1 s2.0 S221209552300144X Main

Urban Climate 49 (2023) 101550
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Urban Climate
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/uclim
Post-fifth assessment report urban climate planning: Lessons from

278 urban climate action plans released from 2015 to 2022
Prince Dacosta Aboagye a, Ayyoob Sharifi b, *
a
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Japan
b
Hiroshima University, The IDEC Institute, Japan
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Cities respond to climate concerns mainly through climate action plans (CAPs). The IPCC Fifth
Cities Assessment Report (AR5) was the first report from the international climate body that gave
Urban climate action plans worldwide attention to urban climate change. Yet, a global situation of the content and structure
Deep decarbonisation
of urban CAPs adopted or published after AR5 is not well represented in the literature. This
Synergies
Trade-offs and conflicts
literature void presents a difficulty in holistically understanding the strengths and weaknesses of
Urban resilience existing urban CAPs, hence painting a clearer picture for future urban climate planning. Here, we
performed detailed qualitative content analyses on CAPs from 278 cities worldwide. This study
sought to achieve two specific objectives; (1) to critically analyse the content and structure of
urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022, and (2) to examine the extent to which
sampled urban CAPs align with selected climate action best practices. There have been variations
in the adoption or publication of urban CAPs from 2015 to 2022 across city types and world
regions. Our analysis showed a rise in the number of CAPs adopted or published during the global
COVID-19 lockdown period as compared to the post and pre-COVID-19 lockdown period. We also
observed a transition from developing mainly mitigation-focused CAPs pre-COP21 to both miti
gation and adaptation CAPs. About 96% of the sampled urban CAPs are focusing on the transport
sector to achieve climate objectives. More than half (55%) of cities with climate change
mitigation-related urban CAPs (147 urban CAPs of 267 urban CAPs) do not have deep decar
bonization pledges, with less than a quarter of the pledges likely to be achieved by 2030. We
found that about 81% of 120 cities with deep decarbonization pledges are more likely to report
baseline emission inventory in their urban CAPs. A lack of inclusiveness, transparency and
verification, evidence-based climate planning, comprehensiveness, and integration were the most
common areas of non-alignment with best practices. The explicit consideration of synergies,
trade-offs, or conflicts is significantly low. The evidence is a catalyst for understanding the dy
namics in existing urban CAPs to shape future urban climate action planning.
1. Introduction
Climate change is one of the pronounced phenomena in the twenty-first century, with significant impacts on every facet of hu
manity. Addressing the climate crisis necessitates urgent actions towards reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (mitigation) and a
* Corresponding author at: Hiroshima University, The IDEC Institute and Network for Education and Research on Peace and Sustainability
(NERPS); 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima City, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan.
E-mail addresses: d214421@hiroshima-u.ac.jp (P.D. Aboagye), sharifi@hiroshima-u.ac.jp (A. Sharifi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101550
Received 2 March 2023; Received in revised form 17 April 2023; Accepted 3 May 2023
Available online 10 May 2023
2212-0955/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
P.D. Aboagye and A. Sharifi Urban Climate 49 (2023) 101550
rapid system transformation to reduce the vulnerability of communities to the impacts of climate change (adaptation). Cities are
crucial in addressing climate change (Sharifi et al., 2023). The growing concerns for cities to become lead climate actors are justified
for various reasons. Despite the vulnerability of cities to climate change (Gu, 2019; Kumar, 2021), city governments also possess local
knowledge and close connection to their communities, giving them the edge to effectively engage local communities to achieve urban
climate targets. Similarly, local governments wield the authority to adopt laws and legislation, efficient communication, and pur
chasing power to reduce urban emissions and work towards climate adaptation. Research suggests that city climate initiatives will
reduce the impacts of climate change on almost 80% of the world's population living in cities by 2050 (World Economic Forum (WEF),
2022). Others opine that taking city-specific climate actions to reduce city-level GHG emissions will have significant impacts at both
national and global scales since urban activities (mainly from buildings and transportation) are estimated to emit approximately 75%
of the world's GHGs (Grafakos et al., 2019; UNEP, 2022).
The involvement of cities in addressing climate change is well documented (Lamb et al., 2019; Reckien et al., 2018a). Reports
indicate that over 9000 cities and local governments have pledged collaborative efforts to reduce global GHG emissions by 1.9GtCO2e
annually in 2030 through the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCoM)(Global Covenant of Mayors (GCoM), 2022;
Quéré et al., 2018). Again, about 100 world‑leading cities are members of the C40 network pursuing urgent actions essential to address
the climate crisis (C40 Cities, 2022). The CDP (previously the Carbon Disclosure Project), a platform for cities to detail their envi
ronmental activities, track progress, understand the impacts of their environmental activities, and take urgent actions, stated their
engagement with over 1100 cities on their platform in 2021(CDP, 2022). Correspondingly, the Global Climate Action Portal (GCAP) of
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) listed about 11,361 cities on its online platform as of 2021
(UNFCCC, 2022). This represents the number of cities on the GCAP platform taking various actions to tackle climate change. Other
initiatives include the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC) and the Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), which
work with city authorities to reduce urban GHG emissions(Grafakos et al., 2020).
While these efforts have been commended (Heidrich et al., 2016), recent literature has critically examined the efficiency and
significance of urban CAPs in achieving climate goals (Hsu et al., 2020; Olazabal and Ruiz De Gopegui, 2021; Tiepolo, 2017). For
instance, Hsu et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2021 have quantitatively assessed whether urban GHG mitigation targets are on track to achieve
local and global GHG emission reduction goals. Other previous studies have partly analysed the content of urban CAPs. A content
analysis of urban CAPs in 32 Italian cities found that most Italian cities are not developing comprehensive and stand-alone adaptation
plans (Pietrapertosa et al., 2019). Some studies have also revealed the lack of autonomy for cities to develop CAPs in the absence of
national regulations and the reluctance to mainstream critical sectors and sustainability elements in city climate plans (Eisenack and
Roggero, 2022; Fiack et al., 2021a; Frantzeskaki and Bush, 2021; Reckien et al., 2018a; Sheehan et al., 2021; Swanson, 2021). Singh
et al., 2021 also point to explicit limitations in the governance and institutional processes in the urban adaptation planning processes of
32 Indian cities. Another study has also assessed the CAPs of 29 major cities and revealed that these urban areas are more likely to have
deficient CAPs and might find it difficult to achieve their GHG reduction goals (Deetjen et al., 2018). It is worth mentioning that the
past literature has either focused on urban CAPs published before, during, or after the year of release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report (AR5) in 2014. Most previous analyses have also centred on the climate action focus of urban CAPs (looking at whether cities
are focusing on mitigation or adaptation, or both), GHG emission and deep decarbonization pledges, baseline emissions, and general
processes and frameworks adopted for local climate action planning. Again, it is noticed that earlier literature has limited itself in scope
and has analysed the content and structure of urban CAPs on different themes and foci. However, as climate change intensifies and
cities are expected to be at the forefront in addressing the climate crisis and achieving global climate goals, it is imperative to further
expand the analysis and draw lessons from a global perspective. It is also essential to scrutinize other thematic areas of the content and
structure of urban CAPs, which have been inadequate in previous studies.
On the subject of the climate action focus of existing urban CAPs, the concentration has hugely been on specific geographical areas.
Reckien et al., 2018a, 2018b in assessing urban climate action plans from 885 European Union (EU) cities, revealed that the number of
mitigation plans is more than adaptation plans among the sampled cities. The study also discovered that 17% of the sampled cities have
joint plans to achieve both adaptation and mitigation objectives. Prior to this research, a study published in 2014 asserted that 35% of
200 large and medium cities across 11 European countries do not have dedicated mitigation plans, and 72% are without adaptation
plans (Reckien et al., 2014). Additionally, the case of climate action focus in urban CAPs appears different in other jurisdictions.
Pietrapertosa et al., 2019 in analysing the contents of urban CAPs in 32 cities in Italy, discovered a limited focus on adaptation-only
plans in the country and a significant number of mitigation-only plans influenced by the presence of international climate networks.
About half of Indian cities with a population of more than one million were also found to be reporting more adaptation actions.
Obviously, the literature highlights distinct dynamics in the focus of climate actions in urban CAPs. These dynamics in climate action
focus, among others, can significantly inform global GHG emission reduction targets and the deep decarbonization agenda (Allam
et al., 2022; Seto et al., 2021).
GHG emission reduction targets, deep decarbonization pledges, and baseline GHG emission inventory (BEI) of urban CAPs have
come under scholarly scrutiny, at least since the adoption of the Paris goals and the recognition of an urgent need to reduce emissions
to achieve the Paris goals ((Hsu et al., 2020; Watts, 2017; Wei et al., 2021). In this study, deep decarbonization pledges are termed as
achieving either net-zero emissions or carbon neutrality. A study on the climate ambitions of 327 European cities concluded that 78%
of the sampled cities have GHG emission reduction targets (Salvia et al., 2021). Most of these European cities were found not on track
to achieve the Paris goals (Salvia et al., 2021). Hsu et al., 2020, have quantitatively assessed the GHG emission reduction scenario of
1066 cities belonging to the EU Covenant of Mayors and showed that 60% of the sampled cities are likely to achieve their 2020
emission reduction targets. Also, the stationery energy and transportation sector have been found to be the most emitting sectors
among 167 cities worldwide (Wei et al., 2021). Yet, there is limited knowledge of cities' specific sectoral focus to achieve mitigation
2
and adaptation objectives. Further, among 327 cities in the EU, it was found that only 25% have deep decarbonization pledges (Salvia
et al., 2021). Linton et al., 2022 also concluded that local governments in selected cities in Canada, the USA, Finland, and Norway are
developing innovative actions to achieve deep decarbonization. Shan et al., 2021, painted a picture of the decoupling pathways of 294
Chinese cities and asserted that 11% of them have negative CO2 emissions whiles achieving continuous economic growth within the
same period (2005–2015).
In terms of BEI, the analysis has mainly been quantitative. Hsu et al., 2020 reported that the total baseline emission of 1066 EU
Covenant of Mayors cities amounts to 255.6 million tons of CO2 (MtCO2). In addition, Salvia et al., 2021 found that 61% of 327 EU
cities report CO2 emissions in their urban CAPs, while 39% of the cities' report is calculated based on CO2 equivalent or GHG
emissions. There have also been varied tools or methodologies in conducting BEIs in urban CAPs, including adopting IPCC methods,
Global Protocol for Community-Scale GHG Emission Inventories (GPC), and other proposed emission inventory modeling approaches
(Shan et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2021). However, qualitative content analyses of the number of cities worldwide that are
reporting GHG emission reduction targets, deep decarbonization pledges, and reporting BEI and BEI tools or methodologies are less
known. Evidently, the literature suggests that CAP development is an evolving phenomenon, and more research is required to ho
listically unravel its pattern and focus across time, city types, and regions. This paper will contribute to the existing literature and
present a comprehensive analysis of the content and structure of urban CAPs adopted or published since 2015. The paper will highlight
the global situation of the content and structure of urban CAPs.
Another critical analysis of urban CAPs that has been given less attention in the literature is the extent to which the content and
structure of city climate plans align with existing climate action planning best practices. The availability of climate action planning
guidelines is intended to influence the development of quality and effective urban CAPs. Yet, scholarly literature has argued that the
inconsistencies in the planning process, content, and structure of urban CAPs are due to gaps in current climate action planning
guidelines and, thus, more robust, widely accepted frameworks and standards are recommended (Lioubimtseva and da Cunha, 2020;
Olazabal and Ruiz De Gopegui, 2021). However, it is important to precede the development of robust frameworks and standards with
an understanding of the prevailing situation. We argue that it is critical to initially determine the level at which urban CAPs are
inconsistent with existing widely accepted climate action planning best practices. Thus, leveraging the insights to inform the devel
opment of more enhanced climate action planning frameworks. Hence, this study will go beyond simply analysing the content and
structure of urban CAPs (as indicated earlier) and perform a “compliance audit” of the content and structure of urban CAPs in relation
to selected urban climate action planning best practices.
The study will perform two levels of “compliance audit”. First, the study will focus on analysing the level of explicit consideration of
key climate action planning elements, particularly co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts in existing urban CAPs. The
importance of maximising co-benefits and synergies while limiting trade-offs and conflicts between climate measures has been well-
established in the literature (Grafakos et al., 2019; Sharifi, 2021, 2020). These distinct interactions are likely to occur during the
simultaneous implementation of mitigation and adaptation climate actions and are linked as important elements to consider for urban
climate action planning (Grafakos et al., 2019; IPCC, 2022a; Sharifi, 2020). For instance, cities will realize co-benefits when a climate
mitigation action results in additional adaptation benefits, and vice versa (Sharifi, 2020). According to (Grafakos et al., 2019), syn
ergies in climate action implementation occur when the simultaneous execution of two or more actions offers results greater than the
sum of individual measures. Conflicts have been defined as extreme incompatibility between two climate actions, and their imple
mentation will not be efficient and effective in the long term (Landauer et al., 2019). Trade-offs also occur when the implementation of
a climate mitigation action has negative effects on achieving adaptation objectives (Juhola et al., 2013). Trade-offs can also be seen
when cities' implementation of adaptation actions exacerbates climate change by increasing GHG emissions (Suckall et al., 2014). This
study adopts the definition of co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts as established in the literature.
Previous studies have discussed these elements on different levels. (Sharifi, 2020) has reviewed the literature on the interactions of
trade-offs and conflicts in climate action planning and concluded that actions to reduce GHG emissions might have negative effects on
efforts to adapt to climate change. On the other hand, adaptation actions have the tendency to distort efforts towards mitigation.
(Grafakos et al., 2020, 2019), for instance, have proposed co-benefits or synergies as key variables in the development of the Urban
Climate Change Integration Index (UCCII). (Juhola et al., 2013) have proposed methodologies to communicate trade-offs in urban
climate action planning and implementation. An empirical study in Zanzibar, Tanzania, has identified how trade-offs may occur in
community climate responses and socio-economic stresses and found traces of long-term negative effects of adaptation measures on
mitigation and growth, a phenomenon also known as “mal-adaptation” (Suckall et al., 2014). A report by CDP in 2020 revealed how
cities are identifying and reporting co-benefits in their climate mitigation action plans (CDP, 2020). The report further stated that the
topmost co-benefit of cities' climate mitigation actions reported include shifts to more sustainable behaviour and improved resource
efficiency.
The next “compliance audit” will analyse how urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022 are consistent with the UN-
Habitat Guiding Principles for City Climate Action Planning (hereafter referred to as the Guiding Principles). Since its inception in
December 2015 at COP 21 in Paris, the Guiding Principles have provided standardized benchmarks for local climate action planning
based on international evidence and best practices (UN-Habitat, 2015). The publication of the Guiding Principles coincides with the
adoption of the Paris Agreement (UNFCC, 2015) and the Climate Summit for Local Leaders, the largest climate-oriented gathering of
mayors since the times when climate change activism began (Dasgupta, 2015). The publication year of the Guiding Principles also
corresponds with this study's sampling criteria (urban CAPs adopted or published since 2015), hence, providing a good reason to be
used for the analysis.
The Guiding Principles have been used to assess urban mitigation and adaptation plans and offer opportunities for stakeholder
engagement, transparency, and collaborations between cities and international climate networks in urban climate action planning
3
(UN-Habitat, 2018). The Guiding Principles present essential elements for urban climate action planning (Linton et al., 2021). These
elements involve setting ambitious visions (ambitious), involving multiple urban stakeholders and local actors (inclusive), promoting
equitable climate solutions (fair), undertaking adaptation and mitigation actions across a range of sectors (comprehensive) and
mainstreaming climate actions (integrated) (UN-Habitat, 2015). The remaining elements in the Guiding Principles include providing
context-based local climate solutions and priorities (relevant), proposing feasible, cost-effective climate actions (actionable), reflecting
scientific knowledge and local understanding and taking climate decisions based on vulnerability and emission assessments (evidence-
based), and adopting open decision-making process to set goals that can be measured, reported, monitored and evaluated (transparent
and verified).
The analysis presented in this paper, however, will substantially expand the discussion on these key elements and provide lessons of
how cities, city types, and regions are explicitly considering or aligning their urban CAPs with these urban climate action planning best
practices.
Ultimately, the study sampled urban CAPs that were adopted or published between 2015 and 2022 (at least by the time the data
collection ended – October 2022). The purposeful selection of plans adopted or published since 2015 particularly presents an inter
esting case to appreciate the extent of local climate action planning after the publication of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in
2014 (IPCC, 2014a, 2014b). While urban climate action planning has been given less attention over the years, the AR 5 was the first
report from the international climate body that raised global attention to urban climate change (IPCC, 2014b, 2014a; Monteiro et al.,
2022). Again, 2015 coincides with the adoption and publication of various climate and sustainable international binding commitments
and the era of urban pragmatism (Olazabal and Ruiz De Gopegui, 2021).
Our study addresses two fundamental research objectives:
• To critically analyse the content and structure of urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022
• To examine the extent to which urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022 align with selected climate action planning
best practices.
The following research questions guide the realisation of the study's objectives.
Objective 1
• What are the trends in the adoption or publication of urban CAPs from 2015 to 2022?
• What has been the climate action focus of the urban CAPs?
• What is the sectoral focus of the urban CAPs?
• What is the level of GHG emission reduction and deep decarbonization pledges in the urban CAPs?
• What is the extent of BEI reporting in urban CAPs?
Objective 2
• To what degree do cities explicitly consider co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts in their urban CAPs?
• Do urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022 align with the UN-Habitat Guiding Principles for City Climate Action
Planning?
• What factors influence the non-alignment of urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022 with the UN-Habitat Guiding
Principles for City Climate Action Planning?
Specifically, the study performs an in-depth qualitative content analysis on urban CAPs of 278 cities worldwide. The results of this
study will provide an enhanced understanding of the prevailing dynamics of existing urban CAPs, thus, informing the development of
comprehensive and integrated climate planning frameworks. Subsequently, the study will influence urban climate action planning by
stressing critical considerations in the content and structure of urban CAPs.
2. Methods
2.1. Conceptual definitions
2.1.1. City and city categorization

