+

Evaluation and spatial planning – in the name of what? Building climate change adaptive capacity across planning domains in Europe

Alessandro Bonifazi - Independent researcher/Politecnico di Bari: alebonifazi@gmail.com Paola Gazzola - Global Urban Research Unit, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University: paola.gazzola@ncl.ac.uk

IX International Workshop on Planning and Evaluation

Strategies for the Environment: Evaluating and Planning for

Extreme Events

Mediterranean Agriculture Institute Bari, Valenzano (BA), Italy

March 16-17, 2015

+ Focusses come (Climate change) and go (Sustainable development) in policy agendas (Dryzek, 2005), and frictions arise....

n  Opportunity: Climate change mitigation and adaptation policies are expanding the scope of planning and evaluation after decades of declining salience (Albrechts 2004; Davoudi 2012b).

n  Threat: The creative compromises between economic development and environmental protection that underpinned most sustainability-oriented planning practices are put under pressure by the prescriptive nature of climate change policies (Dryzek, 2005; While et al., 2010)

2

+ Outline

n  Framing climate change adaptive capacity

n  Guiding research questions n  Is adaptation about making new/different kinds of plans? n  Or, does adaptation rather entail carrying out new/different kinds of evaluations? n  Nay, it must be about strengthening adaptive capacity in spatially organized

governance processes, mustn’t it?

n  Reflecting on the role of evaluation in planning for climate change adaptive capacity-building

n  The way forward n  Building adaptive capacity to climate change through planning and evaluation: a

conceptual framework n  Comparative case study: emerging adaptation practices in planning and evaluation

in Bari (Italy) and Newcastle (UK) metropolitan areas n  Discussion: Whatever climate change adaptation be about, in the name of what is it

driving evaluation in planning?

3

+ Framing climate change adaptive capacity differentiation vs conceptual stretching

n  IPCC: “Adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects.” (IPCC 2014b: 1251)

n  EU (EC+EEA): Adaptation needs a mix of options (grey options rely on technology and civil engineering projects; green options make use of nature; and soft options aim at altering human behaviour and styles of governance) and complex governance networks, in terms of vertical (European, national, regional, local) and horizontal (across socio-economic sectors and between regions) policy integration (EEA, 2013)

4

+

n  A human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases (GHGs)...(or) to reduce the sources of other substances (particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, etc.) which may contribute directly or indirectly to limiting climate change (IPCC 2014b: 1266-7).

n  The measures introduced to avoid irrecoverable or unjustifiable damages, reduce or repair negative impacts, enhance positive effects, offset or compensate for unavoidable losses (Therivel, 2004)

Mitigation (Climate change) Mitigation (Impact Assessment)

Framing climate change adaptive capacity differentiation vs conceptual stretching

5

+ Framing climate change adaptive capacity ... based on vulnerability

6

+ 7

n  Adaptive capacity: “The ability of systems, institutions, humans, and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences” (IPCC 2014b: 1251).

n  Adaptations are manifestations of adaptive capacity, and they represent ways of reducing vulnerability and/or strengthening resilience (adapted after Smit and Walden, 2006: 286)

Framing climate change adaptive capacity

+

n  Focus: from biophysical vulnerability to wider social and economic drivers

n  Decision-Making Model: incrementalism dominates, irrespective of growing claims that transformative change may be needed

n  Measures: engineered and technological options are the most commonly adopted, but ecosystem-based, institutional, and social responses are emerging

n  Social actors: growing awareness does not translate into action (...), local government and the private sector critical to progress, safety nets for the most vulnerable

Framing climate change adaptive capacity state-of-the-art in adaptation to climate change

(IPCC, 2014b: 836-7)

8

+

Is adaptation about making new/different kinds of plans?

