European Journal of Sustanable Development (2017), 6, 1, 181-202 ISSN: 2239-5938 Do: 10.14207/ejsd.2017.v6n1p181 Evaluatng Communty Based Intatves Sustanablty n Europe: Balancng Data Needs and Resultng Uncertantes. Federco Martellozzo 1 *, Domnk Reusser 2, Helge Groß 2 Abstract: Global envronmental-change s evdent, and undenably t s mostly nduced by anthropogenc actvtes. Several programs fuellng clmate-change mtgaton were lately mplemented; all fosterng specfc and ambtous targets. Although some mprovements were regonally observed, regrettably the expected results are n many cases stll out of reach. Contemporaneously, socetes experenced a prolferaton of grass-roots ntatves callng for ndvdual partcpaton n fosterng socetal sustanable transton. Scholars advocate that bottom-up actvtes may outperform top-down polces n reachng sustanablty; however, a methodologcal framework to ntellgbly assess s mpact on soco-ecologcal systems s stll unexplored. Ths paper ams at: llustratng man caveats n assessng s envronmental mpacts, proposng a general methodologcal framework, presentng results from a pan-european research Keywords: Envronmental assessment; greenhouse gas emssons; communty based ntatves; sustanable transton, sustanablty, carbon footprnt. 1. Introducton The actve partcpaton n s s a spreadng phenomenon that has reached a sgnfcant magntude (Conrad & Hlchey 2011). In some cases Communty Based Intatves (henceforth s) are also supposed to have catalyzed socal and technologcal nnovaton, thus contrbutng to the socetal transton nto low-carbon economy (Seyfang & Haxeltne 2012). Very often, s are grass-roots ntatves wth broad sustanablty foc that promote a plethora of actvtes such as alternatve transportaton, urban gardenng, renewable energy mplementaton, waste regeneraton/reducton, etc. (Warner 2002; Wlson 2010). Some advocate that such practces fostered by bottom-up actvtes, rather than top-down polces, represent a profcent countermeasure to allevate global envronmental change and effectvely foster a more permanent socetal transton towards sustanablty (Whle et al. 2010; Ostrom 1990; Takeuch 2010). However, thus far most emprcal research grounds manly on anecdotal evdence (Meadowcroft 2011; O Rordan 2004; Sultana 2009) and lttle work has been done to quanttatvely assess s envronmental mpacts (EI) or ther carbon footprnts usng comparatve methodologes (L et al. 2013; Roseland 2000; Yang et al. 2010). Few studes are focusng on one specfc aspect of the envronment, such as energy (Brown 2004), 1 Unversty of Rome - La Sapenza. Dept. of Methods and Models for Terrtory Economcs and Fnance; va del Castro Laurenzano 9; 00161 Roma; Italy. Tel: (+39) 3429977690 2Potsdam Insttute for Clmate Impact Research. PIK; Telegraphenberg A 31; 14473 Potsdam; Germany. *Correspondng author.
182 European Journal of Sustanable Development (2017), 6, 1, 181-202 carbon emssons (Kennedy & Sgourds 2011) or water (Gall et al. 2012; Tanner 2007). Envronmental ndcators developed to assess communty level ntatves mpacts have been summarzed n a secton on natural scence perspectve studes on eco-vllage research (Marcus & Wagner n.d., pp.89). The global eco-vllage network has developed a bottom-up Communty Sustanablty Assessment (CAS) based on a questonnare that ncludes a comprehensve secton on envronmental aspects (Network 2001). Forrest (2011) bases hs sustanablty apprasal of small communtes n transton on core generc crtera for sustanablty assessment by Gbson n 2006 (Gbson 2006). Church (Church & Elster 2002) bases hs work on an assessment of envronmental mpacts at multple scales (local communty, local authorty and natonal) and derves lessons for natonal polcy. In all cases, the assessment s based on self-evaluaton rather than measurable quanttes. On the other hand, studes that evaluate a broad set of envronmental ndcators are often based on the ecologcal footprnt methodology (Wackernagel & Rees 1996). Ths method can be consdered a top-down approach (Tnsley & George 2006). The ecologcal footprnt has not been wthout crtcsm because of the hgh level of aggregaton, domnaton by energy consumpton, a mssng dstncton between sustanable and unsustanable land use, the arbtrary selecton of spatal scales to whch the footprnt s appled and a poor treatment of trade. Ths research manly ams at framng a methodology sutable to unvocally assess s EI, whch are crucal to the comprehenson of s role n fosterng sustanable transton (Seyfang & Haxeltne 2012; Thakadu 2005). However, to ths end, three man caveats need to be addressed (Tab. 1): frst, some s do not drectly produce tangble measurable outputs, nor have an ntellgbly defned set of nputs (e.g. the s that focus on envronmental educaton and dssemnaton). Thus, calculatng ther ndrect EI may represent an ntrcate puzzle that s very much open to subjectve nterpretaton. Second, s practces are heterogeneous and therefore exstng methodologes to make comparsons of ther EIs are nether straghtforward nor profcent, also gven the lack of avalable data. Thrd, another ssue closely related to the one prevously mentoned s the general lack of consensus among exstng mpact-assessment frameworks for certan practces (Galan et al. 2007; Mohareb et al. 2011; Pachaur & Resnger 2007; Pegné & Grardn 2004; Saer et al. 2013). These problems are harshened by the nhomogenety of assumptons used to buld several GHG frameworks, consequently resultng n a lack of reasonable baselnes for GHG accountng protocols (Möllersten & Grönkvst 2007). For nstance, Chavez and hs colleague advocate (Chavez & Ramaswam 2011) that the frst obstacle to be resolved whle nvestgatng EI based on carbon emsson n order to support publc nterventon s to provde... consstent, reproducble, comparable and holstc GHG framework that ncorporate n-boundary and (possbly) trans-boundary GHG mpacts of urban actvtes. In ths regard, ths paper frst frames the obstacles to be overcome n conceptualzng a meanngful EI assessment. Second, examples of boundares and counterfactuals for the most relevant actvtes are dscussed; these examples am at coverng all the domans n whch the s mapped wthn the TESS project operate (see Acknowledgements); hence although not exhaustve of all the actvtes done by s n Europe, certanly the cases dscussed are representatve and nclude most of the s populatng the TESS nventory; besdes, the domans (sectors) consdered are Publshed by ECSDEV, Va de For, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
