WP 7: Urban policies and governance

RAMSES PROJECT Grant Agreement n° 308497

WP 7: Urban policies and governance

D7.2: Typology of the tools available to policy-makers

and assessment of their efficiency

Reference code: RAMSES – D7.2

Authors: Nicole de Paula Domingos (UVSQ), Charlotte da Cunha (UVSQ), Kari De Pryck

(UVSQ), Yorghos Remvikos (UVSQ), François Gemenne (UVSQ)

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Programme for Research, Technological Development and

Demonstration under Grant Agreement No. 308497 (Project RAMSES).

RAMSES Project (Grant Agreement n° 308497) D7.2

2

Project Acronym: RAMSES Project Title: Reconciling Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development for Cities Contract Number: 308497

Title of report: D7.2: Urban policies and governance Reference code: RAMSES – D7.2 Short Description: This research explores urban adaptation by analyzing three main approaches that can assist local leaders to implement adaptation measures to climate change: grey, green and soft measures. The paper argues that adaptation is not a straightforward affair and requires thus a context-oriented approach both in terms of policy prescription and evaluation. In this case, the study places special emphasis on the need of a package of measures to be implemented holistically with significant attention to “soft” options, mainly social empowerment and participatory tools of multiple stakeholders, as successful enablers of an effective adaptation plan. Authors and co-authors: Nicole de Paula Domingos (UVSQ), Charlotte da Cunha (UVSQ), Kari

De Pryck (UVSQ), Yorghos Remvikos (UVSQ), François Gemenne (UVSQ)

Partners owning: UVSQ Contributions: ICLEI Made available to: Public

Versioning Version Date Name, organization

0.1 23/12/2015 UVSQ

0.2 03/06/15 UVSQ

1.0 03/07/15 UVSQ, ICLEI

Quality check Internal Reviewers: Jürgen Kropp (PIK), Alberto Terenzi (ICLEI), Gemma García (TECNALIA)


3

Table of contents

1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 5 2. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 3. URBAN ADAPTATION-‐ THE NEED TO COPE WITH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 9 3.1 Identifying pathways for an effective adaptation planning ...................................................... 14 3.2 Studying adaptation needs-‐ a starting point ................................................................................... 15 3.3 Evaluating adaptation options-‐ the need of a context-‐oriented approach ........................ 17 3.4 Social empowerment and learning as success factors of an adaptation plan ................... 21

4. MONITORING AND EVALUATING ADAPTATION-‐ OPPORTUNITIES AND GAPS AROUND THE NOTION OF EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 Initial lessons from the Stakeholders Dialogue and fieldwork in New york, Bogota and Bilbao ........................................................................................................................................................................ 34

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................. 40 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................ 42


4

List of Abbreviations

AF – Adaptation Fund

BAU – Business as Usual BC3- Centre For Climate Change (Bilbao)

CDM– Clean Development Mechanism

EU – European Union

EEA – The European Environmental Agency EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment GEF– Global Environment Policy GEO – Global Environmental Outlook GHG – Greenhouse Gas ICLEI– International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives IEA – Integrated Environmental Assessment IPCC – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

NAPA – National Adaptation Programmes of Action

NFIP – National Flood Insurance Programme

PMU– Municipal Emergency Plan (Bilbao) UN/ISDR – United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction UNDP – United Nations Development Programme UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

URA– Basque Water Agency


5

1.Executive Summary Urban adaptation is both a challenge and an opportunity for the cities of the 21th

century. This report is a first step for local authorities and experts interested to learn

about essential questions that must be asked before and during the process of

conveiving an adaptation plan at the city level. It discusses grey, green and soft

measures and recommends that a context-oriented approach must be prioritized. This

means that, ready-made tool-kits for adaptation can be useful to orient cities in their first

steps towards a more comprehensive plan, but they could be counterproductive if not

tailored to the local context.

Based on the result of the 2nd Stakeholders Dialogue, organized by the RAMSES project

in Copenhagen in May 2015, and on preliminary interviews and a vast review of the

recent academic literature on urban adaptation, the report offers some concrete insights

focusing on the cities of New York, Bilbao and Bogota. It recommends to local authorities

to place special attention on “soft” measures, notably social empowerment and

participatory tools for multiple stakeholders who can act as successful enablers of an

effective adaptation plan.

On its final part, the report shows that measuring successful adaptation-planning

remains a challenge and much of adaptation actions are so far reactive, deriving from

the need to compensate damage caused by natural disasters (i.e. floods, landslides,

tsunamis, earthquakes). Quantified assessments of adaptation measures do not

represent a general rule and various cities have developed successful adaptation plans

using qualitative data and information from historical experience and knowledge as a

base for decision making, suggesting that scientific uncertainty is not necessarily a

barrier to action on adaptation planning. Shifts in perception and behavior, together with

leadership remain essential aspects of successful resilient cities and, despite remaining

challenges for defining, measuring and planning effective adaptation, the analysis of

some case studies indicates significant advancements on such tasks.


6

2. Introduction Climate change is an unprecedented threat in human history for its complexity and long-

term impacts. As a fundamental challenge of the 21st Century, decision-makers must be

prepared for bold decisions in a context of uncertainty.

This is especially true for cities, which, by 2030, will host around 60% of the global

population and, as engines of global growth, urban centers pose both solutions and

challenges for our society. As the heart of economic dynamism of several developed

countries and emerging economies, cities account for around 80% of global economic

output (The New Climate Economy 2014). On one hand, some of the world's largest

metropolitan economies are responsible for 41% of global GDP with only 14% of the

global population (Floater et al. 2014). On the other hand, cities are also drivers of

energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), accounting for around 70% of

both at the world level (IEA 2012). Nowadays, urban centers in large emerging countries

have already reached the same levels of emissions as large European and North

American cities, being Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin the best examples (Sugar,

Kennedy, and Leman 2012). Given these rapid growing urban centers which can both

deliver growth but also consume a critical amount of scarce resources, investment

choices in the next two decades are crucial for determining whether a low-carbon city is

in fact possible and sustainable.

Estimated cost of adapting to climate change for the world's cities is estimated at $70

billion to $100 billion per year and cities are expected to bear 80 percent of global costs

of adapting to climate change impacts (Sugar, Kennedy, and Leman 2012). What is

problematic, however, is that most of available research related to effectiveness of tools

and methods of climate adaptation remain fragmented and mainly targeting international

development projects, particularly in the areas of: water resources and quality;

agriculture; public health; disaster risk reduction; coastal zone development and natural

resource management (Bours, McGinn, and Pringle 2014 and World Bank 2010) While

most of these topics are essential parts of an adaptation strategy, systematic studies

about processes and tools that influence decision-making at the sub-national level


7

remain overlooked. “Who knows what?” and “who needs to know what?” for an effective

adaptation planning are important questions that deserve to be explored further.1

This is pertinent considering that decision makers must work on long-term policies but

must deal with short-term expectations from its constituencies. For example, fighting

urban sprawl and social segregation are challenges that remain vital for effective action

against climate change. With growing climate related hazards and rapid urbanization,

risks of flooding, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise, storms, landslides and heat

waves are more and more frequent. What is even more problematic is that these

challenges affect urban citizens in an unequal way, putting into evidence social and

gender inequalities (Moser and Sattherthwaite 2010). To manage the negative effects of climate change, cities must develop mitigation and

adaptation strategies. However, despite the importance of both axes, scholars and policy

makers have been paying less attention to adaptation. It is illustrative that several

multilateral development banks, together with the International Development Finance

Club (IDFC), released in 2015 common frameworks for tracking mitigation finance, but

are still working on means to track adaptation (World Bank 2015). One important

consequence of this relative negligence is a lack of a cohesive understanding of tools

and approaches to adaptation, as well as weak instruments to measure it. One of the

main reasons for these shortcomings relates to the broad definition of adaptation itself,

and the fact that it relates to a wide set of actions ranging from global policy to individual

behavior change. This gap is alarming notably because there is clear evidence that

climate change threatens development efforts and the livelihoods of billions of people.2

In this context, the questions of what works and what doesn't in terms of adaptation-

planning are yet to be better understood. Important for this research is that climate adaptation is “fundamentally political” and,

consequently, involves cascading decisions across a large number of agents, including

individuals, firms and civil society, public bodies and international organizations (Javeline

1 See for example the editorial of a special edition of the Global Environment Change 15 (2005) 75-76. 2 See: Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015)


8

2014; Adger, Nigel, and Tompkins 2005). This implies a special focus on decision-

making procedures, institutions, social empowerment and governance. 3 In addition,

effective adaptation is the one that promotes a long-term perspective on urban

development and a change in “business as usual” (BAU) regarding social and economic

choices. This is because climate vulnerability is driven by socio-economic factors and

building good adaptation strategies means, to a large extent, improving human health,

well-being, economic conditions, and education. Thus, to well adapt, a city must use all

kinds of resources, such as natural capital, financial resources, cognitive capacity, social

behavior and institutional innovation. Hence, decisions on adaptation cannot be isolated

from decisions linked to demographic, cultural and economic changes that are also

interrelated to technological transformations, global governance, social conventions and

economic fluxes (Adger, Nigel, and Tompkins 2005). This process, however, is

particularly complex for urban planners, who must not only opt for effective but also for

efficient decisions. That is, they usually need to consider the notion of cost-effectiveness

and cost-benefit when prioritizing decisions. Nevertheless, in a recent survey done by

ICLEI on an analysis of urban adaptation strategies of early movers in Europe, it was

found that “only Copenhagen used cost-benefit analysis in the prioritization of adaptation

actions within its strategy, while Malmö and London planned to carry out cost-benefit

analyses but wanted to concentrate on specific aspects such as eco-system services or,

as is the case for London, flooding. This indicates that while the ‘economic case’ for

adaptation is often cited, cities may be unsure of how best to gather or present

appropriate data" (Terenzi and Wigstrom 2013). This argument suggests that, despite its

importance, economic profitability alone is an insufficient criterion for effective decision

making due to imperfect markets, major transaction costs and problems related to

coordination and planning (Terenzi and Wigstrom 2013).

