Yokohama in 2030
Envisioning
1.5-Degree Lifestyles

Copyright © 2021 Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies

Acknowledgements
This report is part of the ‘Envisioning Future Low-Carbon
Lifestyles and Transitioning Instruments’ project, 2019-2021.
This demonstration project has been implemented under the
Sustainable Lifestyles and Education Programme of theUnited Nations’ One-Planet Network and has been financially
supported by the Government of Japan through its
contribution to the 10YFP Trust Fund administered by theUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The project
has been led by the Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES), Japan. IGES administered a call for partners
among the MAC (Multi-stakeholder Advisory Committee) andpartners of the Sustainable Lifestyles and Education
Programme of the UN One Planet Network and identified
the following project partners. Cities were selected inconsultation with partner organizations. The implementationin Yokohama has been self-funded by IGES. The recruitmentof the workshop participants were supported by the Cityof Yokohama.
Partner Organisations (Listed in alphabetical order)
Project Implementation Partners
Akatu Institute, Brazil
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
ICLEI Africa, South Africa
Swechha, India
Communications and Outreach Partners
Hot or Cool Institute, Germany
ICLEI Japan
Science Communication and Research Institute (SCRI),
Japan
Advisory Partners
D-mat, Finland
National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Japan
Special thanks to ICLEI World Secretariat for providing
a platform to share the initial findings of this report

Authors
Satoshi Kojima (IGES), Aditi Khodke (IGES),
Ryu Koide (IGES and NIES), Kenji Asakawa (IGES),
Chen Liu (IGES), Atsushi Watabe (IGES)
Contributors
Sayaka Yano (IGES), Sumito Shirane (SCRI), Keiichiro Tahara(SCRI), Sayaka Shinoda (Office Cua), Bruno Yamanaka(Akatu Institute), Fernanda Iwasaka (Akatu Institute),
Larissa Kuroki (Akatu Institute), Beatriz Duarte (Akatu
Institute), Flora Lyn de Albuquerque Fujiwara (Universidade
de Brasília), Victor Silva (Universidade de Brasília),
Vimlendu Kumar Jha (Swechha), Ashim Bery (Swechha),
Kuldip Singh Sangwan (BITS), Kailash Choudhary (IIM
Shillong), Pasicha Chaikaew (Chulalongkorn University),
Pongsun Bunditsakulchai (Chulalongkorn University),
Paul Currie (ICLEI Africa), Solophina Nekasa (ICLEI Africa),
Jokudu Guya (ICLEI Africa), Simon Gilby, Francesca Oberti
Review and additional inputs
Michael Lettenmeier (D-mat), Edina Vadovics(GreenDependent Institute), Francisco Javier Contreras
Pineda (Universidade de Brasília), Prabhakar S.V.R.K(IGES), Fernando Ortiz-Moya (IGES), Mark Elder (IGES)
Copy Editor
Emma Fushimi (IGES)
Layout Designer
Haruka Yamada
Suggested Citation
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). 2021.
Yokohama in 2030: Envisioning 1.5-Degree Lifestyles.
Policy Report. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies,
Hayama, Japan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Yokohama in 2030 recommends plausible options for
1.5-Degree Lifestyles (1.5°C Lifestyles) and their supporting
measures, towards realising the globally unified 1.5°C
target of 2.5 t-CO2e/capita/year, compatible with the Paris
Agreement’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C
above pre-industrial levels. Based on the assessment ofconsumption data across housing, food, mobility, goods,
services and leisure, the average lifestyle carbon footprintin Yokohama is 7.1t-CO2e/capita/year, around Japan’snational average, but above the global average at 4.3t-CO2e/
capita/year.
Reduction from 7.1t-CO2e/capita/year lifestyle carbon
footprint to 2.5 t-CO2e/capita/year is feasible only through a
combination of production and consumption side measures.

7.1t-CO2e/capita/year to 3.9t-CO2e/capita/year (-45%),
if we assume no improvements in renewable energy shareand environmental efficiency from the current levels. We
identified 65-actionable lifestyle change options andestimated their carbon footprint reduction potential basedon consumption amount and energy intensity for production
across housing, mobility, food, goods, services and leisuredomains. Choice of a decarbonised lifestyle is personal, andcan vary from one person to another. Through participatory
workshops with Yokohama’s citizens, feasibility anddesirability of the identified options was evaluated.
Yokohama citizens conducted a two weeks of household
experiment to confirm the viability of the options selected in
the workshop. Household experiments enabled identifying
the obstacles to implement options and the supporting
measures to overcome those.

Our proposed consumption side measures can reduce
Yokohama’s average lifestyle carbon footprint fromCurrent average per capita lifestyle carbon footprint in Yokohama

7.1t-CO2e/capita/year

2030 average per capita lifestyle carbon footprint in Yokohama after lifestyles changewith assuming no improvements in renewable energy share and environmental efficiency
from the current level

3.9t-CO2e/capita/year

2030 average per capita lifestyle carbon footprint in Yokohama after changes in lifestyles
with assuming improvements in both renewable energy share and environmental efficiency

2.5 t-CO2e/capita/yearI

In Yokohama, the housing domain accounts for the largest
carbon footprint, followed by food, mobility, goods, services
and leisure. For housing, the high carbon intensity of house
construction and energy matrix accounts for the largest
carbon footprint. Reducing the dependency on a highintensity energy matrix and when possible, carefully
choosing low carbon house construction technology is
crucial. For businesses and governments making low carbon
energy and housing technology readily available is a key
area for intervention. For citizens, subscribing to green
energy, installing roof-top solar, choosing to construct orrent energy efficient housing are possible options that havethe largest carbon footprint reduction potential. Measures,such as installing LED lighting, using renewable energy
powered air conditioning for heating instead of kerosene,gas, oil and other fuel heaters, adjusting clothing to outdoor
temperatures to reduce artificial cooling and heating, arethe most feasible options in the short term, according toworkshop participants.
The identified options to reduce the lifestyle carbon
footprint complements Yokohama’s city’s existing initiatives
for reducing carbon emissions, and it can accelerate thetransition towards carbon neutrality target by 2050.
Through group discussions among research team members
and citizens, it was confirmed that decarbonised lifestyles
can have multiple co-benefits in addition to limiting global
warming. Some of the co-benefits include promotion of
ecotourism and revitalisation of local economies, andstrengthened inter-relationship among various residents.
In implementing 1.5°C Lifestyles options with high potential
to reduce carbon footprints, citizens identified obstacles
due to lack of infrastructure, products and services; limited
awareness about existing infrastructure, products andservices; high costs to implement some options; lowaccessibility; conflicts with personal need; conflicts withother people’s needs; and conflicts with societal norms.
Supportive measures by government and business canenable the households to implement decarbonised lifestylechange options effectively, while awareness and willingness

IIof households to take actions can encourage governmentand business to provide supporting measures.
Furthermore, to realize a decarbonised lifestyle compatible
with the 1.5°C climate goal, both production andconsumption measures are necessary. For example, if
renewable electricity share will reach 45% and annual
environmental energy efficiency improvement keeps 3% by2030, proposed consumption side measures could achieve
the goal of 2.5 t-CO2e/capita/year (-65%). Based on theexisting initiatives in Yokohama and Japan, not only
renewable energy increase and improvement inenvironmental efficiency but also other production sidechanges like the digital transformation, artificial
intelligence, acceleration in autonomous and sharedmobility, reduction in material consumption, and robotics
are expected, all of which can contribute to the carbon
footprint reduction.
The lifestyle carbon footprint analysed in this report, as wellas the carbon footprint reductions associated with citizen
behaviour change, are expressed as the per capita averageof Yokohama. Citizens' carbon footprints are highly variable,
corresponding to differences in income, occupation, age,family structure and health. The report argues that it is vitalto reduce the average lifestyle carbon footprint of citizens
below the 2030 target (2.5tCO2e/yr per person). However, itis neither realistic nor desirable to expect all citizens to takethe carbon footprint reduction actions described in thereport, regardless of their different standards of living anddiversity of needs such as mobility, housing and food.
Yokohama in 2030 accentuates that the 2.5 t-CO2e/capita/
year target is very ambitious but can be achieved if all the
stakeholders take adequate actions in a collaborative
manner. It aims to provide ideas towards realising a 1.5°C
Lifestyle for diverse citizens in many respects and theadoption rates are just indicative figures, not future
projections or targets.

