01feb mccarney city indicator

8/2/2019 01feb Mccarney City Indicator

1/60

1

CITY INDICATORS ON CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPLICATIONS FOR

POLICY LEVERAGE AND GOVERNANCE

Author

Patricia McCarney, PhDDirector, Global Cities Program and Professor of Political Science

andDirector, Global City Indicators Facility

University of Toronto

Email:[email protected]

Paper Prepared for the World Banks 5th

Urban Research SymposiumCities and Climate Change:

Responding to an Urgent AgendaMarseille, FranceJune 28-30, 2009

Cluster

The paper integrate two of the research clusters, namely, Cluster One, Science and Indicators ofClimate Change and Related Impacts: Understanding and measuring how cities impact, and areimpacted by, climate change and Cluster 3, the Role of Institutions, Governance and UrbanPlanning.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/60

2

Acknowledgements

This paper has been developed with the generous input of several colleagues. Research assistance and editing

assistance for this paper was provided by Helen Ng. Extensive research and compilation of city case study material

was undertaken by Angela Garvey and Megan Hall.I am also grateful to Jos Marcos Araujo andToms Cortez Wissenbach of the City of Sao Paulo and Cristina Arango Olaya of the City of Bogota who provided

case materials from each of their cities. Comments were provided on various drafts by the World Banks Scientific

Committee, by Daniel Hoornweg of the World Bank, Chris Kennedy at the University of Toronto and other World

Bank Symposium participant authors who participated in the first review meeting in Washington, D.C. in 2008. I

would also like to acknowledge the support and commentary I received from Eduardo Moreno and Mohamed

Halfani, both long-standing colleagues based in Nairobi at the United Nations Habitat. My thanks to all of these

colleagues for their thoughtful inputs.


3/60

3

TABLE OF CONTENTSI. INTRODUCTION

Objectives of the paper.............................................................................................................................................. 4

II. MAPPING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS IN CITIES: CORE RISKS AND URBAN VULNERABILITIES1.Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate Change Categorizing Risks ..................................................... 5

(i) Assessing Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate Change ................................................... 6Category One Alterations in Temperature

(ii) Assessing Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate Change ................................................... 9

Category Two Alterations in Precipitation(iii) Assessing Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate Change ................................................. 12

Category Three Alterations in Storm Frequency and Intensity(iv) Assessing Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate Change ................................................. 12

Category Four Sea Level Change

2.Mapping Cities and Climate Change ................................................................................................................... 17

a. Cities and GHG Emissions .......................................................................................................... 17

b. City Mitigation Strategies on Climate Change ............................................................................ 19

c. City Adaptation Strategies on Climate Change ........................................................................... 22

3.Using Indicators to Assess and Address Deeper and Enduring Risks and Long-Term Vulnerabilities in Cities . 23

III. CITIES AT RISK: EMERGING APPROACHES TO SAFER CITIES1.From Indicators to Governance Evidence Based Policy Formulation .............................................................. 25

2.The Role of City Indicators on Climate Change for Effective Planning and Management ................................. 28

3.Addressing Risk and Vulnerability in Cities through a more Empowered, Cohesive and Inclusive Governance 32

IV. CONCLUSION1.Research Challenges for Improved Measurements, Indicators and City Data on Climate Change ..................... 36

2.Governance Challenges for Building Climate Resilient Cities in the Future ...................................................... 38

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................... 43

Graph 1: Temperature Average in Mexico City 1900-2007 ............................................................................................. 7Graphs

Graph 2: Reconstructed Mean Annual Temperatures in Stockholm 1756 2000 ............................................................ 8Graph 3: New York City - Annual Temperature in Central Park, Manhattan 1901-2006 ................................................ 8Graph 4: Annual Precipitation in New York City .......................................................................................................... 10Graph 5: Precipitation in Buenos Aires 1991-2006 ........................................................................................................ 10Graph 6: Number of Extreme Precipitation Events in Mexico City 1890-2003 ............................................................. 11Graph 7: Mean Annual Sea Level Rise in Key West, Florida over Time ....................................................................... 13Graph 8: Annual Average Sea Level New York City ................................................................................................. 14Graph 9: Changes in Annual Mean Sea level Vancouver............................................................................................ 14

Graph 10: Yearly Mean Sea Level - San Francisco ........................................................................................................ 15Graph 11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions by City ............................................................................................................... 17

Table 1: Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate Change ................................................................................ 16Tables

Table 2: Mitigation Strategies ......................................................................................................................... 19

Table 3: Adaptation Strategies ...................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix A: Observed High Temperature Extremes in Central Park, Manhattan ......................................................... 41

Appendix B: Table 1: Measurements of Sea Level Rise in New York City, Miami, Stockholm and Vancouver .......... 42


4/60

4

I INTRODUCTION

Risks associated with climate change are increasingly finding expression in cities.

Issues of greenhouse gas emissions, sea temperature change, sea level change, land and airtemperature adjustments, air quality deterioration, shifting rain, wind and snow patterns andother unstable climate shifts, while global in nature, find particular expression in the worldscities. These phenomena serve to introduce new layers in our interpretation of urban risk, newcomplexities in governing cities and new research challenges to measure and monitor these risksin order to inform policy, planning and management. How do we address this multiple layeringand new complexity?

The vulnerability of cities to climate change is largely underestimated. There is no establishednor standardized set of city indicators that measures the effects of climate change on cities and

assesses those risks, nor is there a comprehensive set of indicators with a common, acceptedmethodology designed to measure the impact that cities have on climate change and the role thatcities play for example in contributing to green house gas emissions.

Effective and long-term solutions must be anchored in an empowered city governance approachwhich acknowledges the respective roles and contributions of a wide array of actors. Addressingclimate change risk in cities must also be considered in a broader framework of risks confrontingcities. Cities in the 21st century are facing unprecedented challenges. The worlds urbanpopulation is likely to reach 4.2 billion by 2020, and the urban slum population is expected toincrease to 1.4 billion by 2020, meaning one out of every three people living in cities will live inimpoverished, over-crowded and insecure living conditions. Social cohesion, safety, security andstability are being tested by social exclusion, inequities and shortfalls in basic services.

While the literature on urban governance is extensive and the research field of city indicators hasgrown and strengthened in very recent years1

Objectives of the Paper

, there is little work to date on how city indicatorscan be utilized for improved governance. It is the intersection of city indicators and citygovernance that this paper begins to address.

The central research question to be addressed in this context is how indicators on cities andclimate change can add new policy leverage for local governments, in terms of buildingempowered decision-making in this volatile policy field, in developing evidence-based policy-

making, and in building strong city governments capable of performing as new sites ofgovernance in global negotiations on climate change and in decision-making related to riskassessments.

The objectives of this paper are threefold: first, to map the core risks for cities associated withclimate change through literature review and city case studies; second, to examine the use of city

1 Please refer to two sets of references at end of this document as preliminary literature review for this paper


5/60

5

indicators to assess and address these risks and vulnerabilities in cities; and third; to determinehow knowledge derived from city indicators on climate change can help to direct a moreinformed set of planning norms and practices, more effective infrastructure investment and urbanmanagement, and a more inclusive urban governance.

Finally, and as a result of this work, this paper will identify new challenges emerging in this fieldof cities and climate change. First, research challenges confronting urban researchers in thisemerging field of cities and climate change will be identified. Second, and based on the mappingof risks in part one of this paper, gaps in city indicators and/or weaknesses in methodologies forcomparative indicators on cities and climate change will be identified. Stemming from thisidentification exercise, this paper will serve to provide a more comprehensive framework forassessing risks and vulnerability in the field of cities and climate change. New governancechallenges for cities that arise as a result of new risks and vulnerabilities associated with climatechange will also be identified. Here, financial and management challenges, planning, civicengagement, and access to information challenges, together with the serious challenge ofjurisdictional boundaries across multiple municipalities will be addressed with regard both to

climate change indicators development and the inherent governance challenges in thesemetropolitan regions. This overall set of challenges will be presented in a context that helps openup new research frontiers in the field of urban governance, planning and management withrespect to cities confronting climate change risks.