F. Martellozzo, D. Reusser, H. Groß 183 responsble for more than 80% of global GHG emssons n the EU (European Envronmental Agency 2013). Thrd, an orgnal EI ndcator for based on a Comparatve Carbon Accountng methodology s proposed and tested on few cases. These cases are taken from the nventory of s that belong to the database of the TESS-Transton project (www.tess-transton.eu), whch covers four man domans: food, energy, transport and waste. Prelmnary results are presented and dscussed. Whle we are aware that several caveats stll need to be further explored and addressed, ths novel applcaton of a comparatve methodology offers much to the exstng lterature on s mpact assessment. 2. Theoretcal framework Fndng a sutable ndex to assess unvocally s EI s not an easy task for three man caveats, whch are elcted and descrbed below (Tab. 1); these are: unclear nput/output, heterogenety of actvtes, controversal practces. Table 1. Lst of the man caveats regardng the development of a unque s Envronmental Impact Assessment. Caveat Descrpton unclear nput/output heterogenety of actvtes controversal practces - Some s do not produce a very clear output nor have a well-defned set of nput ths s the case of educatonal s hence, not solely calculatng the ensemble of secondary EIs may represent an ntrcate puzzle, but t s also very much open to subjectve nterpretaton of what are these EI. - s practces are very much heterogenc and t s not straghtforward how to profcently compare ther mpact/footprnt/effect on the envronment. - Even f we dsposed of a unque mean to calculate EI although for certan practces we have some reasonable optons for some practces the state of the art does not offer a unversally shared consensus about the envronmental evaluaton of these practces (.e. compostng) Hence any approxmaton on ths subject s bound to sway between generalzatons that are justfed and smplfcatons that can be msleadng; therefore, whle elaboratng the EIA methodology we have to am at fndng a set of general assumptons that may reasonably grant an approprate equlbrum (Fnnveden & Moberg 2005). 2.1. Unclear nput/output and mxed objectves Whle the frst caveat (Tab. 1) cannot be resolved completely, we can mnmze subjectvty and ll-defned assessments wth the use of a precsely defned framework. There are two basc optons: (1) assessment of the full envronmental footprnt and (2) a comparatve assessment aganst a counterfactual. (1) A promnent example of n-depth envronmental footprnt assessment s called Lfe Cycle Assessment (LCA). It s based on the dea to potentally account for all the possble sources/causes of EI. In other words, the objectve of the LCA s to establsh a complete overvew of the nteractons wth the envronment of a product or servce, helpng to understand the envronmental consequences drectly or ndrectly caused by ts 2017 The Authors. Journal Complaton 2017 European Center of Sustanable Development.
184 European Journal of Sustanable Development (2017), 6, 1, 181-202 producton and usage (Tukker 2000). LCA applcatons usually account for all possble nfluences on the envronment, such the ones mputable to nputs, processng system, and nteracton wth the envronment, so to assess thoroughly the EI potental reducton dervng from a specfc s actvty (Manulova et al. 2009). However, ths s a very complex and tme consumng task whch requres a massve data gatherng. Hence, t cannot be consdered sutable for a method amng at beng general and wdely applcable, but t may be the object of n depth analyss for specfc cases. (2) A method based on the comparatve assessment wth a counterfactual can be consdered as a vald alternatve. In ths case the am s to evaluate the EI per unt of output of each actvty (e.g. the amount of energy used for ts producton n KWh, and the correspondng amount of GHG n CO 2 equvalent) and compare t wth the EI per unt of output of a standard counterfactual that s used as a baselne (e.g. see the GHG protocol for project accountng. Davet & Ranganathan 2005). Usng a baselne as a term of comparson opens up the possblty to elmnate specfc unts and hence could be reasonably used for nter- comparson, dsregardng ts prevalent doman or actvty. In ths case, the choces of the counterfactual and of the boundares are fundamental; consequently for each actvty we must frst decde what the man output s, whch s not always straght forward. 2.2. Heterogeneous actvtes The dffculty of selectng a man output s tghtly lnked to the second caveat descrbed n table 1, the heterogenety of s. It may be further hghlghted wth the example of the so-called Soldarty Purchasng Groups (SPG). SPG s actvty conssts n replacng mddleman so to connect local producers wth a group of consumers. The man am s to provde the purchasng group wth local (often organc) food at a cheaper prce (Cembalo et al. 2013). Thus, the man drect effect s to make benefcares savng money, but ths s not strctly relevant for an evaluaton of the SPG s EI; hence we shall solely focus on the carbon mpact mputable to the delvery of that food. Hence, n spte of the fact that the actvty deals wth food ts EI should be assessed as a transport actvty (see paragraphs 3.1 and 3.3). To address ths ssue, we dscuss and propose an EIA framework for a subset of actvtes that are the most common among the actvtes carred out by the s populatng TESS-Transton project nventory (Tab. 2). The optons presented and dscussed n Methods and Data cover the major fracton of typcal actvtes n our nventory, however the examples presented n paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 am at beng representatve but not exhaustve of the panorama of actvtes developed by s, thus the methods proposed are meant to be extended and ad hoc applcatons to be developed for each actvty makng use of the same assessment prncples. Nevertheless, sngle s may then be descrbed as one sngle actvty of a combnaton of actvtes from ths nventory. 2.3. Controversal practces The thrd ssue deals wth the fact that some actvtes may have dfferent descrpton assocated, thus generatng dverse and sometme controversal nterpretatons about the potental EI of the s. For example, about debated actvtes as compostng or aero/hydroponc agrculture lterature does not offer a clear pcture of Publshed by ECSDEV, Va de For, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