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION

1

1.1 Background1

1.2 The Scenario2

2. METHODOLOGY

3

2.1 Quantitative Analysis

3

2.2 Participatory Consultative Process

4

3. OVERVIEW of BASELINE DATA

6

3.1 Housing

7

3.2 Food7

3.3 Mobility

8

3.4 Goods, Services and Leisure8

4. CITY VISION

10

4.1 Development of City Vision10

4.2 Key Themes of the City Vision towards 2050

11

4.3 Overview of the Future City Vision13

5. LIFESTYLE CHANGE TOWARDS 2030

14

5.1 Lifestyle change options and adoption rates

15

5.2 Change in lifestyle carbon footprints

18

5.3 Co-benefits of 1.5°C Lifestyles

19

6. RECOMMENDATIONS TO STAKEHOLDERS

20

6.1 Challenges or obstacles in implementing lifestyle changes

21

6.2 Roles of stakeholders to enable lifestyle changes

23

7. CONCLUSIONS

25

8. REFERENCES

26

1. INTRODUCTION

Current climate debates largely focus on production-based
strategies to reduce carbon emissions. Production-based
accounting covers direct emissions from domestic
production activities within geographical boundaries andoffshore activities under the control of a country, but does
not account for embodied emissions from international
trade (Boitier, 2012; Moore, 2013). Consumption-based
accounting (carbon footprinting) includes both directemissions and embedded emissions due to the production
and distribution of products and services, including
imported products, reflecting the global impacts ofindividuals' final consumption and lifestyles. This approachaddresses the carbon leakage in production-based
strategies and promotes comprehensive mitigation options
while not burdening developing countries with excessive
emissions obligations (Peters and Hertwich, 2007).
The analysis of individual lifestyles offers the possibility of acomprehensive assessment of consumption-related carbon
emissions in different areas of life such as housing, food,mobility, goods, services and leisure, as well as the links
between these areas (Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Aalto University and D-mat Ltd, 2019). Lifestylecarbon footprint can be assessed through national or cityboundaries. Given the availability of consumption data,a city where an individual resides provides appropriate
geography to account for carbon emissions acrossproduction, distribution, use, and disposal of purchased
products and services including those embedded in trades.
This scenario provides an overview of how to substantiallyreduce consumption-based carbon emissions through thedecarbonisation of lifestyles, developed in consultation withcitizens of Yokohama, who were selected by IGES based on
their existing network and practical considerations for

1

project implementation. This scenario accentuates that the
adoption of low-carbon lifestyle options relies on supporting
measures by governments and businesses to facilitate
efforts by individuals, and emphasises the importance ofcollaborative efforts by all stakeholders.

1.1 BackgroundYokohama is the second-largest city in Japan by population,
located south of Tokyo and part of the Tokyo metropolitan
area. It is the capital of Kanagawa Prefecture and has
a population of about 3.7 million. The largest age group of
population is between 40-49 years (Government of Japan,2021). The city population is still increasing despite an
already declining national population, but it is expected tostart declining by 2025 (City Planning Division, 2021). The
city has over 110,000 businesses employing over 1.4 million
people; wholesale and retail sector businesses employ thelargest number of people (Statistics Japan, 2020).
In addition, many residents of Yokohama commute toTokyo and other parts of Kanagawa Prefecture for workand university.
Yokohama is a port city and was among the first ports to beopen for foreign trade. As a result, the city is famous for its
multiculturalism, and unique cultural trait called Hamakko,
which promotes openness to whatever is good (Yokohama
Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2021). More than 150
years have now passed since the opening of the port of
Yokohama, and the city has set a vision to be ‘attractive,
lively, and filled with hopes and dreams that are shared theworld over’ (City Planning Division, 2021).
Yokohama sets its long-term vision through the ‘Yokohama
General Plan’, which was first introduced in 1973 andguided city development for the next 30 years. The current
plan was introduced in 2006, and it provides a guide on thevision for city development until 2025 for citizens,organisations, companies and city government. The ongoing
Yokohama General Plan proposes to build a future based on
1. accumulating vitality and wisdom and 2. making the mostof local appeal and creativity, along with acknowledging
various development challenges like an ageing population,
environmental pollution, and faltering infrastructure andservices (City Planning Division, 2021). The Yokohama
General Plan encourages the adoption of low-carbon
lifestyles by waste reduction, recycling, reuse, local leisure,and the use of public transport.
Yokohama has been at the forefront of environmental
leadership since 2010 with the launch of the Yokohama City
Global Warming Management Implementation Plan. Thiswas revised in 2016 setting a target to achieve zero carbon
by 2050 under its Zero Carbon Yokohama initiative(Sasakawa Peace Foundation, 2021). Under this plan,innovative approaches are already in action, including the
Yokohama Blue Carbon Project for carbon sequestration,
Yokoyoko Project to supply locally produced renewableenergy, Food Bank Yokohama to reduce food waste andhunger, and Zero PC to upcycle and recycle electronic
goods like computers and laptops. These initiatives are led
by Yokohama City Government, businesses, NGOs, andother organisations (Circular Yokohama, 2021). The
Yokohama City office has formulated an urban agriculture
promotion plan 2015, under which existing agricultural landis conserved to promote local agricultural supply (Japan for
Sustainability, 2015).
The recommendations for lifestyle carbon footprint provided
in this scenario give an overview of a complementarystrategy for consumption side emission reduction acrossmobility, housing, food, goods, services, and leisure that canfurther strengthen ongoing efforts by Yokohama City and its
citizens in achieving the net-zero target by 2050.

1.2 The Scenario
Co-created with citizens, this scenario—Yokohama in
2030—recommends options and their supporting measures
to reduce lifestyle carbon footprint and towards realising
1.5°C Lifestyles that are defined as sustainable lifestyle,compatible with the 1.5°C Target of the Paris Agreement tolimit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
The lifestyle carbon footprints targets are set at 2.5 t-CO2e/
capita by 2030, 1.4 t-CO2e/capita by 2040, and 0.7 t-CO2e/
capita by 2050 (Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Aalto University and D-mat Ltd, 2019). This
scenario focuses on the 2030 target. We emphasise that

1.5°C Lifestyles aim to achieve decarbonisation withoutcompromising quality of life and that they should be alignedwith the city vision. In this regard a co-creation approach
involving citizens plays an important role.
Choice of a decarbonised lifestyle is personal, and can varyfrom one person to another, hence it is crucial to selectlow-carbon lifestyle options across housing, food, mobility,
goods, services and leisure that suit individual preferences
and needs. Before considering specific lifestyle options, thefirst step is to benchmark an individual carbon footprint,
and identify hotspots for footprint reduction across housing,food, mobility, goods, services and leisure domains. Analysis
of Yokohama citizen’s average lifestyle carbon footprint andits related hotspots provide both policymakers and citizens
with an indicative carbon footprint benchmarking its hotspot
analysis, along with 65-actionable lifestyle change options.
These options are also in line with a future city vision,developed based on a participatory workshop. Preferences
made by citizens regarding these 65-options are indicatedthrough the adoption rate of these options. Most of theoptions were implemented by project participants, either
before or during the two-weeks household experiment, andthey were able to identify the obstacles and the necessary
supporting measures by government and businesses toeffectively mainstream the decarbonised lifestyles options.
Thus this scenario is not only to encourage citizens tomake environmentally-friendly choices every day, but also
to solicit actions by other stakeholders including thegovernment and the business sector to enable and facilitate
citizens to make such choices. In other words, our objective
is not only to inspire citizens, governments, and businesses
to embrace and promote conscious living, but also to
broaden the narrative of taking action from policymakers toevery citizen and resident of Yokohama regardless of theirage, gender, nationality, and socio-economic status.
The next section details the methodology involved indeveloping this scenario. Sections 3, 4, and 5 introduce
the project findings of average baseline carbon footprintin Yokohama, desired future city vision, and low-carbon
lifestyle options across housing, food, mobility, goods,
services, and leisure domains. Section 6 identifies the
supporting measures for different low-carbon lifestyle
options and recommends actions for various stakeholders
to facilitate transition towards 1.5°C Lifestyles.

22. METHODOLOGYFor co-creating the scenario a twofold research method
was deployed, involving a quantitative analysis anda participatory consultative process. The key steps
under each of these steps are elaborated below.

2.1 Quantitative Analysis
The quantitative analysis is used to (i) calculate Yokohama’s
baseline carbon footprint; (ii) identify lifestyle carbon
footprint reduction hot spots; and (iii) estimate the potentialof low carbon lifestyle options when adopted in tandem.
More details of quantitative methodology and data sourcesof the analysis of Japanese cities have been set out inprevious studies (Koide et al., 2021).

