School of the Built Environment Globalisation, climate change and urban governance: balancing the...

download School of the Built Environment Globalisation, climate change and urban governance: balancing the scales for both efficient and pro-poor urban futures.

of 23

  • date post

    28-Mar-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    212
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of School of the Built Environment Globalisation, climate change and urban governance: balancing the...

  • Slide 1

School of the Built Environment Globalisation, climate change and urban governance: balancing the scales for both efficient and pro-poor urban futures May 18/19, 2010 Climate change and adaptation planning Dr. Jake Piper Slide 2 School of the Built Environment Overview Comparison UK : Brazil National attributes of relevance to CC exposure & adaptation Climate change Adapting to climate change Phases experienced Future phases: Barriers and barrier busters Slide 3 School of the Built Environment Comparing populations (= pressure on environment) UK: 59 million England: 49 million 383/km2 SE England: 8 million 421/km2 England = 54% size of SP state ( UK approx. size of SP state) Brazil 186 million 22/km2 Sao Paulo state 38 million 160/km2 Slide 4 School of the Built Environment National attributes of relevance to CC exposure & adaptation UKBrazil Temperate to boreal climateTemperate to tropical climates Geophysical stable, long exploited land; v little natural environment Exploited for less time, larger proportion of natural environment Mature economyFast growing developing economy Politically stable - ?Has become politically stable Short of space (pressures)Land rich, but pressures in urban areas Relatively wealthy ( and choices)Greater diversity of wealth and choices Resource poor?Resource rich Ageing population (median age 39)Young population (median age 29) Participation in D-making?? Established spatial planning system? Etc., etc Slide 5 School of the Built Environment Comparison of cities by size.largest seven London7.2 million Birmingham 992 000 Leeds 720 000 Glasgow 560 000 Sheffield 512 000 Bradford 467 000 Edinburgh 450 000 Sao Paolo 11.0 m Rio de Janeiro 6.2 m Salvador 3.0 m Brasilia 2.6 m Fortaleza 2.5 m Belo Horizonte 2.5 m Curitiba 1.9 m (43 cities larger than Edinburgh) Slide 6 School of the Built Environment Climate change projections: Brazil (Marengo, undated CREAS project) Slide 7 School of the Built Environment Climate change and the UK School of the Built Environment Warmer wetter winters Hotter drier summers Unpredictable weather Rainfall more intense Risk of more storms Sea level rise Slide 8 School of the Built Environment Developing response to CC Awareness of CC Impact assessment Mitigation (emissions reduction) Adaptation -health/comfort -economy, transport -biodiversity 1960-1980 Science evolves EU heatwave (2003) drought UK 2004/6 Floods UK 2007 Whilst recent weather events are not proof of climate change, it is very likely that once climate change is fully apparent it will be accompanied by extreme events. C capture.. Geo-engg. Slide 9 School of the Built Environment Adaptation process Climate projections Identify impacts of changed climates for receptors Identify cumulative and interacting effects What measures would alleviate adverse effects or enhance desirable effects? What policies would help bring in these measures? Monitoring Risk assessment Enhance projections (Research: impacts, risks, responses) Policy development Policy implementation (Re-evaluate) Slide 10 School of the Built Environment Planning for climate change, building resilience Early warning systems Room for rivers to reduce flood impacts Protection of coastline / realignment Be aware of urban : rural interdependence (e.g. Retain & extend forests for M & A) Re-settle people away from coastal and other hazardous areas e.g. slopes Protect vulnerable/fragile areas Enable rainfall to infiltrate / sink in (Rural washlands; Urban green infrastructure) Assess location of vital infrastructure, inc. transport, energy & emergency infrastructure Community planning Urban Design, e.g. areas for shade, water for cooling, buildings with high thermal capacity Early warning systems Provision of shelters Preparation (food, water, blankets) Cool rooms for heat Focus on poor School of the Built Environment Pro-poor issues Slide 11 School of the Built Environment Factors contributing to appropriate adaptation Knowledge of changes ( identification, measurement, understanding) Knowledge of environment ( ) Assessment of impacts (severity, direction) International treaty as support/authority Political cohesion acceptance of need to adapt Authority and levers for control / participation Financial strength Economic diversity Awareness across society and government (hierarchies, institutions, cities & rural areas) Research strength Good communications across all media Science Politics Economics Education /society Slide 12 School of the Built Environment Motives & motivators for adaptation Economic and financial reasons Security Health Environmental and ethical reasons Barriers to adaptation Agreement between parties about issues and way forward Knowledge Technology Economic barriers Social barriers Political barriers (Trudgill Barriers to a better environment) Slide 13 School of the Built Environment What is needed - barrier busters: policies, tools, etc. Adaptation policies Government CC policy by sector and cross-cutting Spatial planning policy at all levels Incorporation of CC into sectoral policies Assessment tools (financial, environmental, health impact, risk) Information e.g. national and LCLIP Also: Mitigation policies Carbon capture plans Slide 14 School of the Built Environment Five policy options to be explored by sector (framework suggested by on-going EC policy work) Regulation / legislation Markets: market-based instruments Soft actions (communications, governance, collective action) Insurance schemes R&D Taking care to avoid maladaptation, i.e. Inefficient use of resources Measures which displace vulnerability Ineffective measures (i.e. designed for risks that do not subsequently occur) Slide 15 School of the Built Environment What constrains us Uncertainties (science, planning, responses) Skills shortages Resources Authority to require changes Political time horizons Boundaries e.g. to sectors, admin. units, etc. Public support? Slide 16 School of the Built Environment Green rooftops Urban tree planting Increased farmland irrigation Forest pest control Sea wall defence New desalination plants Large dams Wind turbines Low-till cultivation Afforestation Biofuels Improved building insulation Ex-situ conservation Win-Win-Win Lose-Win-Win Win-Lose-Win Flood control infrastructure Species translocation Win-Lose-Lose Lose-Win-Lose Win-Win-Lose Positive Forest conservation Negative Effect on biodiversity Source: Paterson, Berry, Araujo, Piper and Rounsevell, 2008 Conservation biology Mitigation adaptation - biodiversity Develop to show efffects on poor? Slide 17 School of the Built Environment Slide 18 Market-based instruments (preserve and extend choice) Biodiversity offsets, habitat banking Providing incentives or removing disincentives or perverse incentives Reduce market friction via subsidy of renewable energy generation with biodiversity component (e.g. small hydro) Fiscal/price disincentives (e.g. on sale of land with habitat value) Revolving funds for properties with high nature conservation value Slide 19 School of the Built Environment Soft actions governance, guidance, communications Codes for biodiversity (e.g. via Codes for Sustainable Homes, and Green Building Council) Codes for low energy use add biodiversity issues? Recognition/awards (European Green Capital + upgrade) Skills development (GIS, taxonomy.) Raising awareness: Natuurkalender, Springwatch Subsidy for renewable energy use to include biodiversity-related criteria? Community engagement e.g. via residents groups, wildlife groups, business and CSR Slide 20 School of the Built Environment Local Climate Impacts Profile Why do an LCLIP? To gather information about current vulnerability to weather and climate as a catalyst to further awareness and action. The creation of a Local Climate Impacts Profile (LCLIP) has proved to be effective tool for organisations at developing this understanding. For local authorities, doing an LCLIP is one way to meet the requirements of NI188, Level 1. See information about the national policy context here.NI188national policy context Demonstrates not only the potential impacts of climate change but also the extent to which an authority, community or organisation is prepared and able to respond now (i.e. to deal with current weather events). One LCLIP uncovered unplanned costs to a local authority from weather events of 16.4 million over the previous decade (in emergency provisions, insurance claims and road repairs). Slide 21 School of the Built Environment Case study: Oxfordshire LCLIP Aims were (in line with signing of the Nottingham Declaration), to assess the likely impacts of climate change on council services and also To encourage adaptation in the wider community. Approach: Media search Interviews with council officers (15) 3 month period, database created of 260 weather related incidents from a 10 year period, such as: Flooding on the road networks Flooding of properties Crop fires exacerbated by high summer temperatures Results: raised awareness of adaptation internally gathered substantial evidence that the council was vulnerable to a number of weather related impacts. lent weight to adaptation agenda Identified that the cost associated with weather incidents over a decade was estimated to be 16.4 million. ( extensively quoted in local press, though often misrepresented as the cost of climate change. ) But taken to be an underestimate. Slide 22 School of the Built Environment Climate change projections: UK Key findings for South East England, 2050s, medium emissions scenario. Probabilities of change The wider range is defined as the range from the lowest to highest value of change for all emissions scenarios and all three (10, 50, and 90%) probability levels for each 30-year time period. Under medium emissions, the central estimate of increase in winter mean temperature is 2.2C; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.1C and is v