Advertisement

Climate change mitigation potential of community-based initiatives in Europe

  • David M. Landholm
  • Anne Holsten
  • Federico Martellozzo
  • Dominik E. Reusser
  • Jürgen P. Kropp
Original Article

Abstract

There is a growing recognition that a transition to a sustainable low-carbon society is urgently needed. This transition takes place at multiple and complementary scales, including bottom-up approaches such as community-based initiatives (CBIs). However, empirical research on CBIs has focused until now on anecdotal evidence and little work has been done to quantitatively assess their impact in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In this paper, we analyze 38 European initiatives across the food, energy, transport, and waste sectors to address the following questions: How can the GHG reduction potential of CBIs be quantified and analyzed in a systematic manner across different sectors? What is the GHG mitigation potential of CBIs and how does the reduction potential differ across domains? Through the comparison of the emission intensity arising from the goods and services the CBIs provide in relation to a business-as-usual scenario, we present the potential they have across different activities. This constitutes the foundational step to upscaling and further understanding their potential contribution to achieving climate change mitigation targets. Our findings indicate that energy generation through renewable sources, changes in personal transportation, and dietary change present by far the highest GHG mitigation activities analyzed, since they reduce the carbon footprint of CBI beneficiaries by 24%, 11%, and 7%, respectively. In contrast, the potential for some activities, such as locally grown organic food, is limited. The service provided by these initiatives only reduces the carbon footprint by 0.1%. Overall, although the proliferation of CBIs is very desirable from a climate change mitigation perspective it is necessary to stress that bottom-up initiatives present other important positive dimensions besides GHG mitigation. These initiatives also hold the potential of improving community resilience by strengthening local economies and enhancing social cohesion.

Keywords

Greenhouse gas emissions Sustainability transitions Grassroots initiatives Carbon footprint Sustainable lifestyles Low carbon economy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments on draft versions of this article. This research was realized in the framework of the European research project “Towards European Societal Sustainability.”

Funding information

The work leading to the contents has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Program under Grant Agreement No. 603705 (Project TESS).

Supplementary material

10113_2018_1428_MOESM1_ESM.docx (267 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 267 kb)

