• To identify feasible options for reducing air pollution and the carbon footprint in European cities
• To conduct integrated assessment of these options, using state-of-the-art modelling methods for health impact assessment to assist in cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis
Task 5.1 Identification of feasible mitigation and abatement options and estimation of effects and costs
The first step in this task is to identify possible options (policy/measure combinations) for reducing air pollution and the carbon footprint in cities. Both technical (e.g. changing emission factors due to the penetration of more environmentfriendly technologies) and non-technical measures (that influence the citizens behavior) will be covered. A considerable part of the concentration especially of PM2.5 in a city stems from emissions of fine particles and precursors (NOX, NH3, SO2, NMVOC) in areas outside of the city. Thus it is necessary to assess both urban and periurban/rural options for curbing air pollution (including options applicable at the EU level).
We will distinguish between short term measures that can be implemented in the immediate future (e.g. traffic restrictions, expansion of bus lanes network, use of bicycles, change of fuel shares, penetration of renewable energy sources), and medium-term measures that include changes of infrastructure or a certain time for market penetration and are thus fully effective only after 2020.
For these two categories possible options in addition to the measures already used in the baseline scenario will be systematically collected. We will first use the experience and knowledge of the ICARUS participating cities. These have been chosen as they are all very active in developing and implementing policies for climate change mitigation and air pollution abatement. We will collect their experiences with policies they have implemented, policies they intend to implement and also policies they have tested but viewed as not feasible. Furthermore we will make a literature research and also explore the strategies and plans of institutions such as the European Commission, national authorities and transport and energy providers (e.g. ERTICO and CONCAWE).
Through a preliminary screening the options that seem feasible, i.e. effective, efficient and acceptable based on available studies, will be chosen. Their potential for reduction of emissions of air pollutants and/or greenhouse gases without incurring extraordinarily high costs and their societal acceptability will be assessed. Key criteria in the options assessment process will be the extent to which these options bring improvements in (1) compliance of both AQ limit values and WHO health-based guidelines, (2) reduction in long-lived GHG and short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP) emissions and (3) changes in sequestration (i.e. CO2).
In a next step, the applicability of the options will be analyzed:
a) for each of the 9 partner cities.
b) for subgroups of the 892 cities/densely populated zones with more than 50,000 inhabitants in Europe, that are
identified in task 2.1.
c) for EU member states or the whole EU.
For each of the 9 partner cities the evaluation of option feasibility will be made through comprehensive process evaluation as presented in T5.4. The other EU cities, will be clustered based on parameters such as size, number of inhabitants, emissions per sector, meteorological parameters like average wind speed and classes, country, availability of natural gas network. For each cluster, an option feasibility analysis will be performed.
A number of potentially effective non-technical options (e.g. in the agricultural sector) is applied not in cities, but in rural areas. Thus it might be reasonable to implement these option in the whole EU. The same is true for using certain technical measures, especially introducing new emission limits for mobile or stationary sources, which are regulated at the Community level.
For the chosen options, two databases will be generated. The first one relates policies to measures. For each policy (i.e. implementing ecopolitical instruments like command and control, taxes, or subsidies) and implementation setting ((a) ICARUS participant cities; (b) non-participant urban clusters; and (c) the EU as a whole) the emission source operator reaction will be estimated using an agent-based modelling approach. Reactions could include applying non-technical measures, i.e. changing behaviour or activities, or applying technical measures, i.e. reducing emission factors e.g. by installing or improving filters. The result would then be a distribution of measures that is chosen by the emission source operators when confronted with the policy.
The second database will contain a description of the features of the technical and non-technical measures. Firstly, a mathematical operator would be developed that can be applied on the activity-emission factor matrices developed in WP 2. This operator would change activity data or emission factors or both depending on the measure and the relevant features of the cities or urban clusters, for which the option is identified as feasible. For instance for the enhanced use of electric cars the km driven with diesel and gasoline cars would be reduced while the km driven with electric cars would increase. The reduction might depend on the electric cars already running and the available infrastructure in a city. With this approach it would be straightforward to simulate the effect of applying bundles of measures, even if they affect each other, by applying the operators sequentially. Secondly, for each measure one or several cost factors will be estimated. Costs for each actor (emission source operator, state, general public) will be reckoned by multiplying the cost factor with either the change in activities (in the case of non-technical measures) or the activity level (for technical measures). The annuity of the costs over the life time would be estimated.
Task 5.2 Estimating the health and climate impacts of policy/measure options
The estimation of impacts of options includes the estimation of changes in exposure, in health impacts and the estimation of changes of climate forcing relative to the changed global warming potential expressed in tCO2,eq. The methods developed in WPs 3 and 4 will be used to estimate the change in exposure and in health impacts. All policy/measure options considered will be assessed in a nested scheme combining an EU-wide analysis with detailed analysis in the ICARUS participating cities. Analysis and evaluation of both short- and long-term changes of exposure to air pollution in the participating cities, for the years 2020, and 2030 will be carried out. Special focus will be on population vulnerable groups (e.g. asthmatics, children and elderly) and on people living in hot spot areas (e.g. near roads and in other locations with high pollution concentrations). The analysis will be based on (i) population-weighted concentrations to provide the overall exposure and (ii) detailed exposure modelling informed by WP4 that will account for the main activities of people and exposure in the various micro-environments to derive “individualized” exposure profiles as function of the intensity of physical activity, the gender and class age. Data on inhalation rates according to intensity of physical activity, gender and ages groups will be gathered from the INTERA database. TMADs (Time Micro-environment Activity Diaries) data exist from the EXPOLIS study , , and they will be used for the needs of the assessment. We will make use of Geographic Information System (GIS) to produce interactive geographic mapping tools. Different techniques for best representing both the central estimates and the associated uncertainty within the appropriate time and spatial framework will be reviewed and the most appropriate ones will be applied. The objective of the work will be to derive the most communicative information platform for policy-making purposes as well as for communication to and with the public at large.
