impacts of urbanization on co2 emissions

Impacts of Urbanization on CO2 Emissions

April 21, 2010

Shinji Kaneko

Graduate School for International Cooperation and

Development (IDEC),

Hiroshima University

1

Japan„s 1st National Workshop on Economics of

Climate Change and Low Carbon Growth

Strategies in Northeast Asia

Significance of urbanization to GHG emissions

• Global and regional GHG emissions from urbanization

– IEA estimated that cities contributed to 67% of global

primary energy and 71% of global energy related CO2

emissions in 2006 (IEA, 2008).

– CO2 emission from cities in China, USA and Europe are

reported as 85%, 80%(76%) and 69%, respectively (Dhakal,

2009; IEA, 2008; Parshall et al, in press).

– Some 81% of the projected increase in energy use in cities

between 2006 and 2030 comes from non-OECD countries

(IEA, 2008).

• Methodological challenges:

– Definition of urban/cities: population census

– Allocation of CO2: electricity

– GHG other than CO2

2

if urbanization is so important

• Does it make sense to incorporate urbanization into projection models for global GHG emissions, which are not explicitly dealing with urbanization but mostly sectoral approaches?

• What key parameters in current projection models are sensitive to different urbanization scenarios, while urbanization take place with other socioeconomic changes?

• How can we consistently and systematically link between diversified individual city development models and collective impacts of those cities?

• To what extent, climate policy interventions are possible to alter the processes of urbanization and city development, while priorities are essentially local for cities?

3

4

Scale-merit of Cities,

Increase return to

Scale, “Evolution”

Inflow of resettlement to Urban areas

from rural for job opportunitiesPrimary

Industries

Secondary Industries:

Industrialization

Tertiary Industries：Services, Commerce

Promote ICT, Decrease

in Transaction Costs

Backward

linkage effect

Forward

Iinkage effect

Urban Development Patterns and Issues for Low Carbon Society

Energy-saving in the

Industrial SectorAdvance of the

Factories, Active

Investment

Factories Exit,

Move to the Sub-

urban, Overseas

Smart Growth,

Compact City

Introduction of New

Energy Resources in

Urban Areas

Dematerialization of

Urban Areas

Financial Inflows,

Advance of the

Financial Institution

Expansion of

Urban Areas

Urban

Infrastructure

Development

Urban industrialization

Poverty and energy

Lock-in Effects

Long-term cost, urban management

Urban development pattern of East Asian mega-cities

(Passenger vehicle ownership)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.01

90

8

19

12

19

16

19

20

19

24

19

28

19

32

19

36

19

40

19

44

19

48

19

52

19

56

19

60

19

64

19

68

19

72

19

76

19

80

19

84

19

88

19

92

19

96

20

00

20

04

20

08

20

12

million unit

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000person per unit

person per unit(Tokyo2) person per unit(Seoul)

person per unit(Beijing) person per unit(Shanghai)

Tokyo(2) Seoul

Beijing Shanghai

Tokyo Olympic (1964) Seoul Olympic (1988) Beijing Olympic (2008)

Shanghai Expo (2010)

Gap of per capita CO2 between city and country

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Per

cap

ita C

O2

emis

sion

(t-

CO

2/pe

rson

)

Tokyo Japan(CDIAC) Japan

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Per

cap

ita C

O2

emis

sion

(t-

CO

2/pe

rson

)

Seoul Korea

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Per

cap

ita C

O2

emis

sion

(t-

CO

2/pe

rson

)

Beijing Shanghai China(CDIAC) China

Tokyo Seoul Beijing and Shanghai

Source:UrbanTansformation and carbon footprint of mega-cities in Japan and China, S. Kaneko, S. Dhakal, M. Ichihashi

Dynamics of collective impacts of cities

Source: UN Population Division/DESA, World

Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision

8

Literature review and problems1. Urbanization more energy use and emissions (Cole

& Neumayer, 2004; Parikh & Shukla, 1995; York, 2007)

– Problem 1: overgeneralized (development stages are

ignored)

– Problem 2: mixed explanation (industrialization and

rising income)

2. Urbanization reduce energy use and emissions (Chen et al., 2008; Jenks et al., 1996; Liddle, 2004; Williams et

al., 2000)

– Problem 1: excessive concentrations more energy

use and emissions (Breheny, 2001; Rudlin and

Falk,1999)

– Problem 2: little supporting evidence (wealthy cities)

• No comprehensive analysis (aggregate and disaggregate

data) urbanization impacts remains inconclusive!