F. Martellozzo, D. Reusser, H. Groß 185 whch opton s better, hence fndng a reasonable counterfactual s even more crtcal because t oblges the analyst to take a stand. However, for the purpose of ths exercse, we do not have to nvestgate f the opton nvestgated s envronmental frendly, rather to focus on assessng the envronmental beneft (f any) comng from each s actvty gven the respectve boundares when compared to a standard counterfactual. Besdes, ths ssue s common to almost all GHG accountng framework amng at beng wdely applcable; hence, partcular care should be put for the choce of counterfactual and boundares. Those factors are once more very mportant, because on these mplctly reles the capablty of grantng meanngful results whle avodng msleadng smplfcatons. 2.4. Basc steps of the assessment A robust assessment framework that leads to meanngful results s the GHG protocol for project accountng (Davet & Ranganathan 2005), although t s not very smple. The framework we propose n ths study s well consstent wth the GHG protocol for project accountng but ts smplcty s enhanced. The GHG Protocol for Project Accountng dentfes 6 basc steps n calculatng a footprnt. Step 1 regards the defnton of the goal and scope of the assessment. Key s the dentfcaton of specfc actvtes, the product or servces these actvtes offer and ther prmary and secondary mpacts on GHG emssons. The subsequent steps are repeated for all actvtes. The next three steps are about defnng the counterfactual or baselne. The gude offers two optons to estmate the baselne. In step 2, the procedure needs to be selected before performng the next steps. In step 3, both methods rely on assemblng a set of baselne canddates for a certan regon and tme frame, by reflectng on the queston how the same servce would be offered n absence of the. For the estmaton of the baselne wthn step 4, the frst opton to defne the baselne s the project-specfc procedure. It allows manly sem-quanttatve and qualtatve evaluaton of the dfferent baselne canddates, makng a selecton based on the dentfcaton of barrers for each canddate and the conservatveness-prncple. Ths procedure needs to be repeated for each. The second opton calculates a performance standard from the set of baselne canddates. It requres more data compared to the project-specfc procedure. The performance standard can then be used for all s engagng n a certan actvty n ths regon. In step 5, data s montored and GHG reductons are quantfed. In step 6, the assessment s documented n a report, ntegratng the nformaton about all actvtes. To assess the EI of s, some premses complementng exstng frameworks are necessary: (1) Educatonal s confront us wth a very elusve output, thus, they do not ft nto the EIA presented here. (2) In order to keep the assessment smple (and most of all doable) for all s the boundares should be set as close as possble to the fnal product of ther actvty/procedure/practce. (3) To make a potental EIA that can be compared across dfferent actvtes we must rely on a measure that s general and not specfc to any measure of unt. Ths can be acheved through a smple comparson between the EI of each actvty and the EI of the correspondng counterfactual, or also through more statstcally sophstcated elaboraton and manpulaton. 2017 The Authors. Journal Complaton 2017 European Center of Sustanable Development.
186 European Journal of Sustanable Development (2017), 6, 1, 181-202 Thus, ths work am at proposng a possble common approach to nvestgate the drect EI of s under the premses of smplcty and cross-subdoman comparablty descrbed at pont () and () above (Fg. 1). Besdes, although drect EI of educatonal s mght be neglgble (and could possbly be gnored) ndrect mpacts of dssemnaton actvtes should not be neglected when possble. Fg. 1. Examples of GHG boundares defnton for counterfactuals and the s EIA. 2.5. Towards an assessment across dfferent actvtes: Defnng unt-less ndcators In regard of the ssue ntroduced at pont (3), there are several optons through whch s possble to operate a cross comparson of s EI that can be somehow sgnfcant. For example, a smple rato as the one descrbed n equaton [1]. EI EI cc [1] Publshed by ECSDEV, Va de For, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
F. Martellozzo, D. Reusser, H. Groß 187 Where: EI s the EI assocated to the, and EI CC s the EI assocated to a conventonal counterfactual. However ths can be valuable when comparng measures wthn the same doman/subdoman whch wll lkely generate results n the same order of magntude (at the same scale); however when the am s the comparson across dfferent domans, ths - although t s certanly the smplest - may not be the best opton. In order to mantan an acceptable level of complexty and allowng cross-doman comparson the normalzed dfference approach s one opton that can be profcently appled to that purposes. It s borrowed from many applcatons n remote sensng analyss, and t s partcularly sutable when the am s to hghlght the dfference of two quanttes (Lllesand R.W. 1994). It conssts n a rato that sees as numerator the dfference of the EI assocated to the and the EI of the conventonal counterfactual, whereas the denomnator s the sum of the very same quanttes. EI EI CC CC EI EI [2] Ths approach brngs several advantages, n fact, besdes beng smple enough and not requrng more data than a smple rato, t also perform better when amng at crossdoman comparson. In fact t produces an ndex that ranges between -1 and 1 (Lllesand R.W. 1994); where values closer to +1 means that the level of EI assocated wth the actvty(es) of the are smaller than the EI of the same actvty(es) f t was done by a standard counterfactual, thus mplyng that the outperforms the counterfactual; conversely values closer to -1 ndcate that the conventonal counterfactual has actually lower EI than the, thus ndcatng that n order to acheve an envronmental beneft through ths actvty the should mprove ts operatonal effcency. Table 2. Lst of actvtes and correspondng domans for whch a specfc EIA framework s provded Doman Actvtes Counterfactual Equaton Food food producton country level conventonal agrculture 3 Energy renewable energy producton; reduce energy demand country level energy producton; country level energy demand 4 Transport food dstrbuton; goods/servces provson; people moblty fuel propelled means of transport to provde an dentcal servce/good 5 Waste recyclng; upcyclng; waste reducton compostng country level waste treatment mx 6 2017 The Authors. Journal Complaton 2017 European Center of Sustanable Development.
