Abstract
Cities as hotspots of human economic activity and infrastructures provide some of the best opportunities for decarbonizing sectors essential for limiting the global warming to 1.5, such as buildings and transport. For this reason, regulators and researchers have widely recognized the necessity to put cities, as an important object of assessment, and city authorities, as an important actor group, at the core of climate mitigation efforts. In their pursuit of a low-emission future, however, cities are confronted with a number of theoretical and practical questions regarding allocation and accounting of city-related greenhouse gas (GHG), target setting and subsequent planning for mitigation. A wide literature is currently focused on the first two. However, to achieve ambitious climate targets, research should urgently focus more on how to reap all available urban mitigation actions and encourage rapid and radical changes. Identifying and prioritising mitigation strategies and actions to achieve the targets, as well as putting them together into a coherent plan with a clear vision of the future, are critical steps in actionable and effective climate action planning. As a first contribution in this direction, this paper provides recommendations for research and practice to support a more integrated and conscious definition and prioritization of actions by municipal stakeholders, based on: (1) the specific context of each city type as a determinant of what actions may work, (2) the executive power of city authority to act as the main actor and (3) the multiple benefits and/or trade-offs accruing from each local climate action.
Highlights
It has become common knowledge that the collective commitment of nations to the COP21 target to keep global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial levels is predestined to fail if climate action is limited to national or regional levels [1]
As a first contribution in this direction, this paper provides recommendations for research and practice to support a more integrated and conscious definition and prioritization of actions by municipal stakeholders, based on: (1) the specific context of each city type as a determinant of what actions may work, (2) the executive power of city authority to act as the main actor and (3) the multiple benefits and/or trade-offs accruing from each local climate action
It is no surprise that a recent survey by the EU Covenant of Mayors (EU Compact of Mayors (CoM)) Office assessing the capacity needs and knowledge gaps for the design and implementation of Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans (SECAPs) showed that “defining and prioritising actions based on certain criteria” is where EU municipalities need strongest support, after “implementing adaptation options” [9]
Summary
It has become common knowledge that the collective commitment of nations to the COP21 target to keep global warming to well below 2 (or 1.5) degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial levels is predestined to fail if climate action is limited to national or regional levels [1]. It is no surprise that a recent survey by the EU CoM Office assessing the capacity needs and knowledge gaps for the design and implementation of Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans (SECAPs) showed that “defining and prioritising actions based on certain criteria” is where EU municipalities need strongest support, after “implementing adaptation options” [9] This lack of guidance on the identification and prioritisation of mitigation (and adaptation) actions acknowledged among local authorities presented the primary motive for the present paper, which provides recommendations for research and practice to support a more integrated and conscious definition and prioritization of actions by municipal stakeholders. These recommendations are founded on three areas of opportunity identified during the assessment of existing local CAPs and related literature: (1) the possibility to facilitate and accelerate the identification of climate actions that work for each city type; (2) the possibility to mobilise all stakeholder groups, either belonging to the “producers” or “consumers”, and integrate them into future municipal concepts for climate protection through actorspecific strategies to exploit the city’s full reduction potential; (3) the prospect and importance of integrating co-benefits and co-harms
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
