Planning For Climate Change in Urban Area From Theory To PrPlanning For Climate Change in Urban Area From Theory To Practiceactice

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Planning for climate change in urban areas: from theory to practice

Christine Wamsler a, *, Ebba Brink a, Claudia Rivera b
a b
Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), P.O. Box 170, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden Lund University Centre for Risk Assessment and Management (LUCRAM), P.O Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 20 March 2012 Received in revised form 29 November 2012 Accepted 3 December 2012 Available online xxx Keywords: Adaptation Climate change Disaster Risk reduction Urban planning Urban resilience Urban transformation
a b s t r a c t
Climate change poses a serious threat to sustainable urban development, placing many cities at risk. As a consequence, city authorities are increasingly facing the challenge of nding ways to include adaptation strategies into their work, although related knowledge and competence is still scarce and fragmented. With the aim to contribute to knowledge development and organizational learning, the objective of this paper is to critically review and compare current theoretical and practical approaches to adaptation planning in cities. In order to do so, rst the conceptual characteristics and features of a climate resilient city are identied. Second, the reciprocal linkages between climate-related disasters, urban form and city planning processes are analysed e by considering the life cycle of disasters from causes, to short- and long-term impacts, to post-disaster response and recovery. Finally, urban adaptation measures proposed for both developed and so-called developing countries are assessed. On the basis of the identied differences, gaps and synergies between the theoretical and practical approaches to adaptation planning, the implications for improving sustainable urban transformation are discussed. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Climate change poses a serious threat to sustainable urban development, placing many cities at risk. During the last 30 years, the rate of so-called natural disasters worldwide has almost quadrupled, resulting in escalating human and economic losses (UNISDR, 2012a). Despite many uncertainties concerning the magnitude and frequency of hazards, and their specic impacts, climate change will inevitably increase the susceptibility of urban societies if no effective adaptation takes place (IPCC, 2007; UNHABITAT, 2011). Historically, cities have been e and often still are e perceived as places of refuge from disasters and as buffers against environmental change. Today, however, they are better described as hotspots of disasters and risk (Pelling, 2003; UNDP, 2004). The environmental changes humanity is facing are deeply intertwined with complex urbanization processes and are happening at a before unseen rate and magnitude (EEA, 2012; OBrien and Leichenko, 2008). As a consequence, city authorities are increasingly facing the challenge of nding ways to include adaptation strategies in their work. With climate change adaptation being still a relatively new
eld of activity, related knowledge and competence is however still scarce and fragmented (UNISDR, 2010a). Whilst planning and planners are generally regarded to be responsible and capable to adapt to disasters and climate risk (Stern, 2006; IPCC, 2007), their specic role, the actions to be taken, and the associated responsibilities of city authorities often remain unclear (Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2012). With the aim to contribute to knowledge development and organizational learning for local adaptation planning, the objective of this paper is to critically review and compare current theoretical and practical approaches to adaptation planning in cities, and discuss their implications for achieving sustainable urban transformation. In order to do so, after the description of the research methodology (Chapter 2), the conceptual characteristics of a disaster-resilient city are identied (Chapter 3). Next, the reciprocal linkages between climate disasters, urban form and city planning processes are theorized e by considering the life cycle of disasters from causes, to short- and long-term impacts, to post-disaster response and recovery (Chapter 4). Chapter 5 assesses then the most prevailing urban adaptation measures and strategies pro-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 46 46 2228080. E-mail address: christine.wamsler@lucsus.lu.se (C. Wamsler). 0959-6526/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.008
Please cite this article in press as: Wamsler, C., et al., Planning for climate change in urban areas: from theory to practice, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.008
C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14
posed for urban communities (both high- and low-income).1 On the basis of the identied differences, gaps and synergies between the theoretical and practical approaches to adaptation planning, the implications for achieving sustainable urban transformation are discussed (Chapter 6). 2. Methodology The objective of this paper is to critically review and compare current theoretical and practical approaches to adaptation planning in cities and discuss their implications for achieving sustainable urban transformation. On this basis, the two main research questions are: 1. Is current adaptation practice in cities based on a theoretically substantiated understanding of risk, mainstreaming, and adaptation? (as presented in Chapter 3) 2. Is current adaptation practice in cities based on a theoretically substantiated understanding of the city-disasters nexus? (as presented in Chapter 4) The paper is based on the following two hypotheses: First, current adaptation practice does, as yet, not tap into its full potential to reduce and adapt to increasing urban risk. Second, integrating theoretical and practical state-of-the-art understanding and approaches can lead to more comprehensive and appropriate models for adaptation planning.2 The research was carried out in four methodological steps. In a rst step, theory and concepts on disaster and climate risk were reviewed to identify the characteristics of disaster- and climateresilient cities. In a second step, both recent and the decades-old literature on urbanization, city ecology, and urban climate comfort was reviewed to analyse the links between urban form, climate, and its relation to risk (e.g. Adam, 1988; Bosher, 2008; Brenner and Keil, 2006; Emmanuel, 2005; Givoni, 1998; Hall and Pfeiffer, 2000; Kay et al., 1982; Koch-Nielsen, 2002; Konya and Swanepoel, 1980; Legates and Stout, 2000; Mumford, 1968; Olgay, 1963; Roaf et al., 2005; Salmon, 1999; Simmel, 1960; UNHABITAT, 2007, 2010, 2011; Weber, 1966; Wirth, 1938; Worldwatch Institute, 2007). Subsequently, current adaptation practice was assessed using a meta-evaluation of recent cross-country studies, including high-, middle- and low-income nations (e.g. Carmin et al., 2012; Brooks et al., 2009; Davoudi et al., 2010; EEA, 2012; European Commission, 2009; Fujikura and Kawanishi, 2010; GagnonLebrun and Agrawala, 2006; Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2012; Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010; Loureno et al., 2009; Massey and Bergsma, 2008; Meister et al., 2009; Mickwitz et al., 2009; Ribeiro et al., 2009; Roggema, 2009; Schuster, 2008; Swart et al., 2010; UNISDR, 2004, 2010a, 2010b, 2011, 2012b, 2012c). To complement the meta-evaluation, also some information-rich country
and city-specic studies were analysed (e.g. Alam and Rabbani, 2007; German Stadtklimalotse, 2012; Greater London Authority, 2010; Jabeen et al., 2010: UKCIP, 2011). Finally, the last step was to contrast the identied theoretical understanding as regards climate and disaster risk, and the linkages between urban form, climate and risk, with current adaptation planning. The study presented in this article is part of a broader research project on Cities, Disaster Risk and Adaptation carried out during 2011e 12 for the elaboration of a Routledge book of the same title (Wamsler, 2013). The research was in parts nancially supported by Training Regions (Training Regions, 2011), a publiceprivate partnership to promote safety, security and sustainability of cities and regions. 3. Linking disaster risk, adaptation and resilience: a conceptual framework The term disaster risk refers to risk related to climatic and nonclimatic hazards, whilst the term climate risk only refers to risk related to climatic hazards. Climatic hazards include, for instance, oods, windstorms, droughts, res, heat and cold waves, sea level rise (water surges) and landslides (IPCC, 2007, 2012). Non-climatic hazards include earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Since this study is based on a comprehensive understanding of risk, the term disaster risk is used throughout the following text. UNISDR (2009:25) denes disaster risk as the potential disaster losses, in lives, health status, livelihoods, assets and services, which could occur to a particular community or a society over some specied future time period. The denition of disaster risk reects the concept of disaster as the outcome of continuously present conditions of risk, and is often expressed as a product of hazard (H) and vulnerability (V) (R H V) (UNISDR, 2009). Disasters are thus commonly understood as the result of an interaction between so-called natural hazards (H) and vulnerable conditions (V) (UNISDR, 2009; Wisner et al., 2004). Consequently, hazards do not cause disasters on their own. In contrast to the term hazard, the concept of vulnerability is more complex and multifaceted. In simple terms, disaster vulnerability is the degree to which communities or societies are susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard (UNISDR, 2009:30). It describes the existing conditions, characteristics and circumstances of an area exposed to one or several hazards, where a highly vulnerable area is understood as being incapable of resisting their impacts (UNISDR, 2009). Note that the terms vulnerability and risk are thus different concepts, although in literature they are often used as a synonyms.3 Based on the described understanding of disasters and risk, UNISDR denes disaster risk reduction as the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events (UNISDR, 2009:10). Identifying the different aspects which form part of risk reduction (i.e. the different ways in which risk can be reduced) is crucial to get a better grasp of its complexity and meaning, which city authorities and planners need to sustainably adapt to increasing risk. The above-mentioned risk denition makes
1 This paper looks into adaptation practices in low-, middle-, and high-income nations. Such a categorization of economies is supported by e.g. The World Bank, which each July 1st sets a new classication based on last years gross national incomes (GNI) per capita (The World Bank, 2012). In this context, low- and middleincome nations are sometimes referred to as developing countries or the Global South, although denitions, and thereby the countries comprised in the category, differ slightly. Analogously, high-income nations are sometimes referred to as developed countries or the Global North. When possible, the terms more developed community and less developed community (or settlement) are used in this paper for a more nuanced discussion, and to acknowledge the differences that exist within the same hemisphere, country or even city. 2 More specically, it is assumed that a clearer understanding of the gaps between theoretical and practical approaches can yield important insights for improving urban risk reduction and adaptation. It is not assumed that decisionmakers automatically implement the right measures and strategies that theoretically substantiated understanding would prescribe.
3 This is also related to the fact that the elds of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation have in the main developed independently and concepts such as vulnerability, capacity and mitigation are used in both elds with slightly different connotations (UN-IATF/DR, 2006; UNISDR, 2008). In contrast to risk literature, adaptation literature sees vulnerability as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, which is similar to the understanding of risk described here. Exposure is here conceptualized under the term hazard, whilst sensitivity and adaptive capacity are captured under the concept of vulnerability.