188 European Journal of Sustanable Development (2017), 6, 1, 181-202 3. Materals and methods As prevously antcpated n paragraph 2.2 the s nventory covers four man domans, and the most common actvtes carred out by s (Tab. 2) are dscussed below. In table 2 we lsted some s that focus on the drect producton of a specfc good whle some other am at delverng a set of servces/benefts through alternatve process whch are generally consdered to envronmentally outperform standard procedures. Although these practces dffer qute substantally, we conceptualse these as all proposng alternatve-to-standard goods/servces whch are based on ncreased energy effcency as shown n table 2. Ths s the case for example of urban agrculture, cohousng, or food dstrbuton, whch am at provdng a standard servce wth a smaller amount of nputs per unt of outputs. For such actvtes the choce of the counterfactual, as sad, s fundamental; however, n lterature we can fnd some feasble optons. All the optons explored below feature the normalzed dfference approach descrbed wth equaton [2]. 3.1. Food Doman Generally speakng the s operatng n ths doman manly produce food themselves and/or focus on the dstrbuton of food to members drectly. To ths doman belong all the s operatng an urban garden, managng a communal agrcultural actvty or runnng a SPG. Despte the several benefts that s operatng n ths doman have on the soco-economc dmenson (Mougeot 2005), the man GHG accountable output of s nvolved n gardenng s to produce food, usually organc, meant for auto-consumpton or to serve local markets. Hence, the fnal good/servce s to make members beneft from a certan food producton. In order to nvestgate the assocated EI, we nqure the about the amount of resources used per unt of product,.e. how much electrcty (KWh) how much water (m3) how much and whch knd of fertlzer (f any). These quanttes can be then converted nto amount GHG through adequate converson factors that are country specfc. In ths case, the amount of emsson related to agrcultural producton wthn each country per unt of product (http://www.faostats.org) s used as standard counterfactual (see eq. 3). GHG GHG ( AG ) ( AG ) CC CC GHG ( E ) GHG ( W ) GHG ( F ) [3] GHG ( E ) GHG ( W ) GHG ( F ) Where: GHG(AG) CC s the amount of estmated CO 2 equvalent emssons at the country level for crop cultvaton, GHG(E) s the amount of CO 2 equvalent of the assocated wth energy use, GHG(W) s the amount of CO 2 equvalent of the assocated wth water use, GHG(F) s the amount of CO 2 equvalent of the assocated wth fertlzaton (f any), An example of how to estmate EI related to food producton s gven n eq. (3), whereas food dstrbuton GHG accountng deserves a dfferent framework. Ths actvty n our nventory s carred out manly by SPGs or smlar s. The man goal of an SPG s to dstrbute (often) local/organc/far-trade food to ts members possbly for a Publshed by ECSDEV, Va de For, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
F. Martellozzo, D. Reusser, H. Groß 189 cheaper prce. Hence, assessng the EI of dstrbuton actvty means to assess the GHG correspondng to the mles travelled by the food that the delvers. Therefore, t conssts n nqurng s about dstances, quanttes, frequences and means of transport correspondng to the food fllng ther basket (e.g. all food tems or just the 10 most popular products), then calculate food mles, and consequently compare these wth the food mles travelled by the same tem to reach the country through standard market dstrbuton, or alternatvely to the proporton of GHG emssons mputable to transport n agrculture at the natonal level (Weber & Matthews 2008) (whch are generally around 20% of total agrculture GHG);. Ths methodology can be profcently appled to all s actve n the transport of goods, servces or people through alternatve and more sustanable ways (both means and/or nfrastructure) than standard counterfactuals (see eq. 5), hence a more thorough depcton of ts ratonale s gven n paragraph 3.3. 3.2. Energy doman The s of our nventory that operate n ths doman can be grouped nto two classes accordng to whether they focus mostly on sustanable energy producton or on mprovng communty energy effcency. To the frst group belong the s concerned wth energy producton through renewable sources (photovoltac, bomass, wnd etc.). Ther actvty s to brng together people n order to support the constructon of a power (or heat) plant managed by the communty tself. In ths case, a vable opton for EIA s to nqure s about the amount of energy produced, estmate the level of GHG emssons assocated wth ther energy producton accordng to the type of resource utlzed (DEFRA 2012), and usng as a counterfactual the amount of GHG emssons mputable to the producton of the same amount of energy f usng the natonal grd system. However, communtes that engage n energy producton through renewable sources are very lkely concerned wth the EI of ther energy consumpton, thus adoptng less demandng consumpton behavour. However, an EIA of ths sort wll result n neglectng to consder the GHG reducton dervng from more effcent consumpton behavour, focusng exclusvely on the EI mpact dervng from a more effcent producton system. Conversely, many s such as co-housng ntatves, ecovllages, Transton towns etc., manly focus on mnmzng the demand of resources per capta (habtually electrcty, water and fuels) through more sustanable consumpton patterns. Thus, an EIA amng at capturng ths dmenson of GHG reducton should nqure s about the amount of resources (KWh of energy, L of fuels, m 3 of water, etc.), the source of energy, and the number of partcpants, so to assess the total EI per capta wthn the ntatve. In ths case country level stats of the demand of the same set of resources per capta (and the assocated GHG emssons) can serve as a counterfactual. However, an EI framed n ths way wll capture GHG reducton relatve to sustanable consumpton behavour but may neglect to consder the energy spent for the producton of the resource utlzed. In ths regard, the EIA proposed n eq. (4) represents a vald opton to calculate GHG reducton dervng from the potental combnaton (f the case) of renewable resource producton and consumpton behavour at the same tme. 2017 The Authors. Journal Complaton 2017 European Center of Sustanable Development.
