FINAL SYNTHESIS BOOKLET - POCACITO · Document title Final synthesis booklet WP8 Document Type...

This project has received funding from the EuropeanUnion’s Seventh Framework Programme for research,technological development and demonstration undergrantagreementno.613286.

FINALSYNTHESISBOOKLET

MAJORFINDINGSANDOUTPUTSOFTHEPOCACITOPROJECT

ECOLOGICINSTITUTE

AUTHOR(S)

MaxGrünig,EcologicInstitute

PhilippVoß,EcologicInstitute

Withthanksto:

EikeVelten,EcologicInstitute

ProjectcoordinationandeditingprovidedbyEcologicInstitute.

ManuscriptcompletedinDecember2016

ThisdocumentisavailableontheInternetat:www.pocacito.eu

Documenttitle Finalsynthesisbooklet

WorkPackage WP8

DocumentType DeliverableD8.2

Date 30.December2016

DocumentStatus FinalVersion

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT&DISCLAIMER

TheresearchleadingtotheseresultshasreceivedfundingfromtheEuropeanUnionFP7SSH.2013.7.1-1:Post-carboncitiesinEurope:Along-termoutlookunderthegrantagreementn°613286.

NeithertheEuropeanCommissionnoranypersonactingonbehalfoftheCommissionisresponsiblefortheusewhich might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the soleresponsibilityoftheauthoranddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheEuropeanCommission.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source isacknowledgedandthepublisherisgivenpriornoticeandsentacopy.

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ABSTRACT 1

I POST-CARBONCITIESOFTOMORROW 1

II METHODOLOGY:ACOMBINEDQUALITATIVEANDQUANTITATIVEAPPROACH 2

II.I THEPOST-CARBONCITYINDEX 2

II.II CASESTUDIES 4

II.III GLOBALINVOLVEMENT 11

III TOWARDSANEUROADMAPFORPOST-CARBONCITIES 13

III.I INVENTORYOFURBANSUSTAINABILITYINITIATIVES 13

III.II INITIALASSESSMENTOFCASESTUDYCITIES 15

III.III LOCALSTRATEGYPAPERS 16

III.IV 2050EUROADMAP 22

IV ROADAHEAD 24

REFERENCES 25

LISTOFFIGURES

Figure1:Post-CarbonCityIndex 3Figure2:Visualisingthebackcastingprocess 4Figure3:MethodologicalApproachoftheInitialAssessment 5Figure4:ModellingandquantificationprocesseswithinWP5 10Figure5:EnergyUsePerCapitaCurrentlyComparedtoBAUandPC2050 17Figure6:GHGEmissionsPerCapita 17Figure7:GDP(EUR)CreatedforEachkgofGHGEmission 18Figure8:DirectandIndirectGHGEmissionsforallCaseStudyCitiesfor2007,BAUandPC2050 19Figure 9: Percentage Change in GHG Emissions Per Capita from 2007 to BAU and PC2050 UsingStandardTerritorialCalculationMethod 19Figure10:PercentageChangeinGHGEmissionsPerCapitafromBaseYeartoBAUandPC2050UsingFootprintAnalysis 20

LISTOFTABLES

Table1:OverviewofCalculationApproach 8Table2:ExamplesofLeadingCities,ListedinDescendingOrderofPopulationSize 13

LISTOFABBREVIATIONS

BAU Scenario:BusinessasUsual

COM CovenantofMayors

EEA EuropeanEnergyAward

EU EuropeanUnion

GHG GreenhouseGases

KPI KeyPerformanceIndicators

PC2050 Scenario:PC2050

PCI Post-CarbonCityIndex

SEAP SustainableEnergyActionPlan

SM SensitivityModel

SSP SharedSocio-economicPathways

UNEP UnitedNationsEnvironmentalProgramme

1•SYNTHESISBOOKLET

ABSTRACT

Citiesareofoutstandingimportanceinaddressingclimatechangesincetheyarenotonlythecentreofeconomicandsocialinitiatives,butalsoresponsibleforthemajorityofglobalenergyconsumptionandforapproximately60%ofglobalgreenhousegas(GHG)emissions.Stakeholdersatthecity levelthus facesignificantchallenges,whichareaddressedbytheEuropeanresearchprojectPost-CarbonCitiesofTomorrow(POCACITO),fundedbytheEuropeanUnion’sSeventhFrameworkProgrammeforresearch, technological development and demonstration. The POCACITO project facilitates thetransitionofcitiestoasustainableor“post-carbon”economicandsocietalmodelinaglobalcontext.POCACITO uses a participatory approach that engages local stakeholders to create custom madetransition strategies for ten case study cities. These strategies are then used to create a EU 2050Roadmap, a stakeholder-driven guide towards the model “Post-Carbon City of Tomorrow” thatmergesclimate,energyandsocialurbantransitions.ThisbookletgivesanoverviewofthePOCACITOproject,focussingonthemethodologyusedandmostimportantlyonthemajorfindings,resultsandoutcomesoftheproject.


I POST-CARBONCITIESOFTOMORROW

Cities coveronly2%of theEarth’s surface,butneverthelessare responsible forover78%ofglobalenergyconsumptionandover60%ofGHGemissions(UNEP2011;UNHabitat2016).Moreover,theyareinthecentreofeconomicandsocialinitiatives,whichiswhytheyareofoutstandingimportancein addressing climate change. Rapidly growing urban populations in combination with the alreadyvisibleandanticipatedconsequencesofclimatechangeleadtoincreasingpressureontheeconomic,environmentalandsocialhealthofcities.Hence, local stakeholdersare facingsignificantchallengesandtrade-offs(Ridgwayetal.2014).

The project Post-Carbon Cities of Tomorrow (POCACITO) addresses these challenges by developingstrategic post-carbon transition pathways with a focus on towns, small and medium-sized cities,megacities,metropolitanareasandurbanclusterslargerthan1millionpeople.

POCACITO facilitates the transition of cities to a “post-carbon” economic and societal model in aglobalcontext. Inordertoachievethisgoal,theprojectconsortiumproducedlocalstrategypapers,i.e., custom-made transition strategies, for the case study cities—namely Barcelona, Copenhagen,Istanbul, Lisbon, Litoměřice, Milan, Turin, Rostock, Malmö and Zagreb. Building upon these localstrategies,POCACITOthendevelopeda2050EURoadmap,which isessentiallyastakeholder-drivenguidetocreatingthePost-CarbonCitiesofTomorrow,mergingclimate,energyandsocialtransitionsinEUcities.

Theconceptof“post-carboncities”,asitisdefinedinthePOCACITOproject,signifiesaruptureinthecarbon-dependenturbansystem,whichhasleadtohighlevelsofanthropogenicgreenhousegases.Itmeans the establishment of new types of cities that are low-carbon as well as environmentally,socially and economically sustainable. The term “post-carbon” emphasises the process oftransformation—or a paradigm shift—which is necessary to respond to themultiple challenges ofclimatechange,ecosystemdegradation,socialequityandeconomicpressure.Throughtheiradaptivecapacity, post-carbon cities use the threat of climate change “as an opportunity to reducevulnerability as they restructure human-ecological and human-human relationships towardecosystemhealthandacleanenergyeconomy”(Evans2008,p.3;basedonAdger2006;NeilAdger,ArnellandTompkins2005).

ThisSynthesisBookletpresents themethodologyusedand themajor findingsandoutcomesof thePOCACITO project. It is structured as follows: the second section provides an overview ofmethodology used within the project. While section II.I describes the groundwork of the project,section II.II and II.III focusmore specifically on themethodologies usedwithin the individual tasks.Section III discusses the results of the project. Section III.I describes the Inventory of UrbanSustainability Initiatives,which isaknowledgebase forcitiesgloballyand inparticular for theLocalStrategyPapersand the2050EURoadmap.Results from theseLocal StrategyPapersand from the2050EURoadmaparediscussedinSectionsIII.IIandIII.III.SectionIVconcludesbysummarisingtheimpactsoftheprojectandhighlightingpotentialfieldsoffurtherresearch.


II METHODOLOGY:ACOMBINEDQUALITATIVEANDQUANTITATIVEAPPROACH

ThePOCACITOapproachcombinesbothqualitativeandquantitativeelementsinordertosupportthetransitionofcitiestoamoresustainableorpost-carbonfuture.Researchactivitiesrangingfromthecity to the global level point to thewidespread nature of the project. This section focuses on themethodologyoftheprojectand itsdifferent researchfoci.Followingtheconceptofforesight,allofthe researchactivities carriedoutwithinPOCACITOdonot aim topredict the future,but rather tocreate aplatform to think, debate and shape itwith stakeholders at the city level (Ridgewayet al.2014).