reference to assessing risks, reducing hazards, lessening vulnerability, and improving preparedness. This notion can be translated into a more operational understanding expressed in the denition of the following four risk reduction measures: 1. Measures to reduce or avoid hazards (i.e. hazard reduction or avoidance; sometimes also called prevention); 2. Measures to reduce the susceptibility of the affected location to withstand hazards (i.e. vulnerability reduction; sometimes also called disaster mitigation); 3. Measures to improve post-disaster response mechanisms and structures (also called preparedness for response); and 4. Measures to improve post-disaster recovery mechanisms and structures (also called preparedness for recovery). (cf. Wamsler, 2009). Risk assessment is not a risk reduction measure (i.e. a measure that in itself leads to a reduction of risk), but an inherent part of the above-listed risk reduction measures (Coppola, 2011). In accordance with the risk factors mentioned above, the rst measure listed addresses the rst risk component (i.e. H), whilst the other three measures jointly address the second risk component (i.e. V). Consequently, if a specic area hit by a hazard is vulnerable, or not, depends not only on its location-specic conditions (such as the built environment; the adequacy of construction materials and orientation of structures in space; population densities; peoples livelihoods, savings and physical capital; natural resources; resource degradation; peoples health and wellbeing; and the existence of equality, peace and security). It also depends on the functioning of peoples and institutions reaction to this hazard in form of disaster response and disaster recovery. Risk reduction is one of the three main phases of (urban) disaster risk management, the other two being disaster response and disaster recovery (Coppola, 2011). The concept of risk reduction is, however, very different from disaster response and recovery in the sense that it is a cross-cutting (or mainstreaming) issue which is of high importance during the whole disaster cycle (UNISDR, 2005). Whilst disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation have in the main developed independently, they share their aim to reduce the occurrence and impacts of climate-related disasters and associated risk (IPCC, 2007, 2012; UN-IATF/DR, 2006; UNISDR, 2008), and both need to be integrated into all kinds of sector work (including urban planning). In the context of this study, the terms risk reduction and adaptation can thus be used as synonyms. With risk reduction and adaptation being a cross-cutting topic, city authorities and planners do not only have to be familiar with the different ways as to how risk in a specic location can be reduced. They also need to know how adaptation can be integrated or mainstreamed into urban planning practice, although related knowledge is scarce (Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2012). The term mainstreaming generally signies the modication of a specic type of core work in order to take a new aspect or topic into account and to act indirectly upon it (Holden, 2004). It thus does not mean to completely change an organizations core functions and responsibilities, but instead to view them from a different perspective and carry out any necessary alternations, as appropriate. Hence it is about looking into what already exists, in order to not re-invent the wheel, but to pick people up from their doorsteps, and thus build as much as possible on existing structures, mechanisms and procedures (Jrgens, 2011). There are many different studies dealing with mainstreaming or integrating different cross-cutting aspects, including climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, into different kinds of sector work. These include (a) guidance notes for integrating adaptation into recovery planning (IRP, n.d.); (b) tools for
mainstreaming risk reduction into development planning (e.g. Benson et al., 2007; LaTrobe and Davis, 2005; Mitchell, 2003); (c) benchmarking handbooks (e.g. Ballard et al., 2008; Stephenson, 2008) and other training material (e.g. ADPC, 2006; Care International, 2009; FAO/ILO, 2009; IISD, 2007; Oxfam, 2002; SDC, 2009; Tearfund, 2009, 2011). These studies address different and often quite specic aspects which are crucial when integrating adaptation into urban planning and other sector work, but they generally do not provide a comprehensive and more operational understanding of mainstreaming; that is: the different mainstreaming strategies required to achieve sustainable change. Such an understanding is presented in Table 1, which was elaborated on the basis of their analysis and systematization (cf. Wamsler, 2009, 2013). Strategies I and II focus on the local programme level; Strategies III and IV on the organizational functioning of the implementing body; and strategies V and VI on sector work in general. The latter includes the promotion of more distributed risk governance systems as well as science-policy integration through, for instance, increasing opportunities for researchers, practitioners and policymakers to exchange information, including relevant practitioners and policymakers in projects from the beginning, and making governments and policymakers more involved in universities (cf. UNISDR, 2011 on science-policy interface and risk reduction). Notably, the naming of the six strategies is not crucial, and related measures can thus be found under many different headings. For instance, the recent UK Climate Impacts Programmes study on Identifying adaptation options discusses aspects related to strategy III under the headings Changing or developing regulations, standards, codes, plans, policy or programmes and Internal organizational development, and strategy V under the title Working in partnership (UKCIP, n.d.). The use of the term resilience has become increasingly prominent in recent disaster literature. An increasing number of articles and books are written about its meaning and the historical developments of its meaning (Bn et al., 2012; Cannon and Mller, 2010; Comfort et al., 2010; Zolli and Healy, 2012 etc.).4 In a disaster risk perspective, resilience refers to [t]he ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efcient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions (UNISDR, 2009:24). A disaster resilient city can thus be interpreted as one that readily withstands or overcomes disasters, including climate and non-climate related, small and large-scale disasters.5 Such a city can, ideally, secure the livelihood of all inhabitants, by empowering them to cope and deal with natural threats; and adjust its social, political and economic systems in such a rapid way so as to account for damage, effect repairs and learn and evolve from experience (cf. Wamsler, 2006). From this follows that, in the context of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, resilience can be seen as the antithesis of risk. Consequently, risk is generally discussed in relation to particular population groups, sectors or places, whereas resilience is more discussed in relation to what helps to protect them. This does however not imply that cities will become completely disaster resistant, or that urban climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction have as an only goal
4 The increased use of the resilience concept is not without its controversial aspects. Some argue that it is largely replacing the term vulnerability, and thereby conveniently detracting focus from the root causes of vulnerability (that is to say, political and economic systems), by instead focussing on the need to build capacities (Cannon and Mller, 2010; Wamsler, 2013). 5 In this context, the term climate resilience can be perceived as part of disaster resilience.
Table 1 Overview of strategies to integrate climate change adaptation into urban planning. Strategies with focus on the local programme level (e.g. urban development programmes) B Strategy I (also called add-on risk reduction and adaptation): Implementation of specic programmes or programme components that are explicitly and directly aimed at reducing risk, and are not part of the implementing bodys sector-specic work. B Strategy II (also called programmatic mainstreaming): Modication of sector-specic work in such a way as to reduce the likelihood of any programme measure actually increasing risk, and to maximize the projects potential to reduce risk. Strategies with focus on the organizational functioning of implementing bodies (i.e. city authorities) B Strategy III (also called organizational mainstreaming): Modication of the organizational management, policy, corpus of legislation, working structures and tools for project implementation e in order to assure the integration of risk reduction and adaptation at the local programme level and to further institutionalize it. B Strategy IV (also called internal mainstreaming): Modication of an organizations way of operating and of its internal policies, so that it can reduce its own risk in terms of impacts created by disasters and climate change and assure its continuous functioning. Strategies with focus on urban sector work in general and related educational bodies B Strategy V (also called inter-organizational mainstreaming for risk governance): Promotion of cooperation between urban actors for capacity development and the harmonization of risk reduction and adaptation within the management and functioning of different organizations (working in disaster response, recovery and development). B Strategy VI (also called educational mainstreaming): Support for a conceptual shift in the philosophy that drives sector-specic education in order to allow risk reduction and adaptation to be incorporated into professionals sphere of activities. Source: Adapted from Wamsler (2013).
to eliminate risk. Their goal is in fact to work towards disaster resilience and sustainability, by expanding the focus from trying to prevent, control, or resist extreme weather events to a broader systems resilience framing in which we learn how to live with an ever-changing, sometimes risky environment (Cannon and Mller, 2010; Morss et al., 2011; UNSIDR, 2012b). Bringing together the terms of disaster, disaster risk, risk reduction, adaptation and resilience, a disaster resilient city can be understood as a city that has managed to successfully support measures to strengthen individuals, communities and institutions to: (a) Reduce or avoid current and future hazards; (b) reduce current and future susceptibility to withstand hazards; (c) establish functioning mechanisms and structures for disaster response; and (d) establish functioning mechanisms and structures for disaster recovery. This can only be achieved if city authorities and planners succeed in mainstreaming adaptation into urban planning by: a. Assuring that their programme activities do not increase and, possibly, reduce current and future risk (cf. mainstreaming strategy II, Table 1); b. Institutionalizing risk reduction and adaptation so that its integration at programme level becomes a standard procedure (cf. mainstreaming strategy III, Table 1); c. Assuring their organizations own functioning during times of disasters and climate change (cf. mainstreaming strategy IV, Table 1); d. Cooperating with others to create a functioning multi-level system of governing urban risk (cf. mainstreaming strategy V, Table 1); and possibly e. Pushing forward professionals improved education on risk reduction and urban resilience (cf. mainstreaming strategy VI, Table 1). Related actions can be incremental or transformative; that is: improving either existing risk reduction approaches to maintain systems functions or provoking systems change for long-term sustainability (IPCC, 2012; Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete, 2011). It ultimately results in the delivery of adaptation actions on the one hand, and the building of adaptive capacity on the other hand (cf. UKCIP, n.d; Wamsler, 2013). 4. The city-disasters nexus: a conceptual framework In-depth knowledge on the city-disasters nexus is crucial, allowing city authorities and planners to mainstream
adaptation; that is: to modify their work so as to act upon increasing risk and, ultimately, achieve disaster-resilient cities. The perception that disasters are the (uncontrollable) cause and the destruction of the built environment is the effect, is widespread (Bosher, 2008). Consequently, planning responses are often very limited, mainly focussing on physical aspects and the post-disaster context. The reality is, however, more complex.6 The process of urbanization brings about profound physical, environmental, socio-cultural, economic and political changes which make urban areas different from rural areas (LeGates and Stout, 2000; Mumford, 1968; UNHABITAT, 2007, 2011; Weber, 1966). Cities are thus characterized by distinctive physical, environmental, socio-cultural, economic and political features. Understanding these features is rst required to theorize the reciprocal relationship between cities and disasters in a systematic and comprehensive way.
4.1. City features Urbanization and the resultant changes nd their visible expression in the urban fabric which is characterized by distinctive physical features of population densities; land coverage and vegetation; architectural details; organization of structure on space; and relation of dwelling to topographic features (Table 2).7 Many of the environmental, socio-cultural and economic changes which make urban areas different from rural areas can be attributed to the above-listed physical features of the urban fabric. This becomes especially obvious when looking at the environmental changes. These changes are manifested in the urban ecosystem which is characterized by distinctive features of precipitation; wind; temperature; air quality; humidity; solar
6 This Chapter on city features is, amongst others, based on the revision of the following publications: Adam, 1988; Baehring, 2011; Bosher, 2008; Brenner and Keil, 2006; EEA, 2012; Emmanuel, 2005; Givoni, 1998; Hall and Pfeiffer, 2000; IFRC, 2010; Kay et al., 1982; Koch-Nielsen, 2002; Konya and Swanepoel, 1980; Legates and Stout, 2000; Mumford, 1968; Olgay, 1963; Roaf et al., 2005; Salmon, 1999; Simmel, 1960; Tacoli, 2012; Turpeinen, 2008; UNHABITAT, 2007, 2010, 2011; Wamsler et al., 2012; Wamsler and Lawson, 2012; Weber, 1966; Wirth, 1938; and Worldwatch Institute, 2007 (cf. Chapter 2: Methodology). Only when statements in the following text are related to a specic one of the publications above, is a reference also included in the text. 7 Note that the characteristics and related connotations (i.e. increased or decreased) described in Tables 2e5 are only an indication. They are not applicable to all cities.