A STRONGER, MORE RESILIENT

NEW YORK

2007 2013 Hurricane Sandy (2012)

10

+

33PlaNYC PROGRESS REPORT:Sustainability & Resiliency 2014

CATEGORY METRIC 2030 TARGET FIGURE FOR MOST RECENT YEAR

TREND SINCE BASE YEAR

HOUS

ING

AND

NEIG

HBOR

HOOD

S Create homes for almost a million more New Yorkers while making housing and neighborhoods more affordable and sustainable

Increase in new housing units since January, 2007 314,000 125,837 2

% of new units within a 1/2 mile of transit > 70% 82.7% 1 NEUTRAL

Affordable housing units preserved or added (cumulative since 200 165,000 156,3512

PARK

S AN

D

PUBL

IC S

PACE Ensure all New Yorkers live within a 10-minute walk of a park

% of New Yorkers that live within a 1/4 mile of a park 85% 76.5% 1

Cumulative number of trees planted through Million Trees initiative 1,000,000 834,015 1

ENER

GY Reduce energy consumption and make our energy systems cleaner and more reliable

Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of electrical power (lbs CO2e/MWh) DECREASE 674.911 2

AIR

QUAL

ITY Achieve the cleanest air quality of any big U.S. city

City ranking in average PM2.5 (3 yr rolling avg) compared to other large U.S. cities #1 (cleanest air) #4 1 NEUTRAL

Change in average PM2.5 (year-on-year % change in 3 yr rolling avg) DECREASE -0.5% 1

CLIM

ATE

CHAN

GE

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over 30%

Increase the resiliency of our communities, natural systems, and infrastructure to climate risks

Greenhouse gas emissions (MTCO2e) DECREASE 30% 3 47,939,030 (19%) 2

SOLI

D

WAS

TE Achieve the cleanest air quality of any big U.S. city

Percentage of waste diverted from landfills (includes fill) 75% 52% 1

1 Results are for FY or CY 20132 Results are for FY or CY 20123 From 2005 levels

Not on Track

On Track

PlaNYC 2007-11 (greener, greater...) 11

+ PlaNYC 2013 (stronger, more resilient...)

89PlaNYC PROGRESS REPORT:Sustainability & Resiliency 2014

Through the Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resil-

iency (ORR), the City is working to identify and

adopt a set of metrics that will most accurately

assess the progress of resiliency work being

conducted throughout the City.

These metrics, once adopted, will be monitored

and reported in the City’s Mayor’s Management

Report, with the next issue to be published later

in 2014.

Metrics (Preliminary)

CATEGORY METRIC

COASTAL PROTECTION

BUILDINGSNumber of buildings implementing Core Flood Resiliency MeasuresNumber of square feet of residential and non-residential buildings implementing Core Flood resiliency measures

INSURANCEPercent of residences in 100-year floodplain purchasing flood insuranceAverage premium paid for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies

UTILITIES

Percent of electric generation capacity in the 500-year floodplain able to remain online after a 500-year floodMaximum percent of peak load that could be lost due to failure of any one substationPercent of assets at or above their loading limits during peak demand periodsNumber of miles of cast iron and bare steel gas mains in the 500-year floodplainPercent of steam generation capacity in the 500-year floodplain able to remain online after a 500-year flood

LIQUID FUELSPercent of gas stations with quick-connects for generatorsPercent of regional fuel terminal capacity in the 100-year floodplain hardened against a 100-year floodPercent of regional refining capacity in the 100-year floodplain hardened against a 100-year flood

TELECOMMUNICATIONS Number of critical telecommunications facilities implementing Core Flood Resiliency Measures

TRANSPORTATIONNumber of lane-miles reconstructed or resurfacedPercent of New York City transportation assets adapted for climate change resiliency

WATER AND WASTEWATER

Number of wastewater facilities or assets protected or raised above the 100-year floodplainNumber of right-of-way bioswales constructedNumber of sewer miles built in areas with no or partial sewersNumber of Bluebelt Best Management Practices (BMPs)Percent of water quality samples complying with Surface Water Treatment Rule standard for turbidity

SOLID WASTE Number of DSNY facilities protected or raised above the 100-year floodplain

HEALTHCARE Percent of hospital beds in 500-year floodplain meeting resiliency standardsPercent of beds in nursing homes and adult care facilities in 100-year floodplain meeting resiliency requirements

FOOD SUPPLYNumber of grocery stores with generators or quick connects for generatorsPercent of DCAS food procurement backstopped with more resilient distributors

PARKSPercent of DPR facilities in Sandy inundation zone upgraded for greater resiliencyNumber of trees inspected and pruned

Federal dollars secured for coastal protection projectsNumber of buildings with reduced coastal risk due to coastal protection projectsNumber of cubic yards of beach sand nourishment

12

+ The relationships between adaptation plans and other planning domains

Department of City Planning Mayor’s Office of

Long-Term Planning and Sustainability

Mayor’s Office of Recovery and

Resiliency

PlaNYC 2007-11 PlaNYC 2013

Sustainability indicators

Resilience metrics

Annual Progress Report 2014

Within PlaNYC Beyond PlaNYC

13

+ First wave of climate adaptation plans is found to be...

...wanting in many respects:

n  lagging behind mitigation policy

n  poorly appreciating diversity in local governance contexts

n  resembling climate impact assessment, and disregarding implementation

n  disintegrated from existing policies

(Preston et al. 2012; Stone et al. 2012)

14

+ First wave of climate adaptation plans is found to be...

...not ready to deliver adaptation

(Preston et al. 2012)

15

+Adaptation Policy Cycle (EEA, 2013)

16

+Adaptation Policy adoption in EU (EEA, 2013)

17

+Adaptation Policy adoption and diffusion in EU (EEA, 2013)

18

+ Is adaptation about making new/different kinds of plans?

n  IPCC’s latest recommendations (AR5) address spatial planning mainly for mitigation, and urban areas because highly vulnerable (physical density of people and built environment) and key adaptation drivers (relational, cognitive and social intensity in urban dynamics)

n  Adaptation in Nature conservation and environmental risk planning = re-labelling (to further legitimize) or amendments to existing plans (Archie et al., 2012; Runhaar et al., 2012)

n  Diffusion of adaptation within municipal planning is meeting with similar problems than earlier innovations, but leadership (also from within the ranks) and accommodating competing priorities are key to advancing the global/local interplay in climate policy (Measham et al., 2011)

Adaptation in different planning domains

19

+ Is adaptation about making new/different kinds of plans?

n  Spatial planning potential in climate change adaptation is great: n  (alleged) long-term perspective

n  coordination role - transport, regional development, land use, biodiversity, industry, tourism, energy, water, risks, etc.

n  wide scope, from strategic to operational levels

n  Achievements are very limited yet: n  poor institutionalization (at legislative, administrative and practice

level)

n  perceived barriers are the same as in other policy fields (resources, knowledge, leadership)

n  promising opportunities depend on planners’ ownership of adaptation and could build on experts and authorities’ networks

Adaptation in spatial planning

20

+

Or, does adaptation rather entail carrying out new/different kinds of evaluations?

+ Adaptive capacity assessment, based on the ESPON CLIMATE 2013 Programme framework (Juhola and Kruse, 2015)

on almost all of the indicators compared to other regions. The capacities of regions inSouthern and Eastern Europe are lower on most of the indicators compared to those ofregions in the northern and western parts of Europe. On the whole, regions in EasternEurope score lowest on the indicators assessing technology and infrastructure whilstregions in Southern Europe have the lowest capacity on economic and institutionaldeterminants.

The map serves as a starting point for discussion on adaptive capacity in Europe butfurther studies are required to elaborate the regional capacity in Europe. The target audienceof the assessment was mainly the research community, as well as EU level policy makers.The results of the vulnerability assessment were distributed to the ESPON network to allcontact points in the European Union (EU) Member States in order to support policydevelopment in relation to territorial cohesion and regional development.

3.2 Assessment of the adaptive capacity of the tourism sector in the Alpine space

3.2.1 Objectives

The second example focuses on the capacities of the tourism sector of the European Alps. Asabove, adaptive capacity is conceptualised according to the IPCC definition and specified bythe five determinants: knowledge and awareness of tourism stakeholders and policy makers,technology, tourism infrastructure, institutions and economic resources of the tourism sector(cf. Fig. 2). The goals of the assessment are to produce systemic knowledge about thetourism sector’s specific adaptive capacity in the European Alps and to produce transfor-mation knowledge for improving adaptation within the tourism sector (for details cf. Kruseet al. 2011, 2013).

Fig. 2 Determinants and dimensions of adaptive capacity

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2015) 20:99–120 107

22

+ 23

Regional Assessment Determinants Dimensions Determinants Alpine Tourism

Educational commitment

Knowledge and awareness AWARENESS Knowledge and

awareness

Problem awareness; attitudes to climate change

Computer skills Access to information

Attitudes towards climate change

Knowledge gaps/missing information

Resources of technology

Technology

ABILITY

Demand for further education/training

Capacity to undertake research

Technology Capacity for research and development

Patents

Transport

Infrastructure Infrastructure

Natural assets/ attractiveness of natural env.

Water exploitation Cultural assets/ attractiveness of heritage

Hospital (beds and doctors)

Government effectiveness

Institutions

ACTION

Institutions

Structure of tourism sector

Democracy Regional cooperation

National adaptation strategies

Income per capita

Economic resources

Economic resources

Diversity of sector

Long term unemployment Capacity for innovation

Age dependency ratio

+ Sustainability Appraisal of London’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 2010 - Summary of the findings on flooding policy

February 2010

Draft Climate Change Adaptation Strategy – Sustainability Appraisal Report

134 Collingwood Environmental Planning with the Centre for Research in

Environment and Health

SA Report Part B:

Appraisal

Table 19: Summary of appraisal findings – flooding

Sustainability Appraisal Objectives

1. G

over

nanc

e

2. E

duca

tion

and

Awar

enes

s

3. H

ealth

and

Wel

l-bei

ng

4. E

qual

ity a

nd D

iver

sity

5. S

afet

y an

d Se

curit

y

6. L

ivea

bilit

y an

d Pl

ace

7. A

cces

sibi

lity

and

Avai

labi

lity

8. L

ands

cape

, His

toric

an

d Cu

ltura

l En

viro

nmen

t

9. B

iodi

vers

ity

10. A

ir Q

ualit

y

11. C

limat

e Ch

ange

40

12. W

ater

Qua

lity

and

Wat

er R

esou

rces

41

13 W

aste

Man

agem

ent

14 E

cono

my

Impacts of climate change in London (predicted effects of climate change on sustainability without the draft Strategy but with existing / planned adaptation i.e. Business as usual alternative)

Medium-term (2020s) + +/++ - - -/0 -/0 - -/0 -? 0? - -? - - -/+ -? Long-term (2050+) + ++? --? -/--? --? -/--? --? -/--? --? -? --? --? -? --? -? --? Impacts of the Draft Strategy in isolation (predicted effects on sustainability of the draft Strategy as an initial framework for adaptation)

Medium-term (2020s) +/++ + 0/+ 0/+ + -/+ 0/+ -/+ -/+ 0 -/0 + 0/-/+ 0/+ + 0/+? Long-term (2050+) +? 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ -/+ 0/+ -/+ -/+? 0 - + 0/-/+ + + 0/+? Impacts of climate change in London with the draft Strategy (predicted effects of climate change on sustainability with the draft Strategy and existing / planned adaptation)

Medium-term (2020s) +/++ +/++ - - 0/+ -/0 - -/0 -? 0? - -? - - +/0 -? Long-term (2050+) +/++? ++? --? -/--? --? -/--? --? -/--? --? -? --? --? -? --? -/0 --? Key to effects: Major positive: ++ Minor positive: + Neutral: 0 Minor negative: - Major negative: - - Uncertain:? Mixed: -/+

6.35 Policy 1 and associated actions 1 – 9 are predicted to have generally positive effects on the

SA objectives, with only a few minor negative effects, or mixed positive and negative effects predicted. With the exception of governance, the effects predicted are all considered likely to be minor in significance. This reflects the preparatory nature of the flooding actions, as indicated in the categorisation of actions included in Table 18.

6.36 Potential positive effects predicted include:

A number of the actions seek to encourage or facilitate collaborative working, communication and improved information (e.g. mapping), all of which are predicted to improve the ability of organisations with responsibility for flood risk management to work together, thus improving governance of flood risk.

Positive effects are predicted on education and awareness due to the potential influence of a number of the actions relating to increasing knowledge and information of flooding and flood risk in London, as well as specific actions (8 and 9) directly seeking to raise awareness of flood risks and develop community flood risk plans.

Minor positive effects are predicted in relation to a number of SA objectives due to the policy and action’s focus on reducing and managing flood risk. For example, positive effects are predicted on health and wellbeing, due to the potential reduction in the negative health effects of flood events (where risks are reduced) as well as a potential reduction in the occurrence of mental health problems associated with flood events and recovery from flooding.

40 Objective split between (11.1) mitigation and (11.2) adaptation to Climate Change. 41 Objective split between (12.1) water quality and (12.2) water resources.

25

+ Sustainability Appraisal of London’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 2010 – What difference does it make?

February 2010

Draft Climate Change Adaptation Strategy – Sustainability Appraisal Report

165 Collingwood Environmental Planning with the Centre for Research in

Environment and Health

SA Report Part B:

Appraisal

Element of draft Strategy Key changes resulting from the Sustainability Appraisal process

communities added. Actions Encouragement to cover all the dimensions of the Prevent, Prepare, Respond, Recover

adaptation framework in the actions which led to several additions. Comments and recommendations led to the amendment and addition of some specific

actions, such as: o Inclusion of an action seeking the development of community flood plans /

emergency plans. o The inclusion of an action relating to water neutrality under policy 2. o Addition   of   text   referring   to   regular   review   of   the   Mayor’s   Water   Strategy   under  

Policy 2. Cross-cutting actions included in the draft Strategy were not included in previous drafts.

Some of these address issues raised by the SA, in particular: Action 32 relating to the role of the insurance industry in adaptation. Action 31 encouraging businesses and the private sector to take climate change into

account in risk management and planning. Action 33 relating to the role of TfL and importance of the need for adaptation action

related to infrastructure.

26

+ European Commission Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental Assessment (2013)

27

+ European Commission Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental Assessment (2013): examples of alternatives and mitigation measures related to adaptation

44 Guidance on integrating climate change and biodiversity into SEA

Table 11: Examples of alternatives and mitigation measures related to climate change mitigation

Main concerns related to: Examples of alternatives and/or mitigation measures at the assessment stage

Energy demand in industry x Reducing demand for energy (electricity or fuel) in industry x Alternative low-carbon sources (onsite or through specific low carbon energy supplier) x Targeted support to businesses engaged in eco-innovations, low-carbon business and low-

carbon technologies x Potential synergies between adaptation and GHG reduction

Energy demand in housing and construction

x Improve the energy performance of buildings x Alternative low carbon sources (onsite or through specific low carbon energy supplier) x Potential synergies between adaptation and GHG reduction

GHG emissions in agriculture

x Reducing the use of nitrogen in fertilising practices x Managing methane (enteric and manure) x Protecting natural carbon sinks, such as peat soils x Potential synergies between adaptation and GHG reduction x Harvesting methane emissions for biogas production

GHG emissions in waste management

x Consider ways in which the PP can increase waste prevention, re-use and recycling, particularly to divert waste from landfill

x Consider ways of producing energy through waste incineration or producing biogas from wastewater and sludge

x Alternative low carbon sources (onsite or through specific low carbon energy supplier) x Potential synergies between adaptation and GHG reduction

Travel patterns and GHG emissions from transport

x Promote PP patterns that reduce the need to travel x Support car-free PP x Encourage walking and cycling x Encourage public transport x Provide transport choices to encourage a modal shift to cleaner modes (e.g. from cars to

trains), such as an effective and integrated public transport system x Transport demand management schemes x Encourage car sharing x Prioritise high density urban PPs (smaller housing at higher density) and reuse of brownfie

land GHG emissions from energy production

x Generic recommendations are intentionally not provided as these are context-specific, depending upon the energy production capacity and energy supply sources of the area in question

x Potential synergies between adaptation and GHG reduction Forests and biodiversity x Investment in wetlands to support carbon sequestration to offset PP's GHG emissions.

Table 12: Examples of alternatives and mitigation measures related to climate change adaptation

Main concerns related to: Examples of alternatives and/or mitigation measures at the assessment stage

Heat waves x Avoid development patterns that fragment habitat corridors or, for linear infrastructures, make sure that habitat continuity is restored in the most sensitive areas

x Improvements in urban structure — expansion of green areas, open water surfaces and wind paths (along rivers and waterfronts) in urban areas to reduce the possible heat island effect

x Encourage greater use of green roofs x Reduce man-made exhausts during heat waves (industries, and car traffic) x Awareness-raising about risks associated with heat waves and action to reduce them x Heat wave early warning systems and response plans x Potential synergies between adaptation and GHG reduction

Droughts x Encourage water efficiency measures x Explore efficient use/re-use of rainwater and grey water x Restrictions on excessive/non-essential use water use during droughts (depending on

their severity) x Minimise low flow withdrawals x Restrictions for effluent discharges into water bodies during droughts x Maintain and improve the resilience of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems by

implementing practices that protect, maintain, and restore watershed processes and services

28

+

Nay, adaptation must be about strengthening adaptive capacity in spatially organized governance processes, mustn’t it?

+Anticipatory Governance

n  developing a range of possible scenarios – none of which can serve all planning purposes

n  shaping very flexible adaptation strategies

n  collapsing monitoring and action in a flow of reflective practices

the need for longer-term perspectives and persistent uncertainties calls for (Fuerth, 2009; Quay, 2010):

30

+Anticipatory Governance

n  open strategies (focussed on preserving future options)

n  contingency plans, to respond to specific scenarios (including the worst ones)

n  no-regrets strategies (near-term actions with minimal losses if discontinued)

Anticipatory governance echoes strategic planning, with its stress on robust actions (Khakee, 1998)

... would entail creating flexible action packages (Fuerth, 2009; Quay, 2010:

31

+ Anticipatory Governance: flexible adaptation pathways for Thames Estuary 2100

32

+ Anticipatory Governance: incremental vs transformative change in action-learning cycles

33

+ Reflecting on the role of evaluation in planning for climate change adaptive capacity-building

n  Climate change policy bringing about more planning and further diversified evaluation

n  No really “new” concepts yet, but rather a push towards incrementalism (“muddling through”) and strategic approaches

n  Three fascinating research perspectives: n  longer and twisted planning timelines (flexible pathways)

n  growing attention to social, cultural and political contexts in shaping adaptation policy adoption, diffusion and mobility

n  harnessing evaluation “bridging potential” in highly fragmented planning landscapes

34

+ Reflecting on the role of evaluation in planning for climate change adaptive capacity-building

n  Climate change within a broader shift towards the “risk society” (Beck, 1999)

n  The social construction of Nature is shifting (Davoudi, 2014) from an asset and a context for development (sustainability), to a threat to society (climate risk)

n  Cf. PlaNYC, 2007 (137): “The sobering images of Hurricane Katrina still haunt us - a testament to our vulnerability in the face of nature’s ferocity”

35

+Thank you! Alessandro Bonifazi - Independent researcher/Politecnico di Bari: alebonifazi@gmail.com Paola Gazzola - Global Urban Research Unit, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University: paola.gazzola@ncl.ac.uk

35