aspects/KPIs. These differ by region, in scope (Carbon Accounting Scope 1–3) and
in time (in terms of target setting, short term for air pollutants, long term for
GHG-emissions). This diversity and the fact that there are vast differences in the
level of maturity of cities with regard to data availability, setting targets and
developing plans on how to achieve them, sets the requirements for any community
scale model.
The aim of the transportation model is to support cities in creating climate action
plans or clean air plans and to support cross-department activities in city administrations. The model is embedded in a process that supports city administrations in
building alternative future infrastructure scenarios. It reflects all generally accepted/
assumed changes in technology, fleets and national policy over time by default and
focus on the cities’ core indicators.
2 Method
The methods and tools are a combination of conventional LCA, consequential
LCA, greenhouse gas accounting for cities and futurology. Even though the software and modelling concept such as the functional units are common LCA-based,
the model is aligned with the GPC-Protocol [1]. Forecasting elements are included
from HBEFA [2] for market and technology development. Scenario workshops
enable the inclusion of the political agenda during the projects process.
2.1 Scope and Indicators
The scope of the transport system model follows the basic rules of the
GPC-Protocol [1], since greenhouse gas accounting is a quite common procedure
for municipalities. It is a comparably well-defined process. The majority of cities
with which we have worked have experts with a good understanding of the
GPC-Protocol methodology and relevant stakeholders in cities are likely to know
how to interpret its results.
With regard to the scope of activities, traffic in a territory is included, while
emissions from airports and liquids or gases in pipelines are excluded. All processes
are separated into the three scopes: direct, energy related indirect and other indirect
emissions. By the click of a button, the model enables the inclusion and exclusion
of different lifecycle phases or infrastructure categories and activities such as e.g.
maintenance.
Despite these options being available, all cities we worked with decided to
balance the direct operation of vehicles and direct emissions of infrastructure such
as street lighting only. In addition to the standard activity data necessary to establish
a baseline, the model also requires data to determine the level of maturity of the
transportation system and its individual components. This is necessary in order to
194
F. A. Jaeger et al.
in time (in terms of target setting, short term for air pollutants, long term for
GHG-emissions). This diversity and the fact that there are vast differences in the
level of maturity of cities with regard to data availability, setting targets and
developing plans on how to achieve them, sets the requirements for any community
scale model.
The aim of the transportation model is to support cities in creating climate action
plans or clean air plans and to support cross-department activities in city administrations. The model is embedded in a process that supports city administrations in
building alternative future infrastructure scenarios. It reflects all generally accepted/
assumed changes in technology, fleets and national policy over time by default and
focus on the cities’ core indicators.
2 Method
The methods and tools are a combination of conventional LCA, consequential
LCA, greenhouse gas accounting for cities and futurology. Even though the software and modelling concept such as the functional units are common LCA-based,
the model is aligned with the GPC-Protocol [1]. Forecasting elements are included
from HBEFA [2] for market and technology development. Scenario workshops
enable the inclusion of the political agenda during the projects process.
2.1 Scope and Indicators
The scope of the transport system model follows the basic rules of the
GPC-Protocol [1], since greenhouse gas accounting is a quite common procedure
for municipalities. It is a comparably well-defined process. The majority of cities
with which we have worked have experts with a good understanding of the
GPC-Protocol methodology and relevant stakeholders in cities are likely to know
how to interpret its results.
With regard to the scope of activities, traffic in a territory is included, while
emissions from airports and liquids or gases in pipelines are excluded. All processes
are separated into the three scopes: direct, energy related indirect and other indirect
emissions. By the click of a button, the model enables the inclusion and exclusion
of different lifecycle phases or infrastructure categories and activities such as e.g.
maintenance.
Despite these options being available, all cities we worked with decided to
balance the direct operation of vehicles and direct emissions of infrastructure such
as street lighting only. In addition to the standard activity data necessary to establish
a baseline, the model also requires data to determine the level of maturity of the
transportation system and its individual components. This is necessary in order to
194
F. A. Jaeger et al.