II MAPPING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS IN CITIES: CORE RISKS AND URBAN

VULNERABILITIES

1. Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate Change Categorizing Risks

While assessment internationally on climate change and risks to cities is quite diverse and varied,for the purposes of this paper, four broad categories for considering urban vulnerabilitiesassociated with climate change are here identified. These are: alterations in temperature;alterations in precipitation, alterations in storm intensity; and, sea level change.

The first three, associated with extreme weather events and the fourth, associated with sea levelchange are not well measured as discreet phenomenon in terms of cities. For example we doknow that there has been a fifty percent rise in extreme weather events associated with climatechange from the 1950s to the 1990s but we do not know how many cities were impacted by theseevents. We also know that there have been alterations in global precipitation levels but we do notknow the spatial aspects of this phenomenon with respect to the worlds cities.

A further problem encountered in surveying the field of work on climate change is the couplingof natural disasters with climate change recordings. For example, we do know that between1974 and 2003 6,367 natural disasters occurred globally, causing the death of 2 million peopleand affecting 5.1 billion people (UN-Habitat 2007). Global increases in those natural disastersspecifically associated with climate change however are not well disaggregated. Natural disastersassociated with climate change can be identified as having direct consequences for cities, butagain these measures are not disaggregated. We also know, both through informed professionals


6/60

6

and broad ratings that poorer urban households are usually at higher risk due to weakerstructures, less safe city locations and building sites, and weaker resilience of infrastructure inpoorer cities to withstand damage. Similarly, the relation between urban health and climatechange risks is particularly heightened under conditions of urban poverty in cities. When basicinfrastructure is inadequate, existing conditions of poor sanitation and drainage and impure

drinking water are further stressed under conditions of extreme weather events and flooding,leading to the transmission of infectious diseases, which puts poor urban households at high risk.

This situation is worsened under circumstances of higher densities in urban areas. For example,in Dhaka approximately 80 percent of the slum population lives in dense slum clusters with morethan 90 percent of slum residents sharing a single room with three or more people. A recentcensus in Dhaka, done by the Centre for Urban Studies, reveals that nearly 60 per cent of slumslack basic drainage and are prone to flooding. Flooding in slums can have serious impacts on thehealth of poor residents. Floodwaters in slums mix with raw sewage and breed water-bornediseases such as diarrhea, typhoid and scabies. Floods can also reduce the water supply due tocontamination and infrastructure damage. As a result of the frequent flooding in Dhaka, the

government has attempted to relieve some of the stresses on densely populated slums bycompleting construction of embankments, concrete reinforced walls and pumping stations (UNHABITAT, 2009).

Cities in developing countries are disproportionately affected for similar reasons of vulnerabilityand weak institutional support and infrastructure systems. For example, many developingcountries lack the health facilities to deal with large numbers of injured patients, resulting inhigher death tolls than in countries better equipped for disaster. Disasters associated with climatechange can paralyze entire cities and regions and permanently destroy their social and economicassets. Creating measures and indicators across this spectrum of vulnerabilities however isrequired for informed decision-making, improved policy on climate resiliency in cities, moreeffective urban management of risks, and a more empowered governance at the city level.

As a way forward to assessing urban vulnerabilities associated with climate change, the fourcategories here identified -- alterations in temperature; alterations in precipitation, alterations instorm intensity; and, sea level change -- can help to establish a framework for mapping andmeasuring climate risks in cities.

(i) Assessing Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate ChangeCategory One -- Alterations in Temperature

Key consequences for cities associated with alterations in temperature include warmer and morefrequent hot days and nights in cities and more extreme events such as heat waves, togethercreate a cluster of impacts that confront city governments. Alterations in temperature produceincreased demand for cooling, declining air quality in cities, energy shortages, heat islandeffects, increased water demand and water quality problems, human health effects and increasedrisk of heat-related mortality. These five consequences are detailed in Table 1. Each of thesefive vulnerabilities helps us identify specific measurement needs and core indicators forassessing urban vulnerabilities associated with alterations in temperature. First, an assessment ofwhat city level measures already exist and a sampling of cities already doing work on


7/60

7

temperature change in their cities is undertaken, so as to better identify weaknesses inmeasurement and gaps in our current information.

Current global data informs a substantial change in global mean temperatures over the last 100years. Global temperatures have increased by 0.74C, which is unusual in comparison to

changes in global temperature data in the past (IPCC, 2007). Not surprisingly, increases in globaltemperature affect temperature trends in cities. For example, and as indicated in Graph 1, below,the average temperature in Mexico City has been steadily increasing, over the past century, andparticularly since about 1960.

Graph 1: Temperature Average in Mexico City 1900-2007

Temperature (C)

Source: Secretaria del Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal, 2008.Mexico City Climate Action Program 2008-2012.

In addition, cities at their core tend to be 1 to 10F (0.56 to 5.6C) warmer than their surroundingsuburbs and rural areas (Science Daily, 2003). This is attributed to urban heat island effects,caused by extensive paving, high densities of buildings and minimal green space and fauna incity cores. Temperature change is also indicated by a heightened frequency and intensity of heatwaves, resulting in an increased number of heat related deaths. The 2003 heat wave in European

cities was responsible for 35,000 to 50,000 deaths.

High temperatures in urban areas have a direct effect on the energy consumed by coolingappliances such as air conditioners. In large cities in the United States, the peak electricity loadincreases 3 to 5 percent for 1C increase in temperature. This is significant, considering that theaverage afternoon summer temperature in U.S. cities has increased by 1.1C in the last 40 years.

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

1900

1905

1910

1915

1920

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005


8/60

8

The graph below indicates the rise of temperatures in Stockholm, particularly since 1970. Alsosince 1985, the graph indicates the diminishing number of cold days in Stockholm beingreplaced by an increasing number of hot days.

Graph 2: Reconstructed Mean Annual Temperatures in Stockholm 1756 - 2000

____________________________________________________________________________________Source: The City of Stockholm, 2007.Adapting to Climate change in Stockholm.

Alterations in temperature have also been tracked in New York City. Graph 3 below indicates atrend in temperature rise of over .25F per decade since 1900. New York City has alsoexperienced an increase in number of hot days (over 90F) since 1980.

Graph 3: New York City - Annual Temperature in Central Park, Manhattan 1901-2006

Source: New York City Panel on Climate Change, 2009. Climate Risk Information.


9/60

9

As indicated in Appendix A, three tables on observed temperature extremes measured in CentralPark, Manhattan indicate maximum temperatures exceeding 90F and 100F as well as thenumber of heat waves experienced per year over the past century in New York City. During the1971-2000 period, New York City averaged 14 days per year over 90 degrees, 0.4 days over 100degrees, and two heat waves per year. The number of events in a given year is highly variable.

For example, in 2002 New York City experienced temperatures of 90 degrees or higher on 33different days; in 2004 temperatures of 90 or higher only occurred twice. None of the post-1900trends for these heat events can be distinguished statistically from random variability. However,seven of the ten years with the most days over 90 degrees in the 107-year record have occurredsince 1980 (New York City Panel on Climate Change, 2009).

(ii) Assessing Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate ChangeCategory Two -- Alterations in Precipitation

With regard to the second category of urban vulnerabilities associated with climate change,alterations in precipitation, the consequences for governing, planning and managing cities arefar-reaching.

Increasing frequency and intensity of precipitation in cities and more extreme precipitationevents can cause pressure on, and deterioration of, water and sanitation infrastructure,particularly weak and/or aging municipal infrastructure facilities. In addition, these alterationscreate adverse effects on the quality of surface and groundwater; contaminate water supply;create waterborne diseases; increase risk of deaths, infectious respiratory and skin diseases;disrupt settlements, commerce and transport due to flooding; and, cause large displacements ofpeople together with loss of property.

By contrast, alterations in precipitation leading to drought also lead to adverse effects in cities,such as escalating costs of food in cities and food crises and increased migration into cities fromdrought affected regions. These consequences are further detailed in Table 1. Each of these tenvulnerabilities helps us identify specific measurement needs and core indicators for assessingurban vulnerabilities associated with alterations in precipitation. This framework ofvulnerabilities identified here assists in first assessing what city level measures already existacross this list of core vulnerabilities and then identifying gaps in our current information.

