Local government action on climate change mitigation
Local government action on climate change mitigation is a key mechanism for delivery of national and international targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and an important complement to the work of community-led initiatives. Several key translocal networks connect and support the work of local government actors taking action on climate change. Recent research has identified several key areas in which local governments can take effective action. Many of these connect climate change mitigation with other forms of action on sustainbility, including several of the Sustainable Development Goals.
The Role of Municipalities in Local Action for Climate Change Mitigation
A municipality is defined as a legally determined region with a local government administration . Although the definition may differ from country to country, all municipalities have the same purpose: local governance . Competences also differ from country to country depending on their legislation. In the context of Portuguese law, for example, municipalities are tasked with safeguarding and promoting their populations’ interests in the following sectors: rural and urban equipment, energy, transport and communications, education, heritage, culture and science, sports and leisure, health, social action, housing, civil protection, environment and basic sanitation, consumer defense, development promotion, land use and urban planning, municipal police, and external cooperation . Despite differences, EU municipalities have the same goal of reducing their GHG emissions by 40% by 2030 [52, p. 25]. In order to reduce or increase the efficiency of municipal energy fluxes, global Euro-pean organizations for municipal CCM, such as the Covenant of Mayors, have highlighted local CCM efforts in the energy sector, and now considering also crucial domains such as land-use planning, mobility and transportation, and consumption patterns [52, pp. 13–14] The Covenant of Mayors expects local authorities to play an exemplary role by taking outstanding measures related to their own context . Thus, the Covenant is also enhancing the importance of stakeholder engagement, where communication is fundamental [52, p. 44]. In analyzing specific European projects fostering municipal CCM, the BEACON project has suggested the following categories of focus for participant municipalities: governance, power and heating and cooling, transport, urban planning, communication and sensibilization, natural resources, consumption patterns, and waste management .
The local perspective and contextualization of CCM and SD actions could be crucial for ensuring appropriate measures are taken in each context, where potential co-benefits are enabled and possible trade-offs are reduced. Despite the importance of general, top-down guidelines, different authors and organizations have defended the importance of bottom-up approaches in ensuring the effectiveness of actions taken for local communities. Castán Broto (2017) claims that “cities are so different, so contingent, that it does not make sense to build cities on a common global objective or shared recipes for best practice.” In terms of the governance perspective, Broto (2017) suggests “invest[ing] in recognizing the local history, the way social and material relations have been produced, and the trajectories that shape people’s lives as essential components of any process of urban governance, including climate change mitigation.” Governance is not the only important dimension that requires contextualization regarding effective CCM measures. Spatial planning processes, energy production, transportation and mobility, and land use are examples of relevant dimensions where contextualization is needed to ensure the effectiveness of CCM , .
Key Networks for Municipal Action on Climate Change Mitigation
The UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainability includes Climate Change as SDG 13 among its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Learning from past experiences, UN-Habitat has cited local action as a key for achieving the 2030 Agenda, including CCM [40, p. 7]. The UN has noticed that progress was more robust when governments addressed the processes inclusively, translating and adapting the global sustainability agenda into concrete and relevant initiatives at the local level [36, Ch. 3.1]. The UN affirms that localising allows this agenda to be better adapted to local circumstances and helps reduce the inequality seen in implementing the SDGs [36, p. 53]. The UN concluded that subnational governments bridge the gap between central government and communities and that they should play a strong role in fostering the involvement of civil society organizations, the private sector (micro, small, and medium enterprises), academia and community-led initiatives in SD actions [40, p. 7]. With the aim of amplifying the voices of local and regional actors and increasing joint-advocacy work relating to SDG implementation, climate change, and the urban agenda, UN-Habitat created the global task force of local and regional governments in 2013 .
Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) is another example of a global network that creates connections among local, regional, national, and global governments to incorporate sustainability into day-to-day operations . They influence sustainability policy and drive local action toward low-emission, nature-based, equitable, resilient, and circular development .
