cdp cities 2013 global report

7/28/2019 CDP Cities 2013 Global Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cdp-cities-2013-global-report 1/18

Written by CDPwww.cdp.net+44 (0) 207 970 [email protected]

Report analysis andinformation design for CDP by

How climate changeaction is giving uswealthier, healthier citiesBased on the CDP responsesfrom 110 global cities

In proudpartnershipwith



Austin

2



Key ndings The city government of Austin, Texas madethe above remark this year as part of itsresponse to CDP’s annual questionnaireon climate change. The city’s commentsuccinctly captures a feature that extendsacross many cities’ CDP responses in2013: the co-bene ts of taking action onclimate change in cities. Just as Austin ndsadditional health and air quality advantages inreducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,many other cities around the world are ndingthat tackling climate change yields similarco-bene ts, from improving ef ciency toattracting new businesses.

In this report, CDP, C40 and AECOM presentthe results of our analysis of these bene ts,based on the responses of 110 global cities

to the 2013 CDP questionnaire. 1 The citiesin this sample span the globe—from mega-cities like London, Tokyo, New York, andJakarta to the small city of Oristano in Italyand Ouagadougou, the capital of BurkinaFaso in West Africa. The sample includesmore than 80% of the membership of C40 and represents the largest and mostcomprehensive collection of self-reporteddata on cities and climate change assembledto date by CDP.

The data from these cities makes clearthat the bene t of taking action on climatechange at the city level is not limited toreducing emissions or adapting to warmertemperatures. The cities in the survey areengaged on the issue of climate change,and, as a result, are saving money, creatingmore attractive investment environments,and enabling citizens to live healthier lives.In short, climate change action by localgovernments around the world is creatingwealthier, healthier cities.

1. Climate change action is makingcities leaner and richer. One out of everytwo actions that cities are taking to reduceemissions in their municipal operations isfocused on ef ciency. Cities report nearly$40 million in savings per year from tacklingclimate change.

2. Emissions reduction activities by citiesare pro-business. 62% of actions that citiesare taking to reduce GHG emissions at thecity-wide level have the potential to attractnew business investment and grow theeconomy. Furthermore, 91% of cities believethat working to combat climate change will

lead to economic opportunities for their cities.Inaction could be costly—98% of cities saythat climate change poses physical risks totheir cities, including impacts to business.

3. Reducing emissions and adaptingto climate change makes for healthier citizens. More than half of reporting cities(55%) are undertaking emissions reductionactions that promote walking and cycling,which directly and indirectly lead to improvedpublic health. And over three-quarters of cities’ reported adaptation actions will protecthuman health from the negative effects of climate change.

C40 is a network of theworld’s megacities takingaction to reduce GHGemissions. In 2013, CDPand C40 Cities ClimateLeadership Group (C40)mark three years ofpartnership on the effortto engage cities in climatechange data reporting.C40 Chair, New YorkCity Mayor Michael R.Bloomberg invited all 63C40 Cities to participatethrough CDP’s reportingplatform — 53 citiesresponded. CDP andC40 will publish speci canalysis on the C40 datain this year’s sample later.For more information,please visit www.c40.org

A Note on the Text. Allanalysis and conclusionspresented in thisreport derive from datareported by 110 citiesin response to the CDPCities 2013 questionnaire,unless otherwise noted.Percentages are basedon the total number ofcities that responded to

the survey (110 cities),unless otherwise noted.Currency gures aregiven in US dollars.For question-by-question results of thesurvey, please see ouraccompanying report,“CDP Cities 2013:Summary Report on 110Global Cities.”

CDP invited 240 cities to report this year; 110 responded by thedeadline. To read the full-text response of any city in the survey,or for more information about any aspect of CDP’s work withcities, please visit www.cdp.net. A full list of all reporting cities isavailable on page 16 of this report.

1

“By reducing greenhouse gasemissions and better managing waterresources, we will also have cleanercreeks, less air pollution, and otherancillary bene ts.”

Austin USA

3



In its drive to reduce its carbon footprint, theCity of Sydney in Australia recently turnedits attention to its electricity consumption.

The city found that public lighting—includinglighting for streets, parks, and walkways—accounted for roughly a third of its totalelectricity use. As a result, the city becamethe rst in Australia to roll out new, energyef cient LED lighting for its streets andparks. Over the next few years, Sydney willreplace 6,450 conventional lights with LEDtechnology, reducing its GHG emissions fromlighting by 70%. The earth’s atmosphere isnot the only bene ciary—the city expects tosave $800,000 per year on its electricity bill.

