Sistemas de Gobernanza y Vulnerabilidad Urbana en Ciudades Latinoamericanas

Congreso Mexicano de Investigación en Cambio climático

Patricia Romero-LankaoResilient and Sustainable Cities NCAR

México, Octubre 2011

Outline Mitigation & adaptation:

Entry points

Challenges

I. Research highlights from Resilient & Sustainable Cities

I. Processes of urban change

II. Socioeconomic drivers & mitigation

III. Determinants of vulnerability & adaptation

Valle Dorado y Chalco Sep. 2009 y 2010

Research highlights Resilient and Sustainable Cities

I. Processes of urban change

II. Socioeconomic drivers & mitigation

III. Determinants of vulnerability & adaptation

Valle Dorado y Chalco Sep. 2009 y 2010

Region Proportion of total population living in urban

areas (percent)

Urban population rate of change (percent change per

year)

2010 2020 2030 2010–2020

2020–2030

World total 50.5 54.4 59.0 1.81 1.6 North America 82.1 84.6 86.7 1.16 0.92 Sub-Saharan Africa 37.2 42.2 47.9 3.51 3.17 Asia/Pacific 41.4 46.5 52.3 2.2 1.88 Latin America and the Caribbean 79.6 82.6 84.9

1.29 0.94

I. Processes of Urban Change: Carbon and climate relevance

1. ScaleA five-fold increase of urban populations (1950-2011)

In 2003, 3 billion urban dwellers; by 2030, 5 billion

2. RateIn 1950 there were 75 cities 1-5 million people;

in 2011, 447;

By 2020, 527

3. Location Asia/Pacific and Africa

Small and medium cities (733 versus 15 large cities in 2000)

Challenges and opportunities

Romero-Lankao and Gnatz: 2011

Urban population projections, by region (2010–2020)

Research highlights Resilient and Sustainable Cities

I. Processes of urban change

II. Socioeconomic drivers & mitigation

III. Determinants of vulnerability & adaptation

Valle Dorado y Chalco Sep. 2009 y 2010

The wealthiest/largest cities don't necessarily have the largest carbon

footprints. Why?

Source: Romero Lankao (2008)

Bag

uio

Chi

ang

Mai

Oxf

ord

Dha

ka

San

Die

go

N.

Man

dela

Kol

kata

Bar

celo

na

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

a

Rio

de

Jane

iro

Aus

tin

Del

hi

São

Pau

lo

Dur

ban

Cap

e T

own

Joha

nnes

burg

Sto

khol

m

Tor

onto

Seo

ul

Lond

on

Mex

ico

City

Bei

jing

Sha

ngha

i

New

Yor

k C

ity

Tok

yo

Los

Ang

eles

0

50

100

150

200

250

Total carbon emissions by city

M of tonnes of CO2 e.

19.7 M. of people

10.8 M. of people

15.2 M. of people

18. M. of people

The wealthiest/largest cities don't necessarily have the largest carbon footprints. Why?

Baguio

Chia

ng M

ai

Kolk

ata

São P

aulo

Delh

i

Dhaka

Rio

de J

aneir

o

Barc

elo

na

Mexi

co C

ity

Seoul

Sto

kholm

N. M

andela

Tokyo

Johannesb

urg

Durb

an

London

Cape T

ow

n

Oxf

ord

Beijin

g

New

York

Cit

y

Shanghai

Toro

nto

San D

iego

Los

Angele

s D

istr

ict

of

Co-

lum

bia

Aust

in

0

5

10

15

20

25

Carbon emissions per capita

tonnes of CO2 equivalent

II. Multiple factors shape urban GHG emissions

• Poly-centric

• Mono-centric

Economic base and GDP per capita

Spatial structure (form) and population size/density (1% increase in urban density results in a 1.25% decrease in emissions)

Energy use intensity

Transportation mode share 1% increase in public transport results in a 0.15% decrease in emissions!

City’s latitude & energy endowments

Currently drafting a paper from a more ambitious effort: 225 cities

Multidisciplinary project

Database covering 84 cities

STIRPAT formula (instead of multiplicative IPAT)

Estimates elasticity of each driver

Tests four theories

Sources: Romero Lankao, Tribbia and Nychka (2009);

Bertaud (2009)

Climate Responses at the City Level

•Transport (56.8%)

•Waste (24.6%)

•Water (14.9%)

Mitigation(94.3%)

•Basin mgmt. (45.2%)

•Agriculture (30.5%)

•Monitoring (18.2%)

Adaptation(5.1%)

•Water culture

•Awareness raising

•Integrated waste mgmt.

Outreach(0.6%)

Example Climate Action Plan of DF (Budget 59,551.00 Millions of Mexican Pesos)

Many cities are already responding

Focus on mitigation

Climate related to local priorities (e.g., energy, air pollution)

A piecemeal approach

Inventory protocols (e.g., ICLEI)

limited information about

Individual and collective impact

Specially when responses go beyond

municipal buildings and infrastructure systems or

involve behavioural change Source: Romero-Lankao 2011 Journal of Urban European Planning (accepted)

Mitigation: four modes of governing at the urban level

•The most common

•Too much attention on the government itself may detract resources from the key emitters and broader mitigation challenges

Self-regulation

Enabling

• Provision of infrastructure and services holds a high potential where municipal governments owns or control infrastructure networks and where basic needs have been met

Provision

•Because of their targeted and enforceable nature, they can be very effective

•Yet these are also the least popular and therefore the most difficult to sustain politically

Regulation

Source: Romero-Lankao 2011 Journal of Urban European Planning (accepted)

• Relatively low upfront economic and political costs; transparency and legitimacy of urban governance• Restricted to those who are willing to participate, and cannot be enforced.

