Talk:City-level climate policy model

Application for climate change and environmental policy

Application to SYKE and UEF, deadline 19.4.2013.

Applicant: Jouni Tuomisto

Timeline: 1.8.2013 - 31.7.2017

Introduction

Climate change policy has a dilemma. It has been widely (although not unanimously) accepted by citizens and politicians that large and effective actions must be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to global change. Still, the international agreements achieved or local policies implemented have been much weaker than hoped for, the most dramatic disappointment being the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in 2009. One important reason for this under-performance is the fact that the societal decision making methods are not able to absorb all available, necessary information, and that scientific community is unable to produce the specific information needed in a useful format for decision making . A common attitude among researchers is "our task is to show facts, not give policy recommendations". There is, however, a tendency toward closer interaction between all actors, although it is still uncommon to develop shared understanding among decision makers, experts, and other stakeholders in the society .

The proposed work aims to reduce the gap between the information need by decision makers and the information supply by experts and other people. This is done by utilising novel impact assessment methods, tools, and participatory approaches. The focus is on the decision support, i.e. on work, practices, and information needed to give a rich, scientifically sound understanding to decision makers about the options they have and the estimated impacts of these options. Understanding the interplay of facts and societal values has a key role in the methodology used.

The focus of the work is at the municipality level. This is because many climate actions are taken locally, and also many of the effects (especially side effects) of these actions (e.g. transport solutions, urban structure, fine particle emissions, or green spaces) also affect locally. International and national climate policies are used as boundary conditions for local assessments. On the other hand, the lessons learned on local level have important implications on these policies, and this is how the proposed work links to its larger context.

Objectives of research

• Evaluate the applicability and appeal of international climate policies when implemented as local actions.
• Understand the reasons for applicability and appeal of climate policies by different players in the society.
• Inform decision makers and stakeholders at different levels about the practical implications of the results, and engage them in mutual discussion.

Materials and methods

The work is based on previous achievements, many of which come from my research team in THL. All methods, tools, and practices developed so far are openly available for any new projects. These capabilities are briefly described, with indications how they are important in this research plan.

Existing models and results

Claih academy project (2009-2012) studied health and climate impacts of building structures and heating options in Finland. It produced a model to estimate greenhouse gas and fine particle emissions, especially from detached houses with a house-level heating system. Urgenche EU project (2011-2014) has produced two models, a city-level building stock model for estimating energy needs after different energy policies, and an energy balance model describing the total energy production and consumption of all sectors in a city and estimating energy balances, taking account of different feedback loops. There is also a health impact assessment model from Tekaisu project (2012-2014) for estimating numbers of cases of disease, life expectancies, and disability-adjusted life years due to exposures to environmental pollutants.

Opasnet web-workspace

The models described are running at a web-workspace called Opasnet. It is maintained by THL, and it is available for any project producing information for decision support, also outside THL. Opasnet has built-in modelling capabilities using R statistical software and a versatile collection of practical functions designed for open online collaboration and shared models. In addition, it has a wiki website for storing descriptions of the topics assessed, models used, and results obtained. It also has flexible tools for participants to comment and criticise the content, update content based on new information, and discuss the topics. Opasnet also has a flexible database for storing model inputs and outputs and other data. Opasnet can also be used to disseminate results. For further details, see http://en.opasnet.org.

Open assessment method

Open assessment is a method for decision support. It contains practices for impact assessment, but also for stakeholder participation or for organising discussions. It is based on six principles that guide the work. They are briefly listed here. For more information, see http://fi.opasnet.org/fi/Tekaisu (in Finnish).

• Explicit objectives from the decision makers are a prerequisite for successful open assessment. The objectives are used as the key source of information when designing the impact assessment needed, and also evaluating the progress of the work.
• Causality between decision actions and impacts of interest is the key to understand which option is more preferable than another one. The purpose of an assessment is to make these causal connections explicit, and when possible, quantitative.
• Shared information objects mean, in practice, web pages that each deal with a single topic or a part of an assessment. These web pages are used as parts of assessment models (for computing) and means to collect and disseminate information. This is also a way to manage an assessment and the related discussion, as the structure of an issue gives the structure for the related assessment. The assessment work is basically about filling in the empty slots in the information objects needed.
• Criticism in this context means that anything in an assessment or another decision support work can be criticised, and the criticism will be appropriately handled. This means that if valid, it changes the contents of an assessment and possibly conclusions; and if found invalid, the reasoning why the criticism should not affect the outcome is documented.
• Re-usability of information and models. The structure of assessments, Opasnet website, and the work done is based on the principle that any information should be easily re-usable in similar or analogous situations. This principle has strongly influenced the information structures and practices used.
• Openness of participation and information is a necessity to ensure the possibility for criticism and re-usability. The default is to be open from the beginning and about everything. Closed data sets are exceptions that are specifically reasoned.

