• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• NL close
• EU close

In the current study, we examine the Indonesian government's watershed management program, which was established in 2001. In 2005, the Coordination Team for Rescue of Water Resources (CTRWR) was established to execute the program on a national level. However, at the time, field implementation was a sectoral interest due to the lack of program integration. To this end, the Indonesian government promoted integrated watershed management in 2009, which since then has been implemented by all stakeholders (in Top–Down management form), with application limited to preparing and planning documents. This is mainly driven by the stakeholders’ lack of understanding with regard to watershed systems as integrated management units. Field implementation results have not yet been realized, including the promotion of community-based watershed management (through Bottom–Up management). The purpose of our research was to determine the index numbers by measuring the level of cooperation between watershed management workers based on the Village Watershed Model (VWM) specifically surface water which includes six variables: planning, participation, institutional, fund sharing, gender, and management systems. The method used was an ordinal measure with the Likert scale. Our data showed successful watershed management, in which five of the six VWM variables—planning, participation, institutional, fund sharing, and management systems—were in the “good” category with indices ranging from 73.08 to 78.27. The gender variable index (69.12) was in the “medium” category.

Assessing ambitious nature conservation strategies in a below 2 degrees warmer and food-secure world – supplementary spatial data Authors: Marcel Kok, Johan Meijer, Willem-Jan van Zeist, Jelle Hilbers, Marco Immovilli, Jan Janse, Elke Stehfest, Michel Bakkenes, Andrzej Tabeau, Aafke Schipper, Rob Alkemade Point of contact: Marcel.Kok@pbl.nl Research paper summary: Global biodiversity is projected to further decline under a wide range of future socio-economic development pathways, even in sustainability-oriented scenarios. This raises the question how biodiversity can be put on a path to recovery, the core challenge for the CBD post-2020 global biodiversity framework. We designed two contrasting, ambitious global conservation strategies, ‘Half Earth’ (HE) and ‘Sharing the Planet’ (SP), and evaluated their ability to restore terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity and to provide nature’s contributions to people (NCP), while also limiting global warming below 2 degrees and ensuring food security. We applied the integrated assessment framework IMAGE with the GLOBIO biodiversity model, using the ‘Middle of the Road’ Shared Socio-economic Pathway (SSP2) with its projected human population growth as baseline. We found that both conservation strategies reduce the global loss of biodiversity and NCP, but are insufficient to restore biodiversity. The HE strategy performs generally better for terrestrial biodiversity (biodiversity intactness (MSA), Area of Habitat Index, Living Planet Index, Red List Index) in currently still natural regions. The SP strategy yields more improvements for biodiversity in human-used areas, aquatic biodiversity and for regulating NCP (pest control, pollination, erosion control, water quality). However, the ‘conservation only’ scenarios show a considerable increase in food security risks and further global temperature increase, compared to the baseline. To restore biodiversity, it is necessary to combine conservation strategies with a portfolio of ‘integrated sustainability measures’ including climate change mitigation actions to change the energy and food systems, where minimizing food wastes and reducing consumption of animal products are crucial. The combination of conservation strategies and additional sustainability measures will restore biodiversity an NCP while keeping global warming below two degrees and food security risks below the baseline projection. Contents: This repository contains the supplementary spatial data describing the specific prioritization of conservation areas under the Half Earth (HE) and Sharing the Planet (SP) scenarios, and the resulting scenario land use and MSA data sets for the year 2050, including also a baseline (BL) scenario. All spatial data is in geotiff format at a 10 arcsecond resolution in WGS84 coordinate system. Detailed description of the methodology is provided in the paper listed under "related identifiers". Keywords: Nature conservation, Half Earth, Sharing the Planet, Climate Change, Food Security, Solution-oriented scenarios, Biodiversity, Nature’s Contribution to People, NCP This repository contains the supplementary spatial data describing the specific prioritization of conservation areas under the Half Earth (HE) and Sharing the Planet (SP) scenarios, and the resulting scenario land use and MSA data sets for the year 2050, including also a baseline (BL) scenario. All spatial data is in geotiff format at a 10 arcsecond resolution in WGS84 coordinate system. Detailed description of the methodology is provided in the paper listed under "related identifiers".