9

Descriptive analysis

(c) Upper middle-income

-15

5

25

45

65

85

105

125

145

19751978

19811984

19871990

19931996

19992002

Re

lati

ve

ch

an

ge

(%

)

[19

75

= 0

]

(b) Lower middle-income

-20

10

40

70

100

130

160

190

220

250

280

310

19751978

19811984

19871990

19931996

19992002

Re

lati

ve

ch

an

ge

(%

)

[19

75

= 0

]

(a) Low-income

-20

10

40

70

100

130

160

190

220

250

280

310

19751978

19811984

19871990

19931996

19992002

Re

lati

ve

ch

an

ge

(%

)

[19

75

= 0

]

(d) High-income

-15

5

25

45

65

85

105

125

145

19751978

19811984

19871990

19931996

19992002

Re

lati

ve

ch

an

ge

(%

)

[19

75

= 0

]

GNP/cap in

2003≤$765$766≤GNP/cap in

2003≤$3035

$3036≤GNP/cap in

2003≤$9385 GNP/cap in 2003>$9385

Calculated using the data from World Bank (2007) and IEA (2008a, 2008b)

10

Estimation results for total energy use and emission models (1975-2003)

Variable Total energy (1) Total energy (2) Total CO2 (3) Total CO2 (4)

Constant-18.833 ***(-18.51)

-20.001 ***(-21.07)

-17.074 ***(-11.48)

-18.438 ***(-12.10)

lnP1.539 ***(23.47)

1.586 ***(24.71)

1.116 ***(10.94)

1.125 ***(10.26)

lnA0.495 ***(20.09)

0.443 ***(18.04)

1.038 ***(21.26)

1.092 ***(20.52)

lnEI― ―

0.594 ***(13.15)

0.657 **(13.84)

lnSV0.068 ***(2.67)

0.049 **(1.99)

― ―

lnIND0.036 **(2.18)

0.047 ***(2.93)

0.240 ***(5.05)

0.213 ***(4.46)

lnURB-0.212 ***(-3.61)

―0.157 (1.39)

―

lnURB_H0.519 **(2.16)

0.549 *(1.78)

lnURB_UM(reference)

0.761 ***(3.58)

-0.926 ***(-3.47)

lnURB_LM-0.709 ***(-3.45)

1.353 ***(5.39)

lnURB_L-1.241 ***(-6.11)

1.193 **(4.20)

Countries 98 98 98 98

R2 0.992 0.993 0.979 0.979

11

Empirical results (aggregate level)(a) Urbanization elasticity of energy use and

CO2 (without consideration of income levels)

-0.212

0.157

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Ela

sticity (

%)

TPES CO2

(c) Urbanization elasticiy of CO2

(with consideration of income levels)

0.2670.427

-0.926

-0.377

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Ela

sticity (

%)

Low-income Lower middle-income

Upper middle-income High-income

(b) Urbanization elasticiy of energy use

(with consideration of income levels)

-0.480

0.052

0.761 1.280

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Ela

sticity (

%)

Low-income Lower middle-income

Upper middle-income High-income

Urbanization -->more energy use, but the elasticity varies across development stages

Urbanization --> lower emissions at a higher stage of development

Cities as open economy are production hubs or final

destination of commodities?

12

Methodological framework: Carbon footprint

analysis with regional input-output energy model

City

Country

World

Import

Export

City

Country

World

Import

ExportEmbodied energy in import for final

consumption

Embodied energy in

import of intermediate

products

Embodied energy in import for

capital formation

Production

Consumers

Capital Stock

Embodied energy

in Export

Imported products

Local productsEnergy supply

from the earth

Industry j

Industry 1

Industry 2Industry 3 Industry n-2

Industry n-1

Industry n

1

n

i ij

i

X

jE

1

n

j ji

i

X

1

n

j j j ji

i

Q X

• Embodied energy and embodied CO2 emissions

• Indirect energy and CO2 emissions• Embodied energy and embodied CO2 emissions

• Indirect energy and CO2 emissions

CO2 Balance, million t-CO2

• Carbon footprint in Tokyo

– 6.54 (1990), 6.10 (1995), 4.92 (2000)

• Share of export in Tokyo

– 56.6% (1990), 55.0% (1995), 55.5% (2000)

• Change in total carbon emissions in Tokyo

– -6.26% (1990-1995), -17.46% (1995-2000)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow

1990 1995 2000

Indirect Coal Oil Gas Consumption Capital Formation Export

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


1990 1995 2000


Tokyo

Source: UrbanTansformation and carbon footprint of mega-cities in Japan and China, S. Kaneko, S. Dhakal, M. Ichihashi

CO2 Balance, million t-CO2

• Carbon footprint in Beijing

– 1.66 (1992), 1.88 (1997), 2.93 (2002)

• Share of export in Beijing

– 49.2% (1992), 29.8% (1997), 56.9% (2002)

• Change in total carbon emissions in Beijing

– +19.27% (1992-1997), +74.5% (1997-2002)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


1992 1997 2002


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500


1992 1997 2002


Beijing

Source: UrbanTansformation and carbon footprint of mega-cities in Japan and China, S. Kaneko, S. Dhakal, M. Ichihashi

Mitigation opportunities of cities

Indirect CO2 emissions/Direct CO2 emissions

– Tokyo: 6.54 (1990), 6.10 (1995), 4.92 (2000)

– Beijing: 1.66 (1992), 1.88 (1997), 2.93 (2002)

– London: 2.05 (London Sustainable Development

Commission, 2009)

– Sydney (households): 2.3 (Lenzen, et al, 2004)

– Brazilian cities (households): 1.6-1.9 (Cohen et al,

2005)

• Shifting from direct emissions to embodied

emissions15

Social benefits and virtual water for Beijing:

Water production and recycling cost and wastewater

treatment cost are considered.