According to the IPCC, precipitation has increased over land north of 30 N where a generaldecline has occurred over the tropics since the 1970s. Data at the city level is however weak onthis measure since national (and global) data is not usually disaggregated by city and only somecities gather information on precipitation.

New York City (Graph 4) and Buenos Aires (Graph 5) are two examples of cities that gather dataon alterations in precipitation. According to this data detailed below, there has been a gradualincrease in annual precipitation in the case of New York City over the past 100 years. Alteration


10/60

10

in precipitation recorded in Buenos Aires between 1991 and 2006 has been sporadic with someupward trend indicated over this shorter time period.

Graph 4: Annual Precipitation in New York City

_______________________________________________________________________________Source: New York City Panel on Climate Change, 2009. Climate Risk Information.

Graph 5: Precipitation in Buenos Aires 1991-2006

____________________________________________________________________________Source: Agencia de Proteccin Ambiental, Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, 2008. Plan Estratrgico 2008-2012. Precipitaciones Registradas en la Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires (1991-2006)


11/60

11

Where local data does exist, heavy precipitation can be seen as creating serious consequences forcities in terms of flooding, economic stress and increased health risks. For example, the E-Colicontamination in Walkerton, Ontario in 2000 was a result of excess runoff from overwhelmedsewer systems (Henstra & McBean, 2003). Flooding from heavy precipitation causes

infrastructural damages and economic loss due to the disruption of daily operations in cities. The1996 flooding in the Saguenay Region of Quebec due to heavy rainfall resulted in the evacuationof 15,000 people and caused losses of over $1.5 billion Canadian (Henstra & McBean, 2003).

Occurrences of heavy precipitation events are not recorded by many cities globally despite theserious consequences known to result. Mexico City has more than a century of data recorded onthe number of extreme precipitation events, which indicates a marked increase, especially since1965.

Graph 6: Number of Extreme Precipitation Events (>30mm/day) in Mexico City 1890-2003

Source: Secretaria del Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal, 2008.Mexico City Climate Action Program 2008-2012.

Alterations in precipitation associated with drought in many regions also directly impact cities bycreating food shortages, causing food prices to rise and leading to potential food crises in citiesworldwide. Cities particularly affected by the recent global food crisis include Port-au-Prince,Dhaka, Cairo, Douala, Manila, Jakarta, and major cities in Burkina Faso and Yemen. The globalfood crisis brought on by drought has been the source of urban violence in many cities,manifested in a series of city riots. For example, the riot in Port-au-Prince which shut down thecity in April 2008, was a result of tensions arising from the global food crisis. At least ten people


12/60

12

were killed from the riots in Cairo which were due to shortages in basic food commodities andrising food prices.

Lowered precipitation levels also lead to increases in migration into cities from climate changeaffected areas. Water shortages in cities are also a consequence of alterations in precipitation

linked to climate change that pose serious risks for the general urban population and particularlyfor the more vulnerable groups such as the elderly, the young and the chronically sick.

(iii) Assessing Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate ChangeCategory Three -- Alterations in Storm Frequency and Intensity

With regard to the third category of urban vulnerabilities associated with climate change alterations in storm frequency and intensity consequences for cities include power outages anddisruption to the public water supply; disruptions to settlements associated with flood and highwinds; migration of population under stress; loss of property; withdrawal of risk coverage or costescalation of insurance by private insurers; and more generally, increased risks of deaths,

injuries, and water and food-borne diseases and post-traumatic stress disorders. These sevenconsequences are detailed in Table 1. While global and national data on storms is beinggenerated, city level measures assessing these vulnerabilities are not yet well formulated.Categorizing these seven vulnerabilities helps us identify specific measurement needs and coreindicators for assessing urban vulnerabilities associated with alterations in storm frequency andintensity.

One measure of Atlantic tropical cyclones shows the average number of storms increasing overthe period from 1900 to 2005, from an annual average of six storms in the period 1930 to 1940,to an annual average of 15 storms from 1995 to 2005 (National Center for AtmosphericResearch, 2007).

Three major storms since the year 2000 that directly affected cities all demonstrated theconsequences as detailed in Table 1, namely settlement disruption, loss of property andmortality. In Mozambique in 2000, storm consequences in Maputo and other cities included lossof property, 700 deaths and settlement disruption to 4.5 million people. In Germany and otherneighbouring countries flooding along the Elbe and Danube Rivers caused damage to Dresdenand other cities in 2002. Mortality reached 90 and 30,000 people were evacuated from the Cityof Dresden. Third, the largest storm disaster in US history occurred in the City of New Orleansin 2005 with deaths reaching 1,863 and economic losses measured at $US81.2 billion.

(iv) Assessing Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate ChangeCategory Four Sea Level Change

Key consequences associated with sea level change include permanent erosion and submersionof urban land and settlements; loss of property and livelihood; costs of coastal protection; costsof land-use relocation; decreased freshwater availability due to saltwater intrusion and salinity inestuaries and coastal aquifers; increased risks of deaths and injuries by drowning in floods; risingwater tables and impeded drainage; destruction of urban infrastructure; and, long-term effects on


13/60

13

economic growth. These nine consequences are detailed in Table 1. Each of these ninevulnerabilities helps us identify specific measurement needs and core indicators for assessingurban vulnerabilities associated with sea level change. This framework of vulnerabilities canhelp to direct research towards identifying what city level measures already exist across this listof core vulnerabilities and then identifying gaps in our current information.

Climate change research has in general tended to focus on coastal cities and a gap has beenidentified in research on inland cities (Hunt & Watkiss, 2007). There are 3,351 cities in what aretermed Low Elevation Coastal Zones (LECZ) around the world. Many coastal cities arethreatened by sea level increases and it is estimated that by 2015, 21 of the worlds megacitieswill be in costal locations (Arnold et al, 2003). Approximately seventeen percent of the totalurban population in Asia lives in low elevation coastal zones with 449,845 people at risk fromsea level rise. According to the IPCC, the rate of sea level rise has increased in the last decade to3.1 mm/year compared to 1.8 mm/year for previous years and they predict that average sea levelswill rise by about 18 centimeters by 2040 and by about 48 centimeters by 2100 in the mostextreme case.

Some cities are tracking sea level changes but when four cases are examined (the cases of

Miami, New York City, Vancouver and San Francisco) it was found that sea level change is

measured differently in each case. The following four graphs indicate sea level rise in Miami,

New York City, Vancouver and San Francisco. These graphs consistently demonstrate increases

in sea level in all four cities. A table compiled and presented in Appendix B, presents in more

detail the different ways in which sea level change is measured across these four cities. If sound

comparisons across cities on the extent of sea level change are to be drawn, then it is important

to build standardized methodologies, indicators and measurements to allow for this

comparability.

Graph 7: Mean Annual Sea Level Rise in Key West, Florida Over Time

Source: The City of Miami, 2008.MiPlan: City of Miami Climate Action Plan.


14/60

14

Graph 8: Annual Average Sea Level New York City

Source: New York City Panel on Climate Change, 2009. Climate Risk Information.

Graph 9: Changes in Annual Mean Sea level - Vancouver

Source: Metro Vancouver, 2009.Metro Vancouver Sustainability Report.


15/60

15

Graph 10: Yearly Mean Sea Level - San Francisco

Source: San Francisco Department of the Environment, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2004. ClimateAction Plan for San Francisco: Local Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.


16/60

16

Table 1: Urban Vulnerabilities Associated with Climate Chang

e

Source: These four categoriesof urban vulnerabilitiesare compiled from both the World Banks Climate ResilientCities Report, 2009 and IPCCs Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, 2007.

City leaders are not at the table when international protocols and agreements on climate changeare discussed by member states and when states decide on whether to sign and support theseinternational agreements. The vulnerability of cities to climate change risks is largelyunderestimated. There is no established set of city indicators on climate change that is globallystandardized and comparable. With increasing urban vulnerability however, estimated simply bythe fact of the increasing dominance of city dwellers worldwide, city governments need to beconsidered as new sites of governance in global negotiations on climate change and in decision-making related to risk assessments.

