• Energy Research

This dataset contains information on 137 publications and 901 indicators and metrics (I&M) sourced in the scientific literature to measure adaptation to climate change in urban areas. Between February 2022 and June 2023, we performed a systematic review and analysis of publications and indicators and metrics (I&M) found in scientific literature. We analysed scientific publications from the LENS scholarly literature database www.lens.org which is openly accessible and diverse in the typologies of scientific publications. An original search provided 838 records, from which we selected and analysed 137 based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria (Screening and Coding Stage 1). We then collected and analysed 901 I&M (including indices) (Screening and Coding Stage 2). The dataset includes metadata explaining the coding system for publications and I&M. It also includes the original LENS export. The systematic review method is published in the paper accompanying this dataset which is currently under review in a Nature portfolio journal.

Climate change is likely to increase droughts. The vulnerability of cities to droughts is increasing worldwide. Policy responses from cities to droughts lack consideration of long-term climatic and socio-economic scenarios, and focus on short-term emergency actions that disregard sustainability in the connected regional and river basin systems. We aim to explore the dynamics of the water-energy-land nexus in urban systems suffering increased climate change-related droughts, and their implications for sustainability. We complement a case study with a literature review providing cross-regional insights, and detail pervasive knowledge, policy and ambition gaps in the interaction between cities and droughts. We show that water availability with low emissions, without compromising ecosystems and with low costs to society, poses a local-scale limit to sustainable urban growth, a new concept delineating the limits to growth in cities. We conclude that urban and river basin planners need to institutionalize transparency and cross-sectoral integration in multi-sector partnerships, to consider long-term land use planning together with water and energy, and to apply integrated climate services to cities. Our study reveals the importance of including land, water and energy in long-term urban planning, and to connect them with the county, region, river basin and global scales. © 2021 The Author(s) The authors would like to express their gratitude for limited contributions, comments and discussions that helped to improve the manuscript to Muhamad Bahri, Jörg Cortekar, Mirabela Marin, Serban Octavian Davidescu, Iñaki Torres Cobián, and to two anonymous reviewers that helped to substantially improve the manuscript. Valuable feedback obtained in two conference sessions co‑lead by some of the authors (at Adaptation Futures 2018 in Cape Town, and at the 4th European Climate Change Adaptation conference, in Lisbon in 2019) is acknowledged. The authors acknowledge financial support from the project CLISWELN funded by ERA4CS. ERA4CS is an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and CLISWELN is funded by BMBF (DE), UEFISCDI (RO), BMBWF and FFG (AT), and MINECO (ES), with co-funding from the European Union (Grant 690462 ). This paper and the content included in it do not represent the opinion of the European Union, and the European Union is not responsible for any use that might be made of its content. Marta Olazabal The authors would like to express their gratitude for limited contributions, comments and discussions that helped to improve the manuscript to Muhamad Bahri, Jörg Cortekar, Mirabela Marin, Serban Octavian Davidescu, Iñaki Torres Cobián, and to two anonymous reviewers that helped to substantially improve the manuscript. Valuable feedback obtained in two conference sessions co‑lead by some of the authors (at Adaptation Futures 2018 in Cape Town, and at the 4th European Climate Change Adaptation conference, in Lisbon in 2019) is acknowledged. The authors acknowledge financial support from the project CLISWELN funded by ERA4CS. ERA4CS is an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and CLISWELN is funded by BMBF (DE), UEFISCDI (RO), BMBWF and FFG (AT), and MINECO (ES), with co-funding from the European Union (Grant 690462 ). This paper and the content included in it do not represent the opinion of the European Union, and the European Union is not responsible for any use that might be made of its content. Marta Olazabal

Cities are recognised as key players in global adaptation and mitigation efforts because the majority of people live in cities. However, in Europe, which is highly urbanized and one of the most advanced regions in terms of environmental policies, there is considerable diversity in the regional distribution, ambition and scope of climate change responses. This paper explores potential factors contributing to such diversity in 200 large and medium-sized cities across 11 European countries. We statistically investigate institutional, socio-economic, environmental and vulnerability characteristics of cities as potential drivers of or barriers to the development of urban climate change plans. Our results show that factors such as membership of climate networks, population size, GDP per capita and adaptive capacity act as drivers of mitigation and adaptation plans. By contrast, factors such as the unemployment rate, warmer summers, proximity to the coast and projected exposure to future climate impacts act as barriers. We see that, overall, it is predominantly large and prosperous cities that engage in climate planning, while vulnerable cities and those at risk of severe climate impacts in the future are less active. Our analysis suggests that climate change planning in European cities is not proactive, i.e. not significantly influenced by anticipated future impacts. Instead, we found that the current adaptive capacity of a city significantly relates to climate planning. Along with the need to further explore these relations, we see a need for more economic and institutional support for smaller and less resourceful cities and those at high risk from climate change impacts in the future.

Cities across the globe recognise their role in climate mitigation and are acting to reduce carbon emissions. Knowing whether cities set ambitious climate and energy targets is critical for determining their contribution towards the global 1.5 °C target, partly because it helps to identify areas where further action is necessary. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the mitigation targets of 327 European cities, as declared in their local climate plans. The sample encompasses over 25% of the EU population and includes cities of all sizes across all Member States, plus the UK. The study analyses whether the type of plan, city size, membership of climate networks, and its regional location are associated with different levels of mitigation ambition. Results reveal that 78% of the cities have a GHG emissions reduction target. However, with an average target of 47%, European cities are not on track to reach the Paris Agreement: they need to roughly double their ambitions and efforts. Some cities are ambitious, e.g. 25% of our sample (81) aim to reach carbon neutrality, with the earliest target date being 2020.90% of these cities are members of the Climate Alliance and 75% of the Covenant of Mayors. City size is the strongest predictor for carbon neutrality, whilst climate network(s) membership, combining adaptation and mitigation into a single strategy, and local motivation also play a role. The methods, data, results and analysis of this study can serve as a reference and baseline for tracking climate mitigation ambitions across European and global cities.

AbstractDefining and measuring progress in adaptation are important questions for climate adaptation science, policy, and practice. Here, we assess the progress of urban adaptation planning in 327 European cities between 2005 and 2020 using three ‘ADAptation plan Quality Assessment’ indices, called ADAQA-1/ 2/ 3, that combine six plan quality principles. Half of the cities have an adaptation plan and its quality significantly increased over time. However, generally, plan quality is still low in many cities. Participation and monitoring and evaluation are particularly weak aspects in urban adaptation policy, together with plan ‘consistency’. Consistency connects impacts and vulnerabilities with adaptation goals, planned measures, actions, monitoring and evaluation, and participation processes. Consistency is a key factor in the overall quality of plans. To help evaluate the quality of plans and policies and promote learning, we suggest incorporating our ADAptation plan Quality Assessment indices into the portfolio of adaptation progress assessments and tracking methodologies.