The valorisation of urban biowaste can contribute to a circular and sustainable resource management. However, biowaste valorisation is not inherently sustainable. This study employs the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to investigate the sustainability implications of biowaste valorisation. A narrative literature review provided an overview of the current scientific knowledge on interactions between biowaste valorisation and selected SDG targets. Then stakeholder interviews yielded insights into such interactions in a national context. Our findings show the potential for 19 synergies and 11 trade-offs between biowaste valorisation and 20 selected SDG targets that are addressed in detail. Although the synergies outnumber the trade-offs, different context-dependencies influence the nature and strength of the interactions. We highlight three types of context-dependencies relating to governance. This study informs the scientific community and decision-makers on planning for sustainable biowaste valorisation that addresses context-dependencies. The insights can guide countries and cities at early transition stages towards biowaste valorisation.

Urban sustainability is a key locus and focus of global climate action due to the high resource consumption, population density and tradition of innovation and investment. An assessment of the effectiveness of urban climate actions is necessary to assure goals are met and negative effects on surrounding regions, under-served populations, and the wider landscape are minimized. This study defines and builds a qualitative, descriptive mapping of two specific measures from Stockholm’s 2030 climate action plan that have impacts both within and outside of the metropolitan Stockholm area. We include both descriptive analysis and quantitative calculations to assess the magnitude of the impacts. Climate, land, energy, and water impacts are considered. 

Replacing fossil oil in the district heating system with bio-oil was evaluated through comparing the fossil oil reference scenario, a bio-oil from fast pyrolysis of food waste scenarios, and a tall oil pitch scenario. It was found that using fast pyrolysis bio-oil from food waste resulted in the most CO2e emissions. Fossil oil had the highest land use impact. It was found that tall oil pitch had the highest energy demand for production. Fossil oil had the highest water impact. The spillovers associated with the measure were found to occur mostly within Europe, with some in the US and China. 

 It was found that, when implementing bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) within the system limits defined in the study, negative emissions would have the greatest climate impact. The emissions due to transporting the CO2 to its storage location were found to be negligible. The land use impacts due to storing the CO2 were found to be negligible. It was found that there is a tradeoff between power generation and carbon sequestration. The energy needed to inject the CO2 into its storage location was quantified. Finally, the water impact due to the CO2 storage was found to be negligible, though water consumption due to adding the carbon capture unit could increase, depending on the technology used. 

 This study is part of an academic partnership and exchange between UC Berkeley in the USA and KTH in Sweden. 

In the referenced article, Engström R, et al. (2018), the authors would like to report a calculation error. Correcting this error does not alter any of the overarching results or conclusions of the article, but changes the results in the original Table 3 and Figure 3. Two typographical errors were also found in the main article, and are corrected here. The supplementary material has also been updated to reflect these corrections.

Population growth, urbanization and economic development drive the use of resources. Securing access to essential services such as energy, water, and food, while achieving sustainable development, require that policy and planning processes follow an integrated approach. The 'Climate-, Land-, Energy- and Water-systems' (CLEWs) framework assists the exploration of interactions between (and within) CLEW systems via quantitative means. The approach was first introduced by the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct an integrated systems analysis of a biofuel chain. The framework assists the exploration of interactions between (and within) CLEW systems via quantitative means. Its multi-institutional application to the case of Mauritius in 2012 initiated the deployment of the framework. A vast number of completed and ongoing applications of CLEWs span different spatial and temporal scales, discussing two or more resource interactions under different political contexts. Also, the studies vary in purpose. This shapes the methods that support CLEWs-type analyses. In this paper, we detail the main steps of the CLEWs framework in perspective to its application over the years. We summarise and compare key applications, both published in the scientific literature, as working papers and reports by international organizations. We discuss differences in terms of geographic scope, purpose, interactions represented, analytical approach and stakeholder involvement. In addition, we review other assessments, which contributed to the advancement of the CLEWs framework. The paper delivers recommendations for the future development of the framework, as well as keys to success in this type of evaluations.

