535

Urban Areas

Coordinating Lead Authors:

Aromar Revi (India), David E. Satterthwaite (UK)

Lead Authors:

Fernando Aragón-Durand (Mexico), Jan Corfee-Morlot (USA/OECD), Robert B.R. Kiunsi

(United Republic of Tanzania), Mark Pelling (UK), Debra C. Roberts (South Africa),

William Solecki (USA)

Contributing Authors:

Jo da Silva (UK), David Dodman (Jamaica), Andrew Maskrey (UK), Sumetee Pahwa Gajjar

(India), Raf Tuts (Belgium)

Review Editors:

John Balbus (USA), Omar-Dario Cardona (Colombia)

Volunteer Chapter Scientist:

Alice Sverdlik (USA)

This chapter should be cited as:

Revi

, A., D.E. Satterthwaite, F. Aragón-Durand, J. Corfee-Morlot, R.B.R. Kiunsi, M. Pelling, D.C. Roberts, and

W. Solecki, 2014: Urban areas. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A:

Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,

T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken,

P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New

York, NY, USA, pp. 535-612.

536

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................ 538

8.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 541

8.1.1. Key Issues ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 541

8.1.2. Scope of the Chapter ........................................................................................................................................................................ 541

8.1.3. Context: An Urbanizing World .......................................................................................................................................................... 541

8.1.4. Vulnerability and Resilience .............................................................................................................................................................. 547

8.1.4.1.Differentials in Risk and Vulnerability within and between Urban Centers ........................................................................... 547

8.1.4.2.Understanding Resilience for Urban Centers in Relation to Climate Change ....................................................................... 548

8.1.5. Conclusions from the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and New Issues Raised by this Chapter ...................................................... 549

8.2. Urbanization Processes, Climate Change Risks, and Impacts ................................................................................. 550

8.2.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 550

8.2.2. Urbanization: Conditions, Processes, and Systems within Cities ....................................................................................................... 551

8.2.2.1.Magnitude and Connections to Climate Change .................................................................................................................. 551

8.2.2.2.Spatial and Temporal Dimensions ........................................................................................................................................ 551

8.2.2.3.Urbanization and Ecological Sustainability .......................................................................................................................... 552

8.2.2.4.Regional Differences and Context-Speciﬁc Risks .................................................................................................................. 552

8.2.3. Climate Change and Variability: Primary (Direct) and Secondary (Indirect) Impacts ......................................................................... 552

8.2.3.1.Urban Temperature Variation: Means and Extremes ............................................................................................................. 552

8.2.3.2.Drought and Water Scarcity: Means and Extremes ............................................................................................................... 555

8.2.3.3.Coastal Flooding, Sea Level Rise, and Storm Surge .............................................................................................................. 555

8.2.3.4.Inland Flooding and Hydrological and Geo-Hydrological Hazards at Urban Scale ................................................................ 555

8.2.3.5.Emerging Human Health, Disease, and Epidemiology Issues in Cities .................................................................................. 556

8.2.4. Urban Sectors: Exposure and Sensitivity ........................................................................................................................................... 556

8.2.4.1.Water Supply, Wastewater, and Sanitation ........................................................................................................................... 557

8.2.4.2.Energy Supply ...................................................................................................................................................................... 558

8.2.4.3.Transportation and Telecommunications .............................................................................................................................. 558

8.2.4.4.Built Environment, and Recreation and Heritage Sites ......................................................................................................... 559

8.2.4.5.Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services ....................................................................................................................... 560

8.2.4.6.Health and Social Services ................................................................................................................................................... 560

8.2.5. Urban Transition to Resilience and Sustainability ............................................................................................................................. 560

8.3. Adapting Urban Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 563

8.3.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 563

8.3.2. Development Plans and Pathways .................................................................................................................................................... 563

8.3.2.1.Adaptation and Development Planning ............................................................................................................................... 564

Box 8-1. Recent Literature on Urban Adaptation in Low- and Middle-Income Nations .................................................. 564

8.3.2.2.Disaster Risk Reduction and Its Contribution to Climate Change Adaptation ...................................................................... 565

8.3.3. Adapting Key Sectors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 566

Table of Contents

Urban Areas Chapter 8

537

8.3.3.1.Adapting the Economic Base of Urban Centers .................................................................................................................... 566

8.3.3.2.Adapting Food and Biomass for Urban Populations ............................................................................................................. 568

8.3.3.3.Adapting Housing and Urban Settlements ........................................................................................................................... 568

8.3.3.4.Adapting Urban Water, Storm, and Waste Systems ............................................................................................................... 570

8.3.3.5.Adapting Electric Power and Energy Systems ....................................................................................................................... 571

8.3.3.6.Adapting Transport and Telecommunications Systems ......................................................................................................... 571

8.3.3.7.Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services within Urban Adaptation ............................................................................... 572

Box 8-2. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Durban ............................................................................................................ 573

8.3.3.8.Adapting Public Services and Other Public Responses ......................................................................................................... 575

8.4. Putting Urban Adaptation in Place: Governance, Planning, and Management ...................................................... 575

8.4.1. Urban Governance and Enabling Frameworks, Conditions, and Tools for Learning ........................................................................... 576

8.4.1.1.Multi-Level Governance and the Unique Role of Urban Governments ................................................................................. 576

8.4.1.2.Mainstreaming Adaptation into Municipal Planning ............................................................................................................ 578

8.4.1.3.Delivering Co-Beneﬁts .......................................................................................................................................................... 578

8.4.1.4.Urban Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Practices: Understanding Science, Development, and Policy Interactions ............ 579

8.4.1.5.Assessment Tools: Risk Screening, Vulnerability Mapping, and Urban Integrated Assessment ............................................. 579

8.4.2. Engaging Citizens, Civil Society, the Private Sector, and Other Actors and Partners .......................................................................... 580

8.4.2.1.Engaging Stakeholders in Urban Planning and Building Decision Processes for Learning .................................................... 580

8.4.2.2.Supporting Household and Community-Based Adaptation .................................................................................................. 580

8.4.2.3.Private Sector Engagement and the Insurance Sector .......................................................................................................... 582

Box 8-3. Micro-Finance for Urban Adaptation ................................................................................................................. 584

8.4.2.4.Philanthropic Engagement and Other Civil Society Partnerships .......................................................................................... 584

8.4.2.5.University Partnerships and Research Initiatives .................................................................................................................. 585

8.4.2.6.City Networks and Urban Adaptation Learning Partnerships ............................................................................................... 585

8.4.3. Resources for Urban Adaptation and Their Management ................................................................................................................. 585

8.4.3.1.Domestic Financing: Tapping into National or Subnational Regional Sources of Funding and Support ................................ 586

Box 8-4. Environmental Indicators in Allocating Tax Shares to Local Governments in Brazil ......................................... 587

8.4.3.2.Multilateral Humanitarian and Disaster Management Assistance ........................................................................................ 587

8.4.3.3.International Financing and Donor Assistance for Urban Adaptation ................................................................................... 588

8.4.3.4.Institutional Capacity and Leadership, Stafﬁng, and Skill Development ............................................................................... 589

Box 8-5. Adaptation Monitoring: Experience from New York City .................................................................................. 589

8.4.3.5.Monitoring and Evaluation to Assess Progress ..................................................................................................................... 590

8.5. Annex: Climate Risks for Dar es Salaam, Durban, London, and New York City ...................................................... 590

References ......................................................................................................................................................................... 590

Frequently Asked Questions

8.1: Do experiences with disaster risk reduction in urban areas provide useful lessons for climate-change adaptation? ........................ 565

8.2: As cities develop economically, do they become better adapted to climate change? ....................................................................... 567

8.3: Does climate change cause urban problems by driving migration from rural to urban areas? ......................................................... 568

8.4: Shouldn’t urban adaptation plans wait until there is more certainty about local climate change impacts? ..................................... 580

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

538

Executive Summary

Urban climate adaptation can build resilience and enable sustainable development. {8.1, 8.2, 8.3}

Action in urban centers is essential to successful global climate change adaptation.

Urban areas hold more than half the world’s

population and most of its built assets and economic activities. They also house a high proportion of the population and economic activities

ost at risk from climate change, and a high proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions are generated by urban-based activities and

residents (medium confidence, based on medium evidence, high agreement). {8.1}

Much of key and emerging global climate risks are concentrated in urban areas. Rapid urbanization and rapid growth of large cities in

low- and middle-income countries have been accompanied by the rapid growth of highly vulnerable urban communities living in informal

settlements, many of which are on land at high risk from extreme weather (medium confidence, based on medium evidence, high agreement).

{8.2, 8.3, Tables 8-2, 8-3}

Cities are composed of complex inter-dependent systems that can be leveraged to support climate change adaptation via

effective city governments supported by cooperative multilevel governance.

This can enable synergies with infrastructure investment

and maintenance, land use management, livelihood creation, and ecosystem services protection (medium confidence, based on limited evidence,

medium agreement). {8.3, 8.4}

Urban adaptation action that delivers mitigation co-benefits is a powerful, resource-efficient means to address climate change

and to realize sustainable development goals (medium confidence, based on medium evidence, high agreement). {8.4}

Urban climate change risks, vulnerabilities, and impacts are increasing across the world in urban centers of all sizes, economic

conditions, and site characteristics. {8.2}

Urban climate change-related risks are increasing (including rising sea levels and storm surges, heat stress, extreme precipitation,

inland and coastal flooding, landslides, drought, increased aridity, water scarcity, and air pollution) with widespread negative

impacts on people (and their health, livelihoods, and assets) and on local and national economies and ecosystems (very high

confidence, based on robust evidence, high agreement).

These risks are amplified for those who live in informal settlements and in

hazardous areas and either lack essential infrastructure and services or where there is inadequate provision for adaptation. {8.2, Table 8-2}

Climate change will have profound impacts on a broad spectrum of infrastructure systems (water and energy supply, sanitation

and drainage, transport and telecommunication), services (including health care and emergency services), the built environment,

and ecosystem services.

These interact with other social, economic, and environmental stressors exacerbating and compounding risks to

individual and household well-being (medium confidence, based on medium evidence, high agreement). {8.2}

Cities and city regions are sufficiently dense and of a spatial scale that they influence their local micro-climate. Climate change will

interact with these conditions in a variety of ways, some of which will exacerbate the level of climate risk (high confidence, based on robust

evidence, high agreement). {8.2}

Urban climate adaptation provides opportunities for both incremental and transformative development. {8.3, 8.4}

Urban adaptation provides opportunities for incremental and transformative adjustments to development trajectories toward

resilience and sustainable development via effective multilevel urban risk governance, alignment of policies and incentives,

strengthened local government and community adaptation capacity, synergies with the private sector, and appropriate financing

and institutional development.

Opportunities to do so are high in many rapidly growing cities where institutions and infrastructure are

Urban Areas Chapter 8

539

being developed, though there is limited evidence of this being realized in practice (medium confidence, based on limited evidence, high

agreement). {8.4}

Urban adaptation can enhance economic comparative advantage, reducing risks to enterprises and to households and communities

(medium confidence, based on medium evidence, high agreement). {8.3}

City-based disaster risk management with a central focus on risk reduction is a strong foundation on which to address increasing

exposure and vulnerability and thus to build adaptation.

Closer integration of disaster risk management and climate change adaptation

along with the incorporation of both into local, subnational, national, and international development policies can provide benefits at all scales

(high confidence, based on medium evidence, high agreement). {8.3}

Ecosystem-based adaptation is a key contributor to urban resilience (medium confidence, based on medium evidence, high

agreement (among practitioners)). {8. 3}

Effective urban food-security related adaptation measures (especially social safety nets but also including urban and peri-urban

agriculture, local markets, and green roofs) can reduce climate vulnerability especially for low-income urban dwellers (medium

confidence, based on medium evidence, medium agreement). {8.3}

Good quality, affordable, well-located housing provides a strong base for city-wide climate change adaptation minimizing

current exposure and loss.

Possibilities for building stock adaptation rest with owners and public, private, and civil society organizations

(high confidence, based on robust evidence, high agreement). {8.3, 8.4}

Reducing basic service deficits and building resilient infrastructure systems (water supply, sanitation, storm and waste water

drains, electricity, transport and telecommunications, health care, education, and emergency response) can significantly reduce

hazard exposure and vulnerability to climate change, especially for those who are most at risk or vulnerable (very high confidence,

based on robust evidence, high agreement). {8.3}

For most key climate change associated hazards in urban areas, risk levels increase from the present (with current adaptation) to

the near term but high adaptation can reduce these risk levels significantly. It is less able to do so for the longer term, especially

under a global mean temperature increase of 4°C. {Tables 8-3, 8-6}

Implementing effective urban adaptation is possible and can be accelerated. {8.4}

Urban governments are at the heart of successful urban climate adaptation because so much adaptation depends on local

assessments and integrating adaptation into local investments, policies, and regulatory frameworks (high confidence). {8.4}

Well governed cities with universal provision of infrastructure and services have a strong base for building climate resilience if

processes of planning, design, and allocation of human capital and material resources are responsive to emerging climate risks

(medium confidence, based on medium evidence, high agreement). {8.4}

Building human and institutional capacity for adaptation in local governments, including scope for reflecting on incremental and

transformative adaptation pathways, accelerates implementation and improves urban adaptation outcomes (high confidence,

based on medium evidence, high agreement). {8.4}

Coordinated support from higher levels of governments, the private sector, and civil society and horizontal learning through networks

of cities and practitioners benefits urban adaptation (medium confidence, based on medium evidence, medium agreement). {8.4}

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

540

Leadership within local governments and also across all scales is important in driving successful adaptation and in promoting

and sustaining a broad base of support for the urban adaptation agenda (medium confidence, based on medium evidence, high

agreement). {8.4}

Addressing political interests, mobilizing institutional support for climate adaptation, and ensuring voice and influence to those

ost at risk are important strategic adaptation concerns (medium confidence, based on limited evidence, medium agreement).

{8.4}

Enabling the capacity of low-income groups and vulnerable communities, and their partnership with local governments, can be

an effective urban adaptation strategy (medium confidence, based on limited evidence, high agreement). {8.3, 8.4}

Urban centers around the world face severe constraints to raising and allocating resources to implement adaptation. In most low-

and middle-income country cities, infrastructure backlogs, lack of appropriate mandates, and lack of financial and human resources severely

constrain adaptation action. Small urban centers often lack economies of scale for adaptation investments and local capacity to act, as they

have relatively low national and international profiles (medium confidence, based on medium evidence, high agreement). {8.3, 8.4}

International financial institutions provide limited financial support for adaptation in urban areas. There is limited current

commitment to finance urban adaptation from different levels of government and international agencies (medium confidence, based on

limited evidence, high agreement). {8.4}

A scientific evidence base in each urban center is essential for effective adaptation action. This includes local risk and vulnerability

assessments and information and data with which to consider current and future risk and adaptation and development options (medium

confidence, based on medium evidence, high agreement). {8.4}

Dealing with the uncertainty associated with climate change projections and balancing them with actions to address current

vulnerabilities and adaptation costs helps to assist implementation in urban areas (medium confidence, based on medium

evidence, medium agreement). {8.2, 8.4}

Urban Areas Chapter 8

541

8.1. Introduction

8.1.1. Key Issues

Adaptation to climate change depends centrally on what is done in urban

centers, which now house more than half the world’s population and

concentrate most of its assets and economic activities (World Bank, 2008;

UN DESA Population Division, 2012). As Section 8.4 emphasizes, this

will require responses by all levels of government as well as individuals

and communities, the private sector, and civil society. The serious impacts

of extreme weather on many urban centers each year demonstrate some

of the risks and vulnerabilities to be addressed (UNISDR, 2009; IFRC,

2010). Climate change will usually add to these and other risks and

vulnerabilities. Urban policies also have major implications for mitigation,

especially for future levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and for

delivering co-benefits, as discussed in WGIII AR5. This chapter focuses

on the possibilities for governments, enterprises, and populations to

adapt urban centers to the direct and indirect impacts of climate

change.

The level of funding needed for sound urban adaptation could exceed

the capacities of local and national governments and international

agencies (Parry et al., 2009; Brugmann, 2012). Much of the investment

will have to come from individuals and households, communities, and

firms through their decisions to address adaptation and resilience

(Agrawala and Fankhauser, 2008; Fankhauser and Soare, 2013). This

might suggest little role for governments, especially local governments.

But whether these small-scale decisions by households, communities,

and firms do contribute to adaptation depends in large part on what

local governments do, encourage, support, and prevent—as well as

their contribution to providing required infrastructure and services.

An important part of this is the provision by local governments of

appropriate regulatory frameworks and the application of building

standards, to ensure that the choices made by individuals, households,

and firms support adaptation and prevent maladaptation. For instance,

land use planning and management have important roles in ensuring

sufficient land for housing that avoids dangerous sites and protects key

ecological services and systems (UN-HABITAT, 2011a).

In reviewing adaptation needs and options for urban areas, the

documentation reviewed for this chapter points to two key conclusions.

The first is how much the adaptive capacity of any city depends on the

quality of provision and coverage of infrastructure and services; the

capacities for investments and land use management; and the degree

to which buildings and infrastructure meet health and safety standards.

This capacity provides a foundation for city resilience on which

adaptation can be built. There is little of this foundation in most urban

centers in low-income and in many middle-income nations. The second

conclusion is the importance of city and municipal governments acting

now to incorporate climate change adaptation into their development

plans and policies and infrastructure investments. This includes not only

building that foundation of resilience (and its institutional, governance,

and financial underpinnings) but also mobilizing new resources, adjusting

building and land use regulations, and continuously developing the local

capacity to respond. This is not to diminish the key roles of other actors.

But it will fall to city and municipal government to provide the scaffolding

and regulatory framework within which other stakeholders contribute

and collaborate. Thus, adaptation in urban areas depends on the

competence and capacity of local governments and a locally rooted

iterative process of learning about changing risks and opportunities,

identifying and evaluating options, making decisions, and revising

strategies in collaboration with a range of actors.

8.1.2. Scope of the Chapter

his chapter focuses on what we know about the potential impact of

climate change on urban centers and their populations and enterprises

(Section 8.2), what measures are being taken to adapt to these changes

(and protect vulnerable groups) (Section 8.3), and what institutional

and governance changes can underpin adaptation (Section 8.4). Both

this and Chapter 9 highlight the multiple linkages between rural and

urban areas that have relevance for adaptation. This chapter also

overlaps with Chapter 10, especially in regard to infrastructure, although

this chapter focuses on urban infrastructure and in particular the

infrastructure that comes within the responsibilities or jurisdiction of

urban governments.

This chapter draws its urban statistics from the United Nations Population

Division (UN DESA Population Division, 2012). Urban centers vary from

those with a few thousand (or in some nations a few hundred) inhabitants

to metropolitan areas with more than 20 million inhabitants. There is

no international agreement—and considerable national variation—in

how urban areas are defined (UN DESA Population Division, 2012). The

main differences are in how settlements with a few hundred up to

20,000 inhabitants are classified; depending on the country, some, most,

or all of these may be classified as urban or rural. There are also differences

in how urban boundaries are set. In some places, they encompass the

urban built up area or the central urban core; in others, they go well

beyond the built up area and include large areas devoted to agriculture

(Satterthwaite, 2007).

The issue here is whether provision for adaptation includes “rural”

populations living around urban centers and within urban jurisdictions.

In addition, it is common for part of the workforce in larger urban centers

to live outside the urban center and to commute—and this may include

many that live in settlements designated as rural. There is also no agreed

definition for what constitutes a city—although the term city implies

an urban center with some economic, political, or cultural importance

and would not be applied to most small urban centers.

8.1.3. Context: An Urbanizing World

In 2008, for the first time, more than half the world’s population was

living in urban centers and the proportion continues to grow (UN

DESA Population Division, 2012). Three-quarters of the world’s urban

population and most of its largest cities are now in low- and middle-

income nations. A comparison of Figures 8-1 and 8-2 highlights the

increase in the number of large cities from 1950 to what is projected

for 2025. UN projections suggest that almost all the increase in the

world’s population up to 2050 will be in urban centers in what are

currently low- and middle-income nations (see Table 8-1). Most of the

gross domestic product (GDP) of most nations and globally is generated

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

542

in urban centers and most new investments have concentrated there

(World Bank, 2008; Satterthwaite et al., 2010). Clearly, just in terms of the

population, economic activities, assets, and climate risk they increasingly

concentrate, adapting urban areas to climate change requires serious

attention.

Most urbanization is underpinned by an economic logic. All wealthy

nations are predominantly urbanized and rapid urbanization in low-

and middle-income nations is usually associated with rapid economic

growth (World Bank, 2008; Satterthwaite et al., 2010). Most of the

world’s largest cities are in its largest economies (World Bank, 2008;

Figure 8-1 | Global and regional maps showing the location of urban agglomerations with 750,000-plus inhabitants in 1950 (derived from statistics in UN DESA Population

Division, 2012).

≤1 million

1.1–2.5 million

2.6–5 million

5.1–10 million

>10 million

Urban Areas Chapter 8

543

Satterthwaite et al., 2010). If rapid urbanization and rapid city population

growth are associated with economic success, it suggests that more

resources should be available there to support adaptation. But, as

discussed in Section 8.3, this is rarely the case. In most urban centers in

low- and middle-income nations including many successful cities, local

governments have been unable to manage their economic and physical

expansion and there are large deficits in provision for infrastructure and

services that are relevant to climate change adaptation. About one in seven

people in the world live in poor quality, overcrowded accommodation

in urban areas with inadequate provision (or none) for basic infrastructure

Figure 8-2 | Global and regional maps showing the location of urban agglomerations with 750,000-plus inhabitants projected for 2025 (derived from statistics in UN DESA

Population Division, 2012).

≤1 million

1.1–2.5 million

2.6–5 million

5.1–10 million

>10 million

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

544

and services, mostly in informal settlements (UN-HABITAT, 2003a;

Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2013). Much of the health risk and vulnerability

to climate change is concentrated in these settlements (Mitlin and

Satterthwaite, 2013). So this chapter is concerned not only with an

adaptation deficit for, but also with a development deficit that is

relevant to, this risk and vulnerability.

Many aspects of urban change in recent decades have been so rapid

that they have overwhelmed government capacity to manage them.

Among the 611 cities with more than 750,000 inhabitants in 2010, 47

had populations that had grown more than 20-fold since 1960; in 120,

the growth was more than 10-fold (statistics in this paragraph are

drawn from data in UN DESA Population Division, 2012). The increasing

concentration of the world’s urban population and its largest cities

outside the highest income nations represents an important change.

Over the 19th and 20th centuries, most of the world’s urban population

and most of its largest cities were in its most prosperous nations. Now,

urban areas in low- and middle-income nations have close to two-fifths

Major area, region, or country 1950 1970 1990 2010 Projected for 2030 Projected for 2050

Urban population

(millions of inhabitants)

orld

45 1352 2281 3559 4984 6252

More developed regions 442 671 827 957 1064 1127

Less developed regions 304 682 1454 2601 3920 5125

Least developed countries 15 41 107 234 477 860

ub-Saharan Africa 20 56 139 298 596 1069

Northern Africa 13 31 64 102 149 196

sia

45 506 1032 1848 2703 3310

China 65 142 303 660 958 1002

India 63 109 223 379 606 875

urope 281 412 503 537 573 591

Latin America and the Caribbean

69 163 312 465 585 650

orthern America 110 171 212 282 344 396

Oceania 8 14 19 26 34 40

Percent of the

population in urban

areas

orld

9.4 36.6 43.0 51.6 59.9 67.2

More developed regions 54.5 66.6 72.3 77.5 82.1 85.9

Less developed regions 17.6 25.3 34.9 46.0 55.8 64.1

Least developed countries 7.4 13.0 21.0 28.1 38.0 49.8

ub-Saharan Africa 11.2 19.5 28.2 36.3 45.7 56.5

Northern Africa 25.8 37.2 45.6 51.2 57.5 65.3

Asia 17.5 23.7 32.3 44.4 55.5 64.4

China 11.8 17.4 26.4 49.2 68.7 77.3

India 17.0 19.8 25.5 30.9 39.8 51.7

Europe 51.3 62.8 69.8 72.7 77.4 82.2

Latin America and the Caribbean 41.4 57.1 70.3 78.8 83.4 86.6

Northern America 63.9 73.8 75.4 82.0 85.8 88.6

Oceania 62.4 71.2 70.7 70.7 71.4 73.0

Percent of the world’s

urban population

World 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

More developed regions 59.3 49.6 36.3 26.9 21.4 18.0

Less developed regions 40.7 50.4 63.7 73.1 78.6 82.0

Least developed countries 2.0 3.0 4.7 6.6 9.6 13.8

Sub-Saharan Africa 2.7 4.1 6.1 8.4 11.9 17.1

Northern Africa 1.7 2.3 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1

Asia 32.9 37.4 45.2 51.9 54.2 52.9

China 8.7 10.5 13.3 18.6 19.2 16.0

India 8.5 8.1 9.8 10.6 12.2 14.0

Europe 37.6 30.5 22.0 15.1 11.5 9.5

Latin America and the Caribbean 9.3 12.1 13.7 13.1 11.7 10.4

Northern America 14.7 12.6 9.3 7.9 6.9 6.3

Oceania 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6

Table 8-1 | Distribution of the world’s urban population by region, 1950–2010 with projections to 2030 and 2050. Source: Derived from statistics in United Nations (2012).

Chapter 26 on North America includes Mexico; in the above statistics, Mexico is included in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

545

of the world’s total population, close to three-quarters of its urban

population, and most of its large cities. In 2011, of the 23 “mega-cities”

(with populations over 10 million), only 5 were in high-income nations

(two in Japan, two in the USA, one in France). Of the remaining 18, 4

were in China, 3 in India, and 2 in Brazil. But more than three-fifths of

the world’s urban population is in urban centers with fewer than 1 million

inhabitants and it is here that much of the growth in urban population

s occurring.

Underlying these population statistics are large and complex economic,

social, political, and demographic changes, including the multiplication

in the size of the world’s economy and the shift in economic activities

and employment structures from agriculture to industry and services (and

within services to information production and exchange) (Satterthwaite,

2007). One of the most significant changes has been the growth in the

size and importance of cities whose economies increased and changed

as a result of globalization (Sassen, 2012). Another is the number of

large cities that are now centers of large extended metropolitan

regions.

One of the challenges for this chapter is to convey the very large

differences in adaptive capacity between urban centers. There are tens of

thousands of urban centers worldwide with very large and measurable

differences in population, area, economic output, human development,

quality, and coverage of infrastructure and services, ecological footprint,

and GHG emissions. The differences in adaptive capacity are far less

easy to quantify. Table 8-2 illustrates differences in adaptive capacity

and factors that influence it. It indicates how each urban center falls

within a spectrum in at least four key factors that influence adaptation:

local government capacity; the proportion of residents served with risk-

reducing infrastructure and services; the proportion living in housing

built to appropriate health and safety standards; and the levels of risk

from climate change’s direct and indirect impacts. This chapter and Table

8-2 also draw on detailed case studies to illustrate this diversity—New

York (Solecki, 2012), Durban (Roberts and O’Donoghue, 2013), and

Dar es Salaam (Kiunsi, 2013). Section 8.5 provides tables of current and

indicative future climate risks for Dar es Salaam, Durban, London, and

New York.

Many attributes of urban centers can be measured and compared. As

noted above, populations vary from a few hundred to more than 20 million.

Areas vary from less than one to thousands of square kilometers. Average

life expectancy at birth varies from more than 80 years to less than 40

years, and under-five mortality rates vary by a factor of 20 or more

(Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2013). Average per capita incomes vary by a

factor of at least 300; so too does the funding available to local

governments per person (UCLG, 2010). GHG emissions per person (in

tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) vary by more than 100 (Dodman,

2009; Hoornweg et al., 2011).

There are large differences between urban centers in the extent to

which their economies are dependent on climate-sensitive resources

(including commercial agriculture, water, and tourism).There are also

large variations in the scale and nature of impacts from extreme

weather. As Table 8-2 suggests, there are urban indicators relevant for

assessing the resilience to climate change impacts that urban areas

have acquired (including the proportion of the population with water

piped to their homes, sewers, drains, health care, and emergency

services); it is more of a challenge to find indicators for the climate

change related risks and for the quality and capacity of government.

Recent analyses of disaster impacts show that a high proportion of

the world’s population most affected by extreme weather events is

concentrated in urban centers (UNISDR, 2009, 2011; IFRC, 2010). As

shown in Table 8-2, a high proportion of these urban centers lack both

local governments with the capacity to reduce disaster risk, and much

of the necessary infrastructure. Their low-income households may

equire particular assistance because of greater exposure to hazards,

lower adaptive capacity, more limited access to infrastructure or

insurance, and fewer possibilities to relocate to safer accommodation,

compared to wealthier residents.

All successful urban centers have had to adapt to environmental

conditions and available resources, although local resource constraints

have often been overcome by drawing on resources and using sinks

from “distant elsewhere” (Rees, 1992; McGranahan, 2007); this includes

importing goods that are resource intensive and whose fabrication

involves large GHG emissions. The growth of urban population over the

last century has also caused a very large anthropogenic transformation

of terrestrial biomes. Urban centers cover only a small proportion of the

world’s land surface—according to Schneider et al. (2009) only 0.51%

of the total land area; only in Western Europe do they cover more than

1%. However, their physical and ecological footprints are much larger.

The net ecological impact of urban centers includes the decline in the

share of wild and semi-natural areas from about 70% to less than 50%

of land area, largely to accommodate crop and pastoral land to support

human consumption (Ellis et al., 2010). It has led not only to a decrease

in biodiversity but to fragmentation in much of the remaining natural

areas and a threat to the ecological services that support both rural and

urban areas. Future projections (Seto et al., 2012) suggest that, if current

trends continue, urban land cover will increase by 1.2 million km

by 2030,

nearly tripling global urban land area between 2000 and 2030. This would

mean a “considerable loss of habitats in key biodiversity hotspots,”

destroying the green infrastructure that is key in helping areas adapt to

climate change impacts (Seto et al., 2012, p. 16083) as well as increasing

the exposure of population and assets to higher risk levels.

Many of the challenges and opportunities for urban adaptation relate

to the central features of city life—the concentration of people, buildings,

economic activities, and social and cultural institutions (Romero-Lankao

and Dodman, 2011). Agglomeration economies are usually discussed

in relation to the advantages for enterprises locating in a particular city.

But the concentrations of people, enterprises, and institutions in urban

areas also provide potential agglomeration economies in lower unit

costs for piped water, sewers, drains, and a range of services (solid waste

collection, schools, health care, emergency services, policing) and in the

greater capacity for people, communities, and institutions to respond

collectively (Hardoy et al., 2001). At the same time, the advantages that

come with these concentrations of people and activities are also

accompanied by particular challenges—for instance, the management

of storm and surface runoff and measures to reduce heat islands. Large

cities concentrate demand and the need for ecological services and

natural resources (water, food, and biomass), energy, and electricity,

and many city enterprises rely on lifeline infrastructure and supply

chains that can be disrupted by climate change (UNISDR, 2013; see also

Section 8.3.3).

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

546

Indicator clusters

Very little adaptive

capacity or resilience /

“bounce-back” capacity

Some adaptive capacity

and resilience /“bounce-

back” capacity

Adequate capacity

for adaptation and

resilience /“bounce-back”

capacity, but not yet acted on

Climate resilience and capacity

to bounce forward

Transformative adaptation

The proportion of the population served

with risk-reducing infrastructure (paved

roads, storm and surface drainage,

piped water…) and services relevant

to resilience (including health care,

emergency services, policing /rule of law)

and the institutions needed for such

provision

0–30% of the urban center’s

population served; most of

those unserved or inadequately

served living in informal

settlements.

30–80% of the urban center’s

population served; most of

those unserved or inadequately

served living in informal

settlements.

80–100% of the urban center’s

population served; most of those

unserved or inadequately served

living in informal settlements.

Most /all of the urban center’s

population with these and with an

active adaptation policy identifying

current and probable future risks

and with an institutional structure to

encourage and support action by all

sectors and agencies. In many cities,

also upgrade aging infrastructure.

Urban centers that have integrated their development

and adaptation policies and investments within an

understanding of the need for mitigation and sustainable

ecological footprints.

The proportion of the population living

in legal housing built with permanent

materials (meeting health and safety

standards)

Active program to improve conditions,

infrastructure, and services to informal

settlements and low-income areas.

Identify and act on areas with higher /

increasing risks. Revise building

standards.

Land use planning and management successfully

providing safe land for housing, avoiding areas at risk

and taking account of mitigation.

Proportion of urban centers covered Most urban centers in low-

income and many in middle-

income nations.

Many urban centers in many

low-income nations; most urban

centers in most middle-income

nations.

Virtually all urban centers in

high-income nations, many in middle-

income nations.

A small proportion of cities in high-

income and upper-middle-income

nations.

Some innovative city governments thinking of this and

taking some initial steps.

Estimated number of people living in such

urban centers

1 billion 1.5 billion 1 billion Very small

Infrastructure deﬁ cit Much of the built up area lacking infrastructure Most or all the built up area with infrastructure (paved roads, covered drains, piped water…)

Local government investment capacity Very little or no local investment capacity Substantial local investment capacity

Occurrence of disasters from extreme

weather

Very common Uncommon (mostly due to risk-reducing infrastructure, services, and good quality buildings available to

almost all the population)

Examples Dar es Salaam, Dhaka Nairobi, Mumbai Most cities in high-income nations Cities such as New York; London,

Durban, and Manizales with some

progress

Implications for climate change adaptation Very limited capacity to

adapt. Very large deﬁ cits

in infrastructure and in

institutional capacity. Very large

numbers exposed to risk if

these are also in locations with

high levels of risk from climate

change.

Some capacity to adapt,

especially if this can be

combined with development,

but difﬁ cult to get city

governments to act. Particular

problems for those urban

centers in locations with high

levels of risk from climate

change.

Strong basis for adaptation, but

needs to be acted on and to inﬂ uence

city government and many of its

sectoral agencies.

City government that is managing

land use changes as well as having

adaptation integrated into all sectors.

City government with capacity to inﬂ uence and work

with neighboring local government units. Also with land

use changes managed to protect eco-system services and

support mitigation.

Table 8-2 | The large spectrum in the capacity of urban centers to adapt to climate change. One of the challenges for this chapter is to convey the very large differences in adaptive capacity between urban centers. This table seeks to

illustrate differences in adaptive capacity and the factors that inﬂ uence it. For a more detailed assessment of adaptation potentials and challenges for speciﬁ c cities (Dar es Salaam, Durban, London, and New York), see Table 8-6. Sources:

This table was constructed to provide a synthesis of key issues, so it draws on all the sources cited in this chapter. However, it draws in particular on Solecki (2012), Kiunsi (2013), and Roberts and O’Donoghue (2013).

Notes: For cities that are made up of different local government areas, it would be possible to apply the above at an intra-city or intra-metropolitan scale. For instance, for many large Latin American, Asian and African cities, there are local

government areas that would ﬁ t in each of the ﬁ rst three categories.

See text in regard to disasters and extensive risk (United Nations, 2011).

Urban Areas Chapter 8

547

The increasing concentration of the world’s population in urban centers

means greater opportunities for adaptation but more concentrated risk

if they are not acted on. Many urban governments lack the capacity to

do so, especially those in low- and lower-middle-income nations. The

result is large deficiencies in infrastructure and services. Urban centers

in high-income nations, although much better served, may also face

particular challenges—for instance, aging infrastructure and the need

o adapt energy systems, building stock, infrastructure, and services to

the altered risk set that climate change will bring (see Zimmerman and

Faris (2010) and Solecki (2012) for discussions of this for New York).

Many studies have shown that working with a range of government

and civil society institutions at local and supra-local levels increases

the effectiveness of urban adaptation efforts; support and enabling

frameworks from higher levels of government were also found to be

helpful (see Section 8.4 and many of the studies listed in Box 8-1).

8.1.4. Vulnerability and Resilience

For each of the direct and indirect impacts of climate change, there are

groups of urban dwellers that face higher risks (illness, injury, mortality,

damage to or loss of homes and assets, disruption to incomes) (Hardoy

and Pandiella, 2009; Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2013). Age may be a

factor (for instance infants and elderly people are more sensitive to

particular hazards such as heat stress) or health status (those with

particular diseases, injuries, or disabilities may be more sensitive to

these impacts). Or it may be that they live in buildings or in locations

facing greater risks—for instance on coasts or by rivers with increased

flood risks—or that they lack coping capacities. Women may face

higher risks in their work and constraints on adaptation if they face

discrimination in access to labor markets, resources, finance, services, and

influence (see Box CC-GC). These are often termed vulnerable groups—

although, to state the obvious, they are vulnerable to direct climate

change impacts only to the extent that the hazard actually poses a risk.

Remove people’s exposure to the hazard (e.g., provide drains that

prevent flooding) and there is limited or no impact. Infants may face

serious health risks when water supplies are contaminated by flooding,

but rapid and effective treatment for diarrhea and quickly re-establishing

availability of drinking quality water greatly reduces impacts (Bartlett,

2008). Adaptations by individuals, households, communities, private

enterprises, or government service providers can all reduce risks.

Adaptation in a particular area or settlement may have clear benefits

for the inhabitants there, but can also have knock-on effects on the

well-being of inhabitants in other areas. Diverting a river course or

building an embankment to protect new development may prevent

flooding in one location, but may cause or increase flooding somewhere

else (see Revi, 2005, for Mumbai; Alam and Rabbani, 2007, for Dhaka).

Assessments of vulnerability to climate change draws on assessments

in other contexts—including the vulnerability of low-income groups to

stresses and shocks (e.g., Chambers, 1989; Pryer, 2003) and to disasters

(Cannon, 1994; Manyena, 2006). The term is generally used in relation

to an inability to cope with external changes including avoiding harm

when exposed to a hazard. This includes people’s inability to avoid the

hazard (exposure), anticipate it, and take measures to avoid it or limit

its impact; cope with it; and recover from it (Hardoy and Pandiella,

2009). Vulnerable groups may be identified on the basis of any of these

four factors. The definition of resilience used in the WGII AR5 when

applied to urban centers means the ability of urban centers (and their

populations, enterprises, and governments) and the systems on which

they depend to anticipate, reduce, accommodate, or recover from the

effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner (see the

Glossary).

The term vulnerability is also applied to sectors, including food processing,

ourism, water, energy, and mobility infrastructure and their cross-

linkages, for instance, the dependency of perishable commodities on

efficient transport. Much tourism is sensitive to climate change, which

can damage key tourist assets such as coral reefs and beaches or make

particular locations less attractive to tourists because of more extreme

weather. The term is also applied to natural systems/ecosystems (e.g.,

mangroves, coastal wetlands, urban tree canopy). If the adaptive

capacity of these systems is increased, they can also provide natural

protection from the impacts of climate change in urban areas (see, e.g.,

Sections 8.2.4.5, 8.3.3.7 for more details).

8.1.4.1. Differentials in Risk and Vulnerability

within and between Urban Centers

In urban centers where virtually all buildings meet health and safety

standards, where land use planning prevents developments on sites at

risk, and where there is universal provision for infrastructure and basic

services, the exposure differentials between high- and low-income

groups to climate-related risk are quite low. Having low income and

few assets in such urban centers does not necessarily imply greater

vulnerability to climate change (Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2013). But

typically, the larger the deficit in infrastructure and service provision,

the larger the differentials in exposure to most climate change impacts

between income groups. Low-income groups in low- and middle-income

nations are often disproportionately vulnerable because of poor quality

and insecure housing; inadequate infrastructure; and lack of provision

for health care, emergency services, and disaster risk reduction

(UNISDR, 2009; IFRC, 2010; UN-HABITAT, 2011a; IPCC, 2012; Mitlin and

Satterthwaite, 2013). Most deaths from disasters are concentrated in

low- and middle-income countries—including more than 95% of deaths

from natural disasters between 1970 and 2008 (IPCC, 2012). More than

95% of the deaths from storms and floods registered on the EM-DAT

from 2000 to September 2013 were in low- and middle-income nations.

An analysis of annual fatalities from tropical cyclones showed these to

be heavily concentrated in low-income nations even though there was

high exposure in many upper-middle- and high-income nations (and

these nations had larger economic losses; UNISDR, 2009). These analyses

do not separate rural and urban populations—but there is a growing

body of evidence that most urban deaths from extreme weather events

are in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (UNISDR, 2009;

IFRC, 2010). Analyses of risks across many cities usually show the cities

at highest risk from extreme weather or particular kinds of such weather

These are drawn from data in the The International Disaster Database EM-DAT

accessed on September 16, 2013.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

548

(e.g., floods) to be primarily in high-income countries (Munich Re, 2004;

Hallegatte et al., 2013). But this is because these analyses are based on

estimates of economic costs or economic losses. If they were based

instead on deaths and injuries, the ranking would change fundamentally

(see also Balica et al., 2012). The official statistics on disaster deaths are

also known to considerably understate total deaths, in part because

many deaths go unrecorded, in part because of the criteria that a disaster

event has to meet to be included (one of the following criteria must be

fulfilled: ten or more people reported killed; 100 or more people reported

ffected; declaration of a state of emergency; or call for international

assistance) (UNISDR, 2009).

There are dramatic examples of extreme weather events in high-income

countries with very large impacts, including high mortality. But the

analyses in UNISDR (2009) and IFRC (2010), and the reports of deaths

from extreme weather in many of the case studies listed in Box 8-1,

suggest that most extreme weather disaster deaths in urban centers

are in low- and lower-middle-income nations, and that risks are

concentrated in informal settlements. As noted by IPCC (2012), the

occupants of these settlements are typically more exposed to climate

events with limited or no hazard-reducing infrastructure, low-quality

housing, and limited capacity to cope.

Where provision for adequate housing, infrastructure, and services is

most lacking, the capacity of individuals, households, and community

organizations to anticipate, cope, and recover from the direct and

indirect losses and impact of disasters (of which climate-related events

are a subset) becomes increasingly important (see Section 8.4). The

effectiveness of early warning systems, the speed of response, and the

effectiveness of post-disaster response is especially important to those

who are more sensitive and have less coping capacity. The effectiveness

of such responses depends on an understanding of the specific

vulnerabilities, needs, and priorities of different income groups, age

groups, and groups that face discrimination, including that faced by

women and by particular social or ethnic groups (UN-HABITAT, 2011a).

8.1.4.2. Understanding Resilience for Urban Centers

in Relation to Climate Change

In relation to disasters, resilience is usually considered to be the opposite

of vulnerability, but vulnerability is often discussed in relation to

particular population groups while resilience is more often discussed in

relation to the systemic capacity to protect them and reduce the impact

of particular hazards through infrastructure or climate-risk sensitive

land use management. In recent years, a literature has emerged

discussing resilience to climate change for urban centers and what

contributes to it (Muller, 2007; Leichenko, 2011; Moench et al., 2011;

Pelling, 2011a; Brown et al., 2012; da Silva et al., 2012). Addressing

resilience for cities is more than identifying and acting on specific climate

change impacts. It looks at the performance of each city’s complex and

interconnected infrastructure and institutional systems including

interdependence between multiple sectors, levels, and risks in a dynamic

physical, economic, institutional, and socio-political environment

(Kirshen et al., 2008; Gasper et al., 2011). When resilience is considered

for cities, certain systemic characteristics are highlighted—for instance

flexibility, redundancy, responsiveness, capacity to learn, and safe failure

(Tyler et al., 2010; Moench et al., 2011; Brown et al., 2012; da Silva et

al., 2012), as well as take account of the multiple interdependencies

between different sectors (see Section 8.2).

When a specific city is being considered, the level and forms of resilience

are often related to specific local factors, services, and institutions—for

instance, for each district in a city, will the storm and surface drains

cope with the next heavy rainfall? During hot days, will measures to

help those at risk from heat stress reach all high-risk groups (see Box

C-HS for more detail)? Here, resilience is not only the ability to recover

from the impact but also the ability to avoid or minimize the need to

recover and the capacity to withstand unexpected or unpredicted changes

(UNISDR, 2011). An important aspect of resilience is the functioning of

institutions to make this possible and the necessary knowledge base

(da Silva et al., 2012).The emerging literature on the resilience of cities

to climate change also highlights the need to focus on resource

availabilities and sinks beyond the urban boundaries. It may also require

coordinated actions by institutions in other jurisdictions or higher levels

of government, for example, watershed management upstream of a city

to reduce flood risks (Ramachandraiah, 2011; Brown et al., 2012). There

are also the slow onset impacts that pose particular challenges and that

may also be outside the jurisdiction of urban governments—for

instance, the impact of drought on agriculture, which can raise food

prices and reduce rural incomes and demand for urban services.

Resilience to extreme weather for urban dwellers is strongly influenced

by factors already mentioned—the quality of buildings, the effectiveness

of land use planning, and the quality and coverage of key infrastructure

and services. It is also influenced by the effectiveness of early warning

systems and public response measures (IFRC, 2010; UN-HABITAT, 2011a)

and by the proportion of households with savings and insurance and

able to afford safe, healthy homes. Safety nets for those with insufficient

incomes are also important, along with the administrative capacity to

ensure these reach those in need. Urban governments have importance

for most of this, although their capacity to provide usually depends on

the revenue raising powers and legislative and financial support from

higher levels of government. These in turn are driven in part by political

pressure from urban dwellers and innovation by city governments.

Private companies or non-profit institutions may provide some of these

but the framework for provision and quality control is provided by local

government or local offices or national or provincial government.

Cities in high-income nations and many in middle-income nations have

become more resilient to extreme weather (and other possible catalysts

for disasters) through a range of measures responding to risks and to

the political processes that demand such responses (IFRC, 2010; UN-

HABITAT, 2011a; Satterthwaite, 2013). The universal provision of piped

water, sewers, drains, health care and emergency services, and standards

set and enforced on housing quality and infrastructure were not a

response to climate change but what was built over the last 100 to 150

years in response to the needs and demands of residents. This has produced

what can be termed accumulated resilience in the built environment to

extreme weather and built the capacity of local governments to act on

risk reduction (e.g., Hardoy and Ruete, 2013, on Rosario, Argentina). In

addition, it helped build the institutions, finances, and governance

systems that can support climate change adaptation (Satterthwaite,

2013). Building and infrastructure standards can be adjusted as required

Urban Areas Chapter 8

549

(if there is infrastructure in place that can be adjusted, e.g., by increasing

capacity for storm and surface water drainage systems). Existing levels

of service provision can be modified to take into account new risks or

risk levels, as can city planning and land use management (e.g., by

keeping city expansion away from areas facing higher risk levels).

Private sector investments can support these kinds of adjustments (e.g.,

changing insurance premiums and coverage) (IFRC, 2010; UN-HABITAT,

011a; UNISDR, 2013). All of these provide the foundation on which to

build adaptive capacity to withstand climate change-related direct and

indirect impacts.

Whether this will happen depends on willingness of urban governments

to take this on, the demands of local inhabitants and their capacity to

organize and press for change, and the capacity for learning and

cooperation within local institutions. Obviously, it also depends on

global agreements that slow and stop the increases in risk from GHG

emissions and other drivers of climate change. Many cities with

accumulated resilience may still not be equipped to respond to the

changed hazards and risks associated with climate change (IPCC, 2012).

The issue here becomes whether the institutions and political pressures

that built the accumulated resilience are able to shift to resilience

building as a directed process—and to respond dynamically and

effectively to evolving and changing climate-related risks (and the

evolving and changing knowledge bases that supports this).

For urban centers with little accumulated resilience, resilience as a

process is also important, both to help reduce over time the (often very

large) deficiencies in most or all the infrastructure, services, and regulatory

frameworks that provide resilience in high-income nations and to build

resilience to climate change impacts (see Table 8-2). For around a third

of the world’s urban population, this has to be done in a context of limited

incomes and assets and poor living conditions and little current coping

capacity to stresses or shocks (UNISDR, 2009; IPCC, 2012). Just an increase

in the price of food staples, a drop in income, or a new cost, such as

medicine for a sick family member, can quickly mean inadequate food,

hunger, and reduced capacity to work (Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2013).

This implies the need for a specific perspective on how climate change

adaptation must be supported. It highlights the intimate relationship

between resilience to climate change impacts and the quality of

governance, especially local governance. The government’s capacity and

willingness to listen to, work with, support, and serve those who lack

resilience is fundamental (IPCC, 2012). This is demonstrated by the

many successful partnerships between local government and grassroots

organizations formed by residents of informal settlements that have

built or improved homes and neighborhoods (see Section 8.4).

Thus, resilience can be considered in relation to individuals/households,

communities, and urban centers. In each of these, it includes the capacity

to undertake anticipatory adaptation—action that avoids or reduces a

climate change impact, for instance, by living in a safe location, having

a safe house, or having risk-reducing infrastructure. It also includes

reactive adaptation to cope with the impact of an event, to “bounce

back” to the previous state (Shaw and Theobald, 2011). For urban

centers, “bouncing back” includes the government capacity to rapidly

restore key services and repair infrastructure. Ideally, for climate change

adaptation, responses by urban populations, enterprises, and governments

should allow “bounce forward” to a more resilient state. This is

discussed in disaster risk reduction and is termed “building-back better”

(Lyons, 2009). This is part of the shift from resilience to transformative

adaptation shown in Table 8-2 where urban centers have integrated

their development, disaster risk reduction, and adaptation policies and

investments within an understanding of the need for mitigation and

sustainable ecological footprints (see also Pelling and Dill, 2010;

Manyena et al., 2011; Shaw and Theobald, 2011).

8.1.5. Conclusions from the Fourth Assessment Report

(AR4) and New Issues Raised by this Chapter

AR4’s chapter on Industries, Settlements, and Human Society (Wilbanks

et al., 2007) notes that variability in environmental conditions has always

been a given, but that when change is more extreme, persistent, or rapid

than has been experienced in the past, especially if it is not foreseen

and capacities for adaptation are limited, the risks will increase (WGII

AR4 Section 7.1.1). The chapter also noted that, except for abrupt

extreme events, climate change impacts are not currently dominant

issues for urban centers (WGII AR4 Section 7.1.3). Their importance lies

in their interaction with other stressors, which may include rapid

population growth, political instability, poverty and inequality, ineffective

local governments, jurisdictional fragmentation, and aging or inadequate

infrastructure (WGII AR4 Section 7.2). Key challenges identified for

turning attention to adaptation include the difficulties of estimating

and projecting the magnitudes of climate risk in particular places and

sectors with precision and a weak knowledge base on the costs of

adaptation (issues that are still challenges today).

Wilbanks et al. (2007) describe how the interactions between urbanization

and climate change have led to concentrations of urban populations in

low-income nations with weak adaptive capacity. They also describe

the interactions between climate change and a globalized economy

with long supply chains, resulting in impacts spreading from directly

affected areas and sectors to other areas and sectors through complex

linkages (WGII AR4 Section 7.2). Many impacts will be unanticipated

and overall effects are poorly estimated when only direct impacts are

considered. Key global vulnerabilities include interregional trade and

migration patterns. This chapter also describes how climate change

impacts and most vulnerabilities are influenced by local contexts,

including geographic location, the climate sensitivity of enterprises

located there, development pathways, and population groups unable to

avoid dangerous sites and homes (WGII AR4 Sections 7.3, 7.4.3). Key risks

are most often related to climate phenomena that exceed thresholds for

adaptation (e.g., extreme weather or abrupt changes) and limited

resources or institutional capacities to reduce risk and cope (e.g., with

increased demands on water and energy supplies and often on health

care and emergency response systems).

