Cited by 27Urban Transport and AccessibilityClimate Change and Sustainable DevelopmentEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies

Evaluating natural experiments to measure the co-benefits of urban policy interventions to reduce carbon emissions in New Zealand

Howden-Chapman, Philippa, Keall, Michael, Whitwell, Kate, Chapman, Ralph·2020·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

Finding effective policy interventions for addressing the Sustainable Development Goals, such as reducing carbon emissions (SDG 13), which can also enhance good health and wellbeing (SDG 3), is urgent. Many promising interactions occur between sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6) and affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), which sit at the centre of integrated urban planning and regeneration. In this paper, we consider the framing and findings of four policies we have evaluated as natural experiments, all of which have important co-benefits, which were not always the focus of the initial policies. These policies are: the installation of cycleways and walkways in existing suburbs; a central government measure to recentralise employment after the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes; the streamlining of housing developments by reducing land-use regulation; and ongoing changes of policy about public housing investment. We show that having a clear understanding of the benefits of increased physical activity for health, for example, could accelerate the reduction of carbon emissions. Also, decisions about infrastructure, housing and job locations can generate health and environmental gains if supported by broader public transport investments. Cycling and walking are also more likely to substitute for short habitual car trips. Similarly, measuring the co-benefits of differential residential models, relating to land-use and renewable energy, provides a framework that can facilitate learning from policy interventions, enabling wider and potentially more rapid generalisation of policies, including those for climate change mitigation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134408

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Howden-Chapman, P., Keall, M., Whitwell, K., & Chapman, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
700
Pages
134408
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2979856287
Cited by
27
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2
FWCI
5.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Urban Transport and Accessibility
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Sustainable Development
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Keywords
co-benefits, urban policy, carbon emission reduction, natural experiment, cycling infrastructure, walkways, recentralization, 2011 Christchurch earthquake, land use regulation, housing development, physical activity and health, public transport, car travel, residential models, climate change mitigation, sustainable cities, New Zealand

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review