3

Step 1: C alculation of Yokohama’s Average Carbon
Footprint• Carbon footprint calculation takes into account theconsumption amount and energy intensity for
production of different items across housing, food,mobility, goods, leisure and services domains.
• For Yokohama, the average carbon footprint wascalculated by aggregating carbon footprints of about
522 lifestyle items, based on 2015 reference data.
• The greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity data was obtained
from the 2015 embodied energy and emission intensity
data for Japan using input–output tables (3EID)(Nansai et al., 2012, 2020).

• The monetary-based consumption amount andintensity data were hybridised to incorporate physicalunits of consumption considering the local priceinformation.

Step 2: Hot Spot Analysis• Assessment of carbon footprint across housing,food, mobility, goods, services and leisure enabled
a comparative analysis to identify which of these
domains within Yokohama accounts for the largest
carbon footprint.
• Taking a closer look at each domain enabled to identify
the carbon footprint hotspots. Here, hot spots mean
the individual lifestyle items that have either a highconsumption amount, or a high carbon intensity inproduction, or both of these.
• Hot spot analysis helps to identify lifestyle options thathave the largest potential to reduce carbon footprint.

Step 3: Development of Lifestyle Carbon Footprint
Reduction Options• Through analysis of carbon footprint hotspots foreach domain and following a systematic literature
review, 65 lifestyle carbon footprint reduction
options were identified.
• These options were graphically illustrated along with
their carbon footprint reduction in an options catalogue.
The options catalogue provided simplified
communications tools.
• The carbon footprint reduction potential of the65-lifestyle options was used to design a puzzle game.

Step 4: Estimation of Aggregated Reduction Effects• The reduction potential of individual lifestyle carbon
footprint reduction options was estimated based on an
estimation of the reduction in either activity level (e.g.
teleworking will reduce commuting distance) or carbon
footprint intensity (e.g. shifting private car commuting
to that by public transportation will reduce carbon
footprint intensity of commuting). In some cases, there
may be rebound effects (e.g. shifting private car to EV
may result in more private trip due to cheaper runningcost), but our methodology does not reflect them. There
are many interactions among lifestyle carbon footprint
reduction options, for example, teleworking reduces

commuting distance and consequently affects
reduction potentials of shifting car commuting to otherlow-carbon mobility means. The aggregated reduction
effects of implementing multiple reduction options were
estimated taking into account these interactions, whichbecame substantially smaller than simple summation of
the reduction potential of each option.

2.2 Participatory Consultative ProcessThis process aims to reflect citizens’ ideas/opinions toco-create the scenario. Both the first and second workshops
were held online in collaboration with Science
Communications Research Institute Japan (SCRI). Both
IGES researchers and the Yokohama City Government jointly
recruited the participants. SCRI moderated the workshops.
A baseline questionnaire survey was conducted to compare
Yokohama’s average lifestyle carbon footprint calculated
through quantitative analysis and the actual footprint
indicated by the participants.

Step 1: Online Workshop 1
The first workshop was held online in December 2020
with 26 participants, 16 women and 10 men. The averageage group of workshop participants was about 42 years.
The participants were presented with information on
climate change and how everyday changes in consumption
can affect global warming, then following sessions
were conducted.
• The participants were asked to share their vision
for Yokohama city in 2050. This enabled them toidentify lifestyle carbon footprint options that weremost in line with the collective long-term city vision ofother participants.
• The participants were then asked to select lifestylecarbon footprint reduction options along with theiradoption rate1.
• Among the 65-lifestyle carbon footprint reduction
options, 63 were selected by the workshop participants.
• The participants were explained the details of the
housing experiment, including a two weeks trial,
followed by a two weeks actual experiments. The
participants were provided with recording sheets‘household experiment notebook’ and explained theprocedure of recording.

1 Adoption rate indicates how widely and fully options will be implemented. For example: If the adoption rate is 100% it means all citizens
eligible to implement a low-carbon lifestyle option will fully implement the option.

4

Step 2: Household Experiment
The aim of the household experiment was to involve
participants in trying out low-carbon lifestyle options and to
identify implementation barriers. Among 26 participants ofthe first workshop, 16 participants joined the experiment.
Initially it was planned that research team members will visit
the households and interview participants during thehousehold experiment. However, this was not possible due
to restrictions because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Insteadfollow-ups were made online and by telephone. The
objective of the household experiment was to identify the
obstacles in implementing 1.5°C lifestyles and apply thisanalysis in the recommendations for multi-stakeholder
collaboration.
• Before starting the household experiment, theparticipants were asked to select the current status of
all 65 mitigation options and the options that they plan
to practice during the experiment.
• The household experiment notebook which was given to
the participants during workshop 1, consisted of threeparts: ‘preparation and planning’, ‘implementation’and ‘summary’.
• Preparations and planning: The participants were asked
to write freely about the preparations they made for theexperiment (e.g. searching for a shop where they could
buy vegan food, discussing it with their family).

5• Implementation: The participants were asked to report
the degree of daily implementation (100%, 75%, 50%,
25%, 0%, etc.) of the chosen option during the twoweek implementation period.
• Summary: The participants were requested to provide aself-assessment of the whole experiment for the options
practiced. They were also asked to write freely about
any difficulties or obstacles in adopting the option andwhat kind of support or social changes would help toincrease the adoption rate of each mitigation option.

Step 3: Online Workshop 2• The second online workshop was attended by 14 out of
the 26 participants of the first workshop.
• Research team members presented the project findings
on city vision, feasibility of lifestyle carbon footprint
reduction options and the supporting measures that will
enable the citizens to effectively implement the
selected options.
• The findings of data analysis are shared in sections 4, 5,
and 6.

3. OVERVIEW of BASELINE DATA
Yokohama's average baseline carbon footprint wascalculated as 7.1 t-CO2e based on input-output analysis
together with mixed-unit consumption data. The city’s
average baseline carbon footprint is equivalent to Japan’snational average of 7.1 t-CO2e (Koide et al., 2021), butmuch higher than the global average of 4.3 t-CO2e . In
estimating the carbon footprint, six lifestyle domains:
housing, food, mobility, goods, services and leisure,accounting for 75% of consumption-based emissions

were considered. Among the six domains, it was found thatin Yokohama the carbon footprint of the housing domain is
the largest, followed by food, goods, and mobility. Each ofthese domains was analysed in further detail to identify the
hot spot for carbon footprint reduction.
Figure 3.1 presents a systematic breakdown of the averagebaseline footprint.

Figure 3.1 Distribution of carbon footprint in six domains

SERVICES
10%LEISURE
13%

GOODS
16%

HOUSING
28%
Total
CarbonFootprints

MOBILITY
15%
FOOD
18%

6

3.1 Housing
Yokohama experienced a steep increase in housingdevelopment in the early 1970s. Housing was built in hilly
areas and by clearing farm land and forests (City Planning
Division, 2021). Many of the detached houses and apartmentbuildings constructed up to the 1990s had low energy

performance (Iwamura, 2004). The present housing typology
comprises multi-storey apartment buildings, detachedhouses, and a small number of traditional timber houses. The
largest share of carbon footprint in the housing domain is due
to household electricity consumption. Both high carbon
intensity of energy matrix and high consumption amount are
the main causes.

Figure 3.2 Hotspot analysis in Housing domain

Figure 3.3 Carbon intensity and consumption amount in
Housing domain
4.0● Construction/Maintenance● Electricity ● OtherEnergy

3.5

Carbon intensity (kg-CO2e/kWh or m3)

3% 6%

33%

58%

● Water

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

● Construction/Maintenance

0.0● Electricity ● OtherEnergy ● Water

05001000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Amount of consumption (kWh or m3/cap/year)

3.2 Food
Food habits in Yokohama are influenced by its
multiculturalism, especially the influence of Chinese

cuisine. Currently, the food domain has the second highest
carbon footprint. Non-local sourcing of cereals, vegetables;
high consumption of beverages and other foods like readymeals and snacks contributes to a high carbon footprint.

