Advertisement

Upscaling from the grassroots: potential aggregate carbon reduction from community-based initiatives in Europe

  • Federico MartellozzoEmail author
  • David M. Landholm
  • Anne Holsten
Original Article

Abstract

Anthropogenic activities are mainly responsible for the accelerated pace and magnitude of global environmental and climate change. Although several programs aiming at fuelling climate change mitigation have been adopted internationally in the last decades and localized improvements have been observed, the results expected by international institutions are regrettably still out of reach. Meanwhile, societies have experienced a significant proliferation of community-based initiatives (CBIs) fostering sustainable societal transition through different practices. Some studies claim that bottom-up activities may address sustainability issues more efficiently than top-down policies when appropriately scaled up. However, these are based mostly on anecdotal local evidence, and a systematic evaluation of the extent of CBIs’ potential contribution to climate change mitigation action at a larger scale has never been investigated. This paper elaborates a scaling-up exercise for CBIs’ carbon reduction at a broader scale and presents results about potential implications for European countries. Our findings suggest that, although varying greatly among countries, CBIs’ contribution to reach GHG reduction targets at the European scale can be important. However, a carbon reduction of such magnitude requires a substantial societal engagement in sustainable activities. Although societies cannot rely solely on the scaling-up of lifestyle changes promoted by CBIs to fulfill future environmental targets, policy makers should not neglect the large potential of societal engagement and should try to facilitate synergies between CBIs, industries, and institutions in developing climate change mitigation action.

Keywords

Community-based initiatives GHG Sustainable development goals Climate change mitigation Sustainable societal transition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This manuscript reflects the authors’ views. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. We would like to thank all our colleagues that were involved in the TESS activities. All the authors contributed equally to this work; the experiment design and the writing of the manuscript were developed jointly by all authors. However, Introduction, Rationale, Data and Methods, and Results are mainly due to F. Martellozzo as the leading author of this work. D.M. Landholm developed fundamental preliminary work that was necessary as a base to develop the analysis hereby presented. A. Holsten mainly focused on the Conclusions, while all authors contributed equally to the Discussion section. F. Martellozzo at the time this research was developed was affiliated at the University of Rome La Sapienza in Rome, Italy.

Funding information

This work is part of an international research project that has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 603705 (Project TESS).

Supplementary material

10113_2019_1469_MOESM1_ESM.docx (79 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 79 kb)