16

VR (International): Imported virtual re-used water through imports from international regions;

VF(International): Imported virtual re-used water through imports from international regions;

VR (China): Imported virtual water through imports from nationalwide:

VF (China): Imported virtual freshwater through imports from nationwide:

RW: Physical re-used water use; and

FW: Physical freshwater use.

Note: 2004/2005’ is the water use estimated in 2004/2005 but based onwater input coefficients in 1996/1997.

0

100

200

300

400

500Billion m3

VR(International) 6.206286122 47.22182421 28.06825643

VF (International) 7.746790209 57.37808472 30.3972457

VR (China) 31.49205975 146.0746984 79.57781411

VF (China) 45.13206159 168.8260478 85.72245917

RW 3.676962341 10.16432826 5.244750504

FW 3.116605919 6.611075838 2.069892148

1996/1997 2004/2005' 2004/2005

17

Hanoi（Vietnam)Jakarta

(Indonesia)

Dhaka

(Bangladesh)

Survey Time Sep. 2009 Dec. 2009 Feb. 2010

Method Household Survey (Face to Face Survey)

Sample SizeMigrants:475

Non-migrants: 459

Migrants: 446

Non-migrants: 418

Migrants: 503

Non-migrants:502

(Note) Survey conducted for slum dwellers in Jakarta and Dhaka.

(Jakarta: 100 households for migrants, 100 for non-migrants. Dhaka: 100

for migrants, 101 for non-migrants.)

Questionnaire Item

Migration Original residential place, reasons for migration, time of migration, desire to future migration

Household

AttributesHousehold Income, Household size, House size, Housing type

Energy Electricity, Gas(LPG), Water, Kerosene, Brown coal briquettes, Gasoline etc.

Electric Appliance Refrigerator, Air Conditioner, Laundry Machine, Mobile phone, Car, Motorcycle etc.

Personal Attributes Sex, Age, Occupation, Education, Commuting mode/time, Personal Income

Collecting micro evidences on household GHG

emissions before and after migration to the cities

Dhaka and Hanoi

18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Dhaka Hanoi

Household monthly income (USD/month)

Before

After

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Dhaka Hanoi

Monthly GHG emission (CO2-equiv)

Before

After

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Dhaka Hanoi

Family size (persons)

Before

After

Estimating Elasticity, Marginal Effect (dummy)

• If household moved to megacities, their household GHGs emissions

increases at 89.91 kg CO2-equiv. in Hanoi, 71.88kg CO2-equiv. in Dhaka.

• When household income increases at 1%, GHGs increases at 0.31% in

Hanoi, 8.86*10-2% in Dhaka.

• (Hanoi) When the number of household member increases at 1%, the GHGs

emissions increases at 0.22% 19

Total Household Income (Taka,

2009 price/year)8.86*10

-2 ***

Number of Household Members

(number)7.10*10

-2

Number of Rooms in House

(numbers)0.74 ***

Dummy (Dhaka=1, Non-

Dhaka=0)71.88 ***

*discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

Dhaka

Total Household Income (VND,

2009 price/year)0.31 ***

Number of Household Members

(number)0.22 ***

Size of the House (m3) 0.28 ***

Dummy (Hanoi=1, Non-

Hanoi=0)*89.91 ***

*discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

Hanoi

Hanoi

Penetration of Home Appliances in Dhaka, Hanoi and Jakarta.

Jakarta

Dhaka• Examine how the resettled households change the

diffusion rate of home appliances before and after the resettlement;• Overall, the ownership ratio has increased after the

migration. Sharp increase is observed in Dhaka.

• Diffusion rate is highest in Hanoi, followed by Jakarta, and Dhaka. Since the Indonesia is higher in terms of per capita GDP than Hanoi, the rate is lower.

• The Urban-rural migration accelerates the ownership of home appliances, but that trend differs among cities.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ElectricLights

TV Refre-gerator

Washingmachine

PC Electricfan

Aircondi-tioner

Mobilephone

Before

Now

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ElectricLights

TV Refre-gerator

Washingmachine

PC Electricfan

Aircondi-tioner

Mobilephone

Before

Now

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ElectricLights

TV Refre-gerator

Washingmachine

PC Electricfan

Aircondi-tioner

Mobilephone

Before

Now

Some concluding remarks

• Little is known the relation between urbanization/urban growth and GHG emissions and therefore more researches needs to be accumulated.

• Classification and typology of urbanization and/or urban development processes from climate change perspectives is necessary: i.e. urban form, industrial structure and transformation, population density, geographical location and local climate, existing energy system and buildings etc.

• Development stages are important element to consider dynamic relation between urban development processes and GHG emissions.

• Careful examinations might be needed:

– on the possibility of leap frogs

– optimal range of urban densities for both each urban system (transportation, housing, energy supply etc) and their integrated system.

21

impacts of urbanization on co2 emissions

Documents