Research highlights Resilient and Sustainable Cities

I. Processes of urban change

II. Socioeconomic drivers & mitigation

III. Determinants of vulnerability & adaptation

Valle Dorado y Chalco Sep. 2009 y 2010

Source: A. de Sherbinin and Romero Lankao (2011).

The hazard risk of each city represents a cumulative score based on risk of cyclones, flooding, landslides and drought

Adaptation responses and urban vulnerability• Individuals, CBOs and authorities are

responding

• Yet, too few cities have developed coherent adaptation strategies, This is the result of

– International structure of incentives (focus on mitigation, e.g., CDM)

– local hindering factors: policy and governance frameworks; socio-environmental and cultural inertia

– Lack of detailed risk assessments

– Lack of understanding of how adaptation can be integrated into disaster risk reduction and development agenda (land use planning, water access, sanitation and housing)

Bogota and Mexico City

Source: Romero-Lankao 2011 Journal of Urban European Planning (accepted)

Mega-basin of Mexico City:Long term changes to climate-hydrological conditions

• Climate relevant to local hydrology

• Alternation of wet years/floods with drought episodes

• Water system induced • Profound transformation of

basins’ hydrological cycle

• High levels of energy consumption and GHG

• Negative impacts on livelihoods in basins providing and receiving water

Electricity used to pump water from Cutzamala equivalent to the energy consumed by city of Puebla (5 mill)Romero Lankao 2010;

Romero Lankao and Günther (2011 accepted)

Long term: State-centered system of water management and use

• Top-down decision making

• Fragmented institutional structures and participation

• Paradox: abundant water, yet “2nd order scarcity”

• Unequal access to/payment for services

• Negative health implications of pollution & poor quality water sanitation

• Subsidence

• Propensity to flood

Subsidence

Water for the wealthy; Water for the poor

65%6%

3%

6%

5%6%

8%

1%

0%

Flood

Frost

Heat-w ave

Storm

Rain

Hail-storm

Wild-f ire

Drought

Cold-w ave

Hydro-meteorological Events Resulting in Disasters (1980-2006)

Romero Lankao 2010; Romero Lankao and Günther (2011 accepted)

Precipitation and social vulnerabilityrain intensity (20+ mm/½ hr event), 1979-2003

Graizbord 2010

ADAPTE: segunda etapa

El cuestionario contempló 66 preguntas organizadas en siete secciones:

I datos demográficos;

II datos del hogar;

III educación;

IV entorno del hogar, activos y bienes;

V experiencia con riesgos ambientales y sociales;

VI recursos y opciones de adaptación a riesgos ambientales y climáticos;

VII estrategias para enfrentar amenazas, sección

Vulnerabilidad urbana: desde las ciudades

 

Fuente: ADAPTE 2011

Eventos ambientales más importantes en las cuatro ciudades

Vulnerabilidad urbana: una mirada local (Xochimilco)

0

5

10

15

20 olas de calor

clima extremadamente frío

altos niveles de contaminación de aire

lluvia extrema

sequía extremaEventos ambientales más importantes

02468

10121416 olas de calor

clima extremadamente frío

altos niveles de contaminación de airelluvia extrema

sequía extrema

vientos fuertesPérdida, daños, enfermedad, etc., resultantes de

 

Fuente: ADAPTE 2011

65%6%

3%

6%

5%6%

8%

1%

0%

Flood

Frost

Heat-w ave

Storm

Rain

Hail-storm

Wild-f ire

Drought

Cold-w ave

Desastres en la ciudad (1980-2006)

Fuente: Romero Lankao (2010) con informacion de La Red

0

5

10

15

20

25 olas de calor

clima extremadamente fríoaltos niveles de contaminación de airelluvia extrema

sequía extrema

vientos fuertes

ninguno

¿Para cuál de los siguientes eventos cuenta su barrio con

un sistema de respuesta temprana?

Fuente: ADAPTE 2011

02468

1012141618

periódico

TV

Internet

radio

vecinos o familiares

ninguno

¿Cuáles de los siguientes medios usa para

informarse sobre estas emergencias? 

Three sets of options

• Develop communities’ capacities to anticipate and respond (e.g., emergency responses)

• Address the underlying processes of socio-environmental deterioration that reduce cities’ ability to attenuate hazard impacts

• Engage with the socioeconomic and institutional factors underlying poverty and social exclusion that contribute to differentiated capacities to adapt (e.g., access to land and housing)

Xochimilco from Mexico City’s South

Thank you!RS-Cities

Exploring key intersections between urban development and environment

http://www.ral.ucar.edu/csap/themes/rs-cities.php