SectionII.IfocusesonthePost-CarbonCityIndex(PCI),whichlaysthegroundworkforotherresearchactivitieswithintheproject.Buildinguponthisgroundwork,tenEuropeancasestudieswerecarriedoutatthecityleveltodevelopcustommadetransitionstrategies.Themethodologyusedwithinthesecase studies is the subject of Section II.II. The output from all case study activities conductedthroughouttheprojectfedintothedevelopmentofguidelinesfortheEU2050Roadmap.

To provide and share knowledge on best practices globally, three inventorieswere developed: theLeadingCitiesInventory(Beveridgeetal.2014),theGoodCityPracticesInventory(Döhleretal.2014)and the Inventory of Good National and EU Practices (Beveridge & Döhler 2015). Together, theyconstitute an Inventory of Urban Sustainability Initiatives and at the same time contribute to aTypology of Cities developed specifically for the project. Next to other global activities carried outwithin POCACITO, both the inventories and the typology of citieswill be described in Section II.III.Overall,theseresearchactivitiesaimatfosteringdebateandcreatingaglobalnetworkoflearning.

II.I THEPOST-CARBONCITYINDEXThe PCI is a tool to assess andmonitor the status quo and the transformation process of a city intransition. It is based on a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which allow for the uniformcollection of data, facilitate benchmarking and aid in the identification of best practices. The KPIsbuildonexisting tools suchas theGreenCities Index (Denig2012),material flowanalysismethods(OECD2008;Rosadoetal.2014)andurbanmetabolism(Kennedyetal.2010)coupledwithlifecycleanalysis methodologies (Goldstein et al. 2013) and thus enable the measurement of societaltransformationsoccurringwithinatransitioncity.

A complete listofKPIs isprovided inSilvaetal. (2014).AsFigure1 illustrates, indicators cover thethreepillarsofsustainability,comprisingthesocial,environmentalandeconomicdimensions.


Moreover,allindicatorssatisfythefollowingcriteria:

• Relevance: indicatorsmust relate to the definition of a post-carbon city (see Section I ) andcitiesshouldbeabletoinfluencetheindicatorvalue;

• ClearMessage:indicatorsmusthaveacleartargetanddirectionandshouldbecomprehensiblebothintermsofnameandresults;

• DataAvailability:datafortheindicatorsshouldbeavailableonthecitylevel;

• DataQuality:datafortheindicatorsshouldbereliable.

Figure1:Post-CarbonCityIndex

Thesocialdimensioninvestigatesinterandintra-generationalequityduringthetransitionprocess.Ithighlights the benefits for inhabitants that arise through living in a city with reduced carbonemissions, giving special attention to standards of living, unemployment rates and poverty. Publicservices and infrastructures that are available for citizens as well as culturally valuable aspects ofgovernanceandcivicsocietyarefurtheranalysed.

Theenvironmentdimensionisconcernedwiththeecologicalprofileofthecity.Itassessesthecurrentand upcoming impacts on the ecosystems and also evaluates the resilience of the city. Theenvironmental dimension covers not only the final energy efficiency but also the energy sector ingeneral, emphasising energy intensive sectors such as transportation/mobility and building stock.Othersub-dimensionsconsideredarebiodiversity,airquality,wasteandwater.

Theeconomicdimensionfocusesonsustainableeconomicgrowthbasedonthewealthofthecitiesand their inhabitants. The labour market and the firms’ wellbeing are taken into account as they


demonstratethedynamicsofapost-carboneconomyinagreeneconomyparadigm.Publicfinancesarealsoanalysedsincetheyhelpdeterminewhetherornotacityispreparedtofacethechallengesarising through its transition process. As no city can become post-carbonwithout innovation, R&Dexpenditureisalsoconsideredwithinthisdimension.

POCACITOacknowledges that cities are complex, adaptive, social-ecological systemsand cannotbefullyunderstoodbyexaminingindividualcomponents(Silvaetal.2014).Forthisreason,thesethreedimensions are not regarded as silos but combined by the PCI in a comprehensive and holisticapproach.

II.II CASESTUDIESThecitycasestudiesareattheheartofPOCACITO.Thecaseswereinvestigatedindepthtoassessthevariouschallengesandopportunitiesofdifferentcitytypesandtherebyselectedtorepresentawiderangeofpossiblecity typologies,covering,e.g.,differentpopulationsizesaswellasgeographicandtopographicaspects.1

Within the case studies, the visioning and backcasting approach was chosen as the main tool.Differentfromotherscenariotechniques,visioningdoesnotaimatgeneratingdescriptionsoffuturesthatarelikelytohappenbutinsteadproducesafact-basedpotentialfuture.Theensuingbackcastingprocessthenestablisheshowthevisioncanbeattained.Itisthusnormativeratherthanexplorative,“workingbackwardsfromaparticulardesiredfutureend-pointtothepresentinordertodeterminethephysicalfeasibilityofthatfutureandwhatpolicymeasureswouldberequiredtoreachthatpoint”(Robinson1990,p. 283). For this reason, theworkpertaining toeach case studyentailed twocoreelements: the building of a vision (representing the normative endpoint) and the strategic orbackcasting scenario (drafting the procedure to reach the endpoint). Figure 2 provides a visualrepresentationofthebackcastingapproach.

Figure2:Visualisingthebackcastingprocess

1CitytypologieshavebeenanalysedextensivelywithinthePOCACITOproject.Adescriptionofthisanalysis isprovided in

SectionII.IIIofthisbooklet.


Source:TheNaturalStep2014

Each case study followed a five-step procedure, consisting of an initial assessment, vision building,backcastingexercises(scenariobuildingandsensitivityanalysis)andtransitionstrategydevelopment.Afteroutliningthepresentstateofthecitywithinan initialassessment,creativebrainstormingwasemployed to induce stakeholders to envision the future of their city and then develop qualitativescenarios describing how the transition to reach their post-carbon visionmight be translated intosinglestepsoractions.Obstaclesandopportunities thatmightbeencounteredalongthewaywereidentifiedand,inparticular,actionsneededtomeetfuturegoalswerehighlighted.

Participatory workshops implemented the five steps in the case study cities.2 These workshopscreated a living lab environment by bringing together stakeholders and scientists, enhancinginnovation and yielding to a diversity of views, constraints and knowledge. The five differentmethodologicalstepsaredescribedchronologicallyandinmoredetailbelow.

1.INITIALASSESSMENTThe initial assessment of each case study city consisted of an extensive analysis of the currentsituation inorderto identifykeychallengesandopportunities.Moreover,theassessmenthelpedtoestablishcitybaselineorbusiness-as-usualscenarios,whichservedasthefoundationsforsubsequentactivities.Theinitialassessmentisdonethroughtheuseofacommonmethodologyandbasedonaparticipatoryprocess.ItincludestheinterrelatedstagesdisplayedinFigure3.

Figure3:MethodologicalApproachoftheInitialAssessment

TheKPIshelpcitiesmonitortheirtransitiontowardsapost-carboncity,withindicatorscorrespondingto the three sustainabledevelopmentdimensionsof environment, society andeconomy.Alongsidethe KPIs, data collection ensures the quality of future scenarios and themodelling of impacts. Theselectedmethodsfordatagatheringandcollectioninvolvethefollowingtwocomponents:

2Thiscommonmethodologyallowedsomedegreeofadaptationinordertoaccountforthegreatdiversityamongthecase

studycitiesandaccommodatetheirspecificneeds.Seealsopage9.


• Bottom-upcomponent–discussionswithlocalauthoritiesandotherselectedstakeholdersareused to complement the collection of quantitative data and enrich the contents of the casestudyassessmentreports;

• Top-downcomponent–completionoftheindicatorslist(Post-CarbonCityIndex)accordingtoareview of main statistical findings, existing relevant strategic and planning documents andlegislationassuredaccuratequantitativedatacollection.

During a first initial assessment workshop, local stakeholders and scientists worked together toanalyse the data collected for the KPIs and discussed the current stage of development of therespectivecity.Theinitialassessmentfindingsforeachcasestudycitycanbefoundinthe CaseStudyCityInitialAssessmentReports.

