise, who would want to embrace One Planet Living?
6. In what sense will these communities make residents happier? How can this be measured?
Happiness is commonly cited as peoples’ ultimate goal. Similarly, the goal of economics is to
maximise peoples’ ‘utility’ which, is essentially jargon for ‘happiness’. Clearly, happiness is an
important concept.
Cultures all around the world have developed philosophies to help us become happier. Over the past
decade, ‘happiness studies’ has also evolved as a new branch of economics. This follows recent
evidence suggesting that greater wealth may not secure increased happiness in many cases, calling
into question the traditional use of money as a proxy for ‘utility’ within economics. The goal of this new
sub-discipline is to define the factors that lead to happiness in different cases. Early findings suggest
52
that both environmental and social factors are important determinants of happiness, implying that OPL
is on the right path.
Measuring happiness is typically done via self-assessment, i.e. simply asking people to rate their own
happiness on a scale of one to ten. While problematic in certain respects, this approach is transparent
and has an undeniable degree of legitimacy. In the end, whether we measure it or not, we believe that
thinking about happiness will help us create happier communities, which is one of our key aims.
7. I have heard of other One Planet Living initiatives; how do these relate to one another?
Other emerging initiatives within the One Planet Living ‘universe’ include One Planet Olympics, One
Planet Budget, One Planet Business, One Planet Products, and One Planet Academy. These diverse
initiatives function independently, yet all use the ten OPL principles as a means to deliver sustainability
to a mainstream audience. Moreover, BioRegional staff involved with one OPL initiative often provide
input into other OPL initiatives.
4.2 One Planet Living Communities (OPL/C) programme
8. What are the main goals of the OPL Communities programme?
The vision of One Planet Living is of a world in which people everywhere can enjoy a high quality of life
within their fair share of the Earth’s resources. Its aim is to make sustainable living easy, attractive and
affordable throughout the world.
Towards this end, the One Planet Living Communities programme has three key aims:
a. To work with local partners to build a worldwide network of One Planet Living Communities to
demonstrate One Planet Living in action.
b. To establish One Planet Living Centres in each OPL community as a focus for education and
outreach.
c. To promote the imperative for One Planet Living and its guiding principles to catalyse change
with governments, business and individuals.
9. How many communities are currently being developed or planned for the future? Where are they?
‘Flagship’ communities are planned, across the highest impact countries in five continents. These will
be complemented by a limited number of smaller One Planet Living projects. Current target countries
include Australia, Canada, China, Portugal, South Africa, UAE, UK and USA.
OPL communities are currently in an advanced state of planning in Portugal, the UK and the USA. In
Portugal, the OPL pioneer project is a 6,000-unit tourism and residential development outside Lisbon
(Mata de Sesimbra) with developers Pelicano. In the UK, medium-scale OPL Communities are being
designed for London and Brighton with developers BioRegional Quintain, while a flagship OPL project
is being explored in London’s Thames Gateway. In the USA, the first OPL community is Sonoma
Mountain Village in California with developers Codding Enterprises.
10. Are there distinct types of OPL community?
All OPL communities have an endorsed OPL SAP. The OPL Communities programme however has a
target to create a “flagship” community in each target country. Flagship communities are large-scale
(see point 11), represent the focus for a high level of technical, communications and promotional inputs
from BioRegional, and have an information and visitor centre on site. Other OPL Communities may be
53
smaller scale, and usually linked in some way to the flagship, for example by being implemented by the
same developer and exploring complementary aspects of the OPL concept such as rural links to the
flagship. As an example, the flagship community in Portugal is a high-end tourism and residential
development near Lisbon, while the two other proposed OPL projects in Portugal are supported by the
developer, Pelicano. The first targets urban regeneration of a neighbourhood adjacent to the flagship
and second applies the OPL principles to a rural district to the south of Lisbon.
11. How big is an OPL community?
OPL communities are not necessarily of a defined size. However, OPL Communities seek to address
the Ecological Footprint of peoples’ lifestyles, and Ecological Footprinting has shown that much of this
impact stems from shared infrastructure and services. The implication is that for communities to
achieve sustainability, they must be of sufficient scale to incorporate key infrastructure and services.
This is a fundamental point behind the programme’s definition of ‘flagship communities’, which must
meet this criterion. For the UK, it has been estimated that 2,000 housing units is the minimum scale
for meeting this criterion. Thus, 2,000 units is an indicative minimum size for an OPL flagship
community. Yet because this measure is based on the UK case, the relevant scale in different