190 European Journal of Sustanable Development (2017), 6, 1, 181-202 GHG ( E ) POP CC GHG ( E ) POP CC CC CC n n GHG GHG ( E ) NP ( E ) NP * A( E ) * A( E ) [4] Where: GHG(E) CC s the amount of CO 2 equvalent lnked to total energy consumpton n the country POP CC s the populaton of the country GHG(E) s the CO 2 emsson converson factor relatve to the energy consumed by the A(E) s the amount of energy consumed by the NP s the number of partcpants of the Bascally eq. [4] conssts of comparng s per capta resources consumpton versus natonal per capta demand of the same resources takng nto account also the effcency of the producton system. 3.3. Transport (good/servce/people moblty) Ths actvty s operated by some s whose am s to delver packages and goods mnmzng the use of cars, trucks etc. and maxmzng the use of low carbon mean of transport as bkes or human-powered trolleys (also for personal moblty). To calculate the benefcal EI reducton resultng from those actvtes the most reasonable opton s represented by nqurng s about the dstance covered whle movng/delverng goods/servces/people, and usng as a counterfactual the amount of GHG emssons released f the same dstance was to be covered by fossl fuel propelled means of transport. However, n order to nvestgate s EI n the transport doman the comparson of the GHG emsson mputable to the whle coverng a certan dstance wth the GHG emsson correspondng the same dstance f covered wth standard fossl-fuelpropelled transports s consdered a vald and reasonable proxy (see eq. 5). ( D ( D * Ekm * Ekm CC CC ) ( D * Ekm ) [5] ) ( D * Ekm ) Where: D s the dstanced n km covered by the Ekm CC s the energy n KWh necessary to cover 1 Km or the estmate of the CO 2 equvalent emtted to cover 1km by the counterfactual (.e. wth fossl fuels propelled mean of transport. Ekm s the energy n KWh necessary to cover 1 Km or the estmate of the CO 2 equvalent emtted to cover 1km by the (usually wth human powered mean of transport). E s the energy n KWh (or the estmate of the correspondng CO 2 equvalent emtted) spent by the to operate ts actvtes. 3.4. Waste treatment (reusng/recyclng/upcyclng and compostng) The actvtes belongng to the waste doman are often the object of a harsh debate because of the varables and lmtng factors that nfluence an ntellgble EI assessment. However, we do not have to nvestgate whch waste management opton s Publshed by ECSDEV, Va de For, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
F. Martellozzo, D. Reusser, H. Groß 191 more envronmental frendly, rather to focus on assessng the envronmental beneft (f any) of the actvtes dealng wth waste n our nventory. In ths regard, whether the treats exclusvely organc waste, or hard-dry materals or a combnaton of both makes a relevant dfference for the choce of the counterfactual, thus potentally affectng whether the s has a postve or negatve outlook. For nstance, n case the actvty treats also organc waste also compostng needs to be consdered, ether as a CIB actvty or as a counterfactual. In ths regard some scholars consder compostng a very effcent carbon snk, although some other advocate that organc fermentaton (through compostng) generates a plethora of GHGs (e.g. CH 4, N 2 O etc.) whose effects are even worse than CO 2, thus balancng off the postve EI represented by lockng up carbon n topsols. Besdes, although landfllng harms ecosystems n several ways (.e. t s responsble for the contamnaton of water and land), t s also supposed to be a very effcent carbon snk whch store carbon for a longer tme than compostng. Studes show that pyrolsaton and ncneraton are better waste management types snce they use waste as fuel to produce energy, and the net balance of CO 2 emssons support the clam that t s less costly n term of CO 2 emssons than conventonal energy from fossl fuel(pachaur & Resnger 2007). However, a more detaled dscusson of ths matter s gven n paragraph 5; n fact, regardless of what lterature says about advantages and dsadvantages of dfferent waste management type, our am s to develop an EIA that can acheve a good degree of smlarty wth the methods proposed to calculate EI n the other domans. Thus, the ratonale used for waste smply answers the queston what would have happened to the s waste f not regenerated/treated by the?. It s reasonable to thnk that t would be treated accordng to the mx of management types used wthn the context regon; hence, country level data about waste treatment mx can be used as a proxy when fner scale data are not avalable. Besdes, waste recyclng/upcyclng actvtes requre a certan amount of energy to transform waste nto usable and valuable product. Hence, also the CO 2 eq. mputable to that energy demand shall be ncluded n the calculaton (see eq. 6). n n WR * PM * GHG( C) WR * PM * GHG( C) GHG( E) n n WR * PM * GHG( C) WR * PM * GHG( C) GHG( E) Where: WR s the amount of waste (n mass unt) regenerated by the PM CC s the proporton of waste that s processed by the counterfactual wth the th management type, gven that n the country/regon/communty waste are treated n n possble ways, PM s the proporton of waste that s processed by the wth the th management type, gven that n the country/regon/communty waste are treated n n possble ways, GHG(C) s the converson factor to CO 2 eq. emssons per mass unt for the management type. GHG(E) s the amount of GHG emsson produced by the energy demand of the. [6] 2017 The Authors. Journal Complaton 2017 European Center of Sustanable Development.