C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14 Table 2 Distinctive physical features of cities: The urban fabric. Physical features Population densities Distinctive urban characteristics Table 3 Distinctive environmental features of cities: The urban climate. Environmental features Precipitation Wind Distinctive urban characteristics B Rainfall (increased) B Snowfall (reduced) B Wind speed and exchange (reduced) B Local wind circulation, gusts and turbulences (increased) B Temperature (increased) B Emissions (increased) B Dust particles (increased) B Air humidity (reduced) B Fog and cloudiness (increased) B Evaporation (reduced) B Length of natural lightning (reduced) B Intensity of solar radiation (reduced) B Ground sealing and compression (increased) B Soil quality (reduced) B Ground water level (reduced) B Ground water quality (reduced) B Surface water quality (reduced) B Water ows (more regulated) B Dependency on other (rural) areas for ecosystem services B Vegetation cover (reduced) B Biodiversity of vegetation (reduced, specic city vegetation) B Growing season (increased) B Vegetation forms (specic forms developed on facades, roofs, etc.) B Dependency on other (rural) areas for ecosystem services B Biodiversity of species (generally reduced, overpopulation of some species) B Noise (increased) B Amount of waste (increased) B Type of waste (more hazardous) B Waste water (increased; increased mix of rainwater and backwater)
B Population densities and overpopulation (increased) B Access to marginal areas (reduced) Land coverage and B Built-up surface area (increased) vegetation B Size, location and distribution of green and recreational areas (reduced) B Tree coverage (reduced) B Access to affordable space (reduced) B Consumption of land (including rural land) (increased) Architectural details B Building heights (increased) B Differences in building heights (more varied) B Construction materials and colours (different; more inuential e.g. of streets) B Construction techniques (less traditional, more advanced) B Shape of dwellings (more varied, in parts more restricted) Organization of B Distance between buildings (reduced) structures in space B Concentration and interdependence of buildings, services and technical infrastructure (increased) B Concentration and interdependence of political and economic centres (increased) B Orientation of dwellings (more restricted) B Street layout and street orientation (denser, more restricted) Relation of dwellings B Proximity to large bodies of water (reduced) to topographic features B Relation to nearby hills and valleys (more difcult to account for) B Terrain inclinations (more difcult to account for) Infrastructure B Infrastructure network density and connectivity (increased, more congested) B Dependency on infrastructure network (increased) B Flows (e.g. material and people) (increased) Source: Adapted from Wamsler (2013).
Temperature Air quality Humidity
Solar radiation Soil Water bodies
Flora
Fauna Noise Waste and waste water
Source: Adapted from Wamsler (2013).
radiation; soil; water bodies; ora; fauna; noise; waste and waste water (Table 3) (Adam, 1988). Most of the environmental factors listed in Table 3 are directly related to the characteristics of the urban fabric. The main causes are the progressive sealing of and construction on green areas together with the high densities which result, amongst other things, in increased energy use, emissions, and heat. The latter, known as the heat island effect, is the result of the heat storage and radiations of the built fabric and the high amount of outlet air (for instance from heating, industrial processes and trafc) (Adam, 1988). The rst six environmental factors listed are the so-called abiotic ecological factors of precipitation, wind, temperature, air, humidity and solar radiation, which make up the typical urban climate. In contrast to the surrounding areas, the urban climate is generally rainier, less windy, hotter, more contaminated, less humid, and cloudier (Adam, 1988; Emmanuel, 2005; Givoni, 1998; Kay et al., 1982; Koch-Nielsen, 2002; Konya and Swanepoel, 1980; Olgay, 1963; Roaf et al., 2005; Salmon, 1999). However, there are strong inner-city differences with, for instance, strong localized wind currents and turbulences. The socio-cultural features which characterize urban areas are, on the rst sight, less connected to the physical changes caused by urbanization. They are manifested in the characteristic urban society and culture (or so-called urban life) which has distinctive features as regards family structures; social cohesion; social inequality; public participation; values; and the diversity of people (Table 4) (LeGates and Stout, 2000; Wirth, 1938). More thorough analyses show that several of the above-listed socio-cultural aspects of urban life also have direct linkages with
the physical features of the urban fabric. High population densities, overpopulation, the lack of affordable space, and the lack of green and recreational areas can, for instance, inuence family structures, social cohesion and the sense of community. Issues such as competition for space and poor infrastructure (with lacking or leaking waste water pipes) can easily generate conicts between neighbours in overcrowded conditions. Likewise, lacking infrastructure to provide adequate water, sanitation, drainage, roads and footpaths increases the health burden, work load, and insecurity of residents, especially for women (IFRC, 2010; Tacoli, 2012). Houses with lacking water and sanitation force girls and women, for instance, to seek toilets or washing areas away from homes, and inadequate transportation infrastructure makes citizens pass insecure areas. Furthermore, the often difcult access of some urban areas, together with the lack of nearby public space for leisure, can isolate certain groups (such as the elderly and women with small children) and make them even more bound to their compact homes. Finally, urbanization leads to economic and political changes manifested in cities characteristic urban economy and urban governance system which, in contrast to rural areas, has distinctive features of agriculture vs. non-agricultural incomes; subsistence vs. money economy; urban livelihood practices; resource availability; public expectations; and public reliance on institutions and social security systems (Table 5) (e.g. LeGates and Stout, 2000; UNHABITAT, 2007, 2011). Also in this context, the interconnections with the urban fabric are manifold. Space restrictions make it impossible for citizens to be self-subsistent or have agriculture as their main income source.
Table 4 Distinctive socio-cultural features of cities: The urban society and culture. Socio-cultural features Family structures Distinctive urban characteristics B Nuclear family structures (increased) B Extended family structures (reduced) B Female-headed households (increased/reduced) B Sense of community (reduced) B Sense of family and family obligations (reduced) B Local leadership structures (reduced) B Anonymity (increased) B Segregation of different population groups (increased) B Gender equality (increased) B Public participation (reduced) B New value systems (increased individualism, etc.) B Traditional/indigenous knowledge (reduced) B Secularization (increased) B Consumer perspective (increased; e.g. increased consumption of meat, fast food, energy) B Formal education (increased) B Illiteracy (reduced) B Diversity of people/heterogeneous communities (increased) B Health status (generally increased; certain health problems may increase such as overweight or HIV/AIDS) B Violence and organized crime (increased)
Social cohesion
risk reduction actions themselves (cf. Leonardsen, 2012; Wamsler and Lawson, 2012). In sum, urbanization leads to a very characteristic urban fabric, ecosystem, climate, society, culture, economy and governance system with the cities physical, environmental, socio-cultural, economic and political features inuencing each other. A comprehensive analysis of the city-disasters nexus needs to take all these factors into account (cf. Fig. 1). 4.2. Cities inuence on disasters To gain a theoretically substantiated understanding of urban disasters, cities characteristic physical and related environmental, socio-cultural, economic and political features need to be linked to the factors that inuence disaster risk, and thus disaster occurrence. As described in Chapter 3, the level of risk is inuenced by the existing (a) hazards; (b) location-specic vulnerabilities; (c) mechanisms and structures for disaster response; and (d) mechanisms and structures for disaster recovery (Fig. 1). 4.2.1. Urban fabrics inuence on hazard occurrence The urban fabric inuences both the characteristics and the occurrence of hazards (cf. Fig. 1). In sum, this research identied the following aspects as to how the urban fabric can exacerbate hazards, and ultimately increase disaster occurrence: 1. Intensication of existing hazards through the urban fabrics inuence on the urban climate (resulting in increased rainfall, temperature, local wind circulation, turbulences and gusts) (Adam, 1988). Related inner-city differences are strong, both vertically and horizontally. Urban ash oods can, for instance, only affect some few streets within a community. 2. Direct creation of new hazards, mainly res and landslides, through architectural details, organization of structures in space, urban livelihood practices, etc. Fire can, for instance, be caused through constructive or architectural aspects such as insecure electrical connections or through antennas and electrical equipment on top of buildings that attract lightning (Worldwatch Institute, 2007). Landslides can be a direct consequence of the organization of structures on open space, for instance, on watersheds that modify hydraulic regimes and destabilize slopes. 3. Expansion of built fabric into hazard prone areas, thus increasing hazard exposure. High population densities, together with a lack of adequate inner-city land and different socio-economic aspects, can lead to the expansion of the urban fabric into hazard-prone areas (for instance near rivers or on steep slopes) or closer to other environmental hazards (such as industries, toxic disposal sites or dangerous streets). This is true for urban areas as a whole as well as expansions within single construction sites which might be too small to avoid building close to declivities, landlls or other potential hazards. 4. Increased possibility of compound hazards, mainly due to the close proximity of land use related to the cities physical, social and economic functions (e.g. residential, industrial and transport purposes) (cf. EEA, 2012). 5. Creation of new hazards through high emissions: Besides directly adding to increased heat and bad air quality, high emissions in cities indirectly create new hazards through their contribution to climate change, thereby reshaping hazard occurrence both globally and locally (e.g. increased rainfall, snowfall, wind speed, temperature, droughts, heat and cold waves, and even earthquakes due to melting of permafrost (Turpeinen et al., 2008)). In fact, climatic changes are likely to outweigh potential positive effects of the urban climate (such
Social inequality
Public participation Values
Diversity of people
Health and security
Likewise, food growing in combination with another job, as a diversication strategy, is often not viable in the city. The spatial concentration of political and economic centres translates, on the one hand, into more resources and jobs (although not equally accessible) and, on the other hand, increased expectations and reliance on institutions and social security systems. An example is the large number of urban migrants, living far away from inherent social safety nets such as the (extended) family. Many citizens thus rely on public authorities to solve their problems (including extreme weather events), rather than taking any
Table 5 Distinctive economic and political features of cities: The urban economy and governance system. Economic and political features Agriculture vs. non-agricultural incomes Subsistence versus money economy Distinctive urban characteristics B Agriculture versus non-agricultural incomes (reduced) B Subsistence versus money economy (reduced) B Dependency on (rural) food market (increased) B Monetary income (increased) B Prices for goods and services (increased) B Specialization versus diversication (increased; related overexploitation of natural assets increased) B Working space (reduced) B Use of housing as productive asset (increased) B Resource availability (increased) B Resource distribution (less equal) B Control of compliance with legal frameworks (increased) B Presence and concentration of different institutions and access to their services (increased) B Public expectations (increased) B Public reliance on institutions, urban governance and social security systems (increased)
Urban livelihood practices
Resource availability Control power Institutions
Public expectations Public reliance on institutions and social security systems
Urban ecosystem
Characteristic environmental features
Urban fabric Urban society & culture

