the urban co-benefits approach: methods and...
TRANSCRIPT
The Urban Co-benefits approach:
Methods and tools
Christopher Doll
Research Fellow
United Nations University
Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability
Seminar on Low Carbon City Development
Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization
Mida Resort City, Bangkok, 30 March 2015
1
Outline
• Introduction
• Urban development with co-benefits
– How much (quantification)
– ASI framework and transport tool
• Energy tool
• Waste tool
– How come (dimensions of decision
making)
• Further considerations
2
About me..
• Born in London, UK..
– BSc. Geography & Mathematics
– MSc. Remote Sensing
– PhD. Remote Sensing
• Earth Institute @ Columbia U., New York City
• IIASA, Austria
• Research Interests
– Applications of geospatial technologies to
sustainable development
– Climate change and biodiversity in cities
– Urbanization processes
3
The UNU and its Institutes
4
UNU-CRIS
[regional integration]
UNU-EHS
[environment & human security]
UNU-FLORES
[material fluxes & resources]
UNU-IAS
[advanced study for
sustainability]
UNU-IIAOC
[alliance of civilizations]
UNU-IIGH
[global health]
UNU-IIST
[software technology]
UNU-INRA
[Africa's natural resources]
UNU-INWEH
[water, environment, health]
UNU-MERIT
[society, economy, innovation]
UNU-WIDER
[development economics]
The Urban Sustainability Nexus: Challenges - Approaches - Outputs
Urbanisation
Processes
Local Government
Solutions
Sustainability
Stresses
Our approach
- Systems thinking
- Interdisciplinary
- Linking local and
global processes
Our focus
- Cities and climate change
- Cities and biodiversity
- Urban health
Our outputs
- Peer-reviewed research
- Practical tools
- Collaboration with
international partners
& networks
Cities and Sustainable
Development
• Cities just 3-4% of the area, but concentrate
more than 50% of the world population
• The economic activities located in cities account
for 55% - 85% GNP. More than 70% of
greenhouse gas emissions..
• Cities are centers of education, knowledge and
innovation both technological and institutional
that can make the transition to a greener
economy and better governance within and
beyond the cities.
6
7
Only 8% live in clean air, 37 % (3/4 billion people) live
outside minimum WHO target
8 Doll, 2009; IPCC WGIII, Fig 12.23
Urban Climate Co-Benefits
• Urban climate co-benefits are the
contribution of one city to the reduction of
global environmental degradation and
achievement of local sustainable
development goals at the same time.
Aligning global & local environment
concerns with development
10
The vicious cycle of waste
11
The virtuous cycle of waste
12
Urban Development with co-benefits
13
Urban development with co-benefits
approach
14
• The Co-benefits approach is a means of achieving
multiple outcomes with one policy initiative
• Here, it refers to policies which simultaneously address
global and local environmental problems; GHG and air
pollution reductions
• Particularly pertinent
for developing
countries
• Case study approach
to evaluate:
• How much?
• How come?
• Develop support tools
Why co-benefits?
• Post Kyoto-CDM, Increasing focus on Nationally Appropriate
Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and ‘thematic windows’ such as
transport
• Recent Rio+20 conference theme Green Economy and the
Institutional Framework for sustainable development
(governance)
• Focus on cities because they are the most environmental
policies have to be locally implemented
• Most people live in cities, opportunities for innovation
• Level of government closest to citizens
• Possible Urban Sustainable Development Goal (Sept.2015)
15
Urban development with co-benefits
approach
16
• The Co-benefits approach is a means of achieving
multiple outcomes with one policy initiative
• Here, it refers to policies which simultaneously address
global and local environmental problems; GHG and air
pollution reductions
• Particularly pertinent
for developing
countries
• Case study approach
to evaluate:
• How much?
• How come?