The present research puts into evidence that institutional innovations that allow the

adoption of new solutions and social empowerment are as important as technical

developments themselves. In this sense, it is argued that the notion of multiple benefits

must complement the notion of economic efficiency for effective decision-making. The

3 The analysis of these themes is the goal of work package 7 "Urban Governance" of RAMSES Project. For an overview of all work packages, see: http://www.ramses-cities.eu/about/research-work/


9

advantage in focusing on the notion of resilience is that it seeks to avoid a determinist

approach based exclusively on impacts (De Pryck et al. 2014).

The analysis is divided in three main parts. The first presents an overview of the social

costs that cities have to bear due to climate change. The second discusses the

importance of a context-oriented analysis regarding vulnerabilities and risks. It explores

options for appraising adaptation planning emphasizing the participatory tools and social

empowerment as “success factors” and analyses how adaptation planning can be

monitored and evaluated, while cautioning for existing shortcomings linked to the notion

of efficiency. Before the conclusion, the final section highlights the continuous need for

measures that could engender deep transformations in the way cities conceive their

development strategies towards a low-carbon future and provide some initial lessons

from the examples of New York, Bogota and Bilbao.

3. Urban adaptation- the need to cope with social and economic costs of climate change

Today, the idea that inaction will cost more than action when it comes to climate change

is well known (Stern 2006). This is even more relevant for cities in the perspective of

unstructured and fast pace growth, which must go beyond the businesses-as-usual

scenario in order to avoid unmanageable and ongoing social and economic costs. The

table bellow gives examples of such argument.4

Ongoing social and economic costs deriving from business-as-usual

scenarios Examples

The growing need to invest in infrastructure as an attempt to provide basic urban infrastructure and services.

OECD and IEA estimate that around US$50 trillion is required for investments in transport, building energy efficiency, telecommunications, water and waste infrastructure over the next 15 years.

4 The information in this table was collected in the New Climate Economy 2014 report.


10

The Boston Consulting Group calculates an infrastructure investment shortfall of over US$1 trillion per year (mainly related to transport needs to cope with urban sprawl).

Growing financial welfare costs related to traffic congestion.

Congestion costs the city of Buenos Aires 3.4% of its GDP; 2.6% in Mexico City and 1% in the EU.

Escalating economic and social costs due to air pollution

Air pollution is estimated to be the top environmental cause of premature mortality by 2050. In Beijing, motorized transport (including air pollution and congestion) is already estimated at 7.5-15% of GDP. OECD estimates that the social costs of road transport in OECD countries; China and India combined are US$3.5 trillion per year (including the value of health impacts and lives costs).

Lock-in of inefficiently high levels of energy consumption

Cities are vulnerable to volatility of energy prices especially because of rapid urban sprawl (a study with 50 cities worldwide shows that almost 60% of growth is related to this phenomenon).

Increasing social exclusion The combination of urban sprawl and motorization are related to the growing o slums and gated communities.

A wide range of other economic and social costs

Includes: - Costs related to road safety, divided communities; - Low levels of physical activity and its health implications; - Reduced ecosystem services; - Risks to food security.

One of the main problems with these social and economic costs is the consequent

growth of GHG emissions. For example, materials used for infrastructure are carbon-

intensive and, if developing countries match their infrastructure according to current

global level, only the infrastructure materials would cost around 470 billion tones of CO2

emissions by 2050 (The New Climate Economy 2014). Most importantly, inefficient

urban development could lock in higher emissions for decades and centuries. Under


11

business-as-usual scenarios (BAU), emissions from the transport sector could almost

double by 2050 (The New Climate Economy 2014). With these figures in mind, there is a

clear reason to foster a new mental map for urban development. In this map, all cities

would have to save energy, reduce carbon emissions, efficiently manage natural

resources and waste, invest in smart infrastructure, expand green areas, build disaster

risk reduction strategies and improve channels of communication with citizens regarding

resilience and its benefits. In sum, cities will have to lead a new growth vision that is

compatible to a low carbon society.

However, despite the growing concern with climate change, cities face considerable

uncertainty about how and where to start their adaptation planning. According to Terenzi

and Wigstrom (2013), at the European level there is a higher level of awareness on

adaptation to climate change and about 70% of the cities that took part in the EU Cities

Adapt survey have begun working on adaptation, while 22% plan on doing so and only

8% of the cities report that they have not started, nor have they planned starting working

on adaptation yet. In Europe, one can argue that large cities tend to be “early movers”,

while small ones remain more dependent on external support in terms of financial and

technical issues to develop an adaptation plan. Specific barriers include: • Difficulty to secure funding specifically for adaptation measures and human resources

allocation; • Communicating the importance of pursuing adaptation to elected officials; • Gaining political commitments from local politicians and business partners; • Lack of data, specially in Asia, Africa and Latin America; These barriers converge with the ones encountered by European cities, which also

indicated the difficulty to allocate budget resources after the Euro crisis; lack of multilevel

governance interface; lack of long term political commitment; lack of good practice

examples and peer-to-peer exchange possibilities. Overall, this suggests that cities still

believe that there is insufficient support for adaptation planning and that networks,

funding and, adaptation guidance could be a valuable asset in this task.

Adapting to climate change essentially means three things. First, strengthening


12

infrastructure and ecosystems to reduce vulnerabilities in the context of climate change,

and to reduce the risk of spill over effects. Second, building the capacities of social

agents to anticipate and develop adaptive responses, while maintaining supportive urban

systems. Third, addressing the institutional factors that could constrain effective

responses to climate hazards (Tran et al. 2014). In this perspective, adaptation actions

serve for many purposes and attributing them specifically to climate change is a difficult

task. Fully embedded in broader social and economic reasons, they are part of a large

set of development policies. Considering that unintentional adaptation can harm

purposeful adaptation, it becomes clear that the integration of actions on adaptive

capacity (notably related to institutional aspects) and actions that implement operational

decisions on adaptation across sectors, remain key to achieve effective adaptation in

practice (Tran et al. 2014). At the same time, there is no unique method or set of tools that could be pre-defined. For

example, the report State of the World Cities 2012/2013 suggests that so far the notion

of prosperity has been narrowly defined due to an excessive focus on economic growth

that ignores vital dimensions, notably quality of life, adequate infrastructures, equity and

environmental sustainability (UN-Habitat 2013).5 It is important to consider that policy style has a major importance when determining

successful adaptation. Institutions are central pieces of the puzzle that investigates why

some of them promote adaptation, while others slow down this process. Policy style

embeds structural and cultural features and can be defined as “a pattern within

policymaking, and having to do with the way problems are solved vis-à-vis the

relationship between government and other actors" (Lampis 2013, 1882). Given that

climate change became a crosscutting issue for public policy, such analysis is essential

for understanding the adaptation governance. One central assumption is that

governance plays a central role in predicting whether a policy goal, such as improving

adaptation to climate change, can be meaningfully achieved according to the

5 With the goal to overcome this gap, that report proposes a new tool for policy makers named City Prosperity Index, which is accompanied by a conceptual matrix (Wheel of Prosperity). The goal is to advocate by local leaders the need to enhance urban policies towards an expansion of and consolidation of rights to the “commons” as a path to prosperity.


13

understanding of institutions that policies will be embedded in. From this perspective,

one central task of local leaders is to ensure that adaptation actions will be

“mainstreamed” into existing sectoral policies (UNEP 2013, 30). As a polysemic concept, adaptation is a complex phenomenon to be analyzed and can

be evaluated through numerous aspects, such as formal and informal institutional

arrangements, the availability of financial resources, land-use regulations and fiscal

policies, the political power balance among local groups and the relationship existing

between global and local economic and political interests (Lampis 2013). It is thus the

interplay of these elements that should be evaluated when exploring adaptation,

meaning the analysis of what works in the short, medium and long run at a local context,

as well as its “complex web of conflicting interests and social process” (Lampis 2013).

Considering that the overarching goal of adaptation is, in fact, to enable a more resilient

city; tools and measures to boost adaptation planning usually range from a complex

package of public policies, ranging from private investment to technical, institutional (to

coordinate different types of actors), regulatory and financial measures (World Energy

Council 2010).

Resilience must be conceived as a package of actions tailored according to the local

context. As adaptation, resilience is also a polysemic concept, which has evolved

considerably in the last decades. For instance, in the 1970s, Holling, suggested

“resilience determines the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure

of the ability of these systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables,

and parameters, and still persist” (Holling 1973, 17). Resilience has also been identified

as a tool to anticipate and therefore plan for the future in a manner that takes into

account the effects of climate change and other natural disasters (Gallopín 2006;

Carpenter et al. 2001). From the literature, eight aspects of the notion of resilience could

be highlighted (Da Cunha, Plante, and Vasseur 2011):

1. Absorption capacity; a resilient system can absorb shocks and rebuild itself.

2. Adaptive capacity of behaviors; individuals, groups and organizations should be able to maintain a positive attitude towards unexpected hazards and manage significant changes in their environment.

3. Recovery capacity; refers to the ability of individuals and groups to come back to the


14

“initial” state following extreme events.

4. Innovation capacity; refers to social and technological skills able to cope with new conditions of a system after an unforeseen hazard.

5. Capacity of self-organization; requires a strong psychological capacity for improving their own protection and the protection of their environment in the context of rising risks.

6. Learning process; refers to the ability to learn from past events and improve the capacity to anticipate, innovate and adapt in terms of behavior.

7. Anticipation capacity; refers to the ability of planning for hazards, including in terms of resources and capacity-building in advance.

8. Acceptance and management of risk uncertainty; this principle could be defined by a conscious response to a significant uncertainty of risk.

With these considerations in mind, the next sections will explore some fundamental

aspects of an adaptation plan in the urban context emphasizing the importance of a

context-oriented approach.

3.1 Identifying pathways for an effective adaptation planning Developing an adaptation strategy passes in general through two main tasks. First, the

analysis of expected impacts of climate change (with and without adaptation) and,

second the analysis of the potential capacity to prevent, moderate and adapt to these

impacts. Because relative costs of some options could be high and long term policies are

desirable, cost-benefit (weighing the costs of implementing adaptation measures against

its expected benefits) and cost-effectiveness analysis (the lowest-cost way to achieve

the desired goal) are common methods used to support decision making (UNEP 2013).

However, they remain insufficient for an effective implementation of an adaptation plan

and several other elements must complement decisions on this matter. This is because

adaptation planning does not evolve in a linear manner. Despite such lack of linearity,

some toolkits provide a useful starting point for cities that intend to develop an

adaptation plan. The one named AdaptME, for example, is a reference for establishing


15

an idealized6 cycle in which cities can plan step-by-step how to create an adaptation

strategy (Pringle 2011).

