Post-fifth assessment report urban climate planning: Lessons from 278 urban climate action plans released from 2015 to 2022

Cities respond to climate concerns mainly through climate action plans (CAPs). The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was the first report from the international climate body that gave worldwide attention to urban climate change. Yet, a global situation of the content and structure of urban CAPs adopted or published after AR5 is not well represented in the literature. This literature void presents a difficulty in holistically understanding the strengths and weaknesses of 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.