References

  1. Bai X, Roberts B, Chen J (2010) Urban sustainability experiments in Asia: patterns and pathways. Environ Sci Pol 13(4):312–325.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barthelmie RJ, Morris SD, Schechter P (2008) Carbon neutral Biggar: calculating the community carbon footprint and renewable energy options for footprint reduction. Sustain Sci 3(2):267–282.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-008-0059-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berners-Lee M, Hoolohan C, Cammack H, Hewitt CN (2012) The relative greenhouse gas impacts of realistic dietary choices. Energy Policy 43:184–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruckner T, Bashmakov IA, Mulugetta Y, Chum H, de la Vega Navarro A, Ed-monds J, Faaij A, Fungtammasan B, Garg A, Hertwich E, Honnery D, Infield D, Kainuma M, Khennas S, Kim S, Nimir HB, Riahi K, Strachan N, Wiser R, and Zhang X (2014) Energy Systems. In Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. contribution of working group iii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416.
  5. Bryngelsson D, Wirsenius S, Hedenus F, Sonesson U (2014) How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy 59:152–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.12.012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Čuček L, Klemeš J, Kravanja Z (2012) A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. J Clean Prod 34:9–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawkins E, Roelich K, Owen A (2011) A consumption approach for emissions account-ing - the reap tool and REAP data for 2006. http://www.reap-petite.com. Accessed 01 Jun 2017
  8. DEFRA (2015) UK government conversion factors for company reporting 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2015. Accessed 01 Feb 2017
  9. van Dooren C, Marinussen M, Blonk H, Aiking H, Vellinga P (2014) Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: a comparison of six dietary patterns. Food Policy 44:36–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EC (2014) EU transport in figures. statistical pocketbook 2014, technical report. doi: https://doi.org/10.2832/63317
  11. EEA (2015) EEA greenhouse gas - data viewer: data viewer on greenhouse gas emissions and removals, sent by countries to UNFCCC and the EU greenhouse gas monitoring mechanism (eu member states), technical report, European Environmental Agency (EEA), Copenhagen. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer. Accessed 01 Feb 2017
  12. Eurostat (2014) Population on 1 January (Code: tps00001). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/tps00001. Accessed 01 Feb 2017
  13. Feola G, Nunes R (2014) Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: the case of the transition movement. Glob Environ Chang 24(1):232–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forrest N, Wiek A (2015) Success factors and strategies for sustainability transitions of small-scale communities - evidence from a cross-case analysis. Environ Innov Soc Trans 17:22–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Granovskii M, Dincer I, Rosen MA (2006) Economic and environmental comparison of conventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. J Power Sources 159(2):1186–1193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.11.086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenhalgh S, Broekhoff D, Davied F, Ranganathan J, Acharya M, Corbier L, Oren K, and Sundin H (2005) The GHG protocol for project accounting, technical report, world resources institute / world business council for sustainable development. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/project-protocol. Accessed 01 Feb 2017.
  17. Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U, and Emanuelsson A (2011) Global food losses and food waste - extent, causes and prevention, technical report, FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.htm. Accessed 01 Feb 2017.
  18. Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH (2013) Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol 17(1):53–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hedenus F, Wirsenius S, Johansson DJA (2014) The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Clim Chang 124(1–2):79–91.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heiskanen E, Jalas M, Rinkinen J, Tainio P (2015) The local community as a ‘low carbon lab’: promises and perils. Environ Innov Soc Trans 14:149–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hiç C, Pradhan P, Rybski D, Kropp JP (2016) Food surplus and its climate burdens. Environ Sci Technol 50(8):4269–4277.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. HM Government (2009) The UK low carbon transition plan. national strategy for climate and energy, technical report. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/228752/9780108508394.pdf. Accessed 01 Feb 2017.
  23. Hobson K, Mayne R, Hamilton J (2016) Monitoring and evaluating eco-localisation: lessons from UK low carbon community groups. Environ Plan A 48(7):1393–1410.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16640531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. contribution of working groups i, ii and iii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [core writing team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Geneva: IPCC. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.Google Scholar
  25. Joyce A, Hallett J, Hannelly T, Carey G (2014) The impact of nutritional choices on global warming and policy implications: examining the link between dietary choices and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Emission Control Technol 2:33–43.  https://doi.org/10.2147/eect.s58518 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirchmann H, Kätterer T, Bergström L, Börjesson G, Bolinder MA (2016) Flaws and criteria for design and evaluation of comparative organic and conventional cropping systems. Field Crop Res 186:99–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leach M, Rockström J, Raskin P, Scoones I, Stirling AC, Smith A, Thompson J, Millstone E, Ely A, Arond E, Folke C, Olsson P (2012) Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecol Soc 17(2):11.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04933-170211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luederitz C, Schäpke N, Wiek A, Lang DJ, Bergmann M, Bos JJ, Burch S, Davies A, Evans J, König A, Farrelly MA, Forrest N, Frantzeskaki N, Gibson RB, Kay B, Loorbach D, McCormick K, Parodi O, Rauschmayer F, Schneidewind U, Stauffacher M, Stelzer F, Trencher G, Venjakob J, Vergragt PJ, von Wehrden H, Westley FR (2017) Learning through evaluation - a tentative evaluative scheme for sustainability transition experiments. J Clean Prod 169:61–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lynch DH, MacRae R, Martin RC (2011) The carbon and global warming potential impacts of organic farming: Does it have a significant role in an energy constrained world? Sustainability 3(2):322–362.