We define a city as any place that fulfils the criteria of an urban settlement. This includes the city proper, an urban agglomeration,
and a metropolitan area (UN-Habitat, 2020). In this study, “city” and “urban” are used interchangeably to mean the same concept. The
city size categorization was based on (Lamb et al., 2019). Hence, we categorised the individual sampled cities as follows:
• Small cities (cities with a population of less than 300,000)

• Medium cities (cities with a population of 300,000–1 million)
• Large cities (cities with a population between 1 million – 10 million),
• Megacities (cities with a population over 10 million).
Population data in the UN World's Cities in 2018 Report (UNDESA, 2018) informed the city population used to categorize the
4
individual sampled cities into various city sizes.
2.1.2. Urban climate action plan

The study considers an urban CAP as a document focusing on how cities or urban areas intend to mitigate and/or adapt to climate
change. This definition has been used in studies by (Deetjen et al., 2018; Pietrapertosa et al., 2019; Reckien et al., 2018b; Tiepolo,
2017). The documents include:
• Climate Action Plan

• Local climate plans (LCPs)
• Local Climate Change Mitigation Plans (M-LCPs)
• Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans (SECAPs),
• Carbon-neutral plans and strategies,
• Climate resilience strategies
• Climate energy plans
• Net-zero strategies
• Green City action plans.
• Other urban environmental and sustainable Plans
2.2. Sampling of cities and data collection
A total of 278 cities worldwide were selected for this study. For a CAP to be included in the study, it had to satisfy the following
criteria:
• The plan should have been adopted or published after 2014. Specifically, the study only included finalised plans and excluded draft
versions of plans.
• The plan must be published in the English language.
• The plan must satisfy the “city” or an “urban” area criterion as described in the conceptual definition of this section.
• We included resilient, sustainability, and comprehensive master plans that integrate the city's climate mitigation and adaptation
plan (for example, Athens)
We adopted two search strategies in the search for the climate action plans. (1) searching the websites of international climate
initiatives, and (2) manual search on Google.com. First, we searched the databases of C40 (https://resourcecentre.c40.org), the EU
Covenant of Mayors (EUCoM) (https://www.covenantofmayors.eu), and the Zero Energy Project (https://zeroenergyproject.org/all-
cities-with-climate-action-plans/) to download published urban climate action plans by cities that belong to their network or initiative.
The first strategy did not involve using a search string since these databases have resource sections for urban climate action plans
published on their database. The first search performed between October and November 2021 returned 83 urban CAPs – C40 (36),
EUCoM (17), and Zero Energy Project (30).
The second strategy was performed on Google search using a search string combining “names of cities” and “climate action plan
synonyms” (see Supplementary Table 1 for search string). City names were identified from the world cities and towns database on
Simple Maps (https://simplemaps.com/data/world-cities) (Simple Maps, 2022). Simple Maps provides global cities and towns' names,
populations, longitudes, and latitudes. The city name data from Simple Maps guided the second search, which was performed between
April and October 2022. The Google search largely led us to the official websites of cities and countries where city climate plans and
strategies can be located and downloaded. The second strategy also returned 198 urban CAPs.
In all, the two search strategies returned 281 climate action plans. We then searched the summaries and publication dates of the
plans to ensure their consistency with the study's criteria. Finally, 278 climate action plans met all the eligibility criteria and were used
for the study. Accordingly, our sample is limited to urban CAPs that were accessible in the international climate network databases and
through Google search, including those published on the official websites of cities and countries. The focus on only English CAPs may
present a geographic bias. However, CAPs used for the study represent cities across six main world regions (Africa, Asia, Europe,
Americas – (Latin America, North America) and Oceania), allowing for better global analyses.
2.3. Content analyses of urban CAPs
We used a qualitative content analysis approach to conduct a detailed analysis of the selected urban CAPs. This approach allowed us
to perform an analysis of the content of the sampled urban CAPs based on a logical process of coding and identifying themes or patterns
(Zhang and Wildemuth, 2005). The coding was guided by schemes informed by the research questions. We assigned binary scores to
the majority of the data extracted since they returned a “Yes” or “No” response. The positive responses that returned “Yes” were coded
as “1”, while negative responses that returned “No” were coded as “0”. After the first round of coding, the authors conducted a step-by-
step recheck and cleaning of the coding to ensure consistency and reliability.
Key extracted data include items such as:
• The city size.
5
• The year the plan was adopted or published.

