Will climate mitigation ambitions lead to carbon neutrality? An analysis of the local-level plans of 327 cities in the EU

Cities across the globe recognise their role in climate mitigation and are acting to reduce carbon emissions. Knowing whether cities set ambitious climate and energy targets is critical for determining their contribution towards the global 1.5 °C target, partly because it helps to identify areas where further action is necessary. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the mitigation targets of 327 European cities, as declared in their local climate plans. The sample encompasses over 25% of the EU population and includes cities of all sizes across all Member States, plus the UK. The study analyses whether the type of plan, city size, membership of climate networks, and its regional location are associated with different levels of mitigation ambition. Results reveal that 78% of the cities have a GHG emissions reduction target. However, with an average target of 47%, European cities are not on track to reach the Paris Agreement: they need to roughly double their ambitions and efforts. Some cities are ambitious, e.g. 25% of our sample (81) aim to reach carbon neutrality, with the earliest target date being 2020.90% of these cities are members of the Climate Alliance and 75% of the Covenant of Mayors. City size is the strongest predictor for carbon neutrality, whilst climate network(s) membership, combining adaptation and mitigation into a single strategy, and local motivation also play a role. The methods, data, results and analysis of this study can serve as a reference and baseline for tracking climate mitigation ambitions across European and global cities

Are soil sealing indicators sufficient to guide urban planning? Insights from an ecosystem services assessment in the Paris metropolitan area

International audienceUrban sprawl impacts are critical in the evaluation of planning decisions and often monitored by indicators of soil sealing. In France, these indicators are required by law to be reported in environmental assessments of planning documents. Although monitoring of soil sealing is important to limit environmental impacts, focusing on this sole dimension in urban planning can be reductive. In this paper, we explore to what extent ecosystem services (ES) indicators, measuring the benefits to humans provided by healthy ecosystems, are captured by soil sealing indicators by comparing their temporal and spatial evolutions. Through consulting with urban planning stakeholders, we model and map the spatial and temporal evolutions over a 35 year period of soil sealing and eight priority ES in the Paris metropolitan area (agricultural potential, groundwater recharge, global climate regulation, water quality regulation through nutrient retention, urban heat mitigation, flood mitigation, recreational potential and natural heritage). We highlight the spatial and temporal matches and mismatches between the two types of indicators (ES and soil sealing) and demonstrate that a large part of ES variations are not well captured by soil sealing indicators in time and space (spatial match with the eight ES is only found for 10% of the Paris metropolitan area). This calls for finer, ES-based, diagnosis in land use planning that could usefully illuminate the gains and losses related to land use and land management policies by taking into account the environmental and societal impacts of urban sprawl

Mixture effect on radial stem and shoot growth differs and varies with temperature

International audienceThe effect of species diversity on forest productivity and its temporal stability is known to be species-, climateand site-dependent and is mostly apprehended through stem diameter. Therefore, it remains largely unknown whether the mixture effect on the growth of tree crowns is similar to its effect on the growth of tree diameter. However, it is commonly accepted that changes in crown architecture are an important component of tree response to tree species diversity. Moreover, the mixture effect on species is often asymmetric, i.e. the effect of a species A on a species B is not equal to the effect of species B on A. It then appears that considering the effects of both species mixture and climate on shoot growth could contrast the results coming mainly from stem growth. We studied the effects of tree species mixture and temperature on the annual growth of shoots and basal area of stems in Fagus sylvatica-Quercus pubescens and Fagus sylvatica-Abies alba stands along a Mediterranean-Alpine gradient, for four years in five sites. The sample design was organized in 10 triplets: four triplets of mono-and bispecific plots of Quercus pubescens and Fagus sylvatica and six triplets of mono-and bi-specific plots of Abies alba and Fagus sylvatica along an altitudinal gradient ranging from 725 m to 1431 m. We found that the mixture effect on annual shoot volume increment (SVI) and on basal area increment (BAI) was asymmetrical in seven out of 10 cases and not significant in the three remaining cases. Mixture effect on SVI ranked from − 56% to 157% and on BAI it ranked from − 40% to 252%. Eventually we found that mixture effect was dependent on the type of limiting factor for growth, with at the driest sites a predominance of competition effects and at the coldest site a positive mixture effect on the two species studied. Branch growth appears as a variable that can be at least as informative as radial growth regarding the tree response to species interactions. This implies that considering only stem diameter in the diversity-productivity relationship can lead to biased conclusions on the global mixture effect on tree growth, which calls for a comprehensive approach of the tree response to tree species diversity. Our results are discussed in the light of the species stress tolerances and strategies to cope with competition

Mixture effect on radial stem and shoot growth differs and varies with temperature