192 European Journal of Sustanable Development (2017), 6, 1, 181-202 4. Results We appled the methods descrbed n paragraph 3 to assess the EI of a few case studes. For each case study, we wll hghlght key aspects that we beleve nterestng to present and dscuss. 4.1. Communty bke repar shop: waste doman The frst type of s a communty bke repar shop. The TESS project mapped several of them across Europe. These s search garbage for trashed bkes spare parts and broken tems that can be repared/reused/recycled to make usable bkes or used as replacements. They repar broken bkes and gve out spare parts for free n order to allow anyone n the communty the possblty to use a bke (the results here presented refer to one communty bke repar shop partcularly relevant and actve n the centre of Rome). In regards of calculatng EI, the man drect mpact of these s deals wth the amount of waste they recycle, whereas ndrectly they create a movement of people (or group of nterest) that use bkes as the man mean of transport n every-day lfe. In regards of the mpact dervng from the recyclng actvty, the declared of beng capable of regeneratng 7 workng bkes out of 10 trashed bkes. Gven that they collect about 1500 kg of sold waste per year under the forms of broken bkes or parts, the recycles drectly 1,050 kg (70% of total) of sold waste per year whle the remanng 450 kg are sent to the muncpal waste faclty and treated accordngly. Hence, as a standard counterfactual t s reasonable to take average muncpal waste emssons per management type n Europe and apply these values to the mx of muncpal waste treatment n Italy. Accordng to the European Envronment Agency(European Envronment Agency 2010) n Europe the treatment of muncpal waste n 2010 was roughly 210 mllon tonnes (92 Ml T landfllng, 57 Ml T ncneraton and 62 Ml T recyclng, see tab. 3). Net GHG emssons per kg of waste resulted to be 0.79 CO 2 eq. for landfllng, 0.02 CO 2 eq. for ncneraton, and -0.75 CO 2 eq. for recyclng(european Envronment Agency 2010). Thus, accordng to eq. (6) we can compare the EI correspondng to the amount of waste processed by the n a year f t was treated wth the dsposal mx of Italan muncpal waste (56.53% landflled, 20.48% ncnerated, 22.99% recycled), wth the EI of the waste management type assocated wth s actvty (16.96% landflled, 6.14% ncnerated, 76.9% recycled). Publshed by ECSDEV, Va de For, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
F. Martellozzo, D. Reusser, H. Groß 193 Table 3. Coeffcents used to assess EI for the operatng n the waste doman and ts counterfactual (data refer to 2010 and are avalable through the Eurostat onlne database, data n talcs are personal elaboraton). Item Landfllng Incneraton Recyclng Total Unts EU drect emsson 76.31 21.58 27.02 (Mllon tonnes) EU avoded emsson -3.65-20.69-73.47 (Mllon tonnes) EU total muncpal waste 92.00 57.00 62.00 (Mllon tonnes) EU net GHG emsson 0.79 0.02-0.75 (CO 2 eq./kg) Waste management type Italy 56.53 20.48 22.99 (%) Waste management type (%) 16.96 6.14 76.90 (%) GHG of the counterfactual to treat yearly waste 1073 19738-460 20351 (kg CO 2 eq.) GHG of the to treat yearly waste 322 5921-1539 4704 (kg CO 2 eq.) In total the s responsble for ~5 tonnes of CO 2 eq. per year, whle for the same amount of waste the standard counterfactual emts ~20 tonnes of CO 2 eq. GHG 4 tmes more. The resultng EIA calculated accordng to eq. (6) s 0.62, thus showng that the outperforms the standard counterfactual. 4.2. Bcycle use promotng ntatve: Transport doman The second doman for whch case study results are presented s the transport doman. s operatng n ths doman do several dfferent actvtes; however goals are pretty much smlar and consst n promotng bke usage through the mplementaton of sutable condton for bke frendly envronment. In Rome, one was able to montor that ts members (roughly 1,136) covered more than 160 thousands klometres on bkes durng May 2014 (exactly 167,330 Km). In order to provde EIA accordng to eq. [5] the counterfactual must be desgned n a way that elcts the GHG emsson correspondng to that aggregate dstance f t was to be covered wth a standard car. We opted for a conservatve estmate, so we defned as standard a vehcle respectng the most recent regulaton mposed by the European Unon to all new passenger cars by 2015 (130 g of CO 2 per Km) (Cuenot 2009; Fontaras & Samaras 2010). Thus, the CO 2 eq. that would have been consumed by a counterfactual (or that has been saved by the ) adds up to 21.75 tonnes of CO 2 eq. under the assumpton that every bke klometre would have been covered by car (.e. 130(g/Km) * 167,330(Km) = 21.75 T). Besdes, to fulfl the varables requred n eq. (5) we need to know also the amount of energy spent by the n conductng ts actvty. However, the structure of ths s extremely lqud hence havng a clear pcture of the amount of tme and energy spent to manage ts actvty s somewhat elusve; yet, we can speculate that all partcpants had connected a standard pc for a couple of hours per day (rough estmate comng from ntervews) to promote/manage the actvty durng that month (average consumpton of 120 watts, Intel report from Trent Unversty web page). Consequently, gven that the GHG emsson factor for natonal electrcty n Italy s ~406 grams of CO 2 per KWh we 2017 The Authors. Journal Complaton 2017 European Center of Sustanable Development.