Five-stage adaptation planning: essential questions7

Identifying adaptation needs: - What impacts may be expected under climate change? - What are actors’ vulnerabilities and capacities? - What major decisions need to be addressed? Identifying adaptation options: - How can the specific risks and opportunities that were identified be addressed? - There may be several options available to achieve the desired goals. Appraising adaptation options: - What are the pros and cons of the different options, and which best fit the adaptation actors’ objectives? Planning and implementing adaptation actions: - After an option is chosen, implementation can begin. - The focus here is on practical issues, such as planning, assigning responsibilities, setting up institutional frameworks, and taking action. Monitoring and evaluation of adaptation. - As measures are implemented, the process is monitored and evaluated to ensure it goes as planned, identify any problems, document the outcomes achieved, change course as needed, and draw lessons from the experience.

3.2 Studying adaptation needs- a starting point Climate change is demanding numerous actions from cities, which are challenged by a

growing number of hazards, particularly related to heatwaves, floods, sea level rise,

water scarcity and droughts. Floods are dangerous as they can destroy infrastructures,

trouble the economy and cut off fundamental services (i.e. Energy, transport, clean

water). Heatwaves have an impact in public health, reduce human productivity, constrain

social life and put infrastructures at risk. When combined with droughts, food security

can be affected, as well as water availability, causing numerous economic and social

pressures, including greater social disparity. These challenges, however, do not affect

6 These stages are called "idealized" as "real-world" adaptation is rarely a linear process. It requires thus constant refinement during its development, as it will be discussed throughtout this paper. 7 (Bisaro et al. 2014)


16

cities equally. Hence, there is need for an analysis of vulnerability assessments tailored

to the local context. This is important because impacts depend not only on the exposure,

but also on the capacity of the city to cope with hazards. The concept of vulnerability is

central to complement traditional risk analysis focusing primarily on natural hazards

(“Vulnerability of People and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities.

Background Report on Chapter 7 of the Fourth Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4)”

2007). Vulnerability, in the context of climate change, is a function of the degree to which a

system is exposed: people's sensitivity and their adaptive capacity. People living in the

areas of natural disasters are an example of high exposure to risk, but adaptive capacity

varies from city to city, community-to-community, availability of resources, and social

values. Adaptive capacity tends to be higher when individuals are ready to cooperate

within the community and are able to be involved in decision-making. Such capacity

decreases considerably in areas of conflict, when they are forced to migrate or live in

areas with low law enforcement (Bizikova et al. 2009). This includes the ability of

individuals to cooperate within households, but also with neighbors and with the

community leaders and their involvement in decision-making. Overall, understanding the

vulnerability requires the identification of the main sensitivities to the previously identified

impacts in the context of the existing adaptive capacity. The following questions could

guide this phase of analysis (Füssel and Klein 2006): 1. How often do the identified impacts, including disasters, hit the community? Is the

incidence growing?

2. Based on the trends, drivers and pressures, what are the main causes of vulnerability?

3. What coping strategies exist for each identified impact? How effective are these coping strategies?

4. What are the capacities that are lacking to address the identified impacts? 5. Which organizations/institutions, if any, support existing coping strategies or promote

new strategies?

When responding to these questions, it is essential to consider that cities are embedded

in a broader “urban ecosystem”, in which surrounding rural and peri-urban areas must be


17

taken into account, since they are responsible for the provision of ecosystem services,

such as water, food, waste disposal, flood regulation, cultural and recreational values,

used by the urban centers (UNEP 2009). On the other hand, often information and

precise data at local scale is lacking, and the evaluations of vulnerabilities and impacts

must take into account certain uncertainties. UNEP, for example, offers a training that

assists in this initial phase of evaluations that uses the Methodology for the Preparation

of GEO Cities Reports (UNEP 2009). This methodology applies the D-P-S-I-R matrix

(Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses), which provides means to

understand urban trends and prepare for an integrated environmental assessment

(Bizikova et al. 2009). What is essential to be retained is how cities function, notably

“the structure of social inequality of the city, the main factors that determine space

occupation, the local institutional organization with emphasis on those public institutions

set up to protect the environment, and the mechanisms for social participation in the

development of public policies, among other things" (Bizikova et al. 2009, 8).

Driving forces relate to societal processes that promote activities that have a direct

impact on the environment, such as population trends, consumer behavior and

production, scientific and technological innovation, economic demand, markets and

trade, resource distribution patterns, institutional and socio-political frameworks and,

value systems. Example of pressures, include: emissions of pollutants or waste, land

use changes, and resource extraction (Bizikova et al. 2009). Overall, understanding

vulnerability requires determining sensitivities to identified impacts based on adaptive

capacities. Physical and social systems must be assessed in order to determine the

most appropriate adaptation options.

3.3 Evaluating adaptation options- the need of a context-oriented approach It is more and more evident that the transition to a low-carbon city is imperative. But what

have been the main solutions that cities have been applying to become more resilient?

Climate change has been affecting cities in different ways, but heat, flooding, water

scarcity and droughts have been at the top of concerns for their strategic value and

direct impact into the quality of life in urban areas. Under the scenario of future acute


18

vulnerabilities, adaptation options are usually classified in three different ways (European

Environment Agency 2012). First, “grey” infrastructure approaches, which correspond to physical interventions with

the support of engineering solutions to make the city more resilient to extreme events.

Considering that in some large emerging countries, notably in India, most of the

infrastructure is yet to be build, green technology has been attracting investors and

policy makers, particularly in the building, transport and waste sectors (European

Environment Agency 2012). Scaling up these solutions is even more important knowing

that emissions from emerging economies are rapidly pairing with those of developed

countries and the key drivers for this increase are population growth, income growth,

local temperatures, industrial composition, design and technology, and market failures

(Floater et al. 2014). Historical path dependencies show how energy consumption and

GHG patters in cities with similar per capita income and climate are comparable given

past policy decisions that have shaped urban form, transport system and building energy

efficiencies. For example, in the building sector, solutions include improved practices

and design that can enhance insulation, heating and cooling systems, as well as

allowing the adoption of renewable energy. Investments in the early stages of the low-

carbon transition can be appealing to local decision makers, indicating that climate

change must be part of development strategies. If investments equivalent to 1.7% and

9.5% of annual city-scale GDP were made at the global level, it is estimated that they

could generate a reductions equivalent to 10-18% of global energy-related GHG

emissions in 2025 (Gouldson et al. 2014). However, despite ongoing initiatives towards a

low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure, there is still a need to increase the scale

of change, notably in the transportation sector. According to the New Climate Economy

(2014), in a short-term perspective, between 2015-2020, global infrastructure needs,

including building and transportation vehicles, are approximately 6.7 trillion USD/per year

under BAU. Incremental costs of low-carbon infrastructure are estimated to be between

70 to 450 US billion dollars per year. Considering the technical and financial inter-

dependency between infrastructure systems, such investments are expected to generate

a “virtuous cycle of low-carbon growth" (Kennedy and Corfee-Morlot 2013).


19

Second, “green” infrastructure approaches are the ones that can make the city more

resilient through the use of, for example, networks of greenways, open spaces,

greenbelts, urban greening, cultural landscapes, urban open spaces, ecological

networks, agricultural land, and natural systems aiming at provisioning services (food,

water, timber, and fiber), regulating services (regulation of climate, flood, disease,

wastes and water), cultural services (recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits), and

supporting services (soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling) (Abunnasr

2013; Stubbs 2008). The goal of green infrastructures is to achieve sustainability through

the maintenance of “nature” that can, at the same time, improve wellbeing and the

environmental conditions of urban areas.

Third, “soft” approaches are those that facilitate the implementation of “grey” and “green”

measures and include the design and application of policy procedures, such as: land-use

controls, information dissemination, economic incentives to reduce vulnerability and

measures that try to avoid maladaptation. As it will be discussed later, these measures

can be perceived as “success factors” for an effective implementation of an adaptation

plan. To provide some examples of adaptation measures, the problem of heat is illustrative.

With greater temperatures the concern is that cities will increase the use of air

conditioning and, consequently, increase GHG emissions. Insulation of buildings is the

first priority to keep rooms cool and to reduce the use of energy consumption. Thick and

well-designed walls, small windows, double glazing, as well as public spaces that

provide shade and natural isolation are called passive measures and should be

prioritized. Following this, the use of green infrastructure is another manner to cope with

the effect of heat islands and provide multiple benefits, including the creation of areas for

recreation, filtering air, draining and storing water. Vegetation, in particular, provides

thermal balance effects during the day and, at night, helps with the production of fresh

and cool air (European Environment Agency 2012; Kazmierczak and Carter 2010). In the

case of heat, soft measures are essential. Awareness of the local population on how

they can reduce sensitivity to heat with a focus on the most vulnerable (i.e. elderly,

children, disabled); a heat action plan coupled with preparedness of health and social


20

staff are examples of actions that could significantly improve the life of citizens in urban

areas.

According to the European Environmental Agency, flooding, mainly from intensive

precipitation, is another hazard that requires attention of cities for their risks to, inter alia,

loss of life, disease spread, infrastructure damages, landslides, erosion, pollution of

groundwater sources and, exposure of the population to post-traumatic stress disorder

(PTSD). There are several manners to improve resilience against flooding. Grey

infrastructure includes the reconstruction of vulnerable buildings; decentralization of

energy systems and, placement of electricity underground. Green measures range from

soft permeable surfaces; green alleys and streets; urban forestry and green open (parks

and wetlands). Green infrastructure costs, performance and benefits include, for

example, green alleys or streets, rain barrels, and tree planting, which are estimated to

be 3-6 times more effective in managing storm-water per $1000 invested than

conventional methods (Foster, Lowe, and Winkelman 2011). To illustrate, the New York

2010 Green Infrastructure Plan has the goal to reduce the city’s sewer management

costs by $2.4 billion over 20 years and this plan estimates that every fully vegetated acre

of green infrastructure would provide total annual benefits of $8,522 in reduced energy

demand, $166 in reduced CO2 emissions, $1,044 in improved air quality, and $4,725 in

increased property value, estimating that by using green practices at a total cost of $1.5

billion less than traditional methods (Foster, Lowe, and Winkelman 2011). Coping with flooding requires not only a mix between grey, green and soft measures, but

also a city-wide planning. The cross-border nature of flooding means that actions must

be taken strategically involving decision makers at a multi-level scale (European

Environment Agency 2012). In this case, soft measures – forecasting and early warning

systems, awareness raising, knowledge, capacity building and training, integration of

climate change into building codes and spatial planning, regulations and fiscal incentives

and, insurance– are vital for a successful use of grey and green options. The state of

New York provides an interesting case for the analysis of adaptation measures on

flooding in the Hudson estuary, involving the Catskill, Kingston, Peirmont and Stony

Point communities. Highly affected by hurricanes Irene and Sandy, each community


21

formed a task force to improve flood resilience in the municipality. Among the main

recommendations, one can find the relevance of soft measures and social empowerment

for a successful flood plan, which include enhancing emergency management and

developing and securing evacuation routes, communicating with community members

about flood preparedness, developing long-term plans for at-risk municipal infrastructure,

evaluating zoning and building codes and, identifying policy to reduce vulnerability.8 In the area of water, population growth, changes in land use and climate change are

factors increasing the risks of water scarcity, which, in many cities, is already a reality.

The recent water crisis in mega cities, such as Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro illustrates

the problem of water availability and its socio-economic impacts at present (New York

Times 2015). Grey infrastructure approaches involve rainwater harvesting, ground water

recharge and grey water recycling for toilet flushing and irrigation, for example.

Desalination and re-allocation of water resources are options that can assist with water

supply, but are usually expensive and several cities cannot afford these measures.

Green roofs can contribute to rainwater harvesting and vegetated areas can slow down

water run-off, store storm water and allow infiltration in the soil, which could keep water

available for vegetation and other uses (European Environment Agency 2012). Overall,

core elements of a water sustainable city must value water, promote a culture of

conservation, and make citizens appreciate that their urban spaces are embedded in

natural systems (Econonics 2014).

3.4 Social empowerment and learning as success factors of an adaptation plan There are several manners to conceive an adaptation plan. When identifying the most

appropriate option, it is common to make use of cost-benefit analysis to support the

process of decision-making. However, this research emphasizes that such an approach

has significant shortcomings and, if not accompanied by other elements, risks to

undermine a comprehensive adaptation strategy. Again, New York represents an 8 For a full report, see: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/93950.html


22

interesting example of a city that used a cost-benefit analysis but admitted it is not

enough to measure the costs of social exclusion when planning adaptation. This

suggests that cost-benefit analysis is important but not sufficient to decision-makers, if

social externalities are not taken into account (Terenzi and Wigstrom 2013).9 In this

sense, the analysis of technical solutions can be inspiring but there are other conditions

for a successful implementation of an adaptation planning, especially in a context of

uncertainty. While cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses are methods that propose

solutions based on optimal calculations, “robust” (don't fail) decision making methods are

appointed as positive alternatives (Lempert and Collins 2007; UNEP 2013)

To avoid failure, robust decisions must be flexible meaning that they can change

accordingly to future needs. In this approach, a participatory process is highly

recommended, as well as in-depth reflection on cross-sectoral implications of selected

adaptation measures. Participatory engagement is important for several reasons, notably

the creation of ownership among participants, which can improve the likelihood of

effective implementation of policies since the communities will better understand how

certain decisions are impacting their lives. Beyond improving awareness regarding

climate change, participatory engagement also has a positive effect on equity and helps

to resolve social conflicts. Moreover, it reinforces local capacities, knowledge, trust,

which, in the long run, tends to help citizens to tackle vulnerabilities individually or

collectively (UNEP 2013). It is fundamental to acknowledge that participatory processes

can be a tool to prepare communities to make informed decisions about adaptation in a

scenario of constant change (Keys, Thomsen, and Smith 2014).

Examples of participatory tools for adaptation:10 • CARE Community Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis methodology CARE11 -

This tool assists practitioners to understand the implications of climate change for

9 This argument was also present during a field work trip in NY in April 2015, which will be furhter explored in the next deliverable of University of Versailles (D7.3). 10 Information collected in Pringle 2011. 11 http://www.careclimatechange.org/cvca/CARE_CVCAHandbook.pdf


23

the lives and livelihoods of people, as well as in the creation of a dialogue within

communities and other stakeholders, such as businesses, non-governmental

agents. The goal is to improve scientific data with local knowledge for adaptive

capacity enhancement.

• The CRiSTAL Screening Tool CRiSTAL (Community-based Risk Screening Tool

– Adaptation and Livelihoods);12 - is a screening tool designed to help project

planners and managers to integrate risk reduction and climate change adaptation

into community-level projects. It provides guidance to better understand risks

between livelihoods and climate, to assess a project’s impact on community-level

adaptive capacity, and make project adjustments to improve its impact on

adaptive capacity and reduce the vulnerability of communities to climate change.

• The Participatory Learning Action (PLA) notes are published by the International

Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)13 and, published for 25 years,

these publications illustrate participatory methods and approaches, which provide

examples of the use of participatory tools in multiple settings.

Examples of Participatory Scenario Development Approaches

for Identifying Pro-Poor Adaptation:

• Formulating Climate Change Scenarios to Inform Climate-Resilient Development

Strategies: A Guidebook for Practitioners (UNDP 2011) 14 . This publication

focuses on the formulation of climate-change scenarios as a tool to inform low-

emission climate-resilient development strategies. This publication provides

guidance on:

o The identification of key stakeholders and the establishment of participatory

planning and coordination frameworks;

o Generation of climate change profiles and vulnerability scenarios;

o Identification and prioritization of mitigation and adaptation options;

12 Full reports can be found here: https://www.iisd.org/publications/summary-cristal-community-based-risk-screening-tool-adaptation-livelihoods 13 http://www.iied.org/participatory-learning-action 14http://www.climate-services.org/sites/default/files/undp2011_formulating_climate_scenarios.pdf


24

o Assessment of financing requirements; and development of low-emission

climate-resilient roadmaps for project development, policy instruments, and

financial flows.

• Decision-making for Climate Resilient Livelihoods and Risk Reduction: A

Participatory Scenario Planning Approach (CARE International 2012)15. This

publication enables actions for climate-resilient livelihoods and disaster risk

reductions. Key messages include:

o A multi-stakeholder platform allows sharing, understanding, interpreting and

communicating climate information by fostering dialogue and synergies

across stakeholders.

o It is important to combine local and scientific knowledge systems to make

climate information relevant locally and for empowering communities.

o Local adaptive capacity is improved through the inclusion of communication

and the use of climate information in adaptation planning processes, which

enable communities to live with uncertainty presented by climate change.

• ActionAid International has developed a tool for “participatory vulnerability

analysis”16. This tool aims at situations of emergencies and conflicts that involve

communities, local authorities and other stakeholders. This guide is useful for

using the output of the local level to inform national and international level action

policies. It is also useful to better understand how emergencies and development

impact the communities' vulnerability.

In the process of community engagement, other participatory tools related to advice on

the facilitation process are relevant. Numerous publications present techniques and tips

for this exercise, including designing the process and the experience, creating checklists

and templates, references and resources that could assist local authorities (Keating 15 http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/ALP_PSP_Brief.pdf 16 http://www.actionaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/doc_lib/108_1_participatory_vulnerability_analysis_guide.pdf


25

2003).17 It is essential that there is no “one size fits all” model for climate adaptation. In this case,

cities and international networks offer a valuable platform for knowledge exchange and

learning.18 Given the urgency to shape urban growth in a resilient way, cities have

increased their influence in international governance and have been fostering several

noteworthy initiatives at the international level. For example, ICLEI- Local Governments

for Sustainability is large network with more than 1,000 cities that has led action towards

sustainability at the city level by impacting over 20% of the world's urban population.19

European cities in particular have been at the forefront of climate change action. Another

example is the EU's Convenant of Mayors agreement, which became an important

initiative that counts over 6,000 signatories.20 This agreement commits various cities to

utilize renewable energy and implement energy efficient measures with the goal of

meeting or exceeding the EU's GHG reduction target of 20% reduction by 2020. As a

result of this initiative, the Urban Adaptation Support Tool was created in 2015 to support

cities in adaptation. This tool provides practical guidance and knowledge support to the

signatories and other interested cities by guiding adaptation planning and

implementation cycles through the facilitation of access to in-depth expert information

and data via an up-to-date literature database and information sources on each step of

the idealized urban adaptation cycle.21 The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group also is

another example to illustrate how international networks can foster resilience. Founded

by London Mayor Ken Livingstone in 2005, this organization has today a global outreach

and is responsible for reducing GHG emissions in 75 cities (Carbon Disclosure Project

2012). This platform is used by cities to exchange successful experiences in the domain

of mitigation and adaptation among practitioners. More recently, another international initiative must be highlighted. On the occasion of the

17 For a summary of Keating 2003, see: “National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Facilitation Guide for Working with Groups” 2011. 18 This argument was present during interviews with local authorities in Rio de Janeiro during a dialogue organized with the civil society and climate change experts in january 2005. 19 See: http://www.iclei.org/iclei-global/who-is-iclei.html 20 As for April 2015. See: http://www.convenantofmayors.eu/index_en.html 21 See: http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/tools/urban-ast/step-0-0


26

United Nations Climate Summit in New York in September 2014, urban leaders agreed

to a more comprehensive agreement named Compact of Mayors, which commits cities

to four steps: disclosing data about their emissions, setting ambitious targets for

reducing emissions, developing strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change,

tracking and reporting their progress. The novelty of this agreement is that for the first

time there exists a standard method of measuring and reporting emissions at the city

level. With the goal to foster accuracy and establish an international benchmark for city-

level emissions, the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions

(GPC) became a new tool in climate mitigation that aims to improve measurement and

transparency (Dalkmann 2014).

Acting in cities means closing a significant infrastructure gap, which, according to the

Word Bank, would require US$ 1 trillion in developing cities, a contrasting number

compared to the US$ 135 billion annually of official development aid (ODA) (Dalkmann

2014). Aiming to close this gap, the 2014 UN Climate Summit also launched the City

Climate Finance Leadership Alliance that aims to create a marketplace for low-carbon

projects through a network of city leaders and financing bodies. For instance, the World

Energy Council suggests several ways to increase the funds for municipalities,

especially in developing countries (World Energy Council 2010). 1. Increase land and properties taxes progressively;

2. Set up a minimal land registry and monitoring of the property market in order to tax the

capital gains on land and buildings streaming from public investments and

regulation changes;

3. Use of carbon finance as a way to boost North-South capital transfers and sharing

responsibilities;

4. Charge users the full cost of urban services.

Tariffs and subsidies, however, represent a challenge as it is now clear that some

services, particularly targeting the poorest, must be subsidized to improve access rates

(World Energy Council 2010). Overall, financial shortcoming frequently is a relevant

barrier for adaptation actions. The next session will highlight how international climate

finance could help cities to raise new sources of funds and how issues related to

monitoring affect this agenda.


27

4. Monitoring and evaluating adaptation- opportunities and gaps around the notion of efficiency

The previous sections discussed some approaches and examples towards the design

and implementation of adaptation action. Nevertheless, another relevant element

remains to be explored: how can we measure progress? The evaluation of the effectiveness of climate adaptation and the degree of urban

resilience is relatively new and strongly informed by other areas, notably livelihoods,

disaster risk management and food security. Therefore so-called good practices in the

context of climate change adaptation are still emerging through a recent exchange of

knowledge between stakeholders and governments (Bours, McGinn, and Pringle 2014).

Consequently, research on how best to adapt to uncertain effects of climate change and

on what are the main characteristics of a well-adapting society, remains incipient and it

is fundamental to understand what works well, in which circumstance and for what

reasons. That is, posing the right questions is sometimes more important than fostering

unreflected change, which could cause unintended consequences (Pringle 2011).

At the same time, measuring successful adaptation-planning remains a challenge and

much of adaptation actions are so far reactive, deriving from the need to compensate

damage caused by natural disasters (i.e. Floods, landslides, tsunamis, earthquakes).

Quantified assessments of adaptation measures do not represent a general rule and

various cities have developed successful adaptation plans using qualitative data and

information from historical experience and knowledge as a base for decision making,

showing that scientific uncertainty is not necessarily a barrier to action on adaptation

planning. Shifts in perception and behavior, together with leadership remain essential

aspects of successful resilient cities (Carmin, Dodman, and Chu 2013). Despite

remaining challenges for defining, measuring and planning effective adaptation, the

analysis of some case studies indicate significant advancements on such tasks (Pringle

2011).


28

The interest in studying successful adaptation measures is also related to the risks of

maladaptation and fit. Widely discussed in the literature, experts have been alerting for

the problems of ill-conceptions of adaptation that can, in fact, exacerbate ongoing

climate vulnerabilities. One current example highlights the protection of coastal

properties from storms that can, in the long term, affect environment integrity. This

reinforces the argument evoked at the beginning of this analysis that emphasizes the

importance of posing the right questions. As Pringle (2011) puts: ‘are we doing the right

things?’ and ‘are we doing things right?’. A second challenge when evaluating climate-

adaptation and resilience is whether or not initiatives are actually serving for climate

purposes. There are concerns that climate adaptation has become a manner to attract

funding, for example, and thus a rhetorical way to frame proposals in the eyes of

international agencies or private donors. A third challenge relates to the difficulties to

attribute costs. Previous studies pointed out how a variety of actors and actions have

shaped certain outcomes, which turn into positive environmental and development

results independent from specific adaptation interventions. This is usually related to

measures capable of reducing poverty and improving, for instance, housing and living

conditions, as well as provision for infrastructure and services (Satterthwaite et al. 2007). This

is actually a desirable aspect considering that monitoring and evaluation should involve

an entire system and not only the environment department, if existent. A fourth challenge

derives from a methodological point of view, since quantitative information produced in

cities is also found to differ substantially and lack consistency, limiting the direct

exchange of methodologies between cities (Hunt and Watkiss 2011). Finally, one should

note that cost-benefit analysis does not evaluate non-monetary aspects, such as indirect

benefits related to health, environment preservation and development of cultural heritage

(Ackerman and Heinzerling 2002).

While we showed numerous tools and policies that can assist local leaders to implement

adaptation strategies, criteria and indicators for measuring, the level of success remains

unresolved. Some argue that reporting on adaptation is relatively easy, but determining

its outcomes is a hard task conceptually and in practice (Bours, McGinn, and Pringle

2014). According to Tyler at al. (2012), it might be difficult to assess an adaptation


29

measure before an extreme climate event. For instance, if a city intends to adapt to

projected intense rainfall event, through green space for flood retention, storage and

infiltration or new drainage infrastructure, effectiveness could only be fully evaluated

when such an event happens. Moreover, because of the likely trajectory of climate

change, adaptation measures may never be complete since they will need to be

continuously reshaped to cope with ongoing climate shifts.

Overall, adaptation action encompasses a complex set of objectives ranging from the

notions of effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy and fairness (Adger, Nigel, and Tompkins

2005). It is precisely the need to renew legitimacy in political action that deserves special

attention from the point of view of political science. How can justice be addressed in this

process of change and redistribution of costs and benefits? Answering this question is

fundamental for ensuring that adaptation will be implemented effectively. Effectiveness refers to the capacity of an adaptation action to achieve its previously

determined objectives, usually in terms of reducing risk and avoiding danger of climate

change (Adger, Nigel, and Tompkins 2005). The number of houses removed from a

certain area could measure this, since they would have an impact on the level of risks in

vulnerable areas. Interventions in public health could also serve to calculate the impact

of disease burden. Nevertheless, Adget et al. (2005) point out four major inconveniences

in measuring effectiveness. First, there is uncertainty regarding how an adaptation action

will work even under precise conditions. Second, the effectiveness of an adaptation

option can be done by a certain organization but remains reliant on actions of third

parties. For example, a demand for water reduction will ultimately depend on consumers

and measuring effectiveness of actions that rely on individuals remains very difficult to

assess. Third, such measurements depend on an (unknown) future. For instance, a flood

protection embankment will depend on the future flood regime. The same holds for

declining incomes that could also affect the effectiveness of certain regulations, making

social and economic conditions central elements of this puzzle. Fourth, in theory, any

adaptation measure can create unintended consequences on natural and social

systems. For instance, when actions are innovative, consequences are hard to predict

(i.e. river channel restoration). Overall, effectiveness of an adaptation action depends


30

largely on spatial and temporal scales, which requires any project to previously specify

its objectives (outputs and outcomes). At the same time, monitoring and evaluating

adaptation actions has to be based on three principles in order to be effective: designed

for learning, managed for results; and maintaining flexibility in the face of uncertainty

(Harley et al. 2008). It is important for decision makers to acknowledge that adaptation entails advantages

but also costs. To assess efficiency, economic evaluation techniques are central, since

costs and benefits are calculated in terms of financial terms. For Adger et al. (2005:82),

“any assessment of the economic efficiency of adaptation actions requires consideration

of, first, the distribution of the costs and benefits of the actions, second, of the costs and

benefits of changes in those goods that cannot be expressed in market values, and,

third, the timing on adaptation actions”. Indeed, the timing of the adaptation action in

relation to the climate change impact affects the perceived economic efficiency. For

example, a farmer deciding on which crops to plant in the next year is little interested in

the long term perspective when defining its capital turnover (Adger, Nigel, and Tompkins

2005). Efficacy and efficiency are thus interrelated and are part of accountability needs,

which should show that pre-established goals were in fact accomplished. In this

perspective, impact and economic assessments of climate change constitute a relevant

step in urban adaptation responses but have been mostly explored in developed

countries as a mean to drive and support adaptation strategies and raising awareness.

This is certainly because of the lack of human capacity and resources to conduct such

complex assessment in developing countries.

To date, quantitative estimates of the costs of climate change risks are mostly focusing

on flooding, health and, to a lesser extent, water resources (Hunt and Watkiss 2011).

These are often 'must do' risks and lead to win-win and no-regrets options for any

population (Foster, Lowe, and Winkelman 2011). Noting that most of adaptation actions

are done through the perspective of public goods (conservation of habitats, resources for

future use, human protection, food security), resources for implementing these actions

could face serious challenges, especially in times of economic recession. The

knowledge on the most cost-effective options is therefore highly desirable information for


31

decision-making. However, as aforementioned, assessing the protection of public goods

only through the lenses of environmental economics is insufficient. Because climate

change is such a complex problem, notably for its intergenerational character,

effectiveness and efficiency are not enough to judge successful adaptation plans. Equity,

legitimacy and fairness must be part of the equation. These criteria are directly related to

systems of decision-making and consequently reflect distribution of power within

institutions (Adger, Nigel, and Tompkins 2005; Gallopín 2006)

Climate change has uneven impacts throughout countries and societies, as a result of a

varied level of vulnerability strongly connected to uneven social and economic

conditions. Questions about the success of adaptation interventions must then deal with

who is going to benefit from them and whether or not certain social groups are excluded.

Overall, adaptation must be framed under the perspective of an ongoing process that

aims to inspire changes in the social, economic, environmental and institutional field that

assist development objectives (UNDP 2007). In addition, it must be conceived as a living

process and not a final outcome.

In the process of developing an adaptation plan, financial constraints are commonly

identified barriers. International cooperation is one channel for alleviating barriers to

urban climate change, but they are getting less and less likely to be an effective and

efficient source of funding for cities. At the international level, after an increased

realization that adaptation is as important as mitigation, the UNFCCC has established in

2001 two funds for adaptation financed by voluntary contributions: the Least Developed

Countries Fund (LDCF)22 and Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF),23 both managed by

the Global Environment Facility (GEF). In 2007, the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol created

the Adaptation Fund (AF), which is financed with 2% of all emissions credits (CERs)

under the Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM).24 The negotiations of the post-2012

climate regime have put finance at the heart of the debate, especially after the

commitment of developed countries in Cancun (COP 16) to provide $30 billion “fast start”

financing for developing countries in the period of 2010-2012, of which a third is

dedicated to adaptation (WRI 2010). After 2014, climate finance became even more of a

22 See: https://www.thegef.org/gef/LDCF 23 See: https://www.thegef.org/gef/SCCF 24See:http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/adaptation_fund/items/3659.php


32

“hot topic” with the announcement of US$ 9.3 billion to the Green Climate Fund (GCF),

the newest financial mechanism of the UNFCCC that has contributions from developed

and developing countries.25 The overarching goal is to mobilize US$100 billion a year by

2020. It is interesting to know that in this new mechanism the goal is to allocate 50:50 of

resources for adaptation and mitigation, indicating the rising importance of adaptation as

well.

One main concern with these international adaptation funds is that their projects are not

assessed according to comparable metrics. The AF uses a guideline from the

Programme Review Committee (PPRC), which has several general criteria for project

assessment, including, inter alia, economic, social, environmental benefits, meeting

national standards, cost-effectiveness, arrangements for management and monitoring

(Stadelmann et al. 2011). Another example is the GEF indicators, which do not take into

account efficiency indicators and global targets for adaptation projects. 26 This is

concerning from an economic point of view because, ideally, one would try to allocate

resources in the most efficient funds, but due to a lack of consensual universal metrics,

the efficiency cannot be compared. (Stadelmann et al. 2011).

Climate adaptation needs to support change on the ground and be coupled with

development policies. However, international funds are unwilling to grant funding for

most needed infrastructure given the perception that they are not exclusively climate-

oriented. Moreover, the preference for funding projects instead of processes represents

a barrier for effective urban adaptation (Satterthwaite 2013). This is because

investments in communities have shown great benefits in terms of scale. One example

are the achievements of the Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI) in

25 http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2014/12/green-climate-fund-surpasses-10-billion-goal/ 26 The steps in the GEF Project Cycle vary according to the following project types, but they generally need to ensure that it: is in a country that is eligible to receive GEF funding; is consistent with GEF strategic objectives and strategic programs; is being submitted through a GEF Agency that has a comparative advantage to support the project concept; provides an estimated cost of the project, including expected co- financing; requests a GEF grant amount that is consistent with resources available in the focal area and with allocations available to the country under the Resource Allocation Framework; indicates clear milestones for further project preparation. For further details see: http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/gefcs/docs/922.pdf


33

Thailand, which showcased how national governmental funding can assist community

organizations composed of people living in informal settlements to improve their own

housing. One main advantage of involving the community is the community buy-in of

decisions made by local authorities. To illustrate, the Asian Coalition for Community

Action (ACCA) has since 2009 supported over 1,000 community initiatives in 168 cities

in 19 nations. With funding available for each initiative around only US$1-3,000, it was

the community that took the investment decision (Satterthwaite 2013). This is a

significant example of the importance of community engagement to bring

transformations on the ground. Partnerships between local governments and

associations dealing with the most vulnerable people can thus help city-scale efforts in a

more efficient way. There are reasons to believe that inverting the general logic of

national and international funds towards, first, providing funds and, then, letting those on

the ground make decisions that will act on their vulnerabilities. This would replace the

frequent cycle in which cities conduct vulnerability studies, followed by experts

identifying projects and, finally, seeking funding (Satterthwaite 2013). What is becoming clearer and clearer, is that public finance is poorly equipped to ensure

sufficient resources for developing countries in adaptation for two main reasons. First,

there is little chance to precisely predict the costs of the effects of climate change.

Second, finance generation through taxes is subject to market volatility and hence

cannot be predictable in scale (Atteridge 2011). The involvement of the private sector is

then highly recommended for raising new finance for adaptation and yet little studies

exist on the potential for voluntary private investments. One example of ongoing climate

financing is the European Investment Bank (EIB). It raised EUR 3bn from capital

markets for its Facility for Energy Sustainability and Security of Supply, created in 2007,

to generate new finance-related lending activities as a complement to their public funds

(Atteridge 2011). One should note that the EU aims to ensure that at least 20% of the

European budget is climate-related expenditure. Such a goal is part of the Multi-annual

Financial Framework 2014-2020 and complements a range of other channels, such as

funding opportunities via the European Investment Bank or the European Bank for


34

Reconstruction and Development. 27 Beyond green bonds, “responsible investment”

funds offer investors the ability to direct investments towards climate issues. The private

sector could play a role in scaling up finance through, for instance, designing

manufacturing and distributing goods and services that can help communities and

individuals to cope with climate change, as well as providing risk management tools. In

this case, insurance is the most common example (Bräuninger et al. 2011).

4.1 Initial lessons from the Stakeholders Dialogue and fieldwork in New york, Bogota and Bilbao Environmentally sustainable cities are likely to be more productive, competitive,

innovative and prosperous (UN-Habitat 2013). A fine balance between economic growth

and the environment is thus key to achieve a resilient city. For instance, it has been

estimated that in the United States, urban sprawl costs around $400 billion a year for

public services, such as water and waste, investment for roads and other infrastructure,

together with congestion, accidents and pollution (Steer 2014). In this country, New York

has become a model for adaptation planning. Severely affected by Hurricane Sandy in

2012, this city has become a valuable case to better grasp adaptation measures, notably

related to flooding. With PlaNYC, launched by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New

York was able to drop CO2 emissions by 19 percent bellow 2005 levels, “putting it ahead

of schedule to achieve its emissions reduction target of 30 percent by 2030"28. In the

process of building resilience, community education became a priority, as several

citizens need to know about new regulations, such as new flood insurance rates for

homeowners located in vulnerable areas. Through a website, the Center for NYC

Neighborhoods, a non profit organization dedicated to prevention and rebuilding from

Sandy, has been working to promote affordable homeownership in NY, while helping

citizens to understand how new federal legislation that raised flood insurance affects

them.29 Following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the National Flood Insurance Programme

(NFIP) in NY was left with a $25 billion in debt. For this reason, a reform was done to 27 More information on this is available on the website of the European Commission under the theme 'Financing Adaptation": http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/financing/index_en.htm 28 More information available here: http://www.nyc.gov./html/planyc/html/home.shtml 29 See: www.floodhelpnyc.org


35

increase the financial stability of this programme via the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance

Reform Act in 2012. More precisely, this Act is a law passed by Congress and signed by

the US President that extends the NFIP for five years, while requiring a reform in the

programme that includes a timeline for implementing reforms.30 After hurricane Sandy in

2012, the ONG Center for NYC Neighborhoods focused on short term financial needs

establishing the Neighborhoods Recovery Fund, which offered grants and loans to help

homeowners with financial needs that could not be covered by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) and to make insurance payments. One important action

was to reduce displacement by connecting financially vulnerable homeowners to house

counseling and foreclosure-prevention legal services, which helped 4,000 NY families

(Peale 2015).

The city of Bogotá, Colombia, adds another interesting example to this analysis. Despite

the absence of a formal plan of adaptation to climate change, this city was successful in

several policies that created benefits in terms of climate change, environment, urban and

social aspects (Lampis 2013). The large decrease in homicide rates during the first half

of the 1990s and the renewal of public spaces and infrastructure are the main features of

these transformations. Bogotá backed a climate change adaptation working group made

of two groups involving several departments such as the planning, information and

environmental control departments and communication, education and participation

departments, the health department, the mobility department and the risk management

department (Terenzi and Wigstrom 2013). Additional institutions that are relevant for

adaptation in Bogotá include: Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente (SDA), which is in charge

of the drafting and operation of the environmental policies of the city, in interaction with

the Corporación Autónoma Regional (CAR), which is responsible for environmental

management in the surrounding region; the Secretaría Distrital de Hábitat (SDH), the

Secretaría Distrital de Educación (SDE), the Secretaría de Integración Social (SDIS).

Despite the absence of a comprehensive adaptation strategy, the city has benefited from

several projects and guidance (e.g the city is a member of C40) that are relevant for

adaptation to climate change. The example of Bogotá suggests a path-dependency in

which pre-existing institutions contributed to the shaping of future options, mainly with

30 Further details available here: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31946


36

regards to Bogotá's emphasis on risk reduction and management. The city has

developed several vulnerability and impact assessments: risk mapping of zones of the

city from floods, landslides, earthquakes and forest fires have been established. With

regards to land use planning, the city has launched risk management programmes,

including programmes on relocation of low-income households in high-risk area. The city

triggers various types of programmes to mitigate hazards and reduce exposure and

vulnerability for communities, including resettlement, engineering works, public service

improvements (particularly drainage) and housing improvement subsidies. Climate

change adaptation is also being integrated into its master plan (POT - Plan de

Ordenamiento Territorial). Bogotá also benefits from deliberative networks between

academic and public policy institutions (with the National University of Colombia and the

IDEAM for instance) (Lampis 2013). However, some ambiguous aspects regarding the

governance of the city still remain. As UN-Habitat observed, “the Disaster Prevention

and Emergency Department’s portfolio is dominated by geotechnical studies, projects of

civil engineering aimed at the mitigation of risk and to the strengthening of the most

critical spots across the slopes where the majority of peripheral barrios have been built

over the last three decades” (UN-Habitat 2012, 38 ) and social determinants and drivers

are not addressed. There is still a high demand for housing and very scarce access to

credit or to formal urban development projects. Moreover, a ‘polyphony’ of organizations

is currently responsible for disaster risk management, but there is no real concerted

planning between all relevant departments (UN Habitat 2012). The participation of

citizens in public policy also lacks consistency and remains a top- down exercise

(Lampis 2013).

The city of Bilbao is another interesting case, which is explored by the RAMSES project.

Preliminary discussions of the authors with local authorities linked to the department of

civil protection indicated the importance of triggering events to the advancement of

adaptation policies. Following the disastrous floods from 1983, the city of Bilbao has

been investing in prevention instead of coping with high costs of emergency situations.

