2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemWhat metrics best reflect the energy and carbon intensity of cities? Insights from theory and modeling of 20 US cities(Bristol : IOP, 2013) Ramaswami, A.; Chavez, A.Three broad approaches have emerged for energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting for individual cities: (a) purely in-boundary source-based accounting (IB); (b) community-wide infrastructure GHG emissions footprinting (CIF) incorporating life cycle GHGs (in-boundary plus trans-boundary) of key infrastructures providing water, energy, food, shelter, mobility-connectivity, waste management/sanitation and public amenities to support community-wide activities in cities - all resident, visitor, commercial and industrial activities; and (c) consumption-based GHG emissions footprints (CBF) incorporating life cycle GHGs associated with activities of a sub-set of the community - its final consumption sector dominated by resident households. The latter two activity-based accounts are recommended in recent GHG reporting standards, to provide production-dominated and consumption perspectives of cities, respectively. Little is known, however, on how to normalize and report the different GHG numbers that arise for the same city. We propose that CIF and IB, since they incorporate production, are best reported per unit GDP, while CBF is best reported per capita. Analysis of input-output models of 20 US cities shows that GHGCIF/GDP is well suited to represent differences in urban energy intensity features across cities, while GHGCBF/capita best represents variation in expenditures across cities. These results advance our understanding of the methods and metrics used to represent the energy and GHG performance of cities.
- ItemMatching scope, purpose and uses of planetary boundaries science(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2019) Downing, Andrea S.; Bhowmik, Avit; Collste, David; Cornell, Sarah E.; Donges, Jonathan; Fetzer, Ingo; Häyhä, Tiina; Hinton, Jennifer; Lade, Steven; Mooij, Wolf M.Background: The Planetary Boundaries concept (PBc) has emerged as a key global sustainability concept in international sustainable development arenas. Initially presented as an agenda for global sustainability research, it now shows potential for sustainability governance. We use the fact that it is widely cited in scientific literature (>3500 citations) and an extensively studied concept to analyse how it has been used and developed since its first publication. Design: From the literature that cites the PBc, we select those articles that have the terms 'planetary boundaries' or 'safe operating space' in either title, abstract or keywords. We assume that this literature substantively engages with and develops the PBc. Results: We find that 6% of the citing literature engages with the concept. Within this fraction of the literature we distinguish commentaries—that discuss the context and challenges to implementing the PBc, articles that develop the core biogeophysical concept and articles that apply the concept by translating to sub-global scales and by adding a human component to it. Applied literature adds to the concept by explicitly including society through perspectives of impacts, needs, aspirations and behaviours. Discussion: Literature applying the concept does not yet include the more complex, diverse, cultural and behavioural facet of humanity that is implied in commentary literature. We suggest there is need for a positive framing of sustainability goals—as a Safe Operating Space rather than boundaries. Key scientific challenges include distinguishing generalised from context-specific knowledge, clarifying which processes are generalizable and which are scalable, and explicitly applying complex systems' knowledge in the application and development of the PBc. We envisage that opportunities to address these challenges will arise when more human social dimensions are integrated, as we learn to feed the global sustainability vision with a plurality of bottom-up realisations of sustainability.