As cities like Sydney strive to reduce GHGemissions, they are undertaking a diversearray of actions—from promoting renewableenergy to expanding public transportation.

But the most common actions reported bycities focus on improving energy ef ciency.Our research reveals that the three mostpopular activities to reduce emissions inmunicipal operations all focus on improvingenergy ef ciency:

1. Reducing energy demand in buildings;

2. Improving fuel ef ciency in municipaleets;

3. Lowering energy consumption andmaintenance costs of outdoor lighting.

These three speci c activities alone comprise25% of the more than 700 actions that citiesare undertaking to reduce emissions in theirmunicipal operations. 2 All together, one outof every two actions (54%) that cities aretaking to reduce emissions in their municipaloperations is focused on ef ciency. 3

These ef ciency actions are leading to moresavings for local governments—a powerfulmessage for political leaders to send totheir constituents. Los Angeles retro tted4,400 traf c signals and more than 100,000streetlights, saving $11 million per year inelectricity and repair costs. Houston replacedthe incandescent bulbs in its signalizedintersections, realizing $10,000 per day insavings. But it is not just LED street lightingthat delivers a payback—cities are alsocutting wasted energy from their buildings.Washington, DC, for example, began in2004 to retro t the 8,700 residential buildingunits owned by the DC Housing Authority.

To date, the program has retro tted 5,400units, saving $3.9 million in electricity costsannually, as well as another $2.4 million inoperations and maintenance costs—all whileleading to warmer, less expensive homes forresidents. Cape Town has just secured morethan $1 million to invest in municipal building

Driving ef ciencyand cost savings

Note that the 700 actions referred to here are for municipalgovernment operations. City governments are often responsiblefor two types of emissions reduction actions: t hose focused onthe municipal government’s own operational emissions, and thosefocused on reducing emissions in the city as a whole. CDP askscities to report these two types of activities in separate places.

We de ne ef ciency as any action that is designed to accomplishthe same outcome with less in put, usually in relation t o energy.For a more complete de nition, see Park, Chris, Dictionary of Environment and Conservation, Oxford University Press, 2007.

2

3

Reported annual energy ef ciency savingsBy city ($USD)

Fig 1

Sydney $800,000São Paulo $1,400,000Toronto $1,950,000

Atlanta $2,000,000

Houston $3,600,000

Berlin $4,161,000

Las Vegas $6,287,000

Washington, DC $6,300,000

Los Angeles $13,000,000

TOTAL $39,498,000Chart shows energy ef ciency projects for which cities reportedquanti able nancial savings. The $13 million saved by Los

Angeles includes $11 million in savings from LED technologyand $2 million in savings from reduced hauling costs.

4



Only the most common actions are shown in detail above. Altogether 20 typesof actions were reported that focus on ef ciency.

energy ef ciency retro ts over the next threeyears, and St. Louis is in the process of improving the energy performance of its CityHall. Taken together, cities report that theyare saving or plan to save nearly $40 millionper year on energy ef ciency measures.

Data from these 110 cities shows that cities’actions to reduce GHG emissions also bene tthe bottom line. In many places, thesesavings will provide a much more persuasivemessage than reductions in GHG emissions.

EXPERT INSIGHT

Leveraging finance forsustainable growth.

The world’s cities face animmediate need to drivegreen growth, economicdevelopment, andbuild infrastructure thatmitigates the causes andrisks of climate change.The nancing to do so,however, remains one oftheir most pressing needs– and challenges.

That’s why last year C40launched the SustainableInfrastructure FinanceNetwork, chaired byChicago Mayor RahmEmanuel and co-chairedby Basel Mayor GuyMorin. This networkbrings together C40megacities and innovator

cities from around theworld to collaborate andbuild the capacity tomeet urban infrastructure

nancing needs. Thenetwork has initiallyfocused on sharingthe successes andchallenges of severalcities, which haveleveraged public andprivate investment –these include Chicago’sInfrastructure Trust,London’s Green Fund,and Melbourne’sSustainable MelbourneFund. The networkis also working withprivate nancialinstitutions, multilateraldevelopment banksand other investmentexperts to broker accessto existing funds, andshape city-focused

nancial mechanisms for

the future. The dynamicexchange among citiesand partners within C40’sSustainable InfrastructureFinance Network providescities with the contacts,concepts, frameworks,and relationships toaccess the nance theyneed to grow.