Four Categories of Urban

Vulnerabilities

City Impacts

(i) Temperature change - Heat island effect- Increased demand for cooling and energy shortages- Declining air quality in cities- Reduced disruption to transport due to snow, ice

- Increased water demand- Water quality problems- Increased risk of heat-related mortality, especially for the elderly, chronically sick, very young

and socially isolated- Reduction in quality of life for people in warm areas without appropriate housing

(ii) Alterations in precipitation- Frequency of increase

- Drought

- Adverse effects on quality of surface and groundwater- Contamination of water supply- Waterborne diseases- Poor solid waste disposal- Increased risk of deaths, injuries, and infectious, respiratory, and skin diseases- Disruption of settlements, commerce, transport, and societies due to flooding- Large displacement of people- Pressures on urban and rural infrastructures- Destruction of urban infrastructure

- Loss of property- In-migration from climate change affected areas- Food and water shortage- Increased price of food- Increased migration to cities

(iii) Storm activity increase (highwinds, cyclones, hurricanes, etc.)

- Power outages- Distress migration to urban areas- Disruption of public water supply- Increased risk of deaths, injuries, water and food-borne diseases; post-traumatic stress disorders- Disruption by flood and high winds\- Withdrawal of risk coverage in vulnerable areas by private insurers- Potential for population migrations- Loss of property

(iv) Sea level change - Decreased freshwater availability due to saltwater intrusion- Increased risk of deaths and injuries by drowning in floods and migration-related health effects- Loss of property and livelihood- Permanent erosion and submersion of land- Costs of coastal protection versus costs of land-use relocation- Potential for movement of populations and infrastructure- Increased salinity in estuaries and coastal aquifers- Rising coastal water tables and impeded drainage.- Degraded dykes that are unable to sustain future tides- Encroachment of settlement onto low lying areas- Destruction of urban infrastructure- Effect on long-term economic growth


17/60

17

With national governments increasingly confronting new and emerging global agendas onclimate change and because these agendas all place cities at risk - national governments whilenegotiating global commitments must also initiate dialogue and consensus at the city level toensure that local authorities are part of the decision-making, and as importantly, integral parts of

mitigation, adaptation and implementation processes.

2. Mapping Cities and Climate Change

a. Cities and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Cites are key actors in carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. According to theClinton Foundation large cities are responsible for about 75% of the greenhouse gases releasedinto our atmosphere. Greenhouse gas emissions are usually under the control or influence oflocal governments since a majority of these emissions are linked to urban form that affects

transportation and energy consumption. The World Bank estimates that the transport sector aloneaccounts for a third or more of total greenhouse gas emissions in metropolitan areas. Forexample, according to a recent calculation in Canada by the Province of British Columbia, 43%of its provincial greenhouse gas emissions are under the control of local governments (Cavens etal., 2008).

Graph 11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions by City

Source: UN-HABITAT, State of the Worlds Cities, 20082

2 Source for UN-HABITAT chart:Toronto: Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollutants in the City of Toronto ICF International, 2007Palo Alto: Mayors Green Ribbon Task Force on Climate Protection Final Report - Palo Alto City Council StudySession 12/18/2006Rio de Janeiro: Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - City of Rio de Janeiro, 2003Sao Paulo: Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - City of Sao Paulo, 2005Berlin, Prague and Rome: ICLEI 1997 apub 2003 Inventory

9.611.3

2.3 1.5

8.97.5

5.2

4.0

8.1

4.83.8

0.02.04.06.0

8.010.012.0

(CO2tone/person)

CO2 emissions per capita in selected cities


18/60

18

Cities can make a positive contribution to the climate change agenda by consciously makingurban related decisions that are informed by a clear understanding of their contribution to the

problem and finding ways to mitigate and adapt to it. However, measurements of emissions bycities are as yet uneven in both development and application that can guide city mitigationstrategies.

Several indicators are available to estimate a citys overall greenhouse gas emissions. Theindicator of greenhouse gas emissions measured in tons per capita currently in use by theGlobal City Indicators Program (GCIP) is based on existing methodologies in current use by theIPCC and the methodology adopted in ICLEIs HEAT Software Tool (Harmonized EmissionsAnalysis Tool). This GCIP indicator measures the total tonnage of green house gases (equivalentcarbon dioxide units) generated over the past year by all activities within the city (the numerator)divided by the current city population (the denominator) expressed as a per capita figure. A

working group with the Global City Indicator Facility and World Bank participation is reviewingexisting methodology and intends to propose a more comprehensive methodology for use infuture data submissions (ERM, 2007).

Various protocols exist for greenhouse gas emissions calculations. ICLEIs LocalGovernment GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol is a two-pronged analysis in which localgovernment emissions are a component of community emissions, together forming a completeGHG emissions inventory. Both the government and community scopes include measures forstationary combustion, mobile combustion, fugitive emissions, product use, other land use andwaste. Another protocol developed to calculate GHG emissions for cities (Kennedy et.al., 2009)uses seven components: electricity, heating and industrial fuels, direct industrial emissions,ground transportation, air, marine and waste. Air and marine travel represents the maindifferences between the Kennedy and ICLEIs protocols. According to Kennedy, these emissionsreflect a citys gateway status, contributing to its economy, providing jobs and agglomerationeffects.

Air travel is one complication that arises in GHG emissions calculations. At thecommunity level, ICLEI calculates air travel emissions only when air travel originates within thecommunity or serves the needs of the communitys residents. At the government level, onlyemployee air travel is included. All other air travel is excluded from ICLEIs calculationsbecause it says it is nearly impossible to determine the boundaries in which the emissionsoccurred. Some cities, such as the City of Toronto, exclude air travel emissions from GHGcalculations altogether. While Kennedy includes only airports and marine ports situated withinthe city limits (he uses the example of London in which Heathrow and City airports are includedbut Gatwick and Stansted are excluded), he believes all emissions from airports and seaportsshould be incorporated into a citys inventory of total GHG emissions. This discrepancy

Stockholm: Stockholm City Council Web pageShanghai, Tokyo and Seoul: Shobhakar Dhakal, Urban Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Asian Mega-Cities, IGES, 2004


19/60

19

involving air travel significantly changes the result of the calculations for cities worldwide anddemonstrates the need for a standardized indicator for greenhouse gas emissions in cities forglobal comparison and tracking.

b. City Mitigation Strategies on Climate Change

Given the global estimates that energy for heating and lighting residential and commercialbuilding generates nearly a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions globally, and that transportcontributes 13.5 per cent (of which 10 per cent is attributed to road transport), we can assume asizeable portion of this volume of emissions is generated in cities. It is therefore reasonable toalso assume that cities have the potential, and indeed are becoming, the key actors in globalmitigation efforts. City governments can influence patterns of energy and land use throughimportant interventions under their control, including land-use planning, urban design, zoningand local by-laws including building codes and height by-laws, transport planning includingtransit planning road networks, master plan and subdivision controls.

Table 2: Mitigation Strategies

Sector Key mitigation technologies and practices

currently commercially available

Policies, measures, and instruments shown

to be environmentally effective

Energy supply - Improved supply and distributionefficiency

- Fuel switching from coal to gas- Nuclear power- Renewable heat and power

(hydropower, solar, wind,geothermal, and bio-energy)

- Combined heat and power

- Early applications of CO2 captureand storage (e.g. storage ofremoved CO2 from natural gas)

- Reduction of fossil fuel subsidies- Taxes or carbon charges on fossil

fuels- Feed-in tariffs for renewable

energy technologies- Renewable energy obligations- Producer subsidies

Transport - More fuel-efficient vehicles- Hybrid vehicles- Cleaner diesel vehicles- Bio-fuels- Modal shifts from road transport to

rail and public transport systems- Non motorized transport (cycling,

walking)- Land-use and transport planning.

- Mandatory fuel economy- Bio-fuel blending and CO2

standards for road transport.- Taxes on vehicle purchase,

registration, use, motor fuels, androads

- Parking pricing.- Mobility influenced needs through

land use regulations andinfrastructure planning

- Investment in attractive publictransport facilities and nonmotorized forms of transport.

Buildings- Efficient lighting and day-lighting- More efficient electrical

appliances and heating and coolingdevices

- Improved cook stoves- Improved insulation- Passive and active solar design for

heating and cooling- Alternative refrigeration fluids- Recovery and recycling of

fluorinated gases.