2.VISIONINGTheworkshopforthevisioningexercisedeterminedthedesiredendpointoftransformationforeachpost-carboncity. ItwasguidedbythecommonPOCACITOstoryline,whichwasbasedonthesocio-economicpathway(SSP)“SSP2”formulatedinthecontextofthemostrecentIPCCAssessmentreport(Krey&Masera2014).TheSSP2representsa“businessasusualworld”,wherepresentdevelopmentsareassumedtocontinueasanextrapolationofrecentdecades.3 ThePOCACITOprojectaugmentedthe SSP2 by identifying external drivers thatwere considered relevant for the shaping of the localpost-carbonvisionsandconditioningurbandevelopmentandtransformationpolicies.4

The visioning workshop held in each case study city consisted of two parts, starting with thepresentationanddiscussionoftheinitialassessmentresultsandproceedingwiththevisionbuildingexercise.First,theresultsoftheinitialassessmentofthecitywerepresentedinordertoidentifythekeychallengesthecity is facing.Todeterminethedesiredendpointoftransformation,stakeholderswerethendividedintosmallergroupsandpromptedtocollectivelydrawimagesoftheirvision.Thiscreative activity aimed at encouraging stakeholders to relax and be more expressive, facilitatingdisconnection from daily policy discourse and encouraging interaction in a less formal way.Furthermore, stakeholders reflected on the vision as members of the community first and onlysecondly as representatives of their organisations. The stakeholder groups then rotated betweentables until each group had contributed to each drawing. Returning to their original place,stakeholders thensummarised thedrawingsandorganised their ideasusingamindmap.Themainthemeswere identifiedandthekeymessagesweresynthesisedtodevelopacompletepost-carbonvision.

3.QUALITATIVESCENARIOBUILDINGBased on the initial assessment and vision exercises, stakeholders developed qualitative scenarios.These scenarios described how the transition to reach the respective post-carbon visionsmight betranslatedintosinglestepsoractions.AsdescribedindepthbyJohnson&Breil(2015),thequalitativescenariosconsistoffivekeymethodologicalsteps:

3FormoreInformationonSSP2,seeKreyandMasera(2014)orBreiletal.(2014).4ForanoverviewofthesedriversseeBreiletal.(2014).


I. Definitionofanormative“desired”endpoint(visionfromthepreviousvisioningworkshop)

II. Considerationofscenariospecificobstaclesandopportunitiesinreachingtheendpoint

III. Identification of milestones or interim projects that would signify progress in reaching theendpoint

IV. Definitionofactionsthatmustbetakentogettotheendpoint

V. Validationofrobustnessofactionsinthecaseofotherbackgroundscenariosplayingout

Usingthe2050post-carbonvision,stakeholdersdefinedseveralendpointsthatrepresentedthemainsectors and ideas proposed in the visioning workshop. For each normative endpoint, stakeholderswrotedownonindexcardsthevariousobstaclesandopportunities,milestonesandinterimprojectsthat they anticipate encountering along the way towards the endpoint under a business-as-usualscenario (BAU). These index cards were then arranged on a timeline between now and 2050.Afterwards,stakeholdersbrainstormedconcreteactions toreach interimand finalgoalsandplacedtheseon the timeline aswell. This step included specific discussionsonwhathas tobedone,whoneedstodoitandwhenithastohappen.Finally,accordingtothemethodology,actionsidentifiedtoachieve the visionwere checked for robustness, considering the local impacts frompossible globalsocio-economicandenvironmentaltrendsfromnowto2050,i.e.,basedonthePOCACITOstorylineorbackgroundscenario.Duetodifferentconstraints,thisfinalstepcouldnotbeperformedinanyoftheworkshops.Itthusrepresentsaninterestingspringboardforfurtherresearch.

4.QUANTIFICATIONANDMODELLINGPROCESSThemethodsusedforthequantificationandmodellingprocessarebrieflysummarisedbelow.ForacompletedescriptionofallquantificationandmodellingmethodsseeHarrisetal.(2015),Harrisetal.(2016a)andHarrisetal.(2016b).

During the workshops on the quantification of impacts andmodelling, the Sensitivity Model (SM)developedanddescribedinVester(2004)wasadoptedinordertounderstandtheinterdependenciesbetweendifferentvariablesineachcity’surbanmetabolismandhencetoidentifyspecifickeyfactorsfor the individual case study cities. The SM was chosen for three reasons. First, it constitutes asystemsdynamicapproach,whichfacilitatesanunderstandingofthecomplex interactionsbetweenfactors within a city. Second, it does not require “precise/exact” data inputs but rather works bymodelling the influencesof variablesononeanother,making it a semi-quantitativemodelling tool.Third,itishighlyapplicablesince,likethePOCACITOproject,itisbasedonaparticipatoryapproach.

Inordertobetterreflecttheuseofthemodelandmakeitmoremarketabletothecitystakeholders,the approachwas adapted, utilised and renamed POCACITOCritical Influences Assessment (PCIA).5The main difference between the original approach and the PCIA is that the previous POCACITOworkshops were incorporated as an initial impact matrix and analysis before the quantificationworkshop took place. Thus, someof themore laboriouswork from theworkshopparticipantswasremoved,resultinginmoretimeforreview,discussionandrefinement.Theeventuallycarriedout

5ForacompletedescriptionoftheoriginalSMseeVester(2004).


PCIAapproachconsistedofthefollowingthreesteps:

I. Systemdescriptionandvariableset

II. Constructingtheimpactmatrix

III. Analysisofthevariablesfromtheimpactmatrixandothertools

The system description gives a holistic overview of the city in question. It is particularly helpful indescribing the boundaries of the urban metabolism, which is done using the information anddescriptionsgatheredbytheinitialassessment.

Theimpactmatrixmapstheinterdependenciesofthevariables.ForthePOCACITOcasestudies,thecasestudyresearchteamdevelopedthesematrices,usingthe informationgathered inthepreviousworkshopsonvisioningandscenarios,thusreducingrepetitiveworkforthestakeholderparticipantswhothenonlyhadtoreviewandverifythematrixinthePCIAworkshops.

Aftercompletingthematrix,anExcelbasedtoolsupportedthequantification.6Thistoolsumsacrosseach row and column to produce an “active” and “passive” score for each variable and therebyidentifiesspecificcritical influencesforthe individualcity.Localstakeholders ineachcasestudycitywerediscussedandverifiedthevalidityofthisPCIAanalysis.

Following the PCIA process, two scenarios were developed: the BAU and the PC2050. The BAUscenario is projected from current trends,which are derived from Selada et al. (2015) and can beunderstoodasabaselinefortheBAUscenario.Whereappropriate,theBAUconsidersprogressmadein relevantongoingandplannedprojects.ThePC2050buildson thequalitative scenariosdescribedearlierinthissectionanddevelopedinBreiletal.(2015).Itisthusaninterpretationandexpansionofthevisions,actionsandmilestones.Table1providesanoverviewofthecalculationapproachforeachofthemainelementsforquantifyingthePC2050scenarios.

Table1:OverviewofCalculationApproach

ELEMENT BRIEFDESCRIPTIONOFCALCULATIONMETHOD

Population Population projectionswere based on data obtained fromOxford Economics and other data from literature. For thedifference between BAU and PC2050, we utilised data from the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSP’s) of theInternationalInstituteforAppliedSystemsAnalysis(IIASA2015).

Energy Energy use and production used a range of data available from various sources to determine trends foreach city. Ingeneral,weestablishedacurrent trendandprojectedBAUusingassumptionsonchanges in thekey influence factorsincluding population change, transport, residential sector, business and industry. The key document for providing abackgroundreferencescenarioforBAUnationalenergyuseandproductionisthereportfortheEuropeanCommission,“EUEnergy,TransportandGHGEmissions.Trendsto2050”(Caprosetal.2014).

PC2050 was determined based on an interpretation of the post-carbon scenarios and the associated actions andmilestones.

Transport Various sources were used. Data on total energy used by the transport sector and themodal share breakdown andtrendswasobtainedfromthePOCACITOreport“IntegratedAssessmentReport” (Seladaetal.2015).Assumptionsareoutlined inAnnex2ofHarris et al. (2015) and arebasedon the current trends forBAUand an interpretationof thedegreeofsustainabletransportandthemodalshareforPC2050.

6ForadetaileddescriptionofbothPCIAandimpactmatrixanalysis,seeHarrisetal(2015).