Individual adaptation may not produce systemic adaptation. In addition,

adaptation of systems may not benefit all individuals or households,

because of the different vulnerability of particular groups and places

(WGII AR4 Section 7.6.6). Adaptation will be well served by a greater

awareness of threats and alternatives beyond historical experience and

current access to finance. Technological innovation for climate adaptation

comes largely from industry and services that are motivated by market

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

550

signals, which may not be well matched with adaptation needs and

residual uncertainties. Many are incremental adjustments to current

business activities.

For the types of infrastructure most at risk—including most transport,

drainage, and electricity transmission systems and many water supply

abstraction and treatment works—reserve margins can be increased

and back-up capacity developed (WGII AR4 Section 7.6.4). Adaptation

of infrastructure and building stock often depends on changes in the

nstitutions and governance framework, for example, in planning

regulations and building codes. Climate change has become one of

many changes to be understood and planned for by local managers and

decision makers (WGII AR4 Section 7.6.7). For instance, planning guidance

and risk management by insurers will have roles in locational choice

for industry.

Since AR4, a much larger and more diverse literature has accrued on

current and potential climate change risks for urban populations and

centers (see Section 8.2). The literature on urban “adaptation” and on

building resilience at city and regional scales has also expanded (see

Sections 8.3, 8.4) including work on urban centers in low- and middle-

income nations (see Box 8-1). Far more city governments have published

documents on adaptation. There is more engagement with urban

adaptation by some professions, including architects, engineers, urban

planners, and disaster risk reduction specialists (Engineers Canada, 2008;

UNISDR, 2009; Engineering the Future, 2011; UN-HABITAT, 2011a; da

Silva, 2012). There are also assessments and books that focus specifically

in climate change and cities with a strong focus on adaptation (Bicknell

et al., 2009; Rosenzweig et al., 2011; UN-HABITAT, 2011a; Cartwright

et al., 2012; Willems et al., 2012; Bulkeley, 2013).

This makes a concise and comprehensive summary more difficult. But

it has also allowed for more clarity on what contributes to resilience in

urban centers and systems. Specifically, there is now:

• A more detailed understanding of key urban climate processes,

including drivers of climate change, and improved analytical and

down-scaled integrated assessment models at regional and city

scale

• A more detailed understanding on the governance of adaptation

in urban centers and the adaptation responses being considered or

taken; this includes a large and important gray literature produced

by or for city governments and some international agencies and, in

many high-income and some middle-income nations, support for

this from higher levels of government

• More nuanced understanding of the many ways in which poverty

and discrimination exacerbates vulnerability to climate impacts (see

also Chapter 13)

• More detailed studies on particular built environment responses to

promote adaptation (see, e.g., the growth in the literature on green

and white roofs)

• More case studies of community-based adaptation and its potential

contributions and limitations

• More consideration of the role of ecosystem services and of green

(land) and blue (water) infrastructure in adaptation

• More consideration of the financing, enabling, and supporting of

adaptation for households and enterprises

• More on learning from innovation in disaster risk reduction

• A greater appreciation of the interdependencies between different

infrastructure networks and of the importance of “hard” infrastructure

and of the institutions that plan and manage it

• More examples of city governments and their networks contributing

to national and global discussions of climate change adaptation

(and mitigation), including establishing voluntary commitments

(see, e.g., the Durban Adaptation Charter for local governments)

and engaging with the Conference of Parties.

range of key uncertainties and research priorities emerge from the

literature reviewed in this chapter:

• The limits to understanding and predicting impacts of climate

change at a fine-grained geographic and sectoral scale

• Inadequate knowledge on the vulnerabilities of urban citizens and

enterprises to the direct impacts of climate change, to second- and

third-order impacts, and to the interdependence between systems

• Inadequate knowledge on the vulnerability of the built environment,

buildings, building components, building materials, and the

construction industry to the direct and indirect impacts of climate

change and of the most effective responses for new-build and for

retrofitting

• Inadequate knowledge on the adaptation potentials for each urban

center (and its government) and their costs, and on the limits on

what adaptation can achieve (informed by a new literature on loss

and damage)

• Serious limitations on geophysical, biological, and socioeconomic

data needed for adaptation at all geographic scales, including data

on nature-society links and local (fine-scale) contexts (see WMO,

2008) and hazards

• Uncertainties about trends in societal, economic, and technological

change with or without climate change, including the social and

political underpinnings of effective adaptation

• Understanding the different impacts and adaptation responses for

rapid and slow-onset disasters

• Developing the metrics for measuring and monitoring success in

adaptation in each urban center:

– Human deaths and injuries from extreme weather

– Number of permanently or temporarily displaced people and

others directly and indirectly affected

– Impacts on properties, measured in terms of numbers of buildings

damaged or destroyed

– Impacts on infrastructure, services, and lifelines

– Impacts on ecosystem services

– Impacts on crops and agricultural systems and on disease vectors

– Impacts on psychological well-being and sense of security

– Financial or economic loss (including insurance loss)

– Impacts on individual, household, and community coping

capacities and need for external assistance.

8.2. Urbanization Processes,

Climate Change Risks, and Impacts

8.2.1. Introduction

This section assesses the connections between urbanization and climate

change in relation to patterns and conditions of climate risk, impact,

Urban Areas Chapter 8

551

and vulnerability. The focus is on urbanization’s local, regional, and

global environmental consequences and the processes that may lead

to increased risk exposure, constrain people in high-risk livelihoods and

residences, and generate vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure and

services. Understanding urbanization and associated risk and vulnerability

distributions is critical for an effective response to climate change

threats and their impacts (Vale and Campanella, 2005; Bicknell et al.,

009; Solnit, 2009; Bulkeley, 2010; Romero-Lankao and Qin, 2011). It

is also critical for the promotion of sustainable urban habitats and the

transition to increased urban resilience. There is a particular interest

here in the ability of cities to respond to environmental crises, and the

resilience and sustainability of cities (Solecki et al., 2011; Solecki, 2012).

The section assesses the direct impacts of climate change on urban

populations and urban systems. Together, with shifts in urbanization,

these direct impacts change the profile of societal risk and vulnerability.

Both can alter transition pathways that lead toward greater resilience and

sustainable practices and the basis of how such practices are managed

within a community. Understanding and acting on the connections

between climate change and urbanization are also crucial because

changes in one can affect the other. We investigate a range of direct

impacts including those on physical and ecological systems, social and

economic systems, and coupled human-natural systems. Where relevant

to understanding, cascading impacts (where systems are tightly coupled)

and secondary (indirect) impacts also are noted.

8.2.2. Urbanization: Conditions,

Processes, and Systems within Cities

8.2.2.1. Magnitude and Connections to Climate Change

The spatial, temporal, and sustainability-related qualities of urbanization

are important for understanding the shifting, complex interactions between

climate change and urban growth. Given the significant and usually rising

levels of urbanization (Section 8.1.3), a growing proportion of the world’s

population will be exposed to the direct impacts of climate change in

urban areas (de Sherbinin et al., 2007; Revi, 2008; UN-HABITAT, 2011a).

Urban centers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America with fewer than a

million inhabitants are where most population growth is expected (UN

DESA Population Division, 2012), but these smaller centers are “often

institutionally weak and unable to promote effective mitigation and

adaptation actions” (Romero-Lankao and Dodman, 2011, p. 114).

Urbanization alters local environments via a series of physical phenomena

that can result in local environmental stresses. These include urban heat

islands (higher temperatures, particularly at night, in comparison to

outlying rural locations) and local flooding that can be exacerbated by

climate change. It is critical to understand the interplay among the

urbanization process, current local environmental change, and accelerating

climate change. For example, in the past, long-term trends in surface

air temperature in urban centers have been found to be associated with

the intensity of urbanization (Kalnay et al., 2006; He et al., 2007; Ren

et al., 2007; Stone, 2007; Fujibe, 2008, 2011; Jung, 2008; Rim, 2009;

Sajjad et al., 2009; Santos and Leite, 2009; Tayanç et al., 2009;

Kolokotroni et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2011; Iqbal and Quamar, 2011).

Climate change can influence these microclimate and localized regional

climate dynamics. For example, urbanization (micro scale to meso scale)

can strengthen and/or increase the range of the local urban heat island

(UHI) altering small-scale processes, such as a land-sea breeze effect,

katabatic winds, etc., and modifying synoptic scale meteorology (e.g.,

changes in the position of high pressure systems in relation to UHI

events). Climate modeling exercises indicate an “urban effect” that

leads locally to higher temperatures. Building material properties are

influential in creating different urban climate temperature regimes,

which can alter energy demand for climate control systems in buildings

(

Jackson et al., 2010).

The dense nature of many large cities has a pronounced influence on

anthropogenic heat emissions and surface roughness, linked to the level

of wealth, energy consumption, and micro and regional climate conditions.

Anthropogenic heat fluxes across large cities can average within a

range of approximately 10 to 150 W m

–2

but over small areas of the

city can be three to four times these values or even more (Flanner, 2009;

Allen et al., 2011). In London, an annual mean anthropogenic heat flux

of 10.9 has been observed (Iamarino et al., 2012) with higher values in

small areas of the city exceeding 100 (Allen et al., 2011) with a similar

range found in Singapore (13 W m

–

in low-density residential areas

and 113 W m

–

in high density commercial areas (Quah and Roth, 2012).

Values locally greater than 1000 W m

–2

have been calculated in Tokyo

(Ichinose et al., 1999). Strong seasonal, diurnal, and meteorological

variability in temperature also influence the level of significance of

urbanization-related changes on specific cities.

The large spatial extent and significant amount of built environment of

megacities (10 million or more inhabitants) can have significant impacts

on the local and regional energy balance and associated weather, climate,

and related environmental qualities such as air quality. Grimmond

(2011) found increasing evidence that cities can influence weather (e.g.,

rainfall, lightning) through complex urban land use-weather-climate

directional feedbacks (see also Ohashi and Kida, 2002). Spatially

massive urban centers also can affect downwind locations by raising

temperature and negatively impacting air quality (Bohnenstengel et al.,

2011). Megacity impact on air flows has been modeled for New York

and Tokyo (Holt and Pullen, 2007; Thompson et al., 2007; Holt et al.,

2009). Megacity-coastal interactions may impact the hydrological cycle

and pollutant removal processes through the development of fog,

clouds, and precipitation in cities and adjoining coastal areas (Ohashi

and Kida, 2002; Shepherd et al., 2002). Other modeling efforts define

building density and design and the scale of urban development as

important local determinants of the influence of urbanization on local

temperature shifts (Trusilova et al., 2008; Oleson, 2012).

8.2.2.2. Spatiality and Temporal Dimensions

Spatial settlement patterns are a critical factor in the interactions among

urbanization, climate-related risks, and vulnerability. One aspect is

density, ranging from concentrated to dispersed, with most planned

urban settlements decreasing in population density with distance from

the core (Solecki and Leichenko, 2006; Seto et al., 2012). In cities with

large fringe and unplanned settlements, this pattern can be reversed. In

both cases, urban growth is experienced through horizontal expansion

and sprawl (UN DESA Population Division, 2012), fostering extensive

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

552

networks of critical infrastructure, which are frequently vulnerable to

climate change (Rosenzweig et al., 2011; Solecki et al., 2011). Rapid

urban population growth in the last decade also has been increasingly

marked by growth in vertical density (high-rise living, and working),

especially in Asia. Higher density living offers opportunities for resource

conservation but also challenges for planning and urban management

(Section 8.3.3).

Urbanization is associated with changing dimensions of migration and

aterials flows into and out of cities and also within them (Grimm et

al., 2008). The level of increase (or in some cases decrease) of these

conditions creates a dynamic quality of risk in cities. Rapidly changing

cities must try to manage this growth through housing and infrastructure

development while simultaneously understanding the relative impact

of climate change. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, the combination

of relatively high population growth rates and increasing levels of

urbanization brings a rise in exposure to climate change impacts (Parnell

and Walawege, 2011). The conflation of local environmental change

resulting from urbanization with climate change shifts makes the

identification and implementation of effective adaptation strategies

more difficult. Water shortages, for instance, already a chronic concern

for many cities in low- and middle-income nations, typically worsen as

the population and demand continue to grow (Muller, 2007). Climate

change-related reductions or uncertainties in supply combine with this

existing instability to create the conditions for greater management and

governance crises (Milly et al., 2008; Gober, 2010).

8.2.2.3. Urbanization and Ecological Sustainability

The urbanization-climate change connection has important implications

for ecological sustainability. Climate change can accelerate ecological

pressures in cities, as well as interact with existing urban environmental,

economic, and political stresses (Wilbanks and Kates, 2010; Leichenko,

2011). This is an especially important in a world where transgressions

of key planetary boundaries such as climate change and biodiversity may

take humanity out of the globe’s “safe operating” space (Rockström et

al., 2009, p. 1) into an unsafe and unpredictable future. A study by

Trusilova et al. (2008) analyzes the urbanization-induced disturbances

of the carbon cycle in Europe through land use change, local climate

modification, and atmospheric pollution. This study shows that urban

effects spread far beyond the city’s boundaries and trigger complex

feedback/responses in the biosphere (Trusilova et al., 2008). Urbanization

changes land use cover, generally reduces the amount of ecologically

intact land, and causes fragmentation of the remaining land, which

reduces habitat value for species and increases the likelihood of further

ecological degradation.

The linkage between urbanization, ecological sustainability, and climate

change is well illustrated by the example of New Orleans. This city’s

geophysical vulnerability is shaped by its low-lying location, accelerating

subsidence, rising sea levels, and heightened intensity and frequency of

hurricanes—a combination of natural phenomena exacerbated by

settlement decisions, canal development, loss of barrier wetlands,

extraction of oil and natural gas, and the design, construction, and failure

of protective structures and rainfall storage” (Wilbanks and Kates, 2010,

p. 726; see also Ernstson et al., 2010). For cities in arid regions, already

struggling with water shortages often in the context of rising demand,

climate change may further reduce water availability because of shifts

in precipitation and/or evaporation (Gober, 2010).

8.2.2.4. Regional Differences and Context-Specific Risks

Case studies and regional reviews assessing urban vulnerabilities to

climate change have revealed diverse physical and societal challenges

nd large differences in levels of adaptive capacity (Hunt and Watkiss,

2011; Rosenzweig et al., 2011). Research on African cities (Simon, 2010;

Kithiia, 2011; Castán Broto et al., 2013 ) has highlighted the lack of

capacity and awareness of climate change, and often extremely high

levels of vulnerability among the continent’s large and rapidly growing

urban poor populations. Other reviews have considered cities in Latin

America (Hardoy and Romero-Lankao, 2011; Luque et al., 2013), North

America (Zimmerman and Faris, 2011), Europe (Carter, 2011), and Asia

(Alam and Rabbani, 2007; Kovats and Akhtar, 2008; Revi, 2008; Birkmann

et al., 2010; Liu and Deng, 2011). The global distribution of urban risks

is highly context specific, dynamic, and uneven among and within regions.

Absolute exposure to extreme events over the next few decades will

be concentrated in large cities and countries with urban populations in

low-lying coastal areas, as in many Asian nations (McGranahan et al.,

2007). Settlements located in river flood plains also are prone to flooding

during extreme or persistent precipitation/severe storm conditions.

Many cities include dangerous sites, such as steep slopes, low lands

adjacent to unprotected riverbanks, and ocean shorelines, and have

structures that do not meet building codes (Hardoy et al., 2001; Pelling,

2003). Context-specific risks and associated vulnerability also relates

to the socioeconomic status of residents. Women, children, health-

compromised people, and the elderly in informal settlements are

generally most vulnerable to climate change impacts. Poor access to

infrastructure and transport, low incomes, limited assets, and dangerous

locations can combine to put them at high risk from disasters (Moser

and Satterthwaite, 2009).

8.2.3. Climate Change and Variability Impacts:

Primary (Direct) and Secondary (Indirect) Impacts

Climate change will lead to increased frequency, intensity, and/or

duration of extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall, warm spells

and heat events, drought, intense storm surges, and associated sea level

rise (IPCC, 2007, 2012; Hunt and Watkiss, 2011; Romero-Lankao and

Dodman, 2011; Rosenzweig et al., 2011). Several urban aspects of these

changes are described below.

8.2.3.1. Urban Temperature Variation: Means and Extremes

The three maps in Figure 8-3 show where the world’s largest urban

agglomerations are concentrated in relation to changes in observed and

projected temperature. Figure 8-3a shows the location of the largest

urban agglomerations in 2010 against the backdrop of the observed

history of climate-induced temperature rise (1901–2012). The dot for

each urban agglomeration is color-coded according to its population

Urban Areas Chapter 8

553

Trend period 1901–2012 (°C over period)

–0.47 to –0.41

0.41 to 0.6

.01 to 0.2

–

0.4 to –0.21

–

0.2 to 0

0.61 to 0.8

.51 to 1.75

.251 to 1.5

.81 to 1

1.01 to 1.25

1.751 to 2.5

0.21 to 0.4

0.75–1 million

0 million or more

–5 million

5–10 million

5%+

1–3%

–5%

City population 2010 City population growth rate 1970–2010

°C

0.75–1 million

10 million or more

1–5 million

5–10 million

City population 2025

(a) Large urban agglomerations 2010 with observed climate change, trend period 1901–2012

(b) Large urban agglomerations 2025 with projected climate change for the mid-21st century using RCP2.6

0.19–0.5

2.51–3.0

1.51–2.0

0.51–1.0

1.01–1.5

3.01–3.5

5.01–5.5

4.51–5.0

3.51–4.0

4.01–4.5

5.51–6.0

2.01–2.5

6.01–8.0

Continued next page

Figure 8-3 | Large urban agglomerations and temperature change (maps drawn from IPCC, 2013; urban agglomeration population and population growth data from UN DESA

Population Division, 2012).

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

554

growth rate between 1970 and 2010. Those that had the most rapid

population growth rates for these 4 decades are strongly clustered in

Asia (especially in China and India) and in Latin America and sub-

Saharan Africa (with many on the coast). This map highlights the

temperature rise of greater than 1°C in areas in north and central Asia,

western Africa, South America, and parts of North America, indicating

the potential differential exposure of large cities to climate risk.

Figure 8-3b shows the location of the largest urban agglomerations

according to projected populations for 2025 within the world map

showing projected temperature changes for the mid-21st century, using

Representative Concentration Pathway 2.6 (RCP2.6). This is a scenario

with strong mitigation. Projected populations for urban agglomerations

were not made up to 2050 because there is no reliable basis for making

these. Each urban agglomeration’s future population is much influenced

by its economic performance and by social, demographic, economic,

and political changes that cannot be predicted so far into the future.

Assuming that almost all the large urban agglomerations in 2025 will

still be large urban agglomerations in 2050, Figure 8-3b suggests that

a number of large urban agglomerations in almost all continents, will be

exposed to a temperature rise of greater than 1.5°C (over preindustrial

levels) by mid-century, using the RCP2.6 scenario (IPCC, 2013).

Figure 8-3c shows a similar map showing projected temperature

changes for the mid-21st century but using the RCP8.5 scenario. This

scenario, based on unchanged current GHG emission trends by mid-

century, shows that the bulk of the world’s population living in the

largest urban agglomerations (based on their 2025 populations) will be

exposed to a minimum 2°C temperature rise over preindustrial levels,

excluding urban heat island effects. By late-century, under the RCP2.6

scenario, a number of the urban agglomerations that were among the

largest in 2025 will be exposed to temperature rise of up to 2.5°C over

preindustrial levels (excluding urban heat island effects), especially in

the high latitudes. This implies that mean temperature rise in some cities

could be greater than 4°C. The RCP8.5 scenario by late century (with

unchanged current GHG emission trends) shows that the bulk of the

world’s population living in large urban agglomerations will be exposed

to a minimum 2.5°C temperature rise. Some cities in high latitudes

experience a mean 3.5°C rise, or greater than 5°C when combined with

UHI effects. Peak seasonal temperatures could be even higher.

Temperature increases of 6°C to 8°C in the Arctic and temperature rise

in Antarctica would contribute to sea level rise that would impact

coastal cities across the world.

Increased frequency of hot days and warm spells will exacerbate urban

heat island effects, causing heat-related health problems (Hajat et al.,

2010) and, possibly, increased air pollution (Campbell-Lendrum and

Corvalan, 2007; Blake et al., 2011), as well as an increase in energy

demand for warm season cooling (Lemonsu et al., 2013). Conversely,

widespread reduction in periods of very cold weather will mean a

°C

0.19–0.5

2.51–3.0

1.51–2.0

0.51–1.0

1.01–1.5

3.01–3.5

5.01–5.5

4.51–5.0

3.51–4.0

4.01–4.5

5.51–6.0

2.01–2.5

0.75–1 million

10 million or more

1–5 million

5–10 million

City population 2025

6.01–8.0

Figure 8-3 (continued)

Urban Areas Chapter 8

555

decline in heating demands (Mideksa and Kallbekken, 2010) and

potential reduction in mortality from cold waves.

Climate change will modify UHIs in cities. Recent studies with physically

based models (McCarthy et al., 2010; Früh et al., 2011; Oleson, 2012) show

mixed signals, with reductions in UHI in many areas of the world and

increases in some in response to climate change simulations. London’s

nnual number of nights with heat islands stronger than 4ºC has increased

by 4 days per decade since the late 1950s; meanwhile, the average

nocturnal heat island intensity rose by approximately 0.1°C per decade

over the same period (Wilby, 2007). Projections suggest that by 2050,

London’s nocturnal UHI in August could rise another 0.5°C, representing

a 40% increase in the number of nights with intense UHI episodes (Wilby,

2007). However, McCarthy et al. (2011), looking specifically at London

and Manchester, found 0.1ºC or less (T

) increase in expected UHI by

the 2050s. Future projections of UHI under global warming conditions

were also conducted for Tokyo, where a potential increase of the UHI

intensity of 0.5ºC was defined (Adachi et al., 2012). Adachi et al. (2012)

model an increase in UHI from 1.0ºC to 1.5ºC by the 2070s. In addition

to the greater UHI intensity, air temperature in August is projected to

increase about 2ºC by the 2070s according to an average of five Global

Climate Models (GCMs) under the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

(SRES) A1B scenario (the range of uncertainty in GCMs is about 2ºC).

Climate change in New York City is expected to increase extended heat

waves, thus exacerbating existing UHI conditions (Rosenzweig et al.,

2009). Increased nighttime minimum temperatures are associated with

increased cooling demand and health-related stresses. For cities in India,

the implications of future climate for connections between urbanization

and the development of UHI have been defined (Mohan et al., 2011a,b,

2012). Overall, the current trend of increasingly frequent extreme events

is expected to increase with climate change (Manton, 2010). Comparison

of the annual mean minimum temperatures of two stations in Delhi

(Safdarjung and Palam) since the 1970s shows night temperature trends

synchronizing with the city’s pace of expansion (Mohan et al., 2011a).

8.2.3.2. Drought and Water Scarcity: Means and Extremes

Drought can have many effects in urban areas, including increases in

water shortages, electricity shortages (where hydropower is a source),

water-related diseases (through use of contaminated water), and food

prices and food insecurity from reduced supplies. These may all

contribute to negative economic impacts and increased rural to urban

migration (Vairavamoorthy et al., 2008; Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2010; Farley

et al., 2011). An estimated 150 million people currently live in cities with

perennial water shortage, defined as less than 100 liters per person per

day of sustainable surface and groundwater flow within their urban

extent. Averages across all climate change scenarios, noting the role of

demographic growth, suggest a large increase in this number, possibly

up to 1 billion by 2050 (McDonald et al., 2011).

8.2.3.3. Coastal Flooding, Sea Level Rise, and Storm Surge

Sea level rise represents one of the primary shifts in urban climate

change risks, given the increasing concentration of urban populations

in coastal locations and within low-elevation zones (McGranahan et al.,

2007). The new IPCC estimates for global mean sea level rise are for

between 26 and 98 cm by 2100; this is higher than the 18 to 59 cm

projected in AR4 (IPCC, 2013). Rising sea levels, the associated coastal

and riverbank erosion, or flooding in conjunction with storm surge could

have widespread effects on populations, property, and coastal vegetation

and ecosystems, and present threats to commerce, business, and

livelihoods (Nicholls, 2004; Dossou and Gléhouenou-Dossou, 2007;

Zanchettin et al., 2007; El Banna and Frihy, 2009; Carbognin et al., 2010;

avri, 2010; Hanson et al., 2011). This is well illustrated by several

large-scale recent disasters including Hurricane Sandy in the New York

metropolitan region. Lowland areas in coastal cities such as Lagos,

Mombasa, or Mumbai are usually more at risk of flooding, especially

where there is less provision for drainage (Awuor et al., 2008; Revi,

2008; Adelekan, 2010). Structures on infilled soils in the lowlands of

Lagos and Mumbai are more exposed to risks of flood hazards than

similar structures built on consolidated materials (Awuor et al., 2008;

Revi, 2008; Adelekan, 2010). Many near coastal cities such as Dhaka

have sites at risk from both riverine and coastal storm surge (Mehrotra

et al., 2011a).

Cities with extensive port facilities and large-scale petro-chemical and

energy-related industries are especially vulnerable to risks from increased

flooding (Hallegatte et al., 2013). Hanson et al. (2011) estimate the

change in flooding by the 2070s in the exposure of large port cities to

coastal flooding with scenarios of socioeconomic growth, sea level rise

and heightened storm surge, and subsidence. They find that with a

0.5 m rise in sea level, the population at risk could more than triple

while asset exposure is expected to increase more than 10-fold. The

“top 20” cities identified for both population and asset exposure to

coastal flooding in both the current and 2070 rankings are spread across

low-, middle-, and high-income nations, but are concentrated in Asian

deltaic cities. They include: Mumbai, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Miami, Ho

Chi Minh City, Kolkata, New York, Osaka-Kobe, Alexandria, Tokyo,

Tianjin, Bangkok, Dhaka, and Hai Phong. Using asset exposure as the

metric, cities in high-income nations and in China figure prominently:

Miami, New York City, Tokyo, and New Orleans as well as Guangzhou,

Shanghai, and Tianjin. Detailed site specific studies can define the local

level of sea level rise and other local factors such as harbor development,

dredging and erosion, groundwater withdrawal, and subsidence and

other factors.

8.2.3.4. Inland Flooding, Hydrological and

Geo-Hydrological Hazards at Urban Scale

Exposure to climate related hazards will vary with differences in the

geomorphologic characteristics of cities (Luino and Castaldini, 2011).

Heavy rainfall and storm surges would impact urban areas through

flooding, which in turn can lead to the destruction of properties and

public infrastructure, contamination of water sources, water logging,

loss of business and livelihood options, and increase in water-borne and

water-related diseases, as noted in wide range of studies (de Sherbinin

et al., 2007; Dossou and Gléhouenou-Dossou, 2007; Douglas et al.,

2008; Kovats and Akhtar, 2008; Revi, 2008; Roberts, 2008; Hardoy and

Pandiella, 2009; Nie et al., 2009; Adelekan, 2010; Sharma and Tomar, 2010;

Shepherd et al., 2011). Case studies of inland cities have considered the

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

556

elevated risk of flooding due to climate change, as in Kampala (Lwasa,

2010) and travel disruptions in Portland (Chang et al., 2010). There have

been significant research attempts to improve modelling of the frequency

and condition of extreme precipitation events and resulting flooding

(Nelson et al., 2008; Olsson et al., 2009; Onof and Arnbjerg-Nielsen,

2009; Sen, 2009; Ranger et al., 2011).

The review on the world-wide impacts of climate change on rainfall

extremes and urban drainage by Willems et al. (2012) has shown that

ypical increases in rainfall intensity at small urban hydrology scales range

from 10% to 60% from control periods in the recent past (typically

1961–1990) up to 2100. These changes in extreme short-duration

rainfall events may have significant impacts for urban drainage systems

and pluvial flooding. Results so far indicate more problems with sewer

sub-charging, sewer flooding, and more frequent combined sewer

overflow (CSO) spills. Extreme rainfall changes in the range of 10 to 60%

may lead to changes in flood and CSO frequencies and volumes in the

range 0 to 400% depending on system characteristics. This is because

floods and overflows, when runoff or sewer flow thresholds are exceeded,

can react to rainfall (changes) in a highly nonlinear way (Willems and

Vrac, 2011; Willems et al., 2012; Arnbjerg-Nielsen et al., 2013; Willems,

2013).

8.2.3.5. Emerging Human Health,

Disease, and Epidemiology Issues in Cities

WHO and WMO (2012) and Barata et al. (2011) note that climate

change may affect the future social and environmental determinants

of health, including clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food, and

secure shelter. There is good evidence that temperature extremes (heat

and cold) affect health, particularly mortality rates (see Section 11.2.2).

Increased warming and physiological stress on human comfort level is

predicted in a variety of cities in subtropical, semiarid, and temperate

sites (Thorsson et al., 2011; Blazejczyk et al., 2012); see also Figure 8-3.

For more discussion on cities and impacts of increased warming in

specific regions, see the regional chapters (Chapters 21 to 30).

Recent studies have illustrated the impact of heat stress on urban

populations in low- and middle-income countries (see, e.g., Burkart et

al., 2011, for Bangladesh and Egondi et al., 2012, for children in Nairobi’s

informal settlements).Hot days are known to have significant impacts

on health that can be exacerbated by both drought conditions and high

humidity. Studies in high-income countries show the elderly more

vulnerable to heat-related mortality (see Oudin Åström et al., 2011, for

a review of this).In urban settings where child mortality is high, extreme

temperatures have been shown to have an impact on mortality (e.g.,

Egondi et al., 2012). People in some occupations are more at risk, as they

are exposed to higher temperatures for long durations (see Hoa et al.,

2013) and low-income households are more at risk when heat waves

disrupt or limit income-earning opportunities (Kovats and Akhtar, 2008,

see also Section 11.2.7 for more detailed discussion of occupational heat

stress).

Climate change has implications for urban air quality (Athanassiadou

et al., 2010), air pollution, and health policy (WGI AR5 Chapter 11). The

impacts on urban air quality in particular urban areas are highly uncertain

and may include increases and decreases of certain pollutants (Jacob

and Winner, 2009; Weaver et al., 2009). Urban air quality in most cities

already is compromised by localized air pollution from transport and

industry, and often commercial and residential sources. Emerging literature

shows strong evidence that climate change will generally increase

ozone in the USA and Europe, but that the pattern of that change is not

clear, with some areas increasing and some decreasing (Katragkou et

al., 2011; Lam et al., 2011). The effects on particulate matter (PM) are

also unclear, as are the effects on ozone and PM outside of the USA

nd Europe (Dawson et al., 2013).

The incidence ofasthma exacerbation may be affected by climate

change-related increases in ground level ozone exposures (Kinney,

2008; Gamble et al., 2009; O’Neill and Ebi, 2009; Reid et al., 2009;

Barata et al., 2011); other pollutants may also be affected, particularly

in cities with PM10 and ozone levels far above WHO guidelines (WHO,

2011). Climate change may change the distribution, quantity, andquality

of pollen in urban areas, as well as the timing and duration of pollen

seasons. WHO and WMO (2012) notes that diarrheal diseases,

malnutrition, malaria, and dengue are climate sensitive and, in the

absence of appropriate adaptation, could be adversely affected by

climate change (see Chapter 11).

8.2.4. Urban Sectors: Exposure and Sensitivity

This section assesses how the observed and forecast direct impacts of

climate change influence the exposure of city residents, buildings,

infrastructure, and systems to risk. It considers key affected sectors and

populations and possible interrelations. Direct impacts include all costs

and losses attributed to the impact of hazard events, but exclude systemic

impacts, for example, on urban economies through price fluctuations

following a disaster or the impact of disaster losses on production

chains (UN ECLAC, 1991). Both the temporal and spatial scales of the

shifts in climate risk across cities and urbanizing sites in the next few

decades are considered. In addition, we analyze the change in the scale

and character of risks in cities, as climate extremes, means, and long-

term trends (e.g., sea level rise) change.

Climate change will have profound impacts on a broad spectrum of city

functions, infrastructure, and services and will interact with and may

exacerbate many existing stresses. These impacts can occur both in situ

and through long-distance connections with other cities and rural sites

of resource production and extraction (Wackernagel et al., 2006; Seto

et al., 2012). The interaction between climate change and existing

environmental stresses can lead to a range of synergies, challenges, and

opportunities for adaptation with complex interlinkages and often

highly uncertain or nonlinear processes (Ernstson et al., 2010). For

example, the 2007 floods in the city of Villahermosa, which covered

two-thirds of Tabasco State in Mexico, had serious consequences for

the city’s economic base, with damages and losses equivalent to 30%

of the state’s annual GDP (CEPAL, 2008). The flood that struck the Chao

Phraya River in 2011 caused a high loss of life and damages to many

companies and several industrial estates in Bangkok (estimated local

damage and loss was 3.5 trillion yen), but it also disrupted global scale

industrial supply chains (Komori et al., 2012). Urban centers serving

prosperous agricultural regions are particularly sensitive to climate

Urban Areas Chapter 8

557

change if water supply or particular crops are at risk. In Naivasha, Kenya,

drought threatens high-value export-oriented horticulture (Simon, 2010).

Urban centers that serve as major tourism destinations may suffer when

the weather becomes stormy or excessively hot and leads to a loss of

revenue. Recent assessments have projected the rising population and

asset exposure in large port cities (Munich Re, 2004; Hanson et al., 2011;

see also Section 8.2.3.3), alongside case studies in Copenhagen (Hallegatte

t al., 2011b) and Mumbai (Ranger et al., 2011). By 2070, the exposed

assets in cities such as Ningbo (China), Dhaka (Bangladesh), and Kolkata

(India) may increase by more than 60-fold (Hanson et al., 2011).

Infrastructure will similarly be affected by systemic and cascading

climate risks (Hunt and Watkiss, 2011). Climate stresses, particularly

extreme events, will have effects across interconnected urban systems,

within and across multiple sectors (Gasper et al., 2011). The cascading

effects are especially evident in the water, sanitation, energy, transport,

and communications sectors, owing to the often tightly coupled

character of urban infrastructure systems (see Rosenzweig and Solecki,

2010, for a discussion of this for New York City). The U.S. National

Climate Assessment effort has looked at the impacts of climate change

on infrastructure, considering the water, land, and energy nexus, as well

as on a large number of industries (Skaggs et al., 2012; Wilbanks et al.,

2012). These systemic cascades can have both direct and indirect

economic impacts (Hallegatte et al., 2011b; Ranger et al., 2011), which

can extend from the built environment to urban public health (Frumkin

et al., 2008; Keim, 2008). A critical element is the impact for infrastructure

investments with long operational lives, in some cases 100 years or

more (Hallegatte et al., 2011a). In low- and most middle-income

cities, very large additional investment is needed to address deficits in

infrastructure and services; without this investment, making the short-

to long-term trade-off to improve resilience is difficult (Dodman and

Satterthwaite, 2009). This is an opportunity for “climate smart”

infrastructure planning that considers how to combine pro-poor

development and climate change adaptation and mitigation. This is a more

difficult task for cities such as New York with dense aging infrastructure

and materials that “may not be able to withstand the projected strains

and stresses from a changing climate” (Zimmerman and Faris, 2010,

p. 63). These cities also have the opportunity, when replacing aging

infrastructure, to integrate climate considerations into the new

infrastructure decision-making processes.

8.2.4.1. Water Supply, Wastewater, and Sanitation

Water and sanitation systems affect household well-being and health,

as well as influencing urban economic activities, energy demands, and

the rural-urban water balance (Gober, 2010). Climate change will impact

residential water demand and supply and its management (O’Hara and

Georgakakos, 2008). Among the projected impacts are altered

precipitation and runoff patterns in cities, sea level rise and resulting saline

ingress, constraints in water availability and quality, and heightened

uncertainty in long-term planning and investment in water and waste

water systems (Muller, 2007; Fane and Turner, 2010; Major et al., 2011).

Local government departments and utilities responsible for water supply

and waste water management must confront these new climatic

patterns and major uncertainties in availabilities and learn to respond

to dynamic and evolving sets of constraints (Milly et al., 2008).

Climate change will increase the risk and vulnerability of urban

populations to reductions in groundwater and aquifer quality (e.g.,

Praskievicz and Chang, 2009; Taylor and Stefan, 2009), subsidence, and

increased salinity intrusion. High levels of groundwater extraction have

led to serious subsidence problems in cities such as Bangkok (Babel et al.,

2006) and Mexico City (Romero-Lankao, 2010), which damage buildings,

fracture pipes, and can increase flood risks (see also Jha et al., 2012).

This problem can be compounded in coastal cities when saline intrusion

reduces groundwater quality and erodes structures.

In many rapidly developing cities, the impact of climate change on water

supplies will interact with growing population, growing demand, and

economic pressures, potentially heightening water stress and negative

impacts on the natural resource base, with effects for water quality and

quantity. Caribbean nations, for example, with their expanding middle-

class urban population, face sharply raised demands for water and the

associated challenges of managing runoff, storm water, and solid wastes.

Projected reductions in rainfall amounts at specific times in particular

locations would aggravate such water stresses (Cashman et al., 2010).

In Shanghai, climate change is expected to bring decreased water

availability as well as flooding, groundwater salinization, and coastal

subsidence. The city’s population of 17 million is projected to continue

expanding, often within areas that are “likely increasingly flood-prone”

(de Sherbinin et al., 2007, p. 60). Groundwater depletion has contributed

to land subsidence in these already vulnerable areas, reinforcing the

water stresses and risks of erosion (de Sherbinin et al., 2007). In several

large Andean cities, including Lima, La Paz, and Quito, declining volumes

of glacial melt water have been observed, with expected further declines

(Buytaert et al., 2010; Chevallier et al., 2011).

Several studies estimate how climate change will alter relationships

among water users, exacerbating tensions and conflicts between the

various end users (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and

infrastructural) (Roy et al., 2012; Tidwell et al., 2012). In small and mid-

sized African cities, the effect of flooding on well water quality is a

growing concern (Cissé et al., 2011). Floods, droughts, and heavy rainfall

have also impacted agriculture and urban food sources, and can

exacerbate food and water scarcity in urban areas (Gasper et al., 2011).

But not all water systems are projected to experience negative impacts.

Chicago’s Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) found that

reduced precipitation due to climate change would decrease pumping

and general operations costs, as sewers will contain less rainwater in

drier seasons (Hayhoe et al., 2010).

Wastewater and sanitation systems will be increasingly overburdened

during extreme precipitation events if attention is not paid to maintenance,

the limited capacity of drainage systems in old cities, or lack of provision

for drainage in most unplanned settlements and in many urban centers

(Wong and Brown, 2009; Howard et al., 2010; Mitlin and Satterthwaite,

2013). In the city of La Ceiba, Honduras, stakeholders concluded that

urban drainage and improved management of the Rio Cangrejal

watershed were top priorities for protection against projected climate

change impacts; the city lacks a stormwater drainage system but

experiences regular flooding (Smith et al., 2011).

Flooding is often made worse by uncontrolled city development that

builds over natural drainage channels and flood plains or by a failure

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

558

to maintain drainage channels (often blocked by solid wastes where

waste collection is inadequate). These problems are most evident in

cities where there are no drains or sewers to help cope with heavy

precipitation (Douglas et al., 2008) and no service to collect solid wastes

(in many cities in low-income nations, less than half the population has

regular solid waste collection; see Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012).

Many cities in high-income nations also face challenges. An analysis of

three cities in Washington State, assessing future streamflows and peak

discharges, concluded that “concern over present (drainage) design

tandards is warranted” (Rosenberg et al., 2010, p. 347). Climate change

was identified as a key driver affecting Britain’s future sewer systems.

According to the model used, the volume of sewage released to the

environment by combined sewage overflow spills and flooding was

projected to increase by 40% (Tait et al., 2008).

8.2.4.2. Energy Supply

Energy exerts a major influence on economic development, health, and

quality of life. Any climate change-related disruption or unreliability in

power or fuel supplies can have far-reaching consequences, affecting

urban businesses, infrastructure, services (including healthcare and

emergency services) and residents, as well as water treatment and

supply, rail-based public transport, and road traffic management

(Jollands et al., 2007; Finland Safety Investigations Authority, 2011;

Halsnæs and Garg, 2011; Hammer et al., 2011).

Past experiences with power outages indicate some of the knock-on

effects (Chang et al., 2007). New York City’s blackout of 2003 lasted 28

hours and halted mass transport, surface vehicles due to signaling

outages, and water supply (Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010). A review of

climate change impacts on the electricity sector (Mideksa and Kallbekken,

2010) projects reductions in the efficiency of water cooling for large

electricity-generating facilities, changes in hydropower and wind power

potential, and changing demand for heating or cooling in the USA and

Europe. Low-income households in Chittagong use candles or kerosene

lamps during frequent power outages; this was found to disturb children’s

studies, increase expenses, and overheat homes (Rahman et al., 2010).

Climate change will alter patterns of urban energy consumption,

particularly with respect to the energy needed for cooling or heating (for

a review, see Mideksa and Kallbekken, 2010). Climate change will bring

increases in air conditioning demand and in turn heightened electricity

demand (Radhi, 2009; see also Hayhoe et al., 2010, for a discussion of

this in relation to Chicago). In temperate and more northern regions,

winter temperature increases may decrease energy demand (Mideksa

and Kallbekken, 2010). In most cases within individual cities, potential

increases in summertime electricity demand from climate change will

exceed reductions in winter energy demand reductions (Hammer et al.,

2011). Less is known about the demand-side impacts in low- and lower-

middle-income nations, where large sections of the urban population still

lack access to electricity (Johansson et al., 2012; Satterthwaite and Sverdlik,

2012). Most of these nations are expected, as noted, to have increased

mean temperatures or rising frequency of heat waves (IPCC, 2007).

Many cities’ economies will be affected if water scarcity and variability

interrupt hydropower supplies. For instance, reductions in hydroelectric

generation will have impacts on the economies of many urban centers

in Brazil as well as in neighboring countries (de Lucena et al., 2009,

2010; Schaeffer et al., 2011). Cities in sub-Saharan Africa often rely on

hydropower for their electricity, and failures in supplies can lead “to a

more general ‘urban failure’” (Muller, 2007, p. 106). Laube et al. (2006)

discuss water shortages in Ghana following low precipitation periods,

and the potential for competition between hydropower and water

provision, including to downstream urban centers. Declining water

levels in the Hoover Dam have raised the possibility that Los Angeles

ill lose a major power source, and that Las Vegas will face a severe

decline in drinking water availability (Gober, 2010).

Summer heat waves, with spikes in demand for air conditioning, can

result in brownouts or blackouts (Mirasgedis et al., 2007; Mideksa and

Kallbekken, 2010). Cities in the temperate regions of Australia already

experience regular blackouts on hot summer days, largely due to

residential air-conditioner use (Maller and Strengers, 2011). Research

in Boston suggested that rising energy demands in hotter summers have

meant a “disproportional impact on (the) elderly and poor, increased

energy expenditures; loss of productivity and quality of life” (Kirshen

et al., 2008, p. 241). Any increase in the frequency or intensity of storms

may disrupt electricity distribution systems because of the collapse of

power lines and other infrastructure (Rosenzweig et al., 2011; see also

Chapter 10).

8.2.4.3. Transportation and Telecommunications

Climate change-related extreme events will affect urban transportation

and telecommunication infrastructure, including a variety of capital

stock, such as bridges and tunnels, roads, railways, pipelines, and port

facilities, data sensors, and wire and wireless networks (Koetse and

Rietveld, 2009; Hallegatte et al., 2011a; Jacob et al., 2011; Major et al.,

2011). In the Gulf Coast region of the United States, 27% of major

roads, 9% of rail lines, and 72% of ports are at or below 122 cm (4 ft)

in elevation. With a storm surge of 7 m (23 ft), more than half the area’s

major highways, almost half the rail miles, 29 airports, and virtually all

the ports are subject to flooding (Savonis et al., 2008). Assessing

possible disruptions of transport networks within cities and urban

systems is critical. Loss of telecommunication access during extreme

weather events can inhibit disaster response and recovery efforts

because of its critical role in providing logistical support for such activity

(Jacob et al., 2011).

Ports are central to international trade and climate change poses

substantial challenges related to exposed locations in coastal zones,

low-lying areas, and deltas; long lifespans of key infrastructure and

interdependencies with trade, shipping, and inland transport services

that are also vulnerable (Oh and Reuveny, 2010; Asariotis and Benamara,

2012). Hurricane Sandy crippled the New York region, leading to a

week-long shut-down of one of the largest container ports in the USA

(Hallegatte et al., 2013).

Large sections of the urban population in low- and middle-income nations

live in settlements without all-weather roads and paths that allow

for emergency vehicle access and rapid evacuation. For instance, in

Chittagong, Bangladesh, extremely narrow roads limit emergency access

Urban Areas Chapter 8

559

to most informal neighborhoods, exacerbating health and fire risks

(Rahman et al., 2010). In Lagos’s informal settlements, a 2006 resident

survey ranked roads second to drainage in terms of needed facilities

(Adelekan, 2010). Evacuations in low-income areas may also be

hampered by hazardous locations, absence of public transport, and

inadequate governance. Following the 2003 and 2006 floods in Santa Fe,

Argentina, the lack of information and official evacuation mechanisms

revented timely responses; some residents also chose to stay in their

homes to protect their possessions from looters (Hardoy and Pandiella,

2009).

Low-income urban residents can also be profoundly affected during and

after extreme weather events that damage critical public transit links,

prevent access to work, and heighten exposure to health risks.

Interviews in Georgetown, Guyana, found that the limited transport

access of low-income households during floods made them more prone

to losing time from work or school, compared to wealthier households.

Poorer households rarely owned cars, and wading barefoot through

floodwaters exposed them to water-borne pathogens (Linnekamp et al.,

2011). Some studies find urban women walk or use public transport

more than men (World Bank, 2010c); hence, the gendered impact of

transport disruptions may merit greater consideration (UN-HABITAT,

2011a; Levy, 2013).

The literature on urban transport and climate change focuses more on

mitigation, with less attention to vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation

(Hunt and Watkiss, 2011). Existing studies on impacts are often limited

to the short-term demand side, particularly in passenger transport

(Koetse and Rietveld, 2009). However, climate change creates several

challenges for transport systems. The daily functioning of most transport

systems is already sensitive to fluctuations in precipitation, temperature,

winds, visibility, and for coastal cities, rising sea levels with the associated

risks of flooding and damages (Love et al., 2010). Transport is highly

vulnerable to climate variability and change, and the economic importance

of transport systems has increased with the rise of just-in-time delivery

methods, heightening the risk of losses due to extreme weather (Gasper

et al., 2011).

In addition to adapting road transport, cities should ensure bridges,

railway cuttings, and other hard infrastructure is resilient to climate

change over their service lifespan (Jaroszweski et al., 2010). Few studies

have examined the effects of climate change on railways, but rail system

failures are known to be related to high temperatures, icing, and storms

(Koetse and Rietveld, 2009; see Dobney et al., 2008, for future heat-

related delays in UK railways; also Palin et al., 2013, offers a broad

discussion of climate change effects on the UK rail network). Very

few studies have examined the vulnerability of air- and sea-borne

transport and infrastructure, but climate change could mean more and

lengthier weather-related delays and disruption (Eurocontrol, 2008;

Becker et al., 2012).

Loss of sea ice can benefit some cities by increasing opportunities for

developing road networks or ports. However, it may be costly to adapt

road, air, and water transport networks to the known environmental

risks associated with such redevelopment (Larsen et al., 2008). For

industries and communities in northern Canada, reduced freshwater-

ice levels creates longer shipping seasons and could also promote new

seaports in marine environments. But thawing of permafrost can also

result in instability and major damage to roads, infrastructure, and

buildings in and around northern cities and towns, and inland towns

will require sizable investments to replace winter ice roads with land-

based roads (Prowse et al., 2009).

The direct impacts of extreme weather on transport are more easily

assessed than the indirect impacts or possible knock-on effects

between systems. Studies have often examined the direct impacts of

looding on transport infrastructure, but the indirect costs of delays,

detours, and trip cancellation may also be substantial (Koetse and

Rietveld, 2009). Mumbai’s 2005 floods caused injuries, deaths, and

property damage but also serious indirect impacts as most city services

were shut down without contact via rail, road, or air (Revi, 2005). Transport

and other urban infrastructure networks are often interdependent and

located in close proximity to one another, yet only a few assessments

have considered the joint impacts (Kirshen et al., 2008; Hayhoe et al.,

2010).

Transportation systems are critical for effective disaster response—for

example, where populations have to be evacuated prior to an approaching

storm or where provision is urgently needed for food, water, and

emergency services to affected populations.

Key elements in cities’ communications systems may have to be

strengthened—for instance, to avoid masts toppling due to strong

winds and electrical support facilities that need to be moved or

protected against flooding (Zimmerman and Faris, 2010, p. 74). New

York City’s dispersed communications network faces several climate-

related risks. Electrical support facilities can be flooded; cell phone

towers can topple in strong winds or become corroded as sea levels rise

(Zimmerman and Faris, 2010). In Alaska, telecommunications towers

are settling as a result of warming permafrost (Larsen et al., 2008).

Emergencies may generate a demand for communications that exceeds

systems’ capacities. During the extreme rainfall event in 2005, Mumbai’s

telecommunications networks ceased to function due to a mix of

overload, shut down of the power system, and lack of diesel supplies

for generators (Revi, 2005).

8.2.4.4. Built Environment, and Recreation and Heritage Sites

Housing ideally provides its occupants with a comfortable, healthy, and

secure living environment and protects them from injuries, losses,

damage, and displacement (Haines et al., 2013). For many low-income

households, livelihoods also depend on home-based enterprises, and

housing is key to protecting their assets and preventing disruption of

their incomes. Decent housing has particular importance for vulnerable

groups, including infants and young children (Bartlett, 2008), older

residents, or those with disabilities or chronic health conditions.

Urban housing is often the major part of the infrastructure affected by

disasters, according to Jacobs and Williams (2011). Extreme events such

as cyclones and floods inflict a heavy toll, particularly on structures built

with informal building materials and outside of safety standards

(UNISDR, 2011). Dhaka’s 1998 floods damaged 30 percent of the city’s

units; of these, more than two-thirds were owned by the lower-middle

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

560

classes and the poorest (Alam and Rabbani, 2007). Adelekan (2012)

shows that a relatively modest increase in wind speeds during storms

caused widespread damage in central Ibadan. Relative to the preceding

decade, the period from 1998 to 2008 showed higher mean maximum

wind gusts and more frequent windstorms with peak gusts greater than

48 knots, and the impacts were severe in part because of the high

concentration of residents in damaged buildings. Increased climate

variability, warmer temperatures, precipitation shifts, and increased

humidity will accelerate the deterioration and weathering of stone

nd metal structures in many cities (Grossi et al., 2007; Thornbush

and Viles, 2007; Smith et al., 2008; Bonazza et al., 2009; Stewart et al.,

2011).

