lankao csu october 2013
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
How to enhance cities' role in transitioning to sustainability and
resilience?
Urban Futures NCARPaty Romero-Lankao,
Sara Hughes, Dan Runfola, Josh Sperling
Urban Futures
1. Dynamics of urbanization that shape urban emissions, vulnerability and risk
2. Cities’ institutional capacity to meet the challenges of reducing emissionswhile improving resilience
Background report and chapters 1, 2 and 7
Special Issue on Cities and Climate Change
CLA for AR4 and AR5
Bag
uio
Chi
ang
Mai
Oxf
ord
Dha
ka
San
Die
go
N.
Man
dela
Kol
kata
Bar
celo
na
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a
Rio
de
Jane
iro
Aus
tin
Del
hi
São
Pau
lo
Dur
ban
Cap
e T
own
Joha
nnes
burg
Sto
khol
m
Tor
onto
Seo
ul
Lond
on
Mex
ico
City
Bei
jing
Sha
ngha
i
New
Yor
k C
ity
Tok
yo
Los
Ang
eles
0
50
100
150
200
250
Total carbon emissions by city
M of tonnes of CO2 e.
19.7 M. of people
Urban mitigation challenges: The largest cities don't necessarily have the largest carbon
footprints. Why?
Source: Romero Lankao (2008)
15.2 M. of people
Bag
uio
Chi
ang
Mai
Kol
kata
São
Pau
lo
Del
hi
Dha
ka
Rio
de
Jane
iro
Bar
celo
na
Mex
ico
City
Seo
ul
Sto
khol
m
N.
Man
dela
Tok
yo
Joha
nnes
burg
Dur
ban
Lond
on
Cap
e T
own
Oxf
ord
Bei
jing
New
Yor
k C
ity
Sha
ngha
i
Tor
onto
San
Die
go
Los
Ang
eles
Dis
tric
t of
Col
umbi
a
Aus
tin
0
5
10
15
20
25
Carbon emissions per capita
tonnes of CO2 equivalent
Multiple factors differences in urban GHG emissions
Poly-centric
Mono-centric Economic base and GDP per
capita
Urban form and population density (1% increase in urban density results in a 1.25% decrease in emissions)
Energy use intensity (public utility key here)
Transportation mode share 1% increase in public transport results in a 0.15% decrease in emissions!
City’s latitude & energy endowments
Database by Kenworthy covering 84 cities
STIRPAT formula (instead of multiplicative IPAT)
Estimates elasticity of each driver
Sources: Romero Lankao, Tribbia and Nychka (2009);
Bertaud (2009)
Cities face greatest risks from climate change
De Sherbinin and Romero Lankao (2008): The hazard risk of each city represents a cumulative score based on risk of cyclones, flooding, landslides and drought
Contoured: hazard risk associated with climate change
1. Many case studies, different
a. Hazards (focus: temperature)
b. Urban areas
c. Dimensions
d. Research Paradigms
2. Validation of conceptual framework
3. Mixed methods
a. meta-analysis & meta-knowledge
4. 53 papers covering 224 citiesRomero-Lankao and Qin (2011, COSUST) Romero Lankao, Qin and Dickinson (2012, GEC)
Framework: Urban vulnerability and risk
Factors shaping urban populations’ vulnerability to temperature-hazards
- 13 factors account for 66% of tallies on determinants of urban populations’ vulnerability
- 2 determinants extensively studied: hazard magnitude and age
- Findings result from dominance of a paradigm “urban vulnerability as impact”
(1) Text color denotes categories of vulnerability dimensions. Green = Hazard; Yellow = Exposure; Red = Sensitivity; Blue = Adaptive capacity/adaptation
(2) Symbols in parentheses = direction of relationship between vulnerability and outcome (medium or high level of agreement only)
+ positive relationship (increases vulnerability); - negative relationship (decreases vulnerability); ~ no relationship
Determinants of urban vulnerability: evidence and agreement
Dynamics of urbanization shaping vulnerability (global level)
1. Not only levels but also rates of urbanization influence vulnerability
2. Not only exposure but also sensitivity and capacity Urbanization and economic
indicators to cluster countries
Cross-correlation of clusters with national-level normalized sub-indices of hazard exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (World Risk Index 2012 )
Country groups
Source: Garschagen and Romero-Lankao 2013 Climatic Change (in press)
10
8
6
Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive capacity
Institutional Capacity for Climate Change Responses in Cities
Patricia Romero-Lankao, Sara Hughes (USA)Angélica Rosas-Huerta (México), Roxana
Borquez (Chile), Daniel Gnatz,(USA)
Santiago: Extreme temperatures (2045-2065)
McPhee, et al. 2011
Mexico City: Precipitation
Magana, 2011
Climateand
Environmental Change
Temperature increases
Changes in precipitation
Heat waves
Droughts, floods
Why Santiago Chile and Mexico City?
