Transcript Climate change and adaptation planning

School of the Built Environment
Globalisation, climate change and urban
governance: balancing the scales for both
efficient and pro-poor urban futures
May 18/19, 2010
Climate change and adaptation
planning
Dr. Jake Piper
Overview
•
•
Comparison UK : Brazil
• National attributes of relevance to CC exposure & adaptation
• Climate change
Adapting to climate change
• Phases experienced
• Future phases: Barriers and barrier busters
School of the Built Environment
Comparing populations (= pressure on environment)
• Brazil – 186 million – 22/km2
• Sao Paulo state – 38 million – 160/km2
UK: 59 million
England: 49 million – 383/km2
SE England: 8 million – 421/km2
England = 54% size of SP state
( UK approx. size of SP state)
School of the Built Environment
National attributes of relevance to CC exposure & adaptation
UK
Brazil
Temperate to boreal climate
Temperate to tropical climates
Geophysical stable, long exploited land;
v little natural environment
Exploited for less time, larger proportion
of “natural” environment
“Mature” economy
Fast growing developing economy
Politically stable - ?
Has become politically stable
Short of space (pressures)
Land rich, but pressures in urban areas
Relatively wealthy (£ and choices)
Greater diversity of wealth and choices
Resource poor?
Resource rich
Ageing population (median age 39)
Young population (median age 29)
Participation in D-making?
?
Established spatial planning system
?
Etc., etc
School of the Built Environment
Comparison of cities by size….largest seven
London
Birmingham
Leeds
Glasgow
Sheffield
Bradford
Edinburgh
7.2 million
992 000
720 000
560 000
512 000
467 000
450 000
Sao Paolo
11.0 m
Rio de Janeiro 6.2 m
Salvador
3.0 m
Brasilia
2.6 m
Fortaleza
2.5 m
Belo Horizonte 2.5 m
Curitiba
1.9 m
(43 cities larger than Edinburgh)
School of the Built Environment
Climate change projections: Brazil (Marengo, undated –
CREAS project)
School of the Built Environment
Climate change
and the UK
•Warmer wetter winters
•Hotter drier summers
•Unpredictable weather
•Rainfall more intense
•Risk of more storms
•Sea level rise
School of the Built Environment
Developing response to CC
• Awareness of CC
Impact assessment
Mitigation (emissions reduction)
Adaptation
-health/comfort
-economy, transport
-biodiversity
C capture..
1960-1980
Geo-engg.
Science evolves
EU heatwave (2003)
drought UK 2004/6
Floods UK 2007
Whilst recent weather events are not proof of climate change, it is very likely that once
School
the Built itEnvironment
climate change is
fully of
apparent
will be accompanied by extreme events.
Adaptation process
•
Climate projections
• Identify impacts of changed climates for receptors
• Identify cumulative and interacting effects
• What measures would alleviate adverse effects or
enhance desirable effects?
• What policies would help bring in these measures?
• Monitoring
• Risk assessment
• Enhance projections
(Research: impacts, risks, responses)
Policy development – Policy implementation
(Re-evaluate)
School of the Built Environment
Planning for climate change, building resilience
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Early warning systems
“Room for rivers” to reduce flood impacts
Protection of coastline / realignment
Be aware of urban : rural interdependence
(e.g. Retain & extend forests for M & A)
Re-settle people away from coastal and other
hazardous areas e.g. slopes
Protect vulnerable/fragile areas
Enable rainfall to infiltrate / sink in (Rural
washlands; Urban green infrastructure)
Assess location of vital infrastructure, inc.
transport, energy & emergency infrastructure
Community planning
Urban Design, e.g. areas for shade, water for
cooling, buildings with high thermal capacity
School of the Built Environment
Pro-poor
issues
•
•
•
•
•
Early warning systems
Provision of shelters
Preparation (food, water,
blankets)
Cool rooms for heat
Focus on poor
Factors contributing to appropriate adaptation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge of changes (identification, measurement, understanding)
Knowledge of environment ( “” “” “”)
Assessment of impacts (severity, direction)
International treaty as support/authority
Political cohesion – acceptance of need to adapt
Authority and levers for control / participation
Financial strength
Economic diversity
Awareness across society and government
• (hierarchies, institutions, cities & rural areas)
Research strength
Good communications across all media
School of the Built Environment
Science
Politics
Economics
Education
/society
Motives & motivators for adaptation
•
•
•
•
Economic and financial reasons
Security
Health
Environmental and ethical reasons
Barriers to adaptation
• Agreement between parties about issues and way forward
• Knowledge
• Technology
• Economic barriers
• Social barriers
• Political barriers
(Trudgill – Barriers to a better environment)
School of the Built Environment
What is needed - barrier busters:
policies, tools, etc.
•
•
•
•
Adaptation policies
• Government CC policy by sector and cross-cutting
• Spatial planning policy at all levels
• Incorporation of CC into sectoral policies
Assessment tools (financial, environmental, health impact , risk…)
Information – e.g. national and LCLIP
Also:
• Mitigation policies
• Carbon capture plans
School of the Built Environment
Five “policy options” to be explored by sector
(framework suggested by on-going EC policy
work)
•
•
•
•
•
Regulation / legislation
Markets: market-based instruments
“Soft” actions (communications, governance, collective action)
Insurance schemes
R&D
Taking care to avoid maladaptation, i.e.