countries must be assessed on a case by case basis.
The above applies to the case of OPL flagship communities, but size criteria are looser for other OPL
communities. Such communities could potentially be as small as 100 housing units, with
accompanying infrastructure, services and land. It is unlikely that BioRegional will get involved in
projects smaller than this due to resource levels.
12. What are the defining traits of an OPL Community?
All OPL Communities must set stretching targets based on the ten OPL principles and the Common
International Targets, and then define clear, sequenced strategies for achieving them. These targets
and strategies must be laid out in a project-specific sustainability action plan (SAP). In order to secure
OPL status, this SAP must be approved by OPL programme staff at BioRegional, while continued OPL
status depends upon annual review of SAP implementation. Yet because OPL is a partnership
scheme as opposed to a certification scheme, SAPs cannot simply be independently developed then
submitted to OPL for approval. Instead, developers must agree to work alongside BioRegional as
partners in the OPL programme, and develop any SAPs on the basis of ongoing consultations.
Various other characteristics of OPL communities might be mentioned, such as scale (see point 11),
location (see point 14), or a commitment to social integration. Yet the only non-negotiable defining
traits are listed in the above paragraph.
13. Won’t OPL Communities be more expensive to set up?
It is difficult to generalise about the costs of designing and building to address OPL principles, since
the relevant technologies and strategies to be used are constantly evolving and projects in different
countries pose very different challenges. Some interventions save money, such as reducing car
parking spaces, while others may increase costs, such as provision of certain renewable energy
infrastructures. The differential in costs also varies from country to country depending on current
minimum standards in those countries. Extra build cost can sometimes be recovered through greater
sales values or counterbalanced by reduced operations costs over time, such as better building
performance and reduced energy expenditures. Other gains secured are significant yet non-monetary,
such as improved indoor air quality and health or reduced contribution to climate change.
It is also important to recognise that long term estate management and community engagement is as
important if not more important than what is built first. We will expect to see developers investing as
much thought into long term estate management for One Planet Living as in initial design.
54
From experience in the UK, the BedZED urban ecovillage was expensive to build, but is successfully
delivering substantial ongoing savings for users; and costs for OPL Communities in the UK are now
comparable to conventional costs. In summary, it is not useful or possible to make generalisations
about costs, particularly between countries. Instead, the aim of the programme is to identify partners in
the target countries who want to work with us to analyse all the issues and create the solutions which
will be good for their customers, their business, and the wider community.
14. What are the site selection criteria?
Flagship OPL Communities will ideally be
a. Located in a high profile city, for high visibility to both the general public and policy makers.
b. Accessible via public transport infrastructure, providing ready access by local communities,
policy makers and the wider population.
c. Site should preferably have no exceptional characteristics that restrict its relevance as a basis
for wider replication, e.g. unique climatic or topographical features.
d. Sustainability challenges faced should be broadly representative of wider population,
incorporating both traditionally urban and rural concerns as well as appealing to both poorer
and more affluent populations.
e. Previously developed ‘brownfield’ sites are favoured, given the extent of development across
the globe, yet sites must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
f. Impact on local ecology: where a project may threaten a biodiversity-rich area, the site may be
unsuitable for OPL endorsement. Alternatively, a project could be seen as a means of
protecting a neighbouring conservation area or regenerating degraded land.
15. Are OPL Communities new communities, or can an existing community become one?
There is no clear rule on this, but early OPL initiatives have tended to focus on creating new
developments. In many ways this makes sense, since meeting ambitious targets is most readily done
by starting with a clean slate. This being said, if the ultimate goal of the OPL initiative is to move
communities more generally towards sustainability, then it must also address existing communities.
The proposed OPL Community Retrofit initiative responds to this need, while the Quinta do Conde
project in Portugal is an example of a proposed OPL urban regeneration initiative.
16. Are OPL communities populated mostly by ‘eco-warriors’ and ‘hippies’?
No. Clearly, ideologically-driven people like ‘eco-warriors’ may be attracted to a development that
successfully achieves ambitious environmental and social objectives. Yet as a programme OPL
explicitly targets mainstream people and firms, to help along current trends whereby more and more
people are becoming keen to adopt greener lifestyles. Appealing to the mainstream is key, since the
