Cet article dresse un état des lieux des outils d'analyse économique dont disposent les villes pour concevoir leur plan climat. Partant du constat de leur insuffisance, il plaide pour l'utilisation de méthodes permettant de combiner planification de la ville et politiques climatiques et d'intégrer des co-bénéfices, en s'appuyant sur des outils de modélisation urbaine et une méthodologie d'analyse des coûts d'abattement.
Références : Energy Policy, Volume 92 (May 2016), Pages 124–138.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.029
Résumé [en anglais] :
"Many cities are implementing policies and climate action plans. Yet local climate policies suffer from a lack of scientific understanding and evaluation methods able to support the definition of efficient mitigation strategies. The purpose of this paper is to build on classical approaches in the energy policy field that exist at the national and international level to propose an urban MACCs methodology able to fulfill this lack and inform local debates. The methodology is an extension of static “expert-based” MACCs; it combines a land use transport integrated model and an abatement cost methodology that integrates co-benefits, and takes into account the spatial and systemic dimensions of cities. The methodology is implemented for the transportation sector of a mid-sized European city (Grenoble, France). Our results present the cost-effectiveness and political feasibility of several proposed measures. We find that the inclusion of co-benefits can profoundly change the cost-benefit assessment of transport mitigation options. Moreover we underline the key parameters determining the cost-effectiveness ranking of mitigation options. These urban MACCs aim to serve as a bridge between urban planning and mitigation policies and can thus contribute to strengthen and align sustainable and climate change agendas at the local level."