 Inefficient use of resources
 Measures which displace vulnerability
 Ineffective measures (i.e. designed for risks that do
subsequently occur)
School of the Built Environment
not
What constrains us
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Uncertainties (science, planning, responses)
Skills shortages
Resources
Authority to require changes
Political time horizons
Boundaries – e.g. to sectors, admin. units, etc.
Public support?
School of the Built Environment
Mitigation –adaptation - biodiversity
Effect on biodiversity
Positive
Negative
Win-Lose-Win
Win-Lose-Lose
Wind turbines
Biofuels
Improved building insulation
Afforestation
Large dams
Low-till cultivation
Forest conservation
Win-Win-Win
Win-Win-Lose
Forest pest control
Develop to show
efffects on poor?
Urban tree planting
Green rooftops
Increased farmland irrigation
Species translocation
Sea wall defence
Flood control infrastructure
Ex-situ conservation
New desalination plants
Lose-Win-Win
Lose-Win-Lose
School of the Built Environment
Source: Paterson, Berry, Araujo, Piper and Rounsevell, 2008 Conservation biology
School of the Built Environment
Market-based instruments
(preserve and extend choice)
•
•
•
•
•
Biodiversity offsets, habitat banking
Providing incentives or removing disincentives or perverse
incentives
Reduce “market friction” via subsidy of renewable energy
generation with biodiversity component (e.g. small hydro)
Fiscal/price disincentives (e.g. on sale of land with habitat
value)
“Revolving funds” for properties with high nature
conservation value
School of the Built Environment
Soft actions – governance, guidance,
communications
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Codes for biodiversity (e.g. via Codes for Sustainable Homes, and Green
Building Council)
Codes for low energy use – add biodiversity issues?
Recognition/awards (European Green Capital + upgrade)
Skills development (GIS, taxonomy….)
Raising awareness: Natuurkalender, Springwatch
Subsidy for renewable energy use – to include biodiversity-related criteria?
Community engagement e.g. via residents’ groups, wildlife groups, business
and CSR
School of the Built Environment
Local Climate Impacts Profile
•
•
•
•
•
Why do an LCLIP?
To gather information about current vulnerability to weather and
climate as a catalyst to further awareness and action.
The creation of a Local Climate Impacts Profile (LCLIP) has proved to
be effective tool for organisations at developing this understanding.
For local authorities, doing an LCLIP is one way to meet the
requirements of NI188, Level 1. See information about the national
policy context here.
Demonstrates not only the potential impacts of climate change but also
the extent to which an authority, community or organisation is prepared
and able to respond now (i.e. to deal with current weather events). One
LCLIP uncovered unplanned costs to a local authority from weather
events of £16.4 million over the previous decade (in emergency
provisions, insurance claims and road repairs).
School of the Built Environment
Case study: Oxfordshire LCLIP
•
Aims were (in line with signing of the Nottingham Declaration),
• to assess the likely impacts of climate change on council services and also
• To encourage adaptation in the wider community.
•
Approach:
• Media search
• Interviews with council officers (15)
• 3 month period, database created of 260 weather related incidents from a
10 year period, such as:
• Flooding on the road networks
• Flooding of properties
• Crop fires exacerbated by high summer temperatures
•
Results:
• raised awareness of adaptation internally
• gathered substantial evidence that the council was vulnerable to a number
of weather related impacts.
• lent weight to adaptation agenda
• Identified that the cost associated with weather incidents over a decade
was estimated to be £16.4 million. ( extensively quoted in local press,
though often misrepresented as the “cost of climate change”. ) But taken to
be an underestimate.
School of the Built Environment
Climate change projections: UK
Key findings for South East England, 2050s, medium
emissions scenario. Probabilities of change
The wider range is defined as the range from the lowest to highest value of change for all
emissions scenarios and all three (10, 50, and 90%) probability levels for each 30-year time
period.
•
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of increase in winter mean temperature is
2.2ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.1ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 3.4ºC. A
wider range of uncertainty is from 0.9ºC to 3.8ºC.
•
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean temperature
is 2.8ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.3ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 4.6ºC. A
wider range of uncertainty is from 1.1ºC to 5.2ºC.
•
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of change in annual mean precipitation is
0%; it is very unlikely to be less than –5% and is very unlikely to be more than 6%. A wider
range of uncertainty is from –6% to 6%.
•
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of change in winter mean precipitation is
16%; it is very unlikely to be less than 2% and is very unlikely to be more than 36%. A wider
range of uncertainty is from 1% to 40%.
•
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of change in summer mean precipitation is
–19%; it is very unlikely to be less than –41% and is very unlikely to be more than 7%. A
wider range of uncertainty is from –43% to 16%.
•
(25 km grid squares)
School of the Built Environment
Who must adapt?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hierarchies of government and other institutions (providing vision and
policy, legislation, regulation, research)
• National, regional, local
Spatial planners: set regional/local policy, bring in spatial plans that
control relevant activities – location and design of development,
transport, retrofitting of city areas
Public and private institutions
Sectors (e.g. tourism, manufacturing, health)
Professionals: architects, engineers, etc.
Consensus?
Cities and communities
Individuals
Some general research needs
•
•
•
•
How we are affected, how our environment is affected
How we exacerbate climate change by our processes (e.g.
procurement, energy use, etc. )
Interactions with other drivers, e.g. population and consumption growth
Effectiveness of potential responses
School of the Built Environment