sustainability challenge involves winning over society as a whole, not just those who already have a
personal commitment to environmental or social issues. OPL does this through (i) focusing on
technologies, infrastructure and services rather than socio-cultural factors such as dancing and singing
(though we recognise these can be important), (ii) emphasising tangible benefits of ecological living
such as increased quality of life associated with ecological design and cost savings associated with
reduced resource use and waste (iii) specifically looking to provide homes that are seen as desirable
by the majority of people in terms of design etc. In summary, OPL communities are not ‘intentional
communities’ filled with like-minded people, but rather a representative mix of residents attracted by
different aspects of the community. In time, however, these residents may come to take on stronger
environmental values based on their experience of living in the community.
55
4.3 Implementation
17. What is the process for becoming an OPL community? Does it involve strict targets or simply firm
commitment to engaging in a process?
As discussed above (see point 12), the process of becoming an OPL community involves establishing
a partnership between a developer, BioRegional, then collaboratively developing a project SAP that is
endorsed and periodically reviewed by OPL staff. The SAP must define targets and a clear strategy
for achieving these. The long-term targets to achieve One Planet Living are stretching, and it might not
always be possible to define exactly how these targets will be met. The essential component is firm
commitment to engaging in a process and working in long-term partnership with BioRegional to
achieve targets. It would be unrealistic to demand legally binding compliance, both because OPL
targets are ambitious and require innovation, and because technologies are continually evolving. The
OPL Communities programme is about leadership and joint learning, and hence is necessarily flexible
to accommodate evolving realities.
18. How stretching should the targets be in an OPL Sustainability Action Plan (SAP)?
Targets must be in line with meeting the Common International Targets. Targets for a given project
are set based on what BioRegional, in consultation with the developer and other local partners,
consider an excellent response to the OPL principles, given an overall goal of making it easy for local
people to adopt a lifestyle within a ‘fair share’ of the earth’s resources by 2020. It is of course possible
that others will criticise these targets or the proposed means of how they will be met. In such cases,
we invite any such critics to establish their own projects and set their own targets. If these prove more
successful than ours, we would be the first to applaud them, and then seek to learn from their
experience.
19. When communities are developed in different places, are the principles applied differently?
All communities will commit to the Common International Targets. Yet because the countries and local
contexts in which communities occur vary greatly, the interpretation of the principles will also vary,
although the spirit will remain constant. For instance, the biodiversity target will be applied differently
in urban and rural areas, since the former may have little free space for wildlife. A second example is
sustainable water, which would have a different meaning in an area with abundant water but pollution
problems, compared to an area with severe water scarcity. While the interpretation may vary, the
principles themselves remain the same, with all ten important no matter what the context.
Although OPL projects must meet the set of Common International Targets, which ensure a level of
overall consistency across the programme, they follow different trajectories to meet the target of living
within 1.5 gha per person by 2020. Such an arrangement is necessary, given the distinct opportunities
and challenges faced. All partners can rest assured, however, that BioRegional will work closely with
all partners to meet rigorous country-specific milestones based on Common International OPL Targets.
Moreover, key information on partners will be posted on the OPL website to help ensure transparency,
including outline SAPs for projects and SAP annual reviews.
20. How is the quality of OPL communities controlled to ensure they reflect ambitious efforts to bring
the OPL principles into operation?
As discussed above (see point 17), the quality of OPL Communities is controlled via the endorsed OPL
SAP. After a suitably ambitious SAP is developed, it must be endorsed by BioRegional to secure OPL
status. The community’s implementation of the SAP must be periodically evaluated for it to retain OPL
status, thus ensuring ongoing quality control. Despite their involvement in the initiative, BioRegional
56
retain a large degree of independence from these initiatives. This stems both from their need to protect
their reputation and the commitment of their staff, both personal and professional, to meeting
environmental and social objectives.
4.4 Organisational aspects
21. What kind of organisation is BioRegional?
BioRegional Development Group is a registered charities. BioRegional also has associated private
sector activities which have arisen out to its core work, including property development. Such
initiatives involve profit-sharing with the charity. By establishing its own property development arm,