In the European context, the Covenant of Mayors is a key network for enhancing local climate change action. This covenant has brought together thousands of local governments voluntarily committed to implementing EU climate and energy objectives since 2008 . Its aim is to introduce a bottom-up approach for multi-level cooperation and to create a context framework for action . As the EU dictates, within the EU countries, municipalities need to reduce their emissions by 40% by 2030 . Country policies started to be developed. For instance, Portugal has integrated the EU Climate and Energy framework into their Energy and Climate Energy National Plan (PNEC) . Despite the implemented emission-reduction measures at the national level, few are adapted to local contexts. The PNEC enhances the important role of municipalities with respect to climate action, enhancing their contribution in terms of awareness-raising campaigns . However, they do not describe concrete measures to be adopted by the municipalities other than the obligation to elaborate local energy and/or mobility plans .
With the aim of supporting local climate action, the Bridging European and Local Climate Action (BEACON) Project, tries to fulfil the gap between the different levels of governance, supporting municipal actors, policy makers, and educators in developing, refining, and implementing measures for reducing GHG through joint learning, networking, and developing tailored advisory services . Working with participants from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, Greece, Poland, Portugal, and Germany, this project also aims to connect the different local actors participating and to disseminate good local-level practices for CCM .
Domains for Potential Action on Climate Change by European Municipalities
Globally, the largest increases in direct anthropogenic GHG emissions between 2000 and 2010 originated the following sectors:
- Energy (47%)
- Industry (30%)
- Transport (11%)
- Construction (3%)
The agricultural, forest, and other land use sector (AFOLU) did not increase its impact during this period, but it is an important contributor to GHG emissions: in 2010, it was responsible for 24% of net emissions.
The IPCC has also noted the following key priority areas for action on CCM:
- Changes in behaviour and consumption patterns
- Production and trade patterns
- Infrastructural choices and associated lock-ins.
While every municipality has its own unique set of circumstances and challenges, these local contexts both contribute to and reflect the global drivers of greenhouse gas. For example, the sustainable energy action plan of the municipality of Setúbal in Portugal identified their three most problematic GHG emission sectors, in order, as production and transportation of energy, industry, and transportation. These sectors are also among the most problematic at the global level, as noted by the IPCC.
An extensive literature review on the potential climate change mitigation at the local level identified a set of actions that European municipalities could take on climate change mitigiation, compiled into several key domains: governance, communication and education, land use, consumption patterns, waste management, energy, transportation and mobility, and spatial planning .
Recommendations for action by domain
Governance refers to a process of setting, applying, and enforcing rules by both governmental and non-governmental actors in a network setting . Within the context of climate action at the local level, the capacity for governance is highly related to the effectiveness of climate policy [16, p. 41]. As the IPCC has remarked, CCM is a technically feasible exercise, but institutional arrangements, governance mechanisms, and financial resources must be aligned with the goal of reducing GHG emissions [16, p. 92].
Each locality has its own characteristics (different size, national legislation, and international networks) . Thus, each of them has their own way of proceeding with climate action. Nevertheless, their approach to governing and their internal aspects as they relate to achieving mitigation goals.
The following table suggests recommendations for municipalities concering climate change mitigation in the domain of governance.
|Governance-related Recommendations||SDG Targets|
|A - Provisioning Sustainable Services/Green Public Procurement||13.2 & 17.14|
|B - Promote Information Policies||13.2 & 17.14|
|C - Undertake Voluntary Actions||13.2 & 17.14|
|D - (Re)municipalize Local Services to Foster Institutional Capacity for Climate Change Mitigation||13.2 & 17.14|
|E - Establish Stakeholder Partnerships||17.16 & 17.17|
|F - Rearrange the Internal Structure of the Local Administration||17.16 & 17.17|
|G - Capacity Building for Local Administration Climate Action||13.3|
When connecting the proposed recommendations to the SDG targets resulted the Goal 13 (Climate action) and Goal 17 (Partnerships for the goals). The same authors acknowledge that the targets proposed in Goal 13 could be modified from a national context to a municipal context and, regarding the Goal 17, that CCM is a medium for pursuing SD, thus, acknowledging partnerships for the goals, partnerships for CCM.