In the last five years, the amount of interventions from the civil protection department has

dropped by 35%. Investments in more resilient constructions, as well as intensive work

of maintenance of buildings and better money investments from public administration are


37

main reasons for this.31 It is interesting to note that the municipal emergency plan (PMU)

does not include climate change as a hazard. Investments in meteorological instruments

to deal with extreme weather events, notably winds and floods, have been primordial

actions. One should observe that the Basque Water Agency (URA) is an important actor

in the definition of investments related to flood prevention. Responsible for the whole

Basque Country, URA must ensure a holistic view of the region and coordinate action

between, for example, upstream and downstream Bilbao. Furthermore, investments in

the highly affected region of La Peña in the 1983 floods included, for example, the

improvement of the capacity to evacuate water and the increase of the riverbed. During

interviews, we found that another important aspect in dealing with emergencies and

disaster relief has to do with public communication. It should be noted that PMU

disposes of a press department that takes decisions together with politicians and

technicians regarding when the PMU should be activated. After 1983, the PMU was

activated only three times.32 In particular, the Centre for Climate Change (BC3) has

played a vital role in estimating the costs of potential flooding in Bilbao, which is

expected to increase by 56,4% due to climate change. Four main aspects contribute to

this endeavor: making use of the hydrologic models to understand expected flood

events, gathering socio-economic information on the area affected, value the physical

impact of the flood event, and make use of economic valuation techniques to come up

with ‘good’ estimates. These measures are important considering the concern to develop

policies that could assist climate adaptation, particularly in the protection of residential

and non-residential properties, cultural heritage, human health and general urban

disruption, such as transport interruption and emergencies. One illustration of a chief

infrastructure change with an impact in the adaptation capability of Bilbao is the Deusto

Canal, located on the right bank of the Estuary of the city. According to BC3, final result

for the 10-year return period expects flood events to disappear totally. Bilbao is also an

interesting case study since it has passed through a vital urban revitalization process,

which benefitted considerably from a private-public partnership. It could be argued that

this city is an example of a "context-first approach", meaning that decision makers began

by responding to a problem itself (flooding in the case of Bilbao) instead of reacting to a

31 Interview with local authorities in Bilbao, July 2014. 32 it should be mentioned that the budget of the safety and security department has been of $55 million euros in 2014, according to interviews with local authorities in Bilbao, July 2014.


38

scientific climate projection directly. Several arguments are in favor of this approach in

the adaptation planning literature, especially given the high level of uncertainty related to

the "science-first" approach (Reeder; Ranger, 2011). Given the incipient

institutionalization of organizations dealing with climate science, such as the BC3

established in 2008, more analysis on the effects of these organisms remains to be

done.33

What a brief analysis of these cities indicates is that adaptation measures cannot be

envisaged without taking into account the socio-economic and cultural specificities of

each territory. In summary, two basic types of indicators could be employed to measure

and evaluate successful adaptation actions. One is a process indicator, which measures

progress in a process leading to a desired outcome (for example the number of people

trained in a disaster risk reduction policy) and the other is a outcome indicator, which

defines a specific gain (i.e. Change in post-flood disasters). Since this last one is more

complex to analyze as they take a long time to be understood due to the long term

horizon of climate change, both set of indicators should be developed (UNDP 2007). In

sum, measuring adaptation engenders several steps and its level of success could be

related to six “guiding principles” (DEFRA 2010): • Sustainable: ensure that sustainable development is being promoted as way to

minimize the threats posed by climate change;

• Proportionate and Integrated: climate change assessment must become

“business-as-usual” and taken at the most appropriate level and timescale;

• Collaborative and open: ensure that adaptation is involving a wide range of

stakeholders and promoting a cross-sectoral vision;

• Effective: Actions should be context-oriented, implementable and enforceable,

but also ensure flexibility to adjust to changing scenarios;

• Efficient: Actions should take into account cost-benefit analysis;

• Equitable: Actions should ensure that proportionate share of costs and benefits

are distributed, taking into account vulnerable groups in particular.

Finally, common obstacles to implement adaptation go beyond technical aspects of 33 The next steps of work package 7 is to develop more in-depth analysis on RAMSES selected cities through field work.


39

planning and include actions used for supporting such implementation efforts, among

others: communications, consensus-building, integration with other development

policies, and capacity-building for main actors and institutions involved in the

implementation tasks (DEFRA 2010). Essentially, when building adaptation strategies,

the central question to be kept in mind is: “what are we adapting for?”(DEFRA 2010). In

this context, tools (grey, green and soft) for adaptation should be context-oriented,

meaning that societal priorities, economic interests, governance structures, policy style

and cultural aspects must be taken into account.

If adaptation plans and implementation strategies are, in the end, unique, their

effectiveness tends to depends on principles, such as participatory and inclusive

measures, the recognition both of local and scientific knowledge, accountability, and

stakeholders engagement. Because many methods are available, the interest of this

research is to take stock of some tools that fit urban purposes, highlighting the benefits

of expanding participatory methods in decision-making in terms of effectiveness. This

argument was strongly supported by local authorities during the 2nd RAMSES

Stakeholder Dialogue, which took place back-to-back with the European Climate Change

Adaptation conference (ECCA) in Copenhagen (Denmark) on 11 May 2015.34 During this

event, partners of the RAMSES project could exchange with experts and practitioners

how lessons learned so far could feed into more effective adaptation policies on the

ground. Through interactive exercises, a number of topics was discussed with a focus on

methods to improve decision-making on adaptation, impacts of climate change on public

health and transition factors towards a more resilient city.35 A full report of this activity is

currently under preparation, but one overall conclusion was that adaptation policies must

reconcile the economic (monetary) issues with the social dimension of adaptation

(climate justice). While several technical solutions can be found to improve urban

resilience, participants consensually agree that a functional city, in terms of governance,

is a fundamental ingredient for success. Finally, in the task of engaging stakeholders,

one practical advice from practitioners interested in the first steps of an adaptation plan

was to start “mapping capabilities” inside the government and among stakeholders.

34 See: http://www.iclei-europe.org/events/?cmd=view&uid=47cca293 35 Impressions from participants of the event can be found in this video: http://www.ramses-cities.eu/resources/


40

Conclusion The city of the 21st century is the one that implements disaster risk reduction policies in

an inclusive manner, recognizes the importance of public spaces, stimulates job

creation, promotes social diversity, and expands the notion of prosperity beyond the

economic growth criterion (UN-Habitat 2013). Focusing on the issue of urban

adaptation, this paper can serve as a starting point for local authorities to start a

reflection on gaps, priorities and means to develop a resilient city in a context-oriented

manner. This research represents one piece of the puzzle involving studies on urban policies and

governance for climate adaptation within the RAMSES project. The final aim of this

project is to better combine top-down and bottom-up approaches and demonstrate that

adaptation in the context of climate change is not a linear or deterministic process.

Therefore, it cannot exclusively be evaluated through the lenses of impact and

vulnerability.

From the analysis of current initiatives attempting to draw lessons from measuring and

monitoring tools, learning appears as an important goal in this process. This means that

monitoring and evaluation of successful practices must go beyond accountability to

donors, for example, and generate knowledge to be shared beyond a scientific

community. It was argued that strict terms of economic justification of success or failure

are insufficient to determine positive outcomes in the adaptation field.

What remains to be refined is to know how learned lessons can be incorporated in future

decision making and how a societies can use this information for their own benefit

regarding adaptive capacity. Overall, elements of effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness

must be combined when evaluating success. However, the weight to each criterion will

vary according to a specific society and time. This suggests that evaluation of the social

and cultural aspects of each city is absolutely fundamental for a deeper understanding of

adaptation-planning. If economic impact approaches are useful for determining


41

economic costs and benefits of certain projects, it is more essential to examine why

benefits have been achieved beyond their value (Pringle 2011). In this context, lessons

from Smit and Wandel remain valid as they argue that adaptation is rarely addressing

climate change only and that monitoring and evaluation tools are one important way to

improve understanding of complex socio-economic and environmental contexts in which

adaptation takes place (Smit and Wandel 2006).

In the end, multiple scales of interaction between human and environment systems

influence adaptation. Such complexity has meaningful implications for public policy,

considering that lower levels of scale are reticent to fundamental institutional changes

given the need to respect governance hierarchies. Indicators are key tools for project

evaluation, but shortcomings persist. In conclusion, they should not be perceived as a

short cut to understanding complex scenarios. On the contrary, they must be designed

according to local context. Overall, the analysis of socio-economic factors must be taken

into account and in an anticipatory manner. Even in the best mitigation scenarios, the

coming decades will face significant consequences of historical environmental

degradation. The effects of climate change on migration, for example, deserve further

attention both at the local and international levels. As Adger et. al (2005) argue, shortly

put, the degree of success of adaptation depends largely on the capacity to adapt and

the distribution of that capacity.


42

References

Abunnasr, Yaser F. 2013. “Climate Change Adaptation: A Green Infrastructure Planning Framework for Resilient Urban Regions Dissertations.” University of Massachusetts. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1780&context=open_access_dissertations.

Ackerman, Frank, and Lisa Heinzerling. 2002. “Pricing the Priceless: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Protection.” The University of Pennsylvania Law Review 150 (5): 1553–84.

Adger, Neil, Arnell W. Nigel, and Emma L. Tompkins. 2005. “Successful Adaptation to Climate Change across Scales.” Global Environmental Change 15: 77–86.

Atteridge, Aaron. 2011. “Private Sector Finance and Climate Change Adaptation How Can Voluntary Private Finance Support Adaptation in Developing Countries?” Policy Brief. Stockholm Environment Institute. http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/policybrief-privatesectorfinance-adaptation.pdf.

Bisaro, Alexander, Jochen Hintel, Marion Davis, and Richard Klein. 2014. “Supporting NAP Development with the PROVIA Guidance: A User Companion.” United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). www.seachangecop.org/node/3123.

Bizikova, Livia, Zerisenay Hebtezion, Johara Bellali, Mamadou M. Diakhite, and László Pintér. 2009. “VIA Module Vulnerability and Climate Change Impact Assessments for Adaptation.” IEA Training Manual An integrated environmental assessment and reporting training manual. http://www.unep.org/ieacp/files/pdf/ClimateChange_Manual_Final.pdf.

Bours, Dennis, Colleen McGinn, and Patrick Pringle. 2014. Monitoring & Evaluation for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience: A Synthesis of Tools, Frameworks and Approaches. 2nd edition. SEA Change CoP, Phnom Penh and UKCIP, Oxford.

Bräuninger, Michael, Sonja Butzengeiger-Geyer, Andrew Dlugolecki, Stefan Hochrainer, Michel Köhler, Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer, Reinhard Mechler, Axel Michaelowa, and Sven Schulze. 2011. “Application of Economic Instruments for Adaptation to Climate Change.” CLIMA.C.3./ETU/2010/0011. Perspectives Climate Change and Hamburglsches WeltWirtschafts Institut. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what/docs/economic_instruments_en.pdf.

Carbon Disclosure Project. 2012. “Seven Climate Change Lessons from the Cities of Europe.” https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/CDP-Cities-2012-European-Report.pdf.