BioRegional understands the challenges facing both charities and developers. This hybrid structure
makes it particularly well-suited to practical delivery of OPL Communities.
22. How are OPL Communities funded?
Funding for OPL is drawn from several sources: grant funding, partners’ annual core cost contribution,
and partners’ payment for technical services.
23. Is OPL affiliated with any existing eco-village initiatives?
No, it isn’t. As noted above (see point 16), OPL targets the mainstream population whereas eco-
villages have typically appealed to those with a strong personal commitment to environmental values.
The OPL approach to establishing communities is also distinct, being led by private developers
following the OPL principles rather than established organically by groups of like-minded individuals,
as typically done by communities belonging to the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN). This is not to say
that OPL staff and those living in OPL communities may not often share the values and ideals of those
living in a GEN eco-village, just that the aim is to work with mainstream developers to provide homes
appealing to the mainstream. This being said, OPL seeks to learn from the experience of others, and
hence uses relevant examples from existing eco-villages in its work.
24. Who can use the OPL brand?
Only partners in OPL and formally approved projects can use the OPL “brand”. Specifically, such
projects must have an endorsed SAP in place. It follows that partners in the OPL programme may not
use the OPL brand for projects that they may be developing independently of formal BioRegional or
WWF endorsement. They may however use the brand in their company’s publicity materials as long as
these make clear that only endorsed projects have OPL status. Any such usage must be approved by
OPL staff on a case-by-case basis.
4.5 Partnerships with developers
25. How do BioRegional work with developers?
Together, BioRegional form partnerships with developers in diverse countries to build OPL
communities, and then use these as case studies for promoting OPL. This ‘partnership model’
involves proceeding by leadership and example rather than establishing a new certifiable standard.
OPL involves both implementing ideas and sharing them. By working with selected partners, it
develops examples of technologies and strategies for meeting OPL targets in different contexts. OPL
57
thus presents a friendly challenge to other developers to do better rather than a standard. Ideally, this
could lead to a friendly competition among developers as to who is most sustainable, and to a wider
dialogue about how best to get there.
26. How are developers selected to be partners?
We seek out partnerships with leading developers, to ensure they have the institutional capacity to
make ambitious projects a success and also to serve as compelling role models to other developers.
Beyond this, we seek out developers whose leaders show a genuine commitment to sustainability
objectives.
27. What do developers get out of being part of OPL/C?
By becoming part of the programme, a developer can assume a leadership role and be seen to be
doing so through the associated brands of One Planet Living, BioRegional and WWF. Developer
partners get access to technical support from BioRegional in applying the OPL principles, which should
also help the developer create a better product. With environmental regulation and the market for
green living growing all the time, it will enable developers to position themselves in the market in
anticipation of future opportunities
The OPL brand will represent leadership in the industry in future, and hence be a way for developers to
communicate this to its customers, government regulators, staff and investors. This brand association
stems not only from the community itself, but also from any publicity emerging from the country’s OPL
information centre and from BioReigonal’s and WWF’s wider lobbying and publicity work at an
international level.
28. What do developers give in exchange?
In exchange for these diverse benefits, developers provide both an annual core cost contribution and
payments for special technical services on a case-by-case basis, plus any project specific
communications events. Given the large differences between wealth levels in different countries,
partners from poorer countries may pay correspondingly less than those from wealthier countries, and
BioRegional may well seek grant funding to support costs in these situations.
4.6 OPL and me
29. How can I learn more about OPL?
The best resource is to explore the various resources available via the One Planet Living website,
http://www.oneplanetliving.org.
30. How can I get involved as an individual?
You might like to start applying the OPL principles in your daily life, and we have published a book
aimed at UK residents to help. You might also consider moving to one of our communities, Since OPL
projects are based on partnerships between BioRegional with developers, there is no obvious route for
interested individuals to become directly involved in our work, although we do advertise jobs from time
to time on our website. Please do try to adopt a OPL lifestyle and spreading awareness of OPL ideas
among your friends, family and colleagues. Better still, seek out your own partners to develop your
own initiatives based on the ten principles.
58
Annex 1: Staffing
On a day to day basis, the OPL Communities programme is run by:
OPL Central Team