Why Santiago Chile & Mexico City?
• Both share similar urbanization processes, reforms, and urban and environmental policies
– E.g., due to population growth alone • Mexico City: 2007- 2030 available water
per capita will diminish by 11.2% and in Santiago by 20.3 % per capita between 2005 - 2025
• Presence of scientific groups and multinational networks is key
• Yet differences also exist– Mexico City is a frontrunner– Santiago is a laggard
• Capacity for change has received increasing attention
• Scholarship has mostly focused on – Motivations & barriers to adaptation– Attributes of institutional capacity
• Yet, Frameworks distinguish between adaptive and mitigative capacity
• Response capacity, an alternative, refers to
– the broad pool of resources governmental and nongovernmental actors can use to reduce greenhouse gases and respond to climate variability and change (Burch and Robinson 2007)
Why institutional response capacity?
Methods: Qualitative analysis
1. Interviews with Government (City, State, National), Academics, and NGOs/Community organizers
a) 18 in Mexico Cityb) 22 in Santiago
2. Common coding scheme in Nvivo, network analysis software (UCINet)
3. Supplemented with government reports and academic studies
Source: Romero-Lankao, Hughes, Rosas-Huerta, Borquez, Gnatz (2013) Environment and Planning (accepted)
Unpacking institutional response capacity, a framework
Outline
Climate-relevant planning actions
time
Both cities at different stages of climate change planning
Source: Romero-Lankao, Hughes, Rosas-Huerta, Borquez, Gnatz (2013)
Unpacking institutional response capacity, a framework
Administrative Structures and Networks
• Mexico City
• Local (16 delegations), State (35 municipalities), and Federal authority
• Term limits and political tension
• Climate plan only for FD
• Santiago
• Local (52 communes), and Federal authority
• Term limits and single-party rule
Environmental authorities
- Don’t interact as frequently with health & energy- Don’t interact at all with housing, urban development,
transportation)
Cities working networks; the size of nodes is proportionalto the number of respondentsreporting to work with that actor. Mexico City exhibits a relativelymore integrated network.
Supranational
GovernmentNGOAcademicPrivate
Local
National
State
Mexico City
Santiago
Centralized yet fragmented administrative structure
Use of Information
Mexico City
• Virtual Climate Change Center
• Top-down due to perceived lack of local capacity
• Want information on climate scenarios
Santiago
• Early stages of generation
• Top-down due to perceived lack of local capacity
• Want information on local impacts and adaptation responses
Participation
Mexico City
• Authoritarian political culture (70 years PRI gov.)
Santiago
• Authoritarian political culture (Pinochet dictatorship, techno neoliberalism)
• Mechanisms in place tend to be technocratic and paternalistic
• Consultations, pamphlets and guidelines
• Perceptions on this are mixed
• Yet participation in civil protection and disaster management is more common
Opportunities
• Leadership (and political ambition)
• For Mexico City institutionalization of climate into planning
• Presence of – Influential scientific groups – Non-governmental and international organizations
– Participation of local authorities in transnational networks
• Longer-term tradition of disaster management (although reactive)
Constraints
• Centralized yet fragmented administrative structure inhibits effective coordination
• Technocratic and top-down approach to information sharing inhibits learning and informed policy making at the city level
• Limited existing mechanisms for participation in decision making transfer to climate change planning
• Economic policies and efficiency dominate
Thank you!