Recreational sites such as parks and playgrounds will also be affected.

In New York City, these are defined as critical infrastructure and are

often located in low elevation areas subject to storm surge flooding

(Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010). Little research has examined the effects

on urban tourism in particular (Gasper et al., 2011).

The increased risks that climate change brings to the built environment

(Spennemann and Look, 1998; Wilby, 2007) also apply to built heritage.

This has led to the Venice Declaration on Building Resilience at the

Local Level Towards Protected Cultural Heritage and Climate Change

Adaptation Strategies, which brings together UNESCO, UN-HABITAT, EC,

and individual city mayors. An example is Saint-Louis in Senegal, a

coastal city and World Heritage Site on the mouth of the Senegal river,

which has frequent floods and large areas at risk from river and coastal

flooding. There are initiatives to reduce flooding risks and relocate

families from locations most at risk, but the local authority has very

limited investment capacity (Diagne, 2007; Silver et al., 2013).

8.2.4.5. Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services

Climate change will alter ecosystem functions affected by changes in

temperature and precipitation regimes, evaporation, humidity, soil

moisture levels, vegetation growth rates (and allergen levels), water

tables and aquifer levels, and air quality. It will also accentuate the value

of ecosystems services and green infrastructure for adaptation. “Green

infrastructure” refers to interventions to preserve the functionality of

existing green landscapes (including parks, forests, wetlands, or green

belts), and to transform the built environment through phytoremediation

and water management techniques and by introducing productive

landscapes (Foster et al., 2011b; La Greca et al., 2011; Zhang et al.,

2011). These can influence the effectiveness of pervious surfaces used

in storm water management, green/white/blue roofs, coastal marshes

used for flood protection, urban agriculture, and overall biomass

production. Mombasa will experience more variable rainfall as a result

of climate change, making the expansion of green infrastructure more

difficult (Kithiia and Lyth, 2011). Trees in British cities will be increasingly

prone to heat stress and attacks by pests, including new non-native

pathogens and pests that can survive under warmer or wetter

conditions (Tubby and Webber, 2010). Urban coastal wetlands will be

inundated with sea level rise. In New York City, remnant coastal wetlands

will be lost to sea level rise because bulk heading and intensive coastal

development will prevent their natural movement inland (Gaffin et al.,

2012).

8.2.4.6. Health and Social Services

The effects of climate change will also be evident across urban public

services including health and social care provision, education, police,

and emergency services (Barata et al., 2011, see also Chapter 11). Most

urban centers in low-income nations and many in middle-income

ations lack adequate social and public service provision (Bartlett, 2008;

UN-HABITAT, 2003a) while higher-income cities are only beginning to

consider climate change in their health or disaster management plans

(Brody et al., 2010).

Although there are few studies on adapting education, police, or other

key services, a growing public health literature has discussed multi-

sectoral adaptation strategies (Huang et al., 2011). Cities’ existing public

health measures provide a foundation for adapting to climate change,

such as heat warning systems or disease surveillance (McMichael et al.,

2008; Bedsworth, 2009). Negative climate impacts have been highlighted

on some of the most vulnerable in society—including children (Ebi and

Paulson, 2010; Sheffield and Landrigan, 2011; Watt and Chamberlain,

2011), the elderly (White-Newsome et al., 2011; Oven et al., 2012),

and the severely disadvantaged (Ramin and Svoboda, 2009; see also

Chapter 11).

8.2.5. Urban Transition to Resilience and Sustainability

The question of how to promote increased resilience and enhanced

sustainability in urban areas (as illustrated in Table 8-2) has become a

central research topic and policy consideration. It is well recognized that

climate change risks affect this process by heightening uncertainties

and altering longstanding patterns of environmental risk in cities, many

of which continue to face other significant stressors such as rapid

population growth, increased pollution, resource demands, and

concentrated poverty (Wilbanks and Kates, 2010; Mehrotra et al.,

2011a). This section discusses how climate change increasingly affects

municipal decision-making frames and alters local conceptions of

cities as vehicles for economic growth, for political change, for meeting

livelihoods and basic needs, as well as larger-scale goals of resilience

and sustainability.

In recent years, different models of urban environmental transition have

been introduced to illustrate the connections between health hazards

and environmental impacts as cities and neighborhoods develop—for

example, shifts from a “sanitary city” focused on public health and basic

service provision to a “sustainable city” focused on long-term planning,

resource efficiency, and ecosystem services (McGranahan, 2007). The

latter includes consideration of a city’s use of global and local sinks for

wastes that lie outside its boundaries (McGranahan, 2007; Wilson,

2012). Within these models, key variables have been identified that

make cities vulnerable to climate change (e.g., extensive infrastructure

networks, high-density population in exposed or other sensitive sites).

There is the opportunity to promote societal transition that enhances

resiliency and adaptive capacity in the face of accelerated climate

change (Gusdorf et al., 2008; Ernstson et al., 2010; Mdluli and Vogel,

2010; Tompkins et al., 2010; Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete, 2011;

Pelling, 2011a). Transition in this context can take place at a broad

Urban Areas Chapter 8

561

Key risk Adaptation issues & prospects

Climatic

drivers

Risk & potential for

adaptation

Timeframe

Damaging

cyclone

Ocean

acidiﬁcation

Climate-related drivers of impacts

Warming

trend

Extreme

precipitation

Extreme

temperature

Sea

level

Level of risk & potential for adaptation

Potential for additional adaptation

to reduce risk

isk level with

current adaptation

isk level with

high adaptation

Drying

trend

Snow

cover

Flooding

resent

°C

4°C

ery

low

ery

high

edium

resent

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

ery

low

ery

high

edium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Near term

(

2030 – 2040)

ong term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

ong term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Table 8-3 | Urban areas: Current and indicative future climate risks. Key risks are identiﬁed based on an assessment of the literature and expert judgments by Chapter 8 authors,

with the evaluation of evidence and agreement presented in supporting chapter sections. Each key risk is characterized as very low to very high. For the near-term era of

committed climate change (2030–2040), projected levels of global mean temperature increase do not diverge substantially across emission scenarios. For the longer-term era of

climate options (2080–2100), risk levels are presented for global mean temperature increases of 2°C and 4°C above pre-industrial levels. For each time frame, risk levels are

estimated for a continuation of current adaptation and for a hypothetical highly adapted state.

Climate change will have profound impacts on urban infrastructure systems and services, the

built environment, and ecosystem services and hence on urban economies and populations.

This could exacerbate existing social, economic, and environmental drivers of risk, especially

for vulnerable groups who lack essential services. An appropriate urban governance frame and

coordinated urban adaptation focused on the built environment, improved infrastructure, and

services and risk reduction has signiﬁcant potential for reducing key climate risks in the

medium term and especially in the long term.

oastal cities with extensive port facilities and large-scale industries are vulnerable to

ncreased ﬂood exposure. High-growth cities located on low-lying coastal areas are also at

reater risk. There is a possibility of nonlinear increase in coastal vulnerability over the next

wo decades.

Ecosystem services will be impacted by altered ecosystem functions such as temperature and

precipitation regimes, evaporation, humidity, and soil moisture levels, indicating close links

with sustainable water management. Knowledge gaps exist with respect to thresholds to

adaptation of various ecosystems.

Adaptation response requires changes to network infrastructure as well as demand side

management, to ensure sufﬁcient water supplies, increased capacities to manage reduced

freshwater availability, ﬂood risk reduction, and water quality.

Managing waste water ﬂows improves water supply and ecosystem services. Reducing

vulnerability of infrastructure may be easier in new areas, well-funded local bodies, or as part

of scheduled interventions.

Green infrastructure not utilized sufﬁciently in most cities. Climate change impacts can bring

attention to the dual beneﬁts of green infrastructure for climate change mitigation and impact

management.

Most urban centers are energy intensive, with energy-related climate policies focused only on

mitigation measures. A few cities have adaptation initiatives underway for critical energy

systems. There is great potential for non-adapted, centralized energy systems to magnify and

cascade impacts to national or transboundary consequences from localized extreme events.

Modal urban

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.2, 8.3, 8.4]

oastal zone systems

(

medium conﬁdence)

[

8.2, 8.3]

Terrestrial ecosystems and

ecological infrastructure

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.2, 8.3]

Water supply systems

(high conﬁdence)

[8.2, 8.3]

Waste water system

(high conﬁdence)

[8.2, 8.3, 8.4]

Green built infrastructure

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3]

Energy systems

(high conﬁdence)

[8.2, 8.4]

Continued next page

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

562

Key risk

Adaptation issues & prospects

Climatic

drivers

Risk & potential for

adaptation

Timeframe

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

resent

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

resent

2°C

4°C

ery

low

ery

high

edium

resent

2°C

4°C

ery

low

ery

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

ery

low

ery

high

Medium

Near term

(

2030 – 2040)

ong term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(

2030 – 2040)

ong term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Present

°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

edium

Near term

(

2030 – 2040)

Long term

(

2080 – 2100)

rban food sources are dependent on local, regional, and often global 8.2, 8.3 supplies.

limatic drivers can exacerbate food insecurity, especially of the urban poor. Enhanced

ocial safety nets can support adaptation measures. Urban and peri-urban agriculture,

ocal markets, and green roofs hold good prospects as adaptive measures, but are

nder-utilised in rapidly growing cities.

difﬁcult sector to adapt due to large existing stock, especially in developed country

ities, leading to potentially large secondary economic impacts with regional and

otentially global consequences for trade and business. Emergency response requires

ell-functioning transport infrastructure.

esilient communication systems are a critical component of emergency response, and

herefore adaptation. The rise of decentralized and networked mobile communications

ffers great potential for real-time and easily accessed information dissemination and

ommunication systems. Information quality control is a key element in realizing the

otential of communications systems

or early warning and adaptation.

Poor quality, inappropriately located housing is often most vulnerable to extreme events.

Adaptation options include enforcement of building regulations and upgrading. Some

city studies show the potential to adapt housing and promote mitigation, adaptation,

and development goals simultaneously. Rapidly growing cities, or those rebuilding after a

disaster, especially have opportunities to increase resilience, but this is rarely realized.

Without adaptation, risks of economic losses from extreme events are substantial in

cities with high-value infrastructure and housing assets, with broader economic effects

possible.

Informal economy is more vulnerable, and often less adaptive in the short term. Social

protection measures, in the speciﬁc context of urban livelihoods, are required.

Reducing basic service deﬁcit could reduce hazard exposure, especially of the poor and

vulnerable, alongside upgrading of informal settlements, improved housing conditions

and enabling the agency of low-income communities. Signiﬁcant prospects where

adaptation is already being implemented as part of human development or social

protection.

Health is a higher order risk impacted by key developmental issues including water

supply, water and air quality, waste management, housing quality, sanitation, food

security, and provision of health care services and insurance. Certain groups of people

are particularly vulnerable, such as the elderly, the chronically ill, the poor, and the very

young, and require targeted social care interventions. Longer term developmental

improvements need considerable ﬁnancial resources and coherent intergovernmental

action, limiting prospects for near-term adaptation.

Security is linked to key developmental issues such as income, housing, health care,

education, and food security. Moderate prospects as city governments can enhance

emergency response services, to signiﬁcantly reduce vulnerability for those who are most

at risk. Where security and emergency forces have limited public trust, and especially

with regard to gender issues, scope for supporting adaptation and risk management is

considerably constrained.

Large diversity across cities in terms of key economic sectors and adaptive capacity to

disruptions in city services. Cities reliant on climate-sensitive tourism or agriculture may

require economic diversiﬁcation. Good prospects for advancing co-beneﬁts through

“green”and “waste”economy.

Food systems and security

(high conﬁdence)

[8.2, 8.3]

Transportation systems

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.2, 8.3]

ommunication systems

(

medium conﬁdence)

[

8.2, 8.3]

rban risks associated with

ousing (high conﬁdence)

[

8.3]

Human health

(high conﬁdence)

[8.2, 8.3, 8.4]

Human security and emergency

response

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3, 8.4]

Key economic sectors and

services (medium conﬁdence)

[8.2, 8.3]

Livelihoods

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3]

Poverty and access to basic

services (high conﬁdence)

[8.3]

Table 8-3 (continued)

Urban Areas Chapter 8

563

scale, but can also often occur with incremental changes, potentially

precipitating regime level shifts (Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete, 2011).

Although such shifts also can happen as a result of discrete regime

failure (Pelling, 2011a), this is less common. Such transformational

changes have been observed in a variety of urban disaster contexts.

Most often they follow urban earthquake events (e.g., in Nicaragua,

Guatemala, Turkey) but are also associated with flooding in Bangladesh

(

Pelling, 2011a). Disasters can enable regime level change at moments

in history where competing approaches to development have political

voice, an organizational base that articulates competing analysis of the

causes of the disaster, and weak systemic counter response (Pelling,

2001a).

Climate change may exacerbate existing social and economic stressors

in cities with the potential to affect urban livelihoods, engender political

or social upheaval, or generate other negative impacts upon human

security (Bunce et al., 2010; Siddiqi, 2011; Simon and Leck, 2010; see

Chapters 22-30 for more detail). Climate change could potentially

contribute to violent conflicts and spur migration from highly vulnerable

sites in cities or increasingly environmentally stressed locales (Reuveny,

2007; Adamo, 2010; de Sherbinin et al., 2011). But there is considerable

uncertainty regarding projections.

Migration may represent an important household strategy to adapt by

diversifying income sources and livelihoods (Tacoli, 2009). Although

climate change can significantly disrupt livelihoods, outcomes will

depend on particular social structures, state institutions, and other

broader determinants of human security (Barnett and Adger, 2007). In

sum, “dwindling resources in an uncertain political, economic and social

context are capable of generating conflict and instability, and the causal

mechanisms are often indirect” between climate and conflict (Beniston,

2010, p. 567).

Different management solutions to climate change also have implications

for equity (Pelling et al., 2012). For example, the privatization of urban

water supply and sanitation systems can advantage specific groups over

others. Conversely, community-based solutions that also build social

capital can be a component in generating urban resilience. However,

even these solutions may exacerbate inequality at the city level, with

only those local areas with strong levels of social capital being able

to benefit most from community led action or garner support from

international and national partners (UN-HABITAT, 2007; Pelling et al.,

2012).

Table 8-3 serves as the link between Section 8.2 (which focuses on

climate change risks and impacts) and Section 8.3 (which focuses on

adaptation). It summarizes key risks from climate change to urban areas

and the potential to reduce risk through adaptation for the present,

near term (2030–2040), and long term (2080–2100). Table 8-6 has

comparable summaries of key risks and potential for adaptation for Dar

es Salaam, Durban, London, and New York City. For the long term, under

a global mean temperature increase of 2°C above preindustrial levels,

many key risks increase from the near term. High adaptation can reduce

these risk levels, although for most key risks not as much as high

adaptation in the near term. For the long term under a temperature

increase of 4°C above preindustrial levels, almost all key risks are “very

high” and with many of them remain very high with high adaptation.

8.3. Adapting Urban Areas

.3.1. Introduction

Since the Fourth Assessment Report, the literature on urban climate

change adaptation has increased significantly, especially in three aspects:

• The examination of risks and vulnerabilities for particular cities

• The definition of “resilience” and identification of opportunities to

strengthen resilience at all scales

• Documentation produced by or for particular city governments on

daptation.

There is less on local government decisions to include adaptation in

plans and investment programs, but see Solecki (2012) and Roberts

(2008, 2010) for exceptions. As described below, studies have also

examined how to link adaptation and city development plans and

adaptation measures for key sectors.

It has been suggested that “the complexities and uncertainties associated

with climate change pose by far the greatest challenges that planners

have ever been asked to handle” (Susskind, 2010, p. 219). Municipal

and higher-level adaptation plans will need to take into account

uncertainty about future climates and extremes. These will need to

consider direct and indirect economic costs, including the trade-off of

inaction and locking into ill-adapted infrastructure versus investment

in adaptation when climate change is less than anticipated (Hallegatte

et al., 2007a). Several U.S. studies have considered the cost on inaction

for specific states (Niemi et al., 2009a,b,c; Repetto, 2011a,b, 2012a,b,c,d;

Backus et al., 2012; Wilbanks et al., 2012).

While local governments are the fulcrum of urban adaptation planning,

challenges include inadequate resources and technical capacities and

a lack of data on climate-related risks and vulnerabilities. Existing

climate models are not downscaled to the city level. Data on climate

change risks are infrequently collected and often fragmented across city

government departments (Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009). Many proposed

adaptation measures respond to specific local or regional hazard risks

that may not be directly climate related (Bulkeley, 2010). To encourage

local dialog in adaptation planning, urban climate data need to be

integrated geographically, across time scales, and consider the range

of regional benefits and costs of climate policy (Ruth, 2010).

8.3.2. Development Plans and Pathways

As AR4 emphasized, many of the forces shaping greenhouse gas

emissions also underlie development pathways—including the scale,

nature, and location of investment in infrastructure (Wilbanks et al.,

2007). These influence the form and geography of urban development

as well as the scale and location of climate-related risks to urban

buildings, enterprises, and populations. Local, provincial, and national

governments share responsibility for encouraging new investments and

migration flows away from high-risk sites through climate-sensitive

disaster risk management, urban planning, and zoning and infrastructure

investments. But the priority given to economic growth usually

means this is rarely implemented with vigor (Douglass, 2002; Reed et

al., 2013).

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

564

8.3.2.1. Adaptation and Development Planning

Urban adaptation is becoming important to some national and regional

governments and many city governments. In high-income countries,

interactions and division of responsibility between national and local

level have been examined (see, e.g., Massetti et al., 2007, for Italy and

uhola and Westerhoff, 2011, for Italy and Finland); also local adaptation

implementation through subsidies and flexible schemes in different

contexts and the transfer of authority and resources to the city level

(for the Netherlands; see Gupta et al., 2007). New decision making

strategies for local governments consider the complexity and dynamics

of evolving socio-ecological systems (Kennedy et al., 2011), for instance,

adaptation plans and responses in Sydney to cope with sea level rise

and storms (Hebert and Taplin, 2006) and adaptation planning in

California (Bedsworth and Hanak, 2010).

The literature on urban adaptation in low- and middle-income nations

has grown since AR4 (see Box 8-1 for publications since 2007). A 2011

review (Hunt and Watkiss, 2011) could draw on eight case studies in

Asia, five in Africa, four in South America, as well as cases from Europe,

Northern America, and Australasia.

Four issues can be highlighted around urban adaptation:

• Low- and middle-income nations have most of the world’s current

and future urban population.

• Key development issues of poverty and social inequality may be

aggravated by climate change.

• Human agency among low-income inhabitants and organizations

is important in building local responses.

• Well-functioning multilevel governance helps in developing

adaptation strategies (Sánchez-Rodríguez, 2009).

Although few publications suggest specific operational strategies, they

do stress the importance of the link between climate adaptation and

development—urban infrastructure and other development deficits can

contribute to adaptation deficits. Manuel-Navarrete et al. (2011) explore

this interplay in the Mexican Caribbean, where hurricane exposure and

vulnerability are influenced by political decisions and contingent

development paths. Few reports exist on multidimensional approaches

to operational adaptation. There are some examples of adaptation

integrated with development interventions and addressing structural

drivers of social and urban vulnerability—for instance, Climate Action

Plans of Mexico City, Cartagena, and San Andrés de Tumaco (Sánchez-

odríguez, 2009).

Despite growing acceptance of its importance, there are reasons for the

general lack of attention to urban adaptation. First, national climate

change policies usually give little attention to urban adaptation compared

to sectors like agriculture. The ministries or agencies responsible for

these policies often have little involvement in urban and little influence

on those whose cooperation is essential, for example, for social policies,

public works, and local government (Hardoy and Pandiella, 2007; Ojima,

2009; Roberts, 2010). Social policies and priorities influence the social

and spatial distribution of climate-related risk and vulnerability—for

instance, provision for health care, emergency services, and safety nets—

yet few agencies recognize their potential role in reducing risk and

vulnerability.

A second factor is the initial focus for many cities on mitigation rather

than adaptation (with commitments made to lowering GHG emissions),

in part because of the focus of international support. Local decision makers

frequently view climate change as a marginal issue, but adaptation

usually ranks lower than mitigation on the agenda (Bulkeley, 2010;

Simon, 2010). Mexico City focuses on mitigation, but adaptation is still

a vague concept (GDF, 2006, 2008) seen more, for instance, as a capacity

to cope with floods through early warning systems than through

comprehensive, long-term measures such as watershed management

to reduce the speed and volume of flood waters. There is still little

Box 8-1 | Recent Literature on Urban Adaptation in Low- and Middle-Income Nations

Among the papers and books considering climate change adaptation in urban areas since 2007 are those on Cape Town (Mukheibir

and Ziervogel, 2007; Ziervogel et al., 2010; Cartwright et al., 2012), Durban (Roberts, 2008, 2010; Roberts et al., 2012; Cartwright et

al., 2013; Roberts and O'Donoghue, 2013), and other urban centers in Africa (Douglas et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2009; Lwasa, 2010;

Kithiia and Lyth, 2011; World Bank, 2011; Adelekan, 2012; Castán Broto et al., 2013; Kiunsi, 2013; Silver et al., 2013); urban centers in

Bangladesh (Alam and Rabbani, 2007; Jabeen et al., 2010; Banks et al., 2011; Haque et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2013); India (Revi, 2008;

Sharma and Tomar, 2010; Saroch et al., 2011); Pakistan (Khan et al., 2008); Philippines (Button et al., 2013); and Latin America

(Romero-Lankao, 2007, 2010; Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009; Hardoy and Romero-Lankao, 2011; Hardoy and Ruete, 2013; Hardoy and

Velasquez Barrero, 2013; Luque et al., 2013). In China, discussions of division of responsibility between national and local levels

include Teng and Gu (2007), Liu and Deng (2011), and Li (2013).

Other papers or books discussing urban adaptation in low- and middle-income nations include de Sherbinin et al. (2007), McGranahan

et al. (2007), Agrawala and van Aalst (2008), Bartlett (2008), Kovats and Akhtar (2008), Ayers (2009), Bicknell et al. (2009), Tanner et

al. (2009), Rosenzweig et al. (2011), Moser et al. (2010), World Bank (2010b), Manuel-Navarrete et al. (2011), Moench et al. (2011),

UN-HABITAT (2011a), Bulkeley and Castan Broto (2013), and Bulkeley and Tuts (2013).

Urban Areas Chapter 8

565

literature on adaptation for Brazilian cities (Ojima, 2009; Soares, 2009).

In Sao Paulo, adaptation is limited to broad declarations about necessary

actions, even as the city gets hit by floods, landslides, and water scarcity

(Puppim de Oliveira, 2009; Nobre et al., 2010; Martins and da Costa

Ferreira, 2011). The pressure on national and local governments to act

is lessened by the scant public awareness of the importance of climate

change adaptation (Nagy et al., 2007), and a “knowledge gap” between

olicy makers and scientists (Sánchez-Rodríguez, 2011). However, as

Section 8.4 describes, interest in urban adaptation is growing, encouraged

by the increasing engagement of transnational municipal networks and

donor agencies (Bulkeley, 2013).

8.3.2.2. Disaster Risk Reduction and

Its Contribution to Climate Change Adaptation

The growing concentration of people and activities in urban centers and

the increasing number and scale of cities can generate new patterns of

disaster hazard, exposure and vulnerability, as evident in the rising

number of localized disasters in urban areas in many low- and middle-

income nations associated with extreme weather (storms, flooding,

fires, and landslides) (Douglas et al., 2008; UNISDR, 2009, 2011). This is

relevant to climate change adaptation, given the increasing frequency and

intensity of potentially hazardous weather events associated with climate

change. Extreme weather events have also helped raise awareness of

citizens and local governments of local risks and vulnerabilities.

Exposure to weather-related risk in growing urban areas increases when

local governments fail to address their responsibilities by expanding or

upgrading infrastructure and services and reducing risk through building

standards and appropriate land use management (UNISDR, 2009, 2011).

This is typical in countries with low per capita GDPs and weak local

governance (i.e., in the first two categories of Table 8-2), and can be

exacerbated by rapid urban population growth. Urbanization accompanied

by more capable and accountable local governments can reduce disaster

risk, as evident in the declines in mortality from extreme weather (and

other) disasters in many middle- and all high-income nations (UNISDR,

2011). The most urbanized nations generally have the lowest mortality

to these events (UNISDR, 2009).

Local government investment is usually a small proportion of total

investment in and around an urban center, but has particular importance

in risk reduction. Urban governments have explicit responsibilities for

many assets that may be risk prone, often including schools, hospitals,

linics, water supplies, sanitation and drainage, communications, and

local roads and bridges (IFRC, 2010).

Even where private provision for these assets is significant, local

government usually coordinates such provision and has a significant

planning and regulation role, ensuring buildings and infrastructure meet

needed standards and guiding development away from high-risk areas.

From the late 1980s, some Latin American cities took a new approach

to disaster risk, involving three processes:

• Detailed analyses of local disaster records, including smaller events

than those in international databases

• Recognition that most disasters were the result of local failures to

assess and act on risk

• Recognition of the central roles of local governments in disaster risk

reduction, supported national and local civil defense organizations,

working with civil society and settlements most at risk (UNISDR,

2009; IFRC, 2010).

This led to institutional and legislative changes at national or regional

level (Gavidia, 2006; IFRC, 2010). In Colombia, a national law supports

disaster risk reduction and a National System for Prevention and Response

to Disasters, shifting the main responsibility for action to municipal

administrations. In Nicaragua, the National System for Disaster Prevention,

Mitigation and Response (SINAPRED) works with local government to

integrate disaster mitigation and risk reduction into local development

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 8.1 | Do experiences with disaster risk reduction in urban areas provide useful lessons

for climate-change adaptation?

There is a long experience with urban governments implementing disaster risk reduction that is underpinned by

locally driven identiﬁcation of key hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities to disasters and that identiﬁes what should be

done to reduce or remove disaster risk. Its importance is that it encourages local governments to act before a

disaster—for instance, for risks from ﬂooding, to reduce exposure and risk as well as being prepared for emergency

responses prior to the ﬂood (e.g., temporary evacuation from places at risk of ﬂooding) and rapid response and

building back afterwards. In some nations, national governments have set up legislative frameworks to strengthen

and support local government capacities for this (Section 8.3.2.2). This is a valuable foundation for assessing and

acting on climate-change related hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities, especially those linked to extreme weather.

Urban governments with effective capacities for disaster risk reduction (with the needed integration of different

sectors) have institutional and ﬁnancial capacities that are important for adaption. But while disaster risk reduction is

informed by careful analyses of existing hazards and past disasters (including return periods), climate change adaptation

needs to take account of how hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities will or might change over time. Disaster risk reduction

also covers disasters resulting from hazards not linked to climate or to climate change such as earthquakes.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

566

processes (von Hesse et al., 2008; IFRC, 2010). Other initiatives in Central

and South America include the influence of La Red (IFRC, 2010), the

DIPECHO project “Developing Resilient Cities,” and UNDP and GOAL

in Central America. In growing numbers of cities in Asia (Shaw and

Sharma, 2011) and Africa (Pelling and Wisner, 2009), experiences with

community-driven “slum” or informal settlement upgrading has led to

a recognition of its potential to reduce risk and vulnerability to extreme

weather events, most effectively when supported by local government

and civil defense response agencies (Boonyabancha, 2005; Archer and

oonyabancha, 2011; Carcellar et al., 2011).

The Homeless People’s Federation of the Philippines developed a series

of effective responses following major disasters, including community-

rooted data gathering (assessing destruction and victims’ immediate

needs); trust and contact building; support for savings; registering

community organizations; and identifying needs, including building

materials loans for repairs. The effectiveness of these measures is much

enhanced with local government support (Carcellar et al., 2011) and

these experiences have helped inform community-based adaptation

(Section 8.4).

International networks supporting innovation in disaster risk reduction

and/or climate change adaptation and inter-city learning include La Red

in Latin America which has been operating for 3 decades (IFRC, 2010)

and the cities program of the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC).

As donor interest has grown in supporting disaster risk management

as a vehicle for climate change adaptation, a number of urban resilience

programs have developed including ACCCRN (Asian Cities Climate

Change Resilience Network; Brown et al., 2012), the UNISDR (United

Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Making Cities

Resilient) network (Johnson and Blackburn, 2013), the ICLEI (Local

Governments for Sustainability) city adaptation network, and UN-

HABITAT’s Cities and Climate Change Initiative.

Despite growing international support for urban disaster risk management,

local governments have difficulty accessing the resources to make

real change (von Hesse et al., 2008). Local government risk reduction

investments are not seen as priorities and have to compete for scarce

resources with what are judged to be more pressing needs. Effective

policies are often tied to the terms of particular mayors or political

parties (Mansilla et al., 2008; Hardoy et al., 2011). In most cases, risk

reduction is not integrated into development plans or all relevant local

government departments. Manizales, Colombia, is an exception: risk

reduction has long been seen as part of local development and collective

interests take precedence over party political interests (Hardoy and

Velasquez Barrero, 2013).

Disaster risk management is increasingly positioned as a frontline sector

for integrating climate change adaptation into everyday decision making

and practices (IPCC, 2012), as seen in the plans of municipalities such

as Tegucigalpa and Montevideo (Aragón-Durand, 2011). Where it is

taken seriously, it offers real opportunities for synergy as the long-range

nature of climate change concerns and its policy visibility can enhance

local support for disaster risk management. There is considerable scope

in international frameworks and national responsibilities for better

coordination to make urban disaster risk management climate resilient

(Aragón-Durand, 2008; IPCC, 2012).

8.3.3. Adapting Key Sectors

8.3.3.1. Adapting the Economic Base of Urban Centers

Section 8.2 described how climate change can change the comparative

advantages of cities and regions—for instance, by influencing climate

ensitive resources, water availability, and flooding risks. Many case

studies show how extreme weather can impede economic activities,

damaging industrial infrastructure and disrupting ports and supply

chains (Section 8.2.3.4). Vugrin and Turnquist (2012) discuss design for

resilience in distribution networks such as electric power, gas, water,

food production, and manufacturing supply chains. This requires

absorptive capacity (to withstand extreme weather), adaptive capacity

(e.g., service provision through alternative paths), and restorative

capacity (quick and cheap recovery).

When urban centers fail to adapt to risks, it may discourage new

investment and lead enterprises to move or expand to safer locations.

Multinational corporations and many national businesses are adept at

changing location in response to changing opportunities and risks,

including high insurance costs. Disasters can change perceptions of risk.

Businesses may adapt to avoid impacts in their own facilities but be

affected by impacts to utilities and other businesses or to their workforce

and the services they use (schools, hospitals) (Hallegatte et al., 2011a;

da Silva, 2012). Limited local capacity to reconstruct means increased

vulnerability to future extreme events and less new investment weakens

the economic base (Benson and Clay, 2004; Hallegatte et al., 2007b,

2011a). Past experience in the USA and Europe show the difficulties

city governments can face in attracting new investment when a city or

region’s main activity weakens. If climate change forces changes to

economic structure and business models, transitions may be hard to

manage (Berger, 2003). Specific adaptation policies may make the

transition more rapid and less painful. For instance, adaptation is

generally cheaper and easier in greenfield sites—as low-risk sites are

chosen, trunk infrastructure to appropriate standards is installed and

building and land use regulations enforced. Retrofitting existing

infrastructure and industries is generally more expensive (McGranahan

et al., 2007).

Within and around urban centers, local governments may require

several strategies to strengthen resilience including selective relocation,

better land use planning, and revised building regulations to retrofit or

flood-proof structures (Hanson et al., 2011). Synergies can be encouraged

where land use management around a city supports rural livelihoods,

and protects ecosystem services (Section 8.3.3.7). There may be

opportunities for proactive adaptation outside larger cities where much

of the future urban growth will occur. Manizales, Colombia, which has

long had innovative environmental and disaster risk reduction policies

has begun incorporating climate change and environmental management

into its local development agenda, including the establishment of city

climate monitoring systems (Hardoy and Velasquez Barrero, 2013). But

most smaller urban centers are institutionally weaker and may lack the

investment capacity and critical infrastructure.

Adapting the urban economic base may require short- and long-term

strategies to assist vulnerable sectors and households. The consequences

of climate change for urban livelihoods may be particularly profound

Urban Areas Chapter 8

567

for low-income households who generally lack assets or insurance to help

them cope with shocks (Moser and Satterthwaite, 2009). The informal

sector is a significant part of the economy for most urban centers,

providing employment for large numbers. But the effects of extreme

weather on the informal economy are rarely considered, as in 2003

floods in Santa Fe, Argentina (Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009). In Kelurahan

Pabean Pekalongan in Central Java, batik production, the primary

livelihood, is being disrupted by increasingly frequent floods (UN-

HABITAT, 2011b). Cash transfers and safety nets are being considered

to help low-income groups cope with the short-term impacts of climate

change (Sanchez and Poschen, 2009), as well as climate variability. But

these will not address all the risks they face or support collective or

public investments in risk-reducing infrastructure and services.

There is a growing discussion of the importance of support for a “green

economy” with green infrastructure to help shift nations’ economic and

employment base toward lower carbon, more resilient, more sustainable

patterns that respect regional and global ecological and resource limits.

For urban centers, this means highlighting new (or adapted) business

opportunities that limit anthropogenic climate change, resource depletion,

and environmental degradation. Sometimes social inclusivity and eco-

efficiency are included as mutually reinforcing principles (e.g., Allen and

Clouth, 2012). The literature has begun to explore the changes needed

in production systems (especially in carbon intensity, waste generation,

and management), buildings, transport systems, electricity generation

(including incorporating solar and wind), and consumption patterns of

wealthier groups (Hammer et al., 2011; UN-HABITAT, 2012a,b,c,d; World

Economic Forum, 2013). As yet, there is too little detailed discussion of

how a green economy can be fostered in relation to particular cities or in

regard to the incentives and regulations that can shift private investment

to this.

The ‘waste economy’ in cities in low- and middle-income nations is

important to the green economy, providing livelihoods (Hardoy et al.,

2001; Hasan et al., 2002; Medina, 2007) and contributing to waste

reduction and GHG emission reduction (Ayers and Huq, 2009). In Brazil’s

main cities, more than half a million people are engaged in waste picking

and recycling (Fergutz et al., 2011), in Lima an estimated 17,000, and

in Cairo 40,000 (Scheinberg et al., 2011). The ways city governments

choose to work with (or ignore) those in this waste economy have

obvious implications for employment and for resource use.

For some cities, there is documentation of the adaptation costs to protect

or enhance the economic base. Hallegatte et al. (2013) assess present

and future flood losses in the world’s 136 largest coastal cities and show

that the estimated costs of adaptation are far below the estimate of

losses in the absence of adaptation. The paper also highlights the

differences in the cities most at risk, depending on whether the ranking

is by economic average annual losses or by such losses as a proportion

of each city’s GDP. In the first, it is mainly cities in high-income nations,

in the second, mainly prosperous cities in middle-income nations.

Mombasa may have to redesign and reconstruct the city’s ports, protect

cement industries and oil refineries, and relocate some industries inland,

all requiring major capital investments (Awuor et al., 2008). Adaptation

can help protect many parts of Rio de Janeiro’s diverse economy

(including manufacturing, oil refineries, shipyards, and tourism) and the

large populations living in informal settlements (favelas) on land at risk

of landslides (de Sherbinin et al., 2007). Defenses needed to safeguard

coastal industries and residential areas could threaten Rio’s beach

tourist industry and cause further erosion to other unprotected areas.

As in most cities, making Rio’s economic base more resilient to climate

change means resolving such trade-offs and encouraging dialog among

local stakeholders (Ruth, 2010).

As yet, there is little evidence that cities’ adaptive capacities influence

private sector investments. But private investment is influenced by the

quality and availability of infrastructure and services that are an essential

part of adaptive capacity. Many cities in Asian high growth economies

are located in low-elevation coastal zones undergoing rapid urbanization

and economic transformation (McGranahan et al., 2007). Cyclones are

common in many of these coastal settlements. Rising concentrations of

people, infrastructure, and industries along India’s coasts, without

adaptation, could mean nonlinear increase in vulnerability over the next

2 decades (Revi, 2008). The same is true for China (McGranahan et al.,

2007). In most nations, urban governments find it difficult to prevent

new developments on sites at risk of flooding, especially in locations

attractive for housing or commerce, even when there are laws and

regulations in place to prevent this (see Olcina Cantos et al., 2010, for

an example in Alicante in Spain).

There are few economic assessments of climate change risks in West

African coastal cities. Many cities or districts and their industries,

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 8.2 | As cities develop economically, do they become better adapted to climate change?

Cities and nations with successful economies can mobilize more resources for climate change adaptation. But

adaptation also needs speciﬁc policies to ensure provision for good quality risk-reducing infrastructure and services

that reach all of the city’s population and the institutional and ﬁnancial capacity to provide, and manage these

and expand them when needed. Poverty reduction can also support adaptation by increasing individual, household,

and community resilience to stresses and shocks for low-income groups and enhancing their capacities to adapt.

This provides a foundation for building climate change resilience but additional knowledge, resources, capacity,

and skills are generally required, especially to build resilience to changes beyond the ranges of what have been

experienced in the past.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

568

infrastructure and tourism will be a challenge to protect, as in Cotonou

(Dossou and Gléhouenou-Dossou, 2007), Lagos (Douglas et al., 2008),

and Dakar (Wang et al., 2009).These and other important economic

centers in the Gulf of Guinea (including Abidjan and Port Harcourt) have

large areas close to mean sea level and highly vulnerable to erosion and

rising sea levels. Rapid construction, destruction of mangrove swamps,

and inadequate refuse collection compound the risks (Simon, 2010).

8.3.3.2. Adapting Food and Biomass for Urban Populations

Many urban dwellers in low- and middle-income countries suffer hunger,

while a larger number face food and nutrition insecurity (Montgomery

et al., 2003; Ahmed et al., 2007; Cohen and Garrett, 2010; Crush et al.,

2012) owing more to their low incomes than to overall food shortages

(Cohen and Garrett, 2010; Crush et al., 2012). For these low-income

urban households, food expenditures generally represent more than

half of total expenditures (Cohen and Garrett, 2010), putting them at

particular risk from real increases in long-term food prices or temporary

spikes associated with disasters.

Climate change impacts can have far-reaching influences on food

security and safety, but these “will crucially depend on the future policy

environment for the poor” (Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007, p. 708; see

also Douglas, 2009). Agriculture has managed to keep up with rising

demands worldwide, despite rapid population growth, the reduction in

agricultural workers that accompanies urbanization, and dietary shifts

that are more carbon and often land intensive (Satterthwaite et al., 2010).

But food security may be eroded by competing pressures for water or

bio-fuels. In addition, there may be tensions between managing land

use to reduce flood risk and food and energy policies (Wilby and Keenan,

2012). Adapting urban food systems represents a major challenge and

will necessitate radical changes in food production, storage, and

processing (and in reducing waste), in transport/the supply chain, and

in access (Godfray et al., 2010). Both supply and demand side

constraints must be considered. Climate change-related constraints on

agricultural production affect urban consumers through reduced supplies

or higher prices; falling production and farmer incomes reduces their

demand for urban goods and services; disruption to urban centers can

mean disruption to the markets, services, or remittance flows on which

agricultural producers rely (Tacoli, 2003). Thus, strengthening urban food

security needs to take account of complex rural-urban linkages (Revi,

2008) and responses must bridge rural and urban boundaries.

Urban centers that are seriously impacted by extreme weather face

serious challenges in ensuring that those affected have access to

adequate and safe food and water supplies. Flooding, drought, or other

extreme events often lead to food price shocks in cities (Bartlett, 2008)

as well as spoiling or destroying food supplies for many households.

After the 2004 floods in Bangladesh, Dhaka’s rice prices increased by

30% and vegetable prices more than doubled, with urban slum dwellers

and rural landless poor the worst affected (Douglas, 2009). When facing

increased food prices, the urban poor adopt a range of strategies such

as reduced consumption, fewer meals, purchasing less nutritious foods,

or increasing income earning work hours, particularly for women and

children (Cohen and Garrett, 2010). But these erode nutrition and health

status, especially of the most vulnerable and fail to strengthen resilience,

particularly in the context of more frequent disasters.

Adaptive local responses include support for urban and peri-urban

agriculture, green roofs, local markets, and enhanced safety nets. Food

price increases may be moderated by improving the efficiency of urban

markets, promoting farmers’ markets, and investing in infrastructure

and production technologies (Cohen and Garrett, 2010). Food security

may be enhanced by support for urban agriculture and street food vendors

(Cohen and Garrett, 2010; Lee-Smith, 2010) and access to cheaper

food or measures such as cash transfers (e.g., Brazil’s Bolsa Familia

Programme) or, for older groups, pensions (Soares et al., 2010). Initially

rural in focus, cash transfer programs have expanded in urban areas, in

some places reaching much of the low-income population (Johannsen

et al., 2009; Niño-Zarazúa, 2010; Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2013).

8.3.3.3. Adapting Housing and Urban Settlements

The built environment in urban areas has to adapt to the range of climate

change impacts outlined in Section 8.2, in order to protect urban

populations and economies and protect among society’s most valuable

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 8.3 | Does climate change cause urban problems by driving migration

from rural to urban areas?

The movement of rural dwellers to live and work in urban areas is mostly in response to the concentration of new

investments and employment opportunities in urban areas. All high-income nations are predominantly urban and

ncreasing urbanization levels are strongly associated with economic growth. Economic success brings an increasing

proportion of GDP and of the workforce in industry and services, most of which are in urban areas. While rapid

population growth in any urban center provides major challenges for its local government, the need here is to

evelop the capacity of local governments to manage this with climate change adaptation in mind. Rural development

and adaptation that protects rural dwellers and their livelihoods and resources has high importance as stressed in

particular in Chapters 9 and 13—but this will not necessarily slow migration ﬂows to urban areas, although it will

help limit rural disasters and those who move to urban areas in response to these.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

569

assets. Knowledge and innovation are required for adapting existing

and new buildings. This will be built on the bedrock of affordable

housing appropriate for health and safety, built to climate-resilient

standards and with the structural integrity to protect its occupants

long term against extreme weather (UNISDR, 2009, 2011). The resilience

of poor quality housing, often at risk from extreme weather, can be

enhanced via structural retrofitting, interventions that reduce risks (for

nstance, expanding drainage capacity to limit or remove flood risks),

and non-structural interventions (including insurance). Attention to all

three is more urgent where housing quality is low, where settlements

are on high-risk sites, and in cities where climate change impacts are

greatest. Enhancing the resilience of buildings that house low-income

groups will usually be expensive and may face political challenges (Roaf

et al., 2009).The range of actors in the housing sector, the myriad

connections to other sectors and the need to promote mitigation and

adaptation, as well as development goals, point to the importance of

well-coordinated strategies that can support resilience (Maller and

Strengers, 2011).

There have been studies in increasing numbers of cities to identify

measures to adapt housing (and other buildings) and discussions on

revising standards, although it is difficult to set standards with uncertain

forecasts and scenarios and evolving risks (Engineers Canada, 2008).

There is less evidence of the action plans, budget commitments, and

regulation changes to implement them. Measures identified in a

Bangkok assessment included flood-proofing homes, building elevated

basements, and moving power-supply boxes upstairs, along with keeping

enough food, water, fuel, and other supplies for 72 hours; it also pointed

to regulatory changes to bolster resilience including land use restrictions

in floodplains and other at-risk sites and revised safety and fire codes

for buildings and other structures (BMA, GLF, and UNEP, 2009). Cape

Town’s climate change framework (2006) proposed housing interventions

including regulations for building informal housing, in part to reduce

the need for emergency response and anticipate projected climate

change. Regulations in New York and Boston are being updated to

address climate-related risks (City of Boston, 2011; City of New York,

2011). London and Melbourne’s adaptation plans both consider strategies

combining green infrastructure and housing interventions (GLA, 2010;

UN-HABITAT, 2011a).

8.3.3.3.1. Housing and other buildings and extreme heat

More attention is being paid to extreme heat in particular cities (e.g.,

City of Chicago 2008, 2010; City of Toronto, 2013; Tomlinson et al.,2011,

for Birmingham; Matzarakis and Endler, 2010, for Freiberg; GLA, 2010,

for London; and Giguère, 2009, for Quebec), also in regard to low-

income housing in Athens (see Sakka et al., 2012).

Attention is required to buildings that provide protection from hot days

and to populations more vulnerable to extreme heat, including those who

work outside (see Box CC-HS). In locations with large daily variations

in temperature, the response can include upgrading homes with limited

ventilation and low thermal mass. Chicago’s 2008 Climate Action Plan

discussed the need for innovative cooling ideas for property owners

(City of Chicago, 2008, p. 52). Air conditioning and other forms of

mechanical cooling are too expensive, unavailable for the many urban

households with no electricity, and maladaptive when electricity

generation contributes to GHG emissions. Residents’ vulnerabilities may

be exacerbated if electricity supplies are unreliable; blackouts tend to

occur on the hottest days when demand is highest (Maller and Strengers,

2011, p. 3). The literature on adaptations for extreme heat focuses on

high-income nations and more attention is required to this in urban

centers in low- and middle-income nations.

Passive cooling can be used in both new-build and retrofitted structures

o reduce solar and internal heat gains, while enhancing natural

ventilation or improving insulation (Hacker and Holmes, 2007; Roberts,

2008a,b). Passive designs, using super-insulation, ventilation, and other

measures to ensure energy is not required for most of the year, as in the

Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZED) in London (Chance, 2009)

or Germany’s Passive Haus standard (Rees, 2009), have set precedents

for mitigating household emissions but they can simultaneously

contribute to adaptation. Thermal mass can be used for cooling, “because

it introduces a time-delay between changes in the outside temperature

and the building’s thermal response necessary to deal with the high

daytime temperatures” (Hacker and Holmes, 2007, p. 103). Structures in

southern Europe already use solar shading, ventilation, and thermal mass

to promote enhanced cooling (Hacker and Holmes, 2007). Simulations

for London (under UKCIP02 Medium-High emissions scenarios) suggest

that passive designs are an “eminently viable option for the UK, at least

over the next 50 years or so” (Hacker and Holmes, 2007, p. 111). There

are several obstacles though: opening windows may be hampered by

security concerns or noise pollution (Hacker and Holmes, 2007). Modern

windows may not ventilate well, and site restrictions and cost can

impede the use of passive cooling in refurbishing existing buildings

(Roberts, 2008a).

8.3.3.3.2. Housing and disaster-preparedness measures

When populations are displaced or temporarily evacuated, provision for

emergency shelters and services have to be able to respond, especially

for vulnerable residents. For instance, after Cyclone Larry in Queensland

(in 2006) and New South Wales’ coastal flooding (in 2007), officials

recalled the strains faced in shelters and the coordination difficulties

with emergency health workers, police, insurance, and other agencies

(Jacobs and Williams, 2011). This points to the range of social support,

structural strategies, and interagency efforts that local authorities may

develop to adapt to climate change. For many urban centers, there is

also the issue of how to move populations at risk, which presents many

challenges (Roaf et al., 2009).

Urban centers facing extreme heat require plans that provide early

warning for citizens, inform them of measures they can take and ensure

adequate water provision, back up electricity, emergency health care,

and other public services focused on vulnerable residents, especially

infants and the elderly in hospitals and residential facilities (Brown and

Walker, 2008; Hajat et al., 2010) or living alone. Public buildings with

cooling may also be required. Cities with responses to hot days for those

most at risk are mainly from high-income nations. Several hundred

million urban dwellers in low- and middle-income nations have no

access to electricity (Johansson et al., 2012) or mechanical devices that

help with cooling.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

570

8.3.3.4. Adapting Urban Water, Storm, and Waste Systems

It is challenging to summarize key adaptation strategies from the highly

heterogeneous mix of urban areas across the globe. In high-income and

some middle-income nations, virtually all the urban population is served

by drinking quality water piped to the home 24 hours a day, by systems

f sanitation that minimize risks of fecal contamination and by storm

and surface drainage. Many urban centers in such nations may face

serious climate change-related challenges for water, but do not have to

address the fact that much of their population lacks piped water, toilets,

or storm drains. They can also bill users for much of the funds required

for water provision and management.

At the other extreme are a very large number of urban centers with

large deficits in provision for water, sanitation, and drainage and with

weak, under-resourced institutions (UN-HABITAT, 2003b; UNEP, 2012).

Around a billion people live in informal settlements where providers

responsible for water and sanitation are often unwilling to invest or

not allowed to do so (Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2013). New York

City can develop a plan to ensure adequate water supplies costing

billions of dollars (Solecki, 2012); many cities in sub-Saharan Africa have

not only very large deficits in piped water, sewers, and drains but also

very limited investment capacities (see, e.g., Kiunsi, 2013, for Dar es

Salaam).

Some studies have sought to estimate the costs of adapting urban water

and sanitation systems, pointing to the need for significant investments

(Arnell, 2009). Muller (2007) suggests that US$1 to 2.7 billion is required

annually in sub-Saharan African cities to adapt existing water

infrastructure; this does not include the cost of addressing deficient

infrastructure. Another US$1 to 2.6 billion a year is required to adapt

new developments (including water storage, waste water treatment,

and electricity generation).

8.3.3.4.1. Adapting urban water supply systems

For cities with climate change adaptation plans, water and waste water

management are usually important components (see, e.g., Helsinki

Region Environmental Services Authority, 2012). Major et al. (2011) list

a range of cities that have begun to adapt water systems and other

infrastructure including Boston, London, Halifax (Canada), New York,

Seattle, and Toronto. The U.S. government has developed a guide for

adaptation strategies for water utilities (EPA, 2013). But developing

such measures is not yet commonplace.

Supply-side approaches to seasonal water shortages are frequently

advocated. An analysis of 21 draft Water Resources Management Plans

in the UK found that agencies usually favored reservoirs and other

supply-side measures to adapt to climate change, although authors

suggest that demand-side interventions may also be needed (Charlton

and Arnell, 2011). To expand its reservoir capacity after 1998 floods

exposed existing infrastructure, Rotterdam developed plans combining

adaptation and urban renewal goals, mixing economic activities with

water-based adaptive designs, including “water retention squares” and

green roofs, floating houses, and networks of channels (Van der Brugge

and De Graaf, 2010). Seattle has used demand-side strategies to cut

water consumption including aggressive conservation measures, system

savings, and price increases (Vano et al., 2010).

In Mexico City, a number of measures in the water sector have been

proposed many times since the 1950s but not acted on, including a

decrease in water use and the restoration and management of urban and

rural micro-basins (Romero-Lankao, 2010). Adaptation measures have

been conceived as too general and lacking institutional commitment.