o Two BioRegional OPL Directors who oversee the programme in a few countries.
o An OPL Communities Programme Manager who is responsible for coordinating the
programme, including technical issues, communications, fundraising and finance,
resources management, and overall supervision.
In-Country staff
o Country Managers: These managers represent OPL in the country where they are
based and are responsible for implementation of projects in the country. They ensure
that everything is in place to achieve the objectives agreed between OPL and the
partners, notably that OPL projects are properly resourced and that relationships with
project partners remain strong. They are also in charge of communications around the
project (launch event, relationship with press, etc). They liaise with the OPL Central
team on a regular basis.
o Technical Advisers: These advisors provide technical support to country managers
and project partners, once country programmes are established and projects get
underway.
BioRegional Communities Team:

o This team sits within BioRegional and is also responsible for running BioRegional
Consulting Ltd. Key tasks include developing this manual; providing inputs into
Sustainability Action Plans (SAPs) and evaluating submitted SAPs; gathering a
document library under each of the ten principles; and addressing technical issues
raised by partners.
o Specifically provide technical support to OPL country teams, including training for
technical persons set to work on OPL on the field (external consultants, developers’
experts, etc).
Supporting departments at BioRegional:

o BioRegional’s Communications, Finance, Fundraising, Policy, Legal and Personnel
departments are all deeply involved in the programme.
59
Annex 2. Future Prospect? “Coupling Urban OPL Communities with