Project: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) datasets - These data have been generated as part of the internationally-coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6; see also GMD Special Issue: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html). The simulation data provides a basis for climate research designed to answer fundamental science questions and serves as resource for authors of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR6). CMIP6 is a project coordinated by the Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Phase 6 builds on previous phases executed under the leadership of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and relies on the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) and the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) along with numerous related activities for implementation. The original data is hosted and partially replicated on a federated collection of data nodes, and most of the data relied on by the IPCC is being archived for long-term preservation at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (IPCC DDC) hosted by the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ). The project includes simulations from about 120 global climate models and around 45 institutions and organizations worldwide. Summary: These data include the subset used by IPCC AR6 WGI authors of the datasets originally published in ESGF for 'CMIP6.CMIP.HAMMOZ-Consortium.MPI-ESM-1-2-HAM.historical' with the full Data Reference Syntax following the template 'mip_era.activity_id.institution_id.source_id.experiment_id.member_id.table_id.variable_id.grid_label.version'. The MPI-ESM1.2-HAM climate model, released in 2017, includes the following components: aerosol: HAM2.3, atmos: ECHAM6.3 (spectral T63; 192 x 96 longitude/latitude; 47 levels; top level 0.01 hPa), atmosChem: sulfur chemistry (unnamed), land: JSBACH 3.20, ocean: MPIOM1.63 (bipolar GR1.5, approximately 1.5deg; 256 x 220 longitude/latitude; 40 levels; top grid cell 0-12 m), ocnBgchem: HAMOCC6, seaIce: unnamed (thermodynamic (Semtner zero-layer) dynamic (Hibler 79) sea ice model). The model was run by the ETH Zurich, Switzerland; Max Planck Institut fur Meteorologie, Germany; Forschungszentrum Julich, Germany; University of Oxford, UK; Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland; Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Germany; Center for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM) at ETH Zurich, Switzerland (HAMMOZ-Consortium) in native nominal resolutions: aerosol: 250 km, atmos: 250 km, atmosChem: 250 km, land: 250 km, ocean: 250 km, ocnBgchem: 250 km, seaIce: 250 km.

As part of the Copenhagen Accord, individual countries have submitted greenhouse gas reduction proposals for the year 2020. This paper analyses the implications for emission reductions, the carbon price, and abatement costs of these submissions. The submissions of the Annex I (industrialised) countries are estimated to lead to a total reduction target of 12-18% below 1990 levels. The submissions of the seven major emerging economies are estimated to lead to an 11-14% reduction below baseline emissions, depending on international (financial) support. Global abatement costs in 2020 are estimated at about USD 60-100 billion, assuming that at least two-thirds of Annex I emission reduction targets need to be achieved domestically. The largest share of these costs are incurred by Annex I countries, although the costs as share of GDP are similar for Annex I as a group and the seven emerging economies as a group, even when assuming substantial international transfers from Annex I countries to the emerging economies to finance their abatement costs. If the restriction of achieving two-thirds of the emission reduction target domestically is abandoned, it would more than double the international carbon price and at the same time reduce global abatement costs by almost 25%.

Microbial electrochemical technologies (METs) constitute the core of a number of emerging technologies with a high potential for treating urban wastewater due to a fascinating reaction mechanism—the electron transfer between bacteria and electrodes to transform metabolism into electrical current. In the current work, we focus on the model electroactive microorganism Geobacter sulfurreducens to explore both the design of new start-up procedures and electrochemical operations. Our chemostat-grown plug and play cells, were able to reduce the start-up period by 20-fold while enhancing chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal by more than 6-fold during this period. Moreover, a filter-press based bioreactor was successfully tested for both acetate-supplemented synthetic wastewater and real urban wastewater. This proof-of-concept pre-pilot treatment included a microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) followed in time by a microbial fuel cell (MFC) to finally generate electrical current of ca. 20 A·m−2 with a power of 10 W·m−2 while removing 42 g COD day−1·m−2. The effective removal of acetate suggests a potential use of this modular technology for treating acetogenic wastewater where Geobacter sulfurreducens outcompetes other organisms.

