Cookies?
Library Header Image
LSE Research Online LSE Library Services

Co-benefits of urban climate action: a framework for cities

Floater, Graham and Heeckt, Catarina and Ulterino, Matthew and Mackie, Lisa and Rode, Philipp and Bhardwaj, Ankit and Carvalho, Maria and Gill, Darren and Bailey, Thomas and Huxley, Rachel (2016) Co-benefits of urban climate action: a framework for cities. The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK, London, UK.

[img]
Preview
PDF - Published Version
Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

Why do climate co-benefits matter for cities? • The evidence suggests that citizens are more likely to take action on climate change, or more likely to support governments that take action on climate change, if the wider co-benefits of those actions are emphasised. • At the same time, policies that are aimed at supporting innovation, delivering economic benefits and enhancing the quality of life of citizens can potentially lead to major climate cobenefits (e.g. reduced greenhouse gas emissions) which would be more challenging to achieve if climate action were the primary objective. • At the city level, the potential of co-benefits is particularly great as citizens can often witness the results of policy actions more directly on their daily lives. Definition and taxonomy of co-benefits • The term co-benefits has a wide range of definitions in the climate literature, with over 20 terms identified in the literature that are used synonymously or in a similar context. • The term co-benefits varies in intentionality (e.g. is climate the primary or secondary objective, or simply an unintentional benefit?), scope (e.g. does it include mitigation benefits, adaptation benefits or both?), and scale (e.g. are the benefits short term and local, or long term and global?). • Co-benefits may be (1) secondary benefits from climate policy action, (2) secondary climate benefits from other policy actions, or (3) the combination of climate and non-climate benefits; both of which are targeted under an integrated policy programme. • The wide range of established definitions of co-benefits used by authoritative organisations means that formulating a taxonomy of co-benefits with broad buy-in from policy makers is challenging. Results of literature review • Health, Land Use and Transport were the top three sectors for the number of co-benefits, with over 40 co-benefits identified in each. • Waste, Air Quality, Transport and Energy had particularly high numbers of mitigation cobenefits in the literature reviewed. Adaptation co-benefits were particularly strong for Disaster and Emergency, Food Security and Tourism, Culture and Sport. Land Use, Health, Water and Education tended to be strong for both mitigation and adaptation co-benefits.

Item Type: Monograph (Working Paper)
Official URL: https://lsecities.net/
Additional Information: © 2016 The Authors
Subjects: H Social Sciences > HT Communities. Classes. Races
Sets: Research centres and groups > LSE Cities (Cities Programme)
Date Deposited: 16 Jan 2017 17:06
Last Modified: 16 Jan 2017 17:06
URI: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/68876

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics