Download Engaging Science and Managing Scientific Uncertainty in Urban

13 Engaging science and
managing scientific
uncertainty in urban climate
adaptation planning
JoAnn Carmin and David Dodman
Introduction
As climate change intensifies, it is expected that urban areas will need to navigate
a host of challenges associated with greater variability in temperature and
precipitation as well as increases in the intensity of storms and incidence of natural
disasters. Conditions such as these have the potential to overwhelm infrastructure,
threaten urban plant and animal life, alter the habitability of many buildings, and
stress existing infrastructure, emergency services, social services, and management
systems in urban areas (Adger et al. 2003; Satterthwaite et al. 2007; Dodman and
Satterthwaite 2008; Gasper et al. 2011). Already, more than half of the global
population is living in urban areas and, between 2011 and 2050, the number
of people residing in cities is expected to increase from 3.6 to approximately
6.3 billion (UN 2012). This means that, as climate conditions change over time,
most of the world’s population will be at risk from climate impacts with the most
vulnerable populations encountering the greatest housing, health, and livelihood
hardships (Satterthwaite et al. 2007; Dodman and Satterthwaite 2008).
Minimizing the impacts that climate change will have on cities and their
inhabitants requires that urban municipalities take steps to address the risks they
face. To manage the threats associated with climate change, a widely held view
is that urban adaptation planning and action should be predicated on locally
conducted assessments rooted in scientific evidence. However, there is also
widespread recognition that climate science cannot provide certainty about future
conditions and that the best way to plan for climate impacts and identify appropriate measures is still an emerging area of knowledge (Morgan and Carnegie
Mellon 2011; Yohe and Oppenheimer 2011; NRC 2010a,b). These challenges
are not unique to the arena of climate change adaptation. Many policy decisions
at urban and national levels have to be taken based on uncertain knowledge
(Christensen 1985; Hallegatte 2009). Nonetheless, dealing with uncertainty is
of particular importance to urban adaptation given the emerging awareness that
climate change will be a major force shaping the economies and societies within
cities in coming decades (Brugmann 2012).
Despite the importance of preparing for climate impacts, urban adaptation is
a new and emerging domain of policy action, one in which the initiatives in
Book 1.indb 220
08/02/2013 11:37
Science and uncertainty in urban adaptation 221
most cities are still in the early phases of development (Carmin et al. 2012b).
Since our knowledge of urban adaptation is evolving and cities are rapidly
changing, particularly in Africa and Asia, we do not apply a definition of success
to initiatives, either in general or with regard to specific aspects of planning and
implementation. Instead, we take an inductive approach and draw on the results
of focus groups held with individuals leading adaptation planning and related
initiatives in cities around the world in order to identify attributes of success.
Specifically, we assess how these individuals use scientific data, manage the
inherent uncertainty of this data while seeking to achieve urban resilience, and
balance science and uncertainty in the selection of particular adaptation strategies
and action. The findings from the focus groups suggest that cities moving forward
with adaptation appreciate the fluid nature of scientific inquiry and use the best
science as a basis for political and policy decisions as well as to guide the adoption
of specific adaptation measures. In other words, cities that successfully engage
climate change science are not immobilized by the lack of certainty. Instead, they
take advantage of the data that are available and, at the same time, they are
cautious, often taking incremental action that limits financial expenditures and
the potential of significant mistakes. They also recognize that the reduction of
vulnerability may require broader interventions to reduce the sensitivity and
increase the adaptive capacity of individuals, households and communities,
actions that are less reliant on detailed knowledge of future