C40 Cities

Municipal emissions reduction actions focused on ef ciency% of actions

Fig 2

Energy ef ciency / retro tmeasures......................................... 21%

Improve fuel economy andreduce CO 2 from motorizedvehicles........................................... 15%

12%

9%

8%

7%

4%

3%3%

54%

Renewables on-site energygeneration.......................................

LED / CFL / other luminairetechnologies....................................

Building codes and standards..........

Building performance andreporting..........................................

Improve fuel economy and reduce CO 2 frombus and/or light rail operations.....................

ESCO nancing...........................................

Smart lighting..............................................

5



SPOTLIGHT

Decoupling GDP andGHG growth.

Saving energy inmunicipal operationsis not the only way thatcities can improve theiref ciency. They can alsowork to decouple GDPgrowth from growth inGHG emissions. Wesuggest one metric forcomparing ef ciencyacross cities—what wecall “economic ef ciency.”CDP and AECOManalyzed cities in fourregions to determinewhich cities create wealthmost ef ciently. Weexamined the total GHGemissions of a city as

Economic ef ciency of greenhouse gas emissionsCity GDP in $USD / metric tonnes CO

2e

Fig 3

well as its GDP and notedwhich cities producedthe largest amount ofGDP per tonne of GHGemitted. Then we tookan average of the cities ineach region.

Our analysis reveals thatNorth American citieslag their European peerssigni cantly in the amount

of wealth that theyproduce per unit of GHGemitted. North Americancities produce $5,550worth of GDP per tonneof GHG emitted, whileEuropean cities producemore than double thatamount. In fact, bothLatin American cities andEast Asian cities—thinkof Buenos Aires and

Montevideo, Seoul andTokyo —also outperformNorth American citiesin terms of economicef ciency per tonne ofGHG. As cities continueto invest in emissionsreduction activities, theycan expect to wring morewealth out of each tonneof emissions.

European cities sample: Amsterdam, Athens, Barcelona, Basel, Berlin, Copenhagen, Greater London, Hamburg, Istanbul, Lisbon, Madrid, Greater Manchester, Milan, Naples, Oslo, Paris,Rotterdam, Stockholm, Turin, Venice, Vilnius, Warsaw, Zaragoza, Zurich.

Latin American cities sample: Belo Horizonte, Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Cali, Caracas, Goiânia, Mexico City, Montevideo, Rio de Janeiro, Santiago, São Paulo.

East Asian cities sample: Kaohsiung, Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul, Yokohama.

North American cities sample: Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, Montreal, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, San Diego,San Francisco, St Louis, Toronto, Vancouver.

Source: GDP data from https://cgidd.com/

$5,831$6,816$12,502

$5,550

European cities Annual economic output per tonne

of greenhouse gas emissions inEuropean cities

Latin American cities Annual economic output per tonne

of greenhouse gas emissions inLatin American cities

East Asian cities Annual economic output per tonne

of greenhouse gas emissions inEast Asian cities

North American cities Annual economic output per tonne

of greenhouse gas emissions inNorth American cities

Cities can work to decouple GDPgrowth fromgrowth in GHGemissions.

6



Energy ef ciency alone is not enough tocreate wealthier cities—they also must attractand retain strong businesses that provide

jobs and grow tax revenue. In addition,cities must protect their existing businessesfrom the increasing risks associated withwarmer temperatures. CDP’s review of cityresponses suggests that tackling climatechange—through actions that both reduceGHG emissions and protect the city from theexpected effects of climate change—is alsohelping cities to attract and retain businessinvestment.

CDP, C40 and AECOM analyzed the morethan 800 individual actions that cities aretaking to reduce GHG emissions at the

Attracting newbusiness andinvestment

city-wide level to nd out how many of theseactions might make the city a more attractivelocation for business. We considered anactivity to be helpful in making a city moreattractive to business if academic researchsuggests that it can have an impact oneconomic growth in a city. 4 For example,research shows that positive economicoutcomes often stem from investments inpublic transit, increasing green space, andbuilding infrastructure for walking and cycling,among other initiatives. 5 Our analysis showsthat 62% of all reported emissions reductionactivities being undertaken by cities have thepotential to make cities more attractive tobusinesses.