- Appliance standards and labeling- Building codes and certification

- Demand-side managementprograms

- Public sector leadership programs,including procurement

- Incentives for energy servicecompanies


20/60

20

Industry - More efficient end-use electricalequipment

- Heat and power recovery- Material recycling and substitution- Control of non-CO2 emissions- Wide array of process specific

technologies.

- Provision of benchmarkinformation

- Performance standards- Subsidies, tax credits- Tradable permits- Voluntary agreements

Waste - Landfill methane recovery

- Waste incineration with energyrecovery

- Composting of organic waste- Controlled wastewater treatment- Recycling and waste

minimization.

- Financial incentives for improved

waste and wastewater management- Renewable energy incentives or

obligations- Waste management regulations

Source: World Bank, Climate Resilient Cities, 2009

The five sectors identified by the World Bank (2009) in Table 2 above, help to frame points ofintervention by cities for climate change mitigation, suggesting available technologies and policyinstruments available to cities. A few examples of city action in the field of climate changemitigation can assist us in considering measurements for targeting and monitoring mitigation

efforts.

The Vienna City Council adopted the citys Climate Protection Programme as a framework forits Eco-Business plan and as a result the city has reduced its solid waste output by 109,300tonnes; toxic solid wastes by 1,325 tonnes, and carbon dioxide emissions by 42,765 tonnes. ThisEco-Business plan has saved a total of 138.7 million Kwh of energy and 1, 325,000 cubic metersof drinking water. The Eco-Business plan is also now being implemented in Chennai, India, andAthens, Greece. The City of Calgary, Canada, is achieving significant electricity savings andreducing greenhouse gas emissions with the EnviroSmart Retrofit Project. Most of Calgarysresidential streetlights are being changed to more energy efficient flathead lenses. Streetlightwattage is being reduced from 200W to 100W on residential local roads and from 250W to

150W on collector roads (UN-HABITAT, 2008).

In the building sector, improvements to building codes and certification processes for greenerbuildings are being adopted by a number of cities. The City of Johannesburg, South Africa hasimplemented mitigation measures which include retrofitting of council buildings, energy savingsin water pump installations, and methane gas recovery. One set of measures already wellestablished is the LEED certification framework that ensures a building is environmentallyresponsible by providing independent, third-party verification. LEEDS certification seeks toensure that a building project meets the highest green building and performance measures.The average LEEDs building uses 30% less energy, 30-50% less water and diverts up to 97% ofits waste from the landfill (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007).

Mexico City has taken various measures to mitigate the effects of climate change by takingaction in the areas of water, energy, transportation and waste to reduce its carbon dioxideemissions. In regards to energy, Mexico City has taken action to secure more sustainable housingand buildings to reduce energy consumption. This includes establishing environmentalcertification systems for buildings and providing funding for new housing with integratingsustainability criteria. Various energy efficiency programs have been in place to reduceemissions including efficient lighting in buildings, efficient street lighting and promoting solar


21/60

21

energy in businesses and government buildings. In regards to the water sector, Mexico City hastaken action to reduce emissions from septic systems by constructing sewerage and watertreatment services in areas of low methane gas. Some of the actions taken in the transportationsector include an obligatory school transportation system which will reduce CO2 emissions by470,958 tons per year by making students take public transportation to school. Mexico City will

also expand its transportation system and the implementation of non-motorized mobility andstreetcar corridors as an effort to reduce emissions. In regards to waste management, thegovernment plans on capturing and exploiting the bio-gas emitted from the Bordo Poniente State4 landfill and eventually installing an electrical power plant which will reduce emissions by1,400,000 tons annually (Secretaria del Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal, 2008)

Portland has been a key player in adopting strategies to address climate change.In 2000, the Portland Office of Sustainable Development (OSD) launched a program to supportthe design and development of green buildings in the city. The program offers technicalassistance, education and financial incentives, and has so far supported more than 300 localbuildings. The City of Portland has taken various measures in order to reduce energy use by

using renewable sources and making technological improvements. Technological improvementsmade by the City has reduced energy use by 80%, for example all traffic signals were convertedto highly efficient LED bulbs and by doing so have saved the City almost five million kWh peryear and over $500,000 annually in energy and maintenance costs (The City of Portland, 2005).

When it comes to establishing GHG reduction targets, cities have an important role to play inhelping to determine an equitable distribution of GHG reduction targets which will help to framemitigation strategies on climate change. For example, current debates between per capitaemissions of inner city residents versus suburban residents, between large city residents versussmaller city residents, and between wealthy cities versus poorer ones, raises issues of equity insharing the burden in meeting reduction targets.

Measures are weak and no methodology for determining an equitable distribution of high-levelGHG reduction targets has been established. (Cavens, Condon, Kellett and Miller 2008).

While it is generally assumed that suburban residents emit significantly more carbon dioxidethan inner city residents, it could thus be concluded that it would be more equitable to requiresuburban communities to shoulder the largest burdens for reductions. However, indicators on thisquestion are still weak. For example while some estimate that suburban dwellers produce up tothree times more GHGs per capita than inner city dwellers, recent data (Glaeser and Kahn 2008)suggest that this dichotomy is not so simple. They report that indeed while per capita emissionsrise as you move away from the urban core of Boston, they level off once you are more than tenmiles from downtown. Another exception they have found is with respect to Los Angeles whereemissions are actually lower in suburban LA than they are in the central cities of thatmetropolitan area.

Such issues are complicated further by considering the challenges and opportunities of high-growth versus low-growth communities, as well as questions of per capita versus total reductiontargets. In the case of British Columbia, the Province plans to negotiate with local governmentswith the intention of arriving at an equitable allocation on a municipality by municipality basis.


22/60

22

Finally, a new set of indicators on climate change mitigation are also needed if policy makers areto assess the capacity in communities for GHG reductions and what costs related changes wouldgenerate physically, socially and economically before they can act. Policy makers need toknow, for example, how redesign, urban form and rebuilding of the suburbs might overcome forexample car dependency (Cavens, Condon, Kellett and Miller 2008).

c. City Adaptation Strategies on Climate Change

Indicators can help cities understand the problem of climate change and inform city managersand leaders in their role in building resilience to its adverse impacts. A number of adaptationmeasures to climate change in cities are largely made up of individual choices so knowledgethrough public education, research and publicly accessible data on indicators can assist citizenstowards action. Collective action at the community and municipal level carry potential forappropriate response for climate change adaptation in an urban context.

Adaptation measures can take several forms: some actions are taken to reduce vulnerability to

climate change; some involve spreading risk among a wider population (insurance); someinvolve eliminating activity or behavior that causes climate change; and some involve movingvulnerable populations away from hazards.

UN-Habitat has identified five sectors across which cities can consider climate change adaptationoptions and strategies. This list acts as a portfolio of potentially appropriate adaptation projectsand helps to establish a framework for the development of indicators and measurement onadaptation progress.

Source: UN-HABITAT, State of the Worlds Cities, 2008

Table 3: Adaptation Strategies

Sector Adaptation option/strategy Underlying policy framework

Water Water storage and conservation techniques; incentives for

water conservation; water reuse; water recycling; desalination;increase water use efficiency; public education; flood risk map;public participation flood adaptation and mitigation programs;greater investment in water supply systems; controlled use ofurban and rural groundwater.

Urban water policies and integrated water

resources management; water-related hazardsmanagement; integrating climate change intopublic policy; policy to control groundwaterextraction.

Infrastructure andsettlements

Cleaning drainage system and replacement of primary sewersystem; encourage infiltration and increasing depression andstreet detention storage; re-designing structures; relocation;seawalls and storm surge barriers; dune reinforcement; landacquisition and creation of wetlands as buffer zone against sealevel rise and flooding; protection of existing natural barriers;maintaining defensible space around eachbuilding/neighbourhood.

Design standards and codes; regulations;integrate climate change considerations intodesign; land use policies; insurance; financialincentives; public education regarding risk ofliving in hazard prone areas.

Human health Heat-health action plans; emergency medical services; accessto public cooling centers; improved climate sensitive diseasesurveillance and control; access to safe water and improvedsanitation; greater intergovernmental coordination and cross-boundary coordination

Public health policies that recognize climaterisk; strengthened health services;intergovernmental, regional and internationalcooperation; greater investment in healthservices.