• Develop support tools
The tools
• Excel based: Transport; Energy; Waste,
Governance (for transport)
• Designed to evaluate co-benefits of
interventions into respective sectors for first
order policy screening
• Four basic steps to the tools:
– Input data
– Examine initial baseline/results
– Apply changes to the sector (Avoid, Shift,
Improve)
– Calculate co-benefits
• GHG emissions
• Local Air pollution, fuel saving etc
17
ASI framework
(Avoid, shift, improve)
• Initially developed in the transport sector, it frames
policy choices into the following categories which
aim to improve local/global pollution
• AVOID
– Doing less of the activity in question (E.g. Alter
total waste generation and/or waste composition)
• SHIFT
– Do the current activity in a different way (e.g.
solar panels rather than fossil fuels)
• IMPROVE
– Improve the efficiency of the activities (change
technology of existing methods) 18
ASI example: Transport
why does mode share matter?
19
Avoid motorised
transport Improve car technology Shift car users to buses
Policy scenario sheet
20
Transport Activity (A)
Fuel Efficiency (I)
Fuel share (F) below
Mode Share (S)
Data requirements
• For each tool a set of basic information for
each sector will need to be established
• This provides a baseline upon which to
calculate emissions reductions
• Tools are somewhat flexible to the scale of
the what is being considered (e.g. certain
transport fleets or areas of the city)
21
Common elements
• Bottom up assessments of GHG emissions and air
pollution in each sector based on local information
– Transport
• Fleet size, activity (distance), occupancy, fuel
efficiencies & fuel
– Energy
• Dwelling size distribution, economic sectors,
power plant sources
– Waste
• Waste generation, technologies waste
composition
22
Avoid, shift, improve
• ASI framework is applied to the tools in each sector
– Transport
• Travel activity (fleet size & distance)
• Mode share
• Fuel efficiency
• Fuel Type
– Energy
• Dwelling sizes
• Building management
• Energy sources (local generation)
– Waste
• Waste generation, waste composition
• Waste processing method (compost, incineration..)
• Technology used within a processing method
23
Energy tool
24
Basic City profile data:
City climate and structure
25
Data for commercial and service
sectors
26
Sources of city power supply
27
Policy Intervention (1):
Structural change in the city
28
Policy Intervention (2):
Alternative Energy measures
29
30
Policy Intervention (3):
Energy efficiency devices
Features of energy tool
• Allows for assessment
of costs and payback
time of low carbon
technologies
31
Waste tool
32
Solid waste management tool
• Life cycle assessment approach which
considers:
– Volume and composition of waste
– transportation of waste
– processing of the waste
– benefits from recycling
• Can specify in general according to
population or by processing technique if
data available
33
Features of waste management
tool
34
Input Data
• Total Solid Waste
• Fuel /Electricity Consumption for Operational Activities
• Fraction of Solid Waste in Each Technology
Composting
Anaerobic Digestion
Landfilling
Open- Dumping
Transportation
• Composition of Solid Waste to Landfill
• Default Values (e.g. CO2 Emission Factor, CH4 Emission Factor, …)
Calculations
– 2.1 Composting and Anaerobic Digestion
• Operation GHG Emission
• Process GHG Emission
• GHG Mitigation by Using Compost in Agriculture
• GHG Mitigation by Removing waste from Landfill
– 2.2 Landfilling and Open-Dumping
• Operation GHG Emission
• CH4 Generation
Results
• Quantification of GHG Emission Total Potential from an Integrated Waste
Management System
Data requirements - waste
• Basic information on total waste generation,
composition and processing technology
• Can define waste composition by process
(allows to track waste separation)
35
Data input
A,S,I of waste
• Avoid
– Alter total waste generation and/or waste composition
• Shift
– Shift compositions of waste to other processing technologies
• Improve
– Alter the technological specifications of waste processing technologies (e.g. methane recovery), also changes to waste transportation.
Results summary
38
Co-benefits
• Transport
– GHG emissions
– Air pollution
– Fuel demand
• Energy
– GHG emissions
– Air pollution
– Energy balance
– Cost-benefit analysis
• Waste
– GHG emissions
– Air pollution
– Lechate production (landfill)
– Electricity/heat generation potential
39
Urban development with co-benefits
approach
40
• The Co-benefits approach is a means of achieving
multiple outcomes with one policy initiative
• Here, it refers to policies which simultaneously address
global and local environmental problems; GHG and air
pollution reductions
• Particularly pertinent
for developing
countries
• Case study approach
to evaluate:
• How much?