Figure 3.4 Hotspot analysis in Food domain

Figure 3.5 Carbon intensity and consumption amount inFood domain● Cereals ● Vegetables● Beans/nuts ● Dairy ● Eggs
● Meat ● FIsh ● Fruits

13%
26%
2%
5%
4%

9%

11%

1%

Carbon intensity (kg-CO2e/kg)

15%

14%

● OtherFood ● Beverages● Cereals ● Vegetables ● Beans/nuts ● Dairy ● Eggs
● Meat ● Fish ● Fruits ● OtherFood ● Beverages

Amount of food consumption (kg/cap/year)73.3 Mobility
Yokohama is home to many cross-border commuters toTokyo and other parts of Kanagawa Prefecture. The railway
and subway lines serve mainly the north-south spine of thecity, towards Tokyo. Conversely, east-west rail and subway

lines are relatively scarce. These areas along with the eastwest rail and subway lines are served by a bus network. The
mobility domain’s carbon footprint is mainly due to theusage of conventional internal combustion engine (ICE)
powered cars, followed by overseas travel.

Figure 3.7 Carbon intensity and consumption amount in
Mobility domain

Figure 3.6 Hotspot analysis in Mobility domain
1%

0.50● Airplane ● Train ● Bus

1%
2%

17%

13%
59%

6%
1%

Carbon intensity (kg-CO2e/km-passenger)

0.45● CarSharing ● Taxi ● Motorbike ● Bicycle ● Walking

3.4 Goods, Services and Leisure● CarSharing ● Taxi

0.40

● Motorbike ● Bicycle● Walking

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

● Airplane ● Train ● Bus ● Ferry ● PrivateCar● Ferry ● PrivateCar

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Amount of mobility distance (km-passenger/cap/year)

A key challenge in the goods domain is purchase anddisposal of clothes. The carbon footprint in the services

domain is mainly due to parcel delivery. Leisure ‘s carbon
footprint is primarily due to eating-out and activities related
to hobbies like entertainment, sport-related activities andcultural activities.

Figure 3.8 Hotspot analysis in Goods domain

Figure 3.9 Carbon intensity and consumption amount in
Goods domain

1%
4%● Clothes ● HobbyGoods● Furniture/Covering

14%
7%

17%

4%
15%

34%

Carbon intensity (kg-CO2e/USD)

4%● HomeAppliances ● Electronics● Sanitation/Medicine● Books/Magazines ● OtherGoods● Waste● HomeAppliances ● Electronics ● Clothes ● HobbyGoods● Furniture/Covering ● Sanitation/Medicine ● Books/Magazines● OtherGoods ● Waste

Amount of consumption (USD/cap/year)

8Figure 3.10 Hotspot analysis in Service domain

Figure 3.11 Carbon intensity and consumption amount in
Service domain
4.0● Repair/Rental ● PersonalCare

10%

13%

10%
30%
20%
10%

Carbon intensity (kg-CO2e/USD)

7%● Communication/Delivery

3.5● Ceremony ● MedicalCare/Welfare● Education ● OtherServices

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

● Repair/Rental ● PersonalCare ● Communication/Delivery● Ceremony ● MedicalCare/Welfare ● Education

100

200

300

400

500

Figure 3.13 Carbon intensity and consumption amount in
Leisure domain● Restaurant● Travel/Hotel

12%

63%

Carbon intensity (kg-CO2e/USD)● Hobby25%● Restaurant ● Travel/Hotel ● Hobby

Amount of consumption (USD/cap/year)

9600

Amount of consumption (USD/cap/year)● OtherServices

Figure 3.12 Hotspot analysis in Leisure domain04. CITY VISION• Based on the text analysis of the vision discussion at the first workshop, four themes were identified for the future city
vision: ‘Urban Green Space and Urban Design’,‘People-friendly Transport’, ‘Inclusiveness and Diversity’ and ‘Innovationand Education’.
• Yokohama's vision for the future is to be a highly inclusive city that embraces diversity, including the elderly, disabled
and other vulnerable groups. This aspect is particularly important to develop a people-friendly transport system.
• As a port city, Yokohama has been a centre of exchange for a diverse range of people and has served as a hub fora variety of innovative industries. These features are advantageous in developing innovative lifestyle change options andin nurturing partnerships between citizens and businesses to promote them.

4.1 Development of City Vision
The city vision towards 2050 was developed from text
analysis to gain insights from the participants’ opinions of“What of Yokohama shall be retained towards 2050” and“What of Yokohama-city to be improved towards 2050”
shared during two workshops. The year 2050 was selected foran envisioning exercise to enable the workshop participants
to envision truly innovative and sustainable futures that were
not restricted by existing systemic lock-ins.
The analysis of opinions on “What of Yokohama shall be
retained towards 2050” highlighted that many of theparticipating citizens were very aware of the good living
environment in their neighbourhoods and wanted tomaintain it in the future. This might be evidence thatYokohama has successfully ensured a good living

environment from the early stages of housing developmentthat started during the period of rapid economic growthfrom the 1960s onwards. In particular, participants pointed
out that there are many farms, parks and green spaces intheir residential neighbourhoods, as well as a good urban
landscape. Participants expressed that they feel
comfortable living there.
In addition to this, the city's excellent public transportsystem was praised, with participants pointing out that it isvery convenient to get around. Although expressed lessexplicitly, participants were also aware of Yokohama's
regional character as a port city with a historical history ofinteraction between diverse human resources, and their
expectation was that this regional character would continue
to induce innovation in local industries.

10

As an extension of the discussion during the "What of
Yokohama shall be retained towards 2050" session, thenegative effects of cars were widely discussed.
In contrast to the much appreciated improvement of public
transport, the focus was on problems related to mobility,
such as problems with pedestrians and cyclists, which are
typical in big cities.
Many participants wanted to see the development of bicycle
paths to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. They
also pointed out that the roads are currently too narrow andcongested with cars.

This problem of mobility is particularly prevalent among theelderly and physically challenged. The current mobility
environment, which is dangerous and inconvenient even forable-bodied participants, is a serious problem for the elderly
and disabled.
In addition, the elderly and disabled need access to local
welfare and health services, so inclusiveness for thesevulnerable groups may be an urgent issue for Yokohama as
the city moves towards a super-aged society2.

Figure 4.1 Analysis of what workshop participants wish to be improved in Yokohama towards 2050
“Yokohama has a strong
image of being an urban, but
surprisingly there are still
many fields. I think it would
be good to have many fields
left in order to protect
Japanese agriculture.”“I want Yokohama to remain aplace of nature, where parks
are close to where we live,
where we can enjoy the sea
and hiking. I want to be able
to walk outside with mygrandchildren without worry.”“Good public transportsystem, depending on
the location.”“Convenient transport
links”

4.2 Key Themes of the City Vision towards 2050
The following four key themes were extracted based on the
text analysis mentioned above: ‘Urban Green Space and

Urban Design’, ‘People-friendly Transport’, ‘Inclusivenessand Diversity’ and ‘Innovation and Education’. The key
issues for these four themes are summarized below alongwith some possible solutions.

Theme 1: Urban Green Space and Urban Design (Urban Farming, Parks and Urban Development Controls)
Issues or Requests

Solutions (example)

Decrease in green spaces
Lack of parks maintenance

Strengthening of urban development regulations(e.g. a system of contributions for the maintenance of green
spaces)More budget for parks

2 WHO defines ‘super-aged society’ as the society with an ageing rate (the proportion of a society’s population over 65-year old) exceeding 21%.