The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), for example, de nes “greengrowth” as: “Green growth means promoting economic growth while reducing pol lution and GHGemissions, minimising waste and inef cient use of natural resources, and maintaining biodiversity.” http:// www.oecd.org/greengrowth/48224539.pdf

See, for example, a 2007 study from California, which linked light rail development to an increase incommercial property values near the light rail stations. See also a recent study by CEOs for Cities, whichfound that walkability also directly correlates with higher real estate values. Research on a project-by-project basis is needed to determine if each individual emissions reduction project cited here will yieldeconomic bene ts. http://www.ceosforcities.org/research/walking-the-walk/ http://trb.metapress.com/content/l832g82m232t4818/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.3141%2f1805-02

4

5

Emissions reduction actions that will make cities more attractive to business% of actions

Fig 4

Improve fuel economy and reduceCO 2 from bus and/or light railoperations......................................

13%

Waste prevention policies orprograms........................................

11%

Transportation demandmanagement..................................

10%

Greenspace and/or bio-diversitypreservation and expansion...........

8%

Recycling or compostingcollections and/or facilities............. 7%

Improve accessibility to publictransit systems................................

6%

Improve fuel economy and reduceCO 2 from motorized vehicles..........

5%

Infrastructure for non-motorizedtransport.........................................

4%

Energy ef ciency/retro t measures

4%

62%

Only the most common actions are shown in detail above. Altogether 27 typesof actions were reported that make cities more attractive to business.

7



City governments also anticipate that theseimprovements will make their cities betterplaces to invest. 91% of cities believe thatworking to combat climate change will resultin economic opportunities for their cities.

The most frequently cited opportunity isthe development of new businesses in thecity—63% of cities report that they anticipate

investment from businesses in new industries.

New York City, for example, reports that its“energy ef ciency initiatives will result in newclean tech businesses.” Changwon expectsa similar co-bene t—the South Korean cityhopes that its plans to utilize sewage sludgefor bus fuel and to install solar power plantsin unused areas will drive new businessgrowth. Houston expects that the plannedexpansion to its light rail (a $4 billion dollarinvestment) will bring economic bene ts forboth businesses and residents in the city,while Dallas sees the number of green jobs inthe city rising as GHG emissions fall. Nearlyevery reporting city this year understandsthat climate change action creates economicopportunities—a powerful rebuke toconstituencies that associate climate actionwith economic harm.

Is the investment paying off for cities? Forsome, the payback in new business hasalready begun. In Greater Manchester,one of the UK’s largest cities, some 2,000

businesses employing 37,000 peoplesupply low carbon goods and services inthe city. According to the city government,the low carbon and environmental goodsand services sectors are growing at over4%, despite the ongoing UK recession. SãoPaulo, the largest city in Brazil and its nancialhub, reports that the city has “already seen

the arrival and development of an industrythat promotes environmentally friendly goodsand services, such as the clean energyindustry associated with ethanol and electricalvehicles.” The Detroit Free Press recentlydocumented how growing interest in cyclingin Detroit and elsewhere has given rise to anew business industry in Detroit—bicycle

manufacturing. The Press reports that oneof the entrepreneurs who launched a newbicycle manufacturing company was inspiredby “urban planning trends.” 6

While tackling climate change presentsa great chance for cities to attract newbusiness, changes in the climate also bringabout serious risks. 98% of reporting citiesbelieve that their cities face physical risksfrom climate change, the highest percentageof cities in the three year history of the CDPquestionnaire. Cities classify nearly half (48%)of these risks as both near-term and serious

/ extremely serious. Cities also believe thatmany of these risks may directly threaten theability of businesses to operate. As a result,identifying and addressing these physicalrisks has an important co-bene t—helpingprotect businesses and ensuring an attractivebusiness climate for the long-term.

The city of Belo Horizonte in Brazil, forexample, is currently experiencing anincrease in ooding due to storms. Among

other effects, these oods result in lossesfor small business operators in the city, wholose product as well as other investmentslike furniture. Storms and ooding alsosnarl traf c, which prevents employeesfrom reaching their workplaces. “If thissituation persists or gets worse,” notes thecity government, “it may alienate potential

“Metro Detroit Draws 2-wheel Makers as Bicycling on the Rise,” Detroit Free Press , 6 May 2013.http://www.freep.com/article/20130506/BUSINESS06/305060015/bicycle-making-detroit-bike-trend

6

A city that is not paying attentionto climate change will not beable to attract investors becausethe business environment is notconducive for sustainability.PietermaritzburgSouth Africa

”

“ The pursuit of advanced energyhas become a centerpiece ofeconomic development efforts inNortheast Ohio.Cleveland USA ”“