Open assessment also has guidance for evaluation and management of the decision support work. The method contains criteria for good assessments (quality of content, applicability, and efficiency), and the key idea is to continuously follow and evaluate the assessment work against these criteria. There are explicit indicators that are used during the work to evaluate progress. If problems are found, management steps are taken to focus the work or find better ways of working.

Policy assessments and stakeholder involvement

The work is divided into two main lines. First, the climate, health, and other impacts of the policies considered are assessed using quantitative modelling and other decision analysis methods. Second, decision makers and stakeholders are interviewed and invited to participate in real-life case studies about climate-related decision making processes in municipalities. These decisions may be direct climate policies such as bioenergy plans, or other policies that are expected to have also important climate impacts, such as urban planning (which affects heating options and transportation needs of new building areas).

In the impact assessments, the research team looks at climate, health, and other impacts of municipality-level actions. These include transport decisions, urban planning, and energy production or saving decisions made by municipalities. Also other decision makers such as consumers or companies are looked at in the assessments when possible, and the interplay of several decision makers is analysed. I have done such analyses before, e.g. , and the new modelling tools in Opasnet offer very nice functionalities for these analyses.

Stakeholder involvement is approached in two different ways: one driven by a municipality and another by the research team. Practical cases are searched for from municipalities that have real decisions coming up; for each of these cases, the research team gets deeply involved with the decision support work of the particular decision in the municipality; and the case is tailored according to the needs of the municipality. Another approach is to start with a topic that is known to be fairly common and important to several municipalities, and to develop an assessment that is designed to tackle more generic issues that are useful for several problem owners. Several municipalities and stakeholder groups are searched for in the case study. In both approaches, close contacts and discussions with municipality decision makers and stakeholders are developed, as their contribution has a central role in the work.

Expertise and facilities

I have expertise in impact assessment, especially about health impacts. I also have the tools and methods that are needed in the proposed work. All of the work described here can be done by using the functionalities of Opasnet web-workspace, which is freely available.

In addition, I have practical experience in many national endeavours related to climate change and/or policy making. The most important memberships in national governmental groups are mentioned here, and more details are available in my CV.

• I am a member in a group preparing an update to the national climate adaptation strategy. The work will be finished by the end of this year.
• I am a deputy member in a national group Ilmastoareena. Its purpose is to increase awareness and collaboration among the field of climate change, and also promote initiatives in Finland and international forums.
• I am a member in a group commenting and supervising the national work to update of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.
• I was involved in the writing of the statement by THL about the evaluation of the national law and decree about environmental impact assessment (YVA-laki and YVA-asetus). For details, see http://fi.opasnet.org/fi/YVA.

The proposed work has a lot to share with other research and climate policy work ongoing in Finland. These opportunities have not been established or even planned in detail. However, it would be a natural part of the proposed work to start developing collaboration with e.g. these projects.

• HINKU-foorumi [1] is a promising source of potential case studies, as the municipalities involved are already active and interested in climate issues.
• KASVENER model [2] is being updated from an Excel version into a web-based portal. Synergies with Opasnet are likely, and the usability could be improved by joining forces in the future development.
• SYKE has several models that are not directly about climate change but about related topics mentioned earlier in this proposal. Such models include the FRES model about fine particle emissions in Finland [3], and KARA urban structure [4] work, which could have synergies with assessments on urban planning.
• Ilmasto.opas website [5] could be used as another place to disseminate information from the proposed project to citizens and other stakeholders. It has a good brand and larger visibility than Opasnet.

Expected results and impacts

• The project would improve understanding of the practical implications of national or international climate policies on municipality level in Finland.
• Practical experience would be obtained about executing decision support projects with a systematic method, namely open assessment.
• The project would increase awareness among decision makers and stakeholders that participatory decision support projects are possible and that they are actually implemented.
• The decisions to be made are more likely to be based on scientific understanding and also on explicit, thoughtful value judgements. Especially, this approach is expected to reduce the probability of decisions that have no scientific basis.

Budget

One doctoral student or post-doctoral fellow for policy modelling, in addition to my own work, would be needed to make this research plan happen. In addition, 20 000 € per year for travel and other expenses would be needed.