• Climate action focus of the plan
• Availability of BEI and BEI tools and methodology
• Type/name/nature of BEI tool or methodology
• GHG emission reduction targets,
• Target period/horizon
• Sectoral focus
• Explicit consideration of co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts,
• Status of compliance with best practices (see Supplementary Table 2 for an example of the extraction and coding protocol).
The data set was analysed using descriptive statistics and evidence presented with tables, graphs and charts. A text mining tool
(VOSviewer – see 2.3.1 for details) was used to visualise the sectoral focus network. The MindView Software 8.0 (https://mindview.
updatestar.com/en), a professional mind mapping software for visualising, organising, and presenting ideas, was used to create a mind
map of the most common areas of non-alignment of urban CAPs with the Guiding Principles (Fig. 8).
2.3.1. Sector co-occurrence analysis

Although VOSviewer software is mainly used for bibliographic networks, it also allows for text data mapping (Jan van Eck and
Waltman, 2022). In this study, the keyword co-occurrence analysis was not performed based on the number of times a word (sector) is
mentioned or appears in a particular urban CAP. Instead, suppose a city stipulates to focus on, for instance, the building sector in their
urban CAP; the analysis considers the building sector as one of the city's sectors of focus, not the number of times “building” as a word is
mentioned or appears in the urban CAP. We manually extracted the sectors of focus in the urban CAPs into a Microsoft Excel sheet. We
then used commas to separate the sectors (keywords) and then saved the Microsoft Excel sheet as a CSV file. We imported the data to
VOSviewer “text data” option and generated the keyword co-occurrence network using a corpus file. Apart from this process, all other
procedures were followed, including threshold setting used in generating keyword co-occurrence maps from VOSviewer.
3. Results
3.1. The content and structure of urban CAPs since 2015
The analyses on the content and structure of urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022 are necessary to inform an
understanding of the nature of existing urban CAPs. The content and structure of urban CAPs have been analysed based on six thematic
areas: (1) trends in urban CAP adoption since 2015, (2) climate action focus of urban CAPs, (3) sectoral focus of urban CAPs, (4) GHG
emission reduction and deep decarbonization pledges in urban CAPs, (5) BEI reporting in urban CAPs, and (6) consideration of co-
benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts in urban CAPs.
3.1.1. Trends in the adoption or publication of urban CAPs since 2015

Adopting and publication of urban CAPs by local authorities play a vital role in finalising the climate plan development process.
This phase enhances the availability and accessibility of plans to the public. Historically, the development of urban climate plans began
in the 1990s (Victor and Muro, 2022). Yet, significant worldwide attention was given to cities to tackle climate change in the IPCC AR5.
Table 1 shows the number of urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022 across city sizes.
The study's sampling strategy (see methods for more details) returned 278 urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022.
Urban CAPs from small cities have the majority (56%) share of plans adopted or published, while urban CAPs from megacities returned
just 3% of the sampled urban CAPs used for the study. Fig. 1 shows the trends in urban CAPs adoption or publication worldwide from
2015 to 2022.
The results show an increase in the adoption and publication of CAPs from 2015 (20 CAPs) to at least 2020 (56 CAPs) (Fig. 1). This
increase may be attributable to the importance placed on urban climate action at the Conference of the Parties (COP) 21 in 2015, where
over 400 mayors met for the first time for the Climate Summit for Local Leaders (Dasgupta, 2015). However, it was until 2020 that 7
cities in Africa and 7 cities in Latin America adopted or published CAPs (Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 1, only one African city published or
adopted a climate action plan in 2015. We also found that 2020 recorded the highest number (56/278 CAPs) of urban CAPs adoption or
publication. This height was achieved despite COVID-19 lockdowns in various cities and regions across the world (Sandford, 2020).
The content analyses revealed that cities leveraged social media and teleconferencing platforms in the process of developing and
Table 1
The number of urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022 across city sizes.
City size Number of urban CAPs %Total
Small city 156 56

Medium city 64 23
Large city 49 18
Megacity 9 3
Total 278 100
6
Fig. 1. Trends in urban CAPs adoption or publication from 2015 to 2022 across world regions.
publishing their climate plans during the periods of COVID-19 lockdowns. Conversely, the results reveal a decline in adopting or
publishing urban CAPs since 2021 (54/286 CAPs) and 2022 (4/286) compared to the lockdown year. By the end of the data collection
period for this study (October 2022), only Asia seems to have a constant trend of urban CAPs published or adopted as compared to
other regions (Fig. 1). The study's search did not return any publication or adoption of urban CAPs from cities in Africa, Latin America,
and Oceania as of October 2022 (Fig. 1). The publication or adoption of urban CAPs was at its lowest in 2022 for cities in North
America (1 CAP) and Europe (1 CAP). Generally, 2022 recorded the lowest number of urban CAPs adopted or published since 2015.
The study located a majority (145 CAPs) of urban CAPs from cities in North America, followed by cities in Europe (70 CAPs) and
Oceania (32 CAPs) (Fig. 1). Interestingly, the U.S alone recorded almost half (102 CAPs) out of the total urban CAPs (278) that were
accessible for this study. This result suggests efforts by U.S cities to adopt and publish urban CAPs since 2015, notwithstanding a
declaration to withdraw from the Paris Agreement by the Trump administration in 2017 (Rebecca, 2020). We also noted that cities in
Latin America (7 CAPs) and Africa (8 CAPs) recorded the least number of urban CAPs published or adopted since 2015 (Fig. 1).
3.1.2. Climate action focus of urban CAPs from 2015 to 2022

The development of urban CAPs primarily focuses on achieving climate mitigation and/or adaptation (Mills-Novoa and Liverman,
2019). We observed that most (81%) urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2020 tend to focus on both mitigation and
adaptation (Table 2). In the context of this study, both mitigation and adaptation urban CAPs are joint urban CAPs with both mitigation
and adaptation actions. It is also taken to mean separate stand-alone mitigation and adaptation plans belonging to the same city and
specified in one of the plans that they are linked together. Also, mitigation-only or adaptation-only plans are stand-alone plans which
are not linked together. Consequently, cities labelled in the study as having adaptation-only plans do not have mitigation plans and
vice versa.
Table 2 shows that only 3% of the urban CAPs have focused on adaptation-only plans, compared to 16% for only mitigation.
Although most cities in Africa and Latin America emit less GHG emissions and are more likely to prioritize only adaptation-focused
actions, the study found that urban CAPs sampled from cities in Africa and Latin America from 2015 to 2022 have focused on
achieving both mitigation and adaptation (Table 2). The limited number of cities that have developed only adaptation-focused urban
Table 2
Mitigation and adaptation focus of urban CAPs from 2015 to 2022 by region.
Climate action focus Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania Total %Total
Both (Mitigation and Adaptation) 8 21 56 7 113 21 226 81%

Only Adaptation 0 1 1 0 3 3 8 3%
Only Mitigation 0 2 11 0 27 4 44 16%
Total 8 24 68 7 143 28 278 100%
7
CAPs were found in Asia (1), Europe (1), North America (3), and Oceania (3) (Table 2). Fig. 2 shows a map of the study cities and the
distribution of mitigation and/or adaptation focus in their urban CAPs.
3.1.3. Sectoral focus of urban CAPs from 2015 to 2022

Cities focus on various socio-economic sectors to achieve their mitigation or adaptation ambitions. The content analysis revealed
that the decision to focus on specific socio-economic sectors is mainly informed by assessing which sectors emit more GHGs (miti
gation-related sectors) and which sectors are more likely to be impacted by climate change (adaptation-related sectors). Other socio-
economic sectors are also prioritized to achieve both mitigation and adaptation ambitions. This study defines sectors of urban CAPs as
the overall thematic/socioeconomic areas where cities explicitly plan to make investments or take actions to reduce GHG emissions
and/or adapt to the impacts of climate change. It also refers to systems for governing, planning, and policymaking towards climate
mitigation and adaptation. Sectors in this study were adapted from the IPCC Sixth Assessment Reports of Working Group II and III
(IPCC, 2022a, 2022b).
Fig. 3 illustrates a keyword co-occurrence map of focused sectors in the sampled urban CAPs. The size of the nodes represents the
number of times the sector was focused (occurred) by different cities in their urban CAPs (Fig. 3). The larger a node, the more different
urban CAPs have focused on it.
We identified that the most focused sector in the sampled urban CAPs is the transport sector (268). About 96% of the sampled urban
CAPs focused on the transportation sector. This is followed closely by the energy (266), buildings (262), and waste (244) sectors
(Fig. 3). Our analysis reveals that these sectors mainly provide mitigation benefits for cities. Other sectors of focus include water
resources and management (194), disaster management (159), agriculture-food-pasture systems (156), and health (137) (Fig. 3).
Typically, these sectors mainly result in urban adaptation benefits. A cursory analysis of focused sectors such as Green-blue infra
structure/nature-based solutions (235), urban governance/policy/planning (226), urban design/land use planning (183), and
behavioural issues (165) indicates their relevance in achieving both mitigation and adaptation ambitions of the sampled cities. These
are the most emphasized sectors that ensure both adaptation and mitigation benefits. The results show that the least focused sectors
that met the threshold of 10 for visualization are tourism (representing 8% - 16 of 278 CAPs) and industry (representing 13% - 36 of
278 CAPs) (Fig. 3). It can also be deduced that equity or climate justice has been fairly represented (37% - 102 of 278 CAPs) in the
sectoral focus but was not among the top 10 most prioritized sectors in the sampled urban CAPs. In all, 20 sectors have been focused on
Fig. 2. Map of study cities and the distribution of mitigation and/or adaptation focus in their urban CAPs.
8
Fig. 3. Keyword co-occurrence map of focused sectors in the sampled urban CAPs.
by the sampled urban CAPs (Fig. 3). However, 17 sectors met the co-occurrence threshold of 10 for visualization. The remaining three
sectors that were not included in the visualization are insurance (7), fisheries and aquaculture systems (5), and refrigerant systems (1).
The next level of analysis was to ascertain the connectedness between the focused sectors. The links between sectors as how often
sectors appear together in different urban CAPs. This analysis considers links between sectors as the likelihood of sectoral connect
edness of a given urban CAP with other urban CAPs. The VOSviewer manual stipulates that there is a strength for each link, indicated
by a positive numerical value (Jan van Eck and Waltman, 2022). Thus, the greater the value, the stronger the link (Guo et al., 2019).
The total link strength, however, determines the weight of attention or focus given to a specific sector by the sampled urban CAPs. The
top five sectors with the highest total link strength include transport (2356), energy (2340), waste (2211), urban governance/policy/
planning (2073), and green-blue infrastructure/nature-based solutions (2067). This indicates the high level of attention and impor
tance given to these sectors in the sampled urban CAPs. It also shows strong linkages between the sectors. The top 5 sectors with the
Table 3
Total link strength and occurrences of the 17 sectors used for the visualization.
Ranking order Sector Cluster Number Total Link strength Occurrences
1 transport 2 2356 268