Education and communication
The education and communication dimension transverses every other domain, where specific communication strategies are crucial for achieving the proposed measures. For instance, communications campaigns intending to induce a reduction in consumerist behavior is related to the consumption patterns dimension; specific training such as eco-driving courses is related to the transportation and mobility dimension.
Garcia makes the following recommendations for municipalities to pursue CCM and links them to appropriate SDG targets:
|Education- and Communication-Related Recommendations||SDG Targets|
|Education||A.1 - Promote climate change education in schools and other educational institutions||4.7 & 13.3|
|A.2 - Promote climate change education for citizens not currently enrolled in an education|
|Communication||B.1 - Dissemination of general information on climate change and local environmental conditions|
|B.2 - Dissemination of information on actions taken by the municipality to mitigate climate change|
|B.3 - Invest in non-commercial advertising campaigns to increase citizen awareness about the climate change crisis and regenerative responses|
The following table presents recommendations related to land use for municipalities’ local climate change mitigation activities and links these activities to relevant SDG targets.
|Land-Use-related Recommendations||SDG Targets|
|General||A - Promote Sustainable Land Management||15.1, 15.5 & 15.9|
|Sustainable Food Production||B.1 - Promote organic farming systems||2.4|
|B.2 - Increase urban and peri-urban organic food production|
|B.3 - Promote an improved capacity for local organic food production with special attention to indigenous knowledge/local knowledge|
|Sustainable Forest Management||C.1 - Increase municipal forest areas||15.2 & 15.b|
|C.2 - Reduce forest loss and degradation caused by forestry activity|
|C.3 - Avoid conversion from forest land to other land use, particularly from switching into cropland or monocultures|
|C.4 - Implement operational and effective wildfires management|
|Soil Carbon Sequestration||D - Increase Soil Carbon Sequestration by Increasing Soil Fertility and Groundwater Infiltration||6.6 & 15.3|
|Green Urban Infrastructure||E - Increase Green Urban Spaces and Infrastructure, Paying Special Attention to Local Biodiversity||11.7& 15.9|
The following table presents recommendations for municipal action related to consumption patterns and links these activities to relevant SDG targets.
|Consumption-related Recommendation||SDG Targets|
|A - Promote the Consumption-Based Accounting Methodology for GHG: The Carbon Footprint||12.6|
|B - Adopt Green Public Procurement||12.6 & 12.7|
|C - Promote Seasonal, Organic and Locally Produced Food Consumption Without Animal Products||12.2 & 12.8|
|D - Promote a Reduction in Consumerist Behavior||12.2, 12.5, & 12.8|
|E - Promote Sustainable Consumption||12.2 & 12.8|
|F - Facilitate Locally Produced Product Consumption||12.2 & 12.8|
These recommendations are linked to SDG12 (Responsible consumption and production). SDG8 (Decent work and economic growth) could not be linked to the consumption patterns domain, especially target 8.4, which assumes decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation.
The following table presents recommendations related to waste management for municipalities’ local CCM activities and links these activities to appropriate SDG targets.
|Waste Management-related Recommendations||SDG Targets|
|Waste Prevention and Reduction||A - Reduce Urban Solid Waste Production with Special Attention to Food Waste and Single-Use or Products with Short Lifespans||12.3 & 12.5|
|Re-use||B – Enable the “right to repair”, promote the exchange of second-hand goods and increase awareness about re-using||12.5|
|Recycle||C – Promote Recycling||12.5|
|Waste Treatments||D.1 - Produce compost, particularly from food or green waste||11.6|
|D.2 - Biogas production: Capture methane from waste management or wastewater management|
|D.3 - Reduce landfill waste disposal|
|D.4 - Reduce the amount of untreated wastewater|
The following table presents recommendations related to energy for municipalities’ local CCM activities and links these activities to relevant SDG targets.