Cities that sayclimate changepresents aneconomicopportunity% of cities

Fig 5

Yes 91%

No4%

Don’t know6%

8



Physical risks reported as near-term and serious% of risks

Fig 7

Temperature increase / heatwaves.. 46%

Frequent / intense rainfall................ 22%

Drought............................................ 12%

Storms / oods................................ 12%

Sea level rise.................................... 4%Other................................................. 4%

48% of risks are reportedas near-term andserious

Economic opportunities reported as a result of climate change# of cities

Fig 6

71

Development of new industries

cities

45

Increased attention to otherenvironmental concerns

cities

39

Increased efficiencyof operations

cities

38

Increasedinfrastructureinvestment

cities

32

Additional fundingopportunities

cities

31Increased energysecurity

cities

9



entrepreneurs.” Guayaquil, Ecuador’slargest city, also reports that businesses inthe city center have suffered physical andinfrastructure damage as a result of adverseweather conditions. Even when storms and

ooding do not cause damage, they reducethe ow of consumers, which has an adverseeffect on sales.

The governments of Belo Horizonte andGuayaquil are making special efforts toprotect their cities from the effects of climate change. Many of these effortsalso have the added bene t of protecting

businesses. Belo Horizonte is working toimprove the city’s storm water and transportinfrastructure, which will reduce oodingand keep its traders safer. San Franciscois undertaking studies to account for howclimate change may affect the city, thentaking action accordingly. The city will buildnew infrastructure to deal with storm surge,storm intensity, and sea level rise, ensuringmaximum resiliency for businesses, amongothers. Cities’ efforts to protect their residentsand infrastructure from climate change arekeeping cities safe for business.

EXPERT INSIGHT

Recovering fromHurricane Sandy.

When it comes to climate

change, New York Cityhas long been considereda leader in long-termsustainable planning, butHurricane Sandy was awake-up call to all NewYorkers. In December2012, Mayor Bloombergannounced the SpecialInitiative for Rebuildingand Resiliency (SIRR) andtasked it to address howNew York City can rebuildto be more resilient inthe wake of Sandy butwith a renewed focus on:how to improve citywideinfrastructure and

building resilience in themedium and long term;and how to rebuild locallyin order to help Sandy-impacted communitiesbecome more resilient.SIRR addressesthese challenges byinvestigating three keyquestions:

1) What happened duringand after Sandy andwhy?

2) What is the likely riskto New York City as theclimate changes and thethreat of sea level rise,future storms and severeweather increases?

3) What do we do withcitywide infrastructure

and buildings? Andin Sandy-impactedneighborhoods? In New York City alone,direct and indirect lossesfrom Sandy amountedto around $19 billionin damages. Using thebest science availableto forecast long-termrisk, there will likely bea greater number of themost intense hurricanes.The probability of a stormcausing New York City asmuch economic damageas Hurricane Sandy willincrease by 17% by the2020s and by 40% bythe 2050s. In the faceof this incentive to act

now, SIRR has produceda comprehensive nal

report directed at mid-and long-term resiliencymeasures that presentspolicy recommendations,infrastructure priorities,and community plans,and identi es sources oflong-term funding. Youcan nd the report onwww.nyc.gov/resiliency

New York CityOffice of Long-Term

Planning and Sustainability

10



EXPERT INSIGHT

When it comes tosustainability andbusiness growth is thechoice still either/or?

City governments aroundthe globe must constantlybalance the need toimprove the environmentwhile driving businessgrowth. For a long time,there was the belief that

measures that addressedclimate change would bea burden on business.

But recent advancesin technology thatmake buildings smarterand more ef cientare both good for theenvironment and equallygood for business.Internet technologythat transformedcommunications andcommerce is now

entering an industrialphase that will transformhow machinescommunicate andbuildings operate.

For example, we areproviding technologythat observes how abuilding is used. With

exible, dynamic workforces, buildings aren’talways operating from9 to 5, Monday throughFriday. Smart Buildingtechnology enablesproductivity by waking upthe building when and ifemployees are presentand shifting to energysaving mode when theworkforce is away. SmartBuilding technology canalso observe the weatherand adjust lightinglevels to respond to asunny or gray day. Andby remotely monitoringbuilding systems and

equipment, we help drivecost effective, preemptiveequipment adjustmentsthat save energy. Allthis will drive importantcarbon reductions butwill also drive businessgrowth.

