University of Birmingham
Variations in approaches to urban climate
adaptation
Anguelovski, Isabelle; Chu, Eric; Carmin, JoAnn
DOI:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.010
License:
Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND)
Document Version
Peer reviewed version
Citation for published version (Harvard):
Anguelovski, I, Chu, E & Carmin, J 2014, 'Variations in approaches to urban climate adaptation: Experiences
and experimentation from the global South', Global Environmental Change, vol. 27, pp. 156-167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.010
Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal
Publisher Rights Statement:
Published as above, final version of record available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.010.
Checked 16/5/18
General rights
Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the
copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes
permitted by law.
•Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication.
•Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private
study or non-commercial research.
•User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?)
•Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.
Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.
When citing, please reference the published version.
Take down policy
While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been
uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
If you believe that this is the case for this document, please contact UBIRA@lists.bham.ac.uk providing details and we will remove access to
the work immediately and investigate.
Download date: 10. Aug. 2022
1
ABSTRACT
1
2
In recent years, an increasing number of local governments are recognizing the impact of climate change
3
on different urban sectors. This has led many to pursue climate adaptation planning, seeking to achieve
4
preparedness through reducing vulnerability and enhancing resilience of populations, assets, and
5
municipal operations. Although cities typically share these common goals, many are electing to pursue
6
different planning approaches. In this paper, we examine three climate adaptation planning approaches in
7
the cities of Quito (Ecuador), Surat (India), and Durban (South Africa) and analyze the trade-offs
8
associated with different planning pathways and different forms of stakeholder involvement. We assess
9
the potentials and limitations of these different approaches, including their implications for enhancing
10
government integration and coordination, promoting participation and adaptive capacity of vulnerable
11
groups, and facilitating overall urban resilience. We find that, in order to gain widespread commitment on
12
adaptation, sustained political leadership from the top, departmental engagement, and continued
13
involvement from a variety of stakeholders are integral to effective decision-making and institutionalization
14
of programs in the long run. When climate adaptation is advanced with a focus on learning, awareness,
15
and capacity building, the process will likely lead to more sustained, legitimate, and comprehensive
16
adaptation plans and policies that enhance the resilience of the most affected urban areas and residents.
17
18
19
Keywords: Climate adaptation; cities; planning; experimentation; innovation; participation
20
21
22
23
2
1. Introduction
1
2
Planning for climate change adaptation is one of the most complex and intricate challenges that
3
cities are currently facing. While adaptation policies are being developed at national and regional levels
4
as centerpieces of adaptation governance arrangements directed toward lower levels (Bauer et al., 2012;
5
Biesbroek et al., 2010), municipalities have a central and critical role to play in adaptation planning and
6
implementation. As climate change will exert compounding effects on cities (da Silva et al., 2012),
7
municipalities must effectively respond to these shifting climate factors and be proactive at multiple scales
8
while, at the same time, maintaining basic urban infrastructure and service providing functions
9
(Amundsen et al., 2010).
10
In vulnerable and growing cities, the challenges posed by climate change are even more acute.
11
On top of addressing particular project climate impacts, planners and policy makers must also take into
12
consideration the geographical spread, growth patterns, and the conditions and locations of the urban
13
poor. In cities in the global South, climate impacts are compounded as these municipalities are often ill
14
equipped for adaptation due to ineffective local governments and inadequate services, housing, and
15
infrastructure provision (Satterthwaite et al., 2007). These cities often lack institutional capacity or have
16
difficulty preventing conflicts among departments over scarce financial resources (Hardoy and Romero-
17
Lankao, 2011). Despite such constraints, many local governments are increasingly being approached by
18
different international organizations interested in testing and implementing urban adaptation programs
19
through technical assistance (Ayers, 2009; Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). Although external actors are
20
often primary drivers for urban adaptation planning, the successful institutionalization of adaptation
21
programs requires political leadership, ongoing resource dedication, and procedural legitimacy within city
22
governments.
23
Over the past few years, more and more cities have developed internal plans, programs, and
24
projects to address climate impacts. In this paper, we examine three municipalities in the global South –
25
Quito, Surat, and Durban – that have been moving forward with climate adaptation action, but who have
26
adopted quite different planning and institutionalization pathways. We illustrate these different
27
approaches over time, assess the implications of each planning pathway for institutionalizing climate
28
adaptation action, and unpack the trade-offs between approaches. Our key analytic framing questions
29
are: How do municipalities in the South overcome existing obstacles to engage in adaptation planning
30
action? What are the factors and conditions that help municipalities move forward? Are they paralyzed by
31
resource and capacity constraints or do they actually transform them into opportunities for innovation and
32
experimentation? The results show that when climate adaptation is planned in a way that generates initial
33
learning, awareness, and integration into the city’s development agenda while also building internal and
34
external capacity, the process gives space to the development of comprehensive adaptation actions that
35
eventually facilitate the resilience of the most affected areas and groups.