ELEMENT BRIEFDESCRIPTIONOFCALCULATIONMETHOD

Housingandbuilding

Inmostcases,trendsfortheresidentialandservicesectorswereusedasabackgroundtoprojectingtheexpectedenergyuseofhousingandbuildings.Thiswasadjusteddependingonotherqualitativeinformation,suchasprojectsandpoliciesfor energy efficiency etc. For PC2050 an interpretation of the energy efficiency measures and other actions wereconsidered.

GDP GDP was calculated from the trends provided by Selada et al. (2015) and supplementary data where required. Inaddition,thedataprojectionswereobtainedfromOxfordEconomics.

BusinessandIndustry

Information on the industrymix and employmentwas highly variable; itwas very good in some cases and sparse inothers.Currenttrendsweregenerallyprojectedto2050withsomemoderationduetoexpectedlimitstothetrends(i.e.anexpectedceilingtothegrowthoftheservicesector).

Source:Harrisetal.2015

Asanext step, the impactsof thePC2050 scenariosare compared to theBAUoutcomesacrossallthreedimensionsofPOCACITO:environment,socialandeconomic.

Theimpactsmethodologyconsistsofthefollowingfourmaincomponents:

I. KPIassessmentandqualitativeanalysisII. Quantitativeanalysis

a. EnergyandGHGb. Environmentalfootprint(usingEE-MRIO)

III. Eco-systemservicesa. Spatialmodellingofcitydevelopmentfor2050b. Recreationalbenefitsfromurbangreenareas(onlyforCopenhagenandMalmö)

IV. Socio–economicassessmenta. Investmentcostsb. Cost-benefitanalysis

TheKeyPerformanceIndicator(KPI)appliesthePOCACITOKPIs(Seladaetal.2014)toderiveasemi-quantitativeassessmentoftheexpectedchangeforeachindicatorunderbothofthescenarios.

Thequantitativeanalysisconsistsoftwosteps.First,energyuseandresultingdirectGHGemissionsareprojectedtooccurunderthescenariosusingemissionsfactors.Second,theindirectfootprintofthe human activities in the cities including consumption is calculated using theMulti-Region InputOutput (MRIO)methodology7 and theEXIOBASE8database, assuming that the city footprint canbecalculatedfromfinaldemandofhouseholdconsumptionandgovernmentexpenditure.

Thepotentialimpactscausedbyurbansprawlandchangesinlandusearequantifiedbymodellingacontinuationoftherecenttrends.

FortheCopenhagenandMalmöcasestudies,therecreationalbenefitsprovidedbyurbangreenareasareassessed.Duetolimitationsindataavailabilityandtheprojectscope,thiswasonlyconductedforthesetwocities.

7http://www.oneplaneteconomynetwork.org/timeline/mrio-database.html8http://www.exiobase.eu


Finally,afurthersocio-economicassessmentcomparestheinvestmentcostsandpotentialbenefitsofBAUandPC2050.

Figure4:ModellingandquantificationprocesseswithinWP5

5.ROADMAPBUILDING

The fifthand last localworkshopdiscussedthe impactsof the initial setofmeasuresand identifiedadditional actions necessary to close the gap towards the local 2050post-carbon vision. It therebyprovidedadditionalinputforthelocalstrategypapersandfortheEU2050Roadmap,whicharetwoofthecoreoutcomesoftheproject.TheroadmapworkshophelpedintegratetheworkdoneonthelocallevelintotheEU2050Roadmap.

CHALLENGESINANDDIFFERENCESBETWEENCASESTUDIESThecommonmethodologydescribedabovewasappliedwithsomevariationsinallcities.Challengesoccurredespeciallyregardingthequantificationandmodellingprocesses,asnotalldatarequiredwasavailableineverycasestudycity.Moreover,adaptationwasneededeitherbecausethelocalpoliticalsituationdidnotallowforextensivestakeholderparticipation(inLisbonacombinationofinterviewsand a small workshop was chosen) or because the approach to creative brainstorming—askingparticipantstodrawpicturesoftheirvision—wasdeemedunsuitableforsometypesofstakeholders(Barcelona, Istanbul). Inorder tocreateefficiencygainsandgiven thecloseness inboth frameworkandgeographicconditions,jointworkshopswereorganisedforthecasestudycitiesTorinoandMilan.InthecasestudycityofCopenhagen,workshopswerereplacedwithinterviewsasthecitycouldnotcommittothefullPOCACITOprocess.Instead,anexistingpost-carbonvisionwasused.


II.III GLOBALINVOLVEMENTAs POCACITO recognises the benefits ofmutual learning at a regional and global level, the projectinteractedwithseveralpartnercountriesgloballyanddevelopedaplatformtofacilitateareciprocaldialogue and knowledge exchange on urban best practices between stakeholders. This platformconsistsoftheInventoryofUrbanSustainabilityInitiativesandaMarketplaceofIdeas.Furthermore,the project pursued additional methods of sharing and exporting know-how globally, such aswebinarsandstudytours.

INVENTORYOFURBANSUSTAINABILITYINITIATIVESTheInventoryofUrbanSustainabilityInitiativescoversEuropeandothercountriesaroundtheworld.Itwasdeveloped to improve theknowledgebaseon successful city transition strategiesandat thesame time foster debates and mutual learning. The inventory is composed of three parts: AnInventoryofLeadingCities(Beveridgeetal.2014),anInventoryofGoodCityPractices(Döhleretal.2014)andanInventoryofGoodNationalandEUPractices(Beveridge&Döhler2015).

The Inventory of Leading Cities was developed to better contextualise the notion of “leading” inrelationtocities(aswellaspractices)andtoidentifysimilaritiesamongcitieswithrespecttowhatisconducive for a transition to a “post-carbon” state. The following fourmethodological steps wereappliedtodeveloptheInventoryofLeadingCities:

I. Stateof theart:This stepwasan initialgatheringofdataon the levelandqualityofaction incities.Thecollecteddatafocussedtoalargeextendonpost-carboninitiativesincitiesacrosstheglobe.

II. Expertsurvey:Inthisstep,weasked25expertsinurbanclimateandenergypolicyandplanningfromacademic,policyandpracticebackgroundstonominatecitiestheyconsidered“leading”thepost-carbontransitionandtoprovidebriefexplanationsastowhy.

III. Multi-dimensionalmatrices:Thethirdstepwasfeedingthedataintomulti-dimensionalmatricesand applying filter criteria to produce leading cities lists according to performance criteria andlevel of activity.9 These were then grouped according to context variables: urban population,economicdevelopmentandclimateandenergy.

IV. Develop Criteria: In the last step, we developed criteria to select leading cities according toperformanceandaction.

The Inventory of Good City Practices builds upon the Inventory of Leading Cities. It identifies andcollects basic information on 100 good city practices within the leading cities. This includes threetypesofbest/goodpractices,i.e.:

I. Comprehensive city-wide strategies, such as master plans and sustainability strategies for thewholecityorcity-regionwhichmayincludelong-termstrategiesandvisions;

9POCACITOsleadingcitieswerechosenaccordingtothefollowingcriteria:minimumthreemembershipsininitiatives(e.g.

EnergyCities)ornominationincityrankings(e.g.GreenCityIndex)orminimumoneexpertsurveynominationandapproved Covenant ofMayors (COM) Sustainable Energy Action Plan (SEAP) or European Energy Award (EEA) orminimumtwoexpertsurveynominations.FormoreinformationonleadingcitiesseeBeveridgeetal.(2014).


II. Demonstration and pilot projects that aim to transform specific neighbourhoods, includinginitiativesfordifferenttypesofneighbourhoods;

III. Sectoral policy initiatives such as the introduction of congestion charges or the strategicdevelopmentofbikelanesinthetransportsector,includingthemostimportantpolicyareassuchasenergy,transport,food,greenspace,etc.

The Inventory of Good National and EU Practices completes the overarching Inventory of Sustain-abilityInitiatives.InlinewiththeInventoryofGoodCityPractices,itsmethodologyisqualitativeanddescriptive.MaterialfortheInventoryofGoodNationalandEUPracticeswascollectedfromscientificliterature, particularly on multi-level interactions in local post-carbon, energy and sustainabilitytransitionprocesses. Itprovides someemblematicexamplesof goodEUandnationalpracticesandtakesintoaccountthefindingsfromboththeInventoryofLeadingCitiesandtheInventoryofGoodCityPractices.

