• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• 12. Responsible consumption close
• 9. Industry and infrastructure close
• BE close
• Aurora Universities Network close

Nature-based solutions may actively reduce hydro-meteorological risks in urban areas as a part of climate change adaptation. However, the main reason for the increasing uptake of this type of solution is their many benefits for the local inhabitants, including recreational value. Previous studies on recreational value focus on studies of existing nature sites that are often much larger than what is considered as new NBS for flood adaptation studies in urban areas. We thus prioritized studies with smaller areas and nature types suitable for urban flood adaptation and divided them into four common nature types for urban flood adaptation: sustainable urban drainage systems, city parks, nature areas and rivers. We identified 23 primary valuation studies, including both stated and revealed preference studies, and derived two value transfer functions based on meta-regression analysis on existing areas. We investigated trends between values and variables and found that for the purpose of planning of new NBS the size of NBS and population density were determining factors of recreational value. For existing NBS the maximum travelling distance may be included as well. We find that existing state-of-the-art studies overestimate the recreational with more than a factor of 4 for NBS sizes below 5 ha. Our results are valid in a European context for nature-based solutions below 250 ha and can be applied across different NBS types and sizes.

The cluster on Enabling Technologies in the framework of the Fast Track on Energy Communities workshop held in Rome during the Sustainable Places 2021 conference presented a series of H2020 projects and their innovative technological solutions to facilitate the uptake of energy communities, demand-response and energy efficiency projects in Europe.

The adverse effects of agriculture and livestock production on the environment are well-known and require mitigation in order to achieve sustainability in the food production chain. This study focused on adverse effects related to biogeochemical flows of phosphorus and nitrogen cycles which natural balances have been greatly disturbed by current practices. To assess the potential benefits and detrimental effects of proposed mitigation measures, adequate impact indicators are required. The challenge lies in identifying and providing indicators that cover the important aspects of environmental sustainability and allow a direct comparison of policy alternatives. A review of potential indicators that are also consistent with those used to indicate the performance of agricultural and general sustainability (i.e. the European Green Deal) led to the selection of fifteen agri-environmental indicators covering the main environmental issues in agriculture. The indicators identified offered an effective representation of environmental behaviour and would be useful in communicating a comprehensive ‘dashboard’ for professional end users of solutions to nutrient recovery and nutrient efficiency improvement in arable and livestock systems. The selected dashboard indicators (DBI) covered the dimensions of ‘use of primary resources’, ‘emissions to the environment’ and ‘resilience to climate change’. Five case studies were investigated to test the DBI using an Excel questionnaire applying the qualitative approach of the Delphi method together with expert knowledge. As expected, the results indicated that there were potential benefits of the technologies in terms of improved ‘nutrient recovery’ and decreased ‘nitrate leaching’. Potential disadvantages included increased electricity and oil consumption and greater ammonia volatilisation due to the increased use of organic fertilisers. The indicator ‘water’ received more neutral responses; thus, the specific technology was not expected to consistently affect the indicator. In relation to ‘particulate matter’, the results were indicated to be ‘unknown’ for some solutions due to the difficulty of predicting this indicator. Furthermore, methodologies for estimating quantitative values for the dashboard indicators were proposed, and a quantitative assessment was performed for the solution ‘catch crops to recover nutrients’, confirming the responses in the qualitative assessment. The dashboard indicators selected covered the main aspects of the solutions, identified in more comprehensive studies of environmental impacts, as being suitable for the rapid assessment of technologies for nutrient recovery in agriculture. As such, they can be used as a pre-screening method for technologies designed to improve the environmental sustainability of arable and livestock systems. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

To assess the potential environmental impact of human/industrial systems, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a very common method. There are two prominent types of LCA, namely attributional (ALCA) and consequential (CLCA). A lot of literature covers these approaches, but a general consensus on what they represent and an overview of all their differences seems lacking, nor has every prominent feature been fully explored. The two main objectives of this article are: (1) to argue for and select definitions for each concept and (2) specify all conceptual characteristics (including translation into modelling restrictions), re-evaluating and going beyond findings in the state of the art. For the first objective, mainly because the validity of interpretation of a term is also a matter of consensus, we argue the selection of definitions present in the 2011 UNEP-SETAC report. ALCA attributes a share of the potential environmental impact of the world to a product life cycle, while CLCA assesses the environmental consequences of a decision (e.g., increase of product demand). Regarding the second objective, the product system in ALCA constitutes all processes that are linked by physical, energy flows or services. Because of the requirement of additivity for ALCA, a double-counting check needs to be executed, modelling is restricted (e.g., guaranteed through linearity) and partitioning of multifunctional processes is systematically needed (for evaluation per single product). The latter matters also hold in a similar manner for the impact assessment, which is commonly overlooked. CLCA, is completely consequential and there is no limitation regarding what a modelling framework should entail, with the coverage of co-products through substitution being just one approach and not the only one (e.g., additional consumption is possible). Both ALCA and CLCA can be considered over any time span (past, present & future) and either using a reference environment or different scenarios. Furthermore, both ALCA and CLCA could be specific for average or marginal (small) products or decisions, and further datasets. These findings also hold for life cycle sustainability assessment.

European forests are intensively exploited for wood products, yet they also form a sink for carbon. European forest inventories, available for the past 50 years, can be combined with timber harvest statistics to assess changes in this carbon sink. Analysis of these data sets between 1950 and 2000 from the EU-15 countries excluding Luxembourg, plus Norway and Switzerland, reveals that there is a tight relationship between increases in forest biomass and forest ecosystem productivity but timber harvests grew more slowly. Encouragingly, the environmental conditions in combination with the type of silviculture that has been developed over the past 50 years can efficiently sequester carbon on timescales of decades, while maintaining forests that meet the demand for wood. However, a return to using wood as biofuel and hence shorter rotations in forestry could cancel out the benefits of carbon storage over the past five decades