References

  1. Akimoto K, Sano F, Homma T, Oda J, Nagashima M, Kii M (2010) Estimates of GHG emission reduction potential by country, sector, and cost. Energy Policy 38:3384–3393.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.012 Google Scholar
  2. Amato F, Martellozzo F, Nolè G, Murgante B (2017) Preserving cultural heritage by supporting landscape planning with quantitative predictions of soil consumption. J Cult Herit 23:44–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2015.12.009 Google Scholar
  3. Andrachuk M, Smit B (2012) Community-based vulnerability assessment of Tuktoyaktuk, NWT, Canada to environmental and socio-economic changes. Reg Environ Chang 12:867–885.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0299-0 Google Scholar
  4. Badami MG, Ramankutty N (2015) Urban agriculture and food security: a critique based on an assessment of urban land constraints. Glob Food Sec 4:8–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.10.003 Google Scholar
  5. Barrett J, Peters G, Wiedmann T, Scott K (2013) Consumption-based GHG emission accounting: a UK case study. Clim Pol 13(4):451–470.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2013.788858 Google Scholar
  6. Bennett NJ, Blythe J, Tyler S, Ban NC (2016) Communities and change in the anthropocene: understanding social-ecological vulnerability and planning adaptations to multiple interacting exposures. Reg Environ Chang 16:907–926.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0839-5 Google Scholar
  7. Bohunovsky L, Jäger J, Omann I (2011) Participatory scenario development for integrated sustainability assessment. Reg Environ Chang 11:271–284.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0143-3 Google Scholar
  8. Brown I, Martin-Ortega J, Waylen K, Blackstock K (2016) Participatory scenario planning for developing innovation in community adaptation responses: three contrasting examples from Latin America. Reg Environ Chang 16:1685–1700.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0898-7 Google Scholar
  9. Bryld E (2003) Potentials, problems, and policy implications for urban agriculture in developing countries. Agric Hum Values 20:79–86.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022464607153 Google Scholar
  10. Celata F, Sanna V (2014) Community activism and sustainability: a multi-dimensional assessment. Working Paper. Dipartimento di Metodi e modelli per l'economia, il territorio e la finanza (MEMOTEF), Roma. n. 137, Dicembre 2014, ISSN: 1568-4555Google Scholar
  11. Celata F, Sanna VS, Hendrickson CY, et al (2016) TESS – D2.2 Assessment data sheets for community-based initiatives including the ecosystem services and green infrastructure (ES-GI) assessment toolkitGoogle Scholar
  12. Certomà C, Migliorini P (2011) The evaluation of sustainability of organic farms in Tuscany. In: Environmental Earth Sciences pp 165–177.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-95991-5-17
  13. Correia M (2005) Harvest in the city. Earth Isl J 20:34–36Google Scholar
  14. Costa L, Rybski D, Kropp JP (2011) A human development framework for CO2 reductions. PLoS One 6:e29262.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029262 Google Scholar
  15. Dietz T, E a R, York R (2009) Environmentally efficient well-being : rethinking sustainability as the relationship between human well-being and environmental impacts. Hum Ecol Rev 16:114–123Google Scholar
  16. Dinnie E, Holstead KL (2017) The influence of public funding on community-based sustainability projects in Scotland. Environ Innov Soc TransitionsGoogle Scholar
  17. Dodman D (2009) Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environ Urban 21:185–201.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247809103016 Google Scholar
  18. Duren RM, Miller CE (2012) Measuring the carbon emissions of megacities. Nat Clim Chang 2:560–562.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1629 Google Scholar
  19. Emilsson T, Ode Sang Å (2017) Impacts of climate change on urban areas and nature-based solutions for adaptation. In: nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas: linkages between science, policy. Practice:15–27Google Scholar
  20. European Environment Agency (2013) Achieving energy efficiency through behaviour change: what does it take?Google Scholar
  21. European Environment Agency (2017) Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2015 and inventory report 2017. Annu. Eur. Union Greenh. gas Invent. 1990–2015 Invent. Rep. 2017 — Eur Environ Agency 1–1294Google Scholar
  22. European Union (2010) Europe 2020 a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Commun from Comm COM:35–1160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.03.010
  23. Eurostat (2014) Eurostat regional yearbook 2014Google Scholar
  24. Feola G, Nunes R (2014) Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: the case of the transition movement. Glob Environ Chang 24:232–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.011 Google Scholar
  25. Fischer A, Holstead K, Hendrickson CY, Virkkula O, Prampolini A (2017) Community-led initiatives’ everyday politics for sustainability—conflicting rationalities and aspirations for change? Environ Plan A 49:1986–2006.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17713994 Google Scholar
  26. Frantzeskaki N, Loorbach D, Meadowcroft J (2012) Governing societal transitions to sustainability. Int J Sustain Dev 15:19–36.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2012.044032 Google Scholar
  27. Haara A, Tikkanen J, Antonella P, et al (2016) TESS—D1.2 Deliverable 1.2: inventory database of community-based initiatives and selected case studiesGoogle Scholar
  28. Haberman D, Gillies L, Canter A, Rinner V, Pancrazi L, Martellozzo F (2014) The potential of urban agriculture in Montréal: a quantitative assessment. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 3:1101–1117.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi3031101 Google Scholar
  29. Hargreaves T, Hielscher S, Seyfang G, Smith A (2013) Grassroots innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development. Glob Environ Chang 23:868–880.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008 Google Scholar
  30. Jones CM, Kammen DM (2011) Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for U.S. households and communities. Environ Sci Technol 45:4088–4095.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es102221h Google Scholar
  31. Kirwan J, Ilbery B, Maye D, Carey J (2013) Grassroots social innovations and food localisation: an investigation of the local food programme in England. Glob Environ Chang 23:830–837.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.004 Google Scholar
  32. Landholm DM, Holsten A, Revell P et al (2016) TESS PROJECT WP 2: impact analysis of community-based initiatives, including carbon reduction assessment title of report: D2.4: carbon reduction and community impact scoreboard. FP7 TESS Proj Rep D42(603705):77Google Scholar
  33. Landholm DM, Holsten A, Martellozzo F, Reusser DE, Kropp JP (2018) Climate change mitigation potential of community-based initiatives in Europe. Reg Env Chang 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1428-1
  34. Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41:955–967.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013 Google Scholar