The authors regret two instances of misinterpretation of input data and one formatting error in the previously published paper as titled above. First, the numerical estimates for water use in NYC electricity and natural gas supply were found to be incorrect due to a conversion error in a data file. This error has now been corrected and the estimates have been changed to correctly correspond to the references on which they are based on. These changes have led to a recalculation of indirect water use reduction potentials in the interventions studied in the paper. Second, two errors due to primary data misinterpretation related to the studied green roof intervention have been found and corrected. The first led to an overestimation of the green roofs’ energy use reduction potential in the previously published paper. The second led to an underestimation of their installation cost. These errors have also been corrected and all numerical results for the green roof intervention have been recalculated. In the updated sections 3 and 4 of the original publication (below), Table 2, Table 3, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 are updated with the new results related to both indirect water use reductions and green roof performance and costs. The text in the below sections have been given minor adjustments to clarify this update. These changes make green roofs a less economically favourable intervention in comparison to the previously published results. It also makes indirect water use reductions relatively smaller compared to direct water use reductions. All other results as well as the conclusions of this paper are still valid and unchanged. Lastly, a typo in writing of Eq. (7) in the manuscript text has been corrected. There was no error in the equation used in the analysis; hence, no numerical results have been effected by this correction. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Corrected writing of Eq. (7), section 2.3.1: [Formula presented] Updated sections of the original publication.

Cities are vital for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), but different local strategies to advance on the same SDG may cause different ‘spillovers’ elsewhere. Research efforts that support governance of such spillovers are urgently needed to empower ambitious cities to ‘account globally’ when acting locally on SDG implementation strategies.

Sustainable and inclusive decarbonisation of European cities is a pre-requisite for achieving carbon neutrality at the EU level. As melting pots and demand hubs, cities are responsible for a majority of greenhouse gas emissions. For a transition towards zero-carbon cities, in the EU as elsewhere, a holistic approach and extensive collaboration is needed that can move city action beyond simply increasing the number of localized low-carbon solutions. This DEEDS Policy Brief outlines key features of EU research and innovation needs and proposes policy measures to promote zero-carbon European cities.

The Paris Agreement and SDG13 on Climate Action require a global drop in Green House Gases (GHG) emissions to stay within a "well below 2 degrees" climate change trajectory. Cities will play a key role in achieving this, being responsible for 60 to 80% of the global GHG emissions depending on the estimate. This paper describes how Research and Innovation (R&I) can play a key role in decarbonizing European cities, and the role that research and education institutions can play in that regard. The paper highlights critical R&I actions in cities based on three pillars: (1) innovative technology and integration, (2) governance innovation, and (3) social innovation. Further, the research needed to harmonize climate mitigation and adaptation in cities are investigated.

Water is paramount for the operation of energy systems, for securing food supply and for the industry and municipalities. Intersectoral competition for water resources can negatively affect water scarce regions by e.g. power plants shutdowns, poor agricultural yields, and lack of potable water. Future economic and population growth as well as climate change is likely to exacerbate these patterns. However, models used for energy system management and planning in general do not properly include water availability which can lead to improper representations of water-energy interlinkages. The paper initially highlights the water usage rates of current technologies within electricity generation and technologies with a potential to reduce water usage, electricity consumption or GHG emissions. Secondly, the paper presents currently available data on current and future projected water resources as well as data on energy statistics relevant to water-energy nexus studies. Thirdly, implementation cases are presented showing examples of water-energy nexus studies for the data presented. Finally, the paper highlights main challenges in studying the linkage between water and energy. We find a substantial gap in the general availability and quality of regional and global data for detailed quantitative analyses and also identify a need for standardization of formats and data collection methodologies across data and disciplines. An effort towards a coordinated, and sustained open-access data framework with energy sector water usage at fine spatio-temporal scales alongside hydroclimatic observation and model data using common forcings and scenarios for future projections (of climate, socio-economy and technology) is therefore recommended for future water-energy nexus studies.

This paper analyses how local energy and climate actions can affect the use of water and land resources locally, nationally and globally. Each of these resource systems is linked to different Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); we also explore related SDG interactions. A municipality in Sweden with the ambition of phasing out fossil fuels by year 2030 is used as illustrative case example. The local energy system is modelled in detail and indirect water and land requirements are quantified for three stylised decarbonisation scenarios of pathways to meeting climate and energy requirements (related to SDG13 and SDG7, respectively). Total local, national and global implications are addressed for the use of water and land resources, which relate to SDG6 for water, and SDG2 and SDG15 for land use. We find that the magnitude and location of water and land impacts are largely pathway-dependent. Some scenarios of low carbon energy may impede progress on SDG15, while others may compromise SDG6. Data for the studied resource uses are incoherently reported and have important gaps. As a consequence, the study results are indicative and subject to uncertainty. Still, they highlight the need to recognise that resource use changes targeting one SDG in one locality have local and non-local impacts that may compromise progress other SDGs locally and/or elsewhere in the world.