2 energy 2 2340 266
3 buildings 2 1597 262
4 waste 2 2211 244
5 Green-blue infrastructure/nature-based solutions 1 2067 235
6 urban governance/policy/planning 2 2073 226
7 water resources and management 1 1874 194
8 urban design/land use planning 1 1773 183
9 behavioural issues 1 1599 165
10 disaster management 1 1620 159
11 agriculture-food-pasture systems 1 1193 156
12 health 1 1430 137
13 economy 2 1342 135
14 equity 1 1097 102
15 terrestrial & marine ecosystems conservation 1 722 81
16 industry 2 313 36
17 tourism 1 173 16
9
highest sector-pairing links include transport-energy (263), transport-waste (240), energy-waste (239), transport-urban governance/
policy/planning (216), and energy-urban governance/policy/planning (215). This means that cities are more likely to focus on
transport and energy, transport and waste, energy and waste, transport and urban governance/policy/planning, and energy and urban
governance/policy/planning than other sectors.
Although “buildings” is the third most focused sector in the urban CAPs, its link with transport (167) and energy (165) is low
compared to other sectors in the top 5 (Fig. 3). This presumes that the simultaneous focus of “buildings” and “transport” or “energy” is
limited in the sampled urban CAPs. Table 3 shows the total link strength and occurrences of the sectors.
Two clusters can also be noticed from the keyword co-occurrence network (Fig. 3). The cluster presents the relationship between
the sectors, thus illustrating a set of closely related sectors. The detailed content analysis reveals that mitigation-focused sectors such as
transport, energy, buildings, and waste are shown in the red cluster (Fig. 3). The red cluster's urban governance/policy/planning sector
suggests the importance given to urban policies, plans, and governance systems for mitigation benefits. The presence of the economy in
the mitigation-focused cluster indicates more focus on green jobs, low-carbon innovation, and low-carbon/green economy in urban
CAPs. In the green cluster (Fig. 3), sectors including disaster management, green-blue infrastructure/nature-based solutions, water
resources and management, health, agriculture-food-pasture systems, tourism, and cities/urban design/land use planning have more
measures that align to adaptation as compared to mitigation. The results reveal that more focus has been placed on equity or climate
justice for adaptation benefits (Fig. 3).
3.1.4. GHG emission reduction and deep decarbonization pledges in urban CAPs
GHG emission reduction targets in climate plans provide the basis for analysing how various actors contribute to achieving the Paris
goals (Carbon Brief, 2022). The results revealed that of the 278 sampled cities, only 1% (4 CAPs) did not report emission reduction
targets despite having climate mitigation actions indicated in their urban CAPs (Fig. 4). Remarkably, one urban CAP with adaptation-
only actions had emission reduction targets. Ultimately, 96% (267 CAPs) of the urban CAPs had emission reduction targets (Fig. 4).
The remaining 3% (7 CAPs) with no emission reduction targets were adaptation-only urban CAPs (Fig. 4). The extent of disaggregating
emission reduction targets by type (s) of GHGs in the urban CAPs was limited. Almost all (98% of 267) of the cities did not state their
emission reduction by type of GHG emissions. The content analysis revealed that only 2% (5 of 267 CAPs) of the cities' emission
reduction pledges were aimed at a specific type of GHG, particularly carbon dioxide.
The discourse on meeting global climate goals has moved towards a more vigorous deep decarbonisation (net-zero or carbon-
neutral) agenda (Elgendy, 2021; UNFCCC, 2020). Cities are encouraged to work urgently towards achieving net zero or carbon
neutrality by at least 2050 (UNFCCC, 2020). There have been mixed definitions for deep decarbonization (Linton et al., 2022; Science
Based Targets Initiative, 2021). This study conceptualizes deep decarbonization to refer to cities that are targeting net-zero emissions
or carbon neutrality by a specific period. The results show that 55% (147 of 267 CAPs) of the study cities do not have deep decar
bonization pledges in their urban CAPs, while 45% (120 of 267 CAPs) target deep decarbonization (either net-zero or carbon
neutrality) (Supplementary Table 3).
While the extent of deep decarbonization pledges is less encouraging across the sampled cities, significant variations exist in deep
decarbonization pledges among city sizes.
There is a clear case to suggest that megacities are leading the deep decarbonisation agenda. We realised that 67% (6 of 9 CAPs) of
megacities had set net-zero or carbon-neutral targets (Fig. 5). The results further indicated that 56% (81 of 146 CAPs) of smaller cities
are not setting net-zero or carbon-neutrality targets compared to those indicating net-zero or carbon-neutrality targets (44%) (Fig. 5).
Similarly, we discovered that more than half of medium (36 of 63 CAPs) and large cities (27 of 49 CAPs) are not targeting net-zero or
carbon neutrality (Fig. 5).
The existing international binding climate commitment is to halve GHG emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050
Fig. 4. Percentage of urban CAPs that reported or did not report GHG emission reduction targets.
10
Fig. 5. The level of net-zero or carbon-neutrality targets in urban CAPs among city sizes.
(UNFCC, 2015). Nevertheless, initiatives such as the European Commission's 100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities scheme is working
towards achieving carbon neutrality for 100 EU cities (Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2021). The study further analysed proposed
time horizons for cities' deep decarbonization pledges and found that 77% (92 of 120 CAPs) of them seek to achieve their pledges
beyond 2030 (Table 4). The results also show that 23% (28 of 120 CAPs) report achieving their targets between the periods of
2015–2030 (Table 4). As shown in Table 3, all megacities with deep decarbonization targets are aiming to achieve their targets beyond
2030. Again, more than half of small, medium, and large cities have pledged to reach deep decarbonization beyond 2030 (Table 4),
probably between 2031 and 2050.
3.1.5. Baseline GHG emission inventory (BEI) reporting

The next area of analysis was to understand the level of baseline GHG emission inventory (BEI) reporting in the urban CAPs.
Estimating baseline emissions largely provides evidence of the city's emissions sources and influences decision-making on climate
solutions, GHG emission reduction targets and/or deep decarbonization targets (Arioli et al., 2020). This analysis was driven by two
questions: what is the status of BEI reporting in urban CAPs? And what tools/methodologies are cities using to conduct BEI in urban
CAPs? Again, to make a coherent conclusion, this analysis used only mitigation-focused urban CAPs (270 CAPs) from the 278 sampled
urban CAPs. Overall, BEI reporting was significant among mitigation-related CAPs analysed, with 91% (247 out of 270) of the cities
explicitly reporting BEI (Supplementary Table 4).
We further analysed the state of deep decarbonization targets in relation to BEI reporting in urban CAPs. Across city types, the
results showed that most cities with deep decarbonization targets are likely to have BEI reported in their urban CAPs. For instance, 89%
of the 65 small cities with deep decarbonization targets indicated BEI in their urban CAPs (Fig. 6). It is also observed that all mega and
Table 4
Time horizons for achieving deep decarbonization pledges across city sizes.
City size Reported net-zero or carbon Proportion % (reported net-zero or Reported net-zero or Proportion % (reported net-zero Total
neutrality targets between carbon-neutrality targets between carbon neutrality targets or carbon-neutrality targets
2015 and 2030 2015 and 2030) beyond 2030 beyond 2030)
Small Cities 20 31 45 69 65
Medium 7 26 20 74 27
Cities
Large Cities 1 5 21 95 22
Megacities 0 0 6 100 6
Total 28 23 92 77 120
11
large cities with deep decarbonization targets reported BEI in their urban CAPs. Generally, the results suggest that out of the 120 urban
CAPs with deep decarbonization targets, only 9% (11 of 120 CAPs) were not informed by evidence from the city's GHG emission
inventory (Fig. 6).
Moreover, the study discovered that 33% of those that reported BEI did not explicitly state the tool or methodology adopted for the
BEI (Supplementary Table 5). This gap raises concerns about the transparency and clarity of BEI processes in urban CAPs and whether
urban CAPs with such weaknesses (for instance, the exclusion of BEI methodology and tools) can possess strategic decision-making.
Almost half (42%) of small cities that reported BEI in their urban CAPs did not explicitly state the tool or methodology they adop
ted for their inventory. Conversely, 89% (8 of 9 CAPs) of megacities that reported BEI in their urban CAPs explicitly indicated the tool
or methodology used in the inventory process (Supplementary Table 5). Only 1 megacity from this category did not report their BEI
tool or methodology.
In all, we identified that 29 different tools or methodologies had been used to conduct BEIs in the sampled urban CAPs (Table 5).
The most common tool adopted by the sampled cities is the Global Protocol for Community-Scale GHG Emission Inventories (GPC)
(Table 5). The study revealed that the GPC had been used 94 times and at least once for conducting BEI in different urban CAPs across
different regions (Supplementary Table 6).
Cities tend to adopt internal tools or methodologies developed mainly by institutions such as energy and statistical departments (in
the case of the Hamburg Climate Plan). The absence of experts and data occasionally influences cities to develop and adopt internal
frameworks for conducting their BEI. Other internal tools are also based on international approaches, prominently the IPCC GHG
emission inventory guidelines (in the case of the 2050 Seoul Climate Action Plan). Analyses are yet to be done on whether city-
designed internal BEI tools or methodologies are reliable for accurate emission inventories. However, the study found that nine
sampled urban CAPs adopted city-designed internal BEI tools or methodologies (Table 5). Apart from Africa and Latin America, other
regions, including Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania, had at least one city developing and adopting internal BEI tools or
methodology (Supplementary Table 6).
3.2. Compliance with urban climate action planning best practices
Analysis of urban CAPs based on existing best practices paves the way for informed comparison and understanding of the strengths
and weaknesses of urban CAPs. An essential question is whether urban CAPs follow existing climate action planning best practices.
Here, we analyse the extent to which urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022 explicitly consider existing key elements
(co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts) in urban climate action planning. We also analysed the level of alignment between the
sampled urban CAPs and the UN-Habitat Guiding Principles for City Climate Action Planning (also referred to as the Guiding
Principles).
Fig. 6. The level of BEI reporting in relation to deep decarbonization targets across city sizes.
12
Table 5
Tools or methodologies adopted for BEI in sampled urban CAPs.
S/ Name of BEI tool or methodology Number of times BEI tool or methodology was used in the
N sampled urban CAPs (n = 206)
1 Activity-Based GHG Accounting Approach 1