In Durban, where the water sector is revenue earning and seen as critical

o development, the importance of climate change adaptation was

recognized as a priority (Roberts, 2010). In Cape Town, which faces

profound challenges in ensuring future supplies, water management

studies identified the need to consider climate change and population

and economic growth (Mukheibir and Ziervogel, 2007). During the 2005

drought, the local authority substantially increased water tariffs, considered

a most effective way to promote efficient water usage (Mukheibir, 2008).

Other measures may include water restrictions, reuse of gray water,

consumer education, or technological solutions such as low-flow systems

or dual flush toilets (Mukheibir and Ziervogel, 2007).

In Phoenix, Arizona, a rapidly expanding desert city projected to reach 11

million people by 2050, most peripheral growth depends on groundwater

(Bolin et al., 2010). Simulations explored how water usage may be

reduced to achieve safe yield while accommodating future growth.

Reducing current high use may be achieved through urban densification,

increased water prices, and water conservation measures (Bolin et al.,

2010). Gober et al. (2010) agree that stringent demand and supply policies

can forestall “even the worst climate conditions and accommodate future

population growth, but would require dramatic changes to the Phoenix

water supply system” (Gober et al., 2010, p. 370). Here and in other

cities in Arizona, supply-side management including active management

of groundwater and groundwater storage is combined with extensive

demand side measures (Colby and Jacobs, 2007).

In Quito, where reduced freshwater supplies are projected with glacier

retreat and other climate-related changes, local government has

formulated a range of adaptation plans, including encouraging a culture

of rational water use, reducing water losses, and developing mechanisms

to reduce water conflicts (Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009). However,

community participation in planning and implementation has not been

considered (Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009). Participatory water planning

has occurred elsewhere in Latin America: stakeholders in Hermosillo,

Mexico, identified and prioritized specific adaptations such as rainwater

harvesting and water-saving technologies (Eakin et al., 2007).

Several cities actively encourage rainwater harvesting while others are

considering its potential. Since 2004, in New South Wales, Australia,

homeowners have been required to ensure that newly built houses

use 40% less potable water than an established benchmark level of

consumption, through water-saving measures such as water-efficient

shower heads, dual-flush toilets, rainwater tanks and grey water treatment

systems (Warner, 2009). Many low-income Caribbean households rely

on rainwater collection systems for domestic use. Extending existing

communal collection and distribution systems would require community

financing or governmental interventions, as well as overcoming resistance

from higher-income residents (Cashman et al., 2010). Rainwater harvesting

has been promoted in several cities in India (Shaban and Sharma, 2007).

Urban Areas Chapter 8

571

8.3.3.4.2. Waste and storm water management

More attention has been given to adaptations to help ensure sufficient

water supplies than to increasing the capacity of sewer and drainage

ystems, or adapting them to allow for the impacts of heavier rainfall

or sea level rise. We noted earlier the very large deficiencies in provision

for drainage for urban centers in low- and many middle-income nations.

In St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles, the government (after a storm water

modeling study) is developing a flood warning system and considering

such institutional adaptations as a new decision-support framework,

centralized geographic information system (GIS) for infrastructure planning

and public education, along with structural measures such as draining

areas with a high groundwater table (Vojinovic and Van Teeffelen,

2007). City management in Toronto, Canada, has prioritized an upgrade

of storm water and wastewater systems (Kessler, 2011). Deak and Bucht

(2011) analyze past hydrological structures in Lund, Sweden, and use

the concept of indigenous blue infrastructure to question current storm

water management in the urban core. Cities in California have a range

of flood management methods but Hanak and Lund (2012) suggest that

they will also require forward-looking reservoir operation planning and

floodplain mapping, less restrictive rules for raising local funds, and

improved public information on flood risks. Willems and Arnbjerg-

Nielsen (2013) suggest that climate change adaptation for urban

drainage systems requires a reevaluation of the technical solutions

implemented over the last 150 years. The objective is cities that interact

with water (including storms) in a healthy, environmentally friendly,

and cost-efficient way. This includes the incorporation of roads and

parks into the active drainage system and the use of blue and green

storm water infrastructure (Section 3.3.3.7). These authors also note

that this implies changing roles for water scientists, water managers,

and water engineers as well as for water users, property owners,

insurers, city planners, and politicians (Willems and Arnbjerg-Nielsen,

2013; see also Willems et al., 2012). Many governments in the last 20

years have developed integrated water resource management (UNEP,

2012) with linkages between provisions for water, sanitation, and

drainage and other sectors, and a recognition of the need to work with

a range of partners, consider broader development goals, identify tensions

or trade-offs (Willems and Arnbjerg-Nielsen, 2013), and implement low-

regret anticipatory solutions. For cities, this often includes management

of groundwater use and water catchment in areas outside their

jurisdiction and thus collaboration with other local governments (WMO,

2008). Most examples of this are in high-income nations (for an exception,

see Bhat et al., 2013).

Urban water systems usually depend on reliable electricity supplies and

can be energy intensive—for instance, in conveying or treating water

from distant or low-quality sources. Integrated planning (e.g., in concert

with energy conservation, water catchment management and green

infrastructure strategies) can minimize conflicts, support local industries,

and ensure equitable access to water in cities.

8.3.3.5. Adapting Electric Power and Energy Systems

The heavy dependence of urban economies, infrastructure, services, and

residents on electricity and fossil fuels means far-reaching consequences

if supplies are disrupted or unreliable (Section 8.2.4.2). With mitigation

concerns dominating the literature and urban energy policy discussions,

there is less focus on adaptation issues (Carmin et al., 2009; Mdluli and

Vogel, 2010). The UNFCCC’s estimates for investment to address climate

change (UNFCCC, 2007) did not include the costs of adapting the

energy sector (Fankhauser, 2010). Key issues relating to energy sector

adaptation, including generation and distribution, are usually national

or regional and are discussed in Chapter 10. But urban governments’

and residents’ responses are also important. Research has suggested

hat “private autonomous measures will dominate the adaptation

response as people adjust their buildings, [or] change space-cooling

and -heating preferences...” (Hammer et al., 2011, p. 27). A few cities

have adaptation initiatives underway for energy systems; others have

begun to consider the steps needed (Hammer et al., 2011). Some relevant

local urban concerns are the extent of the need for autonomous provision

or back-up generating capacity, and the functioning of emergency services

when energy supplies are disrupted or unreliable. The interrelations

between energy and other sectors suggest the need for an integrated

approach in understanding vulnerability and shaping appropriate

responses (Gasper et al., 2011).

Despite growing concern about the potential impact of climate change

and extreme weather events for the oil industry in Canada, USA, and

Mexico and how hurricanes, floods, and sea level rise will disrupt oil,

gas, and petrochemical installations (Levina et al., 2007; Savonis et al.,

2008), few adaptation studies have been undertaken.

8.3.3.6. Adapting Transport and Telecommunications Systems

Urban centers depend on transport and telecommunications systems

for daily functioning and for vital regional, national, and international

supply chains. For instance, 80% of the food consumed in London is

imported (Best Foot Forward, 2002). The Great Lakes–St. Lawrence route

in the USA supports 60,000 jobs and US$3 billion worth of annual

movement of goods (Ruth, 2010). Most large and successful cities have

also spread spatially, and well-functioning transport systems support

the decentralization of the workforce and businesses. Many cities, for

instance, depend on underground electric rail systems which require

protection from the considerable risk from flooding, such as New York

and London (Eichhorst, 2009). Adapting all these systems to the impacts

of climate change (including hot days, storms, and sea level rise) poses

many challenges (Mehrotra et al., 2011b).

8.3.3.6.1. Transport systems

Four different aspects to adaptation strategies for transport can be

highlighted: maintain and manage; strengthen and protect; enhance

redundancy; and, where needed, relocation. Cities that have developed

adaptation plans usually include attention to more resilient transport

systems (UN-HABITAT, 2011a). Melbourne’s adaptation plan notes that

intense storms and wind may lead to blocked roads and disrupt traffic

lights, trains, and trams and that these disruptions can be exacerbated

by such compounding factors as power disruptions and emergency

situations (City of Melbourne, 2009). Adaptation will require transport

planners to take a whole-of-life approach to managing infrastructure,

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

572

and constantly update risk assessments (Love et al., 2010). Coordination

at national, regional, and local levels is important for implementing

adaptation strategies in the transport sector, as climate change impacts

are widespread and extend across scales (Regmi and Hanaoka, 2011).

Interdisciplinary approaches can include changing meteorological hazards

as well as social and political values and the governance framework for

more resilient transport systems (Jaroszweski et al., 2010).

8.3.3.6.2. Adapting roads

Climate change may increase the costs of maintaining and repairing

road transport networks (see Hayhoe et al., 2010, for discussion of

changing conditions in Chicago). In Durban, revised road construction

standards may be needed (Roberts, 2008). Coastal road adaptation may

require strengthening barriers and designing roads or realigning them

to higher locations to cope with sea level rise (Regmi and Hanaoka,

2011).

Transport planners are beginning to reassess maintenance costs and

traditional materials—for instance, stiffer binding materials to cope

with rising temperatures and softer bitumen for colder regions (Regmi

and Hanaoka, 2011). But cost considerations may impede their use.

The Chicago Department of Transportation decided not to use more

permeable, adaptive road materials because of higher cost, although

costs may fall with greater economies of scale as demand rises for such

materials (Hayhoe et al., 2010). Road maintenance costs vary widely,

depending on local context, and future climate scenarios. In Hamilton,

New Zealand, increases in rainfall in spring (within one scenario) or

winter (in another) would increase road repair costs while decreases in

rainfall in other seasons could decrease them; results depend upon the

scenario and further investigation was recommended (Jollands et al.,

2007).

8.3.3.6.3. Adapting surface and underground railways

Underground transport systems are specific to cities and of great

importance to the functioning of many major cities. They may have

“particular vulnerabilities related to extreme events, with uniquely

fashioned adaptation responses” (Hunt and Watkiss, 2011, p. 14). Heat

impacts are often significant, as these systems gradually warm due to

engine heat, braking systems, and increased passenger loads. To cope

with increasing frequency of hot days, substantial investments in

ventilation or cooling may be necessary (Love et al., 2010). For New York

City’s subways, the system’s age, fragmented ownership, overcapacity,

and in some cases floodplain location may augment the challenge of

adaptation (Zimmerman and Faris, 2010, pp. 69-70). Storm surge flooding

from Hurricane Sandy flooded eight under-river subway tunnels, severely

impacting mobility and economic activity (Blake et al., 2012).

Rail systems that struggle to cope with existing climate variability may

require considerable investment to withstand higher temperatures and

more extreme events (see Baker et al., 2010). Railway systems may be

more vulnerable to climate variability than the road system, which can

more easily redirect traffic (Lindgren et al., 2009). The costs of delays

and lost trips due to extreme weather events, analyzed in Boston

(Kirshen et al., 2008) and Portland (Chang et al., 2010) were found to

be small relative to the damage to infrastructure and other property.

Floodplain restoration, use of porous pavements, and detention ponds

may help address the projected increased flooding in Portland (Chang

et al., 2010).

In flood-prone cities, transport systems may require more stringent

construction standards, design parameters, or relocation. Much of

central Mumbai is built on landfill areas and prone to flooding, but

hey contain the main train stations and train lines as well as large

populations and a large part of the city’s economy. Rising sea levels

may cause shifts at the sub-surface level of landfill areas and structural

instabilities (de Sherbinin et al., 2007).

8.3.3.6.4. Ports

Section 8.2 outlined the many ways in which ports can be impacted by

climate change and the investments required to take account of these.

Many ports remain largely unaware of the potential threats of climate

change, or are slow to consider appropriate adaptation measures

(Becker et al., 2012). Rotterdam’s Climate Proof Programme includes as

key components flood safety and accessibility for ships and passengers

(Rotterdam Climate Initiative, 2010; Vellinga and De Jong, 2012). A

climate risk study for the Port of Muelles el Bosque (Cartagena, Colombia)

analyzed projected changes in sea level rise, storm surge height,

precipitation, temperature, and wind patterns and their direct and

indirect effects on port assets and operations, surrounding environment

and communities, and on the trade of goods transported through the

port and this helped catalyze adaptation investments (Stenek et al., 2011).

There are also the deficits in basic infrastructure noted in Section 8.2

that inhibit adaptation including the lack of all-weather roads and paths

in informal settlements that constrain rapid evacuation and limit access

for emergency vehicles.

8.3.3.6.5. Telecommunications

A wide range of components and sub-systems for telecommunications

systems that are within cities may need adaptation to the impacts of

climate change, including telephone poles and exchanges, cables,

mobile telephone masts and data centers (Engineering the Future, 2011;

Chapman et al., 2013).

8.3.3.7. Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services within

Urban Adaptation

Ecosystem based adaptation has relevance for many chapters (see Box

CC-EA). Ecosystem-based adaptation in urban areas as part of the

climate change adaptation strategy seeks to move beyond a focus on

street trees and parks to a more detailed understanding of the ecology

of indigenous ecosystems, and how biodiversity and ecosystem services

can reduce the vulnerability of ecosystems and people. Strategies to

achieve biodiversity goals (developing corridors for species migration,

enlarging core conservation areas, identifying areas for improved matrix

Urban Areas Chapter 8

573

management to enhance ecological viability) can have adaptation co-

benefits. Recognizing that the adaptation deficit is both in the lack of

conventional infrastructure and the loss of ecological infrastructure, the

approach includes an interest in how ecosystem restoration and

conservation can contribute to food security, urban development, water

purification, waste water treatment, climate change adaptation, and

mitigation (Roberts et al., 2012). The growing attention to ecosystem

services includes adaptations in urban, peri-urban, and rural areas that

use opportunities for the management, conservation, and restoration

of ecosystems to provide services and increase resilience to climate

extremes. They can also deliver co-benefits (e.g., purifying water, absorbing

runoff for flood control, cleansing air, moderating temperature, and

preventing coastal erosion) while helping contribute to food security

and carbon sequestration (Newman, 2010; Foster et al., 2011b; GLA,

2011; Roberts et al., 2012; see also Institute for Sustainable Communities,

2010; City of New York, 2011; Oliveira et al., 2011; Tallis et al., 2011;

Wilson et al., 2011; Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority,

2012). These approaches are particularly important in low- and many

middle-income countries where livelihoods for some urban residents

and much of the peri-urban population depend on natural resources.

But there are considerable knowledge gaps in determining the limits

or thresholds to adaptation of various ecosystems and where and how

ecosystem-based adaptation is best integrated with other adaptation

measures. There is also some indication that the costs of ecosystem-

based adaptation in urban contexts might be higher than expected, in

large part because costs are higher for land acquisition and ecosystem

management (Roberts et al., 2012; Cartwright et al., 2013).

Box 8-2 describes how ecosystem-based adaptation is being developed

in Durban. Another example is addressing flood risk through catchment

management that includes community-based partnerships supported

by full cost accounting and payment for ecosystem services—rather

than the more conventional canalization of rivers (Kithiia and Lyth,

2011; Roberts et al., 2012).

Although much of the early innovation in ecosystem services and green

infrastructure was geared to address water shortages or flooding, its

importance for climate change adaptation is increasingly recognized.

Green spaces in cities are beneficial for absorbing rainfall and moderating

high temperatures. Urban forests and trees can provide shading,

evaporative cooling and rainwater interception, and storage and

infiltration services for cities (Pramova et al., 2012). Increasing tree cover

is proposed as a way to reduce UHI. Cooling effects are especially high

in large parks or areas of woodland but the land these are on face

competition from developers, as well as management challenges (Pramova

et al., 2012). The rapid and often unregulated expansion of cities in low-

and middle-income nations may also have left a much lower proportion

of the urbanized area as parks and other green spaces.

There is also lack of detailed knowledge on the climatic effects of specific

urban plants and vegetation structures (Mathey et al., 2011) and on

other important aspects such as the influence of green areas in local

circulation patterns and impact on urban fluxes and urban metabolism

(Chrysoulakis et al., 2013). In addition, green infrastructure projects may

select plant material for particular purposes that do not support habitat

values or large ecosystem function and greater ecosystem services.

Some city governments have focused on green infrastructure within

built up areas. In the USA, Portland and Philadelphia have encouraged

green roofs, porous pavements, and disconnection of downspouts to

reduce storm water at much lower cost than increasing storm water

storage capacity (Foster et al., 2011b). Some cities have invested in

green infrastructure linked to both regeneration and climate change

Box 8-2 | Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Durban

Durban has adopted an ecosystem-based adaptation approach as part of its climate adaptation strategy. This required a series of

steps (Roberts et al., 2012):

•

A better understanding of the impacts of climate change on local biodiversity and the management Durban’s open space. The

projected warmer and wetter conditions seem to favor invasive and woody plant species.

• Improved local research capacity that includes generating relevant local data.

• Reducing the vulnerability of indigenous ecosystems as a short-term precautionary measure.

• Enhancing protected areas owned by local government and developing land use management interventions and agreements to

protect privately owned land areas critical to biodiversity and ecosystem services. This can be supported by government incentives

and regulation to stop development on environmentally sensitive properties, the removal of perverse incentives, and support for

affected landowners.

• The promotion of local initiatives that contribute jobs and promote skills and environmental education within ecosystem

management and restoration programs. Durban has initiated a large-scale Community Reforestation Programme where

community level “tree-preneurs” produce indigenous seedlings and help plant and manage the restored forest areas as part of a

larger strategy to enhance biodiversity refuges and water quality, river ﬂow regulation, ﬂood mitigation, sediment control, and

improved visual amenity. Advantages include employment creation, improved food security, and educational opportunities.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

574

adaptation. The Green Grid for East London seeks to create “a network

of interlinked, multi-purpose open spaces” to support the wider

regeneration of the sub-region, enhancing the potential of existing and

new green spaces to connect people and places, absorb and store water,

cool the vicinity, and provide a mosaic of habitats for wildlife (GLA,

2008, p. 80). New York has a well-established program to protect and

enhance its water supply through watershed protection. This includes

city ownership of crucial land outside the city and working with land

owners and communities to balance protection of drinking water with

acilitating local economic development and improving waste water

treatment. There is also an ambitious green infrastructure plan within

the city, including porous pavements and streets, green and blue roofs,

and other measures to control storm water. The program is costly,

compared to constructing and operating a filtration plant, but is the

most cost-effective choice for New York (Bloomberg and Holloway,

2010; Foster et al., 2011b).

The coastal city of Quy Nhon in Vietnam is reducing flood risks by restoring

a 150-hectare zone of mangroves (Brown et al., 2012). Singapore has used

several anticipatory plans and projects to enhance green infrastructure

including its Streetscape Greenery Master Plan, constructed wetlands or

drains, and community gardens (Newman, 2010). Authorities in England

and the Netherlands are recognizing the linkages between spatial

planning and biodiversity, but without much direct response to climate

change adaptation. Barriers to action include short-term planning

horizons, uncertainty of climate change impacts, and problems of

creating habitats due to inadequate resources, ecological challenges,

or limited authority, and data (Wilson and Piper, 2008).

In Mombasa, the Bamburi Cement Company rehabilitated 220 hectares

of quarry land (Kithiia and Lyth, 2011). The resulting Haller Park attracts

more than 150,000 visitors per year, and has the potential to create

adaptation co-benefits. Cape Town has initiated community partnerships

to conserve biodiversity, including the Cape Flats Nature project with

the para-statal South African National Biodiversity Institute. Participating

schools and organizations explore ecosystem services (such as flood

mitigation and wetland restoration), and the project facilitates “champion

forums” to support conservation efforts (Ernstson et al., 2010, p. 539).

Dedicated green areas within urban environments compete for space

with other city-based needs and developer priorities. The role of strategic

urban planning in mediating among competing demands is potentially

useful for the governance of adaptation as demonstrated in London,

Toronto, and Rotterdam (Mees and Driessen, 2011). The experience in

Durban (see Box 8-2) also faces many challenges (Roberts et al., 2012),

including an assumption that ecosystem-based adaptation is an easy

alternative to the constraints that limit the implementation and

effectiveness of “hard engineering” solutions (Roberts et al., 2012;

Kithiia and Lyth, 2011). Experience in Durban shows that implementing

an ecologically functional and well-managed, diverse network of bio-

infrastructure requires data collection, expertise, and resources, and to

have direct and immediate co-benefits for local communities and ensure

integration across institutional and political boundaries. There are

substantial knowledge gaps such as determining where the limits or

thresholds lie; many ecosystems have been degraded to the point where

their capacity to provide useful services may be drastically reduced

(TEEB, 2010).

The review by Burley et al. (2012) of the wetlands of South East

Queensland, Australia, indicates that adaptations focused on wetland

and biodiversity conservation may impact urban form in coastal areas.

A study of changes in tree species composition, diversity, and distribution

across old and newly established urban parks in Bangalore, India, aims

to find ways to increase ecological benefits from these biodiversity

hotspots (Nagendra and Gopal, 2011). When Leipzig applied a new

approach to evaluating the impacts on local climate of current land uses

and proposed planning policies, using evapotranspiration and land

urface emissivity as indicators, green areas and water surfaces were

found to have cooling effects, as expected, but some policies increased

local temperatures (Schwarz et al., 2011).

Some aspects of mitigating climate change in urban areas requires a

dense urban form to maximize agglomeration economies in more efficient

resource use and waste reduction and to reduce urban expansion,

reliance on motorized transport, and building energy use. But adaptation

may require an urban form that favors green infrastructure and open

space for storm water management, species migration, and urban cooling

(Hamin and Gurran, 2009; Mees and Driessen, 2011). Higher densities

can prevent the maintenance of ecologically viable systems with high

biodiversity and exacerbate the urban heat island, in turn generating

the need for more cooling, increasing energy use, and further escalating

the urban heat island effect. This is the “density conundrum” (Hamin

and Gurran, 2009, p. 242): At what point are densities too high to

maintain ecologically viable systems with high biodiversity, especially

given that urbanization has already compromised the ability of

ecosystems to buffer urban development from hazards? This situation

will be further exacerbated by new hazards (e.g., floods, fires) to which

systems are or will be exposed as the result of climate change (Depietri

et al., 2012).

8.3.3.7.1. Green and white roofs

Green and white roofs, introduced in a range of cities, have the potential

to create synergies between mitigation and adaptation. Rooftop

vegetation helps decrease solar heat gain while cooling the air above

the building (Gill et al., 2007), thus improving the building’s energy

performance (Mees and Driessen, 2011; Parizotto and Lamberts, 2011).

It can reduce cooling demand and often the use of air conditioning with

its local contribution to heat gain and its implications for GHG emissions

(Jo et al., 2010; Zinzi and Agnoli, 2012). Rooftop vegetation can also retain

water during storms, reducing stormwater runoff (Voyde et al., 2010;

Palla et al., 2011; Schroll et al., 2011) and promoting local biodiversity

and food production. Studies have compared the performance of living

roofs across different plant cover types, levels of soil water, and climatic

conditions (see, e.g., Simmons et al., 2008; Jim, 2012). Hodo-Abalo et

al. (2012) confirm that a dense foliage green roof has a greater cooling

effect on buildings in Togolese hot-humid climate conditions. Several

field experiments combined with simulated modeling of impacts in the

USA also confirm the positive thermal behavior of green roofs compared

to alternative roof coverings (e.g., Getter et al., 2011; Scherba et al.,

2011; Susca et al., 2011). Durban has a pilot green roof project on a

municipal building; indigenous plants are being identified for the project

and rooftop food production is being investigated (Roberts, 2010). New

York’s lack of space for street-level planting helped encourage the

Urban Areas Chapter 8

575

adoption of living roofs (Corburn, 2009). Under its Skyrise Greenery

project, Singapore has provided subsidies and handbooks for rooftop

and wall greening initiatives (Newman, 2010). Based on field tests in the

UK, Castleton et al. (2010) find that older buildings with poor insulation

benefit more from green roofs than newer structures built to higher

insulation standards. Wilkinson and Reed (2009) suggest that the

overshadowing caused by buildings in city centers may mean lower

otential for green roof retrofits compared to installations in suburban

areas and smaller towns with lower rise buildings. Benvenuti and Bacci

(2010) highlight the availability of water as the main limiting factor in

the realization of green roofs.

A recent meta-analysis suggests that green roofs and parks may have

limited effects on cooling. Findings on green roofs were mixed; some

studies, but not all, showed lower temperatures above green sections.

An urban park was found to be about 1°C cooler than a non-green site

and larger parks had a greater cooling effect. Yet studies were mainly

observational, lacking rigorous experimental designs. It remains unclear

whether there is a simple linear relationship between a park’s size and

its cooling impact (Bowler et al., 2010) .

Cool roofs or white reflective roofs use bright surfaces to reflect shortwave

solar radiation, which lowers the surface temperature of buildings

compared to conventional (black) roofs with bituminous membrane

(Saber et al., 2012). There is also some work on roads and pavements

with increased reflectivity (Foster et al., 2011b). Some studies have

quantified the cooling benefits from white roofs in various urban

settings—in Hyderabad (Xu et al., 2012), in Sicily (Romeo and Zinzi,

2011), and in the North American climate (Saber et al., 2012). Comparisons

between green and white roofs have also been undertaken. Ismail et

al. (2011) investigated their cooling potential on a single-story building

in Malaysia, and Zinzi and Agnoli (2012) explored the difference in a

Mediterranean climate. Results suggest that local conditions play a

dominant role in determining the best treatment. Hamdan et al. (2012),

for instance, found a layer of clay on top of the roof as the most efficient

for passive cooling purposes in Jordan, compared to two different types

of reflective roofs.

8.3.3.8. Adapting Public Services and Other Public Responses

As city risk and vulnerability assessments become more common and

detailed, they provide a basis for assessing how policies and services can

adapt. Section 8.2 noted health impacts that can arise or be exacerbated

by climate change that will increase demands on health care systems—

including those linked to air pollution, extreme weather, food or water

contamination, and climate-sensitive disease vectors. For air quality,

additional research is still needed to understand the complex links

between weather and pollutants in the context of climate change

(Harlan and Ruddell, 2011). Important synergies can be achieved

through combining mitigation and adaptation strategies to improve air

quality, reduce private transport, and promote healthier lifestyles (Harlan

and Ruddell, 2011; see also Bloomberg and Aggarwala, 2008).

In responding to disasters, health care and emergency services (including

ambulance, police, and fire fighting) will have increased workloads

while also ensuring that their systems can adapt. Their effectiveness can

be enhanced by good working relationships with other key government

sectors and with civil protection services including the army and the

Red Cross/Red Crescent national societies. For cities without a robust

early warning system or an emergency response network, adapting to

climate change may require significant improvements in staffing,

resources, and preparedness plans, for example, the data and personnel

to deal with vulnerable residents during heat waves. Particular attention

may be required to provide emergency services for informal settlements

lacking adequate roads or infrastructure and, when needed, evacuation

lans for all those that have to move. There is little evidence of

consideration to changes in services in response to climate change in

the city case studies listed in Box 8-1.

Enhanced emergency medical services may help cope with extreme

events while health officials can also improve surveillance, forecast the

health risks and benefits of adaptation strategies, and support public

education campaigns. Public health systems may need to increase

attention to disease vector control (e.g., screening windows, eliminating

breeding grounds for the mosquitoes that are vectors for malaria and

dengue) and bolster food hygiene measures linking to increased flooding

and temperatures. The costs of adapting health care systems may be

considerable—for instance, modifying buildings and equipment, training

staff, and setting up comprehensive surveillance and monitoring

systems that can capture the health risks of climate change, as well as

other risks.

Schools and day-care centers may need risk and vulnerability assessments.

School buildings can be designed and built to serve as safe shelters

during floods or storms to which those at risk can move temporarily—

although it is also important after a disaster to quickly reestablish

functioning schools both for the benefit of children and their parents

(Bartlett, 2008).

8.4. Putting Urban Adaptation in Place:

Governance, Planning, and Management

This section discusses what we have learned about introducing adaptation

strategies into the decision processes of urban governments, households,

communities, and the private sector. Many aspects of adaptation can

be implemented only through what urban governments do, encourage,

allow, support, and control. This necessarily involves overlapping

responsibilities and authority across other levels of government as well

(Dietz et al., 2003; Ostrom, 2009; Blanco et al., 2011; Corfee-Morlot et

al., 2011; McCarney et al., 2011; Kehew et al., 2013). Approaches include

new urban policies and incentives for action, as well as ensuring that

existing policies reduce risk and vulnerability (Urwin and Jordan, 2008;

Bicknell et al., 2009; Brugmann, 2012). Transformation should be

considered where fundamental change to economic, regulatory, or

environmental systems is seen as the most appropriate mechanism for

reducing risk and where maintaining existing systems offers little scope

for adaptation (Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete, 2011), for instance

resettlement or abandonment of previously developed land.

City governments that have developed adaptation policies recognize

the value of an iterative process responsive to new information, analyses,

or frameworks (National Research Council, 2010). In a range of cities,

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

576

it has proved useful to have a unit responsible for this within city

government, drawing together relevant data, informing key politicians

and civil servants, encouraging engagement by different sectors and

departments, and consulting with key stakeholders (Roberts, 2010;

Brown et al., 2012).

The capacity of local authorities to work effectively, alone or with other

levels, is constrained by limited funding and technical expertise,

institutional mechanisms, and lack of information and leadership (Gupta

t al., 2007; Carmin et al., 2013). Established development priorities and

planning practices in functions like land-use, construction, or infrastructure

provision may not be aligned with the goals or practice of adaptation

(Ostrom, 2009; Pelling, 2011a; Garschagen, 2013). Many national

governments face comparable constraints and still do not recognize the

importance of local governments in adaptation (OECD, 2010). Local

adaptive capacity can benefit from disaster risk reduction (Schipper and

Pelling, 2006; UNISDR, 2008). New national legislation and institutions

on disaster risk reduction have helped in some cases to strengthen and

support local government capacity (Section 8.3.2.2), but as with other

forms of adaptation, they require budgetary support and an increase in

local professional capacities to be effective locally (Johnson, 2011).

8.4.1. Urban Governance and Enabling Frameworks,

Conditions, and Tools for Learning

Enabling conditions and frameworks to support urban adaptation are

grounded in institutional structures, values and local competence,

interest, awareness, and analytical capacity (Moser and Luers, 2008;

Birkmann et al., 2010). Preconditions for sound adaptation decision making

relate to principles of good urban government (what government does)

and governance (how they work with other institutions and actors

including the private sector and civil society) (OECD, 2010; Bulkeley et

al., 2011; Garschagen and Kraas, 2011). This includes science-policy

deliberative practice and vulnerability assessment (National Research

Council, 2007, 2008, 2009; Renn, 2008; Adger et al., 2009; Kehew, 2009;

Moser, 2009; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011). Civil society has important roles,

for instance through community risk assessment, and the incorporation

of local knowledge, preferences, and norms (Tompkins et al., 2008; van

Aalst et al., 2008; Shaw et al., 2009; Fazey et al., 2010; Krishnamurthy

et al., 2011). Human behavior, values, and social norms have a role and

can evolve through dialog and understanding (Dietz et al., 2003; Moser,

2006; Ostrom, 2009), and engagement with stakeholders over time is

ey to effective adaptation (Bulkeley et al., 2011; Kehew et al., 2013).

This has to allow consideration of dominant development trajectories

and alternatives that can be approached by transformative adaptation.

The capacity to act within urban settings varies with the organizational

context for development (Section 8.1, Table 8-2), including the level of

decentralization (Blanco et al., 2011; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011; McCarney

et al., 2011).

8.4.1.1. Multi-Level Governance and the Unique Role of Urban

Governments

A framework for urban governance emerges from the challenges

that climate change brings to multilevel risk governance. Figure 8-4

summarizes key actors and their relationships. Here, knowledge, policy,

and action are produced through the interaction, across scales, of three

kinds of actors (based on Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011):

• Knowledge producers (academic science, community, business, and

non-governmental organization (NGO) produced research)

• Knowledge actors or users (most important here is local government

often in collaboration with partners)

• Knowledge filters who can mediate between knowledge production

and action (the media, lobby groups, and boundary organizations

that help in translation) (Carvalho and Burgess, 2005; Leiserowitz,

2006; Ashley et al., 2012).

Media (print, blogs, audio-visual, etc.); individual

agenda setters; boundary organizations; lobby groups

Argument, persuasion, and interpretation to shape

mitigation, adaptation, and urban development

Government decision making, implementation, or management –

urban, regional, national (e.g., on development cooperation);

communities and households; civil society; business

Academic science, business, and NGO

research, experts, and communities

Knowledge ﬁlters

Deliberation and decision making

Knowledge actorsKnowledge producers

Figure 8-4 | The co-production of knowledge and policy for adaptation, mitigation, and development in urban systems (adapted from Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011).

Urban Areas Chapter 8

577

Urban governments, provided with authority for relevant policy decisions,

are central to this process (Blanco et al., 2011; Corfee-Morlot et al.,

2011; McCarney, 2012; Kehew et al., 2013). Good practice also hinges

in part upon the credibility, legitimacy, and salience of science policy

processes; a strong local evidence base of historical and projected data

on climate change; and ongoing, open processes to support dialog

between government, civil society, and expert advisors (Cash and Moser,

000; Cash et al., 2006; National Research Council, 2007; Preston et al.,

2011; Kehew et al., 2013; see also Chapter 2). Timely and salient

communication is important where a key role is played by the media,

lobby groups, and boundary organizations that “translate” scientific or

expert information for local communities and sometimes also help to

shape the questions of scientific inquiry (Jasanoff, 1998; Gieryn, 1999;

Moser, 2006; Moser and Dilling, 2007; Moser and Luers, 2008). Good

governance facilitates the mediation of policy and decision processes

across these different actors, spheres of influence, sources of information,

and resources, to co-produce knowledge and support learning and action

over time.

While urban governments have authority for many relevant adaptation

decisions, they can be enabled, bounded, or constrained by national,

subnational, or supranational laws, policies, and funding and land use

and infrastructure planning decisions (OECD, 2010; Brown, 2011; Carter,

2011; Martins and da Costa Ferreira, 2011; Arup and C40, 2012; Kehew

et al., 2013). This includes establishing formal mandates for urban

adaptation action, without which adaptation becomes optional or

discretionary, dependent on local-level interest and resources, and

particularly vulnerable to leadership change. Where mandates for

adaptation exist, they have been important in driving local level action

(Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010). New mandates (formal or informal)

may also require institutional changes (Roberts, 2008; Lowe et al., 2009;

Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010).

The level of complexity is raised in large metropolitan areas, especially

when they are growing rapidly. Action has to be coordinated and

harmonized across multiple urban jurisdictions; often dozens of them

(e.g., Mexico City, São Paulo, London, and Buenos Aires) and occasionally

hundreds (e.g., Abidjan and Tokyo) (McCarney et al., 2011; McCarney,

2012), for instance to implement flood protection of contiguous land areas

(Hallegatte et al., 2011b). Although there is some evidence of innovative

responses at subnational levels to plan for extreme weather events and

climate change, limited capacity and experience at local government

level suggests the need for support from higher levels of government

(Norman and Nakanishi, 2011; EEA, 2012; Gurran et al., 2012).

Policies and incentives need to be aligned to work coherently across

multiple levels of government to define and deliver effective urban

adaptation. This often involves institutions at different levels with

different scopes of authority (Young, 2002; Bulkeley and Kern, 2006; Cash

et al., 2006; Mukheibir and Ziervogel, 2007; Urwin and Jordan, 2008;

Kern and Gotelind, 2009; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011; EEA, 2012). Water

authorities, for instance, may operate at water-basin level, representing

both national and local interests while operating independently of

urban authorities. Failing to ensure consistent alignment and integration

in risk management can lock in outcomes that raise the vulnerability of

urban populations, infrastructure, and natural systems even where

pro-active adaptation policies exist (Urwin and Jordan, 2008; OECD,

2009; Benzie et al., 2011). Local government capacity is important, as

well as the institutions that facilitate coordination across multiple,

nested, poly-centric authorities with potential to mainstream adaptation

measures and tailor national goals and policies to local circumstances

and preferences. Horizontal coordination and networking across actors

and institutions in different municipalities and metropolitan areas can

accelerate learning and action (Aall et al., 2007; Lowe et al., 2009;

Schroeder and Bulkeley, 2009).

onsultation and awareness-raising can help avoid the kind of public

backlash that occurred when the French government sought to ban

urban development and require strategic retreat in areas of risk to

coastal flooding after the 2010 storm Xynthia (Laurent, 2010; Przyluski

and Hallegatte, 2012). There can also be vested interests and trade-offs

where near-term development conflicts with longer-term adaptation

and resilience goals. Public engagement, openness, and transparency

can help ensure democratic debate to balance public interests and

longer-term goals against the short-term benefits of unconstrained

development. Urban governments are uniquely situated to understand

local contexts, raise local awareness, respond to citizens’ and civil society

pressures, and work to build an inclusive policy space (Grindle and

Thomas, 1991; Brunner, 1996; Cash and Moser, 2000; Brunner et al., 2005;

Healey, 2006). Urban governments can also promote understanding of

climate change risk and help to create a common vision for the future

(Moser, 2006; Moser and Dilling, 2007; Ostrom, 2009; Corfee-Morlot et

al., 2011). The fact that preferences are more homogeneous within

smaller units (Ostrom, 2009) provides opportunities for leadership and

innovation that may not exist at higher levels of governance. Urban

governments, so often responsible for a substantial share of urban

infrastructure (Arup and C40, 2012; Hall et al., 2012), are also central

to the interface between climate change and development, including

provision for essential infrastructure and services (Bulkeley and Kern,

2006; Bulkeley, 2010). Urban planning structures, processes, and plans

can integrate and mainstream adaptation plans and risk management

into urban and sectoral planning with a clear time frame, mandate, and

resources for implementation (Agrawala and Fankhauser, 2008; Bicknell

et al., 2009; Brugmann, 2012), even if functional authority is at national

or subnational regional levels (Hall et al., 2012). Many urban governments

show growing awareness and analytical capacity in adaptation planning

but there is less evidence in implementation and influence on key sectors

(Roberts, 2010).

Local government decisions can be driven by short-term priorities of

economic growth and competitiveness (Moser and Luers, 2008) and

addressing climate change can mean taking a longer-term perspective

(Leichenko, 2011; Pelling, 2011a; Romero-Lankao and Qin, 2011; Viguié

and Hallegatte, 2012). Tension also exists between economic growth

and the needs of the large, often growing, numbers of ill-served urban

poor (Bicknell et al., 2009) whose resilience to climate change will

depend on infrastructure and services. The challenges in low- and

middle-income countries are exacerbated by relative inattention from

international donors to urban policy and development concerns, as they

have historically worked through national government planning

processes, which may not capture the needs of urban populations

(Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2013). Donors may also prefer visible physical

infrastructure projects over local institution and capacity-building

investments. Most national governments in high-income countries also

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

578

have yet to fully embrace local adaptation initiatives (McCarney et al.,

2011).

8.4.1.2. Mainstreaming Adaptation into Municipal Planning

Mainstreaming adaptation into urban planning and land use management

and legal and regulatory frameworks is key to successful adaptation

(Lowe et al., 2009; Kehew et al., 2013). It can help planners rethink

raditional approaches to land use and infrastructure design based on

past trends, and move toward more forward looking risk-based design

for a range of future climate conditions (Kithiia, 2010; Solecki et al., 2011;

Kennedy and Corfee-Morlot, 2013), as well as reducing administrative

cost by building resilience through existing policy channels (Urwin and

Jordan, 2008; Benzie et al., 2011; Blanco et al., 2011). Mainstreaming

through local government policies and planning ensures that investments

and actions by businesses and households contribute to adaptation

(Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010; Sussman et al., 2010; Brown, 2011;

Mees and Driessen, 2011). But this must avoid overloading already

complex and inadequate planning systems with unrealistic new

requirements (Roberts, 2008; Kithiia, 2010); particularly in many low-

and middle-income countries, these systems are already stressed by lack

of information, institutional constraints, and resource limitations.

Mainstreaming may best be initiated by encouraging pilot projects and

supporting experimentation by key sectors within local government.

Assigning responsibility to specific departments can make the adaptation

(and mitigation) message easier to understand by local governments

and other stakeholders and the associated responsibilities and actions

clearer and simpler to identify and assign (Roberts, 2010; UN-HABITAT,

2011a; Roberts and O’Donoghue, 2013). Pilot projects and sectoral

approaches ground adaptation in practical reality (Roberts, 2010;

Tyler et al., 2010; UN-HABITAT, 2011a; Brown et al., 2012). As actors in

each sector in local government come to understand their roles and

responsibilities, the basis for integration and cross-sectoral coordination

is formed.

The literature suggests that opportunities to mainstream climate change

into urban planning and development are still largely missed (Sánchez-

Rodríguez, 2009). The planning agenda can already be full (Measham

et al., 2011). Challenges in information, institutional fragmentation, and

resources (Sánchez-Rodríguez, 2009; Wilson et al., 2011) make it difficult

to introduce the additional layer of climate change planning (Roberts,

2008; Kithiia, 2010), which may also be seen merely as “add-ons”

(Kithiia and Dowling, 2010, p. 474).

Other challenges also limit progress—for instance the lack of leadership

and of focal points on urban adaptation (see Section 8.4.3.4 for more

detail). In times of economic hardship (e.g., the current recession), local

authorities with already limited resources may prioritize conventional

economic and development goals over “environmental” issues including

climate change adaptation (Shaw and Theobald, 2011; Solecki, 2012).

A further challenge is getting the timely evaluation of emerging

adaptation measures (Hedger et al., 2008; Preston et al., 2011).

Experience with adaptation programs show they are often more cross-

sectoral, cross-institutional, and complex. They operate across a range

of scales and timelines; are rooted in local contexts; involve many

stakeholders; and include high levels of uncertainty (Roberts et al., 2012;

Roberts and O’Donoghue, 2013). Standardized guidelines for action are

less relevant and urban adaptation practitioners have identified instead

the need for “clarity, creativity, and courage” (ICLEI Oceania, 2008, p.

62). In all instances, where progress on adaptation planning is observed,

local leadership is a central factor (Carmin et al., 2009, 2013; Measham

et al., 2011).

8.4.1.3. Delivering Co-Benefits

Important opportunities also exist to combine adaptation and mitigation

goals in urban housing policies (and the energy sources they draw on),

infrastructure investments, and land use decisions—especially in high-

and middle-income countries (Satterthwaite, 2011). Co-benefits for

mitigation and for transformation require a reconsideration of dominant

development pathways and of possible alternatives both within and

beyond the urban core, influencing, for instance, local environments

along with water basin management and coastal defense regimes

(Urwin and Jordan, 2008; OECD, 2010). Examples of positive and

negative interactions between urban adaptation and mitigation strategies

suggest that these strategies will need to be assessed and managed to

achieve co-benefits (Viguié and Hallegatte, 2012; Kennedy and Corfee-

Morlot, 2013). Viguié and Hallegatte (2012) demonstrate that despite

trade-offs, careful planning can yield adaptation-mitigation co-benefits

across greenbelt policies, flood zoning, and transportation policies. Local

governments may be able to address both adaptation and mitigation

using pre-existing tools and policies such as building standards, transport

infrastructure planning, and other urban planning tools (Hallegatte et

al., 2011a). It may be possible to avoid or limit trade-offs by developing

institutional links between the different policy areas at the level of local

planning (Swart and Raes, 2007; Viguié and Hallegatte, 2012; Kennedy

and Corfee-Morlot, 2013).

Adaptation can produce development co-benefits in urban areas including

safer, healthier, and more comfortable urban homes and environments

and reduced vulnerability for low-income groups to disruptions in their

incomes and livelihoods (Kousky and Schneider, 2003; Bicknell et al.,

2009; Burch, 2010; Clapp et al., 2010; Roberts, 2010; Anguelovski and

Carmin, 2011;Hallegatte et al., 2011a). Local development co-benefits

may be particularly important to highlight in low- and middle-income

countries, where lack of policy buy-in accompanies limited local capacity

(UN-HABITAT, 2011a) and where current climate change challenges

appear marginal compared with development deficits (Roberts, 2008;

Kithiia and Dowling, 2010; Kiunsi, 2013). Urban authorities in India can

see adaptation as a priority if it also addresses development and

environmental health concerns (Sharma and Tomar, 2010).

Development and climate change adaptation are often seen as separate

challenges in a subnational planning context. A review in OECD countries

showed only Japan and South Korea championing climate action as

integral to subnational development planning, although Finland and

Sweden have innovative subnational climate policies and action programs

funded by central government (OECD, 2010). For most OECD countries,

urban development and adaptation are tackled separately. Yet policy

research finds that successful adaptation is rooted within and harmonized

Urban Areas Chapter 8

579

with such development priorities as poverty reduction, food security,

and disaster risk reduction (Moser and Luers, 2008; Bicknell et al., 2009;

Measham et al., 2011).

8.4.1.4. Urban Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Practices:

Understanding Science, Development, and

Policy Interactions

A critical aspect of urban climate risk governance is the integration of

scientific knowledge into decision making, building on exchange among

scientists, policymakers, and those at risk (Vescovi et al., 2007; National

Research Council, 2009; Government of South Africa, 2010; Rosenzweig

and Solecki, 2010). International policy advisory agencies with an interest

in urban adaptation can augment this (Sonover et al., 2007; ICLEI, 2010),

but will depend on local capacity and engagement to produce, access,

and use climate change information and processes (Hallegatte et al.,

2011a; Carmin et al., 2013). Local and regional boundary organizations

can be influential in making scientific and technical information more

salient to decision makers (Bourque et al., 2009; Corfee-Morlot et al.,

2011). In many instances, key boundary functions are carried out by

nearby academic or research communities and these can also be a

source of leadership for urban adaptation (Sánchez-Rodríguez, 2009;

Government of South Africa, 2010).

Even where detailed vulnerability or risk assessments exist, their

influence may be limited if decision makers do not access and use this

information. Urban master plans or strategic plans with a time horizon

of 10 or more years can incorporate climate risks and vulnerabilities, but

assessments must be available to influence such plans. Moser and Tribbia

(2006), exploring how decision makers access and use information, find

that resource managers tend to rely more on informal sources (maps

or in-house experts, media, and Internet) than on scientific journals. This

reinforces the point made earlier in regard to producers of scientific and

information and knowledge actors to needing to work closely with

decision makers in the production and communication of scientific

information (Cash et al., 2003, 2006; Moser, 2006; Corfee-Morlot et al.,

2011).

8.4.1.5. Assessment Tools: Risk Screening, Vulnerability Mapping,

and Urban Integrated Assessment

Assessments of risk and vulnerability to the direct and indirect impacts

of climate change are often the first step in getting government attention,

especially when put in the context of development policy objectives

(Hallegatte et al., 2011a; Mehrotra et al., 2011a; see also Section 8.2).

Including risk management information in infrastructure design at the

planning or design phase can mean lower retrofit costs later on (Baker,

2012; World Bank, 2012). A variety of planning and assessment tools

can be helpful, including impact assessment, environmental audits,

vulnerability mapping, disaster risk assessment and management tools,

local agenda 21 plans, and urban integrated assessment as part of

public investment planning and as used by community organizations

(Haughton, 1999; UN-HABITAT, 2007; Baker, 2012). Governments can

ensure that up-to-date climate information is available to the private

sector to support adaptation (Agrawala et al., 2011; see also Section

8.4.2.3). Some of these tools provide entry points and a means for

participatory engagement, but often give little consideration to adaptation

(Gurran et al., 2012). More reliable, specific, and downscaled projections

of climate change and tools for risk screening and management can

help engage relevant public sector actors and the interest of businesses

and consumers (AGF, 2010a; UNEP, 2011).

Local climate change risk assessments, vulnerability, and risk mapping

can identify vulnerable populations and locations at risk and provide a

ool for urban adaptation decisions (Ranger et al., 2009; Hallegatte et

al., 2011a; Livengood and Kunte, 2012; Kienberger et al., 2013). The

LOCATE methodology (Local Options for Communities to Adapt and

Technologies to Enhance Capacity), which integrates hazard and

vulnerability mapping to inform choices about which populations,

infrastructure, and areas to prioritize for action (Annecke, 2010) is being

tested in eight African countries; in each, an NGO is working with

communities on across-project design and implementation, monitoring,

evaluation, and learning.

Tools that organize and rank information on vulnerability in different

locations often aim to identify relative and absolute differences in risk

and resilience capacity (Milman and Short, 2008; Hahn et al., 2009;

Posey, 2009; Manuel-Navarrete et al., 2011). They vary from quick

screenings to fuller risk analyses and evaluations of adaptation options

(Hammill and Tanner, 2011). Preston et al. (2011), noting the wide

variety of functions and methods in 45 vulnerability mapping studies,

suggest that effectiveness is guided by identifying clear goals, robust

technical methods, and engagement of the appropriate user communities.

Halsnæs and Trærup (2009) recommend the use of a limited set of

indicators; engagement with representatives of local development

policy objectives; and a stepwise approach to address climate change

impacts, development linkages, and economic, social, and environmental

dimensions. Methods for application across scale (Kienberger et al.,

2013), considering the urban environment as a system, allow for better

understanding of interconnections between root causes, risk production,

cascading impacts, and vulnerabilities (Kirshen et al., 2008; UNISDR,

2011; da Silva et al., 2012).

Downscaling of climate scenarios, systems models, and urban integrated

assessment modelling at local scales integrate information in a forward-

looking framework to support urban policy assessment (e.g., van Vuuren

et al., 2007; Dawson et al., 2009; Hall et al., 2010; Hallegatte et al.,

2011a; Walsh et al., 2011; Viguié and Hallegatte, 2012). Integrated

assessment modelling considers the driving forces of urban vulnerability

and climate change impacts alongside possible policy responses and

their outcomes. By integrating knowledge, this provides a tool for policy

makers to examine and better understand synergies and trade-offs

across policy strategies (Dawson et al., 2009; Viguié and Hallegatte, 2012).

These modeling frameworks take time to build and to be incorporated

into decision-making processes. Although early results are promising,

they also highlight the difficulty of producing tools that can be easily

used by local governments (e.g., see also Hall et al., 2012; Walsh et al.,

2011, 2013).

Despite growing attention, useful assessment of climate change at

urban spatial scales is generally lacking (Hunt and Watkiss, 2011). A

small number of cities, largely in high-income countries, have quantified

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

580

local climate change risks; even fewer have quantified possible costs

under different scenarios. Some exceptions exist: Durban has developed

a benefit-cost model for adaptation options (Cartwright et al., 2013),

and there have been urban climate risk assessments in low- or middle-

income developing countries as part of targeted development cooperation

programs, supported by external partners (World Bank, 2011, 2013).

Sea level rise and coastal flood risk, health, and water resources are

among the most studied sectors; energy, transport, and built infrastructure

get far less attention (Hunt and Watkiss, 2011; World Bank, 2011, 2013;

Roy et al., 2012). Science and climate change information is increasingly

available, but socioeconomic drivers of vulnerability and impacts, and

opportunities and barriers to adaptation are less well studied and

understood (Measham et al., 2011; Romero-Lankao and Qin, 2011).