Urban Transport Environmentally friendly transport system; energy efficientcars; car pooling; efficient public transportation system; newdesign standards and planning for urban roads, rail, etc., tocope with warming and drainage; fuel substitution.

Integrating climate change considerations intonational transport policy; investment in R&D;incentives for energy efficient car industry.

Energy Strengthening of overhead transmission and distribution lines;underground cabling for utilities; increasing energy efficiency;emphasis on renewable resources.

Sustainable urban energy policies;regulations; fiscal and financial incentives toencourage use of green energy and building;incorporate climate change in designstandards and codes.


23/60

23

Many cities are developing strategic plans for climate adaptation. For example, strategies toadapt New York City to the unavoidable climate shifts ahead (The City of New York, 2007,136) are included in PlaNYC 2030. NYCs plan for climate change adaptation focuses onsecuring the citys existing infrastructure, identifying and protecting flood plain zones andspecific at-risk communities, and establishing a citywide strategic planning process withemphasis on tracking emerging climate change data and its potential impacts on the city.

New York Citys water, transportation, energy, and waste infrastructure systems are allvulnerable to climate change impacts. Sea level changes combined with storm surges ofincreasing intensity are potential hazards especially to subterranean facilities and waterfront-situated utilities. Given these facilities range of owners and operators, an intergovernmentalClimate Change Task Force will coordinate the development of adaptation strategies andguidelines for new infrastructure plans (The City of New York, 2007). The case of New YorkCitys climate plan is further detailed in Part III of his paper, together with that of London andother cities.

3. Using Indicators to Assess and Address Deeper and Enduring Risks and Long-TermVulnerabilities in Cities

The severe consequences and threats that cities are now facing as a result of climate change, thepressing short-falls in urban water, sanitation and waste management services, inadequatehousing and insecurity of shelter, and the deteriorating quality of air and water in cityenvironments, are being experienced in a context of intense urban growth of cities thatincreasingly manifests deepening poverty and income inequities, socio-economic exclusion andsocio-economic dualism.

The adoption, in the year 2000, of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the UNMember States, registers a commitment by the international community to development of thepoorest regions of the world and to assist the most vulnerable. From this agreement, the UNSecretariat established eight goals, each with a set of quantitative targets and indicators, to ensurea common assessment and to track progress at global, national and local levels towardsachievement of the MDGs.

All eight of the MDGs can be directly connected to the theme of vulnerability in the worldscities. Indeed, it is the worlds cities and the slums within them that are pivotal platforms for thesuccessful achievement of each MDG. Each of the eight goals finds expression in cities as they

relate to poverty, education, gender, child mortality, maternal health, diseases, environment andglobal partnerships. In addition, meeting the timeframe and the numerical targets of the MDGswill require a determined focus on cities since the majority of affected women, men and childrenwill be living in urban and peri-urban areas by the target dates of 2015 and 2020.

Goal 7 to Ensure Environmental Sustainability sets out three targets: to reverse the loss ofenvironmental resources; improve access to safe drinking water; and, improve the lives of slum


24/60

24

dwellers. Linking these three targets helps to frame the challenges cities face in addressingclimate change in a context of poverty.

The United Nations System assigned UN-Habitat responsibility to assist Member States inmonitoring and gradually attaining Goal 7 Target 11 which is referred to as the Cities without

Slums target. The latter, Target 11 specifically reads: Achieve significant improvement in thelives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020. Goal 7 Target 11 is a call to action to assistpeople living in the most depressed conditions in the worlds cities. Success in reaching thisspecific target is dependent upon progress made in achieving each of these other goals andrelated targets.

Roughly 80% of urban residents in the lowest-income countries already living in slum conditionsand based upon projected demographic trends, slum dwellers are expected to double by 2030.Given this twin problem of the existence of massive slums and the projected growth of slumsworldwide, meeting the MDG 7 Target 11 must entail a two-pronged approach: upgradingtodays slums to improve the living conditions and the conditions for meeting most of the

MDGs, and planning alternatives to slums for the future.

UN-HABITATs identification of five conditions characteristic of slums, is helping to establishthe number of slum dwellers in the world, and a set of indicators to monitor progress towards thegoal of improving the lives of slum dwellers:

Insecure residential status Inadequate access to safe water Inadequate access to sanitation Poor structural quality of housing

Overcrowding

International development assistance, national and local governments and the private sector mustbe mobilized to partner with the urban poor to support their ongoing efforts and scale up urbanpoor-led upgrading. Addressing the deficiencies in urban infrastructure and services and sub-standard housing of slum dwellers is central to climate change adaptation.

Social cohesion, safety, security and stability are being tested by social exclusion, inequities andshortfalls in housing and basic services. Risks associated with each of these conditions arecritical factors in the foregoing discussion on urban risks associated with climate change acrossthe four categories identified in the foregoing. The situation of poverty in cities worldwide, butin particular in the less developed regions, must be recognized as a core conditioning factor in

addressing climate change and building more climate resilient cities. This means explicitlyrecognizing that climate change adaptation must in tandem reduce the vulnerability of the poor incities. To do so however depends on meaningful data on city slums and indicators that trackdensity; water and sanitation infrastructure inadequacies relative to climate change risks,particularly alterations in precipitation and sea level change; and, structural qualities of housingat increased risk from alterations in storm intensity and temperature change.


25/60

25

III CITIES AT RISK: EMERGING APPROACHES TO SAFER CITIES

1. From Indicators to Governance Evidence Based Policy Formulation

The World Bank defines indicators as performance measures that aggregate information into ausable form. Indicators provide a useful tool in the prospective sense for policy making and alsoin the retrospective sense for assessing policy implementation. Indicators offer assistance topolicy-makers by aiding in comparison, evaluation and prediction.

Indicators are important as they help inform policy makers by allowing them to track theproblem and provide linkages that are often crowded by statistics (University of Manchester,2006). Unlike statistics, indicators are often referred to as vehicles for understanding as theyinform and explain complex socio-economic phenomena. They are statistical manipulations thatprovide the public with a clear picture of the problem at large. Indicators have many differentpurposes and it is important to evaluate indicators in respect to the job they are devised for.

Indicators need to be made relevant to climate change and cities so as to constitute a useful toolfor local policy makers. However, indicators, as statistical manipulations, can becomeincreasingly problematic when complexity of the measures heightens. This holds true forindicators on climate change. The more complex the indicator, the higher the potential forstatistical value being lost. (University of Manchester, 2008).

Evidence-based policy making is made possible by advances in information technologies. Datadriven decision making in the government domain via quantitative performance metrics canserve to measure implementation success rates, steer investments and refine policy choices.

Environmental performance measures have improved in recent years and empirical approachesto global sustainability are being strengthened. The Environmental Performance Index (EPI)developed by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University and theCenter for International Science Information Network at Columbia University has developed 25indicators across six policy categories that quantitatively measures country-scale performance ona core set of environmental policy goals.

While country-level data and analysis on climate change have improved in recent years, seriousgaps exist at the city level however. Quantitative city data on climate change is being developedby cities in some discreet form and often adapted from broadly accepted national level methods.Serious gaps and the lack of time series data on cities and climate change hamper efforts todiagnose emerging risks and problems, to assess policy options in terms of both mitigation andadaption strategies, and to gauge the effectiveness of their city-level programs.

The use of proximity-to-target methodology that quantitatively measures city-scale performanceagainst a core set of goals, while useful in theory for measuring the distance between a citystargets and current results, and providing an empirical foundation for policy benchmarking and acontext for evaluating city performance, is as yet under-developed for climate change indicatorsat the city level. Nonetheless, it provides a powerful tool for steering policy and assessingplanning and investments in city management.


26/60

26

City indicators also have the potential to exert peer pressure among member cities to performbetter (Hezri & Dovers, 2006, 9) and also build in global learning potential. When indicators aredeveloped and shared across a network of actors, indicators have a communicative function,

enlightening and informing the worldviews and values of developers and users (2006, 13).