Global climate change governance has changed substantially in the last decade, with a shift in focus from negotiating globally agreed greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets to nationally determined contributions, as enshrined in the 2015 Paris Agreement. This paper analyses trends in adoption of national climate legislation and strategies, GHG targets, and renewable and energy efficiency targets in almost all UNFCCC Parties, focusing on the period from 2007 to 2017. The uniqueness and added value of this paper reside in its broad sweep of countries, the more than decade-long coverage and the use of objective metrics rather than normative judgements. Key results show that national climate legislation and strategies witnessed a strong increase in the first half of the assessed decade, likely due to the political lead up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009, but have somewhat stagnated in recent years, currently covering 70% of global GHG emissions (almost 50% of countries). In comparison, the coverage of GHG targets increased considerably in the run up to adoption of the Paris Agreement and 89% of global GHG emissions are currently covered by such targets. Renewable energy targets saw a steady spread, with 79% of the global GHG emissions covered in 2017 compared to 45% in 2007, with a steep increase in developing countries. Key policy insightsThe number of countries that have national legislation and strategies in place increased strongly up to 2012, but the increase has levelled off in recent years, now covering 70% of global emissions by 2017 (48% of countries and 76% of global population).Economy-wide GHG reduction targets witnessed a strong increase in the build up to 2015 and are adopted by countries covering 89% of global GHG emissions (76% not counting USA) and 90% of global population (86% not counting USA) in 2017.Renewable energy targets saw a steady increase throughout the last decade with coverage of countries in 2017 comparable to that of GHG targets.Key shifts in national measures coincide with landmark international events – an increase in legislation and strategy in the build-up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference and an increase in targets around the Paris Agreement – emphasizing the importance of the international process to maintaining national momentum. The number of countries that have national legislation and strategies in place increased strongly up to 2012, but the increase has levelled off in recent years, now covering 70% of global emissions by 2017 (48% of countries and 76% of global population). Economy-wide GHG reduction targets witnessed a strong increase in the build up to 2015 and are adopted by countries covering 89% of global GHG emissions (76% not counting USA) and 90% of global population (86% not counting USA) in 2017. Renewable energy targets saw a steady increase throughout the last decade with coverage of countries in 2017 comparable to that of GHG targets. Key shifts in national measures coincide with landmark international events – an increase in legislation and strategy in the build-up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference and an increase in targets around the Paris Agreement – emphasizing the importance of the international process to maintaining national momentum.

The datasets present collected data through resident surveys on the perceptions on tourism development and the state of cultural heritage, as part of the Horizon 2020 funded project SmartCulTour (www.smartcultour.eu). The data is collected on individual respondent level for Local Administrative Units (LAUs) for the following municipalities/cities: Spain: Huesca, Graus, Benasque, Barbastro, Ainsa, Jaca, Sariñena the Netherlands: Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Molenlanden, Ridderkerk, Zwijndrecht, Barendrecht, Delft Belgium: Dendermonde, Puurs-Sint-Amands, Bornem, Berlare, Aalst, Denderleeuw, Willebroek Croatia: Split, Trogir, Kaštela, Solin, Sinj, Dugopolje, Klis Finland: Utsjoki Italy: Vicenza, Caldogno, Grumolo, Pojana Maggiore, Lonigo, Montagnana The data is presented as cross-sectional data and available for the following year: 2020. Please consult the metadata on each dataset for an overview of collected indicators and units of measurement.