11

Issues or Requests

Solutions (example)

Expansion of urban farming

Expansion of the budget for the development of urban farms
Development regulations (e.g. urbanisation control areas)

Urban landscape design

Improvement of the landscape system
Urban planning restoring historic buildings

Theme 2: People-friendly Transport (Walking, Bicycling and Public Transport)
Issues or Requests

Solutions (example)

Ensuring the safety of pedestrians and cyclists

Development of bicycle paths

Ensuring the safety of pedestrians and cyclists

Development of bicycle paths

Improved bicycle accessibility

Promotion of bicycle-sharing

Barrier-free mobility

Making buses barrier-free
Improvement of local transport
Widespread use of electrically-assisted bicycles (to cope withslopes)

Theme 3: Inclusiveness and Diversity (Elderly, Disabled and Foreign Nationals)
Issues or Requests

Solutions (example)

Super-ageing society

Community welfare and health through collaboration

Life support for disabled people

A community-wide support service system
Support for the transition from welfare to work

Longer-term residence of foreign nationals

Employment support for international students
Multilingual support for local services

Theme 4: Innovation and Education
Issues or Requests

Solutions (example)

Regional revitalisation and industrial hubs

Business matching
Entrepreneurship support

Industry-University Collaboration

Creating business opportunities
Support for industry-academia collaboration

Diverse educational needs

Career and lifelong education in partnership with families,
communities and businesses

124.3 Overview of the Future City Vision
Through the participatory workshops, many participantsin Yokohama appreciated the city's implementation ofa growth strategy based on local characteristics, but werealso concerned about the negative consequences of rapid
urban development which is sometimes undertaken without
adequate coordination and landscape management.
Advanced urban planning with abundant urban green
spaces along with development of urban farming is a key
element of the Future City Vision.
Many participants also pointed out the necessity of further
efforts to cope with an ageing society. Yokohama's vision for
the future is to be a highly inclusive city that embraces
diversity, including the elderly, disabled and other13

vulnerable groups. This aspect is particularly important todevelop a people-friendly transport system. Promotion of
bicycle use, walking and public transport must be alignedwith measures to make them barrier free and accessible tothese vulnerable groups as well. The city is expected to
become a safe and comfortable city as well as a convenient
place to live for all citizens.
As a port city, Yokohama has been a centre of exchange fora diverse range of people from Japan and abroad since theopening of the port, and this has contributed to the city's
vitality. As a result, the city has become a hub for a variety ofinnovative industries, providing opportunities to develop
innovative lifestyle change options and nurturing citizenbusiness partnerships to promote them.

Illustration: Tania Vicedo

5. LIFESTYLE CHANGE TOWARDS 2030
• The identified lifestyle carbon footprint reduction options and their adoption rates can reduce lifestyle carbon footprintby 3.2 t-CO2e/capita/year (from 7.1 to 3.9 t-CO2e/capita/year) (-45%), assuming no change to renewable energy shareand no change in environmental efficiency improvement by 2030.
• To achieve the 1.5°C Lifestyles’ carbon footprint target of 2.5 t-CO2e/capita by 2030, in line with the Paris Agreement,
both consumption and production side measures are needed. For example, if the scenario assumes transformative
production side changes such as the share of renewable energy reaching 45% and the 3% annual environmental
efficiency improvement will be maintained up to 2030, then the proposed consumption side measures could achieve
the goal of 2.5 t-CO2e/capita/year (-65%).
• Production side measures include an increase in renewable energy supply, improvement of environmental efficiency, as
well as other factors like digital transformation, artificial intelligence, acceleration in autonomous and shared mobility,
reduction in material consumption and robotics, and these can all contribute to achieving the 2030 reduction target toenable sustainable lifestyles.
• In the major consumption domains, substantial footprint reductions can be expected in housing (-84%), mobility(-81%), and leisure (-61%).
• Food and service domains are areas where it is relatively difficult to reduce carbon footprint.
• Adoption of the proposed lifestyle changes are expected to generate various co-benefits such as economic benefits
through reduced operation costs (e.g. less energy expenditure) or reduced consumption expenditure, health benefits(e.g. shifting from car to bicycle, increasing plant-based diet), and more appreciation of local landscape as a result ofactive mobility and local tourism.
• The proposed lifestyle changes may require changes in our value system such as a shift in priority from material
abundance to satisfaction with a sustainable way of living.
• The proposed lifestyle change options are suggestions, and it is assumed that they will be implemented if citizens show
willingness and the appropriate situations are enabled.

14

5.1 Lifestyle change options and adoption rates
There are three main approaches for reducing theseamounts: energy efficiency improvement, modal shift, andabsolute reduction (Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Aalto University and D-mat Ltd, 2019). In this
scenario, they are defined as follows:• Efficiency improvement: Decreasing emissions byreplacing technologies with lower-carbon ones while
not changing the amount consumed or used, such as inenergy-efficient agriculture, vehicles, or housing.
• Modal shift: Shifting from one consumption mode to aless carbon intensive one, such as in adopting a plantbased diet, using public transport, or using renewableenergy for electricity or heating.
• Absolute reduction: Reducing physical amounts ofgoods or services consumed, such as food, kilometres
driven, energy use, or living space.
Sixty-five (65) lifestyle change options for all three
approaches were presented at the citizens’ workshop andparticipants were asked to select options considering their
reduction potential and potential contribution to the City
Vision. The selected options in the scenario are listed in thefollowing tables (Tables 5.1-5.4), with their respective
reduction potential (assuming 100% adoption rate) andassumed adoption rates in 2030. Respective adoption rates

were determined based on the results of the first workshops
except for those cases where some adjustment was required
to address competing options (e.g. three modal shift options
from car commuting to bicycle, train, and bus). Reduction
potential indicates the maximum carbon footprint reduction
if the referent option is adopted 100% without taking
account interaction with other options. When multiple
options are implemented simultaneously, we need to take
into account interactions among options, for example
implementing both teleworking and shifting private car
commuting to bicycle will decrease the reduction impacts of
the latter as the former reduces commuting distance.
Table 5.1 shows the selected mobility options. It is notablethat many citizens selected options to reduce travel
distance, e.g. local vacation, less frequency of shopping,and so on. Further, private car usage both for commuting
and other trips will be substantially reduced and mostconventional cars will be replaced by various eco-cars suchas electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The volumeof road transportation will be further reduced as ridesharing and car-sharing become common, and much lesscar traffic will enable better bus services and safer
environment for bike users. Along with the City Vision,
promotion of public transportation must be done in an
inclusive manner with barrier-free consideration.
Promotion of bicycle use must be supported by wider
use of electrically-assisted bicycles to cope with thehilly terrain of Yokohama.

Table 5.1 Selected mobility related options

Name of Mobility Related Option

Carbon footprint reduction
potential (kgCO2e/capita/yr)

Adoption rate
in 2030 (%)

Local Vacation

151.8

87.5

Less Frequency of Shopping

144.8

62.5

Local Weekends and After Work

96.9

62.5

Domestic Vacation

57.2

62.5

Eco Driving

148.1

62.5

Shifting from Taxi to Bus and Bicycle

18.3

56.3

Telework

279.4

50

Shifting from Commuting by Car to Train

205.1

50

Ride Sharing

510.2

37.5

Car Sharing

212.7

37.5

Shifting from Car to Bicycle (other than commuting)

466.3

32.7

Online Home Coming Visit

170.4

31.3

15

Name of Mobility Related Option

Carbon footprint reduction
potential (kgCO2e/capita/yr)

Adoption rate
in 2030 (%)

Shifting from Domestic Flight to Train

40.7

31.3

Shifting from Car to Train (other than commuting)

435.9

28.6

Shifting from Car to Bus (other than commuting)

328.4

28.6

Electric Vehicle

242.3

25.6

Shifting from Commuting by Car to Bus

154.5

25

Hybrid Vehicle

205.0

21.9

Living Close to Work

191.3

18.8

Shifting from Commuting by Car to Bicycle

221.8

18.8

Shifting from Long Distance Driving to Train

278.1

18.8

Shifting from Long Distance Driving to Bus

208.8

18.8

Electric Vehicle with 100% Renewable Energy

467.4

18.3

Living Close to Services

259.5

12.5

Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle

244.7

11

Table 5.2 shows the selected housing-related options.
Relatively easy options such as installing LED lights andregulating the temperature using air conditioners or by
adjusting clothing are widely adopted. Electricity generation

by solar PV and zero energy houses (including nearly zeroenergy houses and life cycle carbon-minus houses) are also
well promoted.

Table 5.2 Selected housing related options

Name of Housing Related Option

Carbon footprint reduction
potential (kgCO2e/capita/yr)

Adoption rate
in 2030 (%)

LED Lighting

92.2

93.8

Room Heating by Air Conditioner with Renewable Energy Supply 114.7

87.5

Regulate Temperature by Clothing

112.9

87.5

Nudge for Energy Saving

59.1

75

Improvement of Window for Insulation

46.6

62.5

Hot Water Supply by Heat Pump (Eco Cute)

121.1

52.6

Hot Water Supply by Solar Water Heater

183.8

47.4

Renovation for Insulation Improvement

142.2

43.8

Electricity Generation by Solar PV

1,275.3

27.6

Compact House Living

235.6

43.8

100% Renewable Grid Electricity

1,232.0

27.3

Electricity Generation by Solar PV and IH Cooking Heater

1,352.2

15.8

Nearly Zero Energy House

1,433.4

12.6

16

Name of Housing Related Option

Carbon footprint reduction
potential (kgCO2e/capita/yr)

Adoption rate
in 2030 (%)

Life Cycle Carbon Minus House (LCCM)

2,086.7

8.4

Zero Energy House (ZEH)

1,815.1

8.4

Table 5.3 shows the selected food-related options. Many
citizens will make efforts to reduce food loss at home.
Purchasing seasonal local vegetables will also be widelyadopted, which is in harmony with the development ofurban farming included in the City Vision. Shifting to a veganor vegetarian diet is a relatively less popular option but
together with other dietary shifts, meat consumption will be
substantially reduced.