Globally comparative indicator-based knowledge on cities and climate change has becomeincreasingly more important as national measures evolve and country-level policy positionsemerge. City-level indicators that have a globally standardized methodology are important, notfor purposes of numerical ranking of cities, but for informing policy decision-making throughcomparative city data that provides policy leverage for city leaders locally, nationally andglobally. The World Banks Global City Indicators Program provides a system for cities to useglobally standardized indicators as a tool for informing policy making through the use ofinternational comparisons. For example, the Secretariat of Finance in Bogota uses indicatorsfrom the Global City Indicators Program as a way to track the citys investments and to compare

their citys performance relative to other international cities. By using indicators and drawingglobal comparisons, the Secretariat of Finance is able to evaluate and monitor performance ontheir investments and to benchmark their performance in comparison to other cities. (City ofBogota - Finance Secretary 20093

Indicators and reports generated from the Global City Indicators Facility website are used byBogotas Secretariat of Finance in negotiations to inform effective evidence-based policymaking. Indicators can provide evidence on how well the city is performing in terms of cityservices and where to allocate investments. During budget negotiations with other Secretariatshaving information on how other cities provide services and their results has proven to be usefulto try to better allocate resources. For example, health absorbs 23% of the investment budget inthe city and even though results are starting to show up it doesnt seem to be enough for theneeds of the population especially when compared with other cities performance. Therefore, itis clear that we need to monitor the investment and analyze where we can improve the process ofproviding healthcare (City of Bogota - Finance Secretary 2009

).

Global comparisons allow for sharing of best practices. Comparative reports generated from theGlobal City Indicators Facility website provides a useful tool for Bogota to view and analyzehow other cities are performing relative to their investments. For example, Bogota has 232 swornpolice officers per 100,000 populations while Cali has 248. Nevertheless, there are 19.6homicides per 100,000 population in Bogota while Calis figure is around 69.8.

4

The importance of globally standardized city indicators for international city comparisons isunderlined by the City of Bogota: Every year the Secretariat of Finance publishes as part of itsbudget, a document that contains the results for each sector along with the target for thefollowing year. The Global City Indicators allow us to use other cities as benchmarks inmeasuring our performance (City of Bogota - Finance Secretary 2009

).

5

3 Interview and case study material gathered from City of Bogota Finance Secretary, 20094 Interview and case study material gathered from City of Bogota Finance Secretary, 20095 Interview and case study material gathered from City of Bogota Finance Secretary, 2009

).


27/60

27

Policy-resonant indicators, those that strike a chord with the intended audience improve theaccountability and efficiency of local policy processes by building stakeholders, public, andcommunity understanding of issues and their solutions. Indicator systems pool enormousamounts of previously inaccessible data, making possible long-term trend monitoring that isimportant for governments to prioritize actions (Hezri & Dovers, 2006, 9-10).

As informational policy instruments, indicators provide more and better knowledge to localdecision-makers and offer a methodical system of informing decisions. For example, the City ofSao Paulo, a pilot city of the Global City Indicators Program, recognizes the need for indicatorsas a tool for increasing transparency and accountability within their government. Sao Paulo is animportant demonstration of how municipal governments can use indicators to enhancegovernance and institute evidence-based policy development in the City (City of Sao Paulo20096). They report that he media and civil society are often skeptical of government statistics.As an active member in this global initiative supported by universities and internationalorganizations, the government of Sao Paulo is hoping to regain legitimacy and public confidencein government statistics by creating more transparency on its performance in city services and on

improving quality of life. The Government of Sao Paulo recognizes the growing importance ofindicators for planning, evaluating and monitoring municipal services. In addition, use ofindicators to assist with public policy making in Sao Paulo has opened more effective dialoguebetween civil society and the local government (City of Sao Paulo, 20097

The City of Sao Paulo has recently prepared its Plan Agenda 2012 and state that the planpreparation is a concrete example of how indicators improve governance, establish evidence-based policy making and promote civic engagement. This Agenda derives from a civil societylaw proposal approved by the City Council in 2007, which establishes that all elected mayormust presents, 90 days after the opening, goals and targets for its administration. This documentmust be based on the proposals of electoral campaign, and is an instrument that compels themunicipality to make a public commitment to quantitative targets goals. The 2012 Agenda

identifies priorities, goals and presents 223 targets organized in six different directions: a socialrights city; a sustainable city; a creative city; an opportunity city; an efficient city and an equalcity. Also, the municipality must report its results, periodically and at least every six months. Inthis sense, the global city indicators that the City of Sao Paulo collects as part of the Global CityIndicators Program allows the City to measure performance, impacts and policies effectiveness(City of Sao Paulo, 2009

).

8

When indicators are well developed and soundly articulated, they can also influence how issuesare constructed in the public realm. This is an important lesson related to cities and climatechange since information can help to direct behavior in building climate action. Behavioralchange can result from publicly accessible information by becoming embedded in the thought

and practices, and institutions of users (Innes, 84, 1998). Hezri and Dovers argue for examplethat as a source of policy change, learning is dependent on the presence of appropriateinformation with the capacity to change societys behavior (2006, 11) and community

)

6 Interview and case study material gathered from City of Sao Paulo, 20097 Interview and case study material gathered from City of Sao Paulo, 20098 Interview and case study material gathered from City of Sao Paulo, 2009


28/60

28

indicator programs or state-of-the environment reporting are usually aimed at influencing thesocial construction of the policy problem (2006, 12).

In addition, in a review on urban sustainability indicators, Voula Mega and Jrn Pedersen (1998)suggest that indicators should aid in decision-making at various levels to promote local

information, empowerment and democracy. They should also contribute to making the citysprocess of decision-making more visible and transparent. City indicators can be an importantinstrument for fostering citizen participation. Information provided by city indicators canimprove the effectiveness of active citizen involvement in decision-making and policydevelopment.

City indicators on climate change can therefore enhance understanding of the risks associatedwith climate change, influence opinion and behavior, shape policy, determine priorities, andthereby impact a citys relative contribution to global climate change.

2. The Role of City Indicators on Climate Change for Effective Planning andManagement

When local government is recognized as a legitimate tier in the governance structure of acountry, and when financial powers to raise revenues and responsibilities to deliver services arecommensurate with the growth and expansion of cities, then the planning and managementfunctions in cities take on meaning, and develop influence. Cities worldwide are entering intorenewed dialogues with provincial and national governments to discuss this urban agenda. Inthis context, more rigorous data-driven policy analysis by cities means leverage inintergovernmental relations. Moreover, indicators can help to build more effective planning andefficient management for climate action in cities.

Indicators on climate change at the city level can inform city officials and support their existing,and indeed potentially far-reaching powers of planning, aimed at climate change adaptation andmitigation. For example, cities have the power to pass legislation related to greenhouse gasemissions; cities have the capacity to encourage participation and engage with relatedgovernmental agencies and local corporate organizations on climate change mitigation; to buildmore inclusive institutions in cities for achieving environmental objectives; cities have the powerto plan and design transportation systems that support access by all citizens and rational choiceson where to live and work that is in keeping with a climate change agenda for the city; citieshave the power to ensure strong and robust local economic development patterns that buildeconomic opportunity for all citizens while addressing climate change; cities have the power toaddress land tenure and land rights in the city and can thereby adopt a pro-poor set of policiesgoverning access to and environmentally safe use of land in the city; cities have importantpowers over building codes and zoning by-laws and can adopt flexible standards governing saferconstruction of housing, buildings and and infrastructure that are more resilient to climate changerisk and to adopt standards on greener buildings; and, cities have the power to develop creativefinancing tools for mobilizing investments that help to overcome climate-related threats derivedfrom a lack of basic infrastructure and environmental amenities for all, and especially the pooresturban residents in cities.


29/60

29

While the planning profession and the planning tools to address safer cities exist, up-frontresource commitments in both plan preparation and implementation are scarce in many cities.Climate change action plans, as indicated elsewhere in this paper are often costly (the ChicagoClimate Action Plan reveals the importance of securing a range of sustainable funding sources

where a total of US$2,789,000 was contributed by 14 sources from a variety of non-profitfoundations, funds, trusts and initiatives as well as pro bono services, Illinois and Chicagogovernment departments, and regional councils (Parzen 2008, 3).