All other cities in Europe will be analyzed at less detail. For each option, a scenario will be produced regarding where (e.g. in which city or cities) the option would be applied. Coupling socioeconomic dynamic modeling, atmospheric modelling, exposure modelling and health impact assessment (from WPs 3 and 4) the health and climate impacts will be calculated.
Task 5.3 Monetary valuation of impacts and cost-benefit analysis
Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis will be performed for each of the options defined in task 5.1. Costeffectiveness analysis will examine the costs of options and calculate for example the cost per ton of CO2eq. Ancillary benefits may be considered where these may be valued in monetary terms, allowing the consideration of the social cost effectiveness of an option, as well as the financial cost effectiveness which is more commonly assessed . For the cost-benefit analysis all benefits, damages and costs will be calculated and the non-monetary (intangible) items will be transformed into monetary values, where possible, including:
– Societal costs, e.g. costs for the source operator and the state, minus income and savings (e.g. state income from taxation).
– Monetized health impacts; the estimated health impacts from Task 5.2 will be valued using either existing estimates of values from the literature using appropriate “value transfer” methods from contingent valuation and/or cost of illness studies as appropriate. A primary online survey targeting the urban population in the target cities will also be conducted to value particular health impacts that have been less well covered in the literature. Life expectancy has generally been less addressed than the value of a statistical life – and the studies that have specifically focussed on this in the European context (e.g. the NEEDS project) had small sample sizes which would not allow for testing of differences by country. The survey will be based around a choice experiment, considering the potential for satisfying behaviour through identification and analysis of attribute non-attendance.
– Monetized contributions to climate change: estimates of marginal impacts per t of CO2,eq emitted from different sources are highly uncertain and vary by orders of magnitude. Here, the ‘standard-price approach’ will be followed, i.e. the agreed aims for GHGs reduction are assume to be decisions, taken after consideration of (a) current knowledge about impacts and mitigation and adaptation measures, and (b) the possibilities of additional unknown risks (precautionary principle). We estimate the marginal avoidance costs (MAC) to reach these aims. In particular the European Commission goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 to 2030 and to limit the temperature increase to 2°C within an international strategy. We will then exploit the numerous existing studies to estimate the marginal costs per t of CO2,eq. As a new element in this assessment we will also estimate the global warming potential of short-lived greenhouse gases like ozone, black carbon and aerosols based on findings in WP 3.
– Utility gains and losses: Technologies (e.g. cars) are often used, although they are more expensive for the user than alternative technologies (e.g. public transport, bicycle); this means that the expensive technologies must bring some benefit (more comfort, time gains). Benefits will be monetized by analyzing observations of behavioural changes and estimating the consumer surplus that can be attributed to this.
– Other benefits and damages, e.g. increase of health and well-being caused by physical activity when cycling can be assessed through application of the WHO HEAT tool.
Task 5.4 Feasibility evaluation of strategies/options at the city level
In WPs 5.1 to 5.3 the possible options for each city have been identified and their health impacts, changes of climate impacts, costs and utility losses quantified. The participating cities will – supported by their technical partners – use this information to formulate environmental protection strategies. Furthermore the cities will apply political and social criteria to identify effective, acceptable and implementable policies. T5.4 will contribute to the development of consistent, clear, and feasible policy recommendations. A continuous process evaluation scheme will be applied in the framework of T5.4 in order to discover barriers and drivers for the implementation of win-win measures in a particular city, and to find ways to support drivers and avoid barriers. Barriers and drivers may be of political, social, economic, urban/land-use, financial, motivational etc. nature.
The process evaluation team will continuously communicate with the city representatives to consult and evaluate the implementation potential of the measures/polices. An evaluation plan will be prepared in the first 12 months of the project. After this a six-monthly evaluation and internal reporting for the project consolidation and management is envisaged. An iterative information exchange between all tasks in WP5 will be set up to ensure internal consistency, transparency and effectiveness. Moreover, the results of T5.4 may pose the need for re-modelling and re-assessment by WP2, 3, and 4. The process evaluation exercise may reveal that certain measures are unfeasible/unacceptable in a certain city. Appropriate adaptation of the strategy/policy would be required then. In this context the process evaluation will serve as an additional internal monitoring support of the overall project quality management.
|Deliverable Number||Deliverable Title||Lead beneficiary||Type||Dissemination level||Due Date (in months)|
|D5.1||Report on process evaluation plan||2 – USTUTT||Report||Public||12|
|D5.2||Two databases of a) policies and b) measures towards integrated win-win solutions on the urban scale||8 – JSI||Other||Public||18|
|D5.3||Methodology report on the relationship between policies and measures||4 – UNEXE||Report||Public||24|
|D5.4||Final report on integrated
assessment of policies
|8 – JSI||Report||Public||36|
|D5.5||Report on green strategy and implementation plan in one each of the cities||8 – JSI||Report||Public||42|