Search

This paper considers the very large differences in adaptive capacity among the world’s urban centres. It then discusses how risk levels may change for a range of climatic drivers of impacts in the near term (2030–2040) and the long term (2080–2100) with a 2°C and a 4°C warming for Dar es Salaam, Durban, London and New York City. The paper is drawn directly from Chapter 8 of Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, the IPCC Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report. It includes the complete text of this chapter’s Executive Summary. The paper highlights the limits to what adaptation can do to protect urban areas and their economies and populations without the needed global agreement and action on mitigation; this is the case even for cities with high adaptive capacities. It ends with a discussion of transformative adaptation and where learning on how to achieve this needs to come from. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper empirically explores the linkage between the economic opportunities and climate adaptation and other antecedents in cities. Our dependent variable includes the economic opportunities identified by the cities; our independent variables are the adaptation plans, adaptation actions, climate change risks, incentive types, and incentivized stakeholders. To explore the effects of climate change risks, adaptation plans, adaptation actions, incentive types, and incentivized stakeholders, we used polychoric factor analysis and logistic regression analysis. The results show that a city's climate change adaptation plan and GDP have significant positive relationships with the economic opportunities present in the cities. Meanwhile, climate change risks also have a positive relationship with economic opportunities. Furthermore, economic opportunities present in cities have a negative relationship with three variables: one group of climate actions and two groups of stakeholders. This paper also further discusses the possible effects of incentives in the case of climate change in cities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of local planning for climate change by collecting and analysing information about local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and framework for analysis was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their alignment with spatial (local, national and international) and other climate related policies. Out of eight types of local climate plans identified in total we document three types of stand-alone local climate plans classified as type A1 (autonomously produced plans), A2 (plans produced to comply with national regulations) or A3 (plans developed for international climate networks). There is wide variation among countries in the prevalence of local climate plans, with generally more plans developed by central and northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have a type A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, and 17% a joint adaptation and mitigation plan, while about 33% lack any form of stand-alone local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but planning for mitigation does not always precede planning for adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 80% of the cities with above 500,000 inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1). Cities in four countries with national climate legislation (A2), i.e. Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are nearly twice as likely to produce local mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce local adaptation plans, compared to cities in countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in two countries where local climate plans are compulsory, i.e. France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans produced for international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous (type A1) plans are less common. This is the most comprehensive analysis of local climate planning to date. The findings are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making towards climate planning and policy development at national, EU and global level being based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of local climate planning available to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The frequency and severity of many types of extreme weather events may be changing because of climate change. To date, most vulnerability studies and resulting toolkits for decision makers, while state of the art, only address a specific subset of possible extreme weather events and mitigation and adaptation efforts. This paper extends Haddon's strategies to facilitate a holistic, systematic analysis of the options that communities have to cope with uncertain impacts from multiple hazards in multiple sector of society. This framework distinguishes between efforts to reduce the hazard, the exposure, and the vulnerability, thus helping end the semantic confusion of the meaning of adaptation and mitigation. Two case studies demonstrate the merits of the proposed framework. First, we show how the framework can facilitate the systematic identification of mitigation and adaptation strategies for a sector such as human health. Second, we apply the framework to a particular hazard, anthropogenic climate change, in three cities in US Northeast. We find that the three cities pursue a range of strategies, with varying degrees of effort. Comparing cities reveals that some still have unused capacities, especially in terms of reducing the exposure and vulnerability to climate-enhanced hazards. Spreading efforts across multiple feasible strategies increases the robustness of the cities' policy approach and diversifies the cities' investment in the face of an uncertain future. Subsequent work, such as a cost-benefit analysis, would help a decision maker to evaluate policy options and steer research efforts appropriately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]