194 European Journal of Sustanable Development (2017), 6, 1, 181-202 estmated that s GHG emsson would be ~3 tonnes of CO 2 eq. (1050 PCs, runnng 2h per day for 30 days wth an average consumpton of 120 watts). Thus, EIA for ths accordng to eq. [6] s 0.75 suggestng that the actvty promoted by such s represent a relevant mprovement n reducng EI f compared to a standard counterfactual. 4.3. Solar energy ntatve As stated before, s actve n the energy doman are nvolved n two man actvtes. Frst, they engage n the producton of renewable energy and second they work on ncreasng energy effcency. In our repostory we had one from Germany (consttuted by a group of unversty students and other nterested members) that nstalled a photovoltac power plant on the roof top of unversty buldngs. In 2013 they produced roughly 30 MWh of electrcty, feedng t nto the power grd. Emssons from the electrcty producton wth PV power plants have been analysed n a crtcal metastudy takng a full lfe cycle approach proposed by Nugget and Sovacool n 2014(Nugent & Sovacool 2014). They fnd average values of roughly 80 g CO 2 / kwh produced. Thus the energy producton s equvalent to emssons of 30 (MWh) * 1000 (KWh/MWh) * 0.08 (Kg CO 2 / KWh) = 2,4 (T CO 2 ). As counterfactual, we take electrcty suppled from the natonal grd. The emssons factors for electrcty n Germany s 0.477 (Kg CO 2 / KWh) (DEFRA 2012; IEA 2010), ths results n emssons for the counterfactual of 30 (MWh) * 1000 (KWh/MWh) *0.477 (Kg CO 2 / KWh) = 14, 3 (T CO 2 ). Hence, the resultng EIAs n ~0.71, thus suggestng that the actvty carred on by the s responsble for a relevant reducton of GHG emssons (per unt of product). 4.4. General remarks One of the mportant contrbutons of the results presented above reles n the fact that, besdes presentng a methodology for an EIs evaluaton of s that s crossactvty, ts prelmnary fndngs also suggest that n all cases (nvestgated here) the alternatve methods through whch s carry out ther actvtes lead to outperform the respectve standard counterfactual. The three examples descrbed n sectons 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 elct an ndcator of EIA of s spannng between crca 0.6 and 0.75, therefore suggestng that the potental contrbuton n reducng GHG from s per unt of output s substantal. Ths s partcularly relevant especally because the 2 out of 3 of the examples gven pertan to actvty sectors n Europe that are responsble for a large share of GHG (Fg. 2); n fact the transport doman contrbutes for a lttle less than 20% of total European GHG, the energy producton doman contrbutes for somethng slghtly above 30%, whle the waste doman s responsble for only ~3%. Accordng to our analytc framework, the 3 examples gven above may be assocated wth a percentage reducton of GHG per unt of output (Tab. 4) rangng from ~75% to ~85%; these are remarkable results, that gven current European GHG level, efforts n fllng the gap from current GHG wth expected GHG accordng to the Agenda 2020, suggest that s potental contrbuton to mtgatng clmate change target s no longer neglgble. On the other hand, s true that the examples above are very small case studes that can be consdered the standard among s practces. Therefore the potental aggregate benefts dervng from upscalng ther actvtes at a larger socetal scale s an ssue that needs to Publshed by ECSDEV, Va de For, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
F. Martellozzo, D. Reusser, H. Groß 195 be addressed thoroughly lookng also at the many caveats that ths type of nvestgaton may convey. Ths and other elements that can contrbute frutfully to a constructve dscusson on the subject are further presented n secton 5. Table 4. Results of the envronmental evaluaton framework proposed for the 3 s used as case studes elctng EIA and fracton of GHG reducton. Doman s actvty EIA GHG reducton (%) Communty bke repar shop 0.62 75% Bcycle promotng ntatve use 0.71 83% Solar Intatve Energy 0.75 85% 5. Dscussons The EIA framework proposed rases some nterrogatves dealng wth uncertanty under dfferent perspectves. On the one hand general reflectons on the valdty of the tool proposed to address GHG reducton at a global/regon (macro scale) can be made; whle on the other hand some skeptcsm may arse on the legtmacy of the assumptons taken to buld approprate counterfactuals (mcro scale). 5.1. Macro scale ssues Fgure 2a (data elaborated by the EEA n 2010. European Envronment Agency 2010) shows that envronmental goals stll st qute far for all European countres, even for the northern European vrtuous Republcs (Sweden and Denmark above all). The composton of GHG by sector n Europe elcted n fgure 2b (European Envronment Agency 2010), makes clearly vsble how some domans have a greater potental than others, hence, drect EI of some s may result neglgble no matter how effcent the adopted practce s. For example, the waste doman accounts for less than 3% of total GHG n Europe (Fg. 2b), hence even f transton to a zero waste practce would be largely adopted repercusson on total GHG cannot yeld to relevant results. Conversely also small percentage reducton of GHG n the transport or energy doman may elct a great step forward n achevng envronmental goals. In vew of the strong lock-n of the transport system n terms of nfrastructure and nsttutons, expermentaton and development of nches s especally mportant. Wth no surprse n fact the potental of 2017 The Authors. Journal Complaton 2017 European Center of Sustanable Development.
196 European Journal of Sustanable Development (2017), 6, 1, 181-202 s for nche development has been stressed multple tmes by several scholars (Seyfang and Smth 2007). Fg. 2. On the left (a) Share of renewable energy n fnal energy consumpton n EU-27 n 2007 compared to 2020 targets. On the rght (b) Total greenhouse gas emssons by sector n EU-27 n 2008. Source: European Envronment Agency State and Outlook 2010. Furthermore, although accordng to our calculaton s actvtes are n general more effcent than the correspondng standard counterfactual (less CO 2 eq. emtted per unt of product/servce); the magntude of ther mpact may not be relevant gven the lmted sze of the (total CO 2 eq. the saves compared to total CO 2 eq. the regonal counterfactual s responsble for). To ths end, another lmtaton arses: n fact to assess the total mpact of a specfc actvty n one doman we should not account solely for one sngle but on all s operatng n the same doman n the same area. Thus, more structured analyss focusng on specfc case study areas are needed n ths sense. However ths s not the object of ths study; n here we am at proposng a methodologc framework for EIA of the actvtes of grass roots ntatves, whereas n depth regonal nvestgaton wll follow. 5.2. Mcro-scale ssues In regard of mcro scale ssues of concern, arguments are presented example by example. Bke repar shop (waste): The example presented wthn the waste doman does not dstngush between hard sold materals and organc humd waste; hence an EIA for organc waste compostng s not descrbed. However, TESS mapped several s promotng the actvty of collectng and processng organc waste n order to transform t Publshed by ECSDEV, Va de For, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org
