Search

This paper evaluates ethical considerations associated with forecasting urban climate risks, focusing on extreme heat. Following the session aim, the paper considers negative societal effects which could arise from well-intentioned attempts to measure, communicate and respond to spatial differences in heat risk within cities. Assessing urban thermal environments and socio-economic vulnerability, and providing decision-makers with information to act (e.g. through strategic built environment actions, green infrastructure etc), can reduce harm to citizens from intensifying urban heat risks. However, critical social science suggests there is a need to reflect on the deeper and longer-term implications of urban resilience initiatives, which can if managed inappropriately inadvertently make the communities they are intended to benefit even more susceptible to harm. This contribution evaluates this tension through interview- and field observation-based assessment of heat risk management practices in Glasgow, Scotland (which has emerging interest in heat risk across space, and publicly-available socio-economic data), Taipei, Taiwan (which has no heat vulnerability information available to public yet) and Fukuoka, Japan (which has specific targeted heat risk reduction strategies); as well as the authors' own experiences of assessing heat risk in Taipei.Drawing on our data and insights, we suggest areas of ethical consideration which geoscientists and decision-makers (planners, city governors, developers, community leaders) ought to be aware of when engaging in spatial assessment of heat and indeed other risks e.g. flooding. First is the potential psychological or stigmatising effects for inhabitants which can come with marking out an area as 'vulnerable'. Whilst hazard maps are produced in each of the case study cities for flooding, these are usually based on physical exposure and do not necessarily include socio-economic data. Particularly in Fukuoka, participants suggested inclusion of socio-economic vulnerability indicators on publicly-available risk maps could be a source of embarrassment for communities. Second is the danger that identifying areas as 'high-risk' through spatial assessment could lead to certain areas or communities being targeted by city-level planners or governments for interventions, which although well-meaning may come across as patronising or unwanted. Third is the challenge of ensuring that risk reduction strategies based on data and 'hard science' are respectful of local traditional knowledges of how to manage environmental risk, such as uchimizu street-watering practices in Japan. Fourth and final is the bigger danger of focusing on short-term and/or emergency 'solutions' targeted at vulnerable populations during periods of extreme heat, to the detriment of considering how to address longer-term social and political processes such as urban governance and social policy which can make some people and areas more susceptible to harm in the first place.These recommendations of course do not mean scientists and decision-makers should not strive to produce spatial assessments of cities' climate risks and communicate these to citizens and decision-makers. Rather, the point of our paper is to argue that when assessing heat and other risks across space, geoscientists may benefit from collaborating with people who have good local contextual knowledge, to ensure outputs and recommendations are developed in a format sensitive to the local context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper exemplifies a framework for systematically evaluating social justice dimensions within evidence-based decision-making processes for nature-based solutions in cities. There is increasing awareness that social justice – that is, reaching outcomes which are fair across society - needs to be an integral component to resilient cities, and that nature-based solutions may disproportionately benefit affluent or empowered communities. Yet it is also arguably true that effective deployment of nature-based solutions requires consideration of technical and scientific processes at a city-wide scale, and hence that equitable reduction of climate risk via nature-based solutions may be more complex than simply targeting discrete interventions towards more vulnerable areas.The purpose of this paper is therefore to illustrate challenges and opportunities in supporting geoscientists and urban policy-makers, who produce and rely on spatial environmental data as an evidence base for decisions, to consider social justice dimensions in urban governance for nature-based solutions. The aim is to reach outcomes that are both socially equitable and scientifically appropriate. We assess these issues through empirical stakeholder interview- and policy-analysis data collected for the current status of nature-based solutions development in Glasgow (Scotland) and Taipei (Taiwan), giving one European and one Asian case study and one oceanic and one subtropical city. For each, we assess (a) data availability and competences for understanding spatial distribution of benefits from nature-based solutions relative to vulnerable populations; (b) processes for making decisions about nature-based solutions, and opportunities for participation and learning within these; and (c) how well different groups and knowledge systems are recognised within decision-making forums for nature-based solutions. Our results indicate that finding ways to connect nature-based solutions – particularly their role in reducing climate risk – to overarching social issues such as health and wellbeing may build political traction for deployment. Attaining this, however, requires rigorous and appropriate data – such as flood disadvantage work undertaken in Glasgow integrating physical exposure with socio-economic data – and strong city-level leadership to balance competing pressures and identify areas where nature-based solutions benefits are needed the most. Moreover, whilst governance of nature-based solutions ought to be guided by data and techno-scientific evidence from the city-wide level, community engagement initiatives can help to ensure nature-based solutions are appropriate to communities' resilience-building requirements, perceived as legitimate, and not viewed as being imposed from on high and/or unwanted. Whilst not explicitly geared towards nature-based solutions, initiatives such as disaster resistant community in Taiwan, Taipei Open Green and Taipei's wider turn towards citizen participation can provide a pathway to more inclusive governance processes. Lastly, we reflect on the challenge in both cities of recognising techno-scientific expertise and data (e.g. land use and heat exposure, flooding risk, and vulnerability within different societies) alongside citizen and practitioner knowledge.Finally, from Glasgow and Taipei we offer insights on the role geoscientists can play in the complex governance of nature-based solutions. This includes early engagement with policy-makers to understand knowledge gaps and data requirements, and collaboration with knowledge-brokers to identify where and how they can inform urban governance with appropriate evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With an estimated population of 7 million, the Taipei Metropolis (TM) is the largest metropolitan area in Taiwan. It included Taipei City, Keelung and New Taipei City. Taipei City serves as the core of the metropolitan area where the government of Taiwan and major commercial districts are located. It is also the home to one of the most famous high-rise buildings in the world, the Taipei 101 Tower. Taipei City is an area overlay hundreds meters thick of soft soil deposits, damage from the Hualien earthquake of 1986 and the Chi-Chi earthquake of 1999 was concentrated in areas underlain by soft soil deposits. To decrease amounts of damage due to amplification effects of soft soil deposits from earthquake ground shaking, a set of integrated arrays began to construct in 2005. This paper describes the design objectives of these arrays, their location, seismic and geologic information, and instrumentation configuration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]