|Energy-related Recommendations||SDG Targets|
|Energy Production and Supply||A - Promote Appropriate Renewable Energy (RE) Production||7.2|
|B – Decentralize Energy Production (Both Social and Technological Aspects)|
|C – Facilitate Citizen and Private Sector Involvement in the Energy Supply Dimension|
|Energy Efficiency and End Use||D - Increase Energy Efficiency in Municipal or Local Buildings and Infrastructure||7.3|
|E - Facilitate Citizen and Private Sector Involvement to Increase Energy Efficiency|
|F - Encourage Energy Consumption Reduction|
Transportation and mobility
The global transport sector accounted for 27% of final energy use (6.7 GtCO2) in 2010, with OECD countries being the highest contributors in this sector [16, p. 21]. The emissions of this sector are expected to increase significantly, up to between 9.3 and 12 GtCO2/yr by 2050 based on the IPCC scenarios [16, p. 72].
Turning to the details, Figure 9 presents the total emissions from 1970 to 2010. One can observe how transportation emissions have increased through time, with road transportation being the highest transportation contributor to global GHG emissions [16, p. 606]. It is with road transportation where local authorities can mitigate climate change, as mobility is one the local authorities’ competences, especially as concerns light-duty vehicles (LDVs). Light-duty vehicles includes passenger cars and commercial vans below 2.5–3.0 tons in net weight [16, p. 605]. Their number is expected to double in the next few decades from the current number of 1 billion vehicles globally [16, p. 611]. Thus, there is a high potential for mitigation through shifting into different modes of low-carbon transportation or to non-motorized transportation (NMT), combined with an increase in LDVs’ engine performance [16, pp. 603, 620]. Nowadays, exchanging conventional LDVs for electric vehicles will only save an insignificant amount of CO2eq where electricity systems rely on high-carbon intensity (500–600 gCO2eq/kWh), and the mitigation costs can be hundreds of dollars per ton [16, p. 624]. In addition, the material needed to proceed with transport decarbonization through new technologies may create adverse effects on local environments because of unsustainable mining of resources to supply low-carbon transport technologies [16, p. 632]. Mitigation pathways at the local level prioritize reducing the number of LDVs instead of completely replacing the current fleet for low-carbon LDVs. This measure can also be supported by other means of transportation (NMT, collective transportation, or other already existent low-carbon modes of transportation).
Within this context, the concept of “sustainable transport” arises as a priority for CCM. It defends the accessibility of all in helping meet the basic daily mobility needs consistent with human and ecosystem health, but to constrain GHG emissions by [16, p. 609].
|Figure 17 – Direct GHG emissions of the transportation sector (shown here by transport mode) rose 250%, from 2.8 Gt CO2eq worldwide in 1970 to 7.0 Gt CO2eq in 2010 [16, p. 606].|
The IPCC reports clearly reaffirm the mitigation potential within this sector through different areas of actualization: changes in the built environment (urban and community redevelopment to increase accessibility), behavioral changes (avoiding long journeys where possible and shifting to lower-carbon transport systems and NMTs), investments in related infrastructure (public transportation, walking and cycling infrastructure, etc.), less energy-intensive modes of transportation (by enhancing vehicle and engine performance), and reductions in carbon-intensive fuels (biofuels, electricity or hydrogen produced from low GHG sources, etc.) [16, p. 603].
Changes in the built environment could be linked to the spatial planning domain, where the urban form and infrastructure could play important roles in reducing vehicle-kilometers travelled (VKT) [16, pp. 951, 958].