F. Martellozzo, D. Reusser, H. Groß 197 nto valuable mnerals-rch sol. Although ths practce s habtually assocated wth food orented ntatves, the method presented n paragraph 3.4 may be sutable also for such upcyclng practce (t can be consdered as the th among n waste management types).ths practce s a natural mean for stockng large amount of carbon; however we have to note though, that whether compostng s EI outperforms a standard counterfactual s EI s stll a debated topc(pachaur & Resnger 2007; DEFRA 2012). In fact, t s supposed to potentally reduce GHG emssons only n the long run, whereas n the short/medum run both ncneraton and landfllng (when coupled wth gas capturng) show lower GHG emssons(pachaur & Resnger 2007). Studes show that tme plays a crucal role n establshng whch of the waste treatment method s less harmful for the envronment, but these short and long run scenaros all agree n showng that ncneraton s always better than the other methods (recyclng s not consdered), also f the addtonal CO 2 eq. net reducton mputable to energy producton s not consdered(pachaur & Resnger 2007; DEFRA 2012; Mohareb et al. 2011). However, as a counterargument s habtuallysad that burnng matters would make sense only f we could dspose of more than one planet, thus, speculatng that burnng and transformng matter nto energy would be reasonable f our planet could provde an nfnte amount of resources. In concluson lterature does not offer a clear pcture of whch opton s better, hence fndng a reasonable counterfactual s a crtcal ssue that deserve to be nvestgated through ad hoc further research. On another note, the EIA for the communty bke repar shop operatng n the waste doman tells us that the s substantally more effcent than the counterfactual, however n a year the s able to treat an amount of waste only equvalent to what s trashed by 3 people (~500 Kg/per cap., (Eurostat 2010)), thus ts contrbuton to lower GHG s mnmal (ths relates to macro scale ssue n paragraph 5.1). Nonetheless, we observed that such s often became recognsed places of attracton catalysng large nterest groups. Habtually these people make an ntense use of the bke as the man mean of transport. The presented n the example have been able through the last few years to attract a core of about 1000 people whose am s to replace at most fossl fuel propelled personal moblty wth cyclng. The ndrect EI that ths phenomenon represents may be responsble for a substantal reducton of GHG n the transport doman. In fact, EI reducton could be of a magntude comparable to what has been descrbed for the actve n the transport doman (paragraph 4.2). Thus, snce ndrect mpact may be extremely relevant n lowerng GHG at the aggregate scale, a structured analyss on ths subject should not be neglected. Transport: The method proposed for EI assessment of n the transport doman may also rase some sceptcsm. In fact, the assessment of transport GHG framed as the CO 2 equvalent correspondng to the energy needed to cover a certan dstance (KWh/Km) conveys some caveats. In the case that the uses sustanable transport to delver goods or servces one could speculate that usng a car/truck allows to carry a larger volume of goods per trp, hence reducng the total number of Km travelled by the counterfactual; conversely some cohorts may advocate that bke transport can access roads usually unavalable for conventonal car/trucks (.e. restrcted traffc areas, narrow lanes or brdges etc.) thus allowng the to cover shorter dstances. Furthermore, the varables taken to calculate s energy demand are based 2017 The Authors. Journal Complaton 2017 European Center of Sustanable Development.
198 European Journal of Sustanable Development (2017), 6, 1, 181-202 on hypothess that although beng reasonable - stll need to be valdated. Moreover, once data collecton wll be completed ths part of the study wll defntely beneft from more n depth nvestgaton, and a senstvty analyss wll be conducted. Energy: Regardng the example gven n paragraph 4.3 about photovoltac energy producton on campus, some concerns may arse due to the approprateness of the actvty boundares chosen, gven the man vocaton of the. In fact, members of the made very clear durng ntervews that energy producton s nether ther man goal nor ther prncpal actvty; conversely they manly am at rsng sustanablty awareness on/off campus and at makng ther unversty a more envronmental frendly place. To ths end, on top of nstallng solar panels on campus they provde/organze a number of semnars, lectures and events to rase awareness about envronmental ssues. Unfortunately, no data s avalable on the resultng behavoural change the may have nfluenced. Therefore, we cannot determne the EI related to ther man actvty. We found ths ssue as very common among the s populatng our nventory n fact most of them do or partcpate to dssemnaton/educatonal actvtes. The degree of nvolvement n such actvtes and analogously the effect produced - s dfferent for all of them, whch somehow s a problem that encompasses all the three caveats presented n paragraph 2. Probably ths s the prncpal source of uncertanty of the framework proposed and one of the obstacles that further research shall try to exhaustvely address. Nevertheless, t translates n the fact that f on the one hand we are capable of elaboratng reasonably robust and vald methodology to provde EIA for most of the practces resultng n a clear GHG accountable output, on the other hand there s a lack of sound and justfed hypothess about dssemnaton and educatonal actvtes onto whch buld a smlar assessment framework (Uwasu et al. 2009). We beleve that ths gap needs to be closed n order to provde fully nformed support for sustanable aware polcy makng (Meadowcroft 2011; Meadowcroft 2009; O Rordan 2004); therefore, the synergc effort of envronmental humantes and natural scences s fundamental n ths regard (Loorbach 2010). The theoretcal and methodologcal framework developed wth ths study ams at beng a step towards n closng the gap n the lterature about s. Ths wll gve 's a stronger voce by provdng them the opportunty to support ther contrbuton to a transton n Europe wth comparable numbers. Moreover, t wll allow uncoverng areas wth large potentals. Conclusons The ratonale descrbed and the examples gven am at defnng some gudelnes for EIA that can be useful at multple level. Frst, as shown, ths framework fnds sutable applcaton n case studes and assessment reports for researchers and scholars nvestgatng the theoretcal background of s EI. Second, applcatons n socetal plannng and desgn would partcularly beneft because t represent a vald tool onto whch s actvtes are rated. Thus t could be used to evaluate the potental effect and consequences of scalng-up scenaros. Thrd, t s nformatve of the comparatve performance of dfferent actvtes a may conduct, hence representng a vald tool to Publshed by ECSDEV, Va de For, 34, 00172, Rome, Italy http://ecsdev.org