Characteristic socio-cultural features Characteristic physical features
The City-Disasters Nexus
Hazards
Location-specific vulnerability
Urban economy
Characteristic economic features
Response mechanisms and structures
Urban governance
Characteristic political & institut. features
Recovery mechanisms and structures
Fig. 1. The city-disaster nexus e analysed. Source: Adapted from Wamsler (2013).
as the reduction of snowfall and overall wind speed, or increased temperatures during winter). 6. Constantly changing hazard patterns due to the dynamic urbanization processes. 4.2.2. Urban fabrics inuence on vulnerability In addition to its inuence on hazards, the urban fabric also affects location-specic vulnerabilities. In sum, this research identied the following key aspects as to how the urban fabric can exacerbate location-specic vulnerabilities, and ultimately increase disaster occurrence: 1. Direct creation of susceptible conditions (since many physical features of the urban fabric can per se be seen as vulnerability factors). Examples are high concentration, closeness and interdependence of people, buildings, services, infrastructure, economic and political centres. Cities do not only concentrate people in numbers, they also tend to concentrate highly vulnerable people and population groups (such as poor and marginalized groups, individuals weakened by conict, malnutrition or HIV/AIDS and other diseases, who often seek better life opportunities in cities). 2. Indirect creation of susceptible conditions (mainly due to the urban fabrics inuence on social, economic and political aspects). Examples include: B Use of inadequate construction materials and techniques and the orientation of structures in space. In parts this can be attributed to the high densities and space restrictions, which constrain the layout, design and location of constructions. Restricted space can for instance lead to difculties to adapt constructions to aspects such as prominent wind or solar directions (e.g. to catch a breeze or avoid direct mid-day sun), and available building sites might not allow deep foundations (to withstand landslides). The use of inadequate construction materials and techniques can, however, also be attributed to social, economic and political factors which are related to the urban fabric (and characterize urban life, the urban economy and urban governance systems). An example are informal settlements and the widespread unwillingness (or inability) of politicians (or local residents) to invest in any measures for risk reduction and adaptation. B Inadequate infrastructure for waste and waste water, which can cause blocked drainage systems, eroded soil conditions, inltrated walls, and breeding grounds for diseases (e.g. by attracting vectors such as mosquitos and rats), resulting in
increased risk and impacts of oods, landslides, earthquakes and diseases. B Peoples economic specialization as opposed to diversication, making them economically vulnerable to disaster impacts. B Reduction of interactions amongst neighbours which negatively affects social cohesion and, consequently, any joint efforts to reduce and adapt to increasing risk. 3. Creation of a domino effect of quickly spreading damage and related secondary hazards (created by the high concentration, density and combination of all types of vulnerability factors) (cf. EEA, 2012). 4. Destruction of existing (natural) hazard protection, such as windbreaks, ood walls, oodplains, slope stabilization, fresh air corridors or vegetation that is crucial for ground stability, permeability and cooling. 5. Increased vulnerability by weakening peoples ability to prioritize and take measures to reduce or adapt to increasing risk (mainly due to the urban fabrics inuence on socio-economic aspects, resulting in stressors such as urban violence or food insecurity; as well as ecological factors resulting in negative impact on peoples health and wellbeing). 6. Constantly changing patterns of vulnerability due to the dynamic urbanization processes (reshaping buildings and extensions of settlements), which make it difcult to account for. This is in addition to the fact that citizens differential vulnerability is more heterogeneous (compared to rural dwellers), for instance in relation to income sources, income levels, habits, household sizes and composition, housing types, access to services, etc. 4.2.3. Urban fabrics inuence on mechanisms and structures for response and recovery In addition to the linkages with hazards and vulnerabilities discussed above, this research shows that there are also many aspects as to how the urban fabric can negatively affect existing mechanisms and structures for response and recovery, and ultimately increase disaster occurrence: 1. Increased exigencies for having highly functional and complex response and recovery mechanisms and structures due to the huge number of people cities need account for, and who are located in vast and multifaceted urban settings. 2. Increased susceptibility of existing response and recovery mechanisms as such, since urban disasters also affect their
centralized functioning (i.e. required manpower, services, infrastructure, economic resources and governance structures). 3. Access, transport, gathering and housing of affected people is seriously hampered, obstructing emergency access, emergency supply, evacuation and resettlement (through inadequate and/ or damaged building fabric, lack of space, remote and marginal areas as well as related socio-economic aspects). For instance, an urban fabric with densely built settlements and multi-storey buildings translates, if destroyed, into an enormous amount of falling objects and rubble which block streets, make many outside places insecure, and require major logistics to be securely disposed of. 4. Additional and specialized functions required in the context of response and recovery (e.g. for rubble clearance and providing security for citizens). 5. Lack of (accessible, affordable and existent) space, together with socio-economic aspects of cities, making the adequate housing of affected people especially challenging. Experience shows that emergency shelter, refugee camps and post-disaster (re-)settlements do not work well if constructed far away from peoples former homes and livelihoods, whilst other secure solutions are hardly existent in cities (Baehring, 2011). 6. Concentration of people who are not able to actively take part in any response or recovery efforts (mainly due to the urban fabrics inuence on ecological factors which result in negative impacts on peoples health and wellbeing). Examples include: B Noise and other urban stressors: People are stressed already without disaster and cannot handle additional stress factors. B Contamination, reduced lightning, inadequate water and sanitation, and lack of green areas causing different illnesses. 7. Increase of disturbing factors which can reduce the capacity of people and institutions to respond and recover (due to the urban fabrics inuence on ecological factors). Examples are: B Reduction of natural lightning, fog and cloudiness: hamper sight when no electric lights are available. B Noise: People cannot hear warnings. 8. Increase of vulnerability factors which also have a negative inuence on response and recovery (mainly due to the urban
fabrics inuence on socio-economic factors), such as the reduction of interaction amongst neighbours, exclusion and segregation, little sense of community, lack of local leadership structures, economic specialization, etc. The exclusion and segregation of residents of marginal settlements result, for instance, in people not receiving disaster warnings or being unwilling to use emergency shelter (Wamsler et al., 2012). 9. Constantly changing extension, composition and layout of the urban fabric, making it difcult to dispose of up-to-date information required for adequately responding and recovering (such as databases and maps). In sum, the above analyses show that many of the physical, socio-cultural, economic and political aspects related to the urban fabric inuence existing hazards, vulnerabilities, and the mechanisms and structures for response and recovery. They are determinants for disaster risk and disaster impacts, and thus need to be addressed as a part of a sustainable urban risk reduction and adaptation.
5. Urban risk reduction and adaptation: prevailing measures and strategies On the basis of the theoretical understanding as regards risk, adaptation and mainstreaming (presented in Chapter 3) and the city-disasters nexus (presented in Chapter 4), planning for adaptation needs to address all the different risk factors (i.e. hazards, vulnerability, and deciencies in response and recovery mechanisms) and, in this context, take into consideration the urban fabrics physical and related non-physical features (Fig. 2). Notably, sustainable transformation of this kind can only be achieved if adaptation becomes an inherent part of urban planning practice, which requires the adequate use and combination of a set of different mainstreaming strategies (Fig. 2; cf. Chapter 3). The review of the currently prevailing measures and strategies for climate change adaptation presented in this Chapter show, however, a different picture.
Urban ecosystem
Characteristic environmental features
Hazards Reduced or avoided Urban fabric
Urban society & culture

Characteristic socio-cultural features
Urban Planning
Urban economy
Characteristic economic features
Urban governance
Characteristic political & institut. features
The city-disasters nexus
for Adaptation
Characteristic physical features
Location-specific vulnerability Reduced
Risk factors and adaptation
Programmatic mainstreaming
Organizational mainstreaming
Internal mainstreaming
Inter-organizational mainstreaming
Educational mainstreaming
Mainstreaming risk reduction and adaptation
Fig. 2. Planning for adaptation e in theory. Source: Adapted from Wamsler (2013).
Current adaptation practice was assessed using a metaevaluation of recent cross-country studies which were complemented with information-rich country and city-specic studies (Table 6). The evaluation has focused on analysing the presented urban adaptation measures (i.e. their focus as regards the different risk factors and the city-disasters nexus), as well as on the analysis of the implementation process (i.e. the promoted type of strategies for mainstreaming adaptation into urban planning) (cf. Fig. 2). The described analysis turned out to be challenging since even in the countries where climate change adaptation has been acknowledged as an important issue for urban planning, only little has been implemented (Carmin et al., 2012; Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2012; Mickwitz et al., 2009; UNISDR, 2012c). Urban planning is, in practice, only of marginal interest. Most national adaptation strategies are not yet translated into planning practice, and other countries do not have such strategies. Hence, whilst it is generally recognized that the role of spatial planning for adaptation should be strengthened, the practice is still not well developed. Nevertheless, several important conclusions could be drawn as regards the currently prevailing adaptation measures and strategies, although there are huge variations between the countries (Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala, 2006). These ndings are presented in the following section and are summarized in Table 7.
5.1. Prevailing adaptation measures First, it could be observed that the hazard-specic adaptation measures proposed are surprisingly similar and are, thus, quite independent from the particular context (Table 7). Examples of such measures include issues such as using vegetation to reduce temperatures; increasing the height of electricity installations in ood areas; marking ood levels on houses; as well as rainwater harvesting and storage for dealing with water scarcity or droughts.
Second, most of the implemented or proposed measures are physical interventions; that is: so-called grey or hard measures, which aim at reducing hazard exposure or reducing the vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure to make them more capable of withstanding hazard impacts (Table 7). It is only in recent years that city authorities have increasingly started to search for soft structures and green measures to complement the grey measures (a trend primarily observed in more developed communities). City authorities take this grey infrastructure approach directly by implementing physical measures when building new settlements or public infrastructure, as well as indirectly by revising related legislations (such as building codes or tax incentives) or supporting guidelines for the construction of disaster- and climate-resistant housing and infrastructure. Examples of physical measures which are directly implemented, or advocated through guidelines, include the use of building fronts to create windbreaks; upstanding kerbs as ood retention space; road surfaces which can resist higher variations of temperatures; underground cabling; or construction material which can increase the albedo effect (i.e. the reectivity) of building facades and roofs. Unfortunately, the analysis also shows that most adaptation measures address physical factors separately from related non-physical factors. In other words, the social, cultural, economic, political and institutional characteristics of cities, which are closely interlinked with the physical features of the urban fabric, making cities in to hotspots of risk, are hardly addressed. Consequently, urban planning for adaptation does not tap into its full potential, which may lead to reduced (instead of increased) resilience of cities. Exceptions to this are the numerous measures that focus on the link between the urban fabric and the urban ecosystem. They are, in fact, the most dominant measures in the evaluated studies (see following aspect). Third, the most prevailing urban adaptation measures aim at improving the water management of cities to reduce the risk of oods, landslides, extreme temperatures, urban drought and
Table 6 Overview of the selected comparative studies for meta-evaluation of current adaptation practice. Cross-country studies & compilations (Authors, year & titles) Brooks et al., 2009. Prioritizing climate change risks and actions on adaptation e a review of selected institutions, tools, and approaches Carmin et al., 2012. Progress and challenges in urban climate adaptation planning: Results of a global survey Davoudi et al., 2010. Planning for climate change: strategies for mitigation and adaptation for spatial planners EEA, 2012. Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe: Challenges and opportunities for cities together with supportive national and European policies European Commission, 2009. Commission staff working document accompanying the White paper e Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action e Impact assessment Fujikura and Kawanishi, 2010. Climate change adaptation and international development: making development cooperation more effective Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala, 2006. Progress on adaptation to climate change in developed countries: an analysis of broad trends Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2012. National climate change adaptation strategies of European states from a spatial planning and development perspective Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010. Adaptation to climate change using green and blue infrastructure: a database of case studies (GRABS) Loureno et al., 2009. Outcomes of the 1st international CIRCLE workshop on climate change adaptation Massey and Bergsma, 2008. Assessing adaptation in 29 European countries Meister et al., 2009. Floating houses and mosquito nets: emerging climate change adaptation strategies around the world Mickwitz et al., 2009. Climate policy integration, coherence and governance Ribeiro et al., 2009. Design of guidelines for the elaboration of regional climate change adaptation strategies Roggema, 2009. Adaptation to climate change: a spatial challenge Schuster, 2008. Klimaanpassungsstrategien in Europischen Nachbarlndern (Climate change adaptation strategies in Germanys neighbouring countries) Swart et al., 2009. Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies UNISDR, 2004. Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives UNISDR, 2010a. Local governments and disaster risk reduction: Good practices and lessons learned. A contribution to the Making Cities Resilient Campaign UNISDR, 2010b. Making cities resilient: My city is getting ready. World Disaster Reduction Campaign UNISDR, 2011. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe: A review of risk governance UNISDR, 2012c. Making cities resilient report 2012: My city is getting ready?! A global snapshot of how local governments reduce disaster risk Country and/or city-specic studies (Authors, year & titles) Alam and Rabbani, 2007. Vulnerabilities and responses to climate change for Dhaka German Stadtklimalotse, 2012 (German online decision-support system for climate change adaptation) Greater London Authority, 2010. The draft climate change adaptation strategy for London Jabeen et al., 2010. Built-in resilience: learning from grassroots coping strategies for climate variability UK Adaptation Wizard, 2011 (UK online decision-support system for climate change adaptation)
10
Table 7 Overview of differences and similarities between measures and strategies promoted in the context of low-, middle- and high-income nations.a Similarities: Not context specic Adaptation measures (What?) B Adaptation measures promoted in formal areas are very similar; differences mainly relate to the specic locations level of exposure. B Strong focus on grey infrastructure approach for risk reduction and adaptation. B Emphasis on reducing or avoiding hazards and reducing physical vulnerabilities. B Strong promotion of (a) keeping disaster prone areas free from further developments; and (b) developing guidelines for climate-resilient constructions of housing and infrastructure. B Preparedness for response receive minor attention; preparedness for recovery even less. B Physical, social, cultural, economic, political and institutional aspects are mainly addressed separately. B Many efforts in the eld of water management through grey, green and blue measures, hereby addressing the linkages between the urban fabric and related environmental factors (exception to former aspect). B Social, cultural, economic, political and institutional characteristics of cities that are closely interlinked with the physical features of the urban fabric and increase urban societies level of risk are hardly addressed. Mainstreaming strategies e implementation process (How?) B Risk reduction and adaptation is communicated as a mainstreaming issue for planning, and not as a separate aspect. B Predominant mainstreaming strategy is organizational mainstreaming with a focus on modifying policies, regulations and tools (particularly risk assessment tools). Little attention is however given to the revision of nancial mechanisms, organizational structures, and planning tools. B Second in importance is inter-organizational mainstreaming to improve risk governance structures and the interaction between different urban stakeholders. B Separate implementation of add-on risk reduction and adaptation measures is often more frequent than the modication of planners day-to day work. B Programmatic, internal and educational mainstreaming is given minor consideration (in contrast to organizational and inter-organizational mainstreaming). Differences: Specic to high-income countries Adaptation measures (What?) B More focus on environmental-oriented measures addressing the link between the urban fabric and urban ecology. B Focus on the implementation of winewin or no regret solutions (such as green infrastructure). B Special interest in combining measures for adaptation with measures for climate change mitigation (to reduce greenhouse gas emissions). B Better social protection systems; higher level of social security (income security and access to essential services, in particular health and education). Mainstreaming strategies e implementation process (How?) B More top-down approaches (but increasing interest in more participatory methods). B Focus on implementation process of adaptation mainstreaming, whilst particular measures or specic planning instruments are of less interest. B Organizational mainstreaming: Majority of related strategies are focused on the revision of land-use planning and urban development regulations. B Inter-organizational mainstreaming: Focus on cooperation and communication between different urban authorities to improve risk governance; less involvement of civil society organizations and citizens. Differences: Specic to low- and middle-income countries Adaptation measures (What?) B Stronger focus on basic and technical infrastructure (for improving rain, waste water, and waste management) and less emphasis on green and blue infrastructure (and the linkages between urban and environmental aspects). B More hazard-specic measures as opposed to multi-hazard, winewin and no regret solutions (as specic risk is more present/evident). B Stronger involvement of NGOs, CBOs and citizens, also leading to increased attention to low-tech measures, temporary solutions, more richness in locally-based measures and related participatory approaches for adaptation. B More focus on and variety of measures for preparedness for response (and in parts for recovery). B More pro-poor interventions, linking risk and poverty reduction that focus on asset enhancement, empowerment, livelihood support and health (thus also addressing the link between the urban fabric and socio-economic aspects) Mainstreaming strategies e implementation process (How?) B Inter-institutional cooperation: Focus on cooperation between different types of urban stakeholders, with stronger involvement of NGOs, civil society organizations and citizens at risk to improve risk governance structures. B Organizational mainstreaming: Related action-taking might have little impact due to cities growing outside any ofcial plan, together with lack of resources and institutional capacities, that hamper the integration of climate change concerns into national and municipal policies and tools. B As a result: More community based and bottom-up approaches, different techniques and methods taken at the local household level, less involvement of planners and formal planning processes (especially in marginal areas).
a It should be noted that although this separation was chosen for the study, the identied key differences were not found at the level of governmental actions, but rather when considering the work of NGOs, CBOs, and the active involvement of citizens, which is more often observed in less developed/marginal settlements. Source: Adapted from Wamsler (2013).
the urban heat island effect; mainly by directly addressing the link between the urban fabric and related environmental factors (Table 7). Possible grey measures to improve the water management of cities are the construction, improvement or maintenance of dikes, sewerage and drainage systems, open water channels, and retention ponds. In this context, more developed
communities seem to give highest importance to so-called green and blue infrastructure, which includes the re-naturalization of ecosystems, and implies working with natural processes instead of against them. Examples are the planning of settlement patterns which are characterized by sufcient density but also include open space; avoiding impervious surfaces so that water can be absorbed;
11
the preservation of wetlands as a multiple line of defence against ooding; the creation of natural ecosystems buffers for vulnerable water bodies and low-laying areas; the use of vegetation on roofs and vertical elements (e.g. green walls) to reduce run-off water and absorb heat; as well as the general increase, restoration and maintenance of green areas and open space. As regards the latter, the city of Berlin introduced the Biotope Area Factor (BAF) which expresses the ratio of the area covered by vegetation to the total land area of any urban development (Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010; Davoudi et al., 2010; Greater London Authority, 2010). What makes the use of blue, open and green spaces for risk reduction and adaptation so attractive is the fact that they also improve citizens quality of life by providing recreational areas and places that can foster social interaction. In contrast, less developed communities were identied to give less attention to green and blue infrastructure. Instead they give more consideration to grey measures, such as the creation and improvement of technical infrastructure for rain, waste water, and waste management to enhance the water management of cities. It is mostly because of lacking nancial resources that city authorities of middle- and lowincome nations sometimes combine these with low-tech measures, such as the distribution of plastic sheets (to help channelling rain and waste water and to protect slopes at risk from landslides) or the organization of cleaning days (to reduce the risk of waste clogging water channels). Fourth, most of the assessed countries strongly promote all kinds of measures aimed at avoiding hazards e by keeping areas which are already prone to disasters (and which might even be more endangered in the future) free from further developments (Table 7). High-income nations pursue this goal mainly through the enforcement of land use plans and policies, and in some cases the relocation of critical infrastructure to more secure areas, such as schools and hospitals. In contrast, in many low- and middle-income nations, authorities lacking means of enforcement often translates into a wider variety and combination of measures to gain control over the new colonization of risk areas. Examples include smallscale measures such as local monitoring groups and sign-posting, but also more far-reaching measures such as tax inducements, the transformation of high-risk areas into parks, exchanging rights schemes, as well as land exchange, land pooling and land readjustment programmes. Fifth, preparedness for response and, even more so, preparedness for recovery receive only minor attention (Table 7). Exceptions to this are some efforts to improve early warning systems; setting up emergency plans for health and social care systems; and the building of emergency shelters and evacuation roads. As regards preparedness for recovery, the most predominant measures are the provision of insurance and other social protection systems (including the challenge of creating insurance policies that do not foster risk taking). Finally, in the European context, special importance is given to the identication of adaptation measures which in addition have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the buzz word is climate planning (Davoudi et al., 2010) which seeks to combine climate change mitigation and adaptation. This development has to be understood against the background that planning practice has in many high-income nations rst focused on climate change mitigation and the adaptation turn of planners is very recent (Davoudi et al., 2010). In contrast, in middle- and lowincome nations, more attention is given to (a) informal low-tech measures that can be implemented at community and household level, and (b) bottom-up approaches and involvement of populations coping capacities to compensate for a lack of institutional, nancial and technological resources (Meister et al., 2009).
5.2. Prevailing mainstreaming strategies As regards the prevailing mainstreaming strategies, most studies explicitly or implicitly stipulate that adaptation should be communicated as a mainstreaming or cross-cutting issue for urban planning, and not as an additional and separate aspect which should overrule other planning issues (Table 7). This is independent of the specic (developed or developing) context, and can be considered a major breakthrough. Second, most consideration is generally given to the mainstreaming of adaptation at policy level (which is part of strategy III: organizational mainstreaming), whilst particular adaptation measures or specic planning instruments are of less interest. This is also one of the main frustrations for planners who struggle to translate the high-level-talk to their day-to day work (Carmin et al., 2012; Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2012; UNISDR, 2012c). There is a strong focus on the implementation and integration process of (national and municipal) adaptation strategies and related generic aspects for supporting their further integration in different sector work, especially in high-income nations (Table 7). Whilst national strategies are very different when it comes to their format, goals, and stakeholders involved, most are criticized because they do not provide sufcient guidance on aspects which are crucial to achieve mainstreaming. Examples of such aspects include the denition of different actors responsibilities, related working structures and processes to support continuity of the implementation processes; estimates and availability of required resources in terms of manpower, know-how and costs; the incorporation of risk reduction and adaptation in governmental and municipal budgeting; the revision of all kinds of tools from risk assessment to planning and systematic reporting (Mickwitz et al., 2009; Ribeiro et al., 2009; Swart et al., 2010). When it comes to the modication of policies and regulations at municipal level, emphasis is given to the revision of construction codes and regulations for urban development and land-use planning (Table 7). Due to a lack of resources and institutional capacities, many middle- and lowincome countries face however difculties in integrating climate change concerns into municipal or national policies (UNFCCC, 2007). In addition, related action might be of little impact when cities are characterized by settlements growing outside any ofcial plan and outside any regulations (Bicknell et al., 2009). As regards the modication of tools, most advances can be observed in the context of risk assessment, which is a necessary precondition for all types of adaptation measures. As an example, the Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union provides guidelines for improving risk management in relation to climate change (European Union, 2011). Whilst not many of these have been considered yet, the promoted integrated risk assessment is among the more widely used tools (Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2012). Such risk assessments give, however, hardly any consideration to the city-disasters nexus (described in Chapter 4). Apart from organizational mainstreaming, many advances can be found as regards the enhancement of inter-institutional cooperation, synergy creation, and the harmonization of risk reduction and adaptation to improve current risk governance structures (i.e. mainstreaming strategy V: inter-organizational mainstreaming; cf. Table 7). This is based on a general consensus that the success of the implementation of adaptation planning closely depends on the level of commitment and leadership of local authorities and their interaction with other urban stakeholders. In other words, weak risk governance capacity is understood to be at the core of the current lack of adaptation practice (EEA, 2012; UNHABITAT, 2007,
12