8.4.2. Engaging Citizens, Civil Society, the Private Sector,

and Other Actors and Partners

8.4.2.1. Engaging Stakeholders in Urban Planning and Building

Decision Processes for Learning

A common vision of a future resilient, safe, and healthy city can be the

first step to achieving it (Moser, 2006; Moser and Dilling, 2007; Corfee-

Morlot et al., 2011; UN-HABITAT, 2011a). Participatory processes figure

prominently in cities that have been leaders in urban adaptation

(Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010; Brown et al., 2012; Carmin et al.,

2012b). The conceptual literature agrees that participatory decision

making is essential where uncertainty and complexity characterize

scientific understanding of policy problems (Funtowicz and Ravetz,

1993; Liberatore and Funtowicz, 2003). Many have argued that the

institutional features of the risk management decision-making process—

participatory inclusiveness, equity, awareness raising, deliberation,

argument, and persuasion—will determine the legitimacy and

effectiveness of action (Dietz et al., 2003; Lim et al., 2004; Mukheibir

and Ziervogel, 2007; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011). Yet the review of

45 vulnerability mapping exercises found that only 40% included

stakeholder participation, raising questions about the legitimacy and

salience of contemporary approaches (Preston et al., 2011). It also

highlights the challenge local governments face to garner resources,

including technical expertise and institutional capacity, to organize and

use participatory processes to strengthen rather than delay adaptation

decision making (Carmin et al., 2013).

In many urban settings, civil society and the private sector already have

significant and positive roles in support of adaptation planning and

decisions. Some studies show that despite limited information, adaptation

at urban scale is moving ahead, particularly through initial planning

and awareness raising (Lowe et al., 2009; Anguelovski and Carmin,

2011; Hunt and Watkiss, 2011). Experience in a handful of cities—for

example, Cape Town, Durban, London, New York—shows that a wide

number and variety of engaged stakeholders at early stages in a risk

assessment creates political support and momentum for follow-up

research and adaptation planning (Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010;

Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Hunt and Watkiss, 2011). In informal

settlements with little or no formal infrastructure and services, stakeholder

engagement is a means for participatory community risk assessment,

where local adaptive capacity is built in part through local knowledge

(Livengood and Kunte, 2012; Kiunsi, 2013). Over time, institutional

mechanisms can be built that support innovation, collaboration, and

learning within and across sectors to advance urban adaptation action,

but it takes time and resources (Mukheibir and Ziervogel, 2007; Burch,

2010; Roberts, 2010; Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011).

8.4.2.2. Supporting Household and Community-Based Adaptation

In well-governed cities, community groups and local governments are

mutually supportive, providing information, capacity, and resources in

maintaining local environmental health and public safety, which in turn

can support adaptation. Where local government has not yet formulated

an adaptation strategy, community groups can raise political visibility

for climate risks and provide front-line coping (Wilson, 2006; Granberg

and Elander, 2007), and also begin to address gender disparities in

urban risks (Björnberg and Hansson, 2013).

The full range of infrastructure and services needed for resilience is

generally affordable only in middle- and upper-income residential

developments in low- and lower-middle income countries. In most cities

and neighborhoods, where infrastructure coverage is incomplete and

household incomes limited, community organizations—or community-

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 8.4 | Shouldn’t urban adaptation plans wait until there is more certainty

about local climate change impacts?

More reliable, locally speciﬁc, and downscaled projections of climate change impacts and tools for risk screening

and management are needed. But local risk and vulnerability assessments that include attention to those risks that

limate change will or may increase provide a basis for incorporating adaptation into development now, including

supporting policy revisions and more effective emergency plans. In addition, much infrastructure and most buildings

have a lifespan of many decades so investments made now need to consider what changes in risks could take place

uring their lifetime. The incorporation of climate change adaptation into each urban center’s development planning,

infrastructure investments and land use management is well served by an iterative process within each locality of

learning about changing risks and uncertainties that informs an assessment of policy options and decisions.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

581

based adaptation—offer a rich resource of adaptive capacity to cope

and to prepare for future risk. A range of studies document the depth

of knowledge and capacities held by local populations around reducing

exposure and vulnerability (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Dodman

and Mitlin, 2011; Livengood and Kunte, 2012). For a high proportion of

the households that live in informal urban settlements, household and

community-based adaptation is their only means of responding to risk.

hey are well used to coping with environmental hazards (Wamsler,

2007; Adelekan, 2010; Jabeen et al., 2010; Livengood and Kunte, 2012;

Kiunsi, 2013). Some seek to modify hazards or reduce exposure—for

example, through ventilation and roof coverings to reduce high

temperatures; barriers to prevent floodwater entering homes; keeping

food stores on top of high furniture; and moving temporarily to safer

locations (Douglas et al., 2008). A study in Korail, one of Dhaka’s largest

informal settlements, showed the range of household responses to flood

risk (see Figure 8-5). These include barriers across door fronts, increasing

the height of furniture, building floors or shelves above the flood line,

and using portable cookers (Jabeen et al., 2010). Provision for ventilation,

creepers, or other material on roofs and false ceilings helped to keep

down temperatures. These are important near-term adaptations, and

there are similar responses in many informal settlements (e.g., Adelekan,

2010; Kiunsi, 2013), but they do not generate capacity to adapt to future

risk.

There are multiple constraints on action for low-income households.

Even where there are early warnings, a lack of trust in the security of

their property and the right to return, along with fears for personal

safety in shelters, are deterrents against evacuation (Jabeen et al., 2010;

Hardoy et al., 2011). Tenants and those with the least secure tenure are

often among the most vulnerable and exposed to hazards but also are

usually unwilling to invest in improving the housing they live in and less

willing to invest in community initiatives. Community-based responses

are often reactive, addressing current more than future risks, though

they may embody alternative development values and support local

transformation. Shifting the burden of adaptation to the community

level alone is unlikely to bring success. There are limits to what

community action can do in urban areas. For instance, communities may

build and maintain local water sources, toilets, and washing facilities

or construct or improve drainage (see for instance the programs in cities

in Pakistan described in Hasan, 2006) but they can neither provide the

network infrastructure on which these depend (e.g., the water, sewer,

nd drainage mains and water treatment) nor can they improve city-

region governance (Bicknell et al., 2009). Work on cities in the Caribbean

and Latin America indicates the need for supportive links to community

networks and/or local government for community-level adaptation to

be effective (Pelling, 2011b; Mitlin, 2012).

There is some recognition that strengthening the asset base of low-

income households helps increase their resilience to stresses and shocks,

including those related to climate change (Moser and Satterthwaite,

2009). It has become more common for local governments to work with

community-based organizations in upgrading their homes and settlements

in disaster risk reduction (UNISDR, 2009, 2011; IFRC, 2010; Pelling, 2011b),

and community-based adaptation is building on these experiences and

capacities (Archer and Boonyabancha, 2011; Carcellar et al., 2011).

Communities can have close relationships with formal state and market

institutions, shaping subsequent adaptive capacity for members. Most

housing and infrastructure upgrading programs mean that those living

in low-income settlements become incorporated into “the formal” city

and this often means an increased expectation on the state to reduce

vulnerability, including long-term and strategic adaptation investments

through access to schools, health care, infrastructure, and safety nets

(Ferguson and Navarrete, 2003; Imparato and Ruster, 2003; Boonyabancha,

2005; UN Millennium Project, 2005; Fernandes, 2007; Almansi, 2009).

Section AA’

Household 30

0’ 1’ 2’ 4’ 6’

Wooden planks

for false ceiling

Gap between roof and partition

CI sheet in roof

CI sheet partition

Floor of wooden planks

Bamboo frame

Earth

Recycled concrete blocks

Concrete blocks work

as retaining members

CI sheet

partition

ExtensionOriginal house

Water level

Pipe used for drainage

Earthen

ﬂoor

Figure 8-5 | Household adaptation—a cross-section of a shelter in an informal settlement in Dhaka (Korail) showing measures to cope with ﬂooding and high temperatures

(Jabeen et al., 2010). CI = corrugated iron.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

582

There can still be obstacles. Where climate change or disaster risk is

seen as distant or low probability, the immediate pressures of poverty

tend to dominate local agendas (Banks et al., 2011). In many informal

settlements, the issue of land tenure is also difficult to resolve and

impedes upgrading programs (Boonyabancha, 2005, 2009; Almansi,

2009) and thus local-level adaptation action.

In a growing number of cities, residents’ organizations supported by

grassroots leaders and local NGOs are mapping and enumerating their

nformal settlements with eventual support and recognition from city

governments (Patel and Baptist, 2012). This provides the data and maps

needed to plan the installation or upgrading of infrastructure and

services. Some of these enumerations also collect data on risks and

vulnerabilities to extreme weather and other hazards (UN-HABITAT,

2007; Carcellar et al., 2011; Pelling, 2011b; Livengood and Kunte, 2012).

For example, community surveys in the Philippines identified at-risk

communities under bridges, in landslide-prone areas, on coastal shorelines

and river banks, near open dumpsites, and in flood-prone locations

(Carcellar et al., 2011). This mapping raises awareness among inhabitants

of the risks they face, as well as getting their engagement in planning risk

reduction and making early warning systems and emergency evacuation

effective (Pelling, 2011b). Table 8-4 illustrates the contemporary limits

of community-based action across key sites of coping and adaptation—

highlighting where strategic partnerships, especially with a supportive

municipal government, have key advantages.

IFRC (2010) identifies three broad requirements for successful urban

community-based disaster risk reduction that can be extended to assess

coping and adaptive capacity: the motivation and partnership of

stakeholders; community ownership, with flexibility in project design;

and sufficient time, funding, and management capacity. The effectiveness

of community-based action also depends on how representative and

inclusive the community leaders and organizations are (Appadurai,

2001; Wamsler, 2007; Banks, 2008; Houtzager and Acharya, 2011; Mitlin,

2012); their capacity to generate pressure for larger changes within

government; and the relations between community organizations and

government (Boonyabancha and Mitlin, 2012). Community-based

adaptation can support transformation where it engages with key

development agendas to reduce poverty and vulnerability (Sabates-

Wheeler et al., 2008), and can address local inequalities and adverse

power relations at district, city, national, and transnational levels

(

Mohan and Stokke, 2000). But urban governance regimes are often

resistant to change and civil society organizations can be marginalized

or co-opted, reducing the scope for transformative adaptation (Pelling

and Manuel-Navarrete, 2011).

8.4.2.3. Private Sector Engagement and the Insurance Sector

Cities are attractive to private enterprises because so much business

activity, private investment, and demand are concentrated there. Private

enterprises generally favor cities with functioning city infrastructure and

a wide range of services. As noted earlier, much investment for sound

adaptation will need to come from households and firms of all sizes

(Agrawala and Fankhauser, 2008; Bowen and Rydge, 2011). Brugmann

(2012) argues that effective adaptation depends on catalyzing market-

based investments. Beyond acting to protect their own interests,

businesses are stakeholders in urban decision making, positioned to

exploit new opportunities that arise from climate change (Chapter 14;

see also Khattri et al., 2010). Private service providers and professional

associations—including architects, engineers, and urban planners—can

influence the pace and quality of adaptation efforts where an

understanding of climate change is part of professional training and

knowledge (McBain et al., 2010). Even when considering more political

Capacity / focus of action

Coping: drawing on existing resources to reduce

vulnerability and hazardousness and contain impacts from

current and expected risk.

Adaptation: using existing resources and especially

information to reorganize future asset proﬁ les and

entitlements to better position the household in light of

anticipated future risk, and to prepare for surprises.

Physical: buildings and critical

community-level infrastructure

Often possible to improve these although tenants will have little motivation

to do so.

Limits in how much risk reduction is possible within settlement (i.e., without

trunk infrastructure to connect to).

Physical: land and environment Local hazard reduction through drain cleaning, slope stabilization, etc. is

a common focus of community-based action (although there are fewer

incentives where the majority of residents are short-term tenants or

threatened with eviction).

External input required to design local hazard reduction works in ways that

will consider the impacts of climate change 20 years or more in the future.

Social: health, education Many examples of community-based action to improve local health and

education access and outcomes, often with strong NGO and /or local

government support.

Health care and education are amenable to supporting adaptation by

providing long-term investments in capacity building. They are rarely framed

in climate change adaptation terms.

Economic: local livelihoods Livelihoods routinely assessed as part of household assessments of coping

capacity in urban areas. More rarely is there a local livelihood focus for

community-based coping.

Livelihoods and wider economic entitlements are key to individual adaptive

proﬁ les, but are seldom considered as part of urban community-based

adaptation programs.

Institutional: community

organization

Local community strengthening is a common goal of interventions aimed

at building coping capacity. Risk mapping, early warning, risk awareness,

community health promotion, and shelter training are common foci

increasingly applied to urban communities. Local savings groups may have

important roles.

Local community strengthening is a core element of planning for adaptation

but there are few assessments of the medium- / long-term sustainability

of outcomes. Where these have been undertaken, close ties to wider civil

society networks or supportive local government were evident and these

helped community organizations and actions to persist.

Institutional: external inﬂ uence It is unusual for coping programs to include an element of external advocacy

aimed at changing policy or practices in local government.

Despite being core to determining future adaptation, there are very few

examples of urban community based adaptation projects that include a

targeted focus or parallel activity aimed at shifting priorities and practices in

local government and beyond to support community capacity building.

Table 8-4 | The possibilities and limitations of focused activity for community groups on climate change coping and adaptation.

Key: green = many cases of activity; amber = few cases of activity; red = very few cases of activity.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

583

issues around the support of adaptation efforts (AGF, 2010b,c), most

studies conclude that the need for adaptation investments will far exceed

available funds from public budgets (Chapter 15; see also Agrawala and

Fankhauser, 2008; World Bank, 2010d; Hedger, 2011).

For markets to favor urban adaptation, the private sector will need to see

financial justification for involvement, for example, to ensure business

ontinuity. A survey of companies on the most serious risks they faced

(Aon, 2013) ranked weather/natural disasters 16th and climate change

38th although some higher ranked risks such as commodity prices (8th)

or distribution/supply chain failure (14th) may be associated with climate

change. Risk rankings differed by region (in Asia Pacific weather/natural

disasters were 8th) and by sector (for agribusiness, weather/natural

disasters were 2nd). Failure of climate change adaptation (as ‘governments

and business fail to enforce or enact effective measures to protect

populations and transition businesses impacted by climate change’)

was listed by World Economic Forum (2013, p. 46) as one of the most

likely environmental risks over the next 10 years and with having a high

impact if the risk was to occur. Private sector actors may not be well

positioned to consider the big adaptation questions, including changes

in land use, development, and infrastructure planning (Redclift et al.,

2011). For example, in Cancun, Mexico, close relationships between

government and the corporate sector and the push for lucrative

development have perpetuated an urban development model that

generates climate change risk by increasing the hazard exposure of

capital intensive, large-scale coastal development (Manuel-Navarrete et

al., 2011). Without transformative change in urban development planning,

private sector investments in adaptation will remain limited, such as

designing buildings to withstand hurricanes but not tackling where

development occurs. In the Cancun case, most investment comes from

the state, for example, in beach replenishment and policies for rapid

disaster recovery (Manuel-Navarrete et al., 2011).

The Private Sector Initiative of the UNFCCC Nairobi Work Programme

offers support for businesses to integrate climate change science into

their business planning, including in urban infrastructure and technology

developments (http://unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_programme/

private_sector_initiative/items/6547.php). This shows that both public

and private (including civil society) actors can have a role in providing

regional data and projections of socioeconomic trends, climate change,

urban water supply and management practices, land use and building

trends, and hazard mapping (UNEP, 2011). A review shows anecdotal

evidence of large businesses investing in vulnerability assessments, yet

few beginning to invest in adaptation (Agrawala et al., 2011). While

some private sector actors take action against climate change risks,

many postpone upfront investments for longer-term benefits against

uncertain risks. Eakin et al. (2010) and Chu and Schroeder (2010)

suggest that the private sector becomes more prominent when local

governments and civil society action is limited, but this raises the issue

of what incentives are required, especially in regard to low-income

countries and communities.

Particularly in wealthier countries and communities, insurance markets

can share and spread financial risk from climate change, for example,

to help limit damages and manage risks in urban flood-prone areas

(Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010; see also Chapters 10 and 14). Risk-

differentiated property insurance premiums can incentivize individuals

and businesses to invest in adaption and retrofitting property or to

avoid building in high-risk areas (Mills, 2007, 2012; Fankhauser et al.,

2008). Relevant insurance instruments include health and life insurance

for individuals; property and possession insurance for home and

commercial property owners; and micro-insurance or micro-finance

mechanisms to support those in low-income urban communities that are

not covered by commercial insurance (see Box 8-3). Catastrophe bonds

may be developed to cover some urban climate risks, but experience to

date suggests they are quite narrowly written for specific events in

pecific locations, not providing the broad protection necessary to limit

catastrophic risk in a changing climate and urban context (Keogh et al.,

2011; Brugmann, 2012). Multicat Mexico 2009 is a catastrophe bond

used to reinsure the Natural Disaster Fund covering the Mexican territory

against hurricanes and earthquakes. This provides resources to mitigate

losses up to US$50 million for hurricanes (Aragón-Durand, 2012). The

insurance industry can also help shape urban adaptation initiatives,

collaborating with building owners, developers, and governments to

inform and encourage action.

Private investment or standard insurance markets will not protect low-

income urban dwellers (Ranger et al., 2009; Hallegatte et al., 2010). For

example, around half of Mumbai’s population lives in informal settlements

mostly without protective infrastructure and at increasing risk of flooding

under most climate change scenarios (McFarlane, 2008; Hallegatte et

al., 2010; Ranger et al., 2011). This population (and most of those living

in informal settlements in other cities) will not be served by insurance

because of the low ability to pay, high risks, and the high transaction

costs for companies of administering many small policies. Low-income

groups rely instead on local solidarity and government assistance when

disaster hits (Hallegatte et al., 2010). In addition, where risk levels

exceed certain thresholds, insurers will abandon coverage or set

premiums unaffordable to those at risk. Insurance reduces the net risk

and loss potential in urban areas, but can also increase inequality in

security within neighborhoods or across cities unless coupled with

government action to help manage risk in low-income communities (da

Silva, 2010).

In many informal settlements, informal savings groups give members

(mostly women) quick access to emergency loans (Mitlin, 2008). Where

access to formal banking is limited, but social capital is high, those living

in informal settlements have also pooled their savings for collective

investments that reduce risk in their settlements or allow them to

negotiate land and support for new homes (Manda, 2007; d’Cruz and

Mudimu, 2013; Satterthwaite and Mitlin, 2014).

For the private sector to fulfill its potential to facilitate urban adaptation,

public policy may need to establish enabling conditions in markets (see

also Section 8.3), for example, targeting payment for provision of

ecosystem services to deliver urban adaptation benefits that otherwise

fall outside the market system. Such services include storm buffering

and flood protection by paying for mangrove protection in coastal zones

or urban green space along river-ways (Fankhauser et al., 2008; Roberts

et al., 2012). In building construction, well-documented examples of

market failure exist. Private investment in weather proofing new

construction and retrofitting existing stock may fail to occur without

regulatory intervention. This is an area where municipal governments

often have authority to act. Public policy and funding is also needed to

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

584

protect the poorest and most vulnerable households, and to ensure or

enable action by the private sector. This may include filling gaps in

insurance markets (Mills, 2007; Fankhauser et al., 2008; IPCC, 2012; UN-

HABITAT, 2011c); helping provide information about risks particularly

where this is highly uncertain; and encouraging pro-active engagement

by the private sector, as in the UK where vulnerability assessment is

required for infrastructure investments (Agrawala et al., 2011). There

are examples of urban governments leading by example, requiring the

integration of adaptation considerations into public operations and

infrastructure investments through procurement requirements, which

in turn affects private sector providers. Thus, even where markets exist

and are well-functioning, all levels of government may need to engage

the private sector in adaptation. Public-private initiatives also have a

role providing educational and skill development resources to ensure

that the professional networks of private service providers are trained

in the latest decision tools, assessment methods, and practices (McBain

et al., 2010; da Silva, 2012). Where markets do not exist or do not

function well, there will be an even larger role for policy and public

investments to support urban adaptation.

8.4.2.4. Philanthropic Engagement

and Other Civil Society Partnerships

Philanthropic and other civil society support for urban adaptation is

gaining momentum at all levels. The most diverse and numerous are local

actions undertaken by community-based organizations, as described

above. Philanthropic organizations demonstrate the enabling role that

can be played by international civil society to support urban adaptation,

particularly in cities and communities in low- and lower-middle-income

countries. The coming together of grassroots civil society organizations

to form international collaborations and networks can also strengthen

the framing role of civil society while retaining local accountability and

focus to support adaptation. Some examples include:

• Rockefeller Foundation’s support for the Asian Cities Climate Change

Resilience Network (ACCCRN) (Moench et al., 2011; Brown et al.,

2012)

• The Asian Coalition for Community Action Program managed by

the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights

• The Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network (ADRRN)

• Philippines Homeless People’s Federation, working with local

governments to identify and help those most at risk to natural

disasters (Carcellar et al., 2011)

• Shack/Slum Dwellers International (SDI), a network of community-

based organizations and federations of the urban poor in 33

countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and their local support

NGOs.

Many disaster events are small and local but, taken together, have a

widespread and cumulative impact on the development prospects of

low-income households and communities, underscoring the need for

enhanced civil society engagement and coordination (UNISDR, 2009).

Civil society organizations are well placed to address the local conditions

and some of the structural root causes of vulnerability, necessary for

successful urban adaptation. For example, the scale and range of recent

disaster events in Asian cities suggest a growing need for new support

Box 8-3 | Micro-ﬁnance for Urban Adaptation

Micro-ﬁnance schemes may contribute to pro-poor, urban adaptation through a variety of different instruments including micro-

credit, micro-insurance, and micro-savings to help households and small entrepreneurs without access to formal insurance or

ommercial credit markets. These have been applied mostly in rural areas, usually beneﬁtting those with some property (and thus not

the poorest of rural populations). As Hammill et al. (2008, p. 117) state: “The value MFS holds for climate change adaptation is in its

outreach to vulnerable populations through a combination of direct and indirect ﬁnancial support, and through the long-term nature

of its services that help families build assets and coping mechanisms over time, especially through savings and increasingly through

micro-insurance—products and sharing of knowledge and information to inﬂuence behaviours.” Although typically more costly than

commercial loans, micro-ﬁnance can support entrepreneurial undertakings by those unable to get bank loans, help diversify local

economies, and empower women in particular, which can in turn contribute to adaptive capacity in a local context (Agrawala and

Carraro, 2010; Moser et al., 2010). Micro-ﬁnance also provides a means for donors to deliver support to low-income groups without

creating an ongoing dependence on aid. But there is a need to target it well to avoid encouraging growth in areas prone to climate

risk (Hammill et al., 2008; Agrawala and Carraro, 2010). A limitation of micro-ﬁnance for adaptation is that it typically provides credit

to individuals, so it is not easily used to ﬁnance collective investments—for instance, improving drainage—and it can be a route to

indebtedness during disaster recovery. There has been some experience of pooling savings, for example, in low-income communities

to set up City Development Funds in Asia, from which they can draw loans for disaster rehabilitation among other things (Archer,

2012). Von Ritter and Black-Layne (2013) explore the possible role for microﬁnance and crowd funding to support local climate

change action e.g. ﬁnance small decentralized energy solutions or “climate-proof” homes; they also suggest the new Green Climate

Fund could support such activity through its private sector window.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

585

mechanisms to facilitate action among local stakeholders—one that

should include local government as well as local civil society organizations

(Shaw and Izumi, 2011). Where urban civil society is well coordinated

and has legitimacy, it can offer alternative models for urban governance

and adapting to climate change to assist local governments (Mitlin, 2012).

Elsewhere ad hoc coalitions of civil society actors, or even uncoordinated

activity in some cities, provide a de facto delivery mechanism for accessing

asic infrastructure and rights as part of development and disaster

response (Pelling, 2003), although the lack of coordination limits the

scale and scope of adaptive capacity. Many civil society initiatives have

developed models of infrastructure delivery that are not centered on

urban adaptation but have relevance for it, in part through activities

designed to reduce disaster risk and increase management capacity

(see Hasan, 2006).

8.4.2.5. University Partnerships and Research Initiatives

Since AR4, interest in urban aspects of adaptation has grown in the

research community and its funders, as is evident in the number of

conferences on this topic, both within social and behavioral sciences

and in engineering and city planning sciences. More professional

societies are considering their roles and responsibilities. Some cities are

tapping into relevant networks; for instance, the Urban Climate Change

Research Network (UCCRN) brings together researchers and city planners

to exchange knowledge and build a coalition of awareness and policy

(Rosenzweig et al., 2010). Other examples include London’s use of

scenarios generated by UK Climate Impact Programme by University of

Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute (Carmin et al., 2013); the

Urbanization and Global Environmental Change Programme (UGEC) of

the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental

Change; the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP), a pioneer in

promoting social science and knowledge exchange; the Land-Ocean

Interactions in the Coastal Zone program; Integrated Research on

Disaster Risk (IRDR) co-sponsored by the International Council for

Science (ICSU), the International Social Science Council (ISSC), and the

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR);

and research on urban adaptation in Africa supported by the International

Development Research Centre (IDRC).

Individual academic institutes have also begun to support urban

adaptation efforts. The Urban Observatory in Manila has become a

regional hub for climate change science and urban adaptation; the

Universiti Kebangsaan in Malaysia hosts a Malaysian Network for

Research on Climate, Environment and Development (MyCLIMATE)

focused on awareness and capacity in industry and civil society (Shaw

and Izumi, 2011); the Climate and Disaster Resilience Initiative (Kyoto

University, CITYNET, and UNISDR) works with city managers and

practitioners (Shaw and IEDM Team, 2009); and Latin American networks

such as FLACSO (Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales) provide

leadership across the region in disaster risk reduction, management, and

climate change adaptation. Individual centers have also become more

engaged in urban adaptation, for instance, UNAM (Universidad Nacional

Autónoma de México) in Mexico and the International Centre for Climate

Change and Development (ICCCAD) in Dhaka (Mehrotra et al., 2009;

Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). There remains a challenge to reform

university curricula to include urban adaptation and mitigation.

8.4.2.6. City Networks and Urban Adaptation

Learning Partnerships

Opportunities for accelerating learning and action may stem from

horizontal coordination and networking across actors, professions, and

institutions in different municipalities and metropolitan areas. The growing

nterest in urban adaptation is also seen in the growth of transnational

networks and coalitions working across organizational boundaries to

influence outcomes, both nationally and internationally (Bulkeley and

Betsill, 2005; Bulkeley and Moser, 2007; Rosenzweig et al., 2010) and

providing an institutional foundation to concerted effort and collaboration

at the city level (Aall et al., 2007; Romero-Lankao, 2007; Kern and

Gotelind, 2009). ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection has been extensively

analyzed in the literature (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2004; Lindseth, 2004;

Betsill and Bulkeley, 2006; Aall et al., 2007) with a broad conclusion

that they are influencing decision making and offer an effective means

of sharing experience and learning. Other examples include the Climate

Alliance, the C-40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group, and the Urban

Leaders Adaptation Initiative in the USA (OECD, 2010). The United Cities

and Local Governments (UCLG) network, representing local governments

within the United Nations, also has a growing interest in adaptation.

The Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network, mentioned above,

also encourages inter-city learning for officials and local researchers

(Brown et al., 2012). The Making Cities Resilient network, supported by

the UN International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR),

promotes a 10-point priority agenda for city governments, building on

good risk reduction practices (UNISDR, 2008; see also Johnson and

Blackburn, 2013). Another example of the influence of city networks is

the signing of the Durban Adaptation Charter in December 2011 by 107

mayors representing more than 950 local governments at COP17

(Roberts and O’Donoghue, 2013), signaling their intention to begin

addressing climate change adaptation in a more concerted and

structured way (Rosenzweig et al., 2010). The initial focus of some city

networks was on mitigation but attention and leadership on adaptation

is growing (as in the U.S. Urban Leaders Adaptation Initiative; Foster et

al., 2011a).

8.4.3. Resources for Urban Adaptation

and Their Management

Resources for urban adaptation action can come from public and private

sectors, domestic and international. Table 8-5 summarizes the main

funding sources and financial instruments. In high-income countries,

local governments are responsible for an estimated 70% of public

spending in urban areas and roughly 50% of public spending on

environment infrastructure, often in partnership with other levels of

government (OECD, 2010). The scale and source of funds contributing

to adaptation varies widely by location and depends in part on the extent

to which local authorities can tax residents, property owners, and

businesses. A survey of 468 cities conducted by Carmin et al. (2012a)

found that most (60%) are not receiving any financial support for their

adaptation actions. Of the small percentage of cities receiving funding,

the most common source of support is from national governments (24%).

A smaller number of cities (9%) reported funding from subnational

governments while others (8%) reported support from private foundations

and non-profit organizations; only 2 to 4% of the cities reported receiving

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

586

financial support from international (bilateral and multilateral) financial

institutions such as multilateral development banks and this varied

widely by region (Carmin et al., 2012a). Some of the environmental

innovation in Latin America over the last 20 years is associated with

decentralization that has strengthened fiscal bases for cities, along

with more elected mayors and more accountable city governments

(Campbell, 2003; Cabannes, 2004); Latin American cities have also

reported multilateral development banks as the most prevalent source

of funding for adaptation representing about 21% of funding to date

(

Carmin et al., 2012a). In Africa and Asia, a high proportion of urban

governments still have very limited investment capacities, as most of

their revenues go to salaries and other recurrent expenditures (UCLG,

2011). UCLG data points to the large difference in annual expenditure

per person by local governments, ranging from more than US$6000 in

some high-income nations to less than US$20 in most low-income nations

(UCLG, 2010).

As Table 8-5 indicates, large cities with strong economies and

administrative capacity can best attract external funding (including

transfers from higher levels of government) and raise internal funding

for adaptation. Less prosperous and smaller urban centers and cities

with fragmented governance structures or administrations lacking in

capability have worse prospects. A key issue is “unfunded mandates”—

responsibilities assigned to cities with no increase in funding and

capacity (UCLG, 2011)—and this can happen with new responsibilities

around climate change (Kehew et al., 2012; Tavares and Santos,

2013). Funding regimes and supportive legal frameworks need to

integrate urban climate change risk management and adaptation into

development.

8.4.3.1. Domestic Financing: Tapping into National or

Subnational Regional Sources of Funding and Support

For adaptation specifically, domestic public funding is one of the most

significant and sustainable sources in many countries. Initiatives to

green local fiscal policies are spreading, including congestion charges

n motor vehicles and value-capture land taxes that make the cost of

environmental externalities visible, and/or the benefits of infrastructure

and services to property owners (e.g., transport, water, and wastewater

services). Such measures can promote private investment in risk

management while mobilizing local revenue sources. Local fiscal

incentives can lead to maladaptation where urban government budgets

and actions are financed by land sales, which in turn promote urban

sprawl or development in areas at risk (Drejza et al., 2011; Merk et al.,

2012). Greening local fiscal policies will need to identify and address

these kinds of concerns.

Grants, loans, and other revenue transfers from national or regional

(subnational) governments are also important sources, for instance to

compensate local governments for the spillover environmental benefits

of their expenditures (OECD, 2010; Hedger, 2011; Hedger and Bird, 2011).

An example is municipal funding in Brazil, where the allocation of tax

revenues is based on ecosystem management performance (Box 8-3).

Other innovative financial mechanisms for urban adaptation include

revolving funds and the energy services company (“ESCO”) model (OECD,

2010). Revolving funds can be developed from a variety of revenue

streams such as Clean Development Mechanism projects (Puppim de

Oliveira, 2009), and savings from energy efficiency investments in

Table 8-5 | Main sources of funding and ﬁ nancial instruments for urban adaptation.

Sources of funding Types Instruments

What can be funded (with some

examples of funds)

Urban capacity required to access

funding

Local: public Local revenue raising

policies: taxes, fees, and

charges or use of local

bond markets

• Local taxes (e.g., on property, land value

capture, sales, businesses, personal

income, vehicles…)

• User charges (e.g., for water, sewers,

public transport, refuse collection)

• Other charges or fees (e.g., parking,

licenses)

• Urban infrastructure and services

• Urban adaptation programs and

planning processes

• Urban capacity building

Cities with well-functioning administrative

and institutional capacity and adequate

funding from local revenue generation and

intergovernmental transfers

Local: public-private Public-Private

Partnerships (PPP)

contracts and

concessions

• Concessions and private ﬁ nance

initiatives to build, operate, and /or

maintain key infrastructure

• Energy performance contracting

Medium to large-scale infrastructure with

strong private goods (to allow rents for

private sector)

Cities with strong capacity for legal

oversight and management

Local or national: private

or public

National or local

ﬁ nancial markets

• Commercial loans

• Private bonds

• Municipal bonds

Basic physical infrastructure (need for

collateral)

Well-functioning local or national ﬁ nancial

markets that city governments can access

National: public National (or state /

provincial) revenue

transfers or incentive

mechanisms

• Revenue transfers from central or

regional government

• Payment for ecosystem services or other

incentive measures

• Urban payment for environmental

services in Brazil

• Sweden’s KLIMP climate investment

program

Cities with good relations with national

governments, strong administrative

capacity to design and implement policies

and plans

International: private Market-based

investment

• Foreign direct investment, joint ventures • Industrial infrastructure

• Power generation infrastructure

Cities with strong national enabling

conditions and policies for investment

International sources Grants, concessional

ﬁ nancing (e.g.,

Adaptation Fund)

• Grants, concessional loans, and loan

guarantees through bilateral and

multilateral development assistance

• Philanthropic grants

• Urban capacity building

• Urban infrastructure adaptation planning

Typically requires strong multi-level

governance — cities with good relations

with national governments. Cities with

low levels of administrative and ﬁ nancial

market capacity.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

587

municipal buildings to feed public funds for investments that yield

adaptation benefits. Local governments in high- and some middle-income

countries may also have direct access to bond markets or loans from

national (or regional) development banks or financial institutions

(OECD, 2010; Merk et al., 2012). Local access to capital markets can be

facilitated through risk-sharing mechanisms or guarantees provided by

development banks, for example, the German government’s Development

Bank KfW provides low-interest loans to local banks which then finance

energy-efficient renovations in residential and commercial buildings

(OECD, 2010; Pfliegner et al., 2012).

A key challenge is determining how far adaptation funding should be

geared to target associated policy realms. The very high costs of extreme

weather events in many urban areas, and the fact that climate change

usually increases these risks, indicates the need for increased funding

and attention from national budgets for risk reduction and early

warning and evacuation procedures within urban areas, alongside other

adaptation measures (World Bank, 2010a,e; Hallegatte and Corfee-

Morlot, 2011). The urban funding gap may be particularly wide for

“soft” rather than “hard” infrastructure investments, yet both can be a

motor for resilience.

8.4.3.2. Multilateral Humanitarian and

Disaster Management Assistance

The international humanitarian community is increasingly active in

urban contexts, with relevance for adaptation capacity (IFRC, 2010).

Non-climate-related disasters (including earthquakes and tsunamis)

provide a learning opportunity, and the sector is beginning to review

experience and develop appropriate tools and guidelines for urban

contexts (e.g., ALNAP, 2012). In 2009, humanitarian groups formed a

reference group on meeting humanitarian challenges in urban areas,

setting a 2-year action plan in 2010, and developing a database of

urban-specific aid tools, the Urban Humanitarian Response Portal

(http://www.urban-response.org/). Policies sensitive to the needs of

internally displaced urban populations are a big challenge for the sector,

especially where the resident population is chronically poor (Crawford

et al., 2010; Zetter and Deikun, 2010); so too are appropriate responses

to increased urban food insecurity (Battersby, 2013).

The systematic programming of climate change adaptation into

multilateral humanitarian, disaster response, and management funding

within development cooperation is in its infancy. Urban dimensions

are under-developed although this is changing (UNISDR, 2009, 2011;

IFRC, 2010). The World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and

Recovery (GFDRR) explicitly includes adaptation to climate change. Its

Country Programmes for Disaster Risk Management and Climate

Change Adaptation 2009–2011, and more recently 2014–2016, seek to

deepen engagement in some priority countries (GFDRR, 2009, 2013;

World Bank, 2013). The GFDRR, with UNISDR, has also advocated for

more integrated policy and advisory services at the technical level

(see Mitchell et al., 2010). A 2009–2011 survey of reports from 82

governments on disaster risk reduction and urban and climate

change issues found some progress in both areas (Figure 8-6; UNISDR,

2011).

Box 8-4 | Environmental Indicators in Allocating Tax Shares to Local Governments in Brazil

In Brazil, part of the revenues from a value-added state government tax (ICMS) must be redistributed among municipalities. Three-

quarters is deﬁned by the federal constitution with the remaining 25% allocated by each state government. The state of Paraná

ntroduced the ecological ICMS (ICMS-E) in 1992 against the background of state-induced land use restrictions (protected areas) for

several municipalities, which prevented them from developing land but provided no compensation. For example, 90% of the Piraquara

municipality was designated as a protected watershed, supplying the Curitiba metropolitan region with water (May et al., 2002).

States have different systems in place, but there are many commonalities. Revenues are allocated based on the proportion of a

municipality’s area set aside for protection, and protected areas are weighted according to different categories of conservation

management (higher for biological reserves, for instance, than for areas of tourist interest). Paraná and some other states evaluate

the protected areas based on physical and biological quality (fauna and ﬂora); quality of water resources; physical representativeness;

and quality of planning, implementation, and maintenance.

The ICMS-E, built on existing institutions and administrative procedures, has had very low transaction costs (Ring, 2008). Evaluations

show it has been associated with improved environmental management and the creation of new protected areas (May et al., 2002).

It has also improved relations with the surrounding inhabitants as they start to see these areas as an opportunity to generate revenue,

rather than an obstacle to development.

Adapted from OECD, 2010.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

588

Despite progress, many urban governments lack the capacity to address

disaster risk reduction and management. Almost 60% of the countries

surveyed by the UN (80% of lower-middle-income countries) reported that

local governments have legal responsibility for disaster risk management,

but only about a third had dedicated budget allocations, mostly in

upper-middle- and high-income countries (UNISDR, 2011). Figure 8-6

highlights attention to investments in drainage infrastructure, but much

less in urban and land use planning in lower-middle- and low-income

countries. Progress in integrating climate change policies into disaster

risk reduction was reported by more than two-thirds of governments in

high-, upper-middle-, and lower-middle-income countries but under half

of low-income countries.

8.4.3.3. International Financing and Donor Assistance

for Urban Adaptation

The limited data available show attention to urban areas in the growing

levels of international development financing available to support

adaptation (e.g., OECD, 2013; World Bank, 2013). Development finance

is a key source of support for adaptation in many low- and middle-

income countries, but many vulnerable cities and municipalities are poorly

positioned to access available funding (ICLEI, 2010; Paulais and Pigey,

2010), for their often very large deficits in risk-reducing infrastructure

and services. In some local governments, international programs offer

the main source of institutional and financial support for mitigation and

adaptation work at the local level, but this can raise the danger of a

“donor-driven model” (where the funding agency’s agenda does not

coincide with local priorities); experience shows that without strong

and lasting local ownership, programs are unsustainable once support

is withdrawn (Hedger, 2011; OECD, 2012). More international funding

for adaptation and mitigation is being committed, largely as Official

Development Assistance (ODA), and governments are broadly on track

delivering on their international promises (see, e.g., the Cancun

Agreements) to scale up international climate finance (Buchner et al., 2012;

lapp et al., 2012). Less in evidence are sound institutional arrangements

to make this support available to urban governments. The Special Report

on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance

Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) calls for arrangements that will

allow adaptive urban management systems to evolve with changing

social and environmental dynamics (IPCC, 2012) but international channels

for development finance have yet to adjust to this call to action.

Recent data suggest that a small share of total flows of climate-related

ODA targets adaptation (UNEP, 2011; OECD, 2012), and some of this is

supporting urban adaptation (e.g., see OECD, 2013; World Bank, 2013).

OECD estimates bilateral ODA commitments targeting climate change

to be in the range of US$11 to US$20 billion per year on average in

2010–2011 for both adaptation and mitigation; of this, roughly 20 to

40% targets adaptation (OECD, 2013). One in-depth assessment of five

major donors, covering concessional and non-concessional finance,

estimated adaptation to be 30% of their climate change portfolio,

mostly targeted to water and sanitation (about 75%) (UNEP, 2011). The

rest were for other relevant sectors (i.e., transport, policy loans, disaster

risk reduction), but with energy and health largely overlooked (UNEP,

2011; see also Atteridge et al., 2009). Despite growing attention to

climate change, many bilateral agencies have historically had very

limited engagement with urban initiatives (Mitlin and Satterthwaite,

2013). Some authors also note the difficulty in distinguishing adaptation

from development finance, which limits the accuracy of such estimates

(Tirpak et al., 2010; Buchner et al., 2012).

Despite the uncertainties in tracking adaptation ODA, OECD statistics

(OECD, 2013) show that there is some attention to urban issues today.

Urban adaptation is estimated to represent about 20% of bilateral

climate adaptation portfolios, equivalent to US$0.65 to US$1.6 billion

per year (on average over 2010–2011). Slightly more than half of this

goes to projects in urban centers with between 10,000 and 500,000

inhabitants while the rest goes to large cities with 500,000 or more

inhabitants. The major sectors are water (about 38%, considering projects

that had adaptation as principal or significant) and sanitation (another

6%) (OECD, 2013). The largest providers of urban adaptation ODA in

these years were Japan (an average of US$683 million a year in

commitments), Germany (US$333 million); France (US$111 million); and

South Korea, European Union Institutions, Spain, and Denmark (between

US$48 and US$80 million). The largest recipients were Vietnam (US$232

100

High

income

Upper-middle

income

Lower-middle

income

Low

income

Substantial progress in assessing disaster risk impacts for infrastructure

Urban and land-use planning

Disaster risk management investments in drainage infrastructure

Integration of climate change policies into disaster risk reduction

Investments to reduce vulnerable urban settlements

Figure 8-6 | Progress reported by 82 governments in addressing some key aspects of

disaster risk reduction by countries’ average per capita income (UNISDR, 2011).

Data and information as found in the OECD DAC-CRS 2013, www.oecd.org/dac/stats/rioconventions.htm (last accessed: September 7, 2013). These estimates derive from data

and project descriptions in the OECD DAC-Creditor Reporting System. It is based on a project-by-project review of qualitative information in the 2013 version of the database

describing ofﬁcial development ﬁnance from bilateral agencies and the EU institutions. This subset of “urban” adaptation activities describes those projects that identify the

geography of beneﬁciaries as urban and that include a veriﬁable location (e.g., metropolitan Lima); data were organized by key characteristic of each urban location (i.e.,

population size and recipient country). Only urban areas with populations of 10,000 or more are included here. Projects are marked with climate adaptation “Rio marker”; this

data set includes all projects marked as targeting climate adaptation, either as a principal objective or as those with it as a signiﬁcant objective.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

589

million); Bangladesh (US$146 million); China (US$100 million); and the

Philippines, Peru, Indonesia, and Kenya (US$52 to US$76 million).

Around 70% of urban adaptation aid is dedicated to “hard” infrastructure

while about 10% goes to “soft” measures to support capacity building

related to urban infrastructure planning and adaptation.So OECD data

suggest that urban adaptation is a recent but significant objective in

limate aid activities but it is still only a small part of overall ODA

portfolios (OECD, 2013).

Conventional channels for development finance appear to have the

biggest role in adaptation financing in low- and middle-income countries,

though new vertical funds are also emerging. The proliferation of

multiple, single purpose funding mechanisms runs contrary to long-

standing harmonization principles of sound development cooperation

(Hedger, 2011; OECD, 2012). This more complex funding architecture

makes it difficult for smaller actors such as local authorities to access

sources for timely adaptation investments.

Development assistance can be better targeted if reconciled with bottom-

up, locally based planning processes that take climate risks into account,

and programs aiming to be mainstreamed into urban development over

time (Brugmann, 2012). Research shows the lack of well-defined

priorities in partner countries, combined with a donor tendency to

“control” funds for short-term results and a large variety of different

funding instruments results in fragmented delivery systems and unclear

outcomes (Brown and Peskett, 2011). Even where climate strategies exist

to guide action—as in Bangladesh, an “early mover” on adaptation

planning—the plan is often neither costed nor sequenced, making it

an inadequate framework for finance delivery (Hedger, 2011). A key to

improving effectiveness of international public finance will be building

the capacity for country-led planning processes identifying priority

actions for targeting adaptation funds. National Adaptation Plans of

Action (NAPAs) have become a principal way of organizing adaptation

priorities in Least Developed Countries, but the majority of plans do not

explicitly include urban projects and do not reflect local government

perspectives (UN-HABITAT, 2011c).

A number of authors conclude that international development finance

is failing to tackle urban adaptation financing needs (Parry et al., 2009;

Paulais and Pigey, 2010; ICLEI, 2011; UN-HABITAT, 2011c). Some

suggest that national governments could set up funds supported by

international finance (governmental, philanthropic, or both) and on

which urban governments and community-based organizations can

draw (Paulais and Pigey, 2010; Satterthwaite and Mitlin, 2014). In

some middle-income countries, such as Indonesia, a more effective and

sustainable strategy than a focus on external funding may be national

olicy reforms and incentives to steer investment to priority needs

(Brown and Peskett, 2011). There is also a need to mobilize domestic

public and private investment to ensure delivery of adaptation at

national and urban levels (Hedger, 2011; Hedger and Bird, 2011; OECD,

2012). Accessing all these sources of development finance for urban

adaptation will require institutional mechanisms to support multi-level

planning and risk governance (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011; Carmin et al.,

2013).

8.4.3.4. Institutional Capacity and Leadership,

Staffing, and Skill Development

Leadership is critical for generating interest in urban adaptation and

championing awareness and institutional change to bring action

(Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Carmin et al., 2012a). Creating a climate

change and environmental focal point or office in a city can help

coordinate climate action across government departments or agencies

(Roberts, 2008, 2010; Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Hunt and Watkiss,

2011; OECD, 2011; Brown et al., 2012). Yet there may be downsides

when this function is housed in the environmental line department—

see Durban (Roberts, 2008), Boston (City of Boston, 2011), and Sydney

(Measham et al., 2011)—since they are typically among the weakest

parts of city government with limited influence (Roberts, 2010).

Although there is growing evidence of urban adaptation leadership

(Lowe et al., 2009; Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Foster et al., 2011b),

there are also important political constraints at the local level. Powerful

Box 8-5 | Adaptation Monitoring: Experience from New York City

The adaptation monitoring approach developed for New York City has four indicator elements: (1) physical climate change variables;

(2) risk exposure, vulnerability, and impacts; (3) adaptation measures; and (4) new research in each of these categories. Examples of

indicators arising from these categories include the percentage of building permits issued in a given year in current Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) coastal ﬂood zones, and in projected 2080 coastal ﬂood zones; a tally of building permits with measures

to reduce precipitation runoff; an index based on insurance data that measures the insurer’s perception of the city’s infrastructure-

coping capacity; an index that measures the rating of city-issued bonds or infrastructure operators for capital projects with climate

change risk exposure; the detailed trend of weather-related emergency/disaster losses (whether insured or uninsured, relative to the

total asset volume); and the number of days with major telecommunication outages (wireless versus wired), correlated with weather-

related power outages. Data criteria were decided through a scientist-stakeholder consensus with designated groups to evaluate

prospective indicators and their values. This case study shows the need for interdisciplinary, longitudinal data collection and analysis

systems along with an inclusive, transparent process for stakeholder engagement to interpret the data (Jacob et al., 2010).

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

590

vested interests may oppose attention to adaptation and promote

development on sites at risk. As noted earlier, concerns about employment

and competitiveness make it difficult for local governments to focus on

the more distant implications of climate change. This is especially so

during periods of economic hardship (Shaw and Theobald, 2011; Solecki,

2012). A key step forward is institutionalizing different types of behavior

and norms.

Beyond goal setting and planning, the literature also suggests the need

or regulatory frameworks to require relevant behavior and investment.

Governments can institute small changes, such as job descriptions that

require actions and provide incentives to act in new ways (e.g., for line

managers and sector policy makers) or by providing training and clear

guidance to staff (Moser, 2006; Carmin et al., 2013; Tavares and Santos,

2013). Budgetary transparency and metrics to measure progress on

adaptation can also help to institutionalize changes in planning and

policy practice (OECD, 2012).

8.4.3.5. Monitoring and Evaluation to Assess Progress

Adaptation leaders and funding institutions need tools for monitoring

and evaluating urban adaptation actions to justify investments but

these are not well developed yet or widely implemented in urban areas

(Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010). This requires indicators that show if

adaptation is taking place, at what pace, and in what locations. Relevant

evaluation criteria include cost, feasibility, efficacy, co-benefits (direct

and indirect), and institutional considerations (Jacob et al., 2010).

Assessment methods can capture outcomes of adaptation decisions, or

the decision-making processes themselves—ideally both. Monitoring

is challenging for adaptation, especially urban, given the lack of

standard metrics, the differences in local contexts, and the often localized

nature of adaptation (Lamhauge et al., 2012; Spearman and McGray,

2012).

City authorities, NGOs, and researchers have begun to design adaptation

monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Box 8-5 presents the experience

of New York City. Development of standard tools offers scope for

international benchmarking and coordination across scales of assessment,

for example, by associating local indicators of resilience with those in

the Hyogo Framework for Action (that prioritize disaster risk reduction)

and the post-2015 development agenda (IFRC, 2011).

Monitoring and evaluation focusing on the effectiveness of donor aid

on climate adaptation is a growing area of research (Chaum et al., 2011;

Lamhauge et al., 2012; Spearman and McGray, 2012). Recent work

shows the urgent need for consistent and internationally harmonized data

collection to support monitoring. This is a concern for both adaptation

and wider disaster risk reduction spending, suggesting a systemic

challenge to the architecture of international finance (Kellett and Sparks,

2012). Steps are being made through multi-site assessment programs,

in some instances including treatment of urban issues. For example, the

World Bank recently included an adaptive capacity index as part of an

analysis of risk and adaptation options for five cities in Latin America

and the Caribbean. The methodology was previously applied in Guyana,

where it demonstrated a gap between national and city level adaptive

capacity (Pelling and Zaidi, 2013).

Monitoring also needs to consider the delivery and use in cities of

international climate finance to ensure that funds are being effectively

directed (Chaum et al., 2011; Hedger, 2011). This is especially important

for cities at an early stage of planning, implementing, and monitoring

of adaptation, as they can learn from one another’s experiences. There

is some evidence that international agencies overburden partner

organizations and countries (including in some cases city authorities)

with monitoring requirements; with limited local capacities, this can

detract from further program design and implementation.

8.5. Annex: Climate Risks for Dar es Salaam,

Durban, London, and New York City

Refer to Table 8-6 for four city profiles of current and indicative future

climate risks, covering Dar es Salaam, Durban, London, and New York.

