1. Climate Neutrality for
Urban Districts in Europe
Edinburgh Expert Workshop
14th-15th March 2013
Expert Workshop
Preparation Material
This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC

2. WELCOME TO THE EXPERT WORKSHOP IN
EDINBURGH
We are happy to welcome you to the Expert Workshop in Edinburgh. This event is
part of the INTERREG IVC project CLUE (Climate Neutral Urban Districts in
Europe); a project where regions, cities and universities across Europe exchange
experiences and develop methods concerning policymaking. This workshop
focuses on methods and tools for indicators, benchmarking and scenario regarding
climate neutrality for urban districts.
This material hopes to aid you in your preparations before the workshop as well as
be a guiding document during the event. Included is related background reading
for each of the three sessions that the workshop will consist of but also practical
information as venue and transportation information and the latest agenda. We
hope that this document will provide all the information needed.
Session 2 of this event will consist of three thematic workshops (breakout
sessions) running in parallel. This means that the workshop participants will be
divided into three groups. For this to run as smoothly as possible we ask you to
choose which one of the groups you would like to join. The three themes are;
 Indicators for following up and evaluate climate neutrality actions
 Benchmarking; accounting procedures, audit tools for calculations of
carbon footprints.
 Scenario methods for planning and development of climate neutrality
Please announce which group you would like to join to Louise Årman at
larman@kth.se. We would be grateful if you could give us this indication at the
latest on Friday March 8th. We will do our best to meet all of your requests
concerning choice of group but we cannot guarantee that we can meet you first
choice due to restricted number of places in each group.
We also hope that you as a participating expert will contribute with 5-10 minutes
presentation of experiences within you groups theme. You can use power-point, but it
is not necessary, it is more important that you could present you or your city´s
experiences of work. Included in the material for session 2 you can find guiding
questions that we hope can facilitate and be an inspiration in the preparation of a
presentation.
Looking forward to meet all of you in Edinburgh for an exciting event and warmly
welcome to the Expert Workshop!
On behalf of the university group in the CLUE project
FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.
This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC
programme

3. VENUE AND TRANSPORT INFORMATION
The Edinburgh Workshop will be held in The Edinburgh Suite in New Craig, the
main building on Edinburgh Napier University’s Craighouse Campus, Craighouse
Road, Edinburgh EH10 5LG.
Craighouse is located in the south west of the city. It is served by two buses: the
number 23 which runs every 10 minutes; and the number 41 which runs every 30
minutes. Both buses drive up into the campus itself.
Taxis are the easiest option and can be either booked in advance or hailed on the
street. The two largest firms are Central (0131 2292468) and City Cabs (0131 228
1211). If you have any questions or need assistance with travel arrangements in
Edinburgh please contact Fiona Campbell at fh.campbell@napier.ac.uk.
AGENDA
DAY 1, MARCH 14TH, 08.30-17.00
08.30-09.00: Coffee
09.00-09.30: Welcome to the Expert Workshop
Presentation of general outline and practical information
09.30-11.00: Session 1: What do we mean with Climate Neutrality on
an Urban District Level?
 Definitions, science, technology, models and tools for policy making, with
references e.g. to Clinton Climate Initiative and Stockholm Royal Seaport
(Industrial Ecology, KTH)
 Q&A
11.00-11.45: Session 2: Introduction to the Thematic Workshops
Introduction to the thematic workshops, aims, outline and preface to each theme.
12.00-13.00: Lunch
13.00-15.00 Parallel Thematic Workshops
During the afternoon of the first day three parallel thematic workshops will be
held on experiences and methods:
 Indicators for following up and evaluate climate neutrality actions
 Benchmarking; accounting procedures, audit tools for calculations of
carbon footprints.
 Scenario methods for planning and development of climate neutrality
actions.
FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.
This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC
programme

4. 15.00-15.30 Coffee
15.30-16.30: Summery of the Day
 Summary of the parallel workgroups presented by the moderator of each
group
 Common discussion and Q&A
16.30-17.30: Session 3: Introduction to the Scenario Wor kshop Next
Day
20.00- Conference Dinner
DAY 2, MARCH 15TH, 08.30-14.00
08.30-09.00: Coffee
09.00-12.00: Simulated Scenario Workshop
This last part of the workshop will demonstrate how scenario methods might be
used in city planning and stakeholder participation. This will be a simulated
stakeholder scenario workshop. Participants will get instructions before and some
might be invited to present scenarios regarding an imaginary European city.
The workshop will consider future energy consumption scenarios and focus on
dilemmas regarding climate neutral urban areas. Important dilemmas are for
example:
 Focus on reduced energy consumption or on supplying renewable energy
 Focus on more population density to prevent urban sprawl and increase
infrastructure efficiency, or more green areas and urban gardens?
After this simulated workshop, it will be discussed to what degree this approach
meets requirements of various participants.
The University of Delft is responsible for this workshop and background
documents.
12.00-13.00: Ending Plenary Session
 Feedback of scenario building exercises
 Next steps and creation of a carbon neutrality network
 Summary of the workshop
13.00-14.00: Lunch
FEL! INGEN TEXT MED ANGIVET FORMAT I DOKUMENTET.
This project is funded by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC
programme

5. Session 1 - Climate Urban Neutrality
Content
Johansson et. al. (submitted). Creating a Climate Positive Urban District – A
Case Study of Stockholm Royal Seaport. Submitted to Journal of Energy Policy
Johansson et. al. (submitted). Climate Positive Urban Districts – Methodological
Considerations. Using Findings Based on the Case of Stockholm Royal Seaport.
Submitted to Journal of Energy Policy

6. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
Creating
a
Climate
Positive
Urban
District
–
A
Case
Study
of
Stockholm
Royal
Seaport
Stefan
Johansson*,
PhD
Candidate,
sjindeco@kth.se
Tel:
+46
8
790
87
61
Hossein
Shahrokni,
PhD
Candidate,
hosseins@kth.se
Tel:
+46
8
790
87
05
Anna
Rúna
Kristinsdóttir,
Research
Engineer,
arkr@kth.se
Tel:
+46
8
790
87
05
Nils
Brandt,
Associate
Professor,
nilsb@kth.se
Tel:
+46
8
790
87
59
*Corresponding
author
KTH,
Royal
Institute
of
Technology
School
of
Industrial
Engineering
and
Management
Division
of
Industrial
Ecology
Teknikringen
34
SE-­‐100
44
Stockholm,
Sweden
Abstract:
This
paper
describes
the
findings
of
a
case
study
on
the
possibility
to
create
a
climate
positive
urban
district,
the
Stockholm
Royal
Seaport
(SRS).
SRS
is
being
developed
with
the
explicit
goal
of
becoming
climate
positive
and
in
the
paper
we
study
SRS’s
emissions
of
greenhouse
gases
(GHG)
and
tries
to
determine
this
possibility.
To
support
our
findings
we
define
the
concept
of
a
climate
positive
urban
district,
SRS’s
scope
of
emissions
and
system
boundaries,
in
order
to
create
a
baseline
of
the
urban
district’s
GHG
emissions.
Finally
we
discuss
SRS’s
process
of
trying
to
become
a
climate
positive
urban
district,
both
in
terms
of
considerations
that
have
been
made
regarding
scopes,
boundaries
and
data
as
well
as
SRS’s
relation
to
the
City
of
Stockholm.
Key
words:
Climate
positive
urban
districts
Stockholm
Royal
Seaport
Case
study
1. Introduction
By
2007,
more
than
half
the
world’s
population
was
living
in
urban
areas
(United
Nations,
2007).
Cities
are
becoming
one
of
the
key
leverage
points
for
climate
change,
since
they
are
recognised
as
being
one
of
the
major
emitters
of
greenhouse
gases
(GHG),
while
also
being
the
ideal
platform
to
cut
emissions
(Grimm
et
al.,
2008;
International
Energy
Agency,
2008).
In
Stockholm,
Sweden,
a
new
urban
district
called
Stockholm
Royal
Seaport
(SRS)
is
being
developed,
with
the
explicit
goal
of
achieving
climate
positive
status.
The
Clinton
1

7. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
Foundation’s
Clinton
Climate
Initiative
(CCI)
developed
the
conceptual
framework
for
climate
positive
urban
districts,
the
Climate
Positive
Program,
and
SRS
is
one
of
16
participating
projects
in
different
regions
around
the
world.
The
framework
focuses
on
low
energy
use,
a
high
degree
of
renewables,
local
on-­‐site
energy
production
and
influencing
nearby
districts/communities
towards
low
carbon
emissions
(CCI,
2011).
This
paper
examines
the
concept
of
a
climate
positive
urban
district
by
applying
the
CCI
framework
to
SRS,
while
still
maintaining
the
possibility
to
compare
SRS
to
the
City
of
Stockholm
by
using
the
same
methodology
concerning
local
data
and
system
boundaries
as
the
City.
It
also
compares
the
urban
district
in
general
and
its
GHG
emissions
to
the
rest
of
the
city
and
tries
to
draw
conclusions
from
the
findings.
The
paper
begins
by
describing
the
SRS
urban
district,
its
characteristics
and
its
relation
to
the
City
of
Stockholm
in
terms
of
climate-­‐related
goals
and
then
goes
on
to
describe
SRS’s
process
to
become
a
climate
positive
urban
district.
The
aims
and
objectives
of
the
case
study
are
then
presented,
beginning
with
an
examination
of
the
definition
of
a
climate
positive
urban
district,
scopes
of
emissions
and
system
boundaries
and
then
describing
the
calculated
GHG
emissions
of
the
urban
district.
Next,
the
baseline
emissions
are
compared
against
the
magnitudes
of
a
few
possible
actions
to
reduce
the
urban
district’s
GHG
emissions.
Finally,
there
is
a
concluding
discussion
on
the
concept
of
a
climate
positive
urban
district,
its
GHG
emissions
and
the
generality
of
the
results.
2. Background
Characteristics
of
the
SRS
area
–
Present
and
Future
Infrastructure
The
area
where
SRS
is
being
built
is
a
brownfield
site
currently
being
used
for
housing,
gas
utilities,
a
combined
heat
and
power
plant
and
a
harbour.
It
serves
as
a
thoroughfare
for
traffic
to
the
harbour
and
to
the
island
of
Lidingö
(population
42
000
in
2009;
Lidingö
stad,
2011).
SRS
also
occupies
a
wedge
of
the
National
City
Park
in
central
Stockholm
(City
of
Stockholm,
2011).
The
current
thoroughfare
will
be
expanded
in
an
effort
to
build
a
partial
beltway
around
Stockholm.
By
the
time
the
development
is
completed,
a
total
of
10,000
apartments
housing
19
000
residents
will
have
been
built,
along
with
a
large
non-­‐residential
area
containing
workspaces
for
30
000
workers,
commercial
spaces
and
a
shopping
mall.
The
SRS
project
is
expected
to
achieve
full
build-­‐out
in
2030,
but
the
first
residents
will
be
moving
in
later
this
year.
The
planned
land
uses
are
summarised
by
area
in
Table
1.
Table
1.
Built
areas
of
Stockholm
Royal
Seaport
by
type
at
full
build-­‐out
Planned
area
[m2]
at
full
build-­‐out
Land
use
by
type
Multifamily
housing
1,143,400
Office
space
712,330
Commercial
space
84,015
Schools
9,500
2

8. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
Source:
Johansson
et
al.
(2012b).
SRS
in
Relation
to
the
City
of
Stockholm
and
its
Climate
Goals
SRS
is
located
near
central
Stockholm
(3
km
from
the
city
centre),
with
easy
access
to
public
transportation,
walking
and
cycle
trails.
The
area
is
to
become
Stockholm’s
second
so-­‐called
eco-­‐district,
with
a
strong
‘green
profile’
formulated
in
a
environmental
programme
for
the
district
(City
of
Stockholm,
2012).
The
first
eco-­‐district,
Hammaby
Sjöstad
(Hammarby
Sea
City),
attempted
to
be
an
area
that
was
“twice
as
good”
from
an
environmental
perspective
as
other
areas
being
built
at
the
time
(mid-­‐1990s)
(Pandis
&
Brandt,
2009).
SRS
has
two
goals
with
regard
to
climate
change
and
GHG
emissions
by
the
time
build-­‐out
is
completed
in
2030,
namely
to
have
developed
a
climate
positive
urban
district
and
to
have
become
a
fossil-­‐fuel
free
urban
district
(City
of
Stockholm,
2010b).
As
a
comparison,
the
City
of
Stockholm’s
goals
are
to
limit
GHG
emissions
to
3.0
ton
carbon
dioxide
equivalents
(CO2e)
per
capita1
by
the
year
2015
and
to
become
a
fossil-­‐fuel
free
city
by
2050
(Stockholm,
2010a).
Since
SRS
is
part
of
the
City
of
Stockholm,
we
deemed
it
appropriate
to
base
our
study
on
earlier
experiences
from
the
City
and
to
use
the
same
system
boundaries
and
methods
for
quantifying
GHG
emissions
as
the
rest
of
the
City
whenever
possible.
This
approach
also
enabled
us
to
make
comparisons
and
benchmark
between
SRS
and
the
surrounding
City
of
Stockholm.
Like
many
cities
(Kramers
et
al.,
2012),
Stockholm
has
traditionally
focused
on
direct
emissions
within
its
geographical
boundary
while
excluding
emissions
from
sources
such
as
long
distance
travel,
construction
and
consumption.
A
noteworthy
feature
of
the
City
of
Stockholm
is
that
no
waste
treatment
takes
place
within
its
geographical
boundary
and
therefore
the
only
waste
emissions
included
are
those
from
collection,
transportation
and
incineration
of
waste
in
the
district-­‐heating
grid
(City
of
Stockholm,
2010a).
3. Aims
and
Objectives
The
main
aims
of
the
study
were
to
study
the
GHG
emissions
of
SRS
in
a
transparent
way
and
to
determine
its
possibilities
to
become
a
climate
positive
urban
district.
To
achieve
this
aim,
the
following
specific
objectives
were
formulated:
• Define
the
concept
of
a
climate
positive
urban
district
• Describe
SRS’s
scope
of
emissions,
system
boundaries
and
data
• Calculate
SRS’s
baseline
emissions
• Calculate
the
magnitudes
of
a
few
potential
actions
to
cut
SRS’s
GHG
emissions
• Discuss
the
results
obtained
in
terms
of
magnitude
of
GHG
emissions,
SRS’s
possibility
to
become
climate
positive
and
the
relationship
1
By
capita,
the
city
and
we
use
the
number
of
residents
living
in
an
enclosed
area,
either
the
City
of
Stockholm
or
the
SRS
urban
district.
3

9. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
between
GHG
emissions
from
SRS
compared
with
those
from
the
rest
of
the
City
of
Stockholm.
This
paper
describes
the
findings
of
our
case
study
on
SRS’s
progress
towards
becoming
a
climate
positive
urban
district.
4. The
Concept
of
a
Climate
Positive
Urban
District
A
number
of
different
terminologies
and/or
concepts
are
used
when
discussing
GHG
emissions
in
urban
settings.
Most
are
intuitively
understandable
in
a
general
sense
(carbon-­‐neutral,
zero
carbon,
etc.)
but
when
examined
in
closer
detail
they
are
quite
diverse
and
formal
definitions
and
related
standards
currently
do
not
exist
(Murray
&
Dey,
2009)
or
are
vague,
creating
the
possibility
of
significant
confusion
and
uncertainty.
The
lack
of
standards
also
makes
comparison
and
benchmarking
between
cities/urban
districts
etc.
difficult
or
impossible.
The
Definition
of
a
Climate
Positive
Urban
District
Used
by
SRS
Kennedy
&
Sgouridis
(2011)
review
a
number
of
different
low
GHG
concepts.
According
to
their
definition,
a
carbon-­‐neutral
district
is
one
where
direct
emissions
(also
referred
to
as
scope
1)
and
important
indirect
emissions
(also
referred
to
as
scope
2
and
3)
are
in
balance/equal
to
reductions,
sequestrations,
sinks
and
offsets.
A
climate
positive
district
can
be
defined
as
one
where
emissions
are
less
than
the
sum
of
reductions,
sequestrations,
sinks
and
offsets,
or
where
reductions,
sequestrations,
sinks
and
offsets
outweigh
emissions.
However,
in
the
case
of
SRS,
we
were
unable
to
identify
any
significant
sinks
or
sequestrations.
SRS’s
Process
of
Becoming
a
Climate
Positive
Urban
District
According
to
CCI
There
are
two
main
phases
in
SRS’s
process
to
become
a
climate
positive
urban
district
based
on
the
methodology
supplied
by
CCI
(Figure
1)
(CCI,
2011).
The
first
step
of
the
process
is
to
create
a
GHG
emissions
baseline
for
the
SRS
area.
This
baseline
serves
as
the
basis
for
the
next
phase,
which
is
to
develop
a
roadmap
of
actions
that
will
lead
to
a
climate
positive
outcome.
The
roadmap
includes
actions
which
focus
on
energy
efficiency
measures,
fuel
switching
from
fossil
fuels
to
renewables
and
local
energy
generation.
The
roadmap
actions
are
constrained
to
those
directly
applied
within
SRS’s
geographical
boundary.
Figure
1
illustrates
the
process
being
used
by
SRS
to
become
climate
positive.
4

10. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
Figure
1.
Summary
of
the
process
by
which
Stockholm
Royal
Seaport
is
striving
to
become
a
climate
positive
urban
district.
5. The
GHG
Baseline
for
SRS
–
Scopes
and
Boundaries
In
the
GHG
baseline
for
SRS,
the
concept
we
used
for
setting
the
boundaries
was
that
initially
developed
for
the
GHG
Protocol
by
World
Resources
Institute
(WRI)
and
the
World
Business
Council
for
Sustainable
Development
(WBCSD)
(Rangathan
et
al.,
2004;
Kennedy
&
Sgouridis,
2011).
The
scopes
are
defined
as:
Scope
1
–
Includes
direct
emissions
such
as
emissions
from
heating,
cooling
and
transportation.
Scope
2
–
Core
external
emissions
such
as
waste
treatment
and
electricity
generation.
Scope
3
–
Non-­‐core
emissions
such
as
emissions
from
consumption
not
included
in
scope
1
or
2
and
other
emissions
not
connected
to
the
geographical
area
such
as
long
distance
travel.
When
defining
what
is
included
in
the
scopes,
the
district’s
system
boundaries
also
need to be defined.
There
are
four
system
boundaries
to
take
into
account,
geographical,
activity,
temporal
and
life
cycle
system
boundaries.
To
determine
the
emissions
included
within
the
boundaries,
SRS
focuses
on
emissions
related
to
activities
directly
related
to
the
geographical
area,
much
like
the
City
of
Stockholm
itself
does
when
calculating
emissions
for
the
entire
city
(City
of
Stockholm,
2010).
The
Geographical
Boundary
The
SRS’s
geographical
system
boundary
is
defined
as
the
perimeter
that
encloses
the
236
hectares
of
project
area
(City
of
Stockholm,
2012).
Emissions
associated
with
activities
related
to
the
district
and
emitted
inside
the
5

11. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
geographical
boundary
are
accounted
for,
while
emissions
not
associated
with
the
district
are
excluded.
This
excludes,
among
other
activities,
emissions
from
the
combined
heat
and
power
plant
not
related
to
buildings
in
SRS,
since
it
supplies
a
far
greater
area
than
SRS
with
heating,
cooling
and
electricity.
If
a
strict
geographical
perspective
had
been
implemented,
all
of
the
emissions
from
the
power
plant
would
have
been
included,
despite
the
fact
that
most
emissions
were
generated
by
energy
use
elsewhere.
The
Activity
Boundary
The
activity
boundary
determines
which
activities
are
included
and
excluded
from
the
baseline.
As
stated
previously,
we
deemed
it
appropriate
to
include
the
same
activities
as
the
City
of
Stockholm
does
when
calculating
its
GHG
emissions
(City
of
Stockholm,
2010a).
This
means
that
emissions
from
heating,
cooling,
electricity
and
transportation
are
included,
while
emissions
from
the
construction
of
infrastructure,
consumption
and
long
distance
travel
are
excluded.
A
main
difference
from
the
City
of
Stockholm’s
traditional
way
of
calculating
emissions
is
that
we
include
life
cycle
emissions
from
the
treatment
of
waste
in
the
baseline,
since
the
waste
is
generated
by
activities
taking
place
within
the
geographical
boundary
despite
treatment
taking
place
outside
it.
Traditionally,
the
City
of
Stockholm
has
only
included
waste
emissions
stemming
from
transportation
and
waste
incineration.
The
rationale
behind
this
is
that
household
and
food
waste,
which
represents
the
majority
of
the
waste,
is
transported
for
incineration
in
the
local
district
heating
system,
whereas
the
treatment
plant
for
the
other
waste
is
located
outside
the
city
boundary.
However,
we
believed
that
its
emissions
should
be
included.
The
Temporal
Boundary
The
temporal
boundary
for
SRS
is
set
to
start
at
complete
build-­‐out
in
2030
(also
called
operational
emissions).
Therefore
emissions
from
building
and
infrastructure
construction
are
excluded.
The
emissions
are
measured
as
annual
emissions,
either
as
ton
CO2e
per
year
or
as
ton
CO2e/capita
and
year.
The
temporal
boundary
also
has
a
significant
effect
on
the
baseline.
Since
SRS
will
be
built
over
an
extended
period
of
time,
almost
20
years,
the
baseline
will
be
a
moving
target
as
the
technology
and
other
drivers
(for
instance
travel
behaviour)
advance
throughout
the
development
process.
Current
trends
with
more
energy-­‐efficient
buildings
and
vehicles
and
a
shift
to
more
vehicles
running
on
renewable
fuels
are
likely
to
continue
(Trafikverket,
2011),
but
can
be
(partially)
offset
by
increased
use.
To
counter
this
potential
uncertainty,
we
decided
to
use
2010
as
a
base
year
of
reference
in
the
baseline.
The
base
year
is
used
to
set
the
composition
of
energy
sources,
vehicle
fleet,
waste
generation,
emission
factors
of
district
heating
and
electricity
and
so
forth.
No
changes
over
time
are
taken
into
account
for
the
baseline,
which
has
been
found
to
be
the
most
conservative
approach.
The
Life
Cycle
Boundary
The
City
of
Stockholm
uses
life
cycle-­‐based
emission
factors
for
all
fuels
and
energy
carriers
used
in
mobile
and
stationary
combustion,
using
the
best
available
data
for
each
energy
source
and
presenting
all
data
used,
calculations
and
assumptions
in
a
transparent
way
(Johansson
et
al.,
2012b).
The
life
cycle
6

12. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
data
include
emissions
of
carbon
dioxide,
methane
and
nitrous
oxide,
accounted
as
CO2e.
Summary
of
SRS’s
Scopes
and
Boundaries
Using
the
scopes
of
emissions
together
with
the
system
boundaries
we
were
able
to
decide
which
emissions
are
included
in
the
baseline
and
which
are
excluded.
For
each
emission
category,
the
principle
of
activities
directly
related
to
the
geographical
area
is
used.
However,
within
each
emissions
category
important
choices
had
to
been
made,
as
described
below.
Energy
The
emissions
from
energy
include
emissions
from
energy
use
in
the
area
(buildings,
infrastructure)
and
emission
reductions
from
local
energy
generation
(more
about
this
in
the
results
of
the
SRS
baseline).
The
principle
of
only
including
activities
directly
related
to
the
SRS
district
were
used
to
limit
the
emissions
from
the
combined
heat
and
power
plant
located
in
the
area
to
emissions
from
building
energy
use
(heating,
cooling,
electricity)
in
the
area,
instead
of
accounting
for
all
of
the
emissions,
since
the
majority
of
these
stem
from
energy
use
in
the
City
of
Stockholm.
Transportation
The
transportation
emissions
include
emissions
from
people
and
activities
directly
connected
with
the
urban
district.
This
means
that
transportation
emissions
from
residents’
private
and
commuting
trips
are
included,
while
their
business
trips
are
excluded
since
it
was
assumed
that
they
do
not
work
locally.
For
workers,
the
emissions
from
personal
trips
and
commuting
are
excluded,
since
they
were
assumed
not
to
live
in
SRS,
while
emissions
from
business
trips
are
included,
since
the
companies
are
located
within
SRS.
Waste
The
emissions
from
waste
include
emissions
from
the
waste
collection
process,
transportation
and
the
treatment
of
waste.
Excluded
emissions
The
emissions
from
consumption
are
excluded,
since
almost
none
of
the
GHG
emissions
from
the
production
of
the
goods
consumed
take
place
inside
SRS,
with
the
exception
of
energy
use
and
emissions
from
waste.
Long
distance
travel
by
modes
such
as
air,
bus,
ferry
and
train
are
excluded,
since
they
do
not
take
place
within
the
geographical
area.
Emissions
from
societal
functions
that
a
person
living
in
SRS
(might)
need,
such
as
hospitals,
sport
centres,
public
administration,
etc.
are
excluded,
since
these
activities
do
not
take
place
within
SRS.
The
included
and
excluded
emissions
in
the
GHG
emissions
baseline
for
SRS
are
summarised
in
Table
2.
Table
2.
Summary
of
included
and
excluded
GHG
emissions
in
the
Stockholm
Royal
Seaport
baseline
Included
emissions
Comments
Energy
-­‐Emissions
related
to
heating,
cooling
and
electricity
directly
linked
to
activities
within
the
geographical
boundary
of
SRS.
7

13. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
-­‐Emission
reductions
from
local
energy
production
directly
related
to
the
geographical
boundary
of
SRS.
-­‐Energy
used
in
infrastructure
such
as
road
maintenance,
traffic
lights,
etc.
Transportation
Emissions
related
to
transportation
stemming
from
activities
directly
related
to
the
geographical
area
of
SRS:
- Private
trips
(residents)
- Commuting
trips
(residents)
- Business
trips
(workers)
- Goods
and
services
Waste
Emissions
and
emissions
reductions
from
the
collection,
transport
and
treatment
of
waste.
Excluded
emissions
Comments
Consumption
The
only
emissions
from
consumption
included
are
direct
energy
use
and/or
emissions
from
waste.
Long
distance
travel
Air
travel,
long
distance
bus,
ferry,
train
Emissions
from
societal
- Hospitals
functions
not
located
within
- Sport
centres
SRS
- Public
administration
…
Construction
6. Results:
The
GHG
baseline
of
SRS
–
Emissions
and
Calculations
Calculations
of
the
yearly
GHG
emissions
in
the
baseline
were
divided
into
three
main
emissions
categories:
energy,
transportation
and
waste.
For
instance,
the
energy
emissions
category
includes
energy
in
buildings,
infrastructure,
water
and
locally
generated
energy.
For
each
emissions
category,
the
data
used
are
described
below
together
with
any
assumptions
made.
To
determine
what
data
to
use
in
the
baseline,
we
adopted
the
following
data
hierarchy:
1. Where
local
SRS-­‐specific
data
are
available,
these
are
primarily
used.
For
instance
projected
heating
and
hot
water
demand
[kWh/m2
and
year]
for
buildings.
2. Where
SRS-­‐specific
data
are
unavailable,
data
for
the
City
of
Stockholm
or
greater
Stockholm
are
used,
for
instance
composition
of
the
vehicle
fleet
[%
gasoline
cars,
%
biogas
cars,
etc.],
and
emissions
from
the
Stockholm
district
heating
mix
[g
CO2e/kWh].
3. Where
data
specific
for
Stockholm
are
unavailable,
data
for
Sweden
or
the
Nordic
countries
are
used,
for
instance
GHG
emissions
from
waste
management
by
fractions
of
waste
in
Sweden
[g
CO2e/ton
waste].
8

14. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
All
calculations
made
are
using
the
same
basic
formula:
Activity
*
Emission
Factor
=
Emissions
Examples
of
activities
are
annual
energy
use
[kWh
of
a
fuel
or
energy
carrier/year],
annual
person
kilometres
(PKM)
travelled
[PKM
of
a
mode
of
transportation/year]
and
annual
waste
generated
[ton
per
waste
fraction
and
year].
The
emission
factors
are
coupled
with
the
respective
activities.
In
the
example
above,
emissions
from
energy
use
are
expressed
as
[g
CO2e/kWh
of
fuel
or
energy
carrier],
those
from
transportation
as
[g
CO2e/PKM
of
the
mode
of
transportation
used]
and
those
from
waste
as
[g
CO2e/ton
of
waste
fraction
and
treatment
method].
Energy
The
emissions
related
to
energy
in
the
baseline
include
emissions
from
heating,
cooling
and
electricity
used
in
buildings,
emissions
from
energy
used
in
the
infrastructure
(street
lights,
traffic
lights,
road
maintenance,
snow
clearing,
etc.)
and
emissions
from
supplying
the
district
with
water.
Also
included
in
the
energy
part
of
the
baseline
are
emissions
reductions
from
locally
generated
energy,
such
as
biogas
from
wastewater
sludge.
Buildings
The
buildings
in
the
SRS
are
divided
into
four
categories,
multifamily
housing,
offices,
commercial
space
and
schools.
The
emissions
included
come
from
heating,
cooling
and
electricity,
with
electricity
end-­‐uses
tracked
separately
(elevators,
pumps,
ventilation,
etc.).
Data
used
and
calculations:
The
data
used
in
the
baseline
are
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
projected
(simulated)
energy
use
for
the
buildings
in
the
first
construction
phase
(2012-­‐
2014)
will
be
representative
for
the
entire
district.
The
emissions
factors
used
are
three-­‐year
mean
values
for
the
Stockholm
district
heating
mix
and
the
Nordic
electricity
system
(Johansson
et
al.,
2012b).
The
reason
for
using
the
three-­‐year
mean
instead
of
only
using
the
base
year
(2010)
emissions
was
to
eliminate
the
seasonal
variations
of
hot
and
cold
years,
which
affect
the
emissions
factors.
For
each
type
of
building,
the
projected
energy
used
is
calculated.
In
the
first
build
phase
strict
energy
requirements
on
energy
use
in
buildings
had
yet
to
be
implemented
but
simulations
have
demonstrated
that
the
projected
energy
use
is
roughly
25%
lower
than
specified
in
the
current
Swedish
building
codes
(Boverket,
2011).
Total
energy
use
and
emissions
are
therefore
calculated
according
to
Table
3.
Table
3.
Projected
energy
use
and
emissions
from
different
types
of
buildings
in
the
baseline
Energy
by
type/Buildings
by
type
Residential
Offices
Commercial
Schools
Heating
and
cooling
Heating
[kWh/m2,
year]
42.5
35
25
55
Hot
water
[kWh/m2,
year]
25
2
2
10
9

15. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
Cooling
[kWh/m2,
year]
0
20
35
0
Surface
area
[m2]
1,143,400
712,330
84,015
9,500
Total
energy
use
[GWh/year]
77.2
40.6
5.2
0.6
Emissions
factor
[g
CO2e/kWh]
98.45
Total
emissions
[ton
CO2e/year]
7
598.3
3
997.4
512.8
60.8
Electricity
Building
electricity
[kWh/m2,
year]
15
25
20
15
Residential/commercial
electricity
30
50
80
35
[kWh/m2,
year]
Surface
area
[m2]
1,143,400
712,330
84,015
9,500
Total
energy
use
[GWh/year]
51.5
53.4
8.4
0.48
Emission
factor
[g
CO2e/kWh]
69.73
Total
emissions
[ton
CO2e/year]
3,587.8
3,725.3
585.8
33.1
Total
emissions
(heating,
cooling
&
11,186.1
7,722.7
1,098.6
93.9
electricity)
by
building
type
[ton
CO2e/year]
Total
building
emissions
[ton
CO2e/year]
20,301.3
Source:
Johansson
et
al.
(2012b).
Infrastructure,
Water
and
Locally
Generated
Energy
The
emissions
from
infrastructure
in
SRS
include
emissions
from
electricity
used
in
streetlights,
traffic
lights,
non-­‐building
related
electricity
(pumps,
fountains,
etc.)
as
well
as
mainly
diesel
fuel
used
in
the
operation
of
road
infrastructure
(road
maintenance,
snow
cleaning,
gritting,
etc.)
(Table
4).
The
emissions
from
water
include
emissions
from
the
electricity
used
to
collect,
treat
and
distribute
water
to
and
from
SRS.
In
the
baseline
there
is
not
much
local
energy
production,
but
wastewater
sludge
from
the
urban
development
is
collected
and
used
to
generate
biogas.
In
the
baseline
scenario
the
biogas
is
then
upgraded
and
used
to
replace
gasoline
in
cars,
thus
reducing
baseline
emissions
(Johansson
et
al.,
2012b).
Data
used
and
calculations:
The
data
regarding
electricity
use
in
infrastructure
were
developed
using
the
master
plans
for
SRS.
The
data
for
road
maintenance
are
based
on
figures
from
the
City
of
Stockholm
(Fahlberg
et
al.,
2007),
assuming
that
SRS
infrastructure
will
require
the
same
amount
of
maintenance
as
the
rest
of
the
City.
Water
use
is
based
on
technology
currently
in
use
in
Hammarby
Sjöstad
(Pandis
&
Brandt,
2009)
and
that
will
be
implemented
in
SRS,
while
the
energy
use
for
collection,
treatment
and
distribution
is
based
on
figures
for
the
City
of
Stockholm
(Stockholm
Vatten,
2010).
The
amount
of
biogas
generated
by
wastewater
sludge
was
estimated
and
the
full
amount
assumed
to
replace
gasoline
in
cars.
Table
4.
Projected
energy
use
and
emissions
from
infrastructure,
water
and
locally
generated
energy
in
Stockholm
Royal
Seaport
Activity
Annual
energy
Emissions
Emissions
use
[kWh/year]
factor
[ton
CO2e/year]
10

16. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
[g
CO2e/kWh]
Infrastructure
-­‐
Electricity
in
street
lights,
756,000
69.73
52.7
traffic
lights,
etc.
-­‐
Road
maintenance
7,670,300
279.31
2,142.4
Water
-­‐
Collection,
treatment,
1,862,595
69.73
129.9
distribution
Locally
generated
energy
-­‐
Generated
biogas
2,300,000
-­‐
586.6
-­‐
557.7
replacing
E5
Petrol
Total
emissions
[ton
CO2e/year]
1,767.3
Source:
Johansson
et
al.
(2012b).
Transportation
In
the
baseline,
transportation
emissions
are
divided
into
four
categories,
private
trips,
commuting
trips,
business
trips
and
the
transportation
of
goods
and
services
to
the
area.
The
transportation
emissions
highlight
the
problem
of
measuring
emissions
on
the
urban
district
level
in
comparison
with
the
city
level.
If
a
strict
geographical
perspective
is
employed
only
emissions
within
that
area
are
addressed.
This
might
lead
to
sub-­‐optimisation
by
clouding
significant
actions
that
could
improve
the
whole
transportation
system,
collaborating
with
the
right
stakeholders
(public
transportation
companies,
car
sharing
companies,
mobility
management,
etc.),
as
well
as
only
accounting
for
a
fraction
of
the
transportation
emissions
that
the
district
actually
generates.
For
instance,
the
new
thoroughfare
is
likely
to
include
significant
amounts
of
traffic
from
the
island
of
Lidingö,
combined
with
transportation
from
the
harbour,
both
of
which
are
mostly
unrelated
to
the
urban
district.
This
raises
the
question
of
who
should
be
responsible
for
them
and
where
the
reduction
strategies
should
be
implemented.
The
accounting
method
used
accounts
for
commuting
emissions
to
where
the
commuter
lives.
That
accounting
method
skews
planned
efforts
by
SRS
to
be
a
working
centre
with
more
than
twice
as
many
workspaces
as
residential
spaces.
Therefore
significant
emissions
from
worker
commutes
are
excluded,
despite
the
fact
that
that
most
“Smart
Growth”
transportation
measures
can
readily
be
undertaken
on
the
district
level
to
minimise
them.
These
include
mixed
use
planning,
increased
density,
increased
walkability
and
easy
cycling
access,
limited
parking
spaces
and
increased
parking
fees,
and
so
forth
(City
of
Stockholm,
2012).
Based
on
this,
the
baseline
transportation
emissions
include
emissions
from
residents’
private
and
commuting
trips,
workers’
business
trips
and
emissions
from
the
transportation
of
goods
and
services
delivered
to
and
from
the
urban
district
(Table
5).
Data
used
and
calculations:
All
activity
data
regarding
resident
and
worker
trips
were
developed
using
two
transportation
studies,
one
focusing
on
the
inner
City
of
Stockholm
(USK,
2006)
and
one
focusing
on
Stockholm
as
a
whole
(Rytterbro
et
al.,
2011).
The
total
projected
travel
demand
was
calculated.
Transportation
emissions
from
goods
11

17. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
and
services
were
estimated
using
Stockholm-­‐specific
data
(Fahlberg
et
al.,
2007).
Table
5.
Projected
emissions
and
travel
behaviour
of
residents
and
workers
in
Stockholm
Royal
Seaport
2010
Mode
of
Residents
Workers
Emissions
Total
emissions
transportation
[PKM/year]
[PKM/year]
factor
[ton
CO2e/year]
[g
CO2e/PKM]
Car
-­‐
biogas
920,046
780,696
0.02
0.03
Car
–
E85
6,584,892
5,587,546
76.78
934.60
Car
–
Gasoline
E5
36,045,366
30,585,942
170.81
11,381.30
Car
–
Diesel
RME5
12,109,452
10,275,357
166.04
3,716.80
Car
–
Electric
2,418
2,052
11.56
0.05
Car
–
Hybrid
885,626
751,489
136.65
223.70
Local
bus
11,003,413
1,184,771
4.13
50.30
Local
train
27,907,469
1,777,157
0.05
1.50
Long
distance
bus
7,187,855
0,00
32.00
230.00
Long
distance
train
24,284,576
7,108,628
0.13
4.10
Physically
active
18,703,695
1,184,771
0.00
0
Total
residential
emissions
9,074.23
Total
worker
emissions
7,468.15
Goods
and
services
3,289.26
Transportation
totals
19,831.7
Source:
Johansson
et
al.
(2012b).
Waste
Each
waste
fraction
includes
emissions
from
collecting,
transporting
and
treating
each
fraction,
as
well
as
emissions
reductions
from
recycling
compared
with
using
virgin
materials
(Table
6).
The
waste
emissions
exclude
the
upstream
lifecycle
emissions
of
production
and
transporting
the
respective
goods
before
they
are
disposed
of
as
waste.
This
merits
a
discussion
about
consumption
that
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
paper,
but
it
should
at
least
be
noted
that
this
exclusion
leads
to
the
paradox
that
the
more
food
and
goods
consumed
within
SRS,
the
lower
their
emissions.
This
is
because
the
waste
generated
is
combusted
in
the
district
heating
system,
which
leads
to
lower
district
heating
emissions
compared
with
using
fossil
fuels.
Each
emissions
factor
is
based
on
waste
treatment
in
Sweden,
since
SRS-­‐specific
or
Stockholm-­‐
specific
data
are
not
available
at
this
time.
Data
used
and
calculations:
The
waste
streams
in
the
urban
development
were
projected
using
data
for
the
City
of
Stockholm
combined
with
the
possibility
to
collect
household
waste,
combustibles,
newspapers
and
paper
beside
or
within
the
buildings
themselves.
Table
6.
Emissions
from
waste
in
the
baseline
for
Stockholm
Royal
Seaport
Waste
fraction
Ton
Emissions
factor
Annual
emissions
waste/year
[ton
CO2e/ton
waste
]
[ton
CO2e/year]
Mixed
municipal
solid
7,574
All
municipal
solid
waste
is
used
in
the
City
of
waste
Stockholm’s
district
heating
network
and
emissions
are
therefore
attributed
there
12

18. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
Gardening
waste
122
-­‐0.4
-­‐48.8
Bulk
waste
3,168
-­‐0.1
-­‐316.8
Sorted
waste
-­‐
Glass
718
-­‐0.04
-­‐28.7
-­‐
Paper
2,537
-­‐0.18
-­‐456.7
-­‐
Metal
109
-­‐0.61
-­‐66.5
-­‐
Newspapers
896
-­‐0.18
-­‐161.3
-­‐
Plastics
800
1.52
1
216
-­‐
Electronics
329
-­‐0.05
-­‐16.5
-­‐
Hazardous
waste
49
-­‐0.3
-­‐14.7
Waste
totals
106
Source:
Johansson
et
al.
(2012b).
Baseline
Results
The
baseline
emissions
in
the
different
categories
discussed
above
are
summarised
in
Table
7.
Table
7.
Summary
of
baseline
emissions
for
SRS
Emission
Categories
Ton
CO2e/year
Ton
CO2e/capita
Energy
-­‐Heating
&
cooling
12,169.3
0.64
-­‐Electricity
7,932
0.42
-­‐Water
&
infrastructure
2,325
0.12
-­‐Locally
produced
energy
-­‐
557.7
-­‐0.03
Transportation
-­‐Residents
9,074.2
0.48
-­‐Workers
7,468.1
0.39
-­‐
Goods
&
services
3,289.2
0.17
Waste
106
0.01
Baseline
totals
41,806.1
2.20
Source:
Johansson
et
al.
(2012b).
The
baseline
emissions
of
2.2
ton
CO2e/capita
are
low
compared
with
the
emissions
from
the
average
person
living
in
Stockholm,
which
in
2010
were
roughly
3.2
ton
CO2e/capita
(City
of
Stockholm,
2010a).
At
first
glance,
emissions
from
the
SRS
area
are
significantly
lower,
due
in
part
to
some
of
the
emission
factors
having
been
updated
since
the
City
of
Stockholm’s
last
calculation
in
2010,
lowering
SRS’s
emissions.
However,
the
major
reason
for
the
lower
emissions
for
SRS
is
that
not
all
emissions
are
included
due
to
the
choice
of
focusing
on
activities
directly
related
to
SRS’s
geographical
area.
When
moving
from
the
city
level
to
the
urban
district
level,
an
additional
‘layer’
of
emissions
is
added,
namely
those
that
take
place
within
the
city
but
not
within
the
specific
urban
district
representing
these
emissions,
which
can
have
a
significant
impact
on
total
emissions.
For
example,
in
the
case
of
SRS,
many
societal
functions
that
a
resident
uses
regularly,
such
as
hospitals,
libraries,
sports
centres,
etc.,
are
not
included
in
the
geographical
area.
That
means
that
the
urban
district’s
emissions
are
too
low
compared
with
the
total
city
emissions.
On
the
other
hand,
two
of
the
main
sources
of
emissions
in
Stockholm
are
located
in
the
SRS
area,
since
it
includes
the
combined
heat
and
power
plant
and
the
harbour.
There
is
also
the
question
of
the
thoroughfare,
13

19. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
since
most
of
the
traffic
it
carries
is
not
related
to
the
SRS
district
itself.
The
emissions
from
these
sources
are
instead
scaled
to
proportion
of
the
residents,
so
that
every
person
in
Stockholm
gets
an
equal
share.
If
emissions
from
activities
not
included
in
the
geographical
baseline
but
connected
to
the
City
of
Stockholm
were
to
be
included
in
the
calculations,
such
as
emissions
from
hospitals,
sports
centres,
public
offices
and
so
forth,
the
annual
emissions
of
a
resident
in
SRS
would
increase
by
at
least
0.5
ton
CO2e
per
capita
(Fahlberg
et
al.,
2007).
7. Magnitude
Study
of
Possible
Roadmap
Actions
Once
the
baseline
has
been
clearly
defined,
the
next
step
in
the
process
is
to
develop
roadmap
actions.
They
can
be
divided
into
three
categories;
energy
efficiency
measures,
fuel
switching
and
behaviour
changes
that
lead
to
either
fuel
switching
or
energy
efficiency.
In
order
to
discuss
the
magnitude
of
effect
of
possible
road
mapping
actions,
here
we
calculated
the
emission
reductions
for
a
few
simple
examples.
These
actions
represent
interpretations
of
SRS’s
overall
environmental
programme
and
the
environmental
requirements
for
the
second
build
phase
of
SRS.
Note
that
the
actions
only
represent
magnitudes
of
emissions
reductions,
and
no
decisions
to
implement
them
in
any
way
have
been
made
by
the
stakeholders
involved.
Note
also
that
no
consideration
has
been
given
so
far
to
the
effect
that
different
actions
have
on
each
other.
The
following
actions
were
identified
for
study
(Johansson
et
al.,
2012a):
• Solar
photo
voltaics
(PV)
-­‐
Solar
PV
should
generate
at
least
30%
of
the
building
electricity
used
for
lifts,
ventilation,
pumps,
etc.
• Phase
2
Energy
demands
–
In
the
second
build
phase
of
SRS,
an
energy
target
is
to
reduce
the
total
energy
use
excluding
household
and
commercial
electricity
to
55
kWh/m2
and
year.
This
would
then
serve
as
a
limit
for
future
build
phases.
• Residential
travel
–
One
goal
is
that
residents
should
be
able
to
travel
using
low
CO2e
vehicles.
In
the
magnitude
of
reductions
calculated
here,
50%
of
transportation
by
gasoline
car
is
shifted
to
either
electric
car
or
hybrid
car
(gasoline
&
electricity).
The
calculated
emissions
reductions
are
summarised
in
Table
8.
Table
8
Magnitude
of
emissions
reduction
effect
of
possible
road
mapping
actions
Emissions
Per
capita
emissions
Possible
roadmapping
action
reduction
reduction
[ton
CO2e/year]
[ton
CO2e/cap,
year]
Solar
PV
–
30
%
of
building
438
0.02
electricity
Phase
2
Energy
demands
3,095
0.16
Residents
travel:
Gasoline
à
2,870
0.15
Electric
car
Residents
travel:
Gasoline
à
616
0.03
Hybrid
car
Source:
Johansson
et
al.
(2012a).
14

20. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
A
first
comparison
between
the
baseline
emissions
(Table
7)
and
the
reductions
through
roadmap
actions
(Table
8)
demonstrates
that
it
is
difficult
to
become
climate
positive
on
a
local
scale.
As
regards
possible
road
mapping
actions,
even
the
more
ambitious
actions,
such
as
influencing
the
residents’
travel
behaviour,
only
reduce
total
baseline
emissions
by
about
10%
each.
Furthermore,
while
the
current
proposed
actions
only
represent
a
fraction
of
possible
emissions
cuts,
they
are
in
themselves
rather
ambitious.
The
baseline
energy
use
for
buildings
in
the
baseline
is
already
25%
lower
than
the
current
Swedish
building
code
requirements
(Boverket,
2011)
and
implementing
55
kwh/m2
and
year
is
close
to
the
Swedish
passive
house
standard.
Therefore,
it
seems
unlikely
that
the
SRS
district
will
manage
to
achieve
climate
positive
status
just
by
roadmapping
action
strategies
within
the
urban
district
itself.
8. Credits
–
Roadmapping
Actions
Outside
the
District
We
can
see
from
comparing
the
magnitudes
of
possible
roadmapping
actions
to
reduce
emissions
(through
energy
efficiency,
fuel
switching
and
influencing
residents
behaviour)
against
the
baseline
emissions
that
it
will
be
difficult
to
reach
a
climate
positive
outcome
solely
by
local
actions
within
SRS’s
geographical
boundary.
The
CCI
framework
recognises
this
problem
and
the
solution
proposed
is
to
implement
credits
(CCI,
2011),
using
the
same
general
principle
as
credits
from
the
flexible
Kyoto
mechanisms
(Joint
Implementation,
Clean
Development
Mechanism
and
Emissions
Trading)
(UNFCC,
1998).
Through
these,
the
emissions
of
a
country,
city
or
area
are
cut
by
emissions
reductions
in
other
places
(referred
to
as
certified
emission
reductions,
or
credits
for
short).
However,
there
are
significant
differences
between
CCI’s
credits
and
those
relating
to
flexible
mechanisms,
the
major
difference
being
that
CCI’s
credits
have
to
be
generated
locally,
in
relation
to
the
urban
district
itself.
To
be
able
to
generate
a
credit
according
to
CCI,
the
urban
district
must
be
connected
through
relevant
infrastructure
(energy,
transport,
waste)
or
other
relevant
processes
(for
instance
decision
making
processes,
rules,
regulations,
standards).
Note
also
that
the
purchase
of
credits
not
generated
in
connection
with
the
urban
district
(as
can
be
done
with
credits
from
the
flexible
Kyoto
mechanisms)
is
not
accepted
as
a
reduction
strategy
(CCI,
2011).
Once
the
sum
of
emissions
reductions
from
roadmap
actions
and
credits
is
greater
than
the
baseline
emissions,
the
area
is
considered
to
be
climate
positive.
To
demonstrate
what
could
be
considered
local
credits,
we
calculated
the
magnitude
of
emission
reductions
from
a
few
possible
actions
(Johansson
et
al.,
2012a).
All
of
the
actions
build
on
official
documents
(environmental
plans,
applications,
etc.),
for
inspiration,
but
note
that
all
credit
actions
are
just
a
representation
of
magnitudes
and
do
not
represent
actual
emission
reductions
decided
by
the
stakeholders
involved.
The
magnitudes
of
the
following
credit
actions
are
shown
in
Table
9
(Johansson
et
al.,
2012a):
• Electrification
of
the
harbour
–
The
harbour
area
is
close
to
SRS
and
the
idea
is
to
connect
ships
and
ferries
that
make
port
on
a
regular
basis
to
the
electricity
grid
instead
of
having
them
idle
using
diesel
engines.
The
magnitudes
of
two
different
credit
actions
are
calculated,
one
where
15

21. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
diesel
is
replaced
by
electricity
from
the
Nordic
electricity
mix
and
one
where
it
is
replaced
by
wind
power.
• Workers’
travel
–
One
goal
is
that
workers
should
be
able
to
travel
using
low
CO2e
vehicles.
Just
as
in
the
case
of
residents’
travel,
the
calculated
magnitudes
are
represented
by
50%
of
transportation
by
gasoline
car
being
shifted
to
either
electric
car
or
hybrid
car
(gasoline
&
electricity).
Table
9.
Magnitude
of
emissions
reduction
effect
achieved
by
possible
credit
actions
Emissions
Per
capita
emissions
Possible
credit
action
reduction
reduction
[ton
CO2e/year]
[ton
CO2e/cap,
year]
Electrification
of
the
harbour
3,199
0.17
-­‐
Diesel
à
Wind
power
Electrification
of
the
harbour
2,423
0.13
-­‐
Diesel
à
Nordic
electricity
mix
Workers’
commuting
1,688
0.09
Gasoline
à
Electric
car
Workers’
commuting
362
0.019
Gasoline
à
Hybrid
car
Source:
Johansson
et
al.
(2012a).
Just
as
in
the
case
of
roadmapping
actions,
the
magnitudes
of
emission
cuts
from
credit
actions
are
small
relative
to
the
baseline
emissions.
Even
a
major
action
such
as
electrification
of
the
harbour
represents
roughly
only
a
10%
reduction
in
emissions,
while
the
other
actions
have
smaller
effects
(Table
9).
The
credit
action
effects
calculated
of
course
represent
only
a
small
proportion
of
possible
actions
that
the
City
of
Stockholm
could
undertake.
9. Discussion
It
is
difficult
to
achieve
climate
positive
status
on
local
scale
with
planned
actions
Even
adding
roadmapping
and
credit
actions
together,
it
will
still
be
a
challenge
for
SRS
to
become
climate
positive.
However,
the
roadmapping
process
can
serve
as
a
catalyst
to
start
a
process
of
implementing
innovative
solutions
with
important
stakeholders
in
the
development
process,
such
as
the
landowner,
relevant
authorities,
construction
companies,
(future)
residents,
etc.
Since
the
road
mapping
process
has
the
explicit
goal
of
achieving
a
climate
positive
urban
district,
the
actions
and
their
calculated
magnitude
in
relation
to
the
baseline
emissions
can
serve
as
a
very
powerful
motivational
tool
and
driving
force
to
reach
the
targets
that
would
otherwise
have
been
impossible.
Credits
can
then
be
used
when
local
options
run
out.
The
potential
and
risks
of
credits
–
a
driving
force
and
possible
greenwashing
The
key
aspect
of
the
concept
of
credits
is
how
the
term
‘local’
is
defined.
Since
some
of
the
systems
connected
to
the
urban
district
span
a
vast
geographical
16

22. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
area
(such
as
the
Nordic
electricity
system),
it
is
important
that
the
term
local
is
not
used
too
liberally
in
order
to
avoid
the
risk
of
greenwashing.
Technically,
for
example,
a
wind
power
plant
in
the
north
of
Sweden
could
possibly
pass
as
a
credit,
since
the
electricity
system
is
connected,
but
it
can
scarcely
be
considered
to
be
local
electricity
production,
since
the
distance
between
Stockholm
and
the
wind
power
in
northern
Sweden
could
be
600-­‐1000
km.
On
the
other
hand,
local
credits
according
to
the
framework
could
be
a
very
important
driving
force
for
innovations
that
generate
credits
not
only
for
the
urban
district,
but
also
for
other
parts
of
the
city,
aiding
their
work
to
implement
local
climate
action(s).
In
order
to
use
and
develop
local
credits,
the
city
needs
to
formulate
its
definition
of
‘local’
before
creating
business
models
and
inviting
developers
and
stakeholders
to
join
in
the
process
of
creating
credit
actions.
Emissions
change
over
time
It
is
important
to
note
that
even
after
sufficient
amounts
of
credit
have
been
generated
by
actions
outside
the
geographical
system
boundary,
some
problems
remain,
namely;
Since
the
emissions
are
primarily
based
on
current
district
heating
and
electricity
mixes,
a
margin
of
safety
needs
to
be
added
since
emission
factors
can
fluctuate
by
20%
or
more
on
a
yearly
basis
(Johansson
et
al.,
2012b).
As
the
energy
system
in
the
Nordic
countries
becomes
more
integrated
with
central
Europe,
the
energy
mixes
will
also
change,
which
could
impact
on
emissions
(Eurostat,
2012).
The
baseline
needs
to
be
continuously
updated
as
measured
data
become
available.
It
is
also
important
to
bear
in
mind
that
changes
over
time
in
the
two
key
areas,
buildings
and
transportation,
need
to
be
taken
into
account.
It
is
also
important
to
take
into
account
that
once
infrastructure
has
been
built,
there
are
lock-­‐in
effects
when
it
comes
to
emissions
(Unruh,
2000).
These
include
technical
and
behavioural
aspects
and
thus
it
is
important
to
plan
ahead,
especially
when
aiming
for
an
ambitious
goal
such
as
climate
positive.
Not
all
emissions
are
included
As
previously
mentioned,
it
is
important
to
bear
in
mind
that
not
all
emissions
are
included,
both
when
comparing
the
urban
district
with
the
surrounding
city
and
when
comparing
the
city
with
the
world.
Significant
emissions
caused
by
the
urban
district
may
take
place
outside
the
set
boundaries
and
need
to
be
addressed.
When
discussing
the
geographical
area
from
an
urban
district
point
of
view,
there
are
some
additional
considerations
that
need
to
be
taken
into
account.
They
are
similar
but
not
equal
to
the
discussions
of
a
city’s
boundary
and
its
emissions
outside
that
boundary.
A
study
on
cities
by
Davis
&
Caldeira
(2010)
concluded
that
20-­‐50%
of
emissions
are
generated
outside
the
city’s
geographical
boundary,
or
occur
as
the
result
of
cross
boundary
emissions
(Räty
&
Carlsson
Kanyama,
2007;
Cool
California,
2011 2 ).
When
adding
baseline
emissions
in
the
present
case
study,
some
emissions
from
activities
taking
place
outside
SRS
but
inside
Stockholm
were
not
included
and
adding
these
emissions
2
In
the
Cool
California
household
calculator,
average
values
for
California
were
input
as
suggested
by
the
tool.
17

23. Submitted
article
–
Journal
of
Energy
Policy
Do
not
copy
or
redistribute!
from
consumption,
construction
and
long
distance
travel
would
further
increase
total
emissions
from
the
baseline’s
2.2
ton
CO2e/capita
to
2.7
ton
CO2e/capita.
Note
also
that
an
‘accounting’
perspective
is
used
in
this
paper,
which
means
that
there
is
no
obligation
to
verify
that
energy
saved
by
SRS
is
not
used
by
anyone
else
(e.g.
rebound
effects)
or
that
fossil
fuels
replaced
by
new
renewable
energy
generation
are
not
used
anywhere
else.
Conclusions
Some
aspects
of
the
baseline,
system
boundaries
and
roadmap
actions
are
clearly
influenced
by
the
characteristics
of
Stockholm
Royal
Seaport,
for
instance
that
there
is
a
district
heating
network
or
that
the
Nordic
electricity
mix
has
relatively
low
CO2e
emissions
per
kWh
(compared
with
the
US,
China,
etc.).
The
selected
roadmap
actions
are
therefore
likely
to
vary
depending
on
geographical
location
and
the
individual
characteristics
of
each
individual
urban
development.
A
general
conclusion
that
remains
is
that
it
is
important
to
transparently
track
energy
use
and
emissions,
especially
if
a
more
complete
view
of
emissions
is
to
be
achieved
at
a
later
stage.
As
a
tool/model
for
creating
a
climate
positive
urban
district,
the
approach
of
baseline,
roadmap
and
credits
seems
to
work
well
in
the
general
sense
that
it
promotes
actions
towards
low
energy
use,
a
high
degree
of
renewables
and
local
energy
generation
and
that
the
urban
district
can
function
as
a
catalyst
for
surrounding
districts
to
reduce
emissions.
Credits
and
roadmapping
can
serve
as
driving
forces
for
innovation.
The
key
challenge
is
to
have
a
high
degree
of
transparency
regarding
which
emissions
are
included
and
excluded
in
order
to
avoid
the
risk
of
greenwashing.
18