Table 5.3 Selected food related options

Name of Food Related Option

Carbon footprint reduction
potential (kgCO2e/capita/yr)

Adoption rate
in 2030 (%)

Food Loss Reduction at Home

37.0

81.3

Eating Seasonal Vegetables (Seasonal Food)

35.9

68.8

Buying Healthy Ready Meal following Food Balance Guide

16.6

68.8

Eating Local Vegetables (Local Food)

7.9

62.5

Food Loss Reduction at Restaurants

17.2

62.5

Drinking and Eating Snack Healthy following Food Balance Guide 126.1

62.5

Healthy Lifestyles by Reducing Tobacco and Alcohol

162.2

56.3

Cooking Healthy following Food Balance Guide

42.6

56.3

Eating Out Healthy following Food Balance Guide

26.6

37.5

Shifting from Red Meat to Chicken (White Vegetarian)

70.4

23.8

Shifting from Meat to Seafood (Pescatarian)

73.6

23.8

Shifting from Traditional Meat to Alternative Meat (Bean-based)

186.4

13.6

Plant-based Diet (Vegan)

341.2

13.6

Plant, Egg, and Dairy-based Diet (Vegetarian)

219.8

10.2

Table 5.4 shows the selected goods and leisure-related
options. Longer use and recycling of clothes is particularly
popular, and other goods are also carefully selected fora longer use and recycling options. Participating incommunity recreational activities and community
ecotourism is also very common, and this will contribute not
only to enhance social capital but also to develop newopportunities for the local economy.

Table 5.4 Selected goods and leisure related options

Name of Goods and Leisure Related Option

Carbon footprint reduction
potential (kgCO2e/capita/yr)

Adoption rate
in 2030 (%)

Longer Use and Recycling of Clothes

193.7

75

Longer Use and Recycling of Electrical Equipment

44.6

68.8

Sharing of Books and Magazines

18.9

68.8

Longer Use and Recycling of Bags and Jewellery

31.9

50

17

Name of Goods and Leisure Related Option

Carbon footprint reduction
potential (kgCO2e/capita/yr)

Adoption rate
in 2030 (%)

Longer Use and Recycling of Furniture and Carpets

29.0

50

Longer Use and Using Up of Consumables

90.1

50

Longer Use and Recycling of Hobby Goods

113.2

25

Participate in Community Recreation Activities

248.0

75

Participate in Community Eco Tourism

92.2

68.8

It must be noted that the proposed lifestyle change options
are assumed to be implemented by citizens who are willingto implement them, and are also in an enabling situation.
The scenario aims to provide ideas towards realising 1.5°C
Lifestyles for diverse citizens in many respects such as age,physical conditions, occupational situation, socioeconomic
status, family composition, as well as access to public
transport and shopping areas. It may also depend on a
person’s value judgement. The proposed adoption rates
imply that this scenario should not be interpreted as beingprescriptive for all citizens. The adoption rates are justindicative figures embedding the expectations held byworkshop participants as well as a feasibility assessment
in 2030 and should not be interpreted as future projections
or targets.

is to identify the necessary changes in renewable energy
share and environmental efficiency in terms of carbon
footprint intensity to achieve the 2030 reduction target (2.5
t-CO2e/capita/year) along with the proposed lifestyle change

5.2 Change in lifestyle carbon footprints
By the target year of this scenario, 2030, many backgroundconditions of the scenario will have changed; some changes
are in line with decarbonisation efforts but some are not.
The former changes include systemic changes such astechnological advancement and greening of the energy mix.
It is very difficult to predict how these changes will evolve by
2030, and we assume two cases — the first case is to
assume that there will be no such changes, and the second

efforts (selected lifestyle change options with employed
adoption rates).
First, if no changes in renewable energy share andenvironmental efficiency are assumed, the proposed
lifestyle change efforts will reduce per capita lifestylecarbon footprint from the current 7.1 t-CO2e/year to 3.9
t-CO2e/year. The lifestyle change efforts will show a
reduction of 3.2 t-CO2e/year, but the expected carbon
footprint exceeds the 2.5-t target by 1.4 t-CO2e/year.
Then, we identify necessary changes in renewable energy
share and environmental efficiency to achieve the 2.5-t
target as follows. First, we assume a 3% annual
improvement in environmental efficiency3, and set the shareof renewable energy such that the 2.5-t target can beachieved. The latter was estimated at 45% (includinghydro), which is high compared with the existing national
average of 16%. With these assumptions, the per capita
lifestyle carbon footprint will be reduced from the current
7.1 t-CO2e/year to 2.5 t-CO2e/year (see Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Changes in lifestyle carbon footprint with and without changes in renewable energy share and environmental efficiency

Present
2030 w/o production side
measures2030 with production side
measures
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

● Housing ● Mobility ● Food ● Goods ● Leisure ● Services

3 In this scenario, environmental efficiency improvement is defined as reduction of carbon footprint intensity.

18

Figure 5.2 Changes in lifestyle carbon footprint with assuming changes in renewable energy share and environmental efficiency
Housing
Mobility
Food
Goods
Leisure● Present ● 2030

Services
0500

The lifestyle carbon footprints from the housing and themobility domains will be reduced substantially, while thatfrom the food domain will be relatively high in 2030.

5.3 Co-benefits of 1.5°C Lifestyles
The proposed lifestyle change efforts will change not only
household consumption but also lifestyles in a more broad
sense as well as in terms of the roles of communities.
Further, they must be contextualised in terms of the changes
in our value system. Some lifestyle change efforts may
require changes in the value system such as a shift in priority
from material abundance to satisfaction with sustainableways of living, while implementing lifestyle change options
may affect the value system of the implementer. The role
played by lifestyle change efforts is important to materialise
the transformation of our social and economic systems into
sustainable, resilient and inclusive ones.
It is also expected that the proposed lifestyle changes will
generate various co-benefits. In general, lifestyle changes
along with an efficiency improvement approach reduce
operation costs (e.g. less energy expenditure), and thosefollowing an absolute reduction approach bring economic
benefits due to reduced consumption expenditure. Cost
implications of lifestyle changes in line with a modal shift
approach can be taken on a case-by-case basis, but they areoften associated with various co-benefits such as healthbenefits (e.g. shifting from car to bicycle, or changing to aplant-based diet). Further, promotion of active transportation(bicycle, on foot) may result in more appreciation of the local
landscape as a result of reduced speed.
Related to the mobility domain, a drastic reduction ofprivate car use will mitigate traffic jams, and substantial
increase of bicycle use backed up by adequate supporting
measures including development of bike lanes and bicycle
parking places will bring health benefits. A shift from private