At Jones Lang LaSalle,we believe that SmartBuildings are a no-brainer. First andforemost they’re goodfor business - which willultimately drive emissionsreduction too.

Dan ProbstChairman, Energy and

Sustainability ServicesJones Lang LaSalle

The economic damage ofooding will rise four-fold by

2050. Commercial and industrialsectors will suffer substantially.Bangkok Thailand ”“

Chicago is investing in creating jobs and economic growththrough sustainability. Buildinga healthier, more livable andeconomically vibrant city will be

aided by more than $8 billion inpublic and private investmentsbeing made over the nextdecade.Chicago USA ”

“

Bangkok

Chicago

11



Natural disasters threaten business continuityin cities; more importantly, they pose seriousrisks to the health and safety of city residents.By taking steps to protect urban infrastructurefrom the impacts of climate change, citygovernments are also protecting theirresidents’ life and health. At the same time,city governments’ activities to reduce GHGemissions are encouraging healthier citizens.

Taken together, our analysis shows that theefforts that city governments are making to

reduce their GHG emissions and adapt tothe effects of climate change are creatinghealthier cities.

CDP, C40 and AECOM rst examined theefforts that cities are making to adapt tothe effects of climate change. We analyzedwhich of these efforts might also yield thewelcome co-bene t of improving humanhealth or protecting human life. The analysisshows that more than three-quarters (77%)of reporting cities are undertaking actionsto adapt to climate change that will alsoprotect life and health. Cities are improvinginfrastructure, like storm water management,which is designed to reduce ooding, therebyreducing the spread of contaminated water.Cities are also battling the poor air qualitythat comes with hotter days by, for example,restricting automobile use on certain days.Fewer automobiles on the road means fewerparticulate emissions, a leading cause of asthma and other respiratory illnesses. 7

Mexico City, for example, is confronting theclimate-related spread of disease head-on.

The city expects more frequent heat wavesin the short-term; these events present anincreased risk of the spread of disease in thecity. So the city has worked to improve itsepidemiological monitoring during summers.

This monitoring has helped the city touncover a major cause of gastrointestinalsickness: street food that is inadequatelypreserved during periods of warmertemperatures. “The impact derived of warmer

Building healthier cities

days has been veri ed recently,” reports thecity government. “The local Secretary of Health reports more gastrointestinal casesin the population.” The city has recentlyincreased its prevention actions during heatwaves to reduce the spread of these germs,especially among the elderly. As a resultof these efforts, residents will bene t fromreduced risk of illness when heat wavesstrike.

NRDC Website, “Asthma and Air Pollution.” Accessed on 6 June2013. http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp

7

Cities undertaking actions with health co-bene ts% of cities

Fig 8

77%

Adaptation actions thatprotect health

55%

Emissions reduction activitiesthat promote walking and

cycling

12



Flooding also presents an immediate healthrisk for many city governments across theworld, and many cities are battling the healtheffects that accompany rising waters. Cape

Town, for example, is experiencing oodingas a result of increased rainfall and stormsurges. “Flooding in informal settlements,”notes the city government, “is a major healthrisk as it increases the spread of water-bornediseases such as cholera and typhoid.” Thecity is confronting this threat through stringent

“no-development” lines, coastal vulnerabilitymapping, and by maintaining its storm waterrunoff infrastructure.

Adaptation actions are not the only activitiesthat are helping local governments to createhealthier cities. Cities’ GHG mitigationactions are also leading—both directlyand indirectly—to improved citizen health.More than half of reporting cities (55%) areundertaking emissions reduction actions thatdirectly or indirectly promote walking andcycling. These cities are building infrastructurefor pedestrians and cyclists, improvingaccess to public transit, and increasingdensity. Research shows that these typesof activities can have a direct impact on thehealth of city residents. For instance, a studyfrom the University of Utah showed that morewalkable cities reduce the risk of obesityin citizens.8 And a study of New Yorkers’commuting habits showed that good healthwas more common among residents whowalked or biked to work. 9

Buenos Aires has invested heavily ininfrastructure to promote cycling anddecrease private vehicle ownership. Thecity has installed more than 100km of bicycle paths, which intersect with major

public transit access points. And the city’sfree bicycle program—launched in 2010—currently features more than 1,000 availablebicycles, which can be accessed at 28docking stations. Porteños (as residentsrefer to themselves) make 4,200 trips aday using the system. According to the citygovernment, “Bicycles are one of the mosteconomical means of transport, while at thesame time improving health.”