Each summarizes the present, near-term (2030–2040), and long-term

(2080–2100) climate risks and the potential for risk reduction through

adaptation. As noted earlier, data should not be compared between

cities but trends in adaptive capacity and impact can be drawn out.

References

Aall, C., K. Groven, and G. Lindseth, 2007: The scope of action for local climate policy:

the case of Norway. Global Environmental Politics, 7(2), 83-101.

Adamo, S.B., 2010: Environmental migration and cities in the context of global

environmental change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(3),

161-165.

Adelekan, I.O., 2010: Vulnerability of poor urban coastal communities to flooding

in Lagos, Nigeria. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2), 433-450.

Adelekan, I.O., 2012: Vulnerability to wind hazards in the traditional city of Ibadan,

Nigeria. Environment and Urbanization, 24(2), 597-617.

Adger, N., I. Lorenzoni, and K. O’Brien, 2009: Adaptation now. In: Adapting to Climate

Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance [Adger, N., I. Lorenzoni, and K. O’Brien

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1-22.

AGF, 2010a: Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate

Change Financing.United Nations Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing

(AGF), United Nations, New York, NY, USA, 61 pp.

AGF, 2010b: Work Stream 7: Public Interventions to Stimulate Private Investment in

Adaptation and Mitigation. United Nations Advisory Group on Climate Change

Financing (AGF), United Nations, New York, NY, USA, 35 pp.

AGF, 2010c: Work Stream 4: Contributions from International Financial Institutions.

United Nations Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (AGF), United

Nations, New York, NY, USA, 35 pp.

Agrawala, S. and M. Carraro, 2010: Assessing the Role of Microfinance in Fostering

Adaptation to Climate Change.OECD Environment Working Paper No. 15,

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD

Publishing, Paris, France, 37 pp.

Agrawala, S., M. Carraro, N. Kingsmill, E. Lanzi, M. Mullan, and G. Prudent-Richard,

2011: Private Sector Engagement in Adaptation to Climate Change: Approaches

to Managing Climate Risks. OECD Environment Working Paper No. 39,

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD

Publishing, Paris, France, 55 pp.

Agrawala, S. and S. Fankhauser (eds.), 2008: Economic Aspects of Adaptation to

Climate Change: Costs, Benefits and Policy Instruments. Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD Publishing, Paris,

France, 133 pp.

Agrawala, S. and M. van Aalst, 2008: Adapting development cooperation to adapt

to climate change. Climate Policy, 8(2), 183-193.

Ahmed, A.U., R.V. Hill, L.C. Smith, D.M. Wiesmann, and T. Frankenberger, 2007: The

World’s Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and

Hunger. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC,

USA, 145 pp.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

591

resent

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

igh

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

ear term

(

2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(

2030 – 2040)

ong term

(

2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

able 8-6 | Current and indicative future climate risks for Dar es Salaam, Durban, London, and New York City.

Coastal zone systems

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.3, 8.3.3.4]

Construction of coastal protection structures such as sea walls and groynes to minimize

coastal erosion and land inundation in Dar es Salaam. Medium prospects due to high costs.

Terrestrial ecosystems and

ecological infrastructure

(

low conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.7, Table 8-2]

Demarcation and protection of green areas, provision of more drainage systems, and

protection of urban wetlands and ground water resources. Low prospects due to poor

evelopment control including land use management.

Water supply systems

(high conﬁdence)

[8.2.4.1, 8.3.3.4, Table 8-2]

Improvement in Dar es Salaam’s water resources management and increased coverage and

efﬁciency in water supply systems. Medium prospects as some of these measures are

lready being implemented.

Waste water system

(high conﬁdence)

[8.2.4.1, 8.3.3.4, Table 8.2]

Increase in spatial coverage of sewerage and improvement of on-site excreta disposal

systems. Low prospects for extending sewer coverage; higher prospects for expanding

onsite disposal systems.

Energy systems

(very high conﬁdence)

[8.2.4.2]

Reduced dependence on hydropower as the main source of energy by replacing it with

natural gas. Very high prospects as the country has vast resources of natural gas.

Food systems and security

(high conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.2]

Urban and peri-urban agriculture and new adaptation policies to take into account impacts

of climate change on food costs and supply chain. Enhanced social safety nets can support

adaptation measures.

Transportation and

communication systems

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.2.4.3, 8.3.3.6]

New design standards in context of climate change and enforcement of development

controls. Low prospects as climate change issues are yet to be mainstreamed in the sector.

torm

surge

amaging

cyclone

cean

acidiﬁcation

Warming

trend

Extreme

precipitation

Extreme

emperature

Sea

level

rying

trend

now

cover

Precipitation

looding

Continued next page

Key risk Adaptation issues & prospects

Climatic

drivers

isk & potential for

adaptation

Timeframe

Dar es Salaam

Climate-related drivers of impacts

evel of risk & potential for adaptation

Potential for additional adaptation

to reduce risk

Risk level with

current adaptation

Risk level with

high adaptation

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

592

Key risk Adaptation issues & prospects

Climatic

drivers

Risk & potential for

adaptation

Timeframe

Durban

Present

2°C

4°C

ery

Very

high

edium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

high

edium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Human health

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3]

Improvement of water supply, solid waste management, housing conditions, land use

planning and food security, and provision of health insurance. Medium prospects as these

are key development issues that require a lot of ﬁnancial resources.

Key economic sectors and

services (medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.1]

Improvement of storm water infrastructure and transport networks. Use of natural gas as

main source for power generation, relocating of key economic activities and infrastructure

along coastal buffer areas. A mixture of high and low prospects due to availability of

natural gas and high requirements of ﬁnancial resources.

Poverty and access to basic

services (high conﬁdence)

[8.3.3]

Formalizing informal economic sector, upgrading of informal settlements, improvement of

housing conditions and empowering local communities in tackling problems related to

climate change. High prospects as this is already being implemented as a development

issue.

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Coastal zone systems

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.3]

Maintaining and restoring Durban’s coastal ecosystems. Use of coastal protection

structures such as geofabric sand bags, retaining walls, groynes, and a beach nourishment

scheme to minimize coastal erosion and infrastructure damage. Use of a development

setback line and in some instances strategic retreat to protect infrastructure. High prospects

as systems for coastal protection exist and are being improved, but may be overwhelmed

by the increase in severity and frequency of storm surges over time.

Terrestrial ecosystems and

ecological infrastructure

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.4]

Design and implementation of a ﬁne-scale systematic conservation plan to protect a

representative and persistent system of local biodiversity and related ecosystem services.

Remove non-climate threats e.g., by managing alien invasive species. Medium prospects

due to lack of human and ﬁnancial resources to protect and manage system and poor

enforcement of contraventions.

Water supply systems (high

conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.4]

Demand and supply side management required. Reduce non-revenue water losses. Use of

ecological infrastructure to improve level of assurance. Medium prospects as measures are

already being implemented or considered.

Waste water system

(high conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.4]

Increase in spatial coverage of Durban’s waterborne sewerage system and use of

appropriate alternative services in areas too costly to serve with waterborne systems.

Recycling of waste water to potable standards. Medium prospects as measures are already

being implemented or investigated.

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

high

edium

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Housing (high conﬁdence)

[8.2.4.4,8.3.3.3]

Climate change adaptation plans, new building codes, effective development control, and

pgrading of informal settlements. High prospects as some of these measures are already

being taken into account.

Table 8-6 (continued)

Continued next page

Key risk Adaptation issues & prospects

Climatic

drivers

Risk & potential for

adaptation

Timeframe

Dar es Salaam (continued)

Urban Areas Chapter 8

593

Key risk Adaptation issues & prospects

Climatic

drivers

Risk & potential for

adaptation

Timeframe

London

ey risk Adaptation issues & prospects

Climatic

drivers

isk & potential for

adaptation

imeframe

urban (continued)

ear term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

ery

low

Very

high

Medium

Food systems and security

(high conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.2]

Need to change planting dates and to provide increased crop irrigation. Need to take into

account the impacts of climate change on the full food supply chain. Low prospects as

climate change not yet considered a serious threat.

Transportation and

communications systems

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.6]

New design standards in context of climate change and enforcement of development

control. Medium prospects as climate change issues are beginning to be considered in the

transportation sector.

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

edium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Housing (high conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.3]

New building codes, effective development control, upgrading of informal settlements, and

retroﬁtting of existing housing stock. Changes in stormwater policy, preparation of master

drainage plans, use of attenuation facilities, and calculation of new ﬂoodlines. Promotion of

higher densities to reduce pressure on ecological infrastructure. Medium prospects as

measures are already being implemented or being investigated.

Human health

(high conﬁdence)

[8.3.3]

Key economic sectors and

services (medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.1]

Durban is a logistics, manufacturing, and tourist center. Need to protect and properly locate

vulnerable infrastructure in coastal areas, particularly port-related infrastructure. High

prospects because of the national economic signiﬁcance of the port and petro-chemical

sectors and local economic signiﬁcance of tourism.

Poverty and access to basic

services (high conﬁdence)

[Box 8-2, 8.3.3.7]

Formalizing informal economic sector, upgrading informal settlements, provision of interim

services to informal settlements, improving housing conditions, and increasing the adaptive

capacity of local communities (especially through ecosystem based adaptation). Use of

climate change adaptation interventions to create employment opportunities. Medium

prospects because of the scale of the problem and related costs.

Improvement of basic services, housing conditions, land use planning, and food security.

Extend coverage of primary health care and health insurance. Maintain and extend vector

control. Ensure ability to deal with the impacts of large-scale disasters through inter-sectoral

coordination. Low to medium prospects due to limited human and ﬁnancial resources.

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

River/coastal zone systems

(high conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.4]

London is currently well protected from tidal ﬂooding and has utilized an “adaptation

pathways” approach to ensure it identiﬁes and delivers a ﬂexible long-term tidal ﬂood risk

management plan to maintain a high standard of protection through the century.

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

edium

Energy systems

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.5]

No integration of energy policy with adaptation policy or practice. Need to avoid

maladaptation e.g., increased electricity use for cooling in response to rising temperatures.

Low prospects as institutional structures not yet in place to drive this integration.

Table 8-6 (continued)

Continued next page

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

594

Key risk Adaptation issues & prospects

Climatic

drivers

Risk & potential for

adaptation

Timeframe

London (continued)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Present

2°C

4°C

ery

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

edium

Present

°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Water supply systems

(high conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.4]

London faces increasing water security issues during droughts created by higher relative

per capita consumption, aging infrastructure, a rapidly growing population, and projected

diminishing resources. Resilience is being increased through programs to reduce

consumption and increase the diversity of supply.

Waste water system

(high conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.4]

Much of London is served by a combined rain and foul water drainage system that

regularly overﬂows into the River Thames. Population growth, urban creep, and projected

more intense rainfall will further challenge the system. The city is working with the

relevant drainage partners to manage this increasing risk through a combination of gray

and green infrastructure.

Energy systems

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.5

The city’s energy security is threatened by a reduction in national generation capacity and

the resilience of local distribution systems not matching the increasing demand. The city is

responding through increasing energy efﬁciency and local energy production to improve

resilience. Some concern over ampliﬁcations effects of energy system failure during heat or

cold shocks.

Food systems and security

(low conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.2]

London’s food supply is globalized and access is strongly inﬂuenced by global food prices

relative to income, as well as regional and national agricultural productivity.

Transportation and

communication systems

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.6]

London is served by a complex communications and public transport network, which

though vulnerable in parts has sufﬁcient redundancy to be resilient at the strategic level.

Detailed risk assessments are informing an investment program in the transport network

that will deliver increasing resilience to climate impacts.

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Housing (high conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.3]

London has an extensive historic housing stock that demonstrates poor thermal

performance in summer and winter and poor water efﬁciency. A signiﬁcant proportion of

this housing stock is at risk of ﬂooding. There is improving integration between mitigation

and adaptation policy implementation at the regional level, but insufﬁcient funding and

levers to implement widespread adaptation.

Human health

(high conﬁdence)

[8.2.2.1, 8.2.3.1]

Health observation systems and care delivered through the National Health Service

respond well but need to integrate better with social care provision to be more proactive,

especially for vulnerable groups such as the elderly.

Continued next page

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Present

2°C

4°C

ery

low

Very

high

edium

Terrestrial ecosystems and

ecological infrastructure

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.7]

Adaptation is compromised primarily by habitat fragmentation and can be exacerbated,

especially in wetland habitats, by invasive species. The city is taking an approach that

promotes the multifunctional beneﬁts of ecologically designed urban green spaces to

beneﬁt adaptation with restoring ecological function.

Table 8-6 (continued)

Urban Areas Chapter 8

595

Key risk Adaptation issues & prospects

Climatic

drivers

isk & potential for

adaptation

Timeframe

London (continued)

Key risk Adaptation issues & prospects

Climatic

drivers

Risk & potential for

adaptation

Timeframe

New York City

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Present

2°C

4°C

ery

low

Very

high

Medium

Poverty and access to basic

services (high conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.8]

A signiﬁcant proportion of the population struggles to pay their energy and water bills.

Pockets of deprivation create areas of high vulnerability to climate risks, compounded by low

levels of community capacity / social networks.

Present

2°C

4°C

ery

low

Very

high

edium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

edium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Coastal zone systems

(very high conﬁdence)

[8.2]

NYC is highly vulnerable to coastal storm events and sea level rise associated ﬂooding.

Integration of infrastructure and policy changes with opportunity to enhance ecosystem

service services is possible.

Terrestrial ecosystems and

ecological infrastructure

(high conﬁdence)

[8.2.4.5; 8.3.3.4]

Promotion of ecosystem restoration efforts consistent with the current degraded state of

most of NYC’s ecosystem function. A need exists for continued land use protection of the

city’s water supply region.

Water supply systems

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.4, 8.3.3.7]

NYC maintains an extremely extensive and resilient water supply infrastructure. Long-term

adaptation could potentially include heightened drought management and interagency

coordination with other water supply demand entities in region.

Waste water system

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.2.3.3,8.2.4.1]

NYC maintains an extremely extensive and resilient waste water infrastructure. Gray and

green infrastructure adaptation to limit effects of extreme precipitation events and combined

sewer overﬂows will be necessary.

Energy systems

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.2.4, 8.2.4.2]

NYC is served by an extensive energy generation and distribution system, most of which is

operated by private companies or semi-public authorities. Peak load demand adaptation,

especially for cooling demand will be necessary, as will adaptation for distribution disruptions

associated with extreme events including ice storm events and coastal storm surge.

Food systems and security

(medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.2]

NYC is connected to a regional, national, and global food distribution system. Adaptation will

be necessary to ensure that food processing and distribution systems within the city can be

resilient in the face of potential extreme event impacts.

Continued next page

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

ong term

(2080 – 2100)

Present

2°C

4°C

ery

Very

high

edium

Key economic sectors and

services (medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.1]

London’s economy is dominated by service sector activities, particularly ﬁnance and including

global businesses that expose it to failure in external markets that may be associated with

climate change impacts or management. Business continuity is routinely integrated into

business plans. Failure of essential infrastructure, including transport and energy networks,

has short-term impacts.

Table 8-6 (continued)

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

596

Alam, M. and M.D.G. Rabbani, 2007: Vulnerabilities and responses to climate change

for Dhaka. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 81-97.

Allen, C. and S. Clouth, 2012: A Guidebook to the Green Economy: Issue 1: Green

Economy, Green Growth, and Low-Carbon Development. United Nations

Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), Division for Sustainable

Development, United Nations, New York, NY, USA, 64 pp.

Allen, L., F. Lindberg, and C. Grimmond, 2011: Global to city scale urban anthropogenic

heat flux: model and variability. International Journal of Climatology, 31(13),

1990-2005.

Almansi, F., 2009: Regularizing land tenure within upgrading programmes in

Argentina; the cases of Promeba and Rosario Hábitat. Environment and

Urbanization, 21(2), 389-413.

ALNAP, 2012: Responding to Urban Disasters: Learning from Previous Relief and

Recovery Operations.ALNAP Lessons Paper No. 5, The Active Learning Network

for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) and

Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, UK, 30 pp.

Anguelovski, I. and J. Carmin, 2011: Something borrowed, everything new:

innovation and institutionalization in urban climate governance. Current

Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 169-175.

Annecke, W., 2010: Assessing vulnerability. Tiempo: A Bulletin on Climate and

Development, 77, 7-9.

Aon, 2013: Global Risk Management Survey, 2013. Aon Risk Solutions, Chicago, IL,

USA, 122 pp.

Appadurai, A., 2001: Deep democracy: urban governmentality and the horizon of

politics. Environment and Urbanization, 13(2), 23-43.

Aragón-Durand, F., 2008: Estrategias de Protección Civil y Gestión de Riesgo

Hidrometeorológico ante el Cambio Climático. Instituto Nacional de Ecología

(INE), Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT),

SEMARNAT, Mexico, DF, Mexico, 97 pp.

Aragón-Durand, F., 2011: Regional Workshop on Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate

Change Adaptation in Urban Settings: From Theory to Practice. Proceedings of

the Workshop held in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, October 18 – 20, 2011, Adaptation

Fund Board Secretariat (AFB), Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment

of the Government of the Republic of Honduras (SERNA), the Permanent

Contingency Commission of Honduras (COPECO), European Commission (EC),

Government of Switzerland, and United Nations Programme for Development-

Honduras (PNUD-Honduras), 33 pp., www.preventionweb.net/english/

professional/publications/v.php?id=24820

Aragón-Durand, F., 2012: Análisis y Diseño de Medidas e Instrumentos de Respuesta

del Sector Asegurador ante la Variabilidad Climática y el Cambio Climático en

México. Policy Report of the Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el

Desarrollo (PNUD), Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático (INECC),

Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos

Naturales (SEMARNAT), México, DF, Mexico, 177 pp.

Archer, D., 2012: Finance as the key to unlocking community potential: savings,

funds and the ACCA programme. Environment and Urbanization, 24(2), 423-

440.

Archer, D. and S. Boonyabancha, 2011: Seeing a disaster as an opportunity –

harnessing the energy of disaster survivors for change. Environment and

Urbanization, 23(2), 351-364.

ey risk Adaptation issues & prospects

Climatic

rivers

isk & potential for

daptation

imeframe

New York City (continued)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Present

2°C

4°C

ery

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

°C

4°C

ery

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

ery

low

Very

high

Medium

Present

2°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Housing (high conﬁdence)

[8.1.3, 8.2.4, 8.3.3.3]

NYC includes approximately 1 million buildings and similar structures. These maintain a

broad range of vulnerabilities to climate change particularly associated with ﬂooding and

extreme heat events. Adaptation strategies could include retroﬁt construction practices,

especially in coastal zone locations or areas affected by urban heat island conditions.

Human health (high

conﬁdence)

[8.2.3.1]

Great diversity of health conditions of the 8.3 plus million residents is associated with a

wide range of human health vulnerabilities to climate change. The very young, aged, and

otherwise health-compromised face heightened risk and require adaptation strategies,

particularly focused on heat stress and disease.

Key economic sectors and

services (medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.1]

NYC has a diverse economic base focused on service-related industries with regional,

national, and global connections. Adaptation will be necessary to limit vulnerability and

enhance resilience in the face of large-scale extreme events such as Hurricane Sandy.

Poverty and access to basic

services (medium conﬁdence)

[8.3.3.8]

NYC has an extensive public service provision capacity. Adaptation will be necessary to

ensure that more frequent or more intense extreme events will not limit this capacity.

Near term

(2030 – 2040)

Long term

(2080 – 2100)

Present

°C

4°C

Very

low

Very

high

Medium

Transportation systems

(high conﬁdence)

[8.2.2.2, 8.3.3.6]

NYC is served by a complex and redundant transportation and communications

infrastructure. Numerous vulnerabilities to extreme events are present that result in

short-term disruption. Long-term sea level rise and increased ﬂood frequency can result in

increased disruption and will require adaptation strategies.

able 8-6 (continued)

Urban Areas Chapter 8

597

Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., P. Willems, J. Olsson, S. Beecham, A. Pathirana, I. Bülow

Gregersen, H. Madsen, and V. Nguyen, 2013: Impacts of climate change on rainfall

extremes and urban drainage systems: a review. Water Science and Technology,

68(1), 16-28.

Arnell, N., 2009: Costs of adaptation in the water sector. In: Assessing the Costs of

Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review of the UNFCCC and other Recent

Estimates [Parry, M., N. Arnell, P. Berry, D. Dodman, S. Fankhauser, C. Hope, S.

Kovats, R. Nicholls, D. Satterthwaite, R. Tiffin, and T. Wheeler (eds.)]. International

Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and Grantham Institute for

Climate Change, London, UK, pp. 40-50.

Arup and C40, 2012: Climate Action in Megacities: C40 Cities Baseline and

Opportunities, Version 1.0. Arup and C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, New

York, NY, USA, 110 pp.

Asariotis, R. and H. Benamara (eds.), 2012: Maritime Transport and the Climate

Change Challenge. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

(UNCTAD), Co-published by the UN, New York, NY, USA and Earthscan

(Routledge/Taylor & Francis), Abingdon, Oxon, UK, 327 pp.

Ashley, R., J. Blanskby, R. Newman, B. Gersonius, A. Poole, G. Lindley, S. Smith, S.

Ogden, and R. Nowell, 2012: Learning and Action Alliances to build capacity

for flood resilience. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 5(1), 14-22.

Athanassiadou, M., J. Baker, D. Carruthers, W. Collins, S. Girnary, D. Hassell, M. Hort,

C. Johnson, K. Johnson, and R. Jones, 2010: An assessment of the impact of

climate change on air quality at two UK sites. Atmospheric Environment,

44(15), 1877-1886.

Atteridge, A., C.K. Siebert, R.J. Klein, C. Butler, and P. Tella, 2009: Bilateral Finance

Institutions and Climate Change: A Mapping of Climate Portfolios. Stockholm

Environment Institute (SEI) Working Paper, 2009, Prepared for the United

Nations Environment Programme Bilateral Finance Institutions Climate Change

Working Group (UNEP BFI CCWG) and submitted to UNEP and the Agence

Française de Développement (AFD), SEI, Stockholm, Sweden, 33 pp.

Awuor, C., V.Orindi, and A. Ochieng, 2008: Climate change and coastal cities: the

case of Mombasa, Kenya. Environment and Urbanization, 20(1), 231-242.

Ayers, J., 2009: International funding to support urban adaptation to climate change.

Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 225-240.

Ayers, J.M. and S. Huq, 2009: The value of linking mitigation and adaptation: a case

study of Bangladesh. Environmental Management, 43(5), 753-764.

Babel, M., A. Gupta, and N. Domingo, 2006: Land subsidence: a consequence of

groundwater over-exploitation in Bangkok, Thailand. International Review for

Environmental Strategies, 6(2), 307-327.

Backus, G.A., T.S. Lowry, and D.E. Warren, 2012: The near-term risk of climate

uncertainty among the U.S. states. Climatic Change, 116(3-4), 495-522.

Baker, C., L. Chapman, A. Quinn, and K. Dobney, 2010: Climate change and the railway

industry: a review. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part

C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 224(3), 519-528.

Baker, J. (ed.), 2012: Climate Change, Disaster Risk and the Urban Poor: Cities Building

Resilience for a Changing World. Urban Development Series, The International

Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC,

USA, 297 pp.

Balica, S., N. Wright, and F. Van der Meulen, 2012: A flood vulnerability index for

coastal cities and its use in assessing climate change impacts. Natural Hazards,

64(1), 73-105.

Banks, N., 2008: A tale of two wards: political participation and the urban poor in

Dhaka city. Environment and Urbanization, 20(2), 361-376.

Banks, N., M. Roy, and D. Hulme, 2011: Neglecting the urban poor in Bangladesh:

research, policy and action in the context of climate change. Environment and

Urbanization, 23(2), 487-502.

Barata, M., E. Ligeti, G. De Simone, T. Dickinson, D. Jack, J. Penney, M. Rahman, and

R. Zimmerman, 2011: Climate change and human health in cities. In: Climate

Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change

Research Network [Rosenzweig, C., W.D. Solecki, S.A. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 179-213.

Barnett, J. and W.N. Adger, 2007: Climate change, human security and violent conflict.

Political Geography, 26(6), 639-655.

Bartlett, S., 2008: Climate change and urban children: impacts and implications for

adaptation in low- and middle-income countries. Environment and Urbanization,

20(2), 501-519.

Battersby, J., 2013: Hungry cities: a critical review of urban food security research

in sub-Saharan African cities. Geography Compass, 7(7), 452-463.

Becker, A., S. Inoue, M. Fischer, and B. Schwegler, 2012: Climate change impacts on

international seaports: knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among

port administrators. Climatic Change, 110(1), 5-29.

Bedsworth, L., 2009: Preparing for climate change: a perspective from local public

health officers in California. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(4), 617-

623.

Bedsworth, L.W. and E. Hanak, 2010: Adaptation to climate change: a review of

challenges and tradeoffs in six areas. Journal of the American Planning

Association, 76(4), 477-495.

Beniston, M., 2010: Climate change and its impacts: growing stress factors for

human societies. International Review of the Red Cross, 92(879), 557-568.

Benson, C. and E.J. Clay, 2004: Understanding the Economic and Financial Impacts

of Natural Disasters. Disaster Risk Management Series No. 4, The International

Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC,

USA, 119 pp.

Benvenuti, S. and D. Bacci, 2010: Initial agronomic performances of Mediterranean

xerophytes in simulated dry green roofs. Urban Ecosystems, 13(3), 349-363.

Benzie, M., A. Harvey, K. Burningham, N. Hodgson, and A. Siddiqi, 2011: Vulnerability

to Heatwaves and Drought: Adaptation to Climate Change. Joseph Rowntree

Foundation, York, UK, 86 pp.

Berger, F., 2003: Crise et reconversion dans la sidérurgie: étude comparée des bassins

charbonniers de la Ruhr et du Nord-Pas-de-Calais. Mitteilungsblatt (Zeitschrift

des Bochumer Instituts für soziale Bewegungen), 29, 77-84.

Best Foot Forward, 2002: City Limits: A Resource Flow and Ecological Footprint

Analysis of Greater London. Commissioned by IWM (EB), the Chartered Institution

of Wastes Management Environmental Body, BFF, London, UK, 63 pp.

Betsill, M.M. and H. Bulkeley, 2004: Transnational networks and global environmental

governance: the cities for climate protection program. International Studies

Quarterly, 48(2), 471-493.

Betsill, M.M. and H. Bulkeley, 2006: Cities and the multilevel governance of global

climate change. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International

Organizations, 12(2), 141-159.

Bhat, G., A. Karanth, L. Dashora, and U. Rajasekar, 2013: Addressing flooding in the

city of Surat beyond its boundaries. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), 429-

441.

Bicknell, J., D. Dodman, and D. Satterthwaite (eds.), 2009: Adapting Cities to Climate

Change: Understanding and Addressing the Development Challenges. Earthscan,

Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, NY, USA, 397 pp.

Birkmann, J., M. Garschagen, F. Kraas, and N. Quang, 2010: Adaptive urban

governance: new challenges for the second generation of urban adaptation

strategies to climate change. Sustainability Science, 5(2), 185-206.

Björnberg, K.E. and S.O. Hansson, 2013: Gendering local climate adaptation. Local

Environment, 18(2), 217-232.

Blake, E.S., T.B. Kimberlain, R.J. Berg, J.P. Cangialosi, and J.L. Beven II, 2012: Tropical

Cyclone Report: Hurricane Sandy (AL182012), 22 – 29 October 2012. National

Hurricane Center, NOAA / National Weather Service, Miami, FL, USA, 157 pp.

Blake, R., A. Grimm, T. Ichinose, R. Horton, S. Gaffin, S. Jiong, D. Bader, and L. Cecil,

2011: Urban climate: processes, trends, and projections. In: Climate Change

and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research

Network [Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, S. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra (eds.)].

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 43-81.

Blanco, H., P. McCarney, S. Parnell, M. Schmidt, and K. Seto, 2011: The role of urban

land in climate change. In: Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment Report

of the Urban Climate Change Research Network [Rosenzweig, C., W.D. Solecki,

S.A. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK, pp. 217-248.

Blazejczyk, K., Y. Epstein, G. Jendritzky, H. Staiger, and B. Tinz, 2012: Comparison of

UTCI to selected thermal indices. International Journal of Biometeorology,

56(3), 515-535.

Bloomberg, M.R. and R.T. Aggarwala, 2008: Think locally, act globally: how curbing

global warming emissions can improve local public health. American Journal

of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 414-423.

Bloomberg, M.R. and C. Holloway, 2010: NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable

Strategy for Clean Waterways. PlaNYC and NYC Department of Environmental

Protection, New York, NY, USA, 141 pp.

BMA, GLF, and UNEP, 2009: Bangkok Assessment Report on Climate Change. Bangkok

Metropolitan Administration (BMA), Green Leaf Foundation (GLF), and United

Nations Environment Programme, (UNEP), BMA, Bangkok, Thailand, 88 pp.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

598

Bohnenstengel, S., S. Evans, P.A. Clark, and S. Belcher, 2011: Simulations of the

London urban heat island. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society,

137(659), 1625-1640.

Bolin, B., M. Seetharam, and B. Pompeii, 2010: Water resources, climate change, and

urban vulnerability: a case study of Phoenix. Local Environment, 15(3), 261-279.

Bonazza, A., P. Messina, C. Sabbioni, C.M. Grossi, and P. Brimblecombe, 2009:

Mapping the impact of climate change on surface recession of carbonate

buildings in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 407(6), 2039-2050.

Boonyabancha, S., 2005: Baan Mankong: going to scale with “slum” and squatter

upgrading in Thailand. Environment and Urbanization, 17(1), 21-46.

Boonyabancha, S., 2009: Land for housing the poor – by the poor: experiences from

the Baan Mankong nationwide slum upgrading programme in Thailand.

Environment and Urbanization, 21(2), 309-329.

Boonyabancha, S. and D. Mitlin, 2012: Urban poverty reduction: learning by doing

in Asia. Environment and Urbanization, 24(2), 403-421.

Bourque, A., A. Musy, and C. Larrivée, 2009: Ouranos: un modèle original pour

ledéveloppement de connaissances menant à l’adaptation aux changements

climatiques. Liaison Énergie Francophonie, 85, 61-66.

Bowen, A. and J. Rydge, 2011: Climate-Change Policy in the United Kingdom.OECD

Economics Department Working Paper No. 886, OECD Publishing, Paris, France,

42 pp.

Bowler, D.E., L. Buyung-Ali, T.M. Knight, and A.S. Pullin, 2010: Urban greening to cool

towns and cities: a systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and

Urban Planning, 97(3), 147-155.

Brody, S., H. Grover, E. Lindquist, and A. Vedlitz, 2010: Examining climate change

mitigation and adaptation behaviours among public sector organisations in

the USA. Local Environment, 15(6), 591-603.

Brown, A., A. Dayal, and C.R. Del Rio, 2012: From practice to theory: emerging lessons

from Asia for building urban climate change resilience. Environment and

Urbanization, 24(2), 531-556.

Brown, D., 2011: Making the linkages between climate change adaptation and

spatial planning in Malawi. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(8), 940-949.

Brown, J. and L. Peskett, 2011: Looking at Effectiveness as well as Transparency in

Climate Finance. Opinion No. 9, European Development Co-operation to 2020

(EDEDC2020), European Association of Development Research and Training

Institutes (EADI), Bonn, Germany, 2 pp.

Brown, S. and G. Walker, 2008: Understanding heat wave vulnerability in nursing

and residential homes. Building Research & Information, 36(4), 363-372.

Brugmann, J., 2012: Financing the resilient city. Environment and Urbanization,

24(1), 215-232.

Brunner, R.D., 1996: Policy and global change research. Climatic Change, 32(2),

121-147.

Brunner, R.D., T. Steelman, L. Coe-Juell, C. Cromely, C. Edwards, and D. Tucker (eds.),

2005: Adaptive Governance: Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision-Making.

Columbia University Press, New York, NY, USA, 319 pp.

Buchner, B., A. Falconer, M. Hervé-Mignucci, C. Trabacchi, and M. Brinkman, 2012:

The Landscape of Climate Finance 2012. Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) Report,

San Francisco, CA, USA, 84 pp.

Bulkeley, H., 2010: Cities and the governing of climate change. Annual Review of

Environment and Resources, 35, 229-253.

Bulkeley, H., 2013: Cities and Climate Change. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and

New York, NY, USA, 266 pp.

Bulkeley, H. and M. Betsill, 2005: Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance

and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 14(1), 42-63.

Bulkeley, H. and V. Castan Broto, 2013: Government by experiment? Global cities

and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers, 38(3), 361-375.

Bulkeley, H. and K. Kern, 2006: Local government and the governing of climate

change in Germany and the UK. Urban Studies, 43(12), 2237-2259.

Bulkeley, H. and S.C. Moser, 2007: Responding to climate change: governance and

social action beyond Kyoto. Global Environmental Politics, 7(2), 1-10.

Bulkeley, H. and R. Tuts, 2013: Understanding urban vulnerability, adaptation and

resilience in the context of climate change. Local Environment, 18(6), 646-662.

Bulkeley, H., H. Schroeder, K. Janda, Z. Zhao, A. Armstrong, S.Y. Chi, and S. Ghosh,

2011: The role of institutions, governance, and urban planning for mitigation

and adaptation. In: Cities and Climate Change: Responding to an Urgent

Agenda [Hoornweg, D., M. Freire, M.J. Lee, P. Bhada-Tata, and B. Yuen (eds.)].

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / World Bank,

Washington, DC, USA, pp. 125-160.

Bunce, M., S. Rosendo, and K. Brown, 2010: Perceptions of climate change, multiple

stressors and livelihoods on marginal African coasts. Environment, Development

and Sustainability, 12(3), 407-440.

Burch, S., 2010: Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change:

insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global

Environmental Change, 20(2), 287-297.

Burkart, K., A. Schneider, S. Breitner, M.H. Khan, A. Krämer, and W. Endlicher, 2011:

The effect of atmospheric thermal conditions and urban thermal pollution on

all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in Bangladesh. Environmental Pollution,

159(8), 2035-2043.

Burley, J.G., R.R. McAllister, K.A. Collins, and C.E. Lovelock, 2012: Integration,

synthesis and climate change adaptation: a narrative based on coastal wetlands

at the regional scale. Regional Environmental Change, 12(3), 581-593.

Buytaert, W., M. Vuille, A. Dewulf, R. Urrutia, A. Karmalkar, and R. Celleri, 2010:

Uncertainties in climate change projections and regional downscaling in the

tropical Andes: implications for water resources management. Hydrology and

Earth System Sciences, 14(7), 1247-1258.

Cabannes, Y., 2004: Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory

democracy. Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), 27-46.

Campbell, T., 2003: Quiet Revolution: Decentralization and the Rise of Political

Participation in Latin American Cities. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh,

PA, USA, 208 pp.

Campbell-Lendrum, D. and C. Corvalan, 2007: Climate change and developing-

country cities: implications for environmental health and equity. Journal of

Urban Health, 84(1), 109-117.

Cannon, T., 1994: Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of ‘natural’ disasters’.

In: Disasters, Development and Environment [Varley, A. (ed.)]. John Wiley and

Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 13-30.

Carbognin, L., P. Teatini, A. Tomasin, and L. Tosi, 2010: Global change and relative

sea level rise at Venice: what impact in term of flooding. Climate Dynamics,

35(6), 1039-1047.

Carcellar, N., J.C.R. Co, and Z.O. Hipolito, 2011: Addressing disaster risk reduction

through community-rooted interventions in the Philippines: experience of the

Homeless People’s Federation of the Philippines. Environment and Urbanization,

23(2), 365-381.

Carmin, J., D. Roberts, and D. Anguelovski, 2009: Planning Climate Resilient Cities:

Early Lessons from Early Adopters. Presentation for the “Government Institutions

and Innovations in Governance for Achieving Climate Adaptation in Cities”

Session, Proceedings of the World Bank Fifth Urban Research Symposium –

Cities and Climate Change: Responding to an Urgent Agenda, 28-30 June 2009,

Marseilles, France, 27 pp.

Carmin, J., N. Nadkarni, and C. Rhie, 2012a: Progress and Challenges in Urban Climate

Adaptation Planning: Results of a Global Survey. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA, 30 pp.

Carmin, J., I. Anguelovski, and D. Roberts, 2012b: Urban climate adaptation in the

global south planning in an emerging policy domain. Journal of Planning

Education and Research, 32(1), 18-32.

Carmin, J., E. Chu, and D. Dodman, 2013: Urban Climate Adaptation and Leadership:

From Conceptual to Practical Understanding. OECD Regional Development

Working Paper No. 2013/26, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 48 pp., doi:10.1787/

5k3ttg88w8hh-en.

Carter, J.G., 2011: Climate change adaptation in European cities. Current Opinion in

Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 193-198.

Cartwright, A., S. Parnell, G. Oelofse, and S. Ward, 2012: Climate Change at the City

Scale: Impacts, Mitigation and Adaptation in Cape Town. Routledge, Abingdon,

Oxon, UK, 277 pp.

Cartwright, A., J. Blignaut, M. De Wit, K. Goldberg, M. Mander, S. O’Donoghue, and

D. Roberts, 2013: Economics of climate change adaptation at the local scale

under conditions of uncertainty and resource constraints: the case of Durban,

South Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 25(1), 139-156.

Carvalho, A. and J. Burgess, 2005: Cultural circuits of climate change in UK

broadsheet newspapers, 1985-2003. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457-1469.

Cash, D.W. and S.C. Moser, 2000: Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic

assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change, 10(2),

109-120.

Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jäger, and

R.B. Mitchell, 2003: Knowledge systems for sustainable development.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, 100(14), 8086-8091.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

599

Cash, D.W., W.N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O.

Young, 2006: Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in

a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 1-12.

Cashman, A., L. Nurse, and C. John, 2010: Climate change in the Caribbean: the

water management implications. The Journal of Environment & Development,

19(1), 42-67.

Castán Broto, V., B. Oballa, and P. Junior, 2013: Governing climate change for a just

city: challenges and lessons from Maputo, Mozambique. Local Environment,

18(6), 678-704.

Castleton, H.F., V. Stovin, S.B.M. Beck, and J.B. Davison, 2010: Green roofs; building

energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy and Buildings, 42(10),

1582-1591.

CEPAL, 2008: Tabasco: Características e Impacto Socio-Económico de las Inundaciones

Provocadas a Finales de Octubre y a Comienzos de Noviembre de 2007 por el

Frente Frío Número 4. La Sede Subregional de la Comisión Económica para

América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) en México, Mexico, DF, Mexico, 231 pp.

Chambers, R., 1989: Editorial introduction: vulnerability, coping and policy. IDS

Bulletin, 20(2), 1-7.

Chance, T., 2009: Towards sustainable residential communities; the Beddington Zero

Energy Development (BedZED) and beyond. Environment and Urbanization,

21(2), 527-544.

Chang, H., M. Lafrenz, I. Jung, M. Figliozzi, D. Platman, and C. Pederson, 2010:

Potential impacts of climate change on flood-induced travel disruptions: a

case study of Portland, Oregon, USA. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers, 100(4), 938-952.

Chang, S.E., T.L. McDaniels, J. Mikawoz, and K. Peterson, 2007: Infrastructure failure

interdependencies in extreme events: power outage consequences in the 1998

Ice Storm. Natural Hazards, 41(2), 337-358.

Chapman, L., J.A.D. Azevedo, and T. Prieto-Lopez, 2013: Urban heat & critical

infrastructure networks: a viewpoint. Urban Climate, 3(May), 7-12.

Charlton, M.B. and N.W. Arnell, 2011: Adapting to climate change impacts on water

resources in England – an assessment of draft Water Resources Management

Plans. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 238-248.

Chaum, M., J. Brown, B. Buchner, A. Falconer, C. Faris, K. Sierra, C. Trabacchi, and G.

Wagner, 2011: Improving the Effectiveness of Climate Finance: Key Lessons.

Brookings Institution, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Climate Policy

Initiative (CPI), and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), CPI, San Francisco,

CA, USA, 15 pp.

Chen, J., Q. Li, J. Niu, and L. Sun, 2011: Regional climate change and local urbanization

effects on weather variables in Southeast China. Stochastic Environmental

Research and Risk Assessment, 25(4), 555-565.

Chevallier, P., B. Pouyaud, W. Suarez, and T. Condom, 2011: Climate change threats

to environment in the tropical Andes: glaciers and water resources. Regional

Environmental Change, 11(1), 179-187.

City of Boston, 2011: A Climate of Progress: City of Boston Climate Action Plan

Update 2011. City of Boston, Boston, MA, USA, 43 pp.

City of Cape Town, 2006: Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change in the City

of Cape Town (FAC

T). City of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 66 pp.

City of Chicago, 2008: Chicago Climate Action Plan 2008: Our City, Our Future. City

of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 56 pp.

City of Chicago, 2010: Chicago Climate Change Action Plan 2010, Chicago Climate

Action Plan Progress Report – First Two Years. City of Chicago, Department of

Environment, Chicago, IL, USA, 13 pp.

City of Melbourne, 2009: Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. City of Melbourne,

Melbourne, Australia, 128 pp.

City of New York, 2011: PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. Update April 2011.

City of New York, New York, NY, USA, 200 pp.

City of Toronto, 2013: Hot Weather Response Plan. Toronto Public Health, City of

Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 13 pp., www.toronto.ca/health/heatalerts/

pdf/hwr_plan_2013.pdf.

Chrysoulakis, N., M. Lopes, R. San José, C.S.B. Grimmond, M.B. Jones, V. Magliulo,

J.E. Klostermann, A. Synnefa, Z. Mitraka, and E.A. Castro, 2013: Sustainable

urban metabolism as a link between bio-physical sciences and urban planning:

the BRIDGE project. Landscape and Urban Planning, 112, 100-117.

Chu, S.Y. and H. Schroeder, 2010: Private governance of climate change in Hong Kong:

an analysis of drivers and barriers to corporate action. Asian Studies Review,

34(3), 287-308.

Cissé, G., B. Koné, H. Bâ, I. Mbaye, K. Koba, J. Utzinger, and M. Tanner, 2011: Ecohealth

and climate change: adaptation to flooding events in riverside secondary cities,

West Africa. In: Resilient Cities: Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change -

Proceedings of the Global Forum 2010 [Otto-Zimmermann, K. (ed.)]. Springer,

Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 55-67.

Clapp, C., J. Ellis, J. Benn, and J. Corfee-Morlot, 2012: Tracking Climate Finance: What

and How? COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2012)1, Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD) and International Energy Agency (IEA),

OECD/IEA Publishing, Paris, France, 42 pp.

Clapp, C., A. Leseur, O. Sartor, G. Briner, and J. Corfee-Morlot, 2010: Cities and Carbon

Market Finance: Taking Stock of Cities’ Experience with CDM and JI.OECD

Environmental Working Paper No. 29, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 81 pp.

Cohen, M.J. and J.L. Garrett, 2010: The food price crisis and urban food (in)security.

Environment and Urbanization, 22(2), 467-482.

Colby, B.G. and K.L. Jacobs, 2007: Arizona Water Policy: Management Innovations

in an Urbanizing, Arid Region. Issues in Water Resources Policy Series,

Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA, 247 pp.

Corburn, J., 2009: Cities, climate change and urban heat island mitigation: localising

global environmental science. Urban Studies, 46(2), 413-427.

Corfee-Morlot, J., I. Cochran, S. Hallegatte, and P. Teasdale, 2011: Multilevel risk

governance and urban adaptation policy. Climatic Change, 104(1), 169-197.

Crawford, K., M. Suvatne, J. Kennedy, and T. Corsellis, 2010: Urban shelter and the

limits of humanitarian action. Forced Migration Review, 34, 27-28.

Crush, J., B. Frayne, and W. Pendleton, 2012: The crisis of food insecurity in African

cities. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 7(2-3), 271-292.

d’Cruz, C. and P. Mudimu, 2013: Community savings that mobilize federations, build

women’s leadership and support slum upgrading. Environment and Urbanization,

25(1), 31-45.

da Silva, J., 2010: Lessons from Aceh: Key Considerations in Post-Disaster

Reconstruction. The Disasters Emergency Committe and Ove Arup Partners Ltd.,

Practical Action Publishing Limited, Rugby, UK, 94 pp.

da Silva, J., 2012: Shifting Agendas: Response to Resilience. The Role of the Engineer

in Disaster Risk Reduction.9

Brunel International Lecture Series, Institution

of Civil Engineers, London, UK, 43 pp.

da Silva, J., S. Kernaghan, and A. Luque, 2012: A systems approach to meeting the

challenges of urban climate change. International Journal of Urban Sustainable

Development, 4(2), 125-145.

Dawson, J.P., B.J. Bloomer, D.A. Winner, and C.P. Weaver, 2013: Understanding the

meteorological drivers of US particulate matter concentrations in a changing

climate. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, doi.org/10.1175/

BAMS-D-12-00181.1.

Dawson, R.J., J.W. Hall, S.L. Barr, M. Batty, A.L. Bristow, S. Carney, A. Dagoumas, S.

Evans, A.C. Ford, J. Köhler, M.R. Tight, C.L. Walsh, H. Watters, and A.M. Zanni,

2009: A blueprint for the integrated assessment of climate change in cities. In:

Green CITYnomics: The Urban War against Climate Change [Tang, K. (ed.)].

Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK, pp. 32-52.

de Lucena, A.F.P., A.S. Szklo, R. Schaeffer, R.R. de Souza, B.S.M.C. Borba, I.V.L. da

Costa, A.O.P. Júnior, and S.H.F. da Cunha, 2009: The vulnerability of renewable

energy to climate change in Brazil. Energy Policy, 37(3), 879-889.

de Lucena, A.F.P., R. Schaeffer, and A.S. Szklo, 2010: Least-cost adaptation options

for global climate change impacts on the Brazilian electric power system.

Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 342-350.

de Sherbinin, A., A. Schiller, and A. Pulsipher, 2007: The vulnerability of global cities

to climate hazards. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 39-64.

de Sherbinin, A., M. Castro, F. Gemenne, M. Cernea, S. Adamo, P. Fearnside, G. Krieger,

S. Lahmani, A. Oliver-Smith, and A. Pankhurst, 2011: Preparing for resettlement

associated with climate change. Science, 334(6055), 456-457.

Deak, J. and E. Bucht, 2011: Planning for climate change: the role of indigenous blue

infrastructure, with a case study in Sweden. Town Planning Review, 82(6), 669-

685.

Depietri, Y., F.G. Renaud, and G. Kallis, 2012: Heat waves and floods in urban areas:

a policy-oriented review of ecosystem services. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 95-

107.

Diagne, K., 2007: Governance and natural disasters: addressing flooding in Saint

Louis, Senegal. Environment and Urbanization, 19(2), 552-562.

Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P.C. Stern, 2003: The struggle to govern the commons.

Science, 302(5652), 1907-1912.

Dobney, K., C. Baker, A. Quinn, and L. Chapman, 2008: Quantifying the effects of

high summer temperatures due to climate change on buckling and rail related

delays in south-east United Kingdom. Meteorological Applications, 16(2), 245-

251.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

600

Dodman, D., 2009: Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban

greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1),

185-201.

Dodman, D. and D. Mitlin, 2011: Challenges for community-based adaptation:

discovering the potential for transformation. Journal of International Development,

25(5), 640-659.

Dodman, D. and D. Satterthwaite, 2009: The costs of adapting infrastructure to

climate change. In: Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change: A

Review of the UNFCCC and Other Recent Estimates [Parry, M., N. Arnell, P. Berry,

D. Dodman, S. Fankhauser, C. Hope, S. Kovats, R. Nicholls, D. Satterthwaite, R.

Tiffin, and T. Wheeler (eds.)]. IIED and Grantham Institute for Climate Change,

London, UK, pp. 73-89.

Dossou, K.M.R. and B. Gléhouenou-Dossou, 2007: The vulnerability to climate change

of Cotonou (Benin): the rise in sea level. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1),

65-79.

Douglas, I., 2009: Climate change, flooding and food security in south Asia. Food

Security, 1(2), 127-136.

Douglas, I., K. Alam, M. Maghenda, Y. Mcdonnell, L. Mclean, and J. Campbell, 2008:

Unjust waters: climate change, flooding and the urban poor in Africa. Environment

and Urbanization, 20(1), 187-205.

Douglass, M., 2002: From global intercity competition to cooperation for livable

cities and economic resilience in Pacific Asia. Environment and Urbanization,

14(1), 53-68.

Drejza, S., P. Bernatchez, and C. Dugas, 2011: Effectiveness of land management

measures to reduce coastal georisks, eastern Québec, Canada. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 54(4), 290-301.

Eakin, H., V. Magaña, J. Smith, J.L. Moreno, J.M. Martínez, and O. Landavazo, 2007:

A stakeholder driven process to reduce vulnerability to climate change in

Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global

Change, 12(5), 935-955.

Eakin, H., A.M. Lerner, and F. Murtinho, 2010: Adaptive capacity in evolving peri-

urban spaces: Responses to flood risk in the Upper Lerma River Valley, Mexico.

Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 14-22.

Ebi, K.L. and J.A. Paulson, 2010: Climate change and child health in the United States.

Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 40(1), 2-18.

EEA, 2012: Urban Adaptation to Climate Change in Europe: Challenges and

Opportunities for Cities Together with Supportive National and European

Policies. EEA Report, No. 2/2012, European Environment Agency (EEA),

Copenhagen, Denmark, 143 pp.

Egondi, T., C. Kyobutungi, S. Kovats, K. Muindi, R. Ettarh, and J. Rocklöv, 2012: Time-

series analysis of weather and mortality patterns in Nairobi’s informal

settlements. Global Health Action, 5, 23-32.

Eichhorst, U., 2009: Adapting Urban Transport to Climate Change, Module 5f.

Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH on behalf

of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

(BMZ), Division 313 – Water, Energy, Urban Development, GTZ, Eschborn,

Germany, 62 pp.

El Banna, M.M. and O.E. Frihy, 2009: Natural and anthropogenic influences in the

northeastern coast of the Nile delta, Egypt. Environmental Geology, 57(7),

1593-1602.

Ellis, E.C., K.K. Goldewijk, S. Siebert, D. Lightman, and N. Ramankutty, 2010:

Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecology

and Biogeography, 19, 589-606.

Engineering the Future, 2011: Infrastructure, Engineering and Climate Change

Adaptation: Ensuring Services in an Uncertain Future. Royal Academy of

Engineering, London, UK, 107 pp.

Engineers Canada, 2008: Adapting to Climate Change: Canada’s First National

Engineering Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation to a Changing Climate.

Engineers Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 76 pp.

EPA, 2013: Climate Ready Water Utilities: Adaptation Strategies Guide for Water

Utilities. EPA 817-K-13-001, Office of Water (4608-T), United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 106 pp.

Ernstson, H., S.E. van der Leeuw, C.L. Redman, D.J. Meffert, G. Davis, C. Alfsen, and

T. Elmqvist, 2010: Urban transitions: on urban resilience and human-dominated

ecosystems. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 39(8), 531-545.

