Livable Cities - London AMPS | City, University of London Page 89 straightforward due to tailored invitations, whereas Mantova and Zdar faced challenges, needing attractive events to boost participation. In Setúbal, Palmela, and Sesimbra, co-creation reinforced existing cultures but faced participation challenges in Sesimbra. In Dijon, fears of symbolic co-creation were alleviated by clear communication, emphasising the importance of transparency for sustained engagement.29 The co-creation process facilitated room to discuss potential impactful measures, highlighting the need to involve new stakeholders and expand emission reduction efforts beyond industry. Portuguese cities used face-to-face sessions to design pathways and scenarios, followed by a public commitment ceremony and the creation of a Monitoring Group. Mantova organised separate sessions for different stakeholder groups and a final event to integrate their inputs. Selection of measures involved participatory sessions where stakeholders ranked the importance of preselected measures. Factors influencing the selection included local capacity for implementation, time constraints, and the relevance of measures to existing plans. In Setúbal, Palmela, and Sesimbra, short-to-medium term measures with local scope were preferred. In Dijon, the selection of measures was influenced by the priorities highlighted by regional players and the consistency with actual GHG emissions data, while in Zdar, the main criteria were the payback period and availability of financial subsidies. In Zdar, the tool was not used due to existing documentation, but it was useful for a strategic overview when the interaction of measures in different transition pathways was unclear. In Mantova, the measures were influenced by expanding the ongoing city actions, such as bike sharing and renovation of public buildings. Mechanisms to ensure implementation and monitoring included political validation, public commitment ceremonies, and the creation of monitoring groups. For instance, the "Arrábida Zero Emissões" monitoring group was established to facilitate the implementation and monitoring of transition roadmaps in Setúbal, Palmela, and Sesimbra. Stakeholder involvement varied across cities (see Table 2). Riga reported 200 participants and 61 entities, while Mantova involved 25 entities. Sectors covered included transport, buildings, energy, and agriculture. The number of measures in transition scenarios also varied between cities; Riga included 46 measures, focusing on transport, while Mantova had 12 across sectors (Figure 2). Dijon included 9 measures, mainly concerning buildings and energy, while Zdar did not create new measures due to the tool's lack of local financial data and subsidies. The GHG emission reduction potential for the selected measures was substantial, with Mantova reporting a reduction of 120 tons CO2 compared to the reference year 2005. Dijon reported a GHG emissions reduction potential of -24% to -37% between 2022 and 2030, depending on the scenario, while Riga planned to reduce its emissions by a third between 2019 and 2030 (see Table 3). It's important to note that these potential reductions are not directly comparable between cities due to the different baseline years used. This supports the argument that GHG emissions and measures were discussed and selected by each city using the EU City Calculator. However, these numbers do not represent the total emissions reductions, as many cities have implemented additional measures outside the calculations of the tool. Yet, the tool sparked discussions that led to these measures, highlighting its role in shifting the working culture of cities towards developing CAPs. No. Stakeholders No. Entities Setúbal, Sesimbra and Palmela 76 34 Mantova 63 25 Riga 200 61 and 5 private persons Koprivnica, Varaždin and Virovitica 13 4 Dijon 43 24 Ždár nad Sázavou 7 7 Table 2. Stakeholders involved.