2011). In high-income nations, most emphasis is given to the improvement of coordination and cooperation between different urban authorities, and the creation of publiceprivate partnerships. Citizens themselves are hardly considered to advance current risk governance structures. In low- and middle-income nations, the comparatively stronger involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in risk reduction and adaptation leads, in some parts, also to a greater importance given to civil society organizations and citizens at risk. Finally, in contrast to organizational and inter-organizational mainstreaming, programmatic, internal and educational mainstreaming is given minor consideration (Table 7). Programmatic mainstreaming requires in-depth knowledge about citizens vulnerability and the location-specic linkages between the urban fabric and disasters which is not available to most city authorities. Adding on some simple activities targeted at risk reduction and adaptation is, upon demand, thus often the easiest way out. Furthermore, few modications can be identied as regards city authorities internal functioning to ensure better protection of staff and the organization during times of disasters (such as issues related to the protection of the organizations infrastructure and equipment; staff security; access to disaster information; and a functioning back-up communication plans in case any phone, road or postal communications are cut off). As regards educational mainstreaming, close cooperation between city authorities, universities or other educational bodies for mutual learning is gaining increasing momentum, although related practice is still scarce. On the one hand, educational and research institutions are little involved in actual practice, whilst on the other hand city authorities and practicing planners have little inuence on research agendas, curricula development, and education (UNISDR, 2011), which also results in a weak sciencepolicy interface. 6. Conclusions Climate change poses a serious threat to sustainable urban development, placing many cities at risk. City authorities are thus increasingly facing the challenge of nding ways to include adaptation strategies into their work. Until today, few cities have however developed models allowing them to face climate change in a comprehensive way. With the aim to contribute to knowledge development for local adaptation planning, this paper has critically reviewed and compared related theoretical and practical approaches. The study shows that resilient cities can only be achieved if planning for adaptation includes measures that address all types of risk factors and, at the same time, target not only the urban fabrics characteristic physical features, but also related environmental, socio-cultural, economic and political aspects, which make cities into hotspots of risk. A sustainable transformation of this kind can only be achieved if adaptation becomes an inherent part of urban planning practice, which requires the adequate use and combination of a set of different mainstreaming strategies. This can lead to both incremental and transformative actions; that is: improvements of existing risk reduction approaches to maintain systems functions and, if necessary, provoking systems change for longterm sustainability. The review of current practice shows, however, a different reality. There is hardly any city authority which combines the range of possible adaptation measures, and mainstreaming is seldom carried out in a comprehensive way, but left to single actions. The fact that the suitability of any adaptation measure has to be claried in each individual case is too often used as an
argument for missing integrative concepts in (national and municipal) adaptation strategies and practice.8 If sustainable urban transformation is the aim, adaptation needs to be systematized and systematically incorporated into urban planning practice. This is crucial since even some key principles of traditional planning become questionable in a context of increasing risk and climate change. Bundled infrastructure of roads, telecommunication, water supply, etcetera, which uses the same space or development corridors might, for instance, reduce urban resilience which could require elements that are redundant and can replace each other. To assist city authorities in their efforts to (further) mainstream adaptation into urban planning practice, improved science-policy integration and related decision support systems for organizational learning are a rst step forward. The integration of scientic knowledge with local policy decision-making can, for instance, be promoted through translating scientic outcomes into policy recommendations; training and distribution of research outcomes through workshops, conferences and networks; hosting seminars on specic aspects of adaptation and risk reduction with science-policy interface as a central topic; creating opportunities for researchers, practitioners and policymakers to exchange information; including relevant policymakers and practitioners in research projects from the beginning; and making local governments more involved in universities. In addition, decision support systems can assist city authorities with providing information on: B Potential adaptation measures to (i) avoid or reduce hazards, (ii) minimize location-specic vulnerabilities, and (iii) improve mechanisms and structures for response and (iv) recovery; B Potential adaptation measures which use physical interventions as an entry point to also address interrelated nonphysical risk factors of the city-disasters nexus; B Potential mainstreaming strategies and step-by-step guidance for implementing adaptation; B Methods and tools for achieving sustainable urban risk governance by involving urban authorities, civil society, and citizens at risk; B Synergies and conicts which could be related with a particular combination of different adaptation measures and mainstreaming strategies; B Good practice, research and other relevant background documents from low-, middle- and high-income nations to facilitate both North-South and South-North transfer of knowledge. Naturally, the development of an appropriate model and related frameworks (including concepts, guidelines and policy recommendations) is not in itself sufcient to stimulate policy action and resultant urban transformation, which requires both scientic input and political will. The many competing interests and demands on the resources of national and municipal governments and aid organizations certainly inuence political commitment. However, promoting adaptation and risk reduction as cross-cutting topics which should e as a matter of good practice e be incorporated into urban planning may prevent them from being viewed as an additional area of investment that is directly competing with other elds.
8 Other potential barriers include issues such as lacking nancial resources, data availability, coordination, political will, participation and public awareness; fragmented knowledge bases on risk reduction and adaptation; goal conicts; and unclear responsibilities (Wamsler, 2013). An in-depth analysis of these barriers was, however, outside the scope of this paper.
13
References
Adam, K., 1988. Stadtkologie In Stichworten. In: Hirts Stichwrterbuch: kologie. Verlag Ferdinand Hirt. ADPC, 2006. Participants Workbook: Community-based Disaster Risk Management for Local Authorities (CBDRM). Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Bangkok, Thailand. Alam, M., Rabbani, M.D.G., 2007. Vulnerabilities and responses to climate change for Dhaka. Environ. Urban 19, 81e97. Baehring, A., 2011. Facing the Urban Challenge for Emergency Shelters. Lund University Centre for Risk Assessment and Management (LUCRAM), Lund, Sweden. and Department of International Health, Immunology & Microbiology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Ballard, D., Alexander, S., Goldthorpe, M., 2008. Adaptive Capacity Benchmarking Matrix (Working towards a Draft Organisational Change Tool). ESPACE. Bn, C., Godfrey Wood, R., Newsham, A., Davies, M., 2012. Resilience: new utopia or new tyranny? Reection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes, IDS Working Paper, vol. 2012 No. 405, CSP Working Paper No. 006. Institute of Development Studies and Centre for Social Protection, London. Benson, C., Twigg, J., Rossetto, T., 2007. Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: Guidance Notes for Development Organizations. ProVention Consortium, Geneva. Bicknell, J., Dodman, D., Satterthwaite, D., 2009. Adapting Cities to Climate Change: Understanding and Addressing the Development Challenges. Earthscan. Bosher, L., 2008. Hazards and the Built Environment: Attaining Built-in Resilience. Routledge. Brenner, N., Keil, R., 2006. The Global Cities Reader. Psychology Press. Brooks, M., Gagnon-Lebrun, F., Harvey, H., Sauv, C., coRessources Consultants, 2009. Prioritizing Climate Change Risks and Actions on Adaptation e a Review of Selected Institutions, Tools and Approaches: Final Report. Policy Research Initiative, Ottawa. Cannon, T., Mller, D., 2010. Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate change. Nat. Hazards 55, 621e635. Care International, 2009. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook. CARE International. Carmin, J., Nadkarni, N., Rhie, C., 2012. Progress and Challenges in Urban Climate Adaptation Planning: Results of a Global Survey. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge. Comfort, L.K., Boin, A., Demchak, C.C. (Eds.), 2010. Designing Resilience: Preparing for Extreme Events. University of Pittsburgh Press. Coppola, D.P., 2011. Introduction to International Disaster Management. Elsevier. Davoudi, S., Crawford, J., Mehmood, A. (Eds.), 2010. Planning for Climate Change: Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation for Spatial Planners. Earthscan, London. EEA, 2012. Urban Adaptation to Climate Change in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities for Cities Together with Supportive National and European Policies (No. 2). European Environment Agency. Emmanuel, M.R., 2005. An Urban Approach to Climate-sensitive Design: Strategies for the Tropics. Taylor & Francis. European Commission, 2009. Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the White Paper e Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a European Framework for Action - Impact Assessment. Brussels. European Union, 2011. The Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union. In: Background Document for the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. FAO/ILO, 2009. The Livelihood Assessment Tool-kit (LAT): Analysing and Responding to the Impact of Disasters on the Livelihoods of People. FAO, Rome. and ILO, Geneva. Fujikura, R., Kawanishi, M., 2010. Climate Change Adaptation and International Development: Making Development Cooperation More Effective. Earthscan. Gagnon-Lebrun, F., Agrawala, S., 2006. Progress on Adaptation to Climate Change in Developed Countries: An Analysis of Broad Trends. OECD. German Stadtklimalotse/City Climate Guide [WWW Document], 2012. Climate Change-proof Urban Development - Tackling Causes and Effects of Climate Change by Urban Concepts (accessed 03.10.12). URL. www.stadtklimalotse.net/. Website developed within the German research project. Givoni, B., 1998. Climate Considerations in Building and Urban Design. Wiley. Greater London Authority, 2010. The Draft Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for London. London, UK. Greiving, S., Fleischhauer, M., 2012. National climate change adaptation strategies of European states from a spatial planning and development perspective. Eur. Plan. Stud. 20, 27e48. Hall, P., Pfeiffer, U., 2000. Urban Future 21: A Global Agenda for Twenty-rst Century Cities. Routledge. Holden, S., 2004. Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS in Development and Humanitarian Programmes. Oxfam GB, Oxford. IFRC, 2010. World Disasters Report: Focus on Urban Risk. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva. IISD, 2007. CRiSTAL Community-based Risk Screening e Adaptation and Livelihoods Users Manual. In: A Decision Support Tool for Assessing and Enhancing Project Impacts on Local Adaptive Capacity to Climate Variability and Climate Change. IUCN; IISDF; SEI; InterCooperation. Version 3.0.