Eurocontrol, 2008: The Challenges of Growth: Air Traffic Statistics and Forecasts.

European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL),

Brussels, Belgium, 40 pp.

Fane, S. and A. Turner, 2010: Integrated water resource planning in the context of climate

uncertainty. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 10(4), 487-494.

Fankhauser, S., 2010: The costs of adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:

Climate Change, 1(1), 23-30.

Fankhauser, S. and R. Soare, 2013: An economic approach to adaptation: illustrations

from Europe. Climatic Change, 118(2), 367-379.

Fankhauser, S., S. Agrawala, D. Hanrahan, D. Pope, J. Skees, C. Stephens, and S. Yearley,

2008: Economic and policy instruments to promote adaptation. In: Economic

Aspects of Adaptation to Climate Change: Costs, Benefits and Policy Instruments

[Agrawala, S. and S. Fankhauser (eds.)]. OECD, Paris, France, pp. 85-133.

Farley, K.A., C. Tague, and G.E. Grant, 2011: Vulnerability of water supply from the

Oregon Cascades to changing climate: linking science to users and policy.

Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 110-122.

Fazey, I., M. Kesby, A. Evely, I. Latham, D. Wagatora, J. Hagasua, M.S. Reed, and M.

Christie, 2010: A three-tiered approach to participatory vulnerability assessment

in the Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 713-728.

Ferguson, B. and J. Navarrete, 2003: A financial framework for reducing slums:

lessons from experience in Latin America. Environment and Urbanization,

15(2), 201-216.

Fergutz, O., S. Dias, and D. Mitlin, 2011: Developing urban waste management in

Brazil with waste picker organizations. Environment and Urbanization, 23(2),

597-608.

Fernandes, E., 2007: Implementing the urban reform agenda in Brazil. Environment

and Urbanization, 19(1), 177-189.

Finland Safety Investigations Authority, 2011: S2/2010Y The Storms of July-

August 2010. Finland Safety Investigations Authority, Helsinki, Finland, 158 pp.,

www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/en/1279614262854.

Flanner, M.G., 2009: Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models.

Geophysical Research Letters, 36(2), L02801, doi:10.1029/2008GL036465.

Foster, J., A. Lowe, and S. Winkelman, 2011a: Lessons Learned on Local Climate

Adaptation from the Urban Leaders Adaptation Initiatives. The Center for Clean

Air Policy (CCAP), Washington, DC, USA, 21 pp.

Foster, J., A. Lowe, and S. Winkelman, 2011b: The Value of Green Infrastructure for

Urban Climate Adaptation. The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), Washington,

DC, USA, 52 pp.

Früh, B., P. Becker, T. Deutschländer, J. Hessel, M. Kossmann, I. Mieskes, J. Namyslo,

M. Roos, U. Sievers, and T. Steigerwald, 2011: Estimation of climate-change

impacts on the urban heat load using an urban climate model and regional

climate projections. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 50(1),

167-184.

Frumkin, H., J. Hess, G. Luber, J. Malilay, and M. McGeehin, 2008: Climate change:

the public health response. American Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 435-445.

Fujibe, F., 2008: Detection of urban warming in recent temperature trends in Japan.

International Journal of Climatology, 29(12), 1811-1822.

Fujibe, F., 2011: Urban warming in Japanese cities and its relation to climate change

monitoring. International Journal of Climatology, 31(2), 162-173.

Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz, 1993: Science for the post-normal age. Futures,

25(7), 739-755.

Gaffin, S.R., C. Rosenzweig, and A.Y. Kong, 2012: Adapting to climate change through

urban green infrastructure. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 704-704.

Gamble, J., M. Stevenson, E. McClean, and L.G. Heaney, 2009: The prevalence of non-

adherence in difficult asthma. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care

Medicine, 180(9), 817-822.

Garschagen, M., 2013: Resilience and organisational institutionalism from a cross-

cultural perspective – an exploration based on urban climate change adaptation

in Vietnam. Natural Hazards, 67(1), 25-46.

Garschagen, M. and F. Kraas, 2011: Urban climate change adaptation in the context

of transformation – lessons learned from Vietnam. In: Resilient Cities: Cities

and Adaptation to Climate Change, Proceedings of the Global Forum 2010

[Otto-Zimmermann, K. (ed.)]. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 131-139.

Gasper, R., A. Blohm, and M. Ruth, 2011: Social and economic impacts of climate change

on the urban environment. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,

3(3), 150-157.

Gavidia, J., 2006: Priority goals in Central America. The development of sustainable

mechanisms for participation in local risk management. Special edition for the

3rd World Urban Forum, UN-HABITAT, Vancouver, June 2006, Milenio Ambiental,

S4, 56-59, [Journal of the Urban Environment Programme (UPE), of the

International Development Research Center (IDRC), Montevideo, Uruguay],

idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/39513/1/2006_06_no4.pdf.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

601

GDF, 2006: Estrategia Local de Acción Climática del Distrito Federal. El Gobierno del

Distrito Federal (GDF), Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal,

Mexico, DF, Mexico, 214 pp.

GDF, 2008: Programa de Acción Climática de la Ciudad de México 2008-2012. El

Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF), Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del Distrito

Federal, Mexico, DF, Mexico, 172 pp.

Getter, K.L., D.B. Rowe, J.A. Andresen, and I.S. Wichman, 2011: Seasonal heat flux

properties of an extensive green roof in a Midwestern U.S. climate. Energy and

Buildings, 43(12), 3548-3557.

GFDRR, 2009: Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into the Fight against Poverty:

Annual Report 2009. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery

(GFDRR), GFDRR Secretariat, Washington, DC, USA, 71 pp.

GFDRR, 2013: Managing Disaster Risks for a Resilient Future: A Work Plan for the

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery 2014-2016. Global Facility

for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), GFDRR Secretariat, Washington,

DC, USA, 58 pp.

Gieryn, T.F., 1999: Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. University

of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 398 pp.

Giguère, M., 2009: Mesures de Lutte aux Îlots de Chaleur Urbains: Revue de Littérature.

Direction des Risques Biologiques, Environnementaux et Occupationnels. N°

de publication: 988, Gouvernement du Québec, Institut National de Santé

Publique Québec, Québec, QC, Canada, 77 pp.

Gill, S., J. Handley, A. Ennos, and S. Pauleit, 2007: Adapting cities for climate change:

the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1), 115-133.

GLA, 2008: The London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy: Draft Report. Greater

London Authority (GLA), London, UK, 113 pp.

GLA, 2010: The Draft Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for London: Public

Consultation Draft. Greater London Authority (GLA), London, UK, 136 pp.

GLA, 2011: Managing Risks and Increasing Resilience: The Mayor’s Climate Change

Adaptation Strategy. Greater London Authority (GLA), London, UK, 123 pp.

Gober, P., 2010: Desert urbanization and the challenges of water sustainability.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(3), 144-150.

Gober, P., C.W. Kirkwood, R.C. Balling, A.W. Ellis, and S. Deitrick, 2010: Water planning

under climatic uncertainty in Phoenix: why we need a new paradigm. Annals

of the Association of American Geographers, 100(2), 356-372.

Godfray, H.C.J., J.R. Beddington, I.R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J.F. Muir, J. Pretty,

S. Robinson, S.M. Thomas, and C. Toulmin, 2010: Food security: the challenge

of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812-818.

Government of South Africa, 2010: National Climate Change Response Green

Paper. Government of the Republic of South Africa, Ministry of Water and

Environmental Affairs, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, South

Africa, 38 pp.

Granberg, M. and I. Elander, 2007: Local governance and climate change: reflections

on the Swedish experience. Local Environment, 12(5), 537-548.

Grimm, N.B., S.H. Faeth, N.E. Golubiewski, C.L. Redman, J. Wu, X. Bai, and J.M.

Briggs, 2008: Global Change and the ecology of cities. Science, 319(5864),

756-760.

Grimmond, C.S.B., 2011: Climate of cities. In: Routledge Handbook of Urban Ecology

[Douglas, I., D. Goode, M. Houck, and R. Wang (eds.)]. Routledge, Abingdon,

UK, pp. 103-119.

Grindle, M.S. and J.W. Thomas, 1991: Public Choices and Policy Change: The Political

Economy of Reform in Developing Countries. Johns Hopkins University Press,

Baltimore, MD, USA, 222 pp.

Grossi, C.M., P. Brimblecombe, and I. Harris, 2007: Predicting long term freeze–thaw

risks on Europe built heritage and archaeological sites in a changing climate.

Science of the Total Environment, 377(2-3), 273-281.

Gupta, J., R. Lasage, and T. Stam, 2007: National efforts to enhance local climate

policy in the Netherlands. Environmental Sciences, 4(3), 171-182.

Gurran, N., E. Hamin, and B. Norman, 2012: Climate change mitigation, adaptation and

local planning. In: Australian Urban Land Use Planning: Principles and Practice

[Gurran, N. (ed.)]. Sydney University Press, Sydney, Australia, pp. 237-250.

Gusdorf, F., S. Hallegatte, and A. Lahellec, 2008: Time and space matter: how urban

transitions create inequality. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 708-719.

Hacker, J.N. and M.J. Holmes, 2007: Thermal comfort: climate change and the

environmental design of buildings in the United Kingdom. Built Environment,

33(1), 97-114.

Hahn, M.B., A.M. Riederer, and S.O. Foster, 2009: The livelihood vulnerability index: a

pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change – a

case study in Mozambique. Global Environmental Change, 19(1), 74-88.

Haines, A., N. Bruce, S. Cairncross, M. Davies, K. Greenland, A. Hiscox, S. Lindsay, T.

Lindsay, D. Satterthwaite, and P. Wilkinson, 2013: Promoting health and

advancing development through improved housing in low-income settings.

Journal of Urban Health, 90(5), 810-831.

Hajat, S., M. O’Connor, and T. Kosatsky, 2010: Health effects of hot weather: from

awareness of risk factors to effective health protection. The Lancet, 375(9717),

856-863.

Hall, J., J. Henriques, A. Hickford, and R. Nicholls, 2012: A Fast Track Analysis of Strategies

for Infrastructure Provision in Great Britain: Executive Summary. Environmental

Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, 19 pp.

Hall, J.W., R.J. Dawson, S.L. Barr, M. Batty, A.L. Bristow, S. Carney, A. Dagoumas, A.

Ford, C. Harpham, M.R. Tight, C.L. Walsh, H. Watters, and A.M. Zanni, 2010:

City-scale integrated assessment of climate impacts, adaptation and mitigation.

In: Energy Efficient Cities: Assessment Tools and Benchmarking Practices [Bose,

R.K. (ed.)]. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 43-64.

Hallegatte, S. and J. Corfee-Morlot, 2011: Understanding climate change impacts,

vulnerability and adaptation at city scale: an introduction. Climatic Change,

104(1), 1-12.

Hallegatte, S., J. Hourcade, and P. Ambrosi, 2007a: Using climate analogues for

assessing climate change economic impacts in urban areas. Climatic Change,

82(1), 47-60.

Hallegatte, S., J. Hourcade, and P. Dumas, 2007b: Why economic dynamics matter in

assessing climate change damages: illustration on extreme events. Ecological

Economics, 62(2), 330-340.

Hallegatte, S., F. Henriet, A. Patwardhan, K. Narayanan, S. Ghosh, S. Karmakar, U.

Patnaik, A. Abhayankar, S. Pohit, and J. Corfee-Morlot, 2010: Flood Risks,

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Benefits in Mumbai: An Initial

Assessment of Socio-Economic Consequences of Present and Climate Change

Induced Flood Risks and of Possible Adaptation Options. OECD Environment

Working Papers No. 27, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 61 pp.

Hallegatte, S., F. Henriet, and J. Corfee-Morlot, 2011a: The economics of climate

change impacts and policy benefits at city scale: a conceptual framework.

Climatic Change, 104(1), 51-87.

Hallegatte, S., N. Ranger, O. Mestre, P. Dumas, J. Corfee-Morlot, C. Herweijer, and

R.M. Wood, 2011b: Assessing climate change impacts, sea level rise and storm

surge risk in port cities: a case study on Copenhagen. Climatic Change, 104(1),

113-137.

Hallegatte, S., C. Green, R.J. Nicholls, and J. Corfee-Morlot, 2013: Future flood losses

in major coastal cities. Nature Climate Change, 3(9), 802-806.

Halsnæs, K. and A. Garg, 2011: Assessing the role of energy in development and climate

policies – conceptual approach and key indicators. World Development, 39(6),

987-1001.

Halsnæs, K. and S. Trærup, 2009: Development and climate change: a mainstreaming

approach for assessing economic, social, and environmental impacts of

adaptation measures. Environmental Management, 43(5), 765-778.

Hamdan, M.A., J. Yamin, and E.A. Abdelhafez, 2012: Passive cooling roof design

under Jordanian climate. Sustainable Cities and Society, 5, 26-29.

Hamin, E.M. and N. Gurran, 2009: Urban form and climate change: Balancing

adaptation and mitigation in the U.S. and Australia. Habitat International,

33(3), 238-245.

Hammer, S., J. Keirstead, S. Dhakal, J. Mitchell, M. Coley, R. Connell, R. Gonzalez, L.

Herve-Mignucci, L. Parshall, N. Schulz, and M. Hyams, 2011: Climate change

and urban energy systems. In: Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment

Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network [Rosenzweig, C., W.D.

Solecki, S.A. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK, pp. 85-111.

Hammill, A. and T. Tanner, 2011: Harmonising Climate Risk Management: Adaptation

Screening and Assessment Tools for Development Co-operation. OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 36, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 52 pp.

Hammill, A., M. Richard, and E. McCarter, 2008: Microfinance and climate change

adaptation. IDS Bulletin, 39(4), 113-122.

Hanak, E. and J. Lund, 2012: Adapting California’s water management to climate

change. Climatic Change, 111(1), 17-44.

Hanson, S., R. Nicholls, N. Ranger, S. Hallegatte, J. Corfee-Morlot, C. Herweijer, and J.

Chateau, 2011: A global ranking of port cities with high exposure to climate

extremes. Climatic Change, 104(1), 89-111.

Haque, A.N., S. Grafakos, and M. Huijsman, 2012: Participatory integrated assessment

of flood protection measures for climate adaptation in Dhaka. Environment

and Urbanization, 24(1), 197-213.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

602

Hardoy, J. and G. Pandiella, 2007: Adaptación de las ciudades Argentinas a los efectos

del cambio y la variabilidad climática. Medio Ambiente y Urbanización, 67(1),

45-58.

Hardoy, J. and G. Pandiella, 2009: Urban poverty and vulnerability to climate change

in Latin America. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 203-224.

Hardoy, J. and P. Romero-Lankao, 2011: Latin American cities and climate change:

challenges and options to mitigation and adaptation responses. Current Opinion

in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 158-163.

Hardoy, J. and R. Ruete, 2013: Incorporating climate change adaptation into planning

for a liveable city in Rosario, Argentina. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2),

339-360.

Hardoy, J. and L.S. Velásquez Barrero, 2013: Re-thinking ‘Biomanizales’ to address

climate change adaptation in Manizales, Colombia. Environment and

Urbanization (in press).

Hardoy, J.E., D. Mitlin, and D. Satterthwaite, 2001: Environmental Problems in an

Urbanizing World. Earthscan, London, UK and New York, NY, USA, 464 pp.

Hardoy, J., G. Pandiella, and L.S. Velásquez Barrero, 2011: Local disaster risk reduction

in Latin American urban areas. Environment and Urbanization, 23(2), 401-413.

Harlan, S.L. and D.M. Ruddell, 2011: Climate change and health in cities: impacts of

heat and air pollution and potential co-benefits from mitigation and adaptation.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 126-134.

Hasan, A., 2006: Orangi Pilot Project: the expansion of work beyond Orangi and the

mapping of informal settlements and infrastructure. Environment and

Urbanization, 18(2), 451-480.

Hasan, A., M. Younus, and S.A. Zaidi, 2002: Understanding Karachi: Planning and

Reform for the Future. 2

edn., City Press, Karachi, Pakistan, 171 pp.

Haughton, G., 1999: Information and participation within environmental management.

Environment and Urbanization, 11(2), 51-62.

Hayhoe, K., M. Robson, J. Rogula, M. Auffhammer, N. Miller, J. VanDorn, and D.

Wuebbles, 2010: An integrated framework for quantifying and valuing climate

change impacts on urban energy and infrastructure: a Chicago case study.

Journal of Great Lakes Research, 36(Supple 2), 94-105.

He, J., J. Liu, D. Zhuang, W. Zhang, and M. Liu, 2007: Assessing the effect of land

use/land cover change on the change of urban heat island intensity. Theoretical

and Applied Climatology, 90(3), 217-226.

Healey, P., 2006: Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies.

edn., Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, 366 pp.

Hebert, K. and R. Taplin, 2006: Climate change impacts and coastal planning in the

Sydney greater metropolitan region. Australian Planner, 43(3), 34-41.

Hedger, M., 2011: Climate Finance in Bangladesh: Lessons for Development Co-

operation and Climate Finance at National Level.EDC2020 Policy Brief No. 14,

European Development Co-operation to 2020 (EDC2020) Consortium Project,

European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI),

Bonn, Germany, 4 pp.

Hedger, M. and N. Bird, 2011: Climate Change Challenges for European Development

Corporation: Issues towards 2020. EDC2020 Policy Brief No. 15, European

Development Co-operation to 2020 (EDC2020) Consortium Project, European

Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), Bonn,

Germany, 4 pp.

Hedger, M., T. Mitchell, J. Leavy, M. Greeley, A. Downie, and L. Horrocks, 2008: Desk

Review: Evaluation of Adaptation to Climate Change from a Development

Perspective. Commissioned by Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Financed

by the Department for International Development (DFID) for the GEF Evaluation

Office International Conference on Evaluating Climate Change and Development,

Alexandria, May 10 – 13, 2008, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Sussex,

UK, 60 pp.

Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority, 2012: Helsinki Metropolitan

Area Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Helsinki, Finland, 30 pp.

Herrfahrdt-Pähle, E., 2010: South African water governance between administrative

and hydrological boundaries. Climate and Development, 2(2), 111-127.

Hoa, D.T.M., D.A. Nguyet, N.H. Phuong, D.T. Phuong, V.T. Nga, R. Few, and A. Winkels,

2013: Heat Stress and Adaptive Capacity of Low-Income Outdoor Workers and

their Families in the City of Da Nang, Vietnam. ACCCRN Working Paper Series

3: 2013, Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) Initiative,

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK,

86 pp.

Hodo-Abalo, S., M. Banna, and B. Zeghmati, 2012: Performance analysis of a planted

roof as a passive cooling technique in hot-humid tropics. Renewable Energy,

39(1), 140-148.

Holt, T. and J. Pullen, 2007: Urban canopy modeling of the New York City metropolitan

area: a comparison and validation of single-and multilayer parameterizations.

Monthly Weather Review, 135(5), 1906-1930.

Holt, T., J. Pullen, and C.H. Bishop, 2009: Urban and ocean ensembles for improved

meteorological and dispersion modelling of the coastal zone. Tellus A, 61(2),

232-249.

Hoornweg, D. and P. Bhada-Tata, 2012: What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid

Waste Management. Urban Development Series, Knowledge Paper No. 15,

World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 98 pp.

Hoornweg, D., L. Sugar, and C.L. Trejos Gómez, 2011: Cities and greenhouse gas

emissions: moving forward. Environment and Urbanization, 23(1), 207-227.

Houtzager, P.P. and A.K. Acharya, 2011: Associations, active citizenship, and the

quality of democracy in Brazil and Mexico. Theory and Society, 40(1), 1-36.

Howard, G., K. Charles, K. Pond, A. Brookshaw, R. Hossain, and J. Bartram, 2010:

Securing 2020 vision for 2030: climate change and ensuring resilience in water

and sanitation services. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 1(1), 2-16.

Huang, C., P. Vaneckova, X. Wang, G. FitzGerald, Y. Guo, and S. Tong, 2011: Constraints

and barriers to public health adaptation to climate change: a review of the

literature. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(2), 183-190.

Hunt, A. and P. Watkiss, 2011: Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a

review of the literature. Climatic Change, 104(1), 13-49.

Iamarino, M., S. Beevers, and C. Grimmond, 2012: High-resolution (space, time)

anthropogenic heat emissions: London 1970-2025. International Journal of

Climatology, 32(11), 1754-1767.

Ichinose, T., K. Shimodozono, and K. Hanaki, 1999: Impact of anthropogenic heat on

urban climate in Tokyo. Atmospheric Environment, 33(24), 3897-3909.

ICLEI, 2010: Changing Climate, Changing Communities: Guide and Workbook for

Municipal Climate Adaptation. International Council for Local Environmental

Initiatives (ICLEI) – Local Governments for Sustainability- Canada (ICLEI-

Canada), Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 75 pp.

ICLEI, 2011: Financing the Resilient City: A Demand Driven Approach to Development,

Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Adaptation. An ICLEI White Paper, ICLEI

Global Report, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)

– Local Governments for Sustainability, ICLEI World Secretariat, Bonn, Germany,

47 pp.

ICLEI Oceania, 2008: Local Government Climate Change Adaptation Toolkit. Cities

for Climate Protection (CCP) Australia Adaptation Initiative, ICLEI Oceania,

Melbourne, Australia, 61 pp.

IFRC, 2010: World Disasters Report 2010: Focus on Urban Risk. International

Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Geneva, Switzerland,

211 pp.

IFRC, 2011: Key Determinants of a Successful CBDRR Programme. International

Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Geneva, Switzerland,

146 pp.

Imparato, I. and J. Ruster, 2003: Slum Upgrading and Participation: Lessons from

Latin America. World Bank Publications, Washington, DC, USA, 489 pp.

Institute for Sustainable Communities, 2010: Promising Practices in Adaptation

& Resilience. A Resource Guide for Local Leaders: Version 1.0. Produced in

Partnership with the Centre for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), Institute for Sustainable

Communities (ISC), Montpelier, VT, USA, 98 pp.

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of

Working Group I to the Fourth AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., M.

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.

IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate

Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker,

D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, Plattner, G.-K., S.K.

Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.

IPCC, 2013: Summary for policy makers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K.

Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M.

Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,

USA, pp. 1-36 (in press).

Iqbal, M.J. and J. Quamar, 2011: Measuring temperature variability of five major cities

of Pakistan. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 4(3), 595-606.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

603

Ismail, A., M.H.A. Samad, and A.M.A. Rahman, 2011: The investigation of green roof

and white roof cooling potential on single storey residential building in the

Malaysian climate. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,

52, 129-137.

Jabeen, H., C. Johnson, and A. Allen, 2010: Built-in resilience: learning from grassroots

coping strategies for climate variability. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2),

415-431.

Jackson, T.L., J.J. Feddema, K.W. Oleson, G.B. Bonan, and J.T. Bauer, 2010:

Parameterization of urban characteristics for global climate modeling. Annals

of the Association of American Geographers, 100(4), 848-865.

Jacob, D.J. and D.A. Winner, 2009: Effect of climate change on air quality. Atmospheric

Environment, 43(1), 51-63.

Jacobs, K. and S. Williams, 2011: What to do now? Tensions and dilemmas in

responding to natural disasters: a study of three Australian state housing

authorities. International Journal of Housing Policy, 11(2), 175-193.

Jacob, K., R. Blake, R. Horton, D. Bader, and M. O’Grady, 2010: Chapter 7: Indicators and

monitoring. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1196(1), 127-142.

Jacob, K., G. Deodatis, J. Atlas, M. Whitcomb, M. Lopeman, O. Markogiannaki, Z.

Kennett, A. Morla, R. Leichenko, and P. Ventura, 2011: Transportation. In:

Responding to Climate Change in New York State: The ClimAID Integrated

Assessment for Effective Climate Change Adaptation [Rosenzweig, C., W.

Solecki, A. DeGaetano, M. O’Grady, S. Hassol, and P. Grabhorn (eds.)]. Technical

Report, NYSERDA Final Report No. 11-18, New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority (NYSERDA), Albany, NY, USA, pp. 299-362.

Jaroszweski, D., L. Chapman, and J. Petts, 2010: Assessing the potential impact of

climate change on transportation: the need for an interdisciplinary approach.

Journal of Transport Geography, 18(2), 331-335.

Jasanoff, S., 1998: The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 320 pp.

Jha, A.K., R. Bloch, and J. Lamond, 2012: Cities and Flooding: A Guide to Integrated

Urban Flood Risk Management for the 21

Century. World Bank Publications,

Washington, DC, USA, 632 pp.

Jim, C., 2012: Effect of vegetation biomass structure on thermal performance of tropical

green roof. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 8(2), 173-187.

Jo, J.H., J. Carlson, J.S. Golden, and H. Bryan, 2010: Sustainable urban energy:

development of a mesoscale assessment model for solar reflective roof

technologies. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7951-7959.

Johannsen, J., L. Tejerina, and A. Glassman, 2009: Conditional Cash Transfers in Latin

America: Problems and Opportunities. Inter-American Development Bank Social

Protection and Health Division, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington,

DC, USA, 35 pp.

Johansson, T.B., N. Nakicenovic, A. Patwardhan, and L. and Gomez-Echeverri (eds.),

2012: Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1865 pp.

Johnson, C., 2011: Creating an Enabling Environment for Reducing Disaster Risk:

Recent Experience of Regulatory Frameworks for Land, Planning and Building

in Low and Middle-Income Countries.Background Paper for the Global Assessment

Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011 (GAR 2011), United Nations Office for

Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland, 43 pp.

Johnson, C. and S. Blackburn, 2013: Advocacy for urban resilience: UNISDR’s Making

Cities Resilient Campaign. Environment and Urbanization (in press).

Jollands, N., M. Ruth, C. Bernier, and N. Golubiewski, 2007: The climate’s long-term

impact on New Zealand infrastructure (CLINZI) project – a case study of Hamilton

City, New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management, 83(4), 460-477.

Juhola, S. and L. Westerhoff, 2011: Challenges of adaptation to climate change across

multiple scales: a case study of network governance in two European countries.

Environmental Science & Policy, 14(3), 239-247.

Jung, S., 2008: Spatial variability in long-term changes of climate and oceanographic

conditions in Korea. Journal of Environmental Biology, 29(4), 519-529.

Kalnay, E., M. Cai, H. Li, and J. Tobin, 2006: Estimation of the impact of land-surface

forcings on temperature trends in eastern United States. Journal of Geophysical

Research, 111(D6), D06106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006555.

Katragkou, E., P. Zanis, I. Kioutsioukis, I. Tegoulias, D. Melas, B. Krüger, and E. Coppola,

2011: Future climate change impacts on summer surface ozone from regional

climate-air quality simulations over Europe. Journal of Geophysical Research:

Atmospheres (1984–2012), 116(D22), doi:10.1029/2011JD015899.

Kazmierczak, A. and J. Carter, 2010: Adaptation to Climate Change Using Green and

Blue Infrastructure: A Database of Case Studies. University of Manchester,

Manchester, UK, 172 pp.

Kehew, R., 2009: Projecting globally, planning locally: a progress report from cities

in developing countries. In: Climate Sense [World Meteorological Organization

(ed.)]. Tudor Rose, Leicester, UK, pp. 161-164.

Kehew, R., M. Kolisa, C. Rollo, A. Callejas, and G. Alber, 2012: Urban climate governance

in the Philippines, Mexico and South Africa: national-and state-level laws and

policies. In: Resilient Cities 2: Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change –

Proceedings of the Global Forum 2011 [Otto-Zimmermann, K. (ed.)]. Springer,

Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 305-315.

Kehew, R.B., M. Kolisa, C. Rollo, A. Callejas, G. Alber, and L. Ricci, 2013: Formulating

and implementing climate change laws and policies in the Philippines, Mexico

(Chiapas), and South Africa: a local government perspective. Local Environment,

18(6), 723-737.

Keim, M.E., 2008: Building human resilience: the role of public health preparedness

and response as an adaptation to climate change. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine, 35(5), 508-516.

Kellett, J. and A. Sparks, 2012: Disaster Risk Reduction: Spending Where It Should

Count. Briefing Paper, Global Humanitarian Assistance, Somerset, UK, 36 pp.

Kennedy, C. and J. Corfee-Morlot, 2013: Past performance and future needs for low

carbon climate resilient infrastructure – an investment perspective. Energy

Policy, 59, 773-783.

Kennedy, C., S. Pincetl, and P. Bunje, 2011: The study of urban metabolism and its

applications to urban planning and design. Environmental Pollution, 159(8),

1965-1973.

Keogh, B., J. Westbrook, and O. Suess, 2011: The trouble with catastrophe bonds.

Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine, (25 April 2011), www.businessweek.com/

magazine/content/11_18/b4226055260651.htm.

Kern, K. and A. Gotelind, 2009: Governing climate change in cities: modes of urban

climate governance in multilevel systems. In: Competitive Cities and Climate

Change. OECD Conference Proceedings, 9 – 10 October 2008, Milan, Italy,

OECD, Paris, France, pp. 171-196.

Kessler, R., 2011: Stormwater strategies: cities prepare aging infrastructure for

climate change. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(12), a514-a519.

Khan, F., D. Mustafa, D. Kull, and The Risk Resilience Team, 2008: Evaluating the Costs

and Benefits of Disaster Risk Reduction under Changing Climatic Conditions:

Pakistan Case Study. From Risk to Resilience, Working Paper No. 7 [Moench,

M., E. Caspari, and A. Pokh (eds.)]. ProVention Consortium, Institute for Social

and Environmental Transition (ISET), and ISET-Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, 24 pp.

Khattri, A., D. Parameshwar, and S. Pellech, 2010: Opportunities for Private Sector

Engagement in Urban Climate Change Resilience Building. Intellecap, Asian

Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN), and the Rockefeller

Foundation, Bangkok, Thailand, 94 pp.

Kienberger, S., T. Blaschke, and R.Z. Zaidi, 2013: A framework for spatio-temporal

scales and concepts from different disciplines: the ‘vulnerability cube’. Natural

Hazards, 68(3), 1343-1369.

Kinney, P.L., 2008: Climate change, air quality, and human health. American Journal

of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 459-467.

Kirshen, P., M. Ruth, and W. Anderson, 2008: Interdependencies of urban climate

change impacts and adaptation strategies: a case study of Metropolitan Boston

USA. Climatic Change, 86(1), 105-122.

Kithiia, J., 2010: Old notion–new relevance: setting the stage for the use of social

capital resource in adapting East African coastal cities to climate change.

International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 1(1-2), 17-32.

Kithiia, J., 2011: Climate change risk responses in East African cities: need, barriers and

opportunities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 176-180.

Kithiia, J. and R. Dowling, 2010: An integrated city-level planning process to address

impacts of climate change in Kenya: the case of Mombasa. Cities, 27(6), 466-475.

Kithiia, J. and A. Lyth, 2011: Urban wildscapes and green spaces in Mombasa and

their potential contribution to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Environment and Urbanization, 23(1), 251-265.

Kiunsi, R., 2013: The constraints on climate change adaptation in a city with a large

development deficit: the case of Dar es Salaam. Environment and Urbanization,

25(2), 321-337.

Koetse, M.J. and P. Rietveld, 2009: The impact of climate change and weather on

transport: an overview of empirical findings. Transportation Research Part D:

Transport and Environment, 14(3), 205-221.

Kolokotroni, M., M. Davies, B. Croxford, S. Bhuiyan, and A. Mavrogianni, 2010: A

validated methodology for the prediction of heating and cooling energy demand

for buildings within the Urban Heat Island: case-study of London. Solar Energy,

84(12), 2246-2255.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

604

Komori, D., S. Nakamura, M. Kiguchi, A. Nishijima, D. Yamazaki, S. Suzuki, A. Kawasaki,

K. Oki, and T. Oki, 2012: Characteristics of the 2011 Chao Phraya River flood in

Central Thailand. Hydrological Research Letters, 6, 41-46.

Kousky, C. and S.H. Schneider, 2003: Global climate policy: will cities lead the way?

Climate Policy, 3(4), 359-372.

Kovats, S. and R. Akhtar, 2008: Climate, climate change and human health in Asian

cities. Environment and Urbanization, 20(1), 165-175.

Krishnamurthy, P.K., J.B. Fisher, and C. Johnson, 2011: Mainstreaming local perceptions

of hurricane risk into policymaking: a case study of community GIS in Mexico.

Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 143-153.

La Greca, P., D. La Rosa, F. Martinico, and R. Privitera, 2011: Agricultural and green

infrastructures: the role of non-urbanised areas for eco-sustainable planning

in a metropolitan region. Environmental Pollution, 159(8), 2193-2202.

Lam, Y., J. Fu, S. Wu, and L. Mickley, 2011: Impacts of future climate change and effects

of biogenic emissions on surface ozone and particulate matter concentrations

in the United States. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11(10), 4789-4806.

Lamhauge, N., E. Lanzi, and S. Agrawala, 2012: Monitoring and Evaluation for

Adaptation: Lessons from Development Co-operation Agencies. OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 38, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 49 pp.

Larsen, P.H., S. Goldsmith, O. Smith, M.L. Wilson, K. Strzepek, P. Chinowsky, and B.

Saylor, 2008: Estimating future costs for Alaska public infrastructure at risk

from climate change. Global Environmental Change, 18(3), 442-457.

Laube, W. and N. van de Giesen, 2006: Ghanaian water law and policy: institutional

and hydrological perspectives. In: Hydrological Information in Water Law and

Policy: Current Practices and Future Potential [Wallace, J., P. Wouters, and S.

Pazvakavambwa (eds.)]. Water Policy Series, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Laurent, S., 2010: Xynthia: une communication qui passe mal. Le Monde (April 19

edn.), Paris, France, www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2010/04/19/xynthia-une-

communication-qui-passe-mal_1337353_823448.html.

Lee-Smith, D., 2010: Cities feeding people: an update on urban agriculture in

equatorial Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2), 483-499.

Leichenko, R., 2011: Climate change and urban resilience. Current Opinion in

Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 164-168.

Leiserowitz, A., 2006: Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the

role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1), 45-72.

Lemonsu, A., R. Kounkou-Arnaud, J. Desplat, J. Salagnac, and V. Masson, 2013:

evolution of the Parisian urban climate under a global changing climate.

Climatic Change, 116(3-4), 679-692.

Levina, E., J. Jacob, L.E.R. Bustillos, and I. Ortiz, 2007: Policy frameworks for Adaptation

to Climate Change in Coastal Zones: The Case of the Gulf of Mexico.

COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2007)2, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 68 pp.

Levy, C., 2013: Travel choice reframed: “deep distribution” and gender in urban

transport. Environment and Urbanization, 25(1), 47-63.

Li, B., 2013: Governing urban climate change adaptation in China. Environment and

Urbanization, 25(2), 413-427.

Liberatore, A. and S. Funtowicz, 2003: ‘Democratising’expertise, ‘expertising’

democracy: what does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy,

30(3), 146-150.

Lim, B., E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone, and S. Huq, 2004: Adaptation Policy

Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies, and Measures.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 268 pp.

Lindgren, J., D.K. Jonsson, and A. Carlsson-Kanyama, 2009: Climate adaptation of

railways: lessons from Sweden. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure

Research, 9(2), 164-181.

Lindseth, G., 2004: The Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC) and the

framing of local climate policy. Local Environment, 9(4), 325-336.

Linnekamp, F., A. Koedam, and I.S.A. Baud, 2011: Household vulnerability to climate

change: examining perceptions of households of flood risks in Georgetown and

Paramaribo. Habitat International, 35(3), 447-456.

Liu, J. and X. Deng, 2011: Impacts and mitigation of climate change on Chinese cities.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 188-192.

Livengood, A. and K. Kunte, 2012: Enabling participatory planning with GIS: a case

study of settlement mapping in Cuttack, India. Environment and Urbanization,

24(1), 77-97.

Love, G., A. Soares, and H. Püempel, 2010: Climate change, climate variability and

transportation. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 1, 130-145.

Lowe, A., J. Foster, and S. Winkelman, 2009: Ask the Climate Question: Adapting to

Climate Change Impacts in Urban Regions. Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP),

Washington, DC, USA, 41 pp.

Luino, F. and D. Castaldini eds., 2011: Special Issue of NHESS: Geo-Hydrological

Risk and Town and Country Planning. Natural Hazards and Earth System

Sciences, (115), 1253-2346, www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/special_

issue115.html.

Luque, A., G.A.S. Edwards, and C. Lalande, 2013: The local governance of climate

change: new tools to respond to old limitations in Esmeraldas, Ecuador. Local

Environment, 18(6), 738-751.

Lwasa, S., 2010: Adapting urban areas in Africa to climate change: the case of

Kampala. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(3), 166-171.

Lyons, M., 2009: Building back better: the large-scale impact of small-scale

approaches to reconstruction. World Development, 37(2), 385-398.

Major, D., A. Omojola, M. Dettinger, R. Hanson, and R. Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2011:

Climate change, water, and wastewater in cities. In: Climate Change and Cities:

First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network

[Rosenzweig, C., W.D. Solecki, S.A. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra (eds.)]. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 113-143.

Maller, C.J. and Y. Strengers, 2011: Housing, heat stress and health in a changing

climate: promoting the adaptive capacity of vulnerable households, a suggested

way forward. Health Promotion International, 26(4), 492-498.

Manda, M.A.Z., 2007: Mchenga – urban poor housing fund in Malawi. Environment

and Urbanization, 19(2), 337-359.

Mansilla, E., A. Brenes, and J. and Icaza, 2008: Centroamérica a 10 Años de Mitch.

Reflexiones en Torno a la Reducción del Riesgo. Centro de Coordinación para

la Prevención de los Desastres Naturales en América Central (CEPREDENAC)

and the World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 81 pp.

Manton, M.J., 2010: Trends in climate extremes affecting human settlements. Current

Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(3), 151-155.

Manuel-Navarrete, D., M. Pelling, and M. Redclift, 2011: Critical adaptation to

hurricanes in the Mexican Caribbean: development visions, governance

structures, and coping strategies. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 249-

258.

Manyena, S.B., 2006: The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30(4), 434-450.

Manyena, S., G. O’Brien, P. O’Keefe, and J. Rose, 2011: Disaster resilience: a bounce

back or bounce forward ability? Local Environment, 16(5), 417-424.

Martins, R.D. and L. da Costa Ferreira, 2011: Climate change action at the city level:

tales from two megacities in Brazil. Management of Environmental Quality: An

International Journal, 22(3), 344-357.

Massetti, E., S. Pinton, and D. Zanoni, 2007: National through to local climate policy

in Italy. Environmental Sciences, 4(3), 149-158.

Mathey, J., S. Rößler, I. Lehmann, and A. Bräuer, 2011: Urban green spaces: potentials

and constraints for urban adaptation to climate change. In: Resilient Cities:

Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change – Proceedings of the Global Forum

2010 [Otto-Zimmermann, K. (ed.)]. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 479-

485.

Matzarakis, A. and C. Endler, 2010: Climate change and thermal bioclimate in cities:

impacts and options for adaptation in Freiburg, Germany. International Journal

of Biometeorology, 54(4), 479-483.

May, P., F.V. Neto, V. Denardin, and W. Loureiro, 2002: Using fiscal instruments to

encourage conservation: municipal responses to the ‘ecological’ value added

tax in Paraná and Minas Gerais, Brazil. In: Selling Forest Environmental Services:

Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development [Pagiola, S., J.

Bishop, and N. Landell-Mills (eds.)]. Earthscan, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New

York, NY, USA, pp. 173-200.

McBain, W., D. Wilkes, and M. Retter, 2010: Flood Resilience and Resistance for

Critical Infrastructure. CIRIA C688, CIRIA Project RP913, CIRIA, London, UK,

112 pp.

McCarney, P.L., 2012: City Indicators on climate change implications for governance.

Environment and Urbanization Asia, 3(1), 1-39.

McCarney, P., H. Blanco, J. Carmin, and M. and Colley, 2011: Cities and climate

change: the challenges for governance. In: Climate Change and Cities: First

Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network [Rosenzweig,

C., W.D. Solecki, S.A. Hammer, and S. and Mehrotra (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 249-269.

McCarthy, M.P., M.J. Best, and R.A. Betts, 2010: Climate change in cities due to

global warming and urban effects. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(9),

L09705, doi:10.1029/2010GL042845.

McCarthy, M., C. Harpham, C. Goodess, and P. Jones, 2011: Simulating climate

change in UK cities using a regional climate model, HadRM3. International

Journal of Climatology, 32(12), 1875-1888.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

605

McDonald, R.I., P. Green, D. Balk, B.M. Fekete, C. Revenga, M. Todd, and M.

Montgomery, 2011: Urban growth, climate change, and freshwater availability.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, 108(15), 6312-6317.

McFarlane, C., 2008: Sanitation in Mumbai’s informal settlements: state, ‘slum’ and

infrastructure. Environment and Planning A, 40(1), 88-107.

McGranahan, G., 2007: Urban Environments, Wealth and Health: Shifting Burdens

and Possible Responses in Low and Middle-Income Nations.Human Settlements

Working Paper, Urban Environments No. 1, International Institute for Environment

and Development (IIED), London, UK, 53 pp.

McGranahan, G., D. Balk, and B. Anderson, 2007: The rising tide: assessing the risks

of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones.

Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 17-37.

McMichael, A., S. Friel, A. Nyong, and C. Corvalan, 2008: Global environmental

change and health: impacts, inequalities, and the health sector. BMJ (formerly

the British Medical Journal), 336(7637), 191.

Mdluli, T.N. and C.H. Vogel, 2010: Challenges to achieving a successful transition to

a low carbon economy in South Africa: examples from poor urban communities.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15(3), 205-222.

Measham, T.G., B.L. Preston, T.F. Smith, C. Brooke, R. Gorddard, G. Withycombe, and

C. Morrison, 2011: Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning:

barriers and challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global

Change, 16(8), 889-909.

Medina, M., 2007: The World’s Scavengers: Salvaging for Sustainable Consumption

and Production. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD, USA, 318 pp.

Mees, H.P. and P.P. Driessen, 2011: Adaptation to climate change in urban areas:

climate-greening London, Rotterdam, and Toronto. Climate Law, 2(2), 251-280.

Mehrotra, S., C.E. Natenzon, A. Omojola, R. Folorunsho, J. Gilbride, and C.

Rosenzweig, 2009: Framework for city climate risk assessment. In: Proceedings

of Fifth Urban Research Symposium: Cities and Climate Change – Responding

to the Urgent Agenda, 28 – 30 June 2009, Marseilles, France. World Bank,

Washington, DC, USA, uccrn.org/documents/Framework_for_City_Risk_

Assessment-June17.pdf.

Mehrotra, S., C. Rosenzweig, W. Solecki, C. Natenzon, A. Omojola, R. Folorunsho, and

J. Gillbride, 2011a: Cities, disasters and climate risk. In: Climate Change and

Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network

[Rosenzweig, C., W.D. Solecki, S.A. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra (eds.)]. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 15-42.

Mehrotra, S., B. Lefevre, R. Zimmerman, K. Gercek, S. Jacob, and S. Srinivasan, 2011b:

Climate change and urban transport systems. In: Climate Change and Cities:

First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network

[Rosenzweig, C., W.D. Solecki, S.A. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra (eds.)]. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 145-177.

Merk, O., S. Saussier, C. Staropoli, E. Slack, and J. Kim, 2012: Financing Green Urban

Infrastructure. OECD Regional Development Working Paper 2012/10, OECD

Publishing, Paris, France, 65 pp.

Mideksa, T.K. and S. Kallbekken, 2010: The impact of climate change on the electricity

market: a review. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3579-3585.

Mills, E., 2007: Synergisms between climate change mitigation and adaptation: an

insurance perspective. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,

12(5), 809-842.

Mills, E., 2012: The greening of insurance. Science, 338(6113), 1424-1425.

Milly, P.C.D., J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R.M. Hirsch, Z.W. Kundzewicz, D.P.

ettenmaier, and R.J. Stouffer, 2008: Stationarity is dead: whither water

management? Science, 319(5863), 573-574.

Milman, A. and A. Short, 2008: Incorporating resilience into sustainability indicators:

an example for the urban water sector. Global Environmental Change, 18(4),

758-767.

Mirasgedis, S., Y. Sarafidis, E. Georgopoulou, V. Kotroni, K. Lagouvardos, and D. Lalas,

2007: Modeling framework for estimating impacts of climate change on

electricity demand at regional level: case of Greece. Energy Conversion and

Management, 48(5), 1737-1750.

Mitchell, T., M. Van Aalst, and P.S. Villanueva, 2010: Assessing Progress on Integrating

Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Development

Processes. Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper 2, Institute of

Development Studies (IDS), Sussex, UK, 28 pp.

Mitlin, D., 2008: With and beyond the state – co-production as a route to political

influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment

and Urbanization, 20(2), 339-360.

Mitlin, D., 2012: Lessons from the urban poor: collective action and the rethinking

of development. In: Climate Change and the Crisis of Capitalism: A Chance to

Reclaim, Self, Society and Nature [Pelling, M., D. Manuel-Navarrete, and M.

Redclift (eds.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, NY, USA , pp.

85-98.

Mitlin, D. and D. Satterthwaite, 2013: Urban Poverty in the Global South: Scale and

Nature. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, NY, USA, 354 pp.

Moench, M., S. Tyler, and J. Lage, 2011: Catalyzing Urban Climate Resilience: Applying

Resilience Concepts to Planning Practice in the ACCCRN Program (2009-2011).

Institute for Social and Environmental Transition, International (ISET-

International), Boulder, CO, USA, 292 pp.

Mohan, G. and K. Stokke, 2000: Participatory development and empowerment: the

dangers of localism. Third World Quarterly, 21(2), 247-268.

Mohan, M., A. Kandya, and A. Battiprolu, 2011a: Urban heat island effect over

national capital region of India: a study using the temperature trends. Journal

of Environmental Protection, 2(4), 465-472.

Mohan, M., S.K. Pathan, K. Narendrareddy, A. Kandya, and S. Pandey, 2011b: dynamics

of urbanization and its impact on land-use/land-cover: a case study of megacity

Delhi. Journal of Environmental Protection, 2(9), 1274-1283.

Mohan, M., Y. Kikegawa, B. Gurjar, S. Bhati, A. Kandya, and K. Ogawa, 2012: Urban

heat island assessment for a tropical urban airshed in India. Atmospheric and

Climate Sciences, 2(2), 127-138.

Montgomery, M.R., R. Stren, B. Cohen, and H.E. Reed, 2003: Cities Transformed:

Demographic Change and its Implications in the Developing World. National

Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 529 pp.

Moser, C. and D. Satterthwaite, 2009: Towards pro-poor adaptation to climate change

in the urban centres of low- and middle-income countries. In: Social Dimensions

of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World [Mearns, R.

and A. Norton (eds.)]. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 231-258.

Moser, S.C., 2006: Talk of the city: engaging urbanites on climate change. Environmental

Research Letters, 1(1), 014006, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/1/1/014006.

Moser, S.C., 2009: Good Morning, America! The Explosive U.S. Awakening to the

Need for Adaptation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC, USA, and California Energy

Commission, Sacramento, CA, USA, 39 pp.

Moser, S.C. and L. Dilling (eds.), 2007: Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating

Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 549 pp.

Moser, S.C. and A.L. Luers, 2008: Managing climate risks in California: the need to

engage resource managers for successful adaptation to change. Climatic

Change, 87, 309-322.

Moser, S.C. and J. Tribbia, 2006: Vulnerability to inundation and climate change

impacts in California: coastal managers’ attitudes and perceptions. Marine

Technology Society Journal, 40(4), 35-44.

Moser, C., A. Norton, A. Stein, and S. Georgieva, 2010: Pro-Poor Adaptation to Climate

Change in Urban Centers: Case Studies of Vulnerability and Resilience in Kenya

and Nicaragua. The World Bank Sustainable Development Network, Social

Development Department, Report No. 54947-GLB, The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 84 pp.

Mukheibir, P., 2008: Water resources management strategies for adaptation to

climate-induced impacts in South Africa. Water Resources Management, 22(9),

1259-1276.

Mukheibir, P. and G. Ziervogel, 2007: Developing a Municipal Adaptation Plan (MAP)

for climate change: the city of Cape Town. Environment and Urbanization,

19(1), 143-158.

Muller, M., 2007: Adapting to climate change: water management for urban

resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 99-113.

Munich Re, 2004: Megacities: Megarisks: Trends and Challenges for Insurance and

Risk Management. Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaf (Munich Re

Group), Munich, Germany, 79 pp.

Nagendra, H. and D. Gopal, 2011: Tree diversity, distribution, history and change in

urban parks: studies in Bangalore, India. Urban Ecosystems, 14(2), 211-223.

Nagy, G., M.G. Erache, and V. Fernández, 2007: El aumento del nivel del mar en la

costa uruguaya del Río de la Plata. Tendencias, vulnerabilidades y medidas para

la adaptación. Medio Ambiente y Urbanización, 67(1), 77-93.

National Research Council, 2007: Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons

Learned. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 196 pp.

National Research Council, 2008: Public Participation in Environmental Assessment

and Decision Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 322 pp.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

606

National Research Council, 2009: Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate.

National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 200 pp.

National Research Council, 2010: Advancing the Science of Climate Change: America’s

Climate Choice. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 528 pp.

Nelson, K.C., M.A. Palmer, J.E. Pizzuto, G.E. Moglen, P.L. Angermeier, R.H. Hilderbrand,

M. Dettinger, and K. Hayhoe, 2008: Forecasting the combined effects of

urbanization and climate change on stream ecosystems: from impacts to

management options. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(1), 154-163.

Newman, P., 2010: Green urbanism and its application to Singapore. Environment

and Urbanization Asia, 1(2), 149-170.

Nicholls, R.J., 2004: Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21

century: changes

under the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental

Change, 14(1), 69-86.

Nie, L., O. Lindholm, G. Lindholm, and E. Syversen, 2009: Impacts of climate change

on urban drainage systems – a case study in Fredrikstad, Norway. Urban Water

Journal, 6(4), 323-332.

Niemi, E., M. Buckley, C. Neculae, and S. Reich, 2009a: An Overview of Potential

Economic Costs to Washington of a Business-As-Usual Approach to Climate

Change. A Report from the Program on Climate Economics, Climate Leadership

Initiative, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon, Eugene,

OR, USA, 47 pp.

Niemi, E., M. Buckley, C. Neculae, and S. Reich, 2009b: An Overview of Potential

Economic Costs to Oregon of a Business-As-Usual Approach to Climate Change.

A Report from the Program on Climate Economics, Climate Leadership Initiative,

Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 47

pp.

Niemi, E., M. Buckley, C. Neculae, and S. Reich, 2009c: An Overview of Potential

Economic Costs to New Mexico of a Business-As-Usual Approach to Climate

Change. A Report from the Program on Climate Economics, Climate Leadership

Initiative, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon, Eugene,

OR, 46 pp.

Niño-Zarazúa, M., 2010: Mexico’s Progresa-Oportunidades and the Emergence of

Social Assistance in Latin America. BWPI Working Paper No. 142, Brooks World

Poverty Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 24 pp.