43

Carmin, Joann, David Dodman, and Eric Chu. 2013. “Urban Climate Adaptation and Leadership: From Conceptual Understanding to Practical Action.” Regional Development Working Papers. OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3ttg88w8hh-en.

Carpenter, Steve, Brian Walker, J. Marty Anderies, and Nick Abel. 2001. “From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What?” Ecosystems 4 (8): 765–81. doi:10.2307/3659056.

Da Cunha, Charlotte, Steve Plante, and Liette Vasseur. 2011. “Le Suivi de La Résilience de Communautés Côtières Comme Moyen D’évaluation Des Effets de La Recherche Action Participative.” In . Paris.

Dalkmann, Holger. 2014. “The UN Climate Summit: What’s in It for Cities?” World Resources Institute. September 15.

DEFRA. 2010. “Measuring Adaptation to Climate Change – A Proposed Approach.” http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/ documents/100219-measuring-adapt.pdf.

De Pryck, Kari, Giuseppe Forino, Charlotte Da Cunha, Yorghos Remvikos, and François Gemenne. 2014. “Analysis of the Decision-Making Process.” D7.1. RAMSES- Reconciling Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development for Cities. University of Versailles.

Econonics. 2014. “Blue City: The Water-Sustainable City of the Near Future.” The Blue Economy Initiative (BEI).

European Environment Agency. 2012. “Urban Adaptation to Climate Change in Europe -Challenges and Opportunities for Cities Together With Supportive National and European Policies.” EEA Report N. 2.

Floater, Graham, Philipp Rode, Alexis Robert, Chris Kennedy, Dan Hoornweg, Roxana Slavcheva, and Nick Godfrey. 2014. “Cities and the New Climate Economy: The Transformative Role of Global Urban Growth.” New Climate Economy contributing paper. NCE Cities – Paper 01. LSE Cities, London School of Economics and Political Science. http://newclimateeconomy.report.

Foster, Josh, Ashley Lowe, and Steve Winkelman. 2011. “The Value of Green Insfrasructure for Urban Climate Adaptation.” The Center for Clean Air Policy. http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-for-Urban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdfJ.

Füssel, Hans-Martin, and RichardJ.T. Klein. 2006. “Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: An Evolution of Conceptual Thinking.” Climatic Change 75 (3): 301–29. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3.

Gallopín, Gilberto C. 2006. “Linkages between Vulnerability, Resilience, and Adaptive Capacity.” Resilience, Vulnerability, and Adaptation: A Cross-Cutting Theme of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change Resilience, Vulnerability, and Adaptation: A Cross-Cutting Theme of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 293–303. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004.


44

Gouldson, Andy, Sarah Colenbrander, Faye McAnulla, Andrew Sudmant, Niall Kerr, Paola Sakai, Stephen Hall, Effie Papargyropoulou, and Johan Kuylenstierna. 2014. “The Economic Case for Low Carbon Cities.” New Climate Economy contributing paper. York, UK: Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds, and Stockholm Environment Institute.

Harley, Mike, Lisa Horrocks, Nikki Hodgson, and Jelle van Minnen. 2008. “Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation Indicators.” ETCACC Technical Paper. The European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change (ETC/ACC). http://acm.eionet.europa.eu/docs/ETCACC_TP_2008_9_CCvuln_adapt_indicators.pdf.

Holling, C. S. 1973. “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4 (ArticleType: research-article / Full publication date: 1973 / Copyright © 1973 Annual Reviews): 1–23. doi:10.2307/2096802.

Hunt, Alistair, and Paul Watkiss. 2011. “Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Cities: A Review of the Literature.” Climatic Change 104 (1): 13–49.

IEA. 2012. “World Energy Outlook 2012.” International Energy Agency (IEA). http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2012/.

Javeline, Debra. 2014. “The Most Important Topic Political Scientists Are Not Studying: Adapting to Climate Change.” Perspectives on Politics 12 (02): 420–34. doi:10.1017/S1537592714000784.

Kazmierczak, Aleksandra, and Jeremy Carter. 2010. “Adaptation to Climate Change Using Green and Blue Infrastructure. A Database of Case Studies.” United Kingdom: University of Manchester. http://www.grabs-eu.org/membersArea/files/Database_Final_no_hyperlinks.pdf.

Keating, Colma. 2003. “Facilitation Toolkit: A Practical Guide for Working More Effectively with People and Groups.” http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/803829.

Kennedy, Christopher, and Jan Corfee-Morlot. 2013. “Past Performance and Future Needs for Low Carbon Climate Resilient Infrastructure– An Investment Perspective.” Energy Policy 59 (0): 773–83. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.031.

Keys, Noni, Dana C. Thomsen, and Timothy F. Smith. 2014. “Adaptive Capacity and Climate Change: The Role of Community Opinion Leaders.” Local Environment, November, 1–19. doi:10.1080/13549839.2014.967758.

Lampis, Andrea. 2013. “Cities and Climate Change Challenges: Institutions, Policy Style and Adaptation Capacity in Bogotá.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (6): 1879–1901. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12034.

Lempert, Robert J., and Myles T. Collins. 2007. “Managing the Risk of Uncertain Threshold Responses: Comparison of Robust, Optimum, and Precautionary Approaches.” Risk Analysis 27 (4): 1009–26. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00940.x.


45

Moser, Caroline, and David Sattherthwaite. 2010. “Towards Pro-Poor Adaptation to Climate Change in the Urban Centers of Low- and Middle-Income Countries. In (Mearns, R. and Norton, A. (Eds.). World Bank, Washington, D.C. Pp. 231-258.” In Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerabiity in a Warming World.

“National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Facilitation Guide for Working with Groups.” 2011. McMaster University. http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/95.html.

New York Times. 2015. “Taps Start to Run Dry in Brazil’s Largest City,” February 16.

Peale, Christie. 2015. “Rising Flood Insurance Rates: Building Resilience & Protecting Affordable Housing. Available At:” 100 Resilient Cities. March 25. http://www.100resilientcities.org/blog/entry/rising-flood-insurance-rates-building-resilience-protecting-housing#/-_Yz45ODQ3NydpPTEocz5j/.

Pringle, Patrick. 2011. “AdaptME: Adaptation Monitoring and Evaluation.” Oxford, UK: UKCIP.

Satterthwaite, David. 2013. “8 Points on Financing Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas.” IED. http://www.iied.org/8-points-financing-climate-change-adaptation-urban-areas.

Satterthwaite, David, Saleemul Huq, Hannah Reid, Mark Pelling, and Romero Lankao. 2007. “Adapting to Climate Change in Urban Areas: The Possibilities and Constraints in Low and Middle Income Nations.” Human Settlements Working Paper. IIED.

Smit, Barry, and Johanna Wandel. 2006. “Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability.” Global Environmental Change 16: 282–92.

Stadelmann, Martin, Axel Michaelowa, Sonja Butzengeiger-Geyer, and Michel Köhler. 2011. “Universal Metrics to Compare the Effectiveness of Climate Change Adaptation Projects.” OECD. http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/48351229.pdf.

Steer, Andrew. 2014. “Climate Summit: Creating Better and More Sustainable Cities.” September 22. http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/09/climate-summit-creating-better-and-more-sustainable-cities-0.

Stern, Nicholas. 2006. “Review : The Economics of Climate Change.” HM Treasury. www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm.

Stubbs, Michael. 2008. “Natural Green Space and Planning Policy: Devising a Model for Its Delivery in Regional Spatial Strategies.” Landscape Research 33 (1): 119–39. doi:10.1080/01426390701773862.

Sugar, Lorraine, Christopher Kennedy, and Edward Leman. 2012. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Chinese Cities.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 16 (4): 552–63. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00481.x.


46

Terenzi, Alberto, and Astrid W. Wigstrom. 2013. “Stakeholder Survey Report.” D9.1- RAMSES- Reconciling Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development for Cities. ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability. http://www.ramses-cities.eu/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=fileadmin/fe_file_repository/09_Workpackage_9/RAMSES_Survey_report_FINAL_Public.pdf&t=1433085347&hash=41fea2f6f47107b3b6205120395b6da5b6148c7c.

The New Climate Economy. 2014. “Chapter 2- Cities.” In Better Growth, Better Climate. The New Climate Economy Report. The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. http://newclimateeconomy.report.

Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction. 2015. “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.” United Nations General Assembly. http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Sendai_Framework_for_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_2015-2030.pdf.

Tran, Thinpanga, Sheo Shanker Verma, Darren Swanson, Livia Bizikova, Stephen Tyler, Erwin Nugraha, Ha Kim Nguyen, Nhung Van Nguyen, Aniessa Delima Sari, and Pakamas Thinpanga. 2014. “Developing Indicators of Urban Climate Resilience.” Resilience Working Paper 3. Institute for Social and Environmental Transition (ISET). www.seachangecop.org/node/3092.

UNDP. 2007. “Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change.” Wroking Paper. www.undp.org/climatechange/adapt/downloads/ Adaptation_ME_DRAFT_July.pdf.

UNEP. 2009. “Methodology for the Preparation of GEO Cities Reports. Training Manual Version 3.” http://www.pnuma.org/deat1/pdf/Metho_GEOCitiesinddOK.pdf.

———. 2013. “PROVIA Guidance on Assessing Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change. Consultation Document.” Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme.

UN-Habitat. 2012. “The Impact of Climate Change on Urban Settlements in Colombia.”

———. 2013. “State of the World Cities 2012/2013- Prosperity of Cities.” Routledge.

“Vulnerability of People and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities. Background Report on Chapter 7 of the Fourth Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4).” 2007. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/555048002.pdf.

World Bank. 2010. “Economic Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation Projects Approaches for the Agricultural Sector and Beyond.” Wahsgington D.C.: World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ENVIRONMENT/ Resources/DevCC1_Adaptation.pdf.


47

———. 2015. “Developing Common Principles for Tracking Climate Finance.” April 3. ure/2015/04/03/common-principles-for-tracking-climate-finance.

World Energy Council. 2010. “Energy and Urban Innovation. Executive Summary.” http://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/PUB_Energy_and_urban_innovation_exec_summary_2010_WEC.pdf.

WRI. 2010. “Summary of Developed Country ‘Fast Start’ Climate Finance Pledges.” http://www.wri.org/publication/summary-developed-country-“fast-start”-climate-finance-pledges.

Documents

WP 7: Urban policies and governance