International audienceThe effect of species diversity on forest productivity and its temporal stability is known to be species-, climateand site-dependent and is mostly apprehended through stem diameter. Therefore, it remains largely unknown whether the mixture effect on the growth of tree crowns is similar to its effect on the growth of tree diameter. However, it is commonly accepted that changes in crown architecture are an important component of tree response to tree species diversity. Moreover, the mixture effect on species is often asymmetric, i.e. the effect of a species A on a species B is not equal to the effect of species B on A. It then appears that considering the effects of both species mixture and climate on shoot growth could contrast the results coming mainly from stem growth. We studied the effects of tree species mixture and temperature on the annual growth of shoots and basal area of stems in Fagus sylvatica-Quercus pubescens and Fagus sylvatica-Abies alba stands along a Mediterranean-Alpine gradient, for four years in five sites. The sample design was organized in 10 triplets: four triplets of mono-and bispecific plots of Quercus pubescens and Fagus sylvatica and six triplets of mono-and bi-specific plots of Abies alba and Fagus sylvatica along an altitudinal gradient ranging from 725 m to 1431 m. We found that the mixture effect on annual shoot volume increment (SVI) and on basal area increment (BAI) was asymmetrical in seven out of 10 cases and not significant in the three remaining cases. Mixture effect on SVI ranked from − 56% to 157% and on BAI it ranked from − 40% to 252%. Eventually we found that mixture effect was dependent on the type of limiting factor for growth, with at the driest sites a predominance of competition effects and at the coldest site a positive mixture effect on the two species studied. Branch growth appears as a variable that can be at least as informative as radial growth regarding the tree response to species interactions. This implies that considering only stem diameter in the diversity-productivity relationship can lead to biased conclusions on the global mixture effect on tree growth, which calls for a comprehensive approach of the tree response to tree species diversity. Our results are discussed in the light of the species stress tolerances and strategies to cope with competition

A shared vision for sustainable regional land use in the Galloway and Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere

Climate change, biodiversity loss and evolving societal demands emphasise the need to manage our landscapes differently. But conflicting interests and views make it difficult to agree where and how change should take place. UNESCO Biospheres are internationally recognised regions committed to piloting different approaches to addressing these demands. Researchers from The University of Edinburgh and Forest Research facilitated a collaborative process with a diverse group of twenty-seven stakeholders in the Biosphere to understand common ground for a future land use vision and explore where change could help achieve the vision. The research identified a shared vision for sustainable regional land use in the Biosphere. The vision combines social, economic, and environmental aspirations for a varied, mixed and integrated living and working landscape that provides an excellent place to live and work with a strong identity and a respected and celebrated natural and cultural heritage. The vision narrative was used to develop spatial criteria to identify where changes in land use or land management should be considered to achieve the vision, such as diversifying agriculture and forestry, restoring peatlands and improving habitats and biodiversity. Despite broad agreement about the types of changes required, and the landscape functions and benefits land in the Biosphere should provide in the future, attempts to discuss specific land use changes at more local scales were difficult. The challenge is now to develop processes that bring together local stakeholders to understand different perspectives and find ways to identify benefits and negotiate trade-offs that are acceptable to a broad group of people

Will climate mitigation ambitions lead to carbon neutrality? An analysis of the local-level plans of 327 cities in the EU

ABSTRACT: Cities across the globe recognise their role in climate mitigation and are acting to reduce carbon emissions. Knowing whether cities set ambitious climate and energy targets is critical for determining their contribution towards the global 1.5 °C target, partly because it helps to identify areas where further action is necessary. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the mitigation targets of 327 European cities, as declared in their local climate plans. The sample encompasses over 25% of the EU population and includes cities of all sizes across all Member States, plus the UK. The study analyses whether the type of plan, city size, membership of climate networks, and its regional location are associated with different levels of mitigation ambition. Results reveal that 78% of the cities have a GHG emissions reduction target. However, with an average target of 47%, European cities are not on track to reach the Paris Agreement: they need to roughly double their ambitions and efforts. Some cities are ambitious, e.g. 25% of our sample (81) aim to reach carbon neutrality, with the earliest target date being 2020.90% of these cities are members of the Climate Alliance and 75% of the Covenant of Mayors. City size is the strongest predictor for carbon neutrality, whilst climate network(s) membership, combining adaptation and mitigation into a single strategy, and local motivation also play a role. The methods, data, results and analysis of this study can serve as a reference and baseline for tracking climate mitigation ambitions across European and global cities.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Data for: Climate mitigation ambition towards carbon neutrality? An analysis of local-level plans of 327 cities in the EU

This dataset provides data on a sample of 327 core cities within the EU-28, covered by the Cities Statistics database of the European Statistics Office (Eurostat), formerly known as “Urban Audit” (UA). It is organized in three spreadsheets containing, respectively, the following data: 1. List of the analyzed plans: Country / City, City population, Climate change mitigation strategy name (in national languages / in English), Year of adoption of the strategy/plan, Type of Mitigation Local Climate Plan (M-LCP), Integrated Mitigation and Adaptation Plan, Carbon neutrality, target year carbon neutrality, Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCoM), Climate Alliance (CA), C40, CNCA (Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance) 2. GHG emission targets for UA cities with a plan, by country: Country / City with a plan, Type of M-LCP, CO2 emission target (% / baseline year / target year), GHG emission target (CO2eq) (% / baseline year / target year), Geographical location (Northern/Southern Europe) 3. Key data summary on the sample: Country, Total number (No.) of cities in the sample, M-LCPs by type, Total No. of M-LCP Cities without a plan, Cities with a plan, Integrated M&A LCPs, Total population, Population in our city sample, Population representativeness in the sampl