Moreover, there is an information crisis that seriously undermines effective urban planning onclimate action. The lack of monitoring structures and standardized city indicators weakens thepower of good planning decisions in cities, particularly cities of the developing world concernedwith reducing vulnerability to climate change

The issue of access to land and housing and security of tenure in poorer cities is a criticalchallenge for climate action. In cities with large urban poor populations, security of tenure is

generally acknowledged as the critical first step in the social and spatial integration of slums andlow-income settlements. When tenure is in question, slum improvement is politically complex,both for city planners and for residents. Any intervention on the part of government to takeaction on climate risks, for example in infrastructure upgrading, drainage investments in low-lying areas, improving standards of housing construction and sanitation services, is perceived asa de facto recognition of legal status and any improvements by residents themselves are regardedas high-risk investments owing to the lack of property rights and the threat of eviction withoutcompensation. Hence, in considering effective planning and management for climate changeaction in this context, the overarching land policy and legal climate in the city is paramount. Pro-poor enabling legislation and land regularization instruments are critical components of a citysagenda on climate change.

The rise in extreme weather events associated with climate change places major cities,particularly those located in coastal areas, in particularly vulnerable conditions. Global increasesin natural disasters associated with climate change have shown that the nature of disasters incities have becomes more multifaceted, and so must the approach to their management. Theseemerging climate change risks create new vulnerabilities for cities. Urban health is particularlythreatened under conditions of urban poverty. When basic infrastructure is inadequate, poorsanitation and drainage and impure drinking water aid in the transmission of infectious diseases,which puts poor urban households at high risk. Flooding causes infrastructure strain in any citybut in poorer cities, sanitation is even more affected. Flooding often damages pit latrines (mostcommon in Asian and African cities) and floodwaters are thus contaminated by the overflowfrom pit latrines and septic tanks with faecal material. This situation is worsened undercircumstances of higher densities in urban areas. Climate change vulnerabilities thus requiresound urban management and planning practices, and higher levels of investments ininfrastructure, together with better-prepared local governments.

Hazard mapping makes it now possible to classify lands in urban areas by the degree ofvulnerability to land-slides, storm floods, sea level change and other climate change impacts.Land identified as high-risk can then be zoned for zero construction or only for buildings of a


30/60

30

highly regulated and appropriate standard. While these regulatory steps might be obvious, theirimplementation is more difficult when high risks zones are already occupied, and different uses,densities and status of occupation exist. Poverty forces many people to settle in areas of high riskand return to hazard-prone land that have already been struck by climate change induced events.Planning decisions regarding densely populated high-risk zones are inevitably contentious, not to

mention costly if city governments need to expropriate with compensation.

Regulatory frameworks and compliance with the highest building standards for vulnerabilityreduction need to be introduced incrementally and target public buildings as a matter of priority.These include schools, hospitals and factories that pose risk to the environment if damagedduring a natural disaster. Improvements to existing housing stock on the other hand, need to bedealt with on a case-by-case basis and strike a balance among compliance, affordability andrelocation. This balance raises the critical issue and debate on how affordability and climateaction planning.

Indicators on per capita building energy consumption, on urban transport and urban density for

example can help to inform planners and city managers on policy at several scales. For example,at the regional scale, growth and transportation strategies shape major infrastructural investmentsthat impact decisions to drive or take transit. At the municipal scale, comprehensive developmentplans establish density targets that greatly impact the viability of transit service, district energysystems and efficient land use. At the neighbourhood scale, development guidelines promotingmixed-use communities enable opportunities to walk or cycle to meet daily needs, and at theparcel scale, appropriate building forms and orientation reduce heating and cooling loads.(Cavens, Condon, Kellett and Miller, 2008, 3).

Planning and management tools can help to address the critical link between emissions andurban form, particularly in terms of transportation and building energy consumption. Forexample official plans, development guidelines, development permits, densification plans, transitplanning and pricing building codes, and a number of other planning tools can help to addressGHG emissions in cities as climate change mitigation strategies. However, for effective planningthe need for spatial data that links GHG emissions with urban form and with city expansion anddevelopment is essential. This is also necessary for locally-relevant policy decisions and to buildsupport and understanding by the public (Cavens et al., 2008, 1).

Adaptation strategies have been implemented by a number of cities in order to reducevulnerabilities associated with climate change, mainly to protect citizens from heatwaves, floodsand droughts The following are examples of planning strategies that London and New York Cityhave introduced in order to address climate change.

The City of London has detailed three climate impacts in the London Climate ChangeAdaptation Strategy: heatwaves, floods and droughts, each considered as having both a high riskof consequence and vulnerability, as well as increasing probability.

The heatwave of 2003, during which 600 Londoners died, was a motivator in developing astrategy to adapt to and prepare for rising temperatures in the London area. Climate changescenarios have been developed by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research that


31/60

31

predict that London will see the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather, as well asa rise in the number of very hot summer days. As a result of this data, the mayor of Londonhas developed strategies to mitigate the effects of heatwaves. The mayor is undertaking anurban greening programme that will utilize green spaces, street trees and urban design to coolthe city. The mayor also intends to create an Urban Heat Island Action Area in which new

development will be used to offset the heat island effect. Facilitating access to cool buildings anddeveloping design guidelines for developers and architects are also elements of the key actionplan to manage Londons response to heatwaves (The City of London, 2008).

London is prone to tidal flooding from the sea, fluvial flooding from the Thames River, surfacewater flooding due to the inability of the drainage system to handle heavy rainfall, flooding fromsewers and flooding as a result of rising groundwater. Using maps of London that include areasat risk of tidal and fluvial floods and information from the Environmental Agency, the city ofLondon then determined that nearly 15 per cent of London is as risk from flooding. As a resultof this data, the mayor proposes the review of the London Strategic Flood Response Plan, as wellas improvement on the standard of flood risk management in partnership with the Environmental

Agency. The urban greening programme will also help reduce flooding as it will improve thepermeability of the urban landscape. With rising temperatures comes the possibility of drought,and with each Londoner consuming an average of 168 litres of water per day, the city of Londonis looking to promote and facilitate the reduction of leakage from water mains, compulsory watermetering, retrofitting of London homes as well as the encouragement of rainwater harvesting andgrey water recycling. The Mayor proposes publishing a Water Strategy and a Water ActionFramework that will achieve a sustainable water supply-demand balance (London ClimateChange Adaptation 2008).

A second example of a planning and management response to climate change that recognized thecore requirement of indicators to inform its plan is embodied in the New York City 2008 Plan -PlaNYC. Mayor Bloomberg convened the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC),which established a set of indicators through which climate change could be measured andprogress toward the goal to reduce carbon emissions by 30% by 2030 could be tracked. Theframework includes indicators such as mean annual temperatures, infrastructure damage fromclimate-related factors, combine sewer overflow events and extreme wind events. The NPCCshows that according to global climate models (GCM), mean temperatures are extremely likelyto rise by 1.5 to 3 degrees by the 2020s. Similarly, extreme weather is very likely to increase. 1-in-10 year floods are expected to increase to once every 1 to 3 years by the 2080s and droughtswhich occur on average ever 100 years are expected to occur once every 2 years (NPCC August2008). As a result, the NPCC concluded that a rise in temperature, precipitation and sea levelwould most likely result in increased strain on materials, increased flooding, reduction of waterquality and increased structural damage. New York City reports having planted more than174,189 trees, converted 91 schoolyards into playgrounds and launched 224 city governmentenergy efficient projects, among other developments (PlaNYC Progress Report 2009). By 2030,the plan aims to have reduced carbon emissions and therefore the strain on the environmentthrough its four-fold plan that includes avoiding sprawl, encouraging clean power, reducingenergy consumption in buildings, and enhancing sustainable transportation (PlaNYC Report2007).


32/60

32

The planning process undertaken in New York City is instructive, both in terms of identifyingthe link between indicators and governance, but also in terms of the institutional mechanismsemployed to implement the plan. For example, the city is dedicated to ensuring that vulnerablewaterfront neighborhoods are involved in the development of community-specific climatechange adaptation plans. A standardized process will be developed to engage community

members, broaden their awareness of potential climate change impacts, and develop solutionsthat acknowledge each neighborhoods unique building type, relationship with the waterfront,and forthcoming community plans (The City of New York, 2007).

A citywide cost-benefit strategic planning framework is also being created that will guide NYCsclimate change adaptation policy. Components of this planning framework include a ClimateChange Advisory Board made up of experts and government

01feb mccarney city indicator

Documents