19

1000

1500

2000

2500

car use to public transportation will increase the number ofpassengers, but adoption of teleworking and shopping inbulk will cancel out this increase and hopefully further
mitigate congestion on trains and buses. A shift fromconventional cars to electric vehicles (EV) and plug-in
hybrid vehicles (PHV) will provide electricity storage
capacity for the owners and will improve resilience against
natural disasters.
Related to the housing/energy domain, improved insulationof housing will improve health problems related to extreme
temperature. Improved energy efficiency will reduce energy
bills. From a broader view, the shift from thermal electricity
to renewable electricity contributes to reducing fossil fuelimports and the financial savings will contribute to an
improved fiscal balance.
Related to the food domain, many options contribute toimproving the nutritious balance of our diet. Promotion of
local vegetable consumption not only contributes to GHG
emission reduction from the transportation process but also
strengthens the relationship between consumers and local
farmers, which may make the city more attractive in many
senses, with better food safety, active local agriculture,
more balanced land-use patterns, etc.
Related to the consumer goods domain, more selective
purchasing behaviour may affect the current businessmodel of mass production and mass disposal of cheap
products. Selective purchase of higher quality long-life
products may improve quality of life in a very visible manner.
Related to leisure domains, local and community based
activities are encouraged and lively active communities may
attract the younger generation to live there.
In the leisure domain, local and community-based activities
can revitalise communities and neighbourhoods byattracting younger generations to live there.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS TO STAKEHOLDERS• Lifestyle changes are being recognised by decision-makers as critical elements to address climate change, and thelifestyle carbon footprint is an indicator of the impact of people's lifestyles on climate change. However, how to
encourage consumers to play a role in keeping their personal carbon footprint within 1.5°C remains a key challenge.
• A systemic transition is necessary. Consumer practices, markets, services, technology and social rules areinterdependent, and must co-evolve. The transition to sustainable lifestyles will also require a diverse range of support
measures from key stakeholders covering the whole supply chain.
• Five categories of supporting measures are proposed: social system transformation or transition, improving theinfrastructure and implementation environment, improving products and services, providing and disseminating
information, and providing economic incentives.
• The workshop participants suggested two important supporting measures common to all lifestyle change options: 1) todisseminate 1.5°C Lifestyles concept and lifestyle change options through education to all generations; and 2) toestablish a participatory process to convey messages from citizens to the government.
• Governments should review existing regulations, start indicative planning and transition management to overcome
lock-ins, and encourage a focus on sustainability for long-term change, such as ‘teleworking’, ‘ZEH’ and ‘Nearly ZEH’.
• Governments should provide infrastructure for sustainable choice, and motivate citizens and business sectors to takeaction, as well as provide feedback, for items such as ‘electric vehicles’ and ‘solar PV’.
• The business sector should offer innovative products and services and related new business models, such as ‘vegan
diets’ and ‘plug-in hybrid vehicles (renewable energy charging)’.
• Communities, workplaces, and schools should carry out short-term, grass-root initiatives and dissemination actions,such as ‘local recreational activities’ and ‘local ecotourism’.

20

6.1 Challenges or obstacles in implementing
lifestyle changes
People's lifestyles are not easy to change, as some aspects
are voluntary, while others are strongly influenced by theavailability, accessibility or affordability of products andservices, as well as by the surrounding infrastructure andcommunity conditions. Consumers in modern societies arelocked in to larger social trends of long working hours andmass consumption lifestyles. In order to realise 1.5°C
Lifestyles and to scale up changes at the societal level, thisstudy clarified the obstacles, ‘enabling contexts’ andexpected supporting measures through a participatory
approach, and provided policy implications to co-create
1.5°C Lifestyles through stakeholder collaboration. It is also
hoped that this will lead to the formation of new values andsocial norms.
The main obstacles for participants to implement lifestylechange options can be categorised as follows:

1. Lack of infrastructure, products and services.
2. Infrastructure, products and services exist but are notwell known.
3. High costs.
4. Low accessibility.
5. Conflicts with personal needs.
6. Conflicts with other people’s needs.
7. Conflicts with societal norms.
The participants in the household experiment were also
asked to propose some supporting measures to overcome
these obstacles. The proposed supporting measures can bedivided into five categories: ‘social system transformation/transition’, ‘improving the infrastructure andimplementation environment’, ‘improving products andservices’, ‘providing and disseminating information’, and‘economic incentives’. Table 6.1 shows the supporting
measures for the selected lifestyle change options, where
supporting measures are particularly effective to facilitate/promote their adoption.

Table 6.1 Expected supportive measures or social changes
Supporting measures
Lifestyle change
optionTeleworking• Living close toworking place• Compact cities

21

Social systemtransformationand transition• Adjust working
rules andregulateteleworking
achievement
rates• 	 Awarenessraising for
managers andsupervisors• Creating aworkingenvironment insurroundingareas• Urban planning• Land use
planning• 	Reducing
transfers

Improvinginfrastructure or
implementation
environment

Improvingproducts andservices• 	Provision of PC
etc.
• 	 Securingco-working
spaces• Better accesssystem andSecurity
measures• 	 Improvement ofnursery schools• Low price andhigh quality IT
equipment,
applications
and service• Consultation
service

Correction ofexcessive
concentration tomega cities

Providing basic
services to awalking distance

Providing anddisseminating
information

Economic
incentives

Information
provision on how
to improve teleworking
conditions• Financial
support for thedevelopment oftheenvironment• Preparatory
funds forcompanies• Support for
housing
relocation

Supporting measures
Lifestyle change
option

Shifting car tobicycle• Ride-sharing• Car-sharing

Social systemtransformationand transition
Properenforcement of
the road trafficlaw (with
provision ofadequate bikeinfrastructure)

Improvinginfrastructure or
implementation
environment

Providing anddisseminating
information

Economic
incentives

Ensure goodtraffic manners• Collection of car
tolls• Encouragecommuting bytrain

Improve cruising
range

Provision of
information on
economic
implications

Subsidy to reduce
installation costs• Rental andleasing services• Development of
products thatcan meetlandscaperegulations andinstallation
location
restrictions

Provision of
information on
economic
implications

Subsidy to reduce
installation costs

Development of
low-cost, highperformance
products

Provision of
information on
economic
implications

Subsidy to reduce
installation costs

More shops• 	 Development of
low-cost,
highperformance
products• Development of
attractive
recipes• Events andworkshops for
information
dissemination• 	 Provision ofnutritious
information toaddress healthconcerns

Improvement of
distribution of
local vegetables• Improvement ofvarieties
suitable foropen-aircultivation• Development of
attractive
recipes• Promotion of
exchange
betweenproducers andconsumers• Promotion offood education• Bicycle parking,• Safe bicyclepaths• Increase shareof renewableenergy• Expandcharging
infrastructure• Hot watersupply by heatpump
• Solar PV• Solar water
heaters• LCCM• ZEH• Nearly ZEH• Vegan• Vegetarian• Shift fromtraditional meatto alternativemeat• Eating seasonal
vegetables• Eating local
vegetables• Collaborate withestate agents• Regulation of
new residential
properties

Promotion ofhealth check-ups
and healthcounselling bycompanies andpublic institutions

Utilisation ofabandoned
farmland

Provision of low
price electricallypower assisted
bike

Provision ofmatching
applications

Deregulation ofride-off services
for car sharing• Electricvehicles• Plug-in hybrid
vehiclesImprovingproducts andservices22Supporting measures
Lifestyle change
optionLonger use andrecycling ofproducts(clothes/bags andjewellery /electricalequipment etc.)

Social systemtransformationand transition

Improvinginfrastructure or
implementation
environment• Standard
setting for longlife highperformance
products• Deregulation fororganising freemarket at
public space

Sharing of books
and magazines,
use of ebooks
and libraries

Transition toe-books• Localrecreational
activities• Localecotourism

Coordination withlandscapedevelopment andnatureconservation• Popularisationof online
libraries• Borrowing frommobile libraries

Development ofcamping andlodging facilities

In addition, two important supporting measurescommon to all lifestyle change options were suggested
by workshop participants: one is to disseminate the 1.5°C
Lifestyles concept and lifestyle change options througheducation to all generations, and the other is to establish
participatory process to deliver messages from citizens
to the government.

Improvingproducts andservices

Providing anddisseminating
information• 	 Provision oflong life highperformance
products withreasonableprice• Provision ofmatching
applications

Information forrecycling andrepair service

Economic
incentives• Provision of
ebook readers
at a reasonableprice• Provision of use
friendly
searchingapplications• More events
that are easy toattend• More services
for the citizens

Dissemination of
information on
activities andtours

Subsidy to local
farmers

6.2 Roles of stakeholders to enable lifestylechanges
Table 6.2 summarises suggested actions for key
stakeholders to provide enabling contexts to implement andfacilitate lifestyle change options despite the sevenobstacles mentioned above.