All these mitigation pathways could be integrated by municipalities in a sustainable urban mobility plan (SUMP), where local authorities could provide appropriate measures regarding their local context. The Urban Mobility Observatory, which is under the European Commission’s general directorate for mobility and transport, has created useful guidelines for developing and implementing a SUMP . They reaffirm the following eight principles for correctly developing such a plan: (1) plan for sustainable mobility in the “functional urban area,” (2) cooperate across institutional boundaries, (3) involve citizens and stakeholders, (4) assess current and future performances, (5) define a long-term vision and a clear implementation plan, (6) develop all transport modes in an integrated manner, (7) arrange for monitoring and evaluation, and (8) assure quality .
An example of a municipality that has appropriately designed, planned, and implemented sustainable mobility is the municipality of Pontevedra, Spain. Pontevedra was awarded with several international prizes regarding sustainable mobility and urban planning, such as the Smart Mobility Award (Hong-Kong 2015) and the first EU urban road safety award (2019) . Among the measures that they have implemented, the following can be highlighted: speed limits up to 30km/h in all urban areas, the installation of 300 speedhumps, and the prioritization of pedestrians over LDVs, with spaces free from motorized transportation (except for those needed for residential or commercial activities) . As a result, in 2014, Pontevedra has reduced its fossil-fuel consumption by 66% compared to 1999 levels . There is a varied range of policies that could address sustainable transportation at the local level. Municipalities should play their role by contextualizing appropriate policies and measures according to their own local reality.
Following the model of governing by provisioning , providing reliable and efficient low-carbon collective transportation services is important for fostering sustainable transportation [16, Ch. 8]. Aside from municipal responsibilities, the (re)municipalization of transportation services could be the key to inducing the change needed for moving towards sustainable transportation systems due to their better alignment with local urban development policies, which could encourage the use of public transportation or non-polluting transport over LDVs [66, p. 31].
Table 8 – Recommendations for local climate change mitigation (CCM) related to the transportation and mobility domain.
|Transportation- and Mobility-related Recommendations||SDG Target|
|A - Implement Local Policies for Sustainable Transportation||11.2|
|B - (Re)municipalization of Transportation Services|
|C - Reduce Automobile Dependency, Especially Dependency on Light-Duty Vehicles|
|D - Promote the Reduction of Fossil-Fuel Dependency in Transportation|
|E - Promote Low-Carbon Collective Transportation (Trains, Waterborne, and Low-Carbon Buses)|
|F - Promote and Increase Accessibility and Safety for Non-Motorized Transportation (For Example, Cycling or Walking)|
|G - Promote Sustainable Transportation Through Awareness-Raising Campaigns, Education, and Advertising|
By following the concept of “sustainable transport,” this research suggests the following actions to be taken by local authorities to promote CCM: induce mobility behavioral changes through communication campaigns, promote alternative low-carbon or NMT transportation for long and short distances, prioritize collective transportation over individual transportation, and reduce the need for conventional LDVs.
Table 8 presents the author’s recommendations related to transportation and mobility for municipalities’ local CCM activities and links these activities to an appropriate SDG target.
In 2006, urban areas accounted for between 71% and 76% of CO2 emissions from global final energy use and between 67%–76% of global energy use [16, p. 927]. Urban form and infrastructure significantly affect direct (operational) and indirect (embodied) GHG emissions and are strongly linked to the throughput of material and energy in cities, the waste they generate, and their related system efficiencies [16, p. 927]. Mitigation options vary by urban type and development levels [16, p. 927]. The options available to rapidly developing cities include shaping their urbanization and infrastructure development trajectories [16, p. 928]. The main goal of pursuing CCM for this dimension for municipalities is to shape urban form and integrate and improve urban infrastructure by developing it toward low-carbon pathways [16, p. 928]. Thus, the author structures the local CCM approach according to three main areas: urban form, infrastructure, and the spatial planning process.
Urban form and structure are the patterns and spatial arrangements of land use, transportation systems, and urban design elements, including the physical urban extent, the layout of streets and buildings, and the internal configuration of settlements [16, p. 949].