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA. IPCC, 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA. IRP, n.d. Guidance Note on Recovery: Climate Change (pp.73e84), International Recovery Platform (IRP). Jabeen, H., Johnson, C., Allen, A., 2010. Built-in resilience: learning from grassroots coping strategies for climate variability. Environ. Urban 22 (2), 415e431. Jrgens, I., 2011. [Citations from Ingmar Jrgens, coordinator of EU adaptation strategy, DG Climate Action Adaptation Unit] Seminar on EU adaptation strategy Klimatanpassning i Europa e strategi i utveckling. Lund, Sweden. 14 December 2011. Kazmierczak, A., Carter, J., 2010. Adaptation to Climate Change Using Green and Blue Infrastructure: a Database of Case Studies. University of Manchester. Kay, M., Wales, H.C., N.S., Council, A.H.R, 1982. Energy Efcient Site Planning Handbook. Housing Commission of New South Wales. Koch-Nielsen, H., 2002. Stay Cool: a Design Guide for the Built Environment in Hot Climates. James & James. Konya, A., Swanepoel, C., 1980. Design Primer for Hot Climates. Architectural Press. LaTrobe, S., Davis, I., 2005. In: Tearfund (Ed.), Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: A Tool for Development Organisations. Middlesex, UK. LeGates, R.T., Stout, F., 2000. With extracts from. In: Davis, Kingsley, Childe, Gordon, Pirenne, Henri, Engels, Friedrich, Mumford, Lewis, Jacobs, Jane, Zukin, Sharon, Burgess, Ernest, Davis, Mike, Sassen, Saskia, Geddes, Patrick, Corbusier, Le, Hall, Peter, Castells u.v.a, Manuel (Eds.), The City Reader, second ed. Routledge. Leonardsen, L., 2012. Reality Check: adaptation on the ground Copenhagen, Denmark Workshop. Presented at the Resilient Cities Conference, Bonn, Germany. Loureno, T.C., Leitner, M., Heinen, M., Biesbroek, R., Desmond, M., Hohmann, R., 2009. Outcomes of the 1st International CIRCLE Workshop on Climate Change Adaptation. CIRCLE ERA-Net, Budapest. Massey, E., Bergsma, E., 2008. Assessing Adaptation in 29 European Countries. Institute for Environmental Studies, VU, Amsterdam. Meister, H.P., Krger, I., Richwien, M., Rickerson, W., Laurent, C., 2009. Floating Houses and Mosquito Nets: Emerging Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Around the World, IFOK Study. Meister Consultants Group. Inc, Boston. Mickwitz, P., Aix, F., Beck, S., Carss, D., Ferrand, N., Gorg, C., Jensen, A., Kivimaa, P., Kuhlicke, C., Kuindersma, W., Manez, M., Melanen, M., Monni, S., Pedersen, A.B., Reinert, H., van Bommel, S., 2009. Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Governance (No. PEER Report No 2). Partnership for European Environmental Research, Helsinki. Mitchell, T., 2003. An Operational Framework for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction. Beneld Hazard Research Center. Morss, R.E., Wilhelmi, O.V., Meehl, G.A., Dilling, L., 2011. Improving societal outcomes of extreme weather in a changing climate: an integrated perspective. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36, 1e25. Mumford, L., 1968. The City in History: its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects. Harcourt Brace International. OBrien, K., Leichenko, R., 2008. Environmental Change and Globalization: Double Exposures. Oxford University Press. Olgay, V., 1963. Design with Climate: Bioclimatic Approach to Architectural Regionalism. Princeton, University Press, New Jersey. Oxfam, 2002. PCVA Participatory Capacities and Vulnerabilities Assessment: Finding the Link between Disasters and Development. Oxfam GB, Oxford. Pelling, M., 2003. The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. Earthscan. Pelling, M., Manuel-Navarrete, D., 2011. From resilience to transformation: the adaptive cycle in two Mexican urban centers. Ecol. Soc. 16, 11. Ribeiro, M.M., AEA, C.L., Dworak, T., IVM, E.M., WUR, R.S., AEA, M.B., Laaser, C., 2009. Design of guidelines for the elaboration of regional climate change adaptations strategies. Final report. Tender DG ENV. G 1. Roaf, S., Crichton, D., Nicol, F., 2005. Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate Change. Elsevier. Roggema, R., 2009. Adaptation to Climate Change: a Spatial Challenge. Springer. Salmon, C., 1999. Architectural Design for Tropical Regions. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Schuster, P., 2008. Klimaanpassungsstrategien in europischen Nachbarlndernein Werkstattbericht e Anpassungsstrategien an den Klimawandel in EU27 und ihre potentielle Bedeutung fr die Raumentwicklung in Deutschland. SDC, 2009. Putting a Livelihood Perspective into Practice: Systemic Approach to Rural Development (SARD). Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Bern, Switzerland. Simmel, G., 1960. The metropolis and mental life. In: Mills, Wright C. (Ed.), Images of Man: the Classic Tradition in Sociological Thinking. Stephenson, A., 2008. Benchmark Resilience. Resilient Organisations Research Programme, New Zealand. Stern, N., 2006. The Economics of Climate Change. United Kingdom. Swart, R.J., Biesbroek, G.R., Carter, T.R., Cowan, C., Henrichs, T., Mela, H., Morecroft, M.D., Rey, D., 2010. Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 440e450.
14
C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14 UNISDR, 2008. Links between Disaster Risk Reduction, Development and Climate Change, Commission on Climate Change and Development. United Nations, Geneva. UNISDR, 2009. Terminology: disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations, Geneva. UNISDR, 2010a. Making Cities Resilient: My City Is Getting Ready Ccampaign Kit). In: 2012e2011 World Disaster Reduction Campaign. United Nations. UNISDR, 2010b. Local Governments and Disaster Risk Reduction: Good Practices and Lessons Learned. In: A Contribution to the Making Cities Resilient Campaign. United Nations, Geneva. UNISDR, 2011. Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in Europe: a Review of Risk Governance. UNISDR; EUR-OPA; Council of Europe. UNISDR, 2012a. 2011-Disasters in Numbers. UNISDR; USAID; CRED. UNISDR, 2012b. How to Make Cities More Resilient: a Handbook for Local Government Leaders. In: A Contribution to the Global Campaign 2010e2015 Making Cities Resilient e My City Is Getting Ready!. United Nations, Geneva. UNISDR, 2012c. Making Cities Resilient Report 2012: My City is Getting Ready! A Global Snapshot of How Local Governments Reduce Disaster Risk, rst ed. UNISDR. for the 5th World Urban Forum. Wamsler, C., 2006. Managing urban disasters (editorial). Open House Int. 31, 4e9. special issue on Managing Urban Disasters. Wamsler, C., 2009. Operational framework for integrating risk reduction and climate change adaptation into urban development, Brookes World Poverty Institute (BWPI), Working Paper Series No. 101, BWPI, Manchester. Wamsler, C., 2013. Cities, Disaster Risk and Adaptation, Routledge Series on Critical Introduction to Urbanism and the City. Routledge, London. Wamsler, C., Brink, E., Rantala, O., 2012. Climate change, adaptation, and formal education: the role of schooling for increasing societies adaptive capacities. Ecol. Soc. 17, 2. special issue on Differential Vulnerability. Wamsler, C., Lawson, N., 2012. Complementing institutional with localised strategies for climate change adaptation: a South-North comparison. Disasters 36, 28e53. Weber, M., 1966. The City, second ed. Free Press. Wirth, L., 1938. Urbanism as a way of life. Am. J. Sociol., 1e24. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters. Routledge. Worldwatch Institute, 2007. Chapter 6: reducing natural disaster risk in cities. In: State of the World 2007: Our Urban Future. The World Watch Institute, Norton & Company, New York, p. 124. Zolli, A., Healy, A.M., 2012. Resilience: Why Things Bounce Back.
Tacoli, C., 2012. Urbanization, Gender and Urban Poverty: Paid Work and Unpaid Carework in the City, Urbanization and Emerging Population Issues e Working paper 7. IIED; UNFPA. Tearfund, 2009. CEDRA Climate Change and Environmental Degradation Risk and Adaptation Assessment. Tearfund. Tearfund, 2011. Reducing Risk of Disaster in Our Communities, second ed. Tearfund. ROOTS. The World Bank, 2012. How We Classify Countries [WWW Document]. The World Bank e Working for a World Free of Poverty (accessed 25.09.12.). URL. data. worldbank.org/about/country-classications. Training Regions, 2011. Urban Flow Management Arena [WWW Document]. Training Regions (accessed 10.03.12). URL. www.trainingregions.com. Turpeinen, H., Hampel, A., Karow, T., Maniatis, G., 2008. Effect of ice sheet growth and melting on the slip evolution of thrust faults. Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 269, 230e241. UKCIP, 2011. UK Adapation Wizard [WWW Document]. Environmental Change Institute (ECI), University of Oxford (accessed 10.03.12). URL. www.ukcip.org. uk/wizard. UKCIP, n.d. Identifying Adaptation Options. UK Climate Impacts Programme. UNDP, 2004. Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development e a Global Report. In: Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery. UNDP. UNFCCC, 2007. Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. UNHABITAT, 2007. Enhancing Urban Safety and Security e Global Report on Human Settlements 2007. Earthscan, London; Sterling, VA. UNHABITAT, 2010. State of the Worlds Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide. Earthscan, London; Washington, DC. UNHABITAT, 2011. Cities and Climate Change e Global Report on Human Settlements 2011. Earthscan, London; Washington, DC. UN-IATF/DR, 2006. On Better Terms: a Glance at Key Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction Concepts. United Nations Working Group on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction (UN-IATF/DR), Geneva. UNISDR, 2004. Living with Risk: a Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. United Nations, Geneva; New York. UNISDR, 2005. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005e2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disaster. Presented at the world Conference on Disaster Reduction, United Nations, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan.

Planning For Climate Change in Urban Area From Theory To PrPlanning For Climate Change in Urban Area From Theory To Practiceactice

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Planning For Climate Change in Urban Area From Theory To PrPlanning For Climate Change in Urban Area From Theory To Practiceactice

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

Planning for climate change in urban areas: from theory to practice

C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

Temperature Air quality Humidity

Solar radiation Soil Water bodies

Fauna Noise Waste and waste water

Source: Adapted from Wamsler (2013).

C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

Public participation Values

Health and security

Source: Adapted from Wamsler (2013).

Urban livelihood practices

Resource availability Control power Institutions

Public expectations Public reliance on institutions and social security systems

Source: Adapted from Wamsler (2013).

C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

Urban fabric Urban society & culture

The City-Disasters Nexus

Response mechanisms and structures

Recovery mechanisms and structures

C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

Hazards Reduced or avoided Urban fabric

Urban society & culture

The city-disasters nexus

Characteristic physical features

Location-specific vulnerability Reduced

Risk factors and adaptation

Mainstreaming risk reduction and adaptation

C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

C. Wamsler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

Você também pode gostar