2 Australia National Carbon Offsetting Standard (NCOS) Accounting Principles 1
3 Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Scheme Guidelines and 2
Factors
4 Australia Snapshot Community GHG Climate Tool 1
5 BAAQMD's GHG Plan Level Quantification Guidance 5
6 Bilan Carbone Carbon Assessment Method 1
7 Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI) Framework 3
8 Consumption-Based Emission Inventory (CBEI) Method/Approach 4
9 Covenant of Mayors GHG Inventory Criteria 1
10 European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Baseline Emission Inventory 1
(BEI) Guidelines
11 European CORINAIR 90 Inventory Process 1
12 Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) GHG 3
Accounting Protocol
13 Global Protocol for Community-Scale GHG Emission Inventories (GPC) 94
14 ICLEI Clean Air Climate Protection Software (CACP) 2
15 ICLEI ClearPATH Tool 5
16 International Local Government GHG Emissions 4
Analysis Protocol (IEAP)
17 IPCC GHG Emission Inventory Guidelines 10
18 Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) for Greenhouse Gas Assessments 13
19 Local Partnerships – Local Government Association's Greenhouse Gas Accounting Tool 1
20 City-designed BEI tool or methodology 9
21 SCATTER GHG Inventory Tool 7
22 The Cool Climate Network Carbon Calculator for Households – inventory of household 1
emissions
23 U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 29
(Community Protocol)
24 US Environmental Protection Agency Carbon Footprint Reporting Methodology from 1
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)
25 US Environmental Protection Agency Portfolio Manager 1
26 City Inventory Reporting and Information System (CIRIS) Tool 2
27 Demand-Centred Hybrid Life Cycle Analysis Methodology for conducting city-scale GHG 1
Inventories
28 Sector-Based Emission Inventory Method/Approach 1
29 Climate Action for Urban Sustainability (CURB) Tool GHG Modeling Approach 1
3.2.1. Explicit consideration of co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts in urban CAPs
Mitigation and adaptation actions often result in co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts. These key elements have gained
attention in recent literature, and their explicit consideration in climate planning has been significantly encouraged (IPCC, 2022a;
Sharifi, 2021, 2020). Here, we analysed the extent to which cities have explicitly specified or argued the possibility of achieving co-
benefits and/or synergies from specific actions in their urban CAPs. The study also sought to discover the number of cities explicitly
indicating or discussing the likelihood of encountering trade-offs or conflicts from their planned climate actions. We discovered that
cities emphasise co-benefits or synergies when they mention or discuss exact planned climate actions that will result in co-benefits or
synergies and not the mere mention of co-benefits and synergies as a criterion for prioritizing actions (example from the Accra Climate
Action Plan). This discovery was used for this analysis as an explicit consideration of co-benefits and synergies.
While cities are likely to cite and focus on actions that will result in co-benefits and synergies in their urban CAPs, it is mostly
impossible for most cities to prioritize actions that will result in trade-offs or conflicts. The content analysis reveals that there are two
levels in the explicit consideration of trade-offs and conflicts. We noticed that cities largely discuss possible trade-offs or conflicts and
Table 6
Examples of explicit consideration of co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts in sampled urban CAPs.
Name of CAP Type of key Example as used in the urban CAP
element
Mumbai Climate Action Plan Co-benefits Increasing vegetation cover will reduce heat and flood risk, increase permeable surfaces in the city,
serves as carbon sinks, and secure other co-benefits in terms of health and air quality
Territorial Climate Energy Plan of Synergies Promoting energy efficiency of buildings and operational improvements of buildings reduce energy
Dakar (2021–2025) consumption and GHG emissions whiles improving network resilience in extreme heat events
City of Columbia Climate Action and Conflicts Promoting infill development for affordable housing needs conflicts with developing green and natural
Adaptation Plan areas since natural areas will be reduced in the effort to promote infill development
City of Darwin Emergency Strategy Trade-offs Maintaining a thriving urban forest and greenspace requires significant amounts of water, resulting in
a trade-off between water conservation projects and urban forest and greenspace projects.
13
use them as criteria for plan development and climate action prioritization (level 1) (example from the Addis Ababa Climate Action
Plan). This means that climate actions that are likely to result in trade-offs or conflicts may not be prioritized in the urban CAP.
Alternatively, other cities tend to discuss potential trade-offs or conflicts that may arise from already prioritized actions and identify
proposed solutions to minimize the trade-offs or conflicts (level 2) (example from Da Nang City Climate Action Plan). Consequently,
this paper included these levels as explicit considerations of trade-offs and conflicts in urban CAPs. Table 6 presents examples of co-
benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts as considered in the sampled urban CAPs.
Results show that over half (63%) of the sampled cities did not explicitly consider co-benefits in their urban CAPs (Table 7).
However, explicit consideration of co-benefits in the sampled urban CAPs appears higher (37%) than the explicit consideration of other
key elements (Table 7). About 35% of the sampled small cities explicitly considered co-benefits, while 65% of them did not explicitly
consider co-benefits (Fig. 7). The study further reveals that over 50% of small, medium, large, and megacities sampled did not
explicitly consider co-benefits in their urban CAPs (Fig. 7).
We also realised that the explicit consideration of trade-offs and conflicts is extremely low among the urban CAPs analysed. Table 7
depicts that only 2% of the cities explicitly emphasized trade-offs in their urban CAPs. Again, only 2% of the sampled urban CAPs
explicitly considered conflicts (Table 7).
The analysis also showed that almost all urban CAPs from small and medium cities did not explicitly consider synergies, trade-offs,
and conflicts in their urban CAPs (Fig. 7). Only 14% (7 CAPs of 49 CAPs) of large cities had explicitly considered possible synergies in
implementing mitigation and adaptation actions (Fig. 7). Strikingly, of the nine urban CAPs from megacities analysed, none of them
considered synergies, trade-offs, or conflicts in their urban CAPs (Fig. 7). Moreover, the content analysis discovered limited existence
of possible solutions to curb trade-offs and conflicts when implementing actions or measures indicated in the urban CAPs, thus raising
concerns if cities are well-positioned for the challenges that may arise from implementing proposed climate actions.
Further, of the 266 urban CAPs that are targeted towards achieving both mitigation and adaptation objectives, 41% explicitly
considered co-benefits, while 59% did not explicitly co-benefits (Fig. 8a). The study also revealed that about a quarter of 44 mitigation-
only plans explicitly considered co-benefits (Fig. 8a). On the other hand, almost none of the eight adaptation-only plans explicitly
considered co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, or conflicts (Fig. 8a & Fig. 8b). Likewise, almost all the 44 mitigation-only plans did not
explicitly consider synergies, trade-offs, or conflicts (Fig. 8b, Fig. 8c & Fig. 8d). The results also indicate that urban CAPs targeting at
both mitigation and adaptation are likely to explicitly consider co-benefits than synergies (Fig. 8a & Fig. 8b). At the same time, they are
likely to explicitly discuss or consider trade-offs than conflicts (Fig. 8c & Fig. 8d).
3.2.2. Compliance with UN-habitat guiding principles for city climate action planning
The Guiding Principles include essential elements for analysing the content and structure of urban CAPs. Here, it has been adopted
to analyse how the content and structure of urban CAPs align with its elements. Urban climate action planning. The Guiding Principles
admonishes cities to set ambitious visions (ambitious), involve multiple urban stakeholders and local actors in urban climate action
planning(inclusive), promote equitable climate solutions (fair), undertake adaptation and mitigation actions across a range of sectors
(comprehensive) and mainstream climate actions (integrated) (UN-Habitat, 2015). It also recommends the provision of context-based
local climate solutions and priorities (relevant), feasible, cost-effective climate actions (actionable), evidence-based climate action
planning, and the adoption of an open decision-making process to set goals that can be measured, reported, monitored, and evaluated
(transparent and verified).
Two underlying questions guide this analysis: Do urban CAPs explicitly align with all elements of the Guiding Principles? And what
factors influence inconsistencies between urban CAPs and the Guiding Principles? The content analysis identified five common areas of
non-alignment between the sampled urban CAPs and the tenets of the Guiding Principles. It was found that the content and structure of
52% (144 of 278) of urban CAPs adopted or published since 2015 are consistent with at least one element of the Guiding Principles
(Supplementary Table 7). However, almost half (48%) of the sampled urban CAPs were found to be inconsistent with at least one of the
elements of the Guiding Principles (Supplementary Table 7). Fig. 9 illustrates the most common areas of non-alignment of urban CAPs
with the Guiding Principles.
The most common area for urban CAPs' inconsistency with the Guiding Principles is the lack of inclusiveness (Fig. 9). The analysis
revealed that an urban CAP could be inconsistent with one or more of the elements of the Guiding Principles. The results show that 20%
(55 of 278) of the total sampled urban CAPs lack inclusiveness (Fig. 9). The next inconsistency was found in the area of transparency and
verification (Fig. 9). The findings indicate that 18% (50 of the 278 urban CAPs) of the urban CAPs lack transparency and cannot be
independently verified (Fig. 8). Again, 15% (41 of 278 CAPs) of the plans analysed were not evidence-based. Finally, we realised that
13% (35 of 278 CAPs) of the plans were not comprehensive, and 12% (34 of 278 CAPs) were not integrated (Fig. 9). Table 8 presents the
common areas that have resulted in the non-alignment of urban CAPs to the Guiding Principles.
It can be seen that extensive stakeholder involvement in urban CAP planning is not explicitly indicated in the sampled urban CAPs.
Extensive stakeholder involvement may include the participation of the community, vulnerable groups, youths, and students. We also
Table 7
The extent of explicit consideration of co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflict in sampled urban CAPs. Numbers outside the parenthesis are the
number of urban CAPs and their extent of consideration. The percentage of the total number of urban CAPs is shown inside the parenthesis.
Extent of consideration Co-benefits Synergies Trade-offs Conflict
Explicitly considered 104 (37%) 12 (4%) 6 (2%) 6 (2%)