Regarding urban form, the IPCC cites the importance of four key interrelated drivers to consider in reducing GHG emissions: urban density, land-use mix, connectivity, and accessibility [16, p. 952].
§ Density: Density is the measure of an urban unit of interest (e.g., population, employment, and housing) per area unit [16, p. 952]. Density affects GHG emissions in two different ways. Low density of employment, commerce, and housing increases the average travel distances for both work and shopping trips (and thus increases VKT) [16, p. 952]. Low density of employment, commerce, and housing also brings more difficulties in switching to less energy-intensive and alternative modes of transportation [16, p. 952]. To achieve mitigation with respect to density, the IPCC suggests prioritizing medium-rise buildings (less than seven floors) over single-unit and high-rise buildings [16, p. 955]. They state that medium-rise buildings can increase urban density without the increased need of materials and embodied energy of high-rise buildings [16, p. 955].
§ Land-Use Mix: Land-use mix refers to the diversity and integration of land uses at a given scale [16, p. 955]. Diverse and mixed land uses can reduce travel distances and enable both walking and the use of NMT, thereby reducing aggregate amounts of vehicular and associated GHG emissions [16, p. 955]. For service-economy cities with effective air pollution control, mixed land use can also benefit citizen health and wellbeing by promoting walking via more walkable distances [16, p. 955]. Increasing mixed land use would facilitate reductions in GHG emissions.
§ Connectivity: Connectivity refers to street density and design [16, p. 956]. High urban connectivity is characterized by finer-grain systems, with smaller blocks that allow frequent changes in direction [16, p. 956]. When connectivity is high, there is typically a positive correlation with walking and thereby lower GHG emissions [16, p. 956].
§ Accessibility: Accessibility can be defined as access to jobs, housing, services, shopping, and, in general, to people and places in cities [16, p. 956]. It can be viewed as a combination of proximity and travel time and is closely related to land-use mix [16, p. 956]. Highly accessible communities are typically characterized by low commuting distances and travel times, which are enabled by multiple modes of transportation [16, p. 956]. Metanalyses show that VKT reduction is most strongly related to high accessibility to job destinations [16, p. 956].
These four dimensions should be approached simultaneously to be most effective in reducing annual VKT [16, p. 957].
Infrastructure affects GHG emissions primarily during three phases of its lifecycle: construction, use and operation, and end-of-life [16, p. 951]. Analyzing all emissions for each phase associated with new infrastructure, including transboundary emissions, is important for shaping its sustainability and resilience [16, p. 951]. Related energy should be accounted for from the use and operation phase and the end-of-life phase, including that from reuse, recycling, and primary and embodied energy from building materials used [16, p. 951]. For example, the manufacturing of steel and cement, two of the common infrastructure materials, contributed nearly 9% and 7% to global carbon emissions in 2006, respectively [16, p. 951]. Thus, at the planning stage when choices of materials are made, a forward-looking life-cycle assessment can help reduce undesired lock-in effects with respect to the construction and operation of large physical infrastructure [16, p. 391]. The placement of infrastructure could also modulate the GHG emissions associated with its use and operation phase. Infrastructure is linked to urban form, especially among transportation infrastructure, travel demand, and VKT [16, p. 951]. Municipalities should consider reducing direct and indirect GHG emissions related to municipal infrastructure and give special consideration to potential lock-in effects. Consequently and in accordance with SDG 9 (which focuses on developing quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure) , information about infrastructure-related GHG emissions could facilitate a better acknowledgement of its costs and benefits for CCM and its long term sustainability.
Spatial planning is a broad term that describes systematic and coordinated efforts to manage urban and regional growth in ways that promote well-defined societal objectives such as land conservation, economic development, carbon sequestration, and social justice [16, p. 958]. The framework for infrastructure and urban form could be the base for facilitating a CCM perspective in the municipal spatial planning process. There is no single recipe for approaching spatial planning from a CCM perspective. Nonetheless, based on case studies, the IPCC highlights the success and effectiveness of strategies that combine a spatial planning process with climate action. Doing so harmonizes and integrates each scale plan (regional, district, and neighborhood) and requires institutional capacity and political wherewithal to align the right policy instrument to specific strategies [16, p. 958]. Each municipality should choose a context-specific combination of policy instruments to accomplish CCM within the spatial planning dimension.
Green infrastructure (GI) plays an important role for CCM in the spatial planning process. The EU green infrastructure strategy defines GI as a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services . Green infrastructure can refer to rural, peri-urban, or urban settings covering terrestrial, coastal, and marine areas . One of the key aims of the GI EU strategy is to foster the potential co-benefits of GI, namely CCM and climate-change adaptation, reduced energy use, disaster risk management, food provision, biodiversity conservation, health and wellbeing, recreation, increased land and property values, competitiveness and economic growth, and enhanced territorial cohesion . Green infrastructure is linked closely with E/NBS, as both could potentially increase ecosystem services, leading to more carbon sinks and reduced GHG emissions. Recommendations for municipalities on that field comes through the integration of the ecosystem service approach (by GI, nature-based solutions, or both) into urban planning processes, maximizing the ecosystems’ provision, adopting methods for mapping, assessing, and measuring ecosystem services, promoting payments for ecosystem services, and calculations the (economic) cost of their use .
For bringing out co-benefits, GI can be seen as a connected network of green and blue spaces, either in the city or countryside, that are linked to the concept of ecological connectivity .
Funded by the European Commission, the EKLIPSE project has developed an evidence- and knowledge-based report that analyzes the different benefits and challenges of applying E/NBS; defined as “an impact evaluation framework to support planning and evaluation of nature-based solutions projects” . They highlight the importance of NBS in increasing green spaces, which not only increase carbon storage and sequestration in vegetation and soil but also improve the local or regional micro-climate through cooling, shading, and shelter [125, p. 19,20]. The European Commission has provided a preliminary list of possible NBS interventions for urban areas, depending on the pursued goal (e.g., protect and increase urban green spaces, plant green roofs and walls, use phytoremediation and phytostabilization, encourage the planting of appropriate plants and caterpillar food plants, etc.) [126, pp. 40–51].
The process of integrating GI and/or NBS are site specific, adjusting different related designs and plans to each local context, where municipalities plays an important role. As a practical example, the city of Vienna has had an ongoing large-scale green infrastructure strategy for more than two decades . It contributes to numerous national strategies (e.g., Biodiversity Strategy Austria, Netzwerk Natur, Natura 2000), is embedded in urban plans (e.g., the Urban Heat Island Strategy Plan, City Development Plan 2025), and covers existing, recovered, and new NBS such as small- to large-scale parks, trees, rivers and streams, green bridges, green roofs, green walls, and large-scale nature protection areas (e.g., Naturschutzgebiet Donauauen) .
Table 9 presents the author’s recommendations related to spatial planning for municipalities’ local CCM activities and links these activities to appropriate SDG targets.
Table 9 – Recommendations for local CCM related to the spatial planning domain.
|Spatial Planning-related Recommendations||SDG Targets|
|Spatial Planning Processes||A.1- Enable the local administration in integrating climate change mitigation perspectives into municipal spatial planning processes||11.3|
|A.2 - Integrate nature/ecosystem-based solutions into the spatial planning process||11.3 & 11.7|
|A.3 - Implement adequate spatial planning policies and instruments to support low-carbon fluxes in the municipality|
|Urban Form||B.1 - Increase density||11.3|
|B.2 - Increase land-use mix|
|B.3 - Increase connectivity|
|B.4 - Increase accessibility|
|Infrastructure||C - Prioritize Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructures while Minimizing Lifecycle GHG Emissions||9.1 & 9.4|
The spatial planning process and urban form can be linked to SDG 11 and targets 11.3 and 11.7. Doing so, the author acknowledges local administrations’ capacities for pursuing sustainable urbanization and therefore low-carbon-flux urbanization. The author also acknowledges that appropriate spatial planning policies and the NBS approach would lead to increased access to green public spaces, leading to sustainable urbanization.