Allinall,theInventoryofUrbanSustainabilityInitiativesprovidesinsightintosomeofthekeyEUandnationalpracticesaswellaspreliminaryconceptualthinkingonthetopic.However,itdoesnotofferthe depth of empiricalmaterial necessary tomake substantive claims about the effects of EU andnationalpractices.

TYPOLOGYOFCITIESTheTypologyofCities reportdevelopedbyBeveridgeetal. (2015)canbeconsidereda firststep inclosingtheresearchgapregardingthediversityofurbantransitions,particularlyonhowcontextualfactors (e.g. regarding the economic state, population size and climate) shape actions andperformance within cities. On the basis of the Inventory of Urban Sustainability Initiatives, theTypologyofCities identifies indicativeexamplesofurbansustainabilitytransitionspermid-sizedcitytypeanddevelopsapreliminarynon-comprehensivetypology.

Due to the challenge of acquiring comparable data on cities’ environmental performance, theapproachisinlargepartexplorativeandqualitative.Thecitiesareprofiledintermsoftheircontextsofaction,basicstrategyandmainachievements.Fromthis,thepurposeofthetypologyistoprovidea basic structure for analysing urban sustainability transitions: to help identify commonalities anddifferencesacrossurbancontexts. This identification isof special importance fordisseminatingandscalingupeffectivepractices across European citiesunderdifferent contextual conditions andwithlimitedfunding.

MARKETPLACEOFIDEASThe Marketplace of Ideas aims to reach stakeholders worldwide. It provides easily consumableinformationand resources thatexpand the reachof individualpartners.Beyond thismulti-prongedmunicipalactoroutreachapproach,theproject’scitynetworkconnectsEuropeanmunicipalitiesandthusfostersintegrationandcohesion.Evengreaterleverageofinnovativeinformationexchangeandknowledgeentrepreneurshipiscreatedbyincorporatingnon-EUcitypartnersascontributorsandatthe same time as recipients of “Online Marketplace” information. The mechanics of the “OnlineMarketplace” thus establish a permanently growing database of sustainable urban planning andgovernanceinformation.


OTHERWAYSTOSHAREANDEXPORTKNOWLEDGEBest practices identified within the project were additionally exchanged by means of workshops,study tours and severalweb-based tools. Innovative solutions are also spread to non-EU emergingcitiesviaaweb-basedknowledgeplatform.Moreover,aclosercooperationwasestablishedwithtwocities in China and Brazil. The knowledge exchange goes beyond the exchange of technologicaloptions andalso assesses thedynamics cities canhave indeveloping low-carbon resourceefficientsolutions.

III TOWARDSANEUROADMAPFORPOST-CARBONCITIES

III.I INVENTORYOFURBANSUSTAINABILITYINITIATIVESLEADINGCITIESINVENTORYWithintheInventoryofLeadingCities,94Europeancitieswereidentifiedandbothbasicinformationand data was gathered to show their progress with respect to development towards post-carbonfutures. A great diversity of cities emerged, as the leading cities varymarkedly in size—the largestbeingLondon(approx.8.3million)andthesmallest,Großschönau,Austria(approx.1,200).Moreover,thereareextremelywealthycities,suchasBasel(GDP/capinPPS:€127,365)andmuchpoorercities,suchasSkopje(GDP/capinPPS:€9,000).Thereisalsoawidevariationinclimateandenergyuseintermsofheatingdays,fromOulainFinland(6142daysin2000-2009)toOeirasandCascaisinPortugal(833daysin2000-2009).ToprovideasnapshotoftheListofLeadingCities,acondensedversionofitisprovidedinTable2.ForacompletelistseeBeveridgeetal.(2014).

Table2:ExamplesofLeadingCities,ListedinDescendingOrderofPopulationSize

Leadingcity Country Population RegionalGDP/capinPPS

Averageheating-degreedays2000-2009

Membershipsininitiativesand

rankingsLondon UnitedKingdom 8.308.369 80.400 2.477 3Barcelona Spain 1.611.822 28.400 1.826 4München Germany 1.388.308 42.200 3.198 4Brussels Belgium 1.140.000 55.600 2.452 4Stockholm Sweden 897.700 43.300 3.882 5Tampere Finland 220.446 26.300 4.879 5Jeseník CzechRepublic 11.600 16.500 3.356 2Judenburg Austria 10.130 28.100 3.428 3Hlinsko CzechRepublic 9.900 16.700 3.407 2


Notallofthe94chosencitiescanbeconsideredEuropeanleadersperse,buteverycitywasselectedfor a combinationof specific reasons (e.g. city networkmembership, rankings, expert opinion, EEAcertification, and Covenant of Mayors SEAP approval). For example, cities such as Jeseník (CzechRepublic) or Tuzla (Bosnia and Herzegovina) can be seen as leading at least in their national orregionalcontexts,eveniftheirperformanceisnotcomparabletowell-knownEuropeanleaderssuchas Barcelona or Copenhagen. Their inclusion should assist with developing a more contextualizedunderstanding of good practices, allowing us to see which practices have been implemented indifferenttypesofcities.

Theaimofthislisthasbeentoshiftthefocusfromthinkingintermsofthe“number1”orthe“topten” and a competition between the usual suspects, to amore inclusive reflection on the broaderspectrumofurbanpost-carbontransitionsactivitiesfoundincities.Theapproachalsosoughttogivebetter consideration to the different contexts of action as well as the constraint and opportunitystructuresinwhichcitiesfindthemselves.

GOODNATIONALANDEUPRACTICESThe Inventory of GoodNational Practices analysed examples of good EU and national practices. Aconsistent finding is that EU and national initiatives can create conducive frameworks,which canultimatelymotivatecitiestoadoptlocalclimatestrategiesor,throughfundingandadvisorysupport,provideeffectivesupportintheirimplementation.However,centralisedortop-downenforcementsoflocalclimateactionremaintheexception.EvenintheUK,whereacentralizedapproachexists,localagencyplaysanimportantroleinthesuccessfulimplementationofclimatepolicies.

Horizontal initiativesarebotheffectiveand increasinglyapparent inEurope,buttheircompliance isneverguaranteedandquestionsremainastohowlessadvancedcitiescanbeencouragedtobecomeactivemembers.Incontrast,itisthecasethatmanynetworkstendtobemosteffectiveforcitiesthatarealreadyrelativelyadvanced.Eventhoughconstraintsareoftenrelatedtoaparticularcombinationof capacity deficits (e.g. lack of finances, social capital, political disagreement), and hence cannoteasily be ‘solved’ from the outside, higher multi-national policy support for less developed citiesmightbeneededtoencouragethem.


TheInventoryofGoodNationalandEUPracticesconcludesthatthereisnoformofgovernance(bethathierarchical,verticalorhorizontal)thatismoreeffectivethanothers.Instead,acombinationofgoodpracticesatdifferentlevelsislikelyneededforthetransformationofsociety.

III.II INITIALASSESSMENTOFCASESTUDYCITIESTheevaluationandcomparisonofthepre-definedKPIsinthecasestudycitiessuggestthatthereisageneral trendtowardsapost-carbonparadigm.However, theresultsof the initialassessmentshowthatcurrentlycitiesarelocatedatdifferentdevelopmentstages.Abriefsummaryoftheseresultsisgivenbelow.

Barcelonacanbeconsideredat the forefrontof the smart citiesmovement. Themetropolitanareahas implemented several strategies that promote a post-carbon transition in the areas of energy,mobility, water and waste management and biodiversity. Along with these strategies, smarttechnologiesarealreadywidelyused.Unemploymentandpovertyremainareasofconcernandneedtobeaddressedfurtherinthefuture.

Istanbul’s environmental performance is not only theweakest dimension of the city, it is also themost underestimated one by the stakeholders. Major problems are growing urbanisation, urbansprawl,pollutionandstressinnaturalprotectionareas.However,Istanbulhasimprovedremarkablyineconomicandsocialterms.

Lisbonhas launchedseveralstrategiesandprojects intheareasofenergy,mobilityandbiodiversitybuttheimpactsarestilllimited.Unemploymentandpovertyrisksareincreasingduetotheeconomicandfinancialcrisis.

Litoměřice is a small city that is influenced by the development of higher territorial units. Thegeothermalpowerplantfutureprojectdemonstratesthecity’sambitiontobecomeself-sufficientinenergy matters, but Litoměřice is lacking further projects or strategies needed to lead thetransformationtobecome“post-carbon”by2050.