Emissions reduction activities can havebene cial effects for human health in otherareas as well. Air quality, for example, canimprove signi cantly as cities close coal-

red power plants. Chicago has recentlyannounced that it will close two coal- redpower plants—called Crawford and Fisk—by the end of 2014, working in conjunctionwith public health groups. Similarly, othercities, including Stockholm, Oslo, Montreal,Baltimore and New York, are looking toreplace old, dirty fuel oil burning boilers inbuildings with natural gas burning appliances.Not only do these actions decrease GHGemissions but there are often considerableair quality and public health bene ts. Traf cmanagement is another win-win. Los Angeleshas synchronized 100% of its traf c lightsto reduce the amount of time drivers spendwaiting at red lights, saving one million tonnesof CO2e and reducing particulate emissions.By tackling climate change, city governmentscan also address some of the pressing healthissues in their cities.

“This Old Healthy House: Obesity Linked to Newer, Less Walkable,Neighborhoods,” University of Utah website. Accessed 6 June2013. http://unews.utah.edu/old/p/072808-1.html

“New Report from the Health Department Links ActiveTransportation to Better Health,” NYC.gov website. Accessed 6June 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2009/pr077-09.shtml

8

9

SPOTLIGHT

Maximizing wealth andhealth through masterplanning.

One of the methods thatcities use to manage theintersecting demands ofreducing GHG emissions,preparing for climatechange, and promotingand protecting healthylifestyles is through

master planning.Houston, for instance,is aiming to developmulti-use urban centersin many locationsthroughout the city.The city governmentexpects its plans to leadto “improved air quality,reduced GHG emissionsand better public healthwhich results in anenhanced quality of lifefor all Houstonians.”

Stockholm also usesmaster planning topromote health andquality of life. The citygovernment writes that“an important basicidea within the city’sMasterplan is that itshould be easy, safe andpleasant to walk in thecity.” Overall, 64% ofcities (71 cities) reportthat they incorporateGHG reductions intotheir master planningprocess, suggesting that

many cities are alreadywell-placed to maximizebene ts from emissionsreductions.

13



Every ood that brings dirtywater inside houses will bringthe risk of some diseases likeleptospirosis, and even denguefever and, thus, more demandfor public health service.Belo Horizonte Brazil ”

“

Untreated waste water pollutessurface and underground watersources, which affects thecommunity health and businessactivities.Hanoi Vietnam”

“

The projected increase in heavyrainfall events will increase theprobability and impact of surfacewater and tidal ooding. This islikely to impact on the health ofLondoners and visitors.Greater London UK

”

“

Bearing in mind the bene ts ofa city with fewer private carsand more bicycles, regardingtravel time, air quality, populationhealth, among others, the cityhas launched zero interest rateloans for bike purchase.Buenos Aires Argentina”

“

Buenos Aires

Belo Horizonte

14



Climate change action by citygovernments can yield strongand clear advantages for theircitizens and businesses beyondsimply being good for the planet.Our analysis shows that citiesare realizing additional gains byacting to combat climate changein their cities—gains that arehelping them create wealthier,healthier cities.

We acknowledge that, in some cases, citiesare pursuing activities in part because of theco-bene ts associated with the investment.For example, the nancial payback onan energy ef ciency project may drive itsadoption, especially in cities where climatechange action is unpopular. Similarly,ensuring public health and safety in citieshas long been an objective of many localgovernments—witness the investments inpolicing, road safety, urban design, and traf cmanagement that mayors have undertakenaround the world in the last 50 years. Ourconclusions serve to underscore the link between acting to mitigate climate changeand the broader economic, social, andenvironmental bene ts that can accrue tocities as a result. Further, our conclusionspoint to potentially catastrophic costsarising from inaction—costs that could harmbusinesses and drive up health costs.

Conclusion

The story is just beginning. More research isneeded to determine the cumulative effectof this climate change action in cities. Forexample: Does climate change action by acity lead to better health outcomes over thelong term? Are cities with advanced climatechange action efforts more likely to growtheir economies faster? These questions arebeyond the scope of our research, but theypresent intriguing opportunities to examinethe theme of cities and climate change inmore depth. More robust city data is crucialto these future efforts. We encourage morecities around the world to take up the call of reporting annually on their climate changeefforts through CDP.

There is a link between acting tomitigate climatechange and broader

economic, social andenvironmental bene ts.

