发现地方温室气体排放核算和汇总中的差异和潜在差距

IF 3.7 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
{"title":"发现地方温室气体排放核算和汇总中的差异和潜在差距","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.crsust.2024.100263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Due to the contribution of cities to fight climate change, approaches and methodologies for GHG emissions inventories have multiplied; research is growing and numerous initiatives support local authorities in developing their local emissions inventories. The complexity of cities and the lack of data make necessary simplifications and assumptions in inventorying GHG emissions. Despite significant progresses in the compilation of inventories, there are still limitations and uncertainties on aggregation approaches. Therefore, it becomes crucial disclosing the methodologies underlying any emissions accounting frameworks, together with any simplifications and assumptions, with the aim to produce reliable support on local measures and data- driven decision-making in the form of a trustworthy emissions inventory. This study aims at identifying divergences and potential gaps in two approaches for GHG emission inventories at local level complementing the results of previous studies. It is intended as exemplificative of potential issues and limitations occurring in emissions accounting and aggregation. The two approaches are EDGAR (Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research), in place for the GHSL (Global Human Settlement Layer Urban Centre Database) (GHS-UCDB R2019A) and the BEI (Baseline Emission Inventory) approach developed within the Covenant of Mayors initiative. The main limitations uncovered here feature disagreements on spatial and time coverage, on the emissions sources and allocation and the types of emissions considered. Results show that despite the diverse approaches, data is comparable. Therefore, to identify and correct inconsistencies and to ensure the quality of emission inventories available to decision makers, analysis and consistent comparisons between results originating from different and independent methodologies are essential.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34472,"journal":{"name":"Current Research in Environmental Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uncovering divergences and potential gaps in local greenhouse gases emissions accounting and aggregation\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.crsust.2024.100263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Due to the contribution of cities to fight climate change, approaches and methodologies for GHG emissions inventories have multiplied; research is growing and numerous initiatives support local authorities in developing their local emissions inventories. The complexity of cities and the lack of data make necessary simplifications and assumptions in inventorying GHG emissions. Despite significant progresses in the compilation of inventories, there are still limitations and uncertainties on aggregation approaches. Therefore, it becomes crucial disclosing the methodologies underlying any emissions accounting frameworks, together with any simplifications and assumptions, with the aim to produce reliable support on local measures and data- driven decision-making in the form of a trustworthy emissions inventory. This study aims at identifying divergences and potential gaps in two approaches for GHG emission inventories at local level complementing the results of previous studies. It is intended as exemplificative of potential issues and limitations occurring in emissions accounting and aggregation. The two approaches are EDGAR (Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research), in place for the GHSL (Global Human Settlement Layer Urban Centre Database) (GHS-UCDB R2019A) and the BEI (Baseline Emission Inventory) approach developed within the Covenant of Mayors initiative. The main limitations uncovered here feature disagreements on spatial and time coverage, on the emissions sources and allocation and the types of emissions considered. Results show that despite the diverse approaches, data is comparable. Therefore, to identify and correct inconsistencies and to ensure the quality of emission inventories available to decision makers, analysis and consistent comparisons between results originating from different and independent methodologies are essential.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Research in Environmental Sustainability\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Research in Environmental Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666049024000239\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Research in Environmental Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666049024000239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于城市在应对气候变化方面的贡献,温室气体排放清单的编制方式和方法已经成倍增加;研究也在不断增加,许多倡议都支持地方政府编制当地的排放清单。由于城市的复杂性和数据的缺乏,在编制温室气体排放清单时有必要进行简化和假设。尽管在编制清单方面取得了重大进展,但在汇总方法上仍存在局限性和不确定性。因此,披露任何排放核算框架的基本方法以及任何简化和假设变得至关重要,目的是以可信的排放清单形式为地方措施和数据驱动决策提供可靠支持。本研究旨在确定地方一级温室气体排放清单的两种方法之间的差异和潜在差距,以补充之前的研究成果。其目的是举例说明排放核算和汇总中可能出现的问题和局限性。这两种方法是 EDGAR(全球大气研究排放数据库)和 BEI(基线排放清单),前者用于 GHSL(全球人类居住层城市中心数据库)(GHS-UCDB R2019A),后者在《市长公约》倡议范围内开发。本文揭示的主要局限性包括在空间和时间覆盖范围、排放源和分配以及考虑的排放类型方面存在分歧。结果表明,尽管方法不同,但数据具有可比性。因此,为了识别和纠正不一致之处,确保决策者可获得的排放清单的质量,必须对来自不同和独立方法的结果进行分析和一致的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Uncovering divergences and potential gaps in local greenhouse gases emissions accounting and aggregation
Due to the contribution of cities to fight climate change, approaches and methodologies for GHG emissions inventories have multiplied; research is growing and numerous initiatives support local authorities in developing their local emissions inventories. The complexity of cities and the lack of data make necessary simplifications and assumptions in inventorying GHG emissions. Despite significant progresses in the compilation of inventories, there are still limitations and uncertainties on aggregation approaches. Therefore, it becomes crucial disclosing the methodologies underlying any emissions accounting frameworks, together with any simplifications and assumptions, with the aim to produce reliable support on local measures and data- driven decision-making in the form of a trustworthy emissions inventory. This study aims at identifying divergences and potential gaps in two approaches for GHG emission inventories at local level complementing the results of previous studies. It is intended as exemplificative of potential issues and limitations occurring in emissions accounting and aggregation. The two approaches are EDGAR (Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research), in place for the GHSL (Global Human Settlement Layer Urban Centre Database) (GHS-UCDB R2019A) and the BEI (Baseline Emission Inventory) approach developed within the Covenant of Mayors initiative. The main limitations uncovered here feature disagreements on spatial and time coverage, on the emissions sources and allocation and the types of emissions considered. Results show that despite the diverse approaches, data is comparable. Therefore, to identify and correct inconsistencies and to ensure the quality of emission inventories available to decision makers, analysis and consistent comparisons between results originating from different and independent methodologies are essential.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Research in Environmental Sustainability
Current Research in Environmental Sustainability Environmental Science-General Environmental Science
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
76
审稿时长
95 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信