Designated Rural Areas”
Basic concept
• There are two relevant types of rural site

o Conservation areas
o Sustainable production (e.g., of crops, timber, livestock, crafts)
• and two broad types of locations

o Nearby, i.e. within the same country
o Far away, in a ‘twinned’ poor country
• Criteria for rural areas

o Must be closely affiliated with an urban OPL Flagship site and led by same developer
o Must be explicitly endorsed by BioRegional via an endorsed SAP
• Technical opportunity
o If protected, designated conservation areas can avoid becoming degraded, and may be
able to regenerate naturally if already degraded
o Sustainable production can be secured via active stewardship of the local environment,
with potentially large environmental and economic gains when introduced on degraded
lands.
• Practical alternatives
o Rural sites could be ‘pooled’ with OPL Flagship or simply affiliated with it
o If ‘pooled’ with Flagship to form a joint unit (for resource accounting purposes), could serve
as a means to meet more ambitious targets
o If only affiliated with Flagship, could provide a means to set stretching environmental and
social targets in rural areas, thus extending OPL’s reach.
Advantages of coupling with rural areas
1. Good publicity
o Demonstrates the power and wider relevance of ‘sustainability as the solution’ and OPL as
a vehicle.
2. Provides opportunity to either

o Set more ambitious targets (e.g. for biodiversity, equity), beyond what’s possible within an
urban site, or
o Extend stretching targets to rural areas and possibly poor countries.
3. Responds to OPL mandate

o Charts a way for OPL to realise its stated objective of sustainability for all, or making
sustainable living “easy, attractive and affordable throughout the world”, or for “people
everywhere”.
4. Allows flexibility to partners

o If ‘pooled’, could allow flexibility in meeting stringent targets; fitting OPL’s ‘market friendly’
agenda, yet need not be way for developers and urban projects to wriggle out of their
commitments!
5. Other possibilities
60
o Helps avoid danger of elitism, given association of green goods/services with high quality
and added costs
o Could open up new funding possibilities.
61
Specific benefits of coupling with rural areas

Type of rural area Key benefits Benefits stated in terms of the 10 principles
Conservation area • Biodiversity • Natural habitats and wildlife

• Emotional/spiritual • Health and happiness
• Eco-tourism • Offsetting any remaining transport emissions
• Carbon sequestration
Sustainable production • Local economic production • Equity/local economy

• Biodiversity • Natural habitats and wildlife
• Local culture • Sustainable materials
• Carbon sequestration • Culture and heritage
• Offsetting any remaining transport emissions
Alternative options
Type of rural area Alternative options, by category Specific options Types of land acceptable
Conservation area • Pristine, i.e. humans and • National park • Pristine

livestock excluded • Large private landholding • Under use yet vital
• Degraded yet usable
• Degraded and abandoned
• Limited use, e.g. eco-tourism, • National park • Pristine

hunting by local people • Commons area managed by local community • Under use yet vital
• State-owned land, de facto management by local people • Degraded yet usable
• Degraded and abandoned
Sustainable • Market-oriented production • Organic farming • Under use yet vital

production • Tree plantation (for fruit, timber, energy or carbon sinks) • Degraded yet usable
• Fuel crop plantation (for biodiesel) • Degraded and abandoned
• Improved semi-subsistence • Agroforestry system (harnessing symbioses between cropping, • Under use yet vital
62
farming systems livestock and farm trees) • Degraded yet usable

• Improved pasture (using improved grasses and scattered trees) • Degraded and abandoned
Key benefits, depending on area type and location

Type of site If nearby (i.e., within country) If far away (in a twinned poor country)
Conservation area Good for local biodiversity Good for world biodiversity
Good for health and happiness of locals (emotional / spiritual) Provides equity benefits to a poor, twinned community
• Eco-tourism
Potential equity benefits to local community • Carbon offset payments
• Eco-tourism opportunities • May also have to allow limited local use to avoid being seen as
• Carbon offset payments anti-social
Helps meet national climate change commitments Helps meet global climate change objectives
Sustainable Potential equity benefits to local community Provides equity benefits to a poor, twinned community
production • Income and employment from such production (food, timber, • Increased production provides jobs and income
crafts) • Carbon offset payments may provide added impetus to local
• Carbon offset payments economy
• Could potentially address entrenched poverty
Low transport miles of food, materials If exported, production may incur high transport miles
Good for local biodiversity Good for world biodiversity
Good for local culture and heritage, if involves traditional Good for culture and heritage, if involves traditional industries/crafts
industries/crafts
Helps meet national climate change commitments Helps meet global climate change objectives
Note: Conversion of rural areas that are currently under use (e.g., by farmers, herders) into conservation areas would require that current users be compensated for their
losses.
63
The logistic growth curve and the significance of regenerating degraded environments
∗ The biological growth rate determines the productivity of a given natural resource such as an insect or tree population. More generally, it can be taken as
a measure of the biological productivity of a natural system such as a forest, pond or pasture.
∗ As shown in the diagram, the biological growth rate − i.e. the slope of the curve, varies greatly depending on levels of resource stock or biomass in an
area. It can both increase and decrease, depending on the stock size. At low biomass levels, the growth rate is often low, where a few trees or fish or
crops seek to survive in a hostile microclimate. A larger population tends to transform the microclimate, making it more favourable and speeding the
growth rate. As the carrying capacity of the resource is approached, its growth rate gradually slows, until it reaches zero.
∗ It follows that when the biomass in an area dips below a certain level, for instance due to environmental degradation, the growth rate of resources can
slow dramatically; while when these resources regenerate it can accelerate again.
∗ Where an environment becomes degraded, consequences include decreased resource (and hence economic) productivity coupled with reduced biomass
stocks (and hence biodiversity and habitats).
∗ Because resource users may still try to harvest what they can even once the resource is degraded, they may end up in a ‘vicious circle’ of low biomass
and low productivity, as exemplified by the case of herders continuing to graze an overgrazed, unproductive pasture.
∗ Regeneration of degraded lands holds potential to break this vicious circle and shift to a high biomass−high productivity regime. It follows that by
regenerating degraded rural areas, OPL can deliver a win-win solution for both the environment and the rural economy.
Carrying capacity
of natural resource,
or biomass of
climax community
Stock size
or density
of relevant
natural
resource
Time
64