Nobre, C.A., A. Young, P. Saldiva, J.A. Marengo, A.D. Nobre, S. Alves Jr., G.C.M. Silva,

and M. Lombardo, 2010: Vulnerabilidade das Megacidades Brasileiras às

Mudanças Climáticas: Regiao Metropolitana de Sao Paulo. Summário Executivo.

Centro de Ciência do Sistema Terrestre do Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas

Espacia (CCST/INPE), Núcleo de Estudos de População da Universidade de

Campina (NEPO/UNICAMP), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São

Paul (FM/USP), Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas de São Paulo (IPT), Universidade

Estadual de São Paulo (UNESP-Rio Claro), Sao Paulo, Brazil, 31 pp.

Norman, B., and H. Nakanishi, 2011: Planning for extreme weather events and

climate change: innovative regional planning responses in Australia. In:

Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Asian Planning Schools

Association 19-21 September, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. Secretariat for

APSA2011, Tokyo, Japan, Paper No. E-1-1.

O’Hara, J.K. and K.P. Georgakakos, 2008: Quantifying the urban water supply impacts

of climate change. Water Resources Management, 22(10), 1477-1497.

OECD, 2009: Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Cooperation:

Policy Guidance. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 190 pp.

OECD, 2010: Cities and Climate Change. OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 276 pp.

OECD, 2011: Aid Effectiveness 2011: Progress in Implementing the Paris Declaration.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD

Publishing, Paris, France, 196 pp.

OECD, 2012: Greening Development: Enhancing Capacity for Environmental

Management and Governance. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD), OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 100 pp., doi: 10.1787/

9789264167896-en.

OECD, 2013: Development Assistance Committee Statistics on Climate-Related Aid,

On-line Creditor Reporting System Database. Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD), OECD, Paris, France, www.oecd.org/

dac/stats/rioconventions.htm#data.

Oh, C.H. and R. Reuveny, 2010: Climatic natural disasters, political risk, and international

trade. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 243-254.

Ohashi, Y. and H. Kida, 2002: Local circulations developed in the vicinity of both

coastal and inland urban areas: a numerical study with a mesoscale

atmospheric model. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 41(1), 30-45.

Ojima, R., 2009: Perspectivas para a adaptação frente às mudanzas ambientais

globais no contexto da urbanização brasileira: cenários para os estudos de

população. In: População e Mudança Climática: Dimensões Humanas das

Mudanças Ambientais Globais [Hogan, D. and E. Marandola Jr. (eds.)]. Uma

publicação do Núcleo de Estudos de População (NEPO) e do Fundo de

População das Nações Unidas (UNFPA), Núcleo de Estudos da População

Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Cidade Universitária Zeferino

Vaz, Campinas, Brazil, pp. 11-24.

Olcina Cantos, J., M. Hernández Hernández, A.M. Rico Amorós, and E. Martínez

Ibarra, 2010: Increased risk of flooding on the coast of Alicante (Region of

Valencia, Spain). Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10(11), 2229-

2234.

Oleson, K., 2012: Contrasts between urban and rural climate in CCSM4 CMIP5

climate change scenarios. Journal of Climate, 25(5), 1390-1412.

Oliveira, S., H. Andrade, and T. Vaz, 2011: The cooling effect of green spaces as a

contribution to the mitigation of urban heat: a case study in Lisbon. Building

and Environment, 46(11), 2186-2194.

Olsson, J., K. Berggren, M. Olofsson, and M. Viklander, 2009: Applying climate model

precipitation scenarios for urban hydrological assessment: a case study in

Kalmar City, Sweden. Atmospheric Research, 92(3), 364-375.

O’Neill, M.S. and K.L. Ebi, 2009: Temperature extremes and health: impacts of climate

variability and change in the United States. Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine, 51(1), 13-25.

Onof, C. and K. Arnbjerg-Nielsen, 2009: Quantification of anticipated future changes

in high resolution design rainfall for urban areas. Atmospheric Research, 92(3),

350-363.

Ostrom, E., 2009: A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change.

Background Paper to the 2010 World Development Report, Policy Research

Working Paper 5095, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 54 pp.

Oudin Åström, D., F. Bertil, and R. Joacim, 2011: Heat wave impact on morbidity and

mortality in the elderly population: a review of recent studies. Maturitas, 69(2),

99-105.

Oven, K.J., S.E. Curtis, S. Reaney, M. Riva, M.G. Stewart, R. Ohlemüller, C.E. Dunn, S.

Nodwell, L. Dominelli, and R. Holden, 2012: Climate change and health and

social care: defining future hazard, vulnerability and risk for infrastructure

systems supporting older people’s health care in England. Applied Geography,

33, 16-24.

Palin, E.J., H.E. Thornton, C.T. Mathison, R.E. McCarthy, R.T. Clark, and J. Dora, 2013:

Future projections of temperature-related climate change impacts on the

railway network of Great Britain. Climatic Change, 120(1-2), 71-93.

Palla, A., J. Sansalone, I. Gnecco, and L. Lanza, 2011: Storm water infiltration in a

monitored green roof for hydrologic restoration. Water Science and Technology,

64(3), 766-773.

Parizotto, S. and R. Lamberts, 2011: Investigation of green roof thermal performance

in temperate climate: a case study of an experimental building in Florianópolis

city, Southern Brazil. Energy and Buildings, 43(7), 1712-1722.

Parnell, S. and R. Walawege, 2011: Sub-Saharan African urbanisation and global

environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 21(Suppl. 1), S12-S20.

Parry, M.L., N. Arnell, P. Berry, D. Dodman, S. Fankhauser, C. Hope, S. Kovats, R.

Nicholls, D. Satterthwaite, R. Tiffin, and T. Wheeler (eds.), 2009: Assessing the

Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review of the UNFCCC and Other

Recent Estimates. International Institute for Environment and Development

(IIED) and the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, London, UK, 111 pp.

Patel, S. and C. Baptist, 2012: Editorial: Documenting by the undocumented.

Environment and Urbanization, 24(1), 3-12.

Paulais, T. and J. Pigey, 2010: Adaptation and mitigation: what financing is available

for local government investments in developing countries? In: Cities and Climate

Change: Responding to an Urgent Agenda [Hoornweg, D., M. Freire, M.J. Lee,

P. Bhada-Tata, and B. Yuen (eds.)]. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 583-601.

Pavri, F., 2010: Urban expansion and sea-level rise related flood vulnerability for

Mumbai (Bombay), India using remotely sensed data. In: Geospatial Techniques

in Urban Hazard and Disaster Analysis, Vol. 2 [Showalter, P.S. and Y. Lu (eds.)],

Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 31-49.

Pelling, M., 2003: The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience.

Earthscan, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, NY, USA, 212 pp.

Pelling, M., 2011a: Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation.

Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, NY, USA, 203 pp.

Pelling, M., 2011b: Urban governance and disaster risk reduction in the Caribbean:

the experiences of Oxfam GB. Environment and Urbanization, 23(2), 383-400.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

607

Pelling, M. and K. Dill, 2010: Disaster politics: tipping points for change in the

adaptation of sociopolitical regimes. Progress in Human Geography, 34(1),

21-37.

Pelling, M. and D. Manuel-Navarrete, 2011: From resilience to transformation: the

adaptive cycle in two Mexican urban centers. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 11,

www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art11/.

Pelling, M. and B. Wisner, 2009: Disaster Risk Reduction: Cases from Urban Africa.

Earthscan, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, NY, USA, 224 pp.

Pelling, M. and Z. Zaidi, 2013: Measuring Adaptive Capacity: Application of an

Indexing Methodology in Guyana.Working Paper No. 47, Environment, Politics,

and Development Research Group, Department of Geography, King’s College

London, London, UK, 30 pp.

Pelling, M., D. Manuel-Navarrete, and M. Redclift (eds.), 2012: Climate Change and

the Crisis of Capitalism: A Chance to Reclaim, Self, Society and Nature.

Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, NY, USA, 207 pp.

Pfliegner, K., J. Schuberth, D. Nissler, and G. Gumb, 2012: Climate and Energy Policy

in Germany: Mechanisms to Encourage Private Sector Investment/Participation

in Low-Carbon Development. A Case-Study of Germany’s Building Sector.

Prepared by the German Federal Environment Agency and KfW, OECD Publishing,

Paris, France, 23 pp.

Posey, J., 2009: The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the

municipal level: evidence from floodplain management programs in the United

States. Global Environmental Change, 19(4), 482-493.

Pramova, E., B. Locatelli, H. Djoudi, and O.A. Somorin, 2012: Forests and trees for

social adaptation to climate variability and change. Wiley Interdisciplinary

Reviews: Climate Change, 3(6), 581-596.

Praskievicz, S. and H. Chang, 2009: A review of hydrological modelling of basin-

scale climate change and urban development impacts. Progress in Physical

Geography, 33(5), 650-671.

Preston, B.L., E.J. Yuen, and R.M. Westaway, 2011: Putting vulnerability to climate

change on the map: a review of approaches, benefits, and risks. Sustainability

Science, 6(2), 177-202.

Prowse, T.D., C. Furgal, R. Chouinard, H. Melling, D. Milburn, and S.L. Smith, 2009:

Implications of climate change for economic development in northern Canada:

energy, resource, and transportation sectors. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human

Environment, 38(5), 272-281.

Pryer, J.A., 2003: Poverty and Vulnerability in Dhaka Slums: the Urban Livelihoods

Study. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, UK, 203 pp.

Przyluski, V. and S. Hallegatte (eds.), 2012: Gestion des Risques Naturels – Leçons

de la Tempête Xynthia. Quae Editions, Versailles, France, 264 pp.

Puppim de Oliveira, J.A., 2009: The implementation of climate change related

policies at the subnational level: an analysis of three countries. Habitat

International, 33(3), 253-259.

Quah, A.K. and M. Roth, 2012: Diurnal and weekly variation of anthropogenic heat

emissions in a tropical city, Singapore. Atmospheric Environment, 46, 92-103.

Radhi, H., 2009: Evaluating the potential impact of global warming on the UAE

residential buildings – a contribution to reduce the CO

emissions. Building and

Environment, 44(12), 2451-2462.

Rahman, M.M., G. Haughton, and A.E.G. Jonas, 2010: The challenges of local

environmental problems facing the urban poor in Chittagong, Bangladesh: a

scale-sensitive analysis. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2), 561-578.

Ramachandraiah, C., 2011: Coping with urban flooding: a study of the 2009 Kurnool

floods, India. Environment and Urbanization, 23(2), 431-446.

Ramin, B. and T. Svoboda, 2009: Health of the homeless and climate change. Journal

of Urban Health, 86(4), 654-664.

Ranger, N., R. Muir-Wood, and S. and Priya, 2009: Assessing Extreme Climate Hazards

and Options for Risk Mitigation and Adaptation in the Developing World. World

Development Report 2010 Background Note, World Bank, Washington, DC,

USA, 27 pp.

Ranger, N., S. Hallegatte, S. Bhattacharya, M. Bachu, S. Priya, K. Dhore, F. Rafique,

P. Mathur, N. Naville, and F. Henriet, 2011: An assessment of the potential

impact of climate change on flood risk in Mumbai. Climatic Change, 104(1),

139-167.

Redclift, M.R., D.M. Navarrete, and M. Pelling, 2011: Climate Change and Human

Security: The Challenge to Local Governance under Rapid Coastal Urbanization.

Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 176 pp.

Reed, S.O., R. Friend, V.C. Toan, P. Thinphanga, R. Sutarto, and D. Singh, 2013: “Shared

learning” for building urban climate resilience – experiences from Asian cities.

Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), 393-412.

Rees, W.E., 1992: Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what

urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121-130.

Regmi, M.B. and S. Hanaoka, 2011: A survey on impacts of climate change on road

transport infrastructure and adaptation strategies in Asia. Environmental

Economics and Policy Studies, 13(1), 21-41.

Reid, C.E., M.S. O’Neill, C.J. Gronlund, S.J. Brines, D.G. Brown, A.V. Diez-Roux, and J.

Schwartz, 2009: Mapping community determinants of heat vulnerability.

Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(11), 1730-1736.

Ren, G., Z. Chu, Z. Chen, and Y. Ren, 2007: Implications of temporal change in urban

heat island intensity observed at Beijing and Wuhan stations. Geophysical

Research Letters, 34(5), L05711, doi:10.1029/2006GL027927.

Renn, O., 2008: Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. Earthscan

Risk in Society Series, Earthscan, London, UK and Sterling, VA, USA, 368 pp.

Repetto, R., 2011a: Economic and Environmental Impacts of Climate Change in

Nevada. Dēmos, New York, NY, USA, 5 pp.

Repetto, R., 2011b: Economic and Environmental Impacts of Climate Change in

Arizona. Dēmos, New York, NY, USA, 7 pp.

Repetto, R., 2012a: Economic and Environmental Impacts of Climate Change in

Virginia. Dēmos, New York, NY, USA, 10 pp.

Repetto, R., 2012b: Economic and Environmental Impacts of Climate Change

in Florida. Dēmos, New York, NY, USA, 9 pp.

Repetto, R., 2012c: The Rising Risks of Climate Change in Massachusetts. Energy

Future Coalition, Washington DC, USA, 25 pp.

Repetto, R., 2012d: New Mexico’s Rising Climate Risks. UN Foundation, New York,

NY, USA, 11 pp.

Reuveny, R., 2007: Climate change induced migration and violent conflict. Political

Geography, 26(6), 656-673.

Revi, A., 2005: Lessons from the deluge: priorities for multi-hazard risk mitigation.

Economic and Political Weekly, 3911-3916.

Revi, A., 2008: Climate change risk: an adaptation and mitigation agenda for Indian

cities. Environment and Urbanization, 20(1), 207-229.

Rim, C., 2009: The effects of urbanization, geographical and topographical conditions

on reference evapotranspiration. Climatic Change, 97(3), 483-514.

Ring, I., 2008: Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers:

the case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy, 25(4), 485-497.

Roaf, S., D. Crichton, and F. Nicol, 2009: Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate

Change: A 21

Century Survival Guide. 2

edn., Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 385 pp.

Roberts, D., 2008: Thinking globally, acting locally – institutionalizing climate change

at the local government level in Durban, South Africa. Environment and

Urbanization, 20(2), 521-537.

Roberts, D., 2010: Prioritizing climate change adaptation and local level resilience

in Durban, South Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2), 397-413.

Roberts, D. and S. O’Donoghue, 2013: Urban environmental challenges and climate

change action in Durban, South Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2),

299-319.

Roberts, D., R. Boon, N. Diederichs, E. Douwes, N. Govender, A. Mcinnes, C. Mclean,

S. O’Donoghue, and M. Spires, 2012: Exploring ecosystem-based adaptation in

Durban, South Africa: “learning-by-doing” at the local government coal face.

Environment and Urbanization, 24(1), 167-195.

Roberts, S., 2008a: Altering existing buildings in the UK. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4482-

4486.

Roberts, S., 2008b: Effects of climate change on the built environment. Energy Policy,

36(12), 4552-4557.

Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F.S. Chapin III, E. Lambin, T.M. Lenton,

M. Scheffer, C. Folke, and H.J. Schellnhuber, 2009: Planetary boundaries:

exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2),

32, www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.

Romeo, C. and M. Zinzi, 2011: Impact of a cool roof application on the energy and

comfort performance in an existing non-residential building. A Sicilian case

study. Energy and Buildings, 67, 647-657.

Romero-Lankao, P., 2007: How do local governments in Mexico City manage global

warming? Local Environment, 12(5), 519-535.

Romero-Lankao, P., 2010: Water in Mexico City: what will climate change bring to

its history of water-related hazards and vulnerabilities? Environment and

Urbanization, 22(1), 157-178.

Romero-Lankao, P. and D. Dodman, 2011: Cities in transition: transforming urban

centers from hotbeds of GHG emissions and vulnerability to seedbeds of

sustainability and resilience: introduction and editorial overview. Current

Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 113-120.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

608

Romero-Lankao, P. and H. Qin, 2011: Conceptualizing urban vulnerability to global

climate and environmental change. Current Opinion in Environmental

Sustainability, 3(3), 142-149.

Rosenberg, E.A., P.W. Keys, D.B. Booth, D. Hartley, J. Burkey, A.C. Steinemann, and

D.P. Lettenmaier, 2010: Precipitation extremes and the impacts of climate

change on stormwater infrastructure in Washington State. Climatic Change,

102(1), 319-349.

Rosenzweig, C. and W. Solecki eds., 2010: Climate Change Adaptation in New York

City: Building a Risk Management Response: New York City Panel on Climate

Change 2010 Report. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1196,

1-354.

Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, S.A. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra, 2010: Cities lead the way

in climate-change action. Nature, 467(7318), 909-911.

Rosenzweig, C., W.D. Solecki, S.A. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra (eds.), 2011: Climate

Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change

Research Network. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 286 pp.

Rosenzweig, C., W.D. Solecki, L. Parshall, B. Lynn, J. Cox, R. Goldberg, S. Hodge, S.

Gaffin, R.B. Slosberg, and P. Savio, 2009: Mitigating New York City’s heat island:

integrating stakeholder perspectives and scientific evaluation. Bulletin of the

American Meteorological Society, 90(9), 1297-1312.

Rotterdam Climate Initiative, 2010: Rotterdam Climate Proof: Adaptation

Programme 2010. City of Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 30 pp.

Roy, M., D. Hulme, and F. Jahan, 2013: Contrasting adaptation responses by squatters

and low-income tenants in Khulna, Bangladesh. Environment and Urbanization,

25(1), 157-176.

Roy, S.B., L. Chen, E.H. Girvetz, E.P. Maurer, W.B. Mills, and T.M. Grieb, 2012: Projecting

water withdrawal and supply for future decades in the U.S. under climate

change scenarios. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(5), 2545-2556.

Ruth, M., 2010: Economic and social benefits of climate information: assessing the

cost of inaction. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 1, 387-394.

Sabates-Wheeler, R., T. Mitchell, and F. Ellis, 2008: Avoiding repetition: time for CBA

to engage with the livelihoods literature? IDS Bulletin, 39(4), 53-59.

Saber, H.H., M.C. Swinton, P. Kalinger, and R.M. Paroli, 2012: Long-term hygrothermal

performance of white and black roofs in North American climates. Building and

Environment, 50(0), 141-154.

Sajjad, S., B. Hussain, M. Ahmed Khan, A. Raza, B. Zaman, and I. Ahmed, 2009: On

rising temperature trends of Karachi in Pakistan. Climatic Change, 96(4), 539-

547.

Sakka, A., M. Santamouris, I. Livada, F. Nicol, and M. Wilson, 2012: On the thermal

performance of low income housing during heat waves. Energy and Buildings,

49, 69-77.

Sanchez, A.B. and P. Poschen, 2009: The Social and Decent Work Dimensions of a

New Agreement on Climate Change: A Technical Brief. International Labour

Office (ILO), Policy Integration Department, Geneva, Switzerland, 39 pp.

Sánchez-Rodríguez, R., 2009: Learning to adapt to climate change in urban areas. A

review of recent contributions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,

1(2), 201-206.

Sánchez-Rodríguez, R., 2011: Urban and social vulnerability to climate variability

in Tijuana, Mexico. In: Integrating Science and Policy Vulnerability and Resilience

in Global Environmental Change [Kasperson, R. and M. Berberian (eds.)].

Earthscan, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 187-214.

Santos, J. and S. Leite, 2009: Long-term variability of the temperature time series

recorded in Lisbon. Journal of Applied Statistics, 36(3), 323-337.

Saroch, E., M. Palaniappan, D. Singh, and L. Seraydarian, 2011: Climate Change and

Urbanisation: Building Resilience in the Urban Water Sector – A Case Study of

Indore, India. Insititution for Social and Environmental Transition (ISET) and

the Pacific Institute in collaboration with Taru Leading Edge, ISET, Boulder, CO,

USA and Pacific Institute, Oakland, CA, USA, 92 pp.

Sassen, S., 2012: Cities in a World Economy. 4

edn., Pine Forge Press (Imprint of

Sage Publications, Inc.), Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 398 pp.

Satterthwaite, D., 2007: The Transition to a Predominantly Urban World and its

Underpinnings. Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series, Theme: Urban

Change No. 4, International Insitute for Environment and Development (IIED),

London, UK, 91 pp.

Satterthwaite, D., 2011: How urban societies can adapt to resource shortage and

climate change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369(1942),

1762-1783.

Satterthwaite, D., 2013: The political underpinnings of cities’ accumulated resilience

to climate change. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), 381-391.

Satterthwaite, D. and D. Mitlin, 2014: Reducing Urban Poverty in the Global South.

Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, NY, USA, 306 pp.

Satterthwaite, D. and A. Sverdlik, 2012: Energy access and housing for low-income

groups in urban areas. In: Energizing Sustainable Cities: Assessing Urban Energy

[Grubler, A. and D. Fisk (eds.)]. Earthscan, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York,

NY, USA, pp. 73-94.

Satterthwaite, D., G. McGranahan, and C. Tacoli, 2010: Urbanization and its

implications for food and farming. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society B, 365(1554), 2809-2820.

Savonis, M.J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter, 2008: Impacts of Climate Change and

Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study,

Phase I. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.7, U.S. Climate Change Science

Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC,

USA, 439 pp.

Schaeffer, R., A.S. Szklo, A.F. Pereira de Lucena, B.S. Moreira Cesar Borba, L.P. Pupo

Nogueira, F.P. Fleming, A. Troccoli, M. Harrison, and M.S. Boulahya, 2011: Energy

sector vulnerability to climate change: a review. Energy, 38(1), 1-12.

Scheinberg, A., S. Spies, M.H. Simpson, and A.P.J. Mol, 2011: Assessing urban

recycling in low- and middle-income countries: building on modernised

mixtures. Habitat International, 35(2), 188-198.

Scherba, A., D.J. Sailor, T.N. Rosenstiel, and C.C. Wamser, 2011: Modeling impacts of

roof reflectivity, integrated photovoltaic panels and green roof systems on

sensible heat flux into the urban environment. Building and Environment,

46(12), 2542-2551.

Schipper, L. and M. Pelling, 2006: Disaster risk, climate change and international

development: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters, 30(1), 19-

38.

Schmidhuber, J. and F.N. Tubiello, 2007: Global food security under climate change.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, 104(50), 19703-19708.

Schneider, A., M. Friedl, and D. Potere, 2009: A new map of global urban extent from

MODIS satellite data. Environmental Research Letters, 4(4), 044003, doi:10.1088/

1748-9326/4/4/044003.

Schroeder, H. and H. Bulkeley, 2009: Governing Climate Change Post-2012: The Role

of Global Cities. Case Study: Los Angeles. Working Paper 138, Tyndall Centre

for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 44 pp.

Schroll, E., J. Lambrinos, T. Righetti, and D. Sandrock, 2011: The role of vegetation in

regulating stormwater runoff from green roofs in a winter rainfall climate.

Ecological Engineering, 37(4), 595-600.

Schwarz, N., A. Bauer, and D. Haase, 2011: Assessing climate impacts of planning

policies – an estimation for the urban region of Leipzig (Germany).

Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(2), 97-111.

Sen, Z., 2009: Precipitation downscaling in climate modelling using a spatial dependence

function. International Journal of Global Warming, 1(1), 29-42.

Seto, K.C., B. Güneralp, and L. and Hutyra, 2012: Global forecasts of urban expansion

to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(40),

16083-16088.

Shaban, A. and R. Sharma, 2007: Water consumption patterns in domestic

households in major cities. Economic and Political Weekly, 2190-2197.

Sharma, D. and S. Tomar, 2010: Mainstreaming climate change adaptation in Indian

cities. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2), 451-465.

Shaw, A., S. Sheppard, S. Burch, D. Flanders, A. Wiek, J. Carmichael, J. Robinson, and

S. Cohen, 2009: Making local futures tangible – synthesizing, downscaling, and

visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building. Global

Environmental Change, 19(4), 447-463.

Shaw, K. and K. Theobald, 2011: Resilient local government and climate change

interventions in the UK. Local Environment, 16(1), 1-15.

Shaw, R. and IEDM Team, 2009: Climate disaster resilience: focus on coastal urban

cities in Asia. Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management, 1, 101-

116.

Shaw, R. and T. Izumi, 2011: Roles of civil society in climate and disaster resilience

of cities and local governments. In: Climate and Disaster Resilience in Cities

[Shaw, R. and A. Sharma (eds.)]. Emerald Books, Bingley, UK, pp. 260-280.

Shaw, R. and A. Sharma, 2011: Climate and Disaster Resilience in Cities. Emerald

Group Publishing, Bingley, UK, 287 pp.

Sheffield, P.E. and P.J. Landrigan, 2011: Global climate change and children’s health:

threats and strategies for prevention. Environmental Health Perspectives,

119(3), 291-298.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

609

Shepherd, J.M., H. Pierce, and A.J. Negri, 2002: Rainfall modification by major urban

areas: observations from spaceborne rain radar on the TRMM satellite. Journal

of Applied Meteorology, 41(7), 689-701.

Shepherd, M., T. Mote, J. Dowd, M. Roden, P. Knox, S.C. McCutcheon, and S.E. Nelson,

2011: An overview of synoptic and mesoscale factors contributing to the

disastrous Atlanta flood of 2009. Bulletin of the American Meteorological

Society, 92(7), 861-870.

Siddiqi, A., 2011: Supporting the working but vulnerable: linkages between social

protection and climate change. Climate and Development, 3(3), 209-227.

Silver, J., C. McEwan, L. Petrella, and H. and Baguian, 2013: Climate change, urban

vulnerability and development in Saint-Louis and Bobo-Dioulasso: learning

from across two West African cities. Local Environment, 18(6), 663-677.

Simmons, M.T., B. Gardiner, S. Windhager, and J. Tinsley, 2008: Green roofs are not

created equal: the hydrologic and thermal performance of six different extensive

green roofs and reflective and non-reflective roofs in a sub-tropical climate.

Urban Ecosystems, 11(4), 339-348.

Simon, D., 2010: The challenges of global environmental change for urban Africa.

Urban Forum, 21(3), 235-248.

Simon, D. and H. Leck, 2010: Urbanizing the global environmental change and human

security agendas. Climate and Development, 2(3), 263-275.

Skaggs, R., T.C. Janetos, K.A. Hibbard, and J.S. and Rice, 2012: Climate and Energy-

Water-Land System Interactions. Technical Report to the U.S. Department of

Energy in Support of the National Climate Assessment, Report PNNL-21185,

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA, 147 pp.

Smith, B.J., M. Gomez-Heras, and S. McCabe, 2008: Understanding the decay

of stone-built cultural heritage. Progress in Physical Geography, 32(4), 439-

461.

Smith, J.B., K.M. Strzepek, J. Cardini, M. Castaneda, J. Holland, C. Quiroz, T.M. Wigley,

J. Herrero, P. Hearne, and J. Furlow, 2011: Coping with climate variability and

climate change in La Ceiba, Honduras. Climatic Change, 108(3), 457-470.

Soares, H.M.D.C., 2009: Mudanças climáticas e cidades: contribuições para uma

agenda de pesquisa a partir da periferia In: População e Mudança Climática:

Dimensões Humanas das Mudanças Ambientais Globais [Hogan, D. and E. and

Marandola (eds.)]. Uma publicação do Núcleo de Estudos de População (NEPO)

e do Fundo de População das Nações Unidas (UNFPA), Núcleo de Estudos da

População Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Cidade

Universitária Zeferino Vaz, Campinas, Brazil, pp. 279-283.

Soares, S., R.P. Ribas, and F.V. Soares, 2010: Targeting and Coverage of the Bolsa

Família Programme: Why Knowing What You Measure is Important in Choosing

the Numbers. UNDP IPC-IG Working Paper No. 71, United Nations Development

Programme, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (UNDP IPC-IG)

and the Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA), Brasília, Brazil, 22 pp.

Solecki, W., 2012: Urban environmental challenges and climate change action in

New York City. Environment and Urbanization, 24(2), 557-573.

Solecki, W.D. and R.M. Leichenko, 2006: Urbanization and the metropolitan

environment: lessons from New York and Shanghai. Environment: Science and

Policy for Sustainable Development, 48(4), 8-23.

Solecki, W., R. Leichenko, and K. O’Brien, 2011: Climate change adaptation strategies

and disaster risk reduction in cities: connections, contentions, and synergies.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 135-141.

Solnit, R., 2009: A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that arise

in Disaster. Viking Penguin (Penguin Group, USA), New York, NY, USA, 353 pp.

Sonover, A.K., L. Whitely Binder, J. Lopez, E. Willmott, J. Kay, D. Howell, and J.

Simmonds, 2007: Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local,

Regional and State Governments. In association with and published by ICLEI –

Local Governments for Sustainability, ICLEI, Oakland, CA, USA, 172 pp.

Spearman, M. and H. McGray, 2012: Making Adaptation Count: Concepts and

Options for Monitoring and Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation. Deutsche

Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Eschborn,

Germany, 95 pp.

Spennemann, D.H.R. and D.W. Look (eds.), 1998: Disaster Management Programs

for Historic Sites. Proceedings of a symposium organized by the U.S. National

Park Service, Western Regional Office, San Francisco, CA in collaboration with

the Western Chapter of the Association for Preservation Technology held June

27 – 29, 1997 in San Francisco, CA, Western Chapter of the Association for

Preservation Technology, San Francisco, CA, USA, U.S. National Park Service,

and The Johnstone Centre of Parks, Recreation, and Heritage at Charles Sturt

University, Albury, Australia, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,

USA, 195 pp.

Stenek, V., J. Amado, R. Connell, O. Palin, S. Wright, B. Pope, J. Hunter, J. McGregor, W.

Morgan, B. Stanley, R. Washington, D. Liverman, H. Sherwin, P. Kapelus, C.

Andrade, and J.D. Pabón, 2011: Climate Risk and Business Ports, Terminal

Marítimo Muelles el Bosque, Cartagena, Colombia, Executive Summary.

International Finance Corporation, Washington, DC, USA, 24 pp.

Stewart, M.G., X. Wang, and M.N. Nguyen, 2011: Climate change impact and risks

of concrete infrastructure deterioration. Engineering Structures, 33(4), 1326-

1337.

Stone, B., 2007: Urban and rural temperature trends in proximity to large US cities:

1951-2000. International Journal of Climatology, 27(13), 1801-1807.

Susca, T., S. Gaffin, and G. Dell’Osso, 2011: Positive effects of vegetation: urban heat

island and green roofs. Environmental Pollution, 159(8), 2119-2126.

Susskind, L., 2010: Policy & practice: responding to the risks posed by climate change:

cities have no choice but to adapt. Town Planning Review, 81(3), 217-235.

Sussman, E., DC Major, R. Deming, P.R. Esterman, A. Fadil, E. Fisher, A. Fred Fucci, R.

Gordon, C. Harris, and J.K. Healy, 2010: Law and regulation. Annals of the New

York Academy of Sciences, 1196(1), 87-112.

Swart, R. and F. Raes, 2007: Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work:

mainstreaming into sustainable development policies? Climate Policy, 7(4),

288-303.

Tacoli, C., 2003: The links between urban and rural development. Environment and

Urbanization, 15(1), 3-12.

Tacoli, C., 2009: Crisis or adaptation? Migration and climate change in a context of

high mobility. Environment and Urbanization, 21(2), 513-525.

Tait, S.J., R.M. Ashley, A. Cashman, J. Blanksby, and A.J. Saul, 2008: Sewer system

operation into the 21st century, study of selected responses from a UK

perspective. Urban Water Journal, 5(1), 79-88.

Tallis, M., G. Taylor, D. Sinnett, and P. Freer-Smith, 2011: Estimating the removal of

atmospheric particulate pollution by the urban tree canopy of London, under

current and future environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103(2), 129-

138.

Tanner, T., T. Mitchell, E. Polack, and B. Guenther, 2009: Urban Governance for

Adaptation: Assessing Climate Change Resilience in Ten Asian Cities. IDS Working

Paper 315, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Brighton, UK, 47 pp.

Tavares, A.O. and P. Santos, 2013: Re-scaling risk governance using local appraisal

and community involvement Journal of Risk Research, doi:10.1080/

13669877.2013.822915.

Tayanç, M., U. İm, M. Doğruel, and M. Karaca, 2009: Climate change in Turkey for

the last half century. Climatic Change, 94(3), 483-502.

Taylor, C.A. and H.G. Stefan, 2009: Shallow groundwater temperature response to

climate change and urbanization. Journal of Hydrology, 375(3), 601-612.

TEEB, 2010: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the

Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and

Recommendations of TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB),

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Geneva, Switzerland, 36 pp.

Teng, F. and A. Gu, 2007: Climate Change: National and Local Policy Opportunities

in China. Foundazione Eni Enrico Mattei Note di Lavoro, Milan, Italy, 18 pp.

Thompson, W.T., T. Holt, and J. Pullen, 2007: Investigation of a sea breeze front in

an urban environment. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society,

133(624), 579-594.

Thornbush, M. and H. Viles, 2007: Simulation of the dissolution of weathered versus

unweathered limestone in carbonic acid solutions of varying strength. Earth

Surface Processes and Landforms, 32(6), 841-852.

Thorsson, S., F. Lindberg, J. Björklund, B. Holmer, and D. Rayner, 2011: Potential

changes in outdoor thermal comfort conditions in Gothenburg, Sweden due to

climate change: the influence of urban geometry. International Journal of

Climatology, 31(2), 324-335.

Tidwell, V.C., P.H. Kobos, L.A. Malczynski, G. Klise, and C.R. Castillo, 2012: Exploring

the water-thermoelectric power nexus. Journal of Water Resources Planning

and Management, 138(5), 491-501.

Tirpak, D., A. Ronquillo-Ballesteros, K. Stasio, and H. McGray, 2010: Guidelines for

Reporting Information on Climate Finance. WRI Working Paper, World Resources

Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 32 pp.

Tomlinson, C.J., L. Chapman, J.E. Thornes, and C.J. Baker, 2011: Including the urban

heat island in spatial heat health risk assessment strategies: a case study for

Birmingham, UK. International Journal of Health Geographics, 10(42), 1-14.

Tompkins, E.L., M.C. Lemos, and E. Boyd, 2008: A less disastrous disaster: managing

response to climate-driven hazards in the Cayman Islands and NE Brazil. Global

Environmental Change, 18(4), 736-745.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

610

Tompkins, E.L., W.N. Adger, E. Boyd, S. Nicholson-Cole, K. Weatherhead, and N. Arnell,

2010: Observed adaptation to climate change: UK evidence of transition to a

well-adapting society. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 627-635.

Trusilova, K., M. Jung, G. Churkina, U. Karstens, M. Heimann, and M. Claussen, 2008:

Urbanization impacts on the climate in Europe: numerical experiments by the

PSU-NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5). Journal of Applied Meteorology and

Climatology, 47(5), 1442-1455.

Tubby, K. and J. Webber, 2010: Pests and diseases threatening urban trees under a

changing climate. Forestry, 83(4), 451-459.

Tyler, S., S.O. Reed, K. Macclune, and S. Chopde, 2010: Planning for Urban Climate

Resilience: Framework and Examples from the Asian Cities Climate Change

Resilience Network (ACCCRN). Climate Resilience in Concept and Practice: ISET

Working Paper 3, Institute for Social and Environmental Transition (ISET),

Boulder, CO, USA, 58 pp.

UCLG, 2010: Local Governments in the World: Basic Facts on 96 Selected Countries.

United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), Barcelona, Spain, 100 pp.

UCLG, 2011: Local Government Finance: The Challenges of the 21st Century. Gold II,

2010: Second Global Report on Decentralization and Local Democracy of United

Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), Barcelona, Spain, 371 pp.

UN Millennium Project, 2005: A Home in the City: The Report of the Millennium

Project Taskforce on Improving the Lives of Slum Dwellers. United Nations

Millennium Project, commissioned by the UN Secretary-General, and sponsored

by UNEP on behalf of the UN Development Group, Earthscan, London, UK and

Sterling, VA, USA, 158 pp.

UN DESA Population Division, 2012: World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011

Revision. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA)

Population Division, New York, NY, USA, esa.un.org/unpd/wup/index.htm.

UN ECLAC, 1991: Sustainable Development: Changing Production Patterns, Social

Equity, and the Environment. United Nations Economic Commission for Latin

America and the Caribbean (UN ECLAC), Mexico, DF, Mexico, 146 pp.

UNEP, 2011: Bilateral Finance Institutions & Climate Change: A Mapping of Public

Financial Flows for Mitigation and Adaptation to Developing Countries in 2010.

United Nations Environment Programme Bilateral Finance Institutions Climate

Change Working Group (UNEP BFI CCWG) comprised of Agence Française de

Développement (AFD), European Investment Bank (EIB), Japan International

Cooperation Agency (JICA), KfW Entwicklungsbank (Germany’s Development

Bank), Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO), and UNEP in

collaboration with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), UNEP Energy

Branch, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, Paris, France, 21 pp.

UNEP, 2012: UN-Water Status Report on the Application of Integrated Approaches

to Water Resources Management. United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, 106 pp.

UNFCCC, 2007: Investment and Financial Flows to Address Climate Change. United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Secretariat of

the UNFCCC, Bonn, Gemany, 272 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2003a: The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements

2003. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), Earthscan

Publications Ltd, London, UK and Sterling, VA, USA, 310 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2003b: Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities: Local Action for

Global Goals. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK and Sterling, VA, USA,

274 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2007: Enhancing Urban Safety and Security: Global Report on Human

Settlements 2007. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK and Sterling, VA,

USA, 448 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2011a: Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human

Settlements 2011. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK and Washington,

DC, USA, 279 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2011b: Colored Water: Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability in

Kelurahan Pabean Pekalongan, Central Java. UN-HABITAT, Jakarta, Indonesia,

34 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2011c: Adaptation Finance: Are Cities in Developing Countries Slipping

Through the Cracks?Cities and Climate Change Initiative Policy Note 1, UN-

HABITAT, Nairobi, Kenya, 4 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2012a: Urban Patterns for a Green Economy: Leveraging Density. UN-

HABITAT, Nairobi, Kenya, 96 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2012b: Urban Patterns for a Green Economy: Clustering for

Competitiveness. UN-HABITAT, Nairobi, Kenya, 78 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2012c: Urban Patterns for a Green Economy: Optimizing Infrastructure.

UN-Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya, 79 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2012d: Urban Patterns for a Green Economy: Working with Nature.

UN-HABITAT, Nairobi, Kenya, 74 pp.

UNISDR, 2008: Links between Disaster Risk Reduction, Development, and Climate

Change. Report Prepared by United Nations International Strategy for Disaster

Reduction (UNISDR) for Sweden’s Commission on Climate Change and

Development, UNISDR Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland, 5 pp.

UNISDR, 2009: Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2009 – Risk

and Poverty in a Changing Climate: Invest Today for a Safer Tomorrow. United

Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), UNISDR

Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland, 207 pp.

UNISDR, 2011: Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011 – Revealing

Risk, Redefining Development. United Nations International Strategy for

Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), UNISDR Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland, 178 pp.

UNISDR, 2013: Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013 – From

Shared Risk to Shared Value: The Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), UNISDR

Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland, 246 pp.

Urwin, K. and A. Jordan, 2008: Does public policy support or undermine climate

change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of

governance. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 180-191.

Vairavamoorthy, K., S.D. Gorantiwar, and A. Pathirana, 2008: Managing urban water

supplies in developing countries – climate change and water scarcity scenarios.

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 33(5), 330-339.

Vale, L.J. and T.J. Campanella, 2005: The Resilient City: How Modern Cities Recover

From Disaster. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 376 pp.

van Aalst, M.K., T. Cannon, and I. Burton, 2008: Community level adaptation to climate

change: The potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global

Environmental Change, 18(1), 165-179.

Van der Brugge, R. and R. De Graaf, 2010: Linking water policy innovation and urban

renewal: the case of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Water Policy, 12(3), 381-400.

van Vuuren, D.P., P.L. Lucas, and H. Hilderink, 2007: Downscaling drivers of global

environmental change: enabling use of global SRES scenarios at the national

and grid levels. Global Environmental Change, 17(1), 114-130.

Vano, J.A., N. Voisin, L. Cuo, A.F. Hamlet, M.M. Elsner, R.N. Palmer, A. Polebitski, and

D.P. Lettenmaier, 2010: Climate change impacts on water management in the

Puget Sound region, Washington State, USA. Climatic Change, 102(1), 261-

286.

Vellinga, T. and M. De Jong, 2012: Approach to climate change adaptation in the

port of Rotterdam. In: Maritime Transport and the Climate Change Challenge

[Asariotis, R. and H. Benamara (eds.)]. Earthscan, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New

York, NY, USA, pp. 305-319.

Vescovi, L., A. Bourque, G. Simonet, and A. Musy, 2007: Climate change science

knowledge transfer in support of vulnerability, impacts and adaptation activities

on a North American regional scale: Ouranos as a case study. In: IPCC TGICA

Regional Expert Meeting: Integrating Analysis of Regional Climate Change and

Response Options, Meeting Report: Participants Papers. The Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for

Impact and Climate Analysis (TGICA), IPCC Secretariat, Geneva Switzerland,

pp. 241-245.

Viguié, V. and S. Hallegatte, 2012: Trade-offs and synergies in urban climate policies.

Nature Climate Change, 2(5), 334-337.

Vojinovic, Z. and J. Van Teeffelen, 2007: An integrated stormwater management

approach for small islands in tropical climates. Urban Water Journal, 4(3), 211-

231.

von Hesse, M., J. Kamiche, and C. de la Torre, 2008: Contribucion Tematica de America

Latina al Informe Bienal de Evaluacion Mundial Sobre la Reduccion de Riesgo

2009. Contribution to the GTZ-UNDP Background paper prepared for the 2009

Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations

Secretariat, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR),

Geneva, Switzerland, 131 pp.

Von Ritter, K. and D. Black-Layne, 2013: Crowdfunding for Climate Change: A New

Source of Finance for Climate Action at the Local Level? ECBI Policy Brief,

European Capacity Building Initiative (ECBI), Oxford, UK, 15 pp.

Voyde, E., E. Fassman, and R. Simcock, 2010: Hydrology of an extensive living roof

under sub-tropical climate conditions in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of

Hydrology, 394(3), 384-395.

Vugrin, E.D. and M. Turnquist, 2012: Design for Resilience in Infrastructure Distribution

Networks. SANDIA REPORT: SAND2012-6050, Sandia National Laboratories,

Albuquerque, NM, USA, 39 pp.

Urban Areas Chapter 8

611

Wackernagel, M., J. Kitzes, D. Moran, S. Goldfinger, and M. Thomas, 2006: The

ecological footprint of cities and regions: comparing resource availability with

resource demand. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), 103-112.

Walsh, C.L., R.J. Dawson, J.W. Hall, S.L. Barr, M. Batty, A.L. Bristow, S. Carney, A.S.

Dagoumas, A.C. Ford, and C. Harpham, 2011: Assessment of climate change

mitigation and adaptation in cities. Proceedings of the ICE – Urban Design and

Planning, 164(2), 75-84.

Walsh, C.L., D. Roberts, R.J. Dawson, J.W. Hall, A. Nickson, and R. and Hounsome,

2013: Experiences of integrated assessment of climate impacts, adaptation and

mitigation modelling in London and Durban. Environment and Urbanization,

25(2), 361-380.

Wamsler, C., 2007: Bridging the gaps: stakeholder-based strategies for risk reduction

and financing for the urban poor. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 115-

142.

Wang, H.G., M. Montoliu-Munoz, and N.F.D. and Gueye, 2009: Preparing to Manage

Natural Hazards and Climate Change Risks in Dakar, Senegal: A Spatial and

Institutional Approach. Pilot Study Report, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA,

91 pp.

Warner, R., 2009: Secular regime shifts, global warming and Sydney’s water supply.

Geographical Research, 47(3), 227-241.

Watt, S. and J. Chamberlain, 2011: Water, climate change, and maternal and newborn

health. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(6), 491-496.

Weaver, C., X. Liang, J. Zhu, P. Adams, P. Amar, J. Avise, M. Caughey, J. Chen, R. Cohen,

and E. Cooter, 2009: A preliminary synthesis of modeled climate change impacts

on U.S. regional ozone concentrations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological

Society, 90(12), 1843-1863.

White-Newsome, J.L., B.N. Sánchez, E.A. Parker, J.T. Dvonch, Z. Zhang, and M.S.

O’Neill, 2011: Assessing heat-adaptive behaviors among older, urban-dwelling

adults. Maturitas, 70(1), 85-91.

WHO, 2011: Air Quality and Health. Fact Sheet No. 313, World Health Organization

(WHO), Geneva, Switzerland, www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/.

WHO and WMO, 2012: Atlas of Health and Climate. WMO No. 1098, World Health

Organization (WHO) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO), WHO

Press, Geneva, Switzerland, 64 pp.

Wilbanks, T.J. and R.W. Kates, 2010: Beyond adapting to climate change: embedding

adaptation in responses to multiple threats and stresses. Annals of the

Association of American Geographers, 100(4), 719-728.

Wilbanks, T., P. Romero-Lankao, M. Bao, F. Berkhout, S. Cairncross, J. Ceron, M. Kapshe,

R. Muir-Wood, and R. Zapata-Marti, 2007: Chapter 7: Industry, settlement and

society. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P.

Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 357-390.

Wilbanks, T., S. Fernandez, G. Backus, P. Garcia, K. Jonietz, P. Kirshen, M. Savonis, W.

Solecki, and L. Toole, 2012: Climate Change and Infrastructure, Urban Systems,

and Vulnerabilities. Technical Report for the U.S. Department of Energy in

support of the National Climate Assessment, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 87 pp.

Wilby, R., 2007: A review of climate change impacts on the built environment. Built

Environment, 33(1), 31-45.

Wilby, R.L. and R. Keenan, 2012: Adapting to flood risk under climate change.

Progress in Physical Geography, 36(3), 348-378.

Wilkinson, S.J. and R. Reed, 2009: Green roof retrofit potential in the central business

district. Property Management, 27(5), 284-301.

Willems, P., 2013: Revision of urban drainage design rules after assessment of

climate change impacts on precipitation extremes at Uccle, Belgium. Journal

of Hydrology, 496, 166-177.

Willems, P. and K. Arnbjerg-Nielsen, 2013: Climate change as a driver for urban

drainage paradigm change. Water21, 15(1), 23-24.

Willems, P. and M. Vrac, 2011: Statistical precipitation downscaling for small-scale

hydrological impact investigations of climate change. Journal of Hydrology,

402(3), 193-205.

Willems, P., J. Olsson, K. Arnbjerg-Nielsen, S. Beecham, A. Pathirana, I.B. Gregersen,

H. Madsen, and V.T.V. Nguyen, 2012: Impacts of Climate Change on Rainfall

Extremes and Urban Drainage Systems. International Water Association (IWA)

Publishing, London, UK, 226 pp.

Wilson, E., 2006: Adapting to climate change at the local level: the spatial planning

response. Local Environment, 11(6), 609-625.

Wilson, E. and J. Piper, 2008: Spatial planning for biodiversity in Europe’s changing

climate. European Environment, 18(3), 135-151.

Wilson, E., C. Termeer, H.P. Mees, and P.P.J. and Driessen, 2011: Adaptation to climate

change in urban areas: climate-greening London, Rotterdam, and Toronto.

Climate Law, 2(2), 251-280.

Wilson, G., 2012: Community Resilience and Environmental Transitions. Routledge,

Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, NY, USA, 251 pp.

WMO, 2008: Future Climate Change Research and Observations: GCOS, WCRP and

IGBP Learning from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Workshop and Survey

Report, IGBP Report No. 58 (WMO/TD No. 1418), Global Climate Observing

System (GCOS) Secretariat, World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Joint

Planning Staff – World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the International

Geosphere-Biosphere Progamme (IGBP) Secretariat, WMO, Geneva, Switzerland,

57 pp.

Wong, T. and R. Brown, 2009: The water sensitive city: principles for practice. Water

Science and Technology, 60(3), 673-682.

World Bank, 2008: World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography.

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank,

Washington DC, USA, 383 pp.

World Bank, 2010a: World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate

Change. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The

World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 417 pp.

World Bank, 2010b: Climate Risks and Adaptation in Asian Coastal Megacities: A

Synthesis Report. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

/ The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 97 pp.

World Bank, 2010c: Mainstreaming Gender in Road Transport: Operational Guidance

for World Bank Staff. Transport Papers TP-28, The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 43 pp.

World Bank, 2010d: Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Synthesis Report.

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank,

Washington, DC, USA, 101 pp.

World Bank, 2010e: Natural Hazards,UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective

Prevention. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

(UNISDR) and Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), the

World Bank, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The

World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 254 pp.

World Bank, 2011: North African Coastal Cities: Climate Change Adaptation and

Natural Disaster Preparedness in the Coastal Cities of North Africa – Summary

of Regional Study. Marseille Center for Mediterranean Integration (CMI) and

the World Bank, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /

The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 23 pp.

World Bank, 2012: Inclusive Green Growth: The Pathway to Sustainable Development.

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank,

Washington, DC, USA, 171 pp.

World Bank, 2013: Urban Resilience and World Bank Investments: Disaster Risk

Management and Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas – First Phase

Report. Urbanization and Resilience Management Unit (UDRUR) and the Global

Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) of the Urban and Disaster

Risk Management Department (UDR), World Bank, The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA,

60 pp.

World Economic Forum, 2013: Global Risks 2013.8

edn., An Initiative of the Risk

Response Network, World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, 78 pp.

Xu, T., J. Sathaye, H. Akbari, V. Garg, and S. Tetali, 2012: Quantifying the direct benefits

of cool roofs in an urban setting: reduced cooling energy use and lowered

greenhouse gas emissions. Building and Environment, 48(0), 1-6.

Young, O.R., 2002: The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit,

Interplay, and Scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 221 pp.

Zanchettin, D., P. Traverso, and M. Tomasino, 2007: Observations on future sea level

changes in the Venice lagoon. Lagoons and Coastal Wetlands in the Global

Change Context: Impacts and Management Issues, 192, 41-53.

Zetter, R. and G. Deikun, 2010: Meeting humanitarian challenges in urban areas.

Forced Migration Review, 34, 5-7.

Zhang, J., Y.H. Sui, and X.B. Geng, 2011: Landscape design of urban green space

adaptive to global climate change: a review. Advanced Materials Research,

243, 6842-6845.

Ziervogel, G., P. Johnston, M. Matthew, and P. Mukheibir, 2010: Using climate

information for supporting climate change adaptation in water resource

management in South Africa. Climatic Change, 103(3), 537-554.

Chapter 8 Urban Areas

612

Zimmerman, R. and C. Faris, 2010: Chapter 4: Infrastructure impacts and adaptation

challenges. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1196(1), 63-86.

Zimmerman, R. and C. Faris, 2011: Climate change mitigation and adaptation in

North American cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3),

181-187.

Zinzi, M. and S. Agnoli, 2012: Cool and green roofs. An energy and comfort

comparison between passive cooling and mitigation urban heat island

techniques for residential buildings in the Mediterranean region. Energy and

Buildings, 55(0), 66-76.