15



Imagery and graphics credits

Aerial images of participating cities sourced by AECOM via Shutterstock.Graphic design and information charts by AECOM (Daniel Elsea).

Important notice

The contents of this report may be used by anyone providingacknowledgement is given to CDP. This does not represent a license torepackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP and presented inthis report. If you intend to do this, you need to obtain express writtenpermission from CDP before doing so. CDP and AECOM TechnicalServices, Inc. (AECOM) prepared the data and analysis in this report basedon responses to CDP Cities 2013 information request. CDP and AECOMdo not guarantee the accuracy of completeness of this information. CDPand AECOM make no representation or warranty, express or implied, andaccept no liability of any kind in relation to the report including concerningthe fairness, accuracy, or completeness of the information and/or opinionsor other data contained herein. All opinions expressed herein by CDP and/ or AECOM are based on their judgment at the time of this report and aresubject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry, and

rm-speci c factors. Guest commentaries, where included in this report,re ect the views of their respective authors. CDP and AECOM and theiraf liated member rms or companies, or their respective shareholders,agents, members, partners, principals, directors, of cers, and/or employees,may have a position in the securities discussed herein. The securitiesmentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some statesor countries, nor are they suitable for all types of investors; their valueand the income they produce may uctuate and/or be adversely affectedby exchange rates. ‘CDP’ refers to Carbon Disclosure Project, a UnitedKingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdomcharity number 1122330. AECOM is a global provider of professionaltechnical and management support services to a broad range of markets,including design, planning, environment and infrastructure. Through theirwork, they create, enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural and socialenvironments.

List of reporting cities in 2013:

City of Abidjan

Abuja, FCT Addis Ababa City Administration* Ansan Metropolitan Government AntananarivoCity of Amsterdam*Município de AparecidaCity of Athens*City of AtlantaCity of Austin*City of BaltimoreBangkok Metropolitan Administration*

Ajuntament de Barcelona* Alcadia Distrital de BarranquillaBasel-Stadt*Municipality of Belo HorizonteCity of Berlin*Bogotá Distrito Capital*Bornova MunicipalityCity of Buenos Aires*Municipality of CampinasMunicipality of Curitiba*Santiago de CaliCity of Cape Town

Alcaldía Metropolitana de Caracas*Changwon City*City of Chicago*City of ClevelandCity of Copenhagen*City of DallasCity of DenverCity of Detroit

Ville de DoualaDublin City CouncilCity of DurbanCity of EdinaCity of GoiâniaSantiago de GuayaquilFree and Hanseatic City of HamburgHanoi City*Ho Chi Minh City*Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region*City of Houston*Incheon Metropolitan GovernmentIstanbul Metropolitan Municipality*Prefeitura Municipal de JaguaréJakarta City Government*City of Johannesburg*

Village of Kadiovacik Kampala CityKaohsiung City GovernmentCity of Lagos*City of Las VegasMetropolitan Municipality of Lima*City of Lisbon

Greater London Authority*

City of Los Angeles* Ayuntamiento de Madrid*Municipalidad de Magdalena del MarGreater ManchesterCity of Melbourne*Mexico City*City of MiamiComune di Milano*City of Minneapolis

Ville de MontréalMoscow Government*Municipalid de MontevideoComune di NapoliCity of New Orleans*New York City*Comune di OristanoCity of Oslo*Commune de OuagadougouCity of Paris*City of Philadelphia*City of PhoenixComune di PiacenzaCity of PietermaritzburgCity of Portland, Oregon*Municipality of Porto AlegrePrefeitura do Rio de Janeiro*Municipality of RecifeGemeente Rotterdam*City of SalvadorCity of San DiegoCity of San Francisco*City of San JoseSan SalvadorRegión Metropolitana de Santiago*Prefeitura de São Paulo*City of St LouisSeoul Metropolitan Government*City of Stockholm*Singapore Government*Suwon Metropolitan GovernmentCity of Sydney*

Taipei City Government Tokyo Metropolitan Government*Comune di TorinoCity of Toronto*City of Vancouver*Comune di Venezia*

Vilnius City MunicipalityCity of Warsaw*Washington, DC*Wonju Metropolitan Government.City of Yokohama*City of ZaragozaStadt Zürich

*Denotes C40 city

Acknowledgements

CDP, C40 and AECOM would like to thank the following organizations fortheir assistance in developing this report: Dan Probst, Jones Lang LaSalle;New York City Of ce of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability

cdp cities 2013 global report

Documents