36
37
3
2. Theories of experimentation and innovation in urban climate adaptation
1
2
Many cities have begun to search for options and paths to best prepare for climate impacts and
3
risks (Carmin et al., 2012; Romero-Lankao and Dodman, 2011). They often use existing data or
4
commission assessments of future climatic conditions as a basis for identifying adaptation options and
5
priorities (Hay and Mimura, 2006; Romero-Lankao and Qin, 2011; Smit and Wandel, 2006). Hazard-
6
based approaches focus on applying climate change projections to the local scale in order to identify
7
hazard impacts (Füssel, 2007), while vulnerability approaches examine the socioeconomic factors that
8
determine the sensitivity and coping capacity of urban systems and societies (Miller et al., 2010). To an
9
extent, the latter approach sees future climatic conditions as too uncertain to warrant interventions tied to
10
particular climatic regimes. Cities work to strengthen existing systems while also managing a wide range
11
of uncertain conditions (Tyler and Moench, 2012; da Silva et al., 2012).
12
Due to the relative novelty and uncertainties associated with different climate adaptation planning
13
methodologies, experimentation, innovation, and creativity characterize the ways in which municipalities
14
engage in adaptation on the ground (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). In some cases, cities benefit from
15
the leadership of a local champion or a lead department working one-on-one with different actors to
16
generate momentum and plan around climate adaptation. In other instances, adaptation is shared across
17
offices such as public health or water and sanitation. In other instances still, the planning process is
18
developed through a citywide integrated assessment, with focuses on developing general climate or
19
adaptation plans, and then subsequently delegating mainstreaming and implementation responsibilities to
20
municipal departments (Carmin et al., 2012). During the adaptation planning phase, some cities engage
21
with international organizations that provide orientation, funding, and technical direction, although the
22
most vulnerable urban groups often end up receiving the least amount of support (Ayers, 2009; Barrett
23
2013). These different approaches highlight a pattern of practicing inquiry, testing, and reflection that is
24
particularly important in light of incomplete information on long-term climate impacts (Tshakaert and
25
Dietrich, 2010).
26
Two issues that municipalities often consider when pursuing adaptation are issues of coordination
27
and the prospects of integrating adaptation into ongoing work at the departmental level (Groven et al.
28
2012; van den Berg and Coenen, 2012). Capacities required for implementing climate adaptation are
29
often constrained by economic (such as funding), institutional (such as unfriendly public policies or laws),
30
political (such as relationships between municipal departments or the relative lack of visibility and power
31
of environmental programs), and competing development considerations, which ultimately crowd out
32
adaptation concerns from the overall planning agenda (Simon, 2012; Chuku, 2010; Mees and Driessen,
33
2011; Urwin and Jordan, 2008). Internal sectoral divides or an overly sectoral focus on adaptation, such
34
as around key departments like water, also tend to limit a more sustained approach to adaptation
35
planning and implementation (van den Berg and Coenen, 2012). Lastly, cities are devising strategies to
36
mainstream adaptation into development and other urban agendas (Huq and Reid, 2004; Anguelovski
37
4
and Roberts, 2011; Smit and Wandel, 2006), which are meant to increase policy coherence, avoid
1
duplication and contradictions between policies, and balance adaptation with other concerns (Kok and de
2
Coninck, 2007).
3
Participation and partnership techniques are critical to the accountability and effectiveness of
4
urban adaptation planning and implementation processes (Aylett, 2010; Kithiia and Dowling, 2010;
5
Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010; Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). Processes that involve local
6
stakeholders shape government decisions (Shackley and Deanwood, 2002) and promote strategies and
7
policies best suited to local realities and experiences (van Aalst et al., 2008). For instance, participatory
8
vulnerability assessments help identify feasible and practical adaptation strategies in local communities
9
(Smit and Wandel, 2006). Many cities target local networks of stakeholder groups through the formation
10
of climate action committees, task forces, and knowledge brokers (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Lu,
11
2011) and shape their adaptation planning and implementation methodologies according to their results
12
and recommendations. Network governance contributes to raising awareness of the need for climate
13
adaptation (Klausen et al., forthcoming). Others work with private sector companies to promote projects,
14
such as green roofs in the context of urban stormwater management, and they show a high level of public
15
responsibility in guiding the implementation of those projects (Mees et al., 2013).
16
Despite growing scholarship on climate adaptation, more attention needs to be given on
17
unpacking and assessing the different approaches that urban governments take in adaptation planning.
18
There is also a lack of understanding around how climate adaptation programs are eventually
19
mainstreamed and institutionalized and what trajectories municipalities choose to take to accomplish this.
20
In this paper, we highlight the experience of three cities in the global South to examine how adaptation
21
approaches emerge and take root, the ways in which strategies develop over time, and how local actors
22
and institutions affect the pathways through which adaptation is implemented and integrated into
23
municipal structures. Finally, we draw lessons on these planning experiments and consider the strengths
24
and challenges of each approach for enhancing the ability of urban actors, institutions, and infrastructures
25
to cope with, recover from, and be resilient to future climate impacts (Tyler and Moench, 2012).
26
27
28
3. Methods
29
30
This paper is based on fieldwork conducted in the cities of Quito (Ecuador), Surat (India), and
31
Durban (South Africa). We selected these three “early adaptor” cities because they have a history of
32
anticipating climate risks and needs, initiating adaptation planning, and institutionalizing adaptation
33
programs. The three cities all have strong international profiles in climate adaptation networks and have
34
received much attention for their work. They are all situated in middle-income countries in the global
35
South with acute developmental, fiscal, and capacity constraints. These cities also experience varying
36
levels of reliance on donor, multilateral, and intergovernmental resource transfers. However, climate
37
