Balouktsi, M (2020) Carbon metrics for cities: Production and consumption implications for policies. Buildings & Cities, 1(1), pp. 233-259. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
The estimated cities' contribution to climate change varies depending on the methods chosen by a given city for compiling its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission inventory. This study provides an interpretative synthesis of existing research to explore the differences of three emerging approaches to city-level GHG emissions accounting, based on methodological dimensions: boundary-setting, the categorisation of emissions and the type of emissions. The policy relevance and implications of selecting different system boundaries are explored: each approach can reveal important information which the others fail to identify. This suggests the value of using different and complementary approaches to address as many policy questions and relevant actors possible in climate action planning. Next, key methodological considerations that arise in target-setting approaches involving bringing the emissions balance to zero are presented. An analysis of actual 'net-zero emission' concepts used by eight cities reveals that their precise meaning and applicability remain ambiguous. Finally, to improve both the transparency about such metrics and their usability for policy and decision-making, this paper synthesises all key considerations occurring from the analysis of inventorying approaches and net-zero targets into a reporting and communication framework. Policy relevance Many cities are assuming responsibility for measures to mitigate climate change, but they need greater clarity on 'climate neutral' or 'net-zero' approaches. Each city’s intended purpose needs careful alignment with a choice of methods. The diverse accounting and target-setting landscape and the associated policy implications are elucidated. This can empower more cities to select appropriate methods and set ambitious targets. Calculation of a GHG emission balance is a means to an end and not the end itself. Its purpose is to show the options for action and measure success. Non-transparent methods involve reputational and ethical risks for city governments. A framework to improve transparency is presented. Dual-accounting approaches involving both production and consumption are now the new trend. Individual actors must be able to identify their influence and potential action scope for mitigating climate change. Agreement is needed on how to approach consumption-based accounting and create more city-specific data.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accounting methods; cities; climate change; consumption-based accounting; greenhouse gas emissions; mitigation; net zero; public policy; target-setting |
| Index terms: | inventory, meaning, usability, mitigation, greenhouse gas emission, net zero, decision-making, boundaries, transparency, climate change, policy implication, option, greenhouse gas, dimension, consumption, public policy, accounting |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, sociology, environmental health, financial risk, professional development, inventory management, public policy, economic analysis, health monitoring assessment and metrics, energy systems, property law, user-centered design, policy studies, climate science, consumer economics |
| Topics: | Governance, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Supply Chain Management, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here