Malmö implemented an ambitious energy strategy, bringing along positive impacts in carbonemissionsandenergyconsumption.Itisayoungandmulticulturalcitywithreasonableeconomicandsocialperformance.

Milanisaleadingcityineconomicterms,buttheinvestmentinenvironmentalissuesiscomparativelylow.PollutionandpoorairqualityaretwoofMilan’smosturgentconcerns.

TurinsharesMilan’sproblemsofpollutionandairquality. It isan innovativecity,butduetostrongspecialisation,itisbeingaffectedbyunemploymentandpoverty.

Rostockadopted importantmeasures toreduce itsenvironmental footprint.Strategiesandprojectsare implemented in the areas of air quality, waste and water management as well as sustainablemobilityandhavedeliveredpositiveimpacts.

Zagreb’spopulationishighlyqualifiedinacademictermsandtherearesomegrassrootsmovementsinplace.However,alargeweaknessispresentthroughthelackoflong-terminitiativesandprojects.


III.III LOCALSTRATEGYPAPERSThissectiondiscussesthemostessentialoutcomesofthelocalstrategypapers.Thesedocumentsarethe result of the inclusive methodological approach discussed in Section II.II of this booklet.Therefore,thelocalstrategypapersareinfluencedbybothexpertresearchandstakeholdervisions.

KEYPERFORMANCEINDICATORANALYSISTheKPIanalysis findsgoodoverallperformances inmostcasestudycitiesacross thecategories forboth scenarios.Most cities performespeciallywell in environmental andenergy related indicators.OnlyIstanbulfacestheriskofvastlyincreasingGHGemissionsduetoalargeincreaseinpopulation,affluence,associatedenergyuseandlimitedprogressinrenewableenergy.

Besides these good overall performances, there is a clear difference between BAU and PC2050. InBAU,mostcitiesonlyprovide“likelypositive”progressmeaningthatthegeneraldirectionispositive,butprogressislikelytobetooslowtoachievethepost-carbonstatusby2050.

InthePC2050visionsandscenariostherewasagapformostcitiesinregardstosomeenvironmentalfactors such as waste recovery. This partly reflects the methodology used in the research, whichallowed only for both a limited number of workshops and limited revisions of the actions andmilestonesassociatedwiththescenarios.

Thepovertylevelisakeyareaofconcernforseveralcities,especiallyforLitoměřice,Milan,RostockandTurinwheretheprojectedprogressislikelynegativeunderBAUandeithernegativeornotvisibleunder PC2050. Progress within themajority of remaining cities is projected to be slightly positiveunder PC2050. Istanbul is the only case study city expected to have significantly positivedevelopmentsinthisregard.

ENERGYANDGHGEMISSIONSThescenariosforenergyandGHGemissionsaredevelopedwiththestandardterritorialmethodandwith the footprint analysis. The standard territorial method considers only direct emissions fromenergyuseandproduction.Incontrast,thefootprintanalysistakesintoaccountthesupplychainsofproductsconsumedwithinthecities. Itdefinestheenvironmental footprintofacityasallproductsfinallyconsumedwithinthecitybythecitizens.10Thefirstpartofthissectionfocusesontheresultsfromthestandardterritorialmethod.Thesecondpartwillcomparetheseresultswiththeresultsofthefootprintanalysis.

THESTANDARDTERRITORIALMETHOD

TheanalysisofenergyusepercapitashowsadeclineforeightofthetencasestudycitiesintheBAUandforallofthecasestudycitiesinthePC2050scenario.TheonlyexceptionsintheBAUareLisbonandIstanbul.Whilethissuggeststhatdevelopmentsgenerallyheadintherightdirection,thecurrentuseofenergypercapita/yearhighlightsroomforenergyefficiencyimprovementsinthemajorityofcities.Theaverageamongallcitiesisaround10MWhofenergypercapita/year,withBarcelonabeingatthelowerendoftherangewith6.8MWhpercapita/year.

10ForinformationonthequantificationofcityfootprintsseeHarrisetal.(2016b).


Figure5:EnergyUsePerCapitaCurrentlyComparedtoBAUandPC2050

The analysis of currentGHGemissions per capita showsdiverse levels, ranging from2.6 tCO2e percapita/year in Barcelona to over 7.2 tCO2e per capita/year in Lisbon. Alongside Copenhagen andLitoměřice, Barcelona also secures the lowest numbers in PC2050 and in BAU. Lisbon improvesremarkably in both scenarios, handing over the highest number of GHG emissions per capita toIstanbul. Istanbul is also the only city that shows a negative trend. With its large increase inpopulation,affluence,associatedenergyuseandlimitedprogressinrenewableenergy,Istanbulfacestheriskofvastly increasingitsGHGemissionsinthecomingyears.Thedecreasesforallothercitiesaresignificant.Emissionsare lowerunderPC2050compared toBAU, ranging from60%forRostockandTurin toup to96% forCopenhagen.The largestdifferencesbetween theBAUand thePC2050scenario can be observed in Copenhagen and Litoměřice, which suggests that they developed themostambitiousPC2050scenarios.

Figure6:GHGEmissionsPerCapita

0

5

10

15

20

25

Energyuseperca

pita/year(MWh)

Current

BAU

PC2050

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

tCO2pe

rcap

ita/year

Current

BAU

PC2050


Lookingat thecurrenteconomicoutputperunitofGHGemissions,BarcelonaandCopenhagenareagainthebestperformers,creatingmorethan10EURofeconomicoutputperkgCO2e.Litoměřiceislocatedattheothersideofthespectrum,producingonlyslightlymorethan2EUR/kgCO2e.Allothercities find themselves between 3 and 9 EUR/kgCO2e. An important fact is that all cities improveremarkably under both BAU and PC2050, which implies a decoupling of GHG emissions fromeconomic output. In PC2050, the best performers again appear to be Copenhagen and Barcelona,withCopenhagengenerating581EUR/kgCO2e.

Figure7:GDP(EUR)CreatedforEachkgofGHGEmission

FOOTPRINTANALYSIS

TheresultsofthefootprintanalysisforGHGemissionspercapitadifferstronglyincomparisontotheterritorial calculations. As discussed above, GHG emissions on a per capita basis decrease for themajorityofcitiesunderbothBAUandPC2050(butmostdramaticallyunderPC2050)whenmeasuredwiththestandardterritorialmethod.Incomparison,Figure8showsthatthetotalGHGemissionspercapita(direct+upstream)increaseforeightofthetencitiesunderBAUandPC2050whenmeasuredwiththefootprintanalysis,aresultthatcanbeaccountedforbyupstreamemissions.UnderPC2050,this increase ranges from234% in Istanbul to16% inCopenhagen.OnlyMilanandTurinmanageaslightdecreaseinBAUandPC2050comparedtothebaseyearemissions.Thisislikelylinkedtomoremodest increases in GDP per capita for these cities, but it may also be due to limitations of themodelling.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

EUR/kgCO2e

Current

BAU

PC2050


Figure8:DirectandIndirectGHGEmissionsforallCaseStudyCitiesfor2007,BAUandPC2050

Figure9andFigure10depictthechangeinGHGemissionspercapitainBAUandPC2050comparedto the base year. Figure 9 shows the percentage change calculated with the standard territorialmethod and Figure 10 shows the percentage change with the footprint analysis. A comparisonbetweenthetwofiguresagainhighlightsthedifferencesarisingthroughtheuseofthetwodifferentcalculationmethods.

From these results one can conclude that the calculatingmethod is very decisive.Moreover, theyshowthatifthequantificationmethodincludesindirectemissions,allcasestudycitiesrunahighriskofmissingtheir2050visionofbecomingpost-carboncity.

Figure 9: Percentage Change in GHG Emissions Per Capita from 2007 to BAU and PC2050 UsingStandardTerritorialCalculationMethod

-150% -100% -50% 0% 50% 100%

BarcelonaCopenhagen

IstanbulLisbon

LitomericeMalmoMilan

RostockTurin

Zagreb

PC2050

BAU


Figure10:PercentageChangeinGHGEmissionsPerCapitafromBaseYeartoBAUandPC2050UsingFootprintAnalysis

LANDUSECHANGEThe analysis of land use change delivers significantly differing results for the BAU and PC2050scenarios. This is to a largepart triggeredby thedifferent assumptions takenwithin the scenarios.Whilst the BAU scenarios are modelled by extrapolating the 2000-2012 development trends, thePC2050scenariosassumethatpoliciesensurenonetfurtherdevelopmentofnon-urbanland.Hence,densificationisacentralpolicyforthePC2050scenarios.