Not explicitly considered 174 (63%) 266 (96%) 272 (98%) 272 (97%)
14
Fig. 7. Share of explicit consideration of co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts in urban CAPs disaggregated by city types.
discovered that, even when stakeholders are mentioned, their roles in the planning process were not highlighted in the urban CAPs
(Table 8). Additionally, the cities were found to be setting goals, targets, or objectives that were not SMART (Table 8). For instance, we
recognised that targets such as the planting of trees did not come with the number and species of trees to be planted and the period to
plant those trees. Also, targets, including the promotion of electric bicycle use, largely did not accompany the percentage of the
population targeted for the initiative and the timelines to achieve the target. The content analysis further confirmed that the inability
to set SMART targets is mostly due to cities not conducting extensive research to inform general target setting, which is also seen as a
common area in the non-alignment audit (Table 8). The non-integration and incomprehensiveness of the urban CAPs were found to
emanate from cities' inability to include different actors, departments, and agencies in the planning process to ensure that proposed
climate solutions are mainstreamed in local cross-sectoral plans and policies, backed by local or national regulatory frameworks to
achieve wider benefits (Table 8).
The study also shows that about 78% of urban CAPs with both mitigation and adaptation actions are not inclusive (Fig. 8). This
result may also span from the fact that the majority of the sampled urban CAPs are geared towards achieving both mitigation and
adaptation objectives. However, we found that 47% of the only-mitigation-focused urban CAPs are not integrated compared to 44% of
plans that achieves both mitigation and adaptation (Fig. 8). Remarkably, the findings depict that all the seven adaptation-only urban
CAPs that were analysed were influenced by resilience/vulnerability assessments (evidence-based) (Fig. 8).
4. Discussion
Urban CAPs are necessary to achieve local and global climate goals. Scrutinizing existing urban CAPs can help to ascertain their
relevance and quality in addressing climate change(Tiepolo, 2017). Previous studies have analysed the content and structure of urban
CAPs across different geographical scopes (Eisenack and Roggero, 2022; Fiack et al., 2021a; Frantzeskaki and Bush, 2021; Hsu et al.,
2020; Reckien et al., 2018a; Salvia et al., 2021; Sheehan et al., 2021; Swanson, 2021; Wei et al., 2021). Others have proposed
considering emerging key elements (such as co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts) in urban climate action planning(Grafakos
et al., 2020, 2019; Juhola et al., 2013; Landauer et al., 2019; Sharifi, 2021, 2020). Particularly, elements in the UN-Habitat Guiding
Principles for City Climate Action Planning have been immensely recommended for urban climate action planning(Linton et al., 2022;
15
Fig. 8. Percentage of urban CAPs' climate action focus in relation to (a) co-benefits (b) synergies (c) trade-offs (d) conflicts.
UN-Habitat, 2018, 2015). Our study extends the analysis and presents a global perspective on the content and structure of urban CAPs
and the extent to which urban CAPs align with selected climate action planning best practices. A critical analysis of the content and
structure of urban CAPs across a taxonomy and typology of cities will provide additional insights for local climate decision-making and
the development of more robust climate planning frameworks.
16
Fig. 9. The most common areas of non-alignment with UN-Habitat Guiding Principles for City Climate Action Planning.
Table 8
Common factors influencing non-alignment with the Guiding Principles.
Common areas of non- Common factors influencing non-alignment
alignment
Inclusiveness • Failure to explicitly indicate extensive stakeholder (particularly marginalized groups and students) inclusion in
the planning stage.
• Failure to highlight stakeholder roles in developing the plans.
Transparency and
verification
• The absence of specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound (SMART) goals, targets (including
emission reduction and sectoral targets), or objectives
• The absence of explicit monitoring and evaluation frameworks with measurable indicators and reporting plans
Evidence-based • No explicit scientific knowledge to inform mitigation (emission inventory) and/or
• Absence of resilience/vulnerability assessments
• Absence of research or surveys to inform planning and target setting
Comprehensive • Urban CAPs do not significantly undertake mitigation or adaptation actions and measures across various sectors
Integrated • Lacks mainstreaming of city climate actions with other local, national and regional initiatives or regulatory
frameworks
4.1. The content and structure of urban CAPs from 2015 to 2022
There have been variations in the adoption or publication of urban CAPs since the release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5) in 2014. Notably, 2020, the year of the COVID-19 global lockdowns (Sandford, 2020), recorded a significant increase in the
number of urban CAPs adopted or published. The pandemic may have alerted cities to the significance of tackling climate change
(Sharifi, 2022). Cities strategically leveraged social media and teleconferencing platforms to adopt or publish urban CAPs during this
period. The adoption of digital platforms coincided with when the UNFCCC Secretariat organised its 17th meeting of the Adaptation
Committee and 11th meeting of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage via tele
conferencing platforms (Calliari et al., 2020). The adoption or publication of local climate plans since 2015 has focused mainly on
achieving integrated mitigation and adaptation. Our result reflects a shift in the development of local climate plans – a transition from
primarily mitigation-only climate plans pre-COP 21(Lioubimtseva and da Cunha, 2020; Obergassel et al., 2015) towards achieving
both mitigation and adaptation benefits across cities in developed and developing countries. This result also shows that most cities,
including those from Africa and Latin America, plan to invest in actions or measures that align with the Paris goals (UNFCC, 2015). It
also reveals that the climate actions published or adopted by most cities from 2015 to 2022 are in tandem with the principles of the
17
New Urban Agenda (UN, 2017).

The results of this study reveal that the transport sector is the most focused sector in urban CAPs published or adopted from 2015 to
2022. Previous studies have indicated varied sources of GHG emissions for different cities (Hsu et al., 2020; Li et al., 2018; Sun et al.,
2021). (Wei et al., 2021), however, revealed that the energy sector is the most GHG-emitting sector in urban areas. Literature pre-
supposes that cities will likely pay more attention to high-emitting sectors for significant GHG-emission reduction (Sun et al.,
2021). The results of this study tend to be inconsistent with this assertion since most of the sampled cities appear to focus on the
transport sector. Remarkably, a recent IPCC report has shown that the annual growth in GHG emissions from the transport sector
increased at a faster rate between 2010 and 2019 compared to other sectors (IPCC, 2022a). This report could explain why most cities
have focused on the transport sector in their urban CAPs since 2015. Also, the sampled cities are more likely to focus on sectors that
reduce GHG emissions, as our study reveals strong linkages between transport and energy, transport and waste, and energy and waste.
There is also much deal about integrating climate equity or justice in urban CAPs. The findings show that the concern for climate
equity or justice in the urban CAPs is low compared to other sectors. Nevertheless, climate equity is more geared towards adaptation
objectives than mitigation objectives. The global scenario of this finding is not well-known in the literature. However, a study by (Chu
and Cannon, 2021; Fiack et al., 2021b) shows that cities in the US are more likely to include climate equity or justice in their climate
adaptation plans. Also, European cities strive to reduce climate injustice in their adaptation plans (Yang et al., 2021). On the other
hand, (Lioubimtseva and da Cunha, 2020) concluded that there is a narrow focus on climate equity and justice in climate adaptation
plans from small and medium cities in the US and France. The economy sector for promoting green jobs, green and low-carbon
technologies, green economy, and green finance has been given relatively less attention. It is asserted (Dell'Anna, 2021) and
confirmed by this study that this sector is considered chiefly for climate mitigation.
A vast number of urban CAPs studied have GHG emission reduction targets. Yet, almost all of them are not targeting a specific type
of GHG emissions. Only 2% of the sampled cities indicated that they target CO2 emission reduction. While most sampled megacities set
deep decarbonisation targets, our results suggest that similar commitments are inadequate for urban CAPs from small, medium, and
large cities. This finding may threaten the pursuit to close the global emission gap towards achieving the Paris goals. Since small,
medium and large cities constitute the majority of urban areas worldwide, this result agrees with the notion that enough is not being
done to limit global warming to 1.5 ◦ C by 2030 (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2022). Although comparatively
small, less than a quarter of the sampled cities have early (2015–2030) deep decarbonisation targets, with most being small and
medium cities.
Importantly, we observed that BEI informs the development of most existing mitigation-related urban CAPs. This finding is sig
nificant since BEI influences decisions on developing, implementing, and tracking climate actions, particularly with mitigation actions
(Arioli et al., 2020). The evidence also suggests that most cities with deep decarbonisation targets are more likely to report BEI in their
urban CAPs. The sampled cities have so far adopted about 29 different tools or methodologies for BEI, with at least one city in all world
regions adopting the Global Protocol for Community-Scale GHG Emission Inventories (GPC). The tools and methodologies identified in
this study offer more options for conducting GHG emission inventory in future urban climate action planning. Some sampled cities
from Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania have adopted internal tools or methodologies for BEI based on IPCC Guidelines. A
systematic literature review by (Arioli et al., 2020) shows that internally adopted tools or methodologies (own framework) have been
adopted to conduct city-scale BEI from 1999 to 2019. However, the literature's analysis of the effectiveness of internally adopted tools
or methodologies for BEI remains unclear. We realised a gap between urban CAPs with BEI and the indication of BEI tools or meth
odologies in such urban CAPs. More than one-quarter of cities that reported BEI did not explicitly indicate the tools or methodologies
adopted. It is more significant for cities to explicitly report their BEI tools or methodologies to enhance the robustness of their BEI
(Arioli et al., 2020).
4.2. Compliance with urban climate action planning best practices
We learnt that most cities sampled are considering co-benefits compared to synergies in their urban CAPs. The non-consideration of
synergies may lead to the loss of greater benefits from the concurrent implementation of two or more climate actions or measures
(Sharifi, 2020). There are two levels at which cities explicitly consider trade-offs or conflicts in their urban CAPs. First, cities include
possible trade-offs or conflicts and use them as criteria for plan development and climate action prioritization. Second, they discuss or
mention potential trade-offs or conflicts that may arise from already prioritized actions and propose solutions to minimize them. The
rate of explicit consideration of trade-offs and conflicts is very significantly lower among the sampled cities. This result is crucial since
the non-consideration of possible trade-offs and conflicts in local climate action planning tends to result in implementing actions that
are inconsistent with each other, resulting in unintended negative outcomes (Sharifi, 2020). Another notable finding that demands
consideration is the increased non-consideration of synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts among small, medium, large, and megacities. In
fact, none of the nine megacities considered synergies, trade-offs, or conflicts. These situations are likely to arise from knowledge gaps
in both research and practice regarding how decisions are made between mitigation and adaptation actions and the kinds of co-
benefits, synergies, trade-offs, or conflicts that may occur between them (Juhola et al., 2013; Landauer et al., 2019). Apart from
cities that have plans for both adaptation and mitigation objectives, other cities are more likely to explicitly consider co-benefits in
mitigation-only plans than in adaptation-only plans. In contrast, we observe that cities are more likely to explicitly consider conflicts in
adaptation-only plans than in mitigation-only plans. This finding may be informed by the fact that conflicts are more likely to arise
between adaptation actions compared to mitigation actions (Berry et al., 2015).
Our next observation on compliance with best practices shows that the majority of the sampled urban CAPs align with elements in
the Guiding Principles. Unfortunately, the content and structure of almost half of the urban CAPs are inconsistent with at least one of
18
the elements of the Guiding Principles. A keen look at the contents of sampled urban CAPs revealed that the engagement of inter
national climate initiatives such as C40 and ICLEI in developing climate plans for certain cities from the Global South (C40 for Accra,
Lagos, Buenos Aires, and ICLEI for Recife) highly influenced their adherence to the best practices. Lack of inclusiveness, transparency
and verification, evidence-based climate planning, comprehensiveness, and integration were the most common areas of non-
alignment. Similar shortcomings were found by (Lioubimtseva and da Cunha, 2020) in their analysis of climate adaptation plans
from the US and France.
4.3. Limitations of the study
Our study has limitations in the scope of the sampled cities. This limits the generalisation of the findings even though it presents a
global perspective of the content and structure of urban CAPs. It also expands the scope of analysis as compared to previous studies. A
study that is not limited to only English-adopted or published urban CAPs may have produced different results. Expanding the study to
include other non-English urban CAPs adopted or published since 2015 is imperative in future research of this nature to ensure
increased generalisation. Also, our definition of deep decarbonisation was not time-bound. It was a synthesis of how various reports
and scholarly literature have defined deep decarbonisation. Another deep decarbonisation analysis considering the 80 × 50 (reducing
GHG emissions by 80% - 100% by 2050 or sooner) rule may reveal different results. Our analysis of co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs or
conflicts, and elements in the Guiding Principles is very subjective since we rely on the level at which the element was explicitly
mentioned or discussed in the urban CAPs, and no input from city officials was involved.
5. Conclusion
This study analysed the content and structure of 278 urban CAPs adopted or published from 2015 to 2022. The extent to which the
content and structure of the sampled urban CAPs align with climate action planning best practices was also analysed. The research adds
to existing analyses of the content and structure of urban CAPs. Again, by examining the content and structure of urban CAPs, we
highlight lessons on the extent to which local climate planning is coherent with best practices, an evidence key for developing future
CAPs and climate planning frameworks.
The results show that the adoption or publication of urban CAPs has evolved since the release of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report.
Since 2015, more cities, including those from the Global South, are targeting climate objectives that are in line with the main goals of
the Paris Agreement. However, our results raise concerns about the actual realisation of these objectives and the impact they will have
on vulnerable groups. We realised that most cities are not incorporating elements of climate equity or climate justice in their urban
CAPs. The results also revealed limited efforts of certain cities in championing inclusiveness (including extensive stakeholder en
gagements) in climate action planning. These gaps must be critically re-looked in future climate action planning endeavours to
augment efforts in reducing vulnerability, and increasing urban resilience, whiles leaving no one behind. Additionally, we encourage
future research to critically ascertain the degree to which the non-consideration of these key elements may impact efforts in achieving
urban climate objectives. The campaign for deep decarbonization must be intensified and appropriately integrated into future climate
plans and policies across various cities and regions since our results revealed limited efforts by most cities, particularly large, medium,
and small cities, to achieve deep decarbonization. Cities adopt various kinds of BEI approaches, with 29 different methodologies and
tools documented in this study. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of these methodologies and tools in generating a scientific and robust
emission inventory that can inform evidence-based climate action planning is yet to be known. Future research is encouraged to give
attention to this gap towards developing standardized and context-based emission inventories.
The importance of achieving multiple benefits from the implementation of climate actions cannot be over-emphasized. Yet, the
evidence in this study shows that more cities, as it stands, do not consider individual actions that achieve co-benefits and synergies in
their CAPs. While most cities are planning towards integrated climate actions, our results reveal that discussions on how these inte
grated climate actions are likely to generate trade-offs and conflicts in the medium to long term have been extremely low. Main
streaming urban climate actions with other regional and national plans, policies, and frameworks needs to be prioritized to maximise
co-benefits and synergies in climate actions. Cities are considering co-benefits in mitigation-only plans than in adaptation-only plans.
While the practice should fundamentally focus on achieving multiple benefits from both mitigation and adaptation, co-benefits from
mitigation plans may largely result in additional regional, national, and local benefits, such as improved individual and public health
through increased air quality and active transportation, energy security, and reduced energy poverty.
Consequently, greater efforts are required, in practice, to extensively consider trade-offs and conflicts in climate action planning to
limit unintended negative outcomes from the implementation of climate mitigation and adaptation actions. In addition, mechanisms
that provide evidence-based scientific knowledge and assessments in climate action planning should be prioritized in future climate
action planning. This effort is likely to result in producing cross-cutting local information and concerns that may inform compre
hensive, transparent, and independently verified plans, which were inadequate in this study. Despite the existence of various climate
action planning frameworks and guiding tools from literature and international climate networks such as C40s, ICLEI, and UN-Habitat,
lessons gained from this study gives a signal of inconsistencies in the content and structure of existing urban CAPs in relation to
standardized forms of climate action planning. Thus, an integrated and comprehensive climate action planning framework that allows
cities to incorporate best practices and emerging climate action planning elements is needed to provide significant improvements in
future urban climate action planning.
19
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101550.
References
Allam, Z., Bibri, S.E., Chabaud, D., Moreno, C., 2022. The ‘15-Minute City’ concept can shape a net-zero urban future. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. https://doi.org/
10.1057/s41599-022-01145-0.
Arioli, M.S., de A D’Agosto, M., Amaral, F.G., Cybis, H.B.B., 2020. The evolution of city-scale GHG emissions inventory methods: a systematic review. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106316.
Berry, P.M., Brown, S., Chen, M., Kontogianni, A., Rowlands, O., Simpson, G., Skourtos, M., 2015. Cross-sectoral interactions of adaptation and mitigation measures.
Clim. Chang. 128, 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1214-0.
C40 Cities, 2022. About C40 cities. https://www.c40.org/about-c40/ (Accessed: 9 October 2022).
Calliari, E., Mysiak, J., Vanhala, L., 2020. A digital climate summit to maintain Paris agreement ambition. Nat. Clim. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-
0794-0.
Carbon Brief, 2022. UNEP: Meeting global climate goals now requires ‘rapid transformation of societies’ - Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/unep-meeting-
global-climate-goals-now-requires-rapid-transformation-of-societies/ (Accessed: 4th November 2022).
CDP, 2020. The Co-benefits of climate action: Accelerating city-level ambition. https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/reports/documents/000/005/329/original/
CDP_Co-benefits_analysis.pdf?1597235231 (Accessed: 01st March 2023).
CDP, 2022. CDP-ICLEI Track helps local governments and their cities report their environmental activities, track progress, understand their impact and take action.
https://www.cdp.net/en/cities (Accessed: 9th October 2022).
Chu, E.K., Cannon, C.E., 2021. Equity, inclusion, and justice as criteria for decision-making on climate adaptation in cities. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.02.009.
Dasgupta, A., 2015. COP21 highlights importance of city actions in the climate fight. https://www.wri.org/insights/cop21-highlights-importance-city-actions-
climate-fight (accessed 2.26.23).
Deetjen, T.A., Conger, J.P., Leibowicz, B.D., Webber, M.E., 2018. Review of climate action plans in 29 major U.S. cities: comparing current policies to research
recommendations. Sustain. Cities Soc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.06.023.
Dell’Anna, F., 2021. Green jobs and energy efficiency as strategies for economic growth and the reduction of environmental impacts. Energy Policy 149. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112031.
Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2021. 100 Climate Neutral Cities in Europe by 2030: Informal harvest of 34 sessions organised on 14 & 21 June 2021. https://
prod5.assets-cdn.io/event/6402/assets/8367088703-f288e83dbf.pdf (accessed 2.16.23).
Eisenack, K., Roggero, M., 2022. Many roads to Paris: explaining urban climate action in 885 European cities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 72 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2021.102439.
Elgendy, K., 2021. Carbon neutral cities: can we fight climate change without them? https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/carbon-neutral-cities-can-we-fight-climate-
change-without-them/ (Accessed: 4th November 2022).
Fiack, D., Cumberbatch, J., Sutherland, M., Zerphey, N., 2021a. Sustainable adaptation: social equity and local climate adaptation planning in U.S. cities. Cities 115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103235.
Fiack, D., Cumberbatch, J., Sutherland, M., Zerphey, N., 2021b. Sustainable adaptation: social equity and local climate adaptation planning in U.S. cities. Cities 115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103235.
Frantzeskaki, N., Bush, J., 2021. Governance of nature-based solutions through intermediaries for urban transitions – a case study from Melbourne, Australia. Urban
For. Urban Green. 64 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127262.
Global Covenant of Mayors (GCoM), 2022. Who We Are - Global Covenant of Mayors. https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/who-we-are/ (Accessed: 9th October
2022).
Grafakos, S., Trigg, K., Landauer, M., Chelleri, L., Dhakal, S., 2019. Analytical framework to evaluate the level of integration of climate adaptation and mitigation in
cities. Clim. Chang. 154, 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02394-w.
Grafakos, S., Viero, G., Reckien, D., Trigg, K., Viguie, V., Sudmant, A., Graves, C., Foley, A., Heidrich, O., Mirailles, J.M., Carter, J., Chang, L.H., Nador, C., Liseri, M.,
Chelleri, L., Orru, H., Orru, K., Aelenei, R., Bilska, A., Pfeiffer, B., Lepetit, Q., Church, J.M., Landauer, M., Gouldson, A., Dawson, R., 2020. Integration of
mitigation and adaptation in urban climate change action plans in Europe: a systematic assessment. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2019.109623.
Gu, D., 2019. Population Division Exposure and Vulnerability to Natural Disasters for World’s Cities*.
Guo, Y.M., Huang, Z.L., Guo, J., Li, H., Guo, X.R., Nkeli, M.J., 2019. Bibliometric analysis on smart cities research. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11133606.
Heidrich, O., Reckien, D., Olazabal, M., Foley, A., Salvia, M., de Gregorio Hurtado, S., Orru, H., Flacke, J., Geneletti, D., Pietrapertosa, F., Hamann, J.J.P., Tiwary, A.,
Feliu, E., Dawson, R.J., 2016. National climate policies across Europe and their impacts on cities strategies. J. Environ. Manag. 168, 36–45. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.043.
Hsu, A., Tan, J., Ng, Y.M., Toh, W., Vanda, R., Goyal, N., 2020. Performance determinants show European cities are delivering on climate mitigation. Nat. Clim.
Chang. 10, 1015–1022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0879-9.
IPCC, 2014a. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Josef Settele. Alistair Woodward, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge and New York.
IPCC, 2014b. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland.
20
IPCC, 2022a. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.001.
IPCC, 2022b. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Morgan Wairiu, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.001.
Jan van Eck, N., Waltman, L., 2022. VOSviewer Manual.
Juhola, S., Driscoll, P., Mendler de Suarez, J., Suarez, P., 2013. Social strategy games in communicating trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation in cities. Urban
Clim. 4, 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.04.003.
Kumar, P., 2021. Climate change and cities: challenges ahead. Front. Sustain. Cities 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.645613.
Lamb, W.F., Creutzig, F., Callaghan, M.W., Minx, J.C., 2019. Learning about urban climate solutions from case studies. Nat. Clim. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41558-019-0440-x.
Landauer, M., Juhola, S., Klein, J., 2019. The role of scale in integrating climate change adaptation and mitigation in cities. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 62, 741–765.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1430022.
Li, J.S., Zhou, H.W., Meng, J., Yang, Q., Chen, B., Zhang, Y.Y., 2018. Carbon emissions and their drivers for a typical urban economy from multiple perspectives: a case
analysis for Beijing city. Appl. Energy 226, 1076–1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.004.
Linton, S., Clarke, A., Tozer, L., 2021. Strategies and governance for implementing deep decarbonization plans at the local level. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010154.
Linton, S., Clarke, A., Tozer, L., 2022. Technical pathways to deep decarbonization in cities: eight best practice case studies of transformational climate mitigation.
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 86 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102422.
Lioubimtseva, E., da Cunha, C., 2020. Local climate change adaptation plans in the US and France: comparison and lessons learned in 2007-2017. Urban Clim. 31
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2019.100577.
Mills-Novoa, M., Liverman, D.M., 2019. Nationally determined contributions: material climate commitments and discursive positioning in the NDCs. Wiley
Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 10 https://doi.org/10.1002/WCC.589.
Monteiro, A., Ankrah, J., Madureira, H., Pacheco, M.O., 2022. Climate risk mitigation and adaptation concerns in urban areas: a systematic review of the impact of
IPCC assessment reports. Climate. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli10080115.
Obergassel, W., Arens, C., Hermwille, L., Kreibich, N., Mersmann, F., Ott, H.E., Wang-Helmreich, H., 2015. Phoenix from the ashes: an analysis of the Paris Agreement
to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change-Part I, pp. 243–262.
Olazabal, M., Ruiz De Gopegui, M., 2021. Adaptation planning in large cities is unlikely to be effective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 206 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2020.103974.
Pietrapertosa, F., Salvia, M., de Gregorio Hurtado, S., D’Alonzo, V., Church, J.M., Geneletti, D., Musco, F., Reckien, D., 2019. Urban climate change mitigation and
adaptation planning: are Italian cities ready? Cities 91, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.11.009.
Quéré, C., Andrew, R., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Hauck, J., Pongratz, J., Pickers, P., Ivar Korsbakken, J., Peters, G., Canadell, J., Arneth, A., Arora, V., Barbero, L.,
Bastos, A., Bopp, L., Ciais, P., Chini, L., Ciais, P., Doney, S., Gkritzalis, T., Goll, D., Harris, I., Haverd, V., Hoffman, F., Hoppema, M., Houghton, R., Hurtt, G.,
Ilyina, T., Jain, A., Johannessen, T., Jones, C., Kato, E., Keeling, R., Klein Goldewijk, K., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lienert, S., Liu, Z., Lombardozzi, D.,
Metzl, N., Munro, D., Nabel, J., Nakaoka, S.I., Neill, C., Olsen, A., Ono, T., Patra, P., Peregon, A., Peters, W., Peylin, P., Pfeil, B., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G.,
Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rocher, M., Rödenbeck, C., Schuster, U., Skjelvan, I., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff, T., Sutton, A., Tans, P., Tian, H.,
Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F., van der Laan-Luijkx, I., van der Werf, G., Viovy, N., Walker, A., Wiltshire, A., Wright, R., Zaehle, S., Zheng, B., 2018. Global Carbon
Budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2141–2194. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018.
Rebecca, H., 2020. U.S. Leaving Paris Climate Agreement: NPR. U.S. Officially Leaving Paris Climate Agreement. https://www.npr.org/2020/11/03/930312701/u-s-
officially-leaving-paris-climate-agreement (accessed 2.18.23).
Reckien, D., Flacke, J., Dawson, R.J., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, M., Foley, A., Hamann, J.J.P., Orru, H., Salvia, M., de Gregorio Hurtado, S., Geneletti, D.,
Pietrapertosa, F., 2014. Climate change response in Europe: What’s the reality? Analysis of adaptation and mitigation plans from 200 urban areas in 11 countries.
Clim. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0989-8.
Reckien, D., Salvia, M., Heidrich, O., Church, J.M., Pietrapertosa, F., de Gregorio-Hurtado, S., D’Alonzo, V., Foley, A., Simoes, S.G., Krkoška Lorencová, E., Orru, H.,
Orru, K., Wejs, A., Flacke, J., Olazabal, M., Geneletti, D., Feliu, E., Vasilie, S., Nador, C., Krook-Riekkola, A., Matosović, M., Fokaides, P.A., Ioannou, B.I.,
Flamos, A., Spyridaki, N.A., Balzan, M.V., Fülöp, O., Paspaldzhiev, I., Grafakos, S., Dawson, R., 2018a. How are cities planning to respond to climate change?
Assessment of local climate plans from 885 cities in the EU-28. J. Clean. Prod. 191, 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.220.
Reckien, D., Salvia, M., Heidrich, O., Church, J.M., Pietrapertosa, F., de Gregorio-Hurtado, S., D’Alonzo, V., Foley, A., Simoes, S.G., Krkoška Lorencová, E., Orru, H.,
Orru, K., Wejs, A., Flacke, J., Olazabal, M., Geneletti, D., Feliu, E., Vasilie, S., Nador, C., Krook-Riekkola, A., Matosović, M., Fokaides, P.A., Ioannou, B.I.,
Flamos, A., Spyridaki, N.A., Balzan, M.V., Fülöp, O., Paspaldzhiev, I., Grafakos, S., Dawson, R., 2018b. How are cities planning to respond to climate change?
Assessment of local climate plans from 885 cities in the EU-28. J. Clean. Prod. 191, 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.220.
Salvia, M., Reckien, D., Pietrapertosa, F., Eckersley, P., Spyridaki, N.A., Krook-Riekkola, A., Olazabal, M., de Gregorio Hurtado, S., Simoes, S.G., Geneletti, D.,
Viguié, V., Fokaides, P.A., Ioannou, B.I., Flamos, A., Csete, M.S., Buzasi, A., Orru, H., de Boer, C., Foley, A., Rižnar, K., Matosović, M., Balzan, M.V., Smigaj, M.,
Baštáková, V., Streberova, E., Šel, N.B., Coste, L., Tardieu, L., Altenburg, C., Lorencová, E.K., Orru, K., Wejs, A., Feliu, E., Church, J.M., Grafakos, S., Vasilie, S.,
Paspaldzhiev, I., Heidrich, O., 2021. Will climate mitigation ambitions lead to carbon neutrality? An analysis of the local-level plans of 327 cities in the EU.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 135 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110253.
Sandford, A., 2020. Coronavirus: Half of Humanity Now on Lockdown as 90 Countries Call for Confinement. Euronews. https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/02/
coronavirus-in-europe-spain-s-death-toll-hits-10-000-after-record-950-new-deaths-in-24-hou (Accessed: 2nd November 2022).
Science Based Targets Initiative, 2021. Corporate Net-Zero Standard.
Seto, K.C., Churkina, G., Hsu, A., Keller, M., Newman, P.W.G., Qin, B., Ramaswami, A., 2021. Annual Review of Environment and Resources From Low-to Net-Zero
Carbon Cities: The Next Global Agenda. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-050120.
Shan, Y., Fang, S., Cai, B., Zhou, Y., Li, D., Feng, K., Hubacek, K., 2021. Chinese cities exhibit varying degrees of decoupling of economic growth and CO2 emissions
between 2005 and 2015. One Earth 4, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.004.
Sharifi, A., 2020. Trade-offs and conflicts between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122813.
Sharifi, A., 2021. Co-benefits and synergies between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: a literature review. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141642.
Sharifi, A., 2022. An overview and thematic analysis of research on cities and the COVID-19 pandemic: Toward just, resilient, and sustainable urban planning and
design. Iscience 25 (11), 105297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105297.
Sharifi, A., Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R., Allam, Z., Asadzadeh, A., 2023. Progress and prospects in planning: A bibliometric review of literature in Urban Studies and
Regional and Urban Planning, 1956–2022. Progress in Planning 100740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2023.100740.
Sheehan, M.C., Freire, M., Martinez, G.S., 2021. Piloting a city health adaptation typology with data from climate-engaged cities: toward identification of an urban
health adaptation gap. Environ. Res. 196 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110435.
Simple Maps, 2022. World Cities Database. Simplemaps.com. https://simplemaps.com/data/world-cities (Accessed 1st December 2022).
Singh, C., Madhavan, M., Arvind, J., Bazaz, A., 2021. Climate change adaptation in Indian cities: a review of existing actions and spaces for triple wins. Urban Clim. 36
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100783.
Suckall, N., Tompkins, E., Stringer, L., 2014. Identifying trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation and development in community responses to climate and socio-
economic stresses: evidence from Zanzibar, Tanzania. Appl. Geogr. 46, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.005.
Sun, L., Liu, W., Li, Z., Cai, B., Fujii, M., Luo, X., Chen, W., Geng, Y., Fujita, T., Le, Y., 2021. Spatial and structural characteristics of CO2 emissions in east Asian
megacities and its indication for low-carbon city development. Appl. Energy 284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116400.
21
Swanson, K., 2021. Equity in urban climate change adaptation planning: a review of research. Urban Plan. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i4.4399.
Tiepolo, M., 2017. Relevance and quality of climate planning for large and medium-sized cities of the tropics. In: Green Energy and Technology. Springer Verlag,
pp. 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59096-7_10.
UN, 2017. New Urban Agenda.
UNDESA, 2018. The World’s Cities in 2018.
UNEP, 2022. Cities and Climate Change. https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/cities/cities-and-climate-change (Accessed: 8th
October 2022).
UNFCC, 2015. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf.
UNFCCC, 2020. Race To Zero Campaign. https://unfccc.int/climate-action/race-to-zero-campaign (Accessed: 4th November 2022).
UNFCCC, 2022. About GCAP UNFCCC. https://climateaction.unfccc.int/about (Accessed: 9th October 2022).
UN-Habitat, 2015. Guiding Principles for Climate City Planning Action Guiding Principles for City Climate Action Planning. https://unhabitat.org/guiding-principles-
for-city-climate-action-planning (Accessed: 9 October 2022).
UN-Habitat, 2018. Addressing the Most Vulnerable First - Pro-Poor Climate Action in Informal Settlements. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2019/05/pro-
poor_climate_action_in_informal_settlements-.pdf (Accessed: 1st March 2023).
UN-Habitat, 2020. What is a City? https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/06/city_definition_what_is_a_city.pdf (Accessed on 3 December 2022).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2022. Emissions Gap Report 2022.
Victor, D., Muro, M., 2022. Cities are pledging to confront climate change, but are their actions working? https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/10/22/
cities-are-pledging-to-confront-climate-change-but-are-their-actions-working/ (accessed 12.29.22).
Watts, M., 2017. Commentary: cities spearhead climate action. Nat. Clim. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3358.
Wei, T., Wu, J., Chen, S., 2021. Keeping track of greenhouse gas emission reduction Progress and targets in 167 cities worldwide. Front. Sustain. Cities 3. https://doi.
org/10.3389/frsc.2021.696381.
World Economic Forum (WEF), 2022. More People Living in Cities Will Double Global Consumption. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/
2022/04/global-urbanization-material-consumption (Accessed: 8th October 2022).
Yang, H., Lee, T., Juhola, S., 2021. The old and the climate adaptation: climate justice, risks, and urban adaptation plan. Sustain. Cities Soc. 67 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scs.2021.102755.
Zhang, Y., Wildemuth, B.M., 2005. Qualitative Analysis of Content.
22