Table 6.2 Policy recommendations for key stakeholders

Obstacles

Infrastructure,
Service or Goods do
not exist(e.g. Rental ZeroEnergy Houses)

23

Enabling
Contexts

Infrastructure,
Service or Goods areprovided

Recommendations to Stakeholders
National and Local
Governments

Business• Reviewing
regulations• Infrastructuredevelopment• Investment
promotion• Public procurement• Provision of goods
and service• Joint-developmentof goods andservices withgovernments &citizens• Services
improvement

Citizens and Civil
Society Organisations

Obstacles

Enabling
Contexts

Recommendations to Stakeholders
National and Local
Governments

Business

Citizens and Civil
Society Organisations

Joint-event with local
governments orbusiness

Infrastructure,
Service or Goods exist
but are not well
known
(e.g. 100%
Renewable Energy
Contract)

Information on
infrastructure,services or goods areprovided• User-friendly
information
provision• Labelling• Media campaign• Provision of userfriendly information• Consulting services(e.g. houses,
transportation)• Provision of
searching service,mobile apps, etc.
• Events

Infrastructure,
Service or Goods exist
but are too expensive(e.g. ZEH)

Infrastructure,
Service or Goods
become more
affordable• Tax reform• Subsidy• Price regulation

Provision of more
affordable goods andservices

Infrastructure,
Service or Goods exist
but are too difficult tofind and access(e.g. Vegan Foods,
Car sharing)

Taking the option
might cause conflictwith other daily needs(e.g. Commuting toworkplace by bus

Taking the option
might cause conflictwith others’ needs(e.g.1 Online home
visits do not makegrandparents happy
e.g.2 Vegetarian foods
are good for parents
but questionable forchildren)Taking the option
does not go along with
the informal rules ornorms of thecommunity or
workplaces(e.g.1 Adjusting
clothes,e.g.2 unable to install
rooftop PV on
historical areas)

Infrastructure,
Service or Goods
become more easily
accessed found &obtained

Options where
different needs are
met together available

Options where needsof different people are
met together areavailable

Informal rules andnorms are revisitedand modified forencouraging lowcarbon actions

Support citizens &business to create
more accessible
goods or services

Provision of searching
service, mobile apps,
etc.

• Mapping of goods
and services incooperation withlocal business,
co-ops, etc.
• Identifying locallyavailable goods andservices

Support citizens &business to createand share options• Services
improvement• Joint-developmentof goods andservices withgovernments &citizens• Group buying• Joint-developmentof goods andservices withgovernments andbusiness (e.g. Livinglab)• Sharing citizens’
wisdom

Support citizens &business to createand share options• Services
improvement• Joint-developmentof goods andservices withgovernments &citizens• Joint-developmentof goods andservices withgovernments andbusiness (e.g. Livinglab)• Sharing citizen’s
wisdom• Support community
actions• Encourage businessto change officerules• Initiate publiccitizen collaboration• Services
improvement• Joint-developmentof goods andservices withgovernments &citizens• Joint-event withcitizens groups &communities• Local events /workshops• Revision of rules incooperation withgovernments andbusiness24

7. CONCLUSIONS

Key findings of this scenario indicate that after the adoptionof identified low-carbon lifestyle options, the average carbon
footprint of Yokohama’s citizens can be reduced from 7.1
t-CO2e/capita/year to 3.9 t-CO2e/year in 2030 (-45%), if we
assume no improvements in renewable energy share andenvironmental efficiency from the current levels. There areexisting initiatives in Yokohama and Japan to increase
renewable energy share, to improve environmental
efficiency, and to promote digital transformation, artificial
intelligence, autonomous and shared mobility, reduction inmaterial consumption, all of which are expected tocontribute to reducing the carbon footprint and narrowing
the gap to be filled by households to achieve the 1.5°C
Lifestyles target of 2.5 t-CO2e/capita/year by 2030. If, forexample, the share of renewable energy increases to 45%
and environmental efficiency shows an annual improvementof 3%, our proposed lifestyle changes can meet the 1.5°C
Lifestyles of 2.5t-CO2e/capita/year target by 2030 (-65%).
In conclusion, this scenario envisions Yokohama in 2030
with the implementation of 1.5°C Lifestyles, where
households will adopt various lifestyle change options
through collaborative efforts by all key stakeholders such as
national and local governments, the business sector andlocal communities. A wide range of stakeholders must share
the responsibilities and expected roles in achieving the net
zero carbon society with the attainment of a good quality oflife should be shared by different stakeholders.
This scenario provides a roadmap for the co-creation ofa desired decarbonised and sustainable future by diverse25

stakeholders. In this context, the importance of households
becomes clearer: not only do they implement lifestylechange options but they can also send a message togovernments and businesses calling on them to provide
supporting measures that in turn provide the enabling
conditions for stakeholders to take action. This will open thewindow for discussions on the co-creation of 1.5°C
Lifestyles beyond the boundaries of government, businessand citizens. Consumer practices, markets, services,
technology and social rules need to be interdependent, andmust co-evolve. Consumer behaviour change requires threealigned factors: motivation or intention, ability, andopportunity. If consumers are to overcome obstacles andsmoothly transition to 1.5°C Lifestyles, then stakeholders
must collaborate. Key stakeholders (national & local
governments, producers & businesses, citizens & civilsociety organisations) need to play their part and work
together on co-creation. In particular, governments should
review existing regulations, start indicative planning andtransition management to overcome lock-ins, and stimulatea sustainability focus for long-term change. Governments
must also provide infrastructure for sustainable choice, andmotivate citizens and business sectors to take action, as
well as provide feedback. The business sector should offer
innovative products and services, and come up with related
new business models. Citizens should exercise sustainablechoice, and work with governments and businesses todevelop goods and services (e.g. Living Lab). Communities,
workplaces, and schools can carry out short-term, grassroot initiatives and dissemination actions.

8. REFERENCES

Boitier, B. (2012) ‘CO 2 emissions production-based
accounting vs consumption: Insights from the WIOD
databases’, in WIOD. Available at: http://www.wiod.org/
conferences/groningen/paper_Boitier.pdf (Accessed: 28
September 2021).
Circular Yokohama (2021) Circular Yokohama. Available at:https://circular.yokohama/en/ (Accessed: 30 September2021).
City Planning Division, P. D. (2021) History of City Planningin the City of Yokohama. Yokohama.
Government of Japan (2021) Statistics of Japan. Available
at: https://www.e-stat.go.jp/en/stat-search?page=1(Accessed: 28 September 2021).
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Aalto
University and D-mat Ltd (2019) 1.5-Degree Lifestyles:
Targets and Options for Reducing Lifestyle Carbon
Footprints. Technical Report, Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan. Available at:https://www.iges.or.jp/jp/pub/15-degrees-lifestyles-2019/en(Accessed: 28 September 2021).
Iwamura, K. (2004) OECD/IEA Joint Workshop on
Sustainable Buildings: Towards Sustainable Use of Building
Stock. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/japan/35896769.
pdf (Accessed: 30 September 2021).
Japan for Sustainability (2015) Greenery to Citizens! -Urban Agriculture in Yokohama City, Kanagawa Prefecture |Japan for Sustainability. Available at: https://www.japanfs.
org/en/news/archives/news_id035384.html (Accessed: 30
September 2021).

Moore, J. L. (2013) Getting serious about sustainability :exploring the potential for one-planet living in Vancouver.
University of British Columbia. doi: 10.14288/1.0074187.
Nansai, K. et al. (2012) ‘Estimates of Embodied Global
Energy and Air-Emission Intensities of Japanese Products
for Building a Japanese Input–Output Life Cycle
Assessment Database with a Global System Boundary’,Environmental Science and Technology. American Chemical
Society, 46(16), pp. 9146–9154. doi: 10.1021/ES2043257.
Nansai, K. et al. (2020) ‘Carbon footprint of Japanese healthcare services from 2011 to 2015’, Resources, Conservation
and Recycling. Elsevier, 152, p. 104525. doi: 10.1016/J.
RESCONREC.2019.104525.
Peters, G. P. and Hertwich, E. G. (2007) ‘Post-Kyoto
greenhouse gas inventories: production versus
consumption’, Climatic Change 2007 86:1. Springer, 86(1),pp. 51–66. doi: 10.1007/S10584-007-9280-1.
Sasakawa Peace Foundation (2021) White Paper on the
Oceans and Ocean Policy in Japan. Tokyo. Available at:https://www.spf.org/en/global-data/opri/wp_2021_en-lite.
pdf (Accessed: 30 September 2021).
Statistics Japan (2020) Statistical Handbook of Japan.
Available at: https://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/index.html (Accessed: 30 September 2021).
Yokohama Convention and Visitors Bureau (2021) About
Yokohama | Yokohama Official Visitors Guide - Travel Guide
to Yokohama City. Available at: https://www.yokohamajapan.
com/about/ (Accessed: 8 September 2021).

Koide, R. et al. (2021) ‘Exploring carbon footprint reduction
pathways through urban lifestyle changes: a practical
approach applied to Japanese cities’, Environmental
Research Letters. IOP Publishing, 16(8), p. 084001. doi:
10.1088/1748-9326/AC0E64.

26

Copyright © 2021 Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama,
Kanagawa 240-0115 Japan
Tel: +81-46-855-3720
Fax: +81-46-855-3702
E-mail: iges@iges.or.jp