The BAU results are of high interest as they illustrate the potential impact and encroachment offuture developments on non-urban land. Despite some cities experiencing population decline, allcitieswillexperiencedevelopmentofcurrentlynon-urbanareaifcurrenttrendscontinue.Thecitieswith the highest potential for further loss of non-urban land, ranging from 43.7% to 19.9%, areMalmö, Istanbul, Copenhagen and Barcelona. This is of concern for two primary reasons. First,changesinlandusemaythreatengreenrecreationalareasandnon-urbanland,whichareincreasinglyrecognisedbyresearchas important forhealth,well-beingandqualityof life.Second,researchalsoshowsthatsprawlingcitiesrequiremoreinfrastructure(andarethereforemoreresourceintensive),arelessenergyefficientandhaveahighercarbonfootprintthandensecityareas.

SOCIO-ECONOMICANALYSISThesocio-economicanalysisshowsapositivebenefit-costratioforthemajorityofcasestudycitiesinthe current situation;onlyCopenhagen, IstanbulandMalmö facenegativevalues. Thisbenefit-costratioisevenmorepositiveunderPC2050,whereitispositiveforallcitiesapartfromIstanbul(duetopoorairquality). InPC2050,theratiorangesfrom0.6to6.4, thehighestnumbersbelongingtothecitiesofZagreb,Barcelona,MilanandLitoměřice.However,directcomparisonsofthedifferentcitiescannotbemadeastherangeofcostsforPC2050isrelatedtoboththesizeofthecityandthedegreeofactionsstipulatedinthecityvisions(whichwereusedasabasisforthemodelling).

-50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

Barcelona

Copenhagen

Istanbul

Lisbon

Litomerice

Malmo

Milan

Rostock

Turin

Zagreb

PC2050

BAU


Althoughthesocio-economicanalysisutilisesasimplifiedanalysisofcostsandbenefits,i.e.,theonlybenefits covered in the analysis are based on changes in air-quality and premature deaths, it stillshowsthatthereturnoncostsforapost-carbontransitionisverypositiveformostcities.

FINALCONCLUSIONSONLOCALSTRATEGYPAPERS

The analysis performed by the POCACITO project concludes that a post-carbon status will not bereached by 2050 for the majority of case study cities under the current BAU trajectories. OnlyCopenhagenisexpectedtoreachalevelofunder1tonneCO2epercapita/year.Istanbulfallsontheupperendofthespectrum,reachingalevelofupto5tonnesCO2epercapita/yearandallremainingcitiesareintherangeof2-4tonnesCO2epercapita/year.Duetoweakactionsandmilestones,mostofthecasestudycitieswillmissthepost-carbonstatusevenunderthePC2050scenarios.

Cities are the drivers of economic growth, but they are at the same time the root cause of themajority of consumption. Hence, there is a key role for cities to limit their footprint impact byfosteringandpromotingthecirculareconomy.Therearemanywaysinwhichacitycanhelpfosteracirculareconomy,suchasbyprovidingthefacilitiesandinfrastructurerequiredtoreuse,repurpose,refurbish, and remanufacture as well as the more traditional (but as yet not perfected or fullyimplemented)recycling.Citieshavetheopportunitytoworktogetherwithbusinessestoenablethis,buttheycanalsohelpfosternewinnovativebusinessesthroughappropriatepolicies.

Analysisalsosuggeststhatthebenefitsofachievingthepost-carbonstatusfaroutweighthepotentialcosts in most cases if effective and ambitious long-term strategies are implemented immediately,especiallyforenergyefficiencyandrenewableenergies.Despitebeingsimplified,ouranalysisshowsthatthebenefit-costratioispositiveinnineoutoftencities(althoughanimprovedPC2050strategyfor the remainingcity, Istanbul,wouldalsomake thisvaluepositive).Additionally,energycostsaresignificantlylower(byupto45%forLisbon)underPC2050duetotheincreasedemphasisonenergyefficiencymeasuresandthecorrespondingdecreaseinrequiredcapacity.Furthermore,thousandsofjobsrelatedtotheenergyefficiencyandrenewableenergyprovisionscouldbecreatedbythePC2050measures.Inparticular,thefieldofenergyefficiencybringsalongsignificantopportunitiestoimprovethemeasuresofthePC2050formostcities.However,theonlywaythiscouldberealisedistoembedanenergyefficiencyapproachinpolicytofosterconcertedactionontransport,buildings,appliancesand theplanningof infrastructure. Finally, a lower energy demandwould subsequently reduce therequirementsforinstalledcapacityofrenewableenergyanditsstorage.

Majorconcernsforallcitiesaretheconsequencesof landusechangeandsocialdisparity.Thisalsoholds for thosecitieswithaprojectedpopulationdecreaseandup to43%ofnon-urban landbeingconvertedtourbanland.OneofthemostimportantcommonKPIswithapoorperformancein2050isthe poverty level and the disparity between rich and poor. Such social issues certainly need to behighlighted.


III.IV 2050EUROADMAPThe POCACITO 2050 EU Roadmap is directed at national and EU policymakers and is as suchintrinsicallydifferentthanthelocalstrategypapers,whichpresentacitydevelopmentstrategy.Mostimportant,theRoadmapdescribes lessons learnedandactionsrequired inordertotransformacityintoapost-carboncity.

FocussingonkeylessonslearnedtheEU2050Roadmapfindsthatboththevisioningandbackcastingexercises are highly successful in raising awareness of the need to act today. Moreover, theseexercises increase the understanding of stakeholders of the diverging long-term views of othercitizens,helpingtobuildaconsensusonlong-termobjectivesandfacilitatethetaskofidentifyingthenecessaryregulatoryandfinancialconditionsthatwouldenablethecitytochange.

Akey findingconcerningstakeholder involvement is thataheterogeneousgroupofsocio-economicactorsneedstobeensured;otherwisethestrategydevelopedislikelyaffectedand/orbiasedbynon-majoritarianinterests.Thisneedstobeconsideredupfront.

TheRoadmapfurthermorefindsthatiftheplannedactionsofacityaretooweaktoreachaspecificgoalquantitativestudiescanbeusedtoencouragefurtheractionbythestakeholdersastheyenabletoassesstheimpactofpoliticaldecisionsondecarbonisation.

Nexttothesefindings,theRoadmapprovidesavarietyofkeypolicyrecommendations:

I. Citiesneedtohaveanintegratedapproachtocitymanagementandplanningthatisinlinewithlong-termobjectives.

II. Support tocapacitybuildingshouldbeprovided.Thiscouldbedonethrough initiatives,suchastheCovenantofMayors.Moreover,adatabaseofbestpracticesgloballyshouldbesetup.

III. Stakeholder-driven visioning andbackcasting shouldbe appliedwhendesigning strategies for acity. This increases the acceptance and understanding of city stakeholders about necessarychanges.

IV. Cityinfrastructuresandservicesshouldbeopen,inclusiveandaffordableforcitizens.

V. Citiesneedtobere-naturalisedandmorelocalised.

VI. National and EU strategies should to be drafted with the help and engagement of cityrepresentatives.

VII. The EU should support the process of reallocating competences, in line with the subsidiarityprinciple,inordertoadequatelyfacethechallengesthatcitiesface.

VIII. The EU should provide clearer and more stringent requirements for energy efficiency whilefurtheringtheimplementationofcirculareconomyaction.

IX. Goodstatisticsatthecitylevelarerequiredtobeabletoanalysetheneedsandbenchmarkcities.

X. More researchon the interplaybetweenclimate,energypoliciesand localdevelopment shouldbesupported.

XI. Schooleducationneedstoplacemoreemphasisonenvironmentalsustainability.


XII. Internationalcollaborationbetweencitiesshouldbeincreased.ThiscanbedonethroughtheuseoftheKPIsdevelopedbythePOCACITOproject.


IV ROADAHEADThe POCACITO project addressed the significant challenges local stakeholders facewhen aiming totransform their cities into zero emission or post-carbon areaswhile at the same time dealingwithboth social and economical difficulties. The project developed strategies the on local, regional andinternationallevelandatthesametimeidentifiedareasforfurtherresearch.