  35. Martellozzo F, Clarke KC (2013) Urban sprawl and the quantification of spatial dispersion..In Borruso G. et.al. (edited by): Geographic Information Analysis for Sustainable Development and Economic Planning: New Technologies. IGI Global.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1924-1.ch009
  36. Martellozzo F, Reusser DE, Groß H (2017) Evaluating community based initiatives’ sustainability in Europe: balancing data needs and resulting uncertainties. Eur J Sustain Dev 6:181–202.  https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2017.v6n1p181 Google Scholar
  37. Martellozzo F, Amato F, Murgante B, Clarke KC (2018) Modelling the impact of urban growth on agriculture and natural land in Italy to 2030. Appl Geogr 91:156–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.12.004 Google Scholar
  38. McArdle K (2013) Urban agriculture: fad or necessity? The Huffington post. THE BLOG 11/14/2013 03:48 pm ET Updated Jan 23, 2014. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-mcardle/urban-agriculture-fad-or-necessity_b_4275355.html?guccounter=1. Accessed 30 Jan 2019
  39. McMillen H, Ticktin T, Springer HK (2017) The future is behind us: traditional ecological knowledge and resilience over time on Hawai’i Island. Reg Environ Chang 17:579–592.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1032-1 Google Scholar
  40. Metzger MJ, Schröter D (2006) Towards a spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of environmental change in Europe. Reg Environ Chang 6:201–216.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-006-0020-2 Google Scholar
  41. Middlemiss L (2011) The effects of community-based action for sustainability on participants’ lifestyles. Local Environ 16:265–280.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.566850 Google Scholar
  42. Mutamba E (2004) Community participation in natural resources management: reality or rhetoric? Environ Monit Assess 99:105–113.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-004-4010-x Google Scholar
  43. Perkins E (1999) Public policy and the transition to locally based food networks. In: For Hunger-Proof Cities. pp 60–68Google Scholar
  44. Reid H, Alam M, Berger R et al (2009) Community-based adaptation to climate change: an overview. Particip learn action community based adapt to. Clim Chang 60:11–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(96)00024-7 Google Scholar
  45. Reusser D, Groß H, Kehrer J, et al (2016) TESS–D2.1: impact analysis of community-based initiatives, including carbon reduction assessmentGoogle Scholar
  46. Rybski D, Sterzel T, Reusser DE et al (2014) Cities as nuclei of sustainability? Arxiv Prepr arXiv 1304:4406–4440.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516638340 Google Scholar
  47. Sallustio L, Quatrini V, Geneletti D, Corona P, Marchetti M (2015) Assessing land take by urban development and its impact on carbon storage: findings from two case studies in Italy. Environ Impact Assess Rev 54:80–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.05.006 Google Scholar
  48. Sekulova F, Anguelovski I, Arguelles L, et al (2016) Deliverable 3.2: summary reports on case study findingsGoogle Scholar
  49. Seto KC, Güneralp B, Hutyra LR (2012) Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. PNAS 109:16083–16088.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109 Google Scholar
  50. Seyfang G, Haxeltine A (2012) Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 30:381–400.  https://doi.org/10.1068/c10222 Google Scholar
  51. Seyfang G, Longhurst N (2013) Desperately seeking niches: grassroots innovations and niche development in the community currency field. Glob Environ Chang 23:881–891.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.007 Google Scholar
  52. Seyfang G, Longhurst N (2015) What influences the diffusion of grassroots innovations for sustainability? Investigating community currency niches. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 7325:1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1063603 Google Scholar
  53. Sharma S (2013) Reaching the 7th millennium development goals (MDG) on environmental sustainability: the south Asian response. In: Singh A, Gonzalez ET, Thomson SB (eds) Millennium development goals and Community initiatives in the Asia Pacific. Springer India, Pune, pp 69–79Google Scholar
  54. Smith A, Seyfang G (2007) Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Env Polit 16:584–603.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010701419121 Google Scholar
  55. Smith A, Fressoli M, Thomas H (2014) Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions. J Clean Prod 63:114–124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.025 Google Scholar
  56. Stoll-Kleemann S, Schmidt UJ (2017) Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors. Reg Environ Chang 17:1261–1277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1057-5 Google Scholar
  57. Streimikiene D, Volochovic A (2011) The impact of household behavioral changes on GHG emission reduction in Lithuania. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:4118–4124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.027 Google Scholar
  58. Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Dyer JC, Vincent K, Fritzsche F, Leventon J, Falcão MP, Manyakaidze P, Syampungani S, Powell P, Kalaba G (2014) Advancing climate compatible development: lessons from southern Africa. Reg Environ Chang 14:713–725.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0533-4 Google Scholar
  59. Tellman B, Saiers JE, Cruz OAR (2016) Quantifying the impacts of land use change on flooding in data-poor watersheds in El Salvador with community-based model calibration. Reg Environ Chang 16:1183–1196.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0841-y Google Scholar
  60. The Economist (2010) Does it really stack up? | the Economist. Technol. Q. Print edition | Technology Quarterly Dec 9th 2010Google Scholar
  61. UN Population Devision 2015 (2015) World population prospects—the 2015 Revision. United Nations 1:587–92.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  62. Van Aalst MK, Cannon T, Burton I (2008) Community level adaptation to climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Glob Environ Chang 18:165–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.06.002 Google Scholar
  63. Van Oosterzee P, Dale A, Preece ND (2013) Integrating agriculture and climate change mitigation at landscape scale: implications from an Australian case study. Glob Environ Chang 29:306–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.10.003 Google Scholar
  64. Ward K, McCann EJ (2006) “The new path to a new city”? Introduction to a debate on urban politics, social movements and the legacies of Manuel castells’ the city and the grassroots. Int J Urban Reg Res 30:189–193.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2006.00649.x Google Scholar
  65. Zhu B, Kros J, Lesschen JP, Staritsky IG, de Vries W (2016) Assessment of uncertainties in greenhouse gas emission profiles of livestock sectors in Africa, Latin America and Europe. Reg Environ Chang 16:1571–1582.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0896-9 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federico Martellozzo
    • 1
    Email author
  • David M. Landholm
    • 2
  • Anne Holsten
    • 2
  1. 1.DISEI Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations