Search

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of local planning for climate change by collecting and analysing information about local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and framework for analysis was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their alignment with spatial (local, national and international) and other climate related policies. Out of eight types of local climate plans identified in total we document three types of stand-alone local climate plans classified as type A1 (autonomously produced plans), A2 (plans produced to comply with national regulations) or A3 (plans developed for international climate networks). There is wide variation among countries in the prevalence of local climate plans, with generally more plans developed by central and northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have a type A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, and 17% a joint adaptation and mitigation plan, while about 33% lack any form of stand-alone local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but planning for mitigation does not always precede planning for adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 80% of the cities with above 500,000 inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1). Cities in four countries with national climate legislation (A2), i.e. Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are nearly twice as likely to produce local mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce local adaptation plans, compared to cities in countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in two countries where local climate plans are compulsory, i.e. France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans produced for international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous (type A1) plans are less common. This is the most comprehensive analysis of local climate planning to date. The findings are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making towards climate planning and policy development at national, EU and global level being based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of local climate planning available to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many cities around the world are increasingly developing plans and policies for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. These plans and policies are often focused on either mitigation or adaptation. This dichotomized approach can be problematic and result in trade-offs. In other words, efforts aimed at enhancing mitigation (adaptation) may hinder achieving adaptation (mitigation) objectives. Additionally, conflicts may arise as there might be inconsistencies between some mitigation and adaptation measures. Since trade-offs and conflicts between adaptation and mitigation measures can undermine effectiveness and efficiency of municipal activities, efforts should be made to avoid or minimize them. This study aims to provide a better understanding of potential trade-offs and conflicts through reviewing literature on the interactions between urban adaptation and mitigation measures. This is done through bibliographic analysis and detailed content analyses of selected papers. Results of this review show that research on trade-offs and conflict has gained traction since the publication of the fourth assessment report of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, there is still a lack of empirical studies. In particular, limited research exists on the Global South cities. Also, according to the findings, existing research is mainly focused on trade-offs associated with measures related to energy, land use, transport, water, building, green infrastructure, and waste sectors. It is found that mitigation measures may have negative impacts on adaptation by increasing exposure to risks such as the urban heat island effect and flooding and/or by eroding livelihood options of poor and marginalized groups and causing equity concerns. In contrast, adaptation measures may increase greenhouse gas emissions by, among other things, reducing efficiency and increasing energy demand. It is discussed that integrated assessment frameworks should be utilized to deal with trade-offs and conflicts. Finally, some recommendations for better uptake of integrated frameworks are provided. • Conflicts and trade-offs between urban adaptation and mitigation measures are explored. • Conflicts and trade-offs have received more attention since publication of IPCC AR4 report. • Most trade-offs are related to energy, land use, transport, water, and building sectors. • The most recurring trade-offs of mitigation measures are related to equity and adaptive capacity. • Integrated assessment frameworks should be used to deal with conflicts and trade-offs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]