Incombinationwithbasicinformationandcityleveldata,theKPIsthatweredevelopedintheinitialphase of POCACITO enabled the analysis of the current stage of development of cities. Since thisanalysis provided the basis for all following methodological steps, it proved very useful for theeventually produced local strategies and for the 2050 EU Roadmap. However, a broader databasewould have led to even more robust results. In this regard, the NACE 3 level provides a goodbackgroundfordatacollections.Unfortunately,notallcitiescorrespondtoNACE3levelcells,whichhampersthepossibilitiestoanalyseandcomparethedifferentcases.AbroaderprovisionofNACE3leveldataisthereforeintheinterestofpolicymakersfromlocaltoregional(EU)levels.

Lookingahead,thedevelopmentofatoolforlumpsumanalysisofcityleveldatacouldproveuseful,asithasthepotentialtoconsiderablysimplifyandthusimprovethequantificationofdata.Moreover,there ishighpotentialtoexploitthedataandinformationgatheredwithintheInventoryofLeadingCities. A further stepwould be to begin validating thePOCACITO results by comparing themmorevigorously with particular ranking schemes, especially those with stronger and more transparentmethodologiesliketheSiemensGreenCityIndex.

Finally, different POCACITO analyses identified the impacts of geographical definitions on cityperformances. In fact, thestandardterritorialcalculationmethod,which focusesnarrowlyondirectemissions, delivers significantly differing results in comparison to the footprint analysis, whichincludestheindirectemissionsofacity(andhencethesurroundingregion).Asincludingtheindirectemissionsgivesamoreholisticpictureofacity’senvironmental impact, itmaybedesirabletoshiftfrom“post-carboncities”to“post-carbonregions”inthegeographicaldimension.


REFERENCES

AdgerW.2006.“Vulnerability.”InGlobalEnvironmentalChange16(3):268–81.AdgerW,NigelNW&TompkinsEL.2005.“SuccessfulAdaptationtoClimateChangeacrossScales.”Global

EnvironmentalChange15(2):77–86.Beveridge R, Döhler F & Sterzel T. 2014. “Report on Leading Cities Inventory.”

http://pocacito.eu/content/report-leading-cities-inventory.Beveridge R, & Döhler F. 2015. “Report on Good National and EU Practices.”

http://pocacito.eu/content/good-national-and-eu-practices.BeveridgeR,RidgwayM,KernK, StroiaC, FujiwaraN,Dupas S&Sterzel T. 2015. “TowardsaPreliminary

TypologyofPost-carbonTransitions.”http://pocacito.eu/result/project-reports/towards-preliminary-typology-post-carbon-transitions.

BreilM,BiganoA,CattaneoC,RidgwayM,TuerkA,LettmayerG,FujiwaraN&DupasS.2014a.„DefinitionofStorylines for the FramingofUrbanScenarios.”http://pocacito.eu/result/project-reports/definition-storylines-framing-urban-scenarios.

BreilM,JohnsonK.,JensenA,LombardiP,StariccoL,KnoblauchD,AlbrechtS,KordicZ,PasickoR,VlasicS,LjungkvistH,ErikssonE,HarrisS,NunezFerrerJ,InfeliseF,SeladaC,MendesG,AlmeidaAL,SkopovaH & Havranek M. 2014b. „Report on Stakeholder Workshops.” http://pocacito.eu/result/collated-case-study-documents-project-reports/report-stakeholder-workshops.

BreilM,CattaneoC,&JohnsonK.2015.“QuantitativeScenarioBuildingforPost-CarbonCities.“http://pocacito.eu/result/project-reports/qualitative-scenario-building-post-carbon-cities.

CaprosP,DeVitaA,TasiosN&PapdopoulosD.2014.“EUEnergy,TransportandGHGEmissions.”Trendsto2050. Reference scenario 2013. Report for the Directorate-General for Energy, the Directorate-General for Climate Action and the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, EuropeanCommission.

Denig S. 2012. “The Green Citiy Index. A Summary of the Green City Index Research Series.”http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/features/greencityindex_international/all/de/pdf/gci_report_summary.pdf.

Döhler F, Beveridge R, LuebkeM, Turner I, Pidoux B & Dupas S. 2014. “Good City Practices Inventory.”http://pocacito.eu/content/good-city-practices-inventory.

EvansG. 2008. “Transformation from ’Carbon Valley’ to a ’Post-Carbon Society’ in a Climate ChangeHotSpot:TheCoalfieldsoftheHunterValley,NewSouthWales,Australia.”InEcologyandSociety13(1):39.

Nunez Ferrer J, & Stoia C. 2016. “Collated Strategy Papers for the Case Study Cities.”http://pocacito.eu/result/collated-case-study-documents/collated-strategy-papers-case-study-cities.

GoldsteinB, BirkvedM,QuitzauMB&HauschildM. 2013. “QuantificationofUrbanMetabolismThroughCoupling with the Life Cycle Assessment Framework: Concept Development and Case Study.” In:EnvironmentalResearchLetters8(3).

HarrisS,SkopovaH,HravanekM,BiganoA,BreilM,KnoblauchD,SchockM,AlbrechtS,LjunkvistH,StariccoL, Kordicz Z, Pasicko R & Vlasicz S. 2015. “Systemic Characteristics of the Case Study Cities.”http://pocacito.eu/content/systemic-characteristics-case-study-cities

HarrisS.2016a.Quantificationof theCaseStudyCities:2050Scenarios.http://pocacito.eu/result/project-reports/quantification-case-study-cities-2050-scenarios


Harris S. 2016b. “Sustainability Impacts of Post-carbon Cities.”http://pocacito.eu/sites/default/files/D5_3%20Analysis%20of%20sustainability%20Impacts%20of%20Post%20Carbon%20Cities.pdf

Johnson K, & Breil M. 2015. “Synthesis of Stakeholder Workshop Reports.”http://pocacito.eu/content/synthesis-stakeholder-workshop-reports.

Krey V, &Masera O. 2014. “Annex II:Metrics andMethodology. IPCCWorking Group III –Mitigation ofClimate Change, AR5.” Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-fgd/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_fgd_annex-ii.pdf.

Selada C. 2015. “Compiled Individual Assessment Reports.” http://pocacito.eu/content/compiled-case-study-assessment-reports.

Selada C, & Almeida AL. 2015. “Integrated Case Studies Assessment Report.”http://pocacito.eu/content/integrated-case-study-assessment-report

KennedyC,etal.2010.Methodologyfor inventoryinggreenhousegasemissionsfromglobalcities.EnergyPolicy38(9):4828-4837.

Ridgway M, Knoblauch D, Eriksson E, Ljunkvist H, Harris S, Breil M, Baloue S & Weingartner K. 2014.“Common Approach Framework Document.”http://pocacito.eu/sites/default/files/D1_1_Common_Approach_Framework_Document.pdf.

RosadoL,NizaS,&FerraoP.2014.“AMaterialFlowAccountingCaseStudyoftheLisbonMetropolitanAreausingtheUrbanMetabolismAnalystModel.”JournalofIndustrialEcology,18(1):84-101.

Silva C, Selada C, Mendes G & Marques I. 2014. “Report on Key Performance Indicators.”http://pocacito.eu/content/report-key-performance-indicators.

Silva C, Mendes G, & Marques I. 2014. “Methodological Guide for the Initial Assessment of Case StudyCities.”

The Natural Step. 2014. “What Is Backcasting? | The Natural Step.”http://www.naturalstep.org/en/backcasting.

TuerkA,FruhmannC,Kaltenegger I,SchwaigerHP&FujiwaraN.2016.“StrategyPaper.SharingEUUrbanSolutions and Technologies with Non-EU Cities.” http://pocacito.eu/content/sharing-eu-urban-solutions-and-technologies-non-eu-and-emerging-cities.

Tuerk A, & Kaltenegger I. 2016. “Report on Activities in Non-EU Cities Involved in POCACITO.”http://pocacito.eu/result/project-reports/report-activities-non-eu-cities-involved-pocacito.

UNHabitat.2016.“ClimateChange.”http://www.unhabitat.org/urban-themes/climate-change/.UNEP. 2011. “Cities.” In Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty

Eradication.454-489.Vester F, 2004. “SensitivityModel: The Computerised System Tools for a NewManagement of Complex

Problems.”

FINAL SYNTHESIS BOOKLET - POCACITO · Document title Final synthesis booklet WP8 Document Type...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL SYNTHESIS BOOKLET - POCACITO · Document title Final synthesis booklet WP8 Document Type...