1 s2.0 S221209552300144X Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S221209552300144X Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Climate 49 (2023) 101550

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Post-fifth assessment report urban climate planning: Lessons from

2.1. Conceptual definitions

2.1.1. City and city categorization

• Small cities (cities with a population of less than 300,000)

individual sampled cities into various city sizes.

2.1.2. Urban climate action plan

• Climate Action Plan

2.2. Sampling of cities and data collection

2.3. Content analyses of urban CAPs

• The city size.

• The year the plan was adopted or published.

2.3.1. Sector co-occurrence analysis

3.1. The content and structure of urban CAPs since 2015

3.1.1. Trends in the adoption or publication of urban CAPs since 2015

Small city 156 56

3.1.2. Climate action focus of urban CAPs from 2015 to 2022

Both (Mitigation and Adaptation) 8 21 56 7 113 21 226 81%

3.1.3. Sectoral focus of urban CAPs from 2015 to 2022

1 transport 2 2356 268

3.1.5. Baseline GHG emission inventory (BEI) reporting

3.2. Compliance with urban climate action planning best practices

1 Activity-Based GHG Accounting Approach 1

Explicitly considered 104 (37%) 12 (4%) 6 (2%) 6 (2%)

New Urban Agenda (UN, 2017).

4.2. Compliance with urban climate action planning best practices

4.3. Limitations of the study

Declaration of Competing Interest

Data will be made available on request.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101550.

You might also like