• How come?
• Develop support tools
Governance indicators
• Developed currently for the transport sector to aid
decision making about what changes to make in the
tool
• Self assessment of context indicators to determine
capacities and most implementable projects
– Cultural/Lifestyle
– Legal
– Orgainisational
– Coordination
– Political
• The key question is what is your ability to change
one variable relative to another?
41
Flexible framework for extension
to other sectors
• Context
– Ranks relative importance of 11 factors
upon which AHP is used to determine
priorities
42
Specific
Policies
(e.g.
transport)
Governance Tool structure
43
General Governance Specific
Policies
(e.g.
transport)
Governance indicators
• Developed currently for the transport sector to aid
decision making about what changes to make in the
tool
• Self assessment of context indicators to determine
capacities and most implementable projects
– Cultural/Lifestyle
– Legal
– Orgainisational
– Coordination
– Political
• The key question is what is your ability to change
one variable relative to another?
44
Prioritizing conditions
45
(partial screenshot)
Ranked policy measures
Link to the tool
Two modes of usage
If no policies under consideration:
• Assess context
– Determine governance abilities (AHP)
• Determine most implementable options
• Determine coherent policy package
• Set parameter sensitivity of change for transport tool
If policies are in mind:
• Determine policy coherence of policies
• Assess context (AHP)
• Identify key governance areas of high risk
• Work out how to strengthen critical areas of governance
Assessing capacities
• Simple way of looking at assessing a range
of low-carbon policies
• From an objective view, a city has a certain
capacity in these factors
• Helps generate different perspectives
• Look at sensitivities, get a feel for the policy
landscape
• One element of the multi-criteria approach
to be evaluated with other co-benefits such
as health, or cost
– Or.., as an aid to implementation
49
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROMOTING URBAN CO-
BENEFITS
• Discussions of Co-benefits has emerged in several organizations: Opportunities in the Policy Arena
• Short Term- Straight forward initiatives using simple technologies
E.g., waste management, 3R.
• Medium Term: require larger investments and the projects can have a high institutional complexity, and consequently high risks and transaction costs
E.g., transportation, and industry and energy sector.
• Long Term – Areas with slow changing paths and involving a larger set of integrated initiatives and standards
E.g.,: building and land-use sectors, consumption
50
Case Study Analysis:
Solid Waste Management, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
51
Figure 10 - Correlation between among of CBSWM group and volume of disposal solid waste into the landfill in Yogyakarta city
The growth of CBSWM in last 7 years shows
correlation to waste generation and disposal into
landfill. Figure 4 shows there is a decreasing of
solid waste about 28 % from 2008 until 2010.
System innovation for co-benefits
• Examples cited here occur in different
domains (technology, policy, society)
• And at different scales
– Spatial, system, temporal
52
Climate Change and Cities
• Mitigation and Adaptation
– Sectoral issues (energy, transportation)
– Physical issues (buildings)
– Land use issues (urban form, heat islands)
– Regional issues (effects on economy of the
region)
– Green Agenda issues (consumption)
Co
mp
lexi
ty i
ncr
ease
Cities and the Green Economy
• Greening of city sectors
• The challenges
– Decision-making related
– Implementation capacity
• Green economy initiatives
need to address both
efficiency and demand to
avoid Jevon’s paradox
– Resource efficiency +
reduction of ecological
footprint
54
Conclusion
• Co-benefits are a way of looking at the impacts
of low carbon technologies in terms of local
environmental pollution
• Co-benefit tools have been developed in waste,
energy and transport to quantify the effect of
emissions reductions
• Decision making tools for each sector provide a
link on what factors in the city administration
may be important for implementation
55
https://tools.ias.unu.edu
56
Guidebooks for Evaluation tools
and Governance tools
57