OnePlanetLivingManual PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

OnePlanetLivingManual PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

PROGRAMME MANUAL

ONE PLANET LIVING COMMUNITIES

The One Planet Living Vision

Specifically, this initiative aims to

Purpose, audience, scope

The Manual provides the following information:

1. Defining and addressing the sustainability challenge

How do we measure our impact, and therefore benchmark ‘sustainable living’?

1.1 Background to Ecological Footprinting

Box 1: An example of how Ecological Footprints are calculated

Area to grow the food

25 hectares of fishing grounds / tonne of fish

Table 1: Global measures of biologically productive land and water

1.1.1 The situation globally

Figure 1: Western Europe’s three planet challenge

Table 2: The Ecological Footprint of selected countries

1.1.2 How can we use Ecological Footprinting?

Figure 2: Breakdown of Ecological Footprint for a typical resident of South East

1.1.3 Ecological Footprinting

Public engagement is essential to sustainability and communication is fundamental to this. Ecological

Although Ecological Footprinting is slowly becoming accepted as a legitimate, rigorous measure of

1.2 The One Planet Living Principles

OPL PRINCIPLE OPL GOAL and STRATEGY

1.2.2 Why have they been chosen?

1.2.3 How can they be used?

One Planet Olympics

BioRegional Development Group was commissioned by

The sustainability strategy was widely commended for its

Development of holistic sustainability indicators and

BioRegional used the OPL principles to produce a set of

One Planet Schools

BioRegional used the OPL approach to convey the

One Planet Offices

BioRegional has used the OPL principles to develop a

Section 2: OPL Communities

2.1 Defining traits

Tailoring communities to local challenges

Figure 3: Metabolism diagram for Z-squared

Locations within countries

Figure 4: Vision for a sustainable peri- urban community in South Africa

Why emphasise cities?

Why favour high-profile cities?

Linking to rural areas and diverse social challenges

Potential advantages of such coupling arrangements include:

8 One Planet Living brochure, 2004, BioRegional and WWF.

2.2 Different types of OPL communities

Distinguishing traits of “flagship” communities

Large scale mixed-use developments (e.g. exceeding 2,000 housing units)

2.4.1 Positive criteria

2.4.2 Negative criteria

2.5 Components of an OPL community

2.5.1 Components in detail

COMPONENT: COMMERCIAL SPACE, SHOPS, SCHOOLS, HEALTH FACILITIES, LANDSCAPE &

as ambassadors of the community, helping achieve the outreach goals.

OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES

COMPONENT: SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE

COMPONENT: INFORMATION CENTRES

2.5.2 User group matrix

User group Key issue Implication for design

User group Key issue Implication for design

2.5.3 Future vision: Life in an OPL Community

I like living in an OPL Community. Mum doesn’t mind me walking cycling to