The infrastructure recommendation is linked to SDG 9 and targets 9.1 and 9.4. The author also acknowledges that pursuing a reduction of related GHG emissions in municipal infrastructure is a way to enable their sustainability.
Potential Monitoring Indicators
Monitoring was highlighted as important for achieving SD and therefore CCM [36, Ch. 2]. In addressing the CCM challenge, efficiency and effectiveness are crucial and require measuring climate impacts and identifying priorities for reducing carbon. These come along with an appropriate planning and monitor-ing system . The UN suggests implementing a solid, efficient, inclusive, and transparent reporting and follow-up system at every level in order to better achieve climate- and sustainability-related goals [36, Ch. 2].
Regarding the local context, Boehnke et al. (2019) mentioned deficiencies in both data collection and action planning, which have led to inadequate practices . The IPCC has also noted that municipalities often highlight progress on the implementation of mitigation projects, but the impacts of these initiatives are not often evaluated [16, p. 974].
The monitoring process seems to not be a priority, especially at the local level. As claimed in the last Global Environmental Outlook of the United Nations Environmental Program, the current monitoring process is severely inadequate and significant improvement is needed to be more effective in the decision-making process and to increase the credibility of local actors [47, Ch. 6]. The UN has already prepared indicators for monitoring the SDGs’ implementation, with every goal and target having at least one associated indicator . Unfortunately, few of these indicators could be addressed to the subnational level , where it seems to be more complicated to find a single recipe that suits every local context. Despite the challenge of localizing, different organizations are committed to strengthening local capacity building and local monitoring processes. For example, UN-Habitat created the City Profiling Tool, which introduces different indicators for climate action in cities to facilitate city resilience assessments by local governments . Local Governments for Sustainability has developed the global protocol for community-scale greenhouse gas emission inventories (GPC), which follows the guidelines of the IPCC and aims to support the implementation of local emissions’ inventories . The Covenant of Mayors also created general guidelines for municipalities to prepare a Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan (SECAP), which includes in general terms how to develop the monitoring aspects associated with the designed plan . In their guidelines called “How to develop a Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan,” the Covenant of Mayors indicates that municipalities should identify data and indicators to monitor progress and results of each action undertaken [52, p. 56].
With all this available information, some municipalities have begun integrating climate action and the SDGs into their local agendas, including monitoring processes. This is the case of the Cascais municipality in Portugal. They have started to localize the SDGs by trying to integrate indicators for each goal, including climate action . Unfortunately, as they affirm, their local adaptation of the SDGs into the municipal agenda is just an experimental process where the indicators, good practices, and the index used are indicative and do not accurately represent the reality of the municipality .
There is no concrete guidance to follow from municipalities with respect to SD monitoring within their territories. With this in mind, research projects were initiated in Portugal to facilitate this process. For example, the Center of Opinion and Polling Studies (CESOP) of the Catholic University in Lisbon, Portugal started developing indices to assess local sustainability in 2018 . They are trying to adapt global SDG indicators to the local level by localizing the data that is already available at the Portuguese National Statistical Institute (INE) and PORDATA and by proposing new indicators when relevant data is unprocessed . Another example of a local monitoring initiative is ODSLocal, an online tool that allows for the monitoring, visualization, and communication of municipal progress towards implementing the SDGs . This website, developed by 2adapt, was launched on November 12th, 2020 .
- (59, p. 46)
- (59, p. 46)
- 16, Ch. 5
- Matias Mesa Garcia, 2020. Local Science-based Recommendations and Monitoring for Climate Change Mitigation in the Context of the Sustainable Development Goals - European Municipal Perspectives and Key Indicators. Master thesis. Faculty of Science, University of Lisbon. 248 pp