Slater, K R; Ventura, J; Robinson, J B; Fernandez, C; Dutfield, S and King, L (2022) Assessing climate action progress of the city of Toronto. Buildings & Cities, 3(1), pp. 1059-1074. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
The Canadian City of Toronto’s progress is evaluated for the implementation of its climate action plan, TransformTO, and its effectiveness in reducing sectoral emissions. Following a brief history of climate action in Toronto, the key climate policies and programs are subjected to a content analysis and assessed using an aggregate evaluation framework composed of qualitative indicators commonly used to track municipal climate action. The results of this assessment reveal that the city has made steady progress in reducing emissions, surpassing its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 30% reduction below 1990 levels. However, Toronto is not on track to meet its 2030 target of a 65% emissions reduction from 1990 levels. Without transformational action across all sectors, it is unlikely to meet the 2030 and 2040 targets. The results are intended to strengthen implementation and evaluation efforts in Toronto. The discussion will be of interest to decision-makers and practitioners who seek to accelerate implementation of municipal climate action plans. POLICY RELEVANCE This paper is intended to support and strengthen the City of Toronto’s implementation of its climate action plan, TransformTO, and supporting Net Zero Strategies. Of potential relevance to policymakers in other Canadian cities is the role of ambitious top-down target-setting of the municipal organization and city at large for pursuing bold climate action, even in the face of significant constraints (e.g. provincial building code and energy grid, difficulties in accessing utilities energy use data). Policymakers may also draw insights from the Toronto context for leveraging staff and community commitment to climate action by involving them in planning and implementation of emissions reductions strategies. Useful recommendations are provided for overcoming modeling deficiencies and data limitations, while advancing transformative climate action through multi-sectoral partnerships, policies that support market transformation, the scale-up of low carbon programs and investments in low carbon infrastructure.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Canada; cities; climate action; climate implementation; local government; mitigation; multilateral; net zero; toronto; transformation; urban governance |
| Index terms: | net zero, program, greenhouse gas emission, mitigation, effectiveness, practitioner, market transformation, building code, modelling, energy use, climate policy, implementation, history, local government, urban governance, Toronto, evaluation, commitment, partnership, face, strategy, content analysis, aggregate, transformation, low carbon, utilities, Canada |
| Subjects: | partnership management, environmental health, administrative law, regulatory law, software systems, performance management, sustainability assessment, management, financial risk, Geography, climate policy, psychology, urban planning, architectural and construction history, analytical methods, energy systems, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, business, construction type, practitioner, economic and policy analysis, materials science |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Governance, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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