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su3020322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41(6):955–967.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meier T, Christen O (2013) Environmental impacts of dietary recommendations and dietary styles: Germany as an example. Environ Sci Technol 47(2):877–888.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es302152v CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meier MS, Stoessel F, Jungbluth N, Juraske R, Schader C, Stolze M (2015) Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products - Are the differences captured by life cycle assessment? J. Environ. Manage. 149:193–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Michalský M, Hooda PS (2015) Greenhouse gas emissions of imported and locally produced fruit and vegetable commodities: a quantitative assessment. Environ Sci Policy 48(2015):32–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Middlemiss L, Parrish BD (2010) Building capacity for low-carbon communities: the role of grassroots initiatives. Energ Policy 38(12):7559–7566.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moomaw W, Burgherr P, Heath G, Lenzen M, Nyboer J, Verbruggen A (2011) Annex ii: methodology. in ipcc special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipccwg3ar5summaryfor-policymakers.pdf. Accessed 01 Feb 2017Google Scholar
  36. OECD (2011) Towards green growth: a summary for policy makers, technical report May 2011, Paris, France doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264111318-en.
  37. Padgett JP, Steinemann AC, Clarke JH, Vandenbergh MP (2008) A comparison of carbon calculators. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(2–3):106–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Bodirsky B (2010) Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob Environ Chang 20(3):451–462.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pradhan P, Fischer G, van Velthuizen H, Reusser DE, Kropp JP (2015) Closing yield gaps: how sustainable can we be? PLoS One 10(6):0129487.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ProBas (2016) Prozessdetails: Zug (Personennahverkehrszug, Personenfernverkehrszug), PKW (Ottokraftstoff konventionell, Diesel konventionell). Daten: 3. Umweltaskpekte. in: Prozes sorientierte Basisdaten für Umweltmanagement-Instrumente (ProBas, Umweltbunde-samt). http://www.probas.umweltbundesamt.de/php/prozesskategorien.php. Accessed 01 Feb 2017.
  41. Scarborough P, Appleby PN, Mizdrak A, Briggs ADM, Travis RC, Bradbury KE, Key TJ (2014) Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Clim Chang 125(2):179–192.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schanes K, Giljum S, Hertwich E (2016) Low carbon lifestyles: A framework to structure consumption strategies and options to reduce carbon footprints. J. Clean. Prod. 139:1033–1043.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scherhaufer S, Lebersorger S, Pertl A, Obersteiner G, Schneider F, Falasconi L, de Menna F, Vittuari M, Hartikainen H, Katajajuuri JM, Joensuu K, Timonen K, van der Sluis A, Bos-Brouwers H, Moates G, Waldron K, Mhlanga N, Bucatariu A, Lee WTK, James K, and Easteal S (2015) Criteria for and baseline assessment of environmental and socio-economic impacts of food waste, technical report. http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/505035. Accessed 01 Feb 2017.
  44. Seyfang G, Smith A (2007) Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ Polit 4016(4):37–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010701419121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seyfang G, Haxeltine A (2012) Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 30(3):381–400.  https://doi.org/10.1068/c10222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sims, R, Schaeffer R, Creutzig F, Cruz-Núñez X, D’Agosto M, Dimitriu D, Figueroa Meza MJ, Fulton L, Kobayashi S, Lah O, McKinnon A, Newman P, Ouyang M, Schauer JJ, Sperling D, and Tiwari G (2014) Transport. In climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. contribution of working group iii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416
  47. van Sluisveld MAE, Herreras S, Daioglou V, van Vuuren DP (2016) Exploring the implications of lifestyle change in 2ÂřC mitigation scenarios using the IMAGE integrated as sessment model. Technol. Forecast Soc. 102:309–319.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith A, Raven R (2012) What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Res Policy 41(6):1025–1036.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith P, Bustamante M, Ahammad H, Clark H, Dong H, Elsiddig EA, Haberl H, Harper R, House J, Jafari M, Masera O, Mbow C, Ravindranath NH, Rice CW, Robledo Abad C, Romanovskaya A, Sperling F, and Tubiello F (2014) Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. contribution of working group iii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416.
  50. Stechemesser K, Guenther E (2012) Carbon accounting: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 36:17–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tilman D, Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515(7528):518–522.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. UNEP (2011) Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication, Technical report, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3159605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. UNEP (2016) The emissions gap report 2016. a UNEP synthesis report, technical report, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi. https://uneplive.unep.org/media/docs/theme/13/Emissions Gap Report 2016.pdf. Accessed 01 Feb 2017
  54. UNFCCC (2015) Adoption of the Paris agreement. 12 December 2015 http://unfcccint/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01pdf Accessed 01 Feb 2
  55. Vanham D, Bouraoui F, Leip A, Grizzetti B, Bidoglio G (2015) Lost water and nitrogen resources due to EU consumer food waste. Environ. Res. Lett. 10(8):084008.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. World Bank (2012) Turn down the heat. Why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided, technical report, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/20595. Accessed 01 Feb 2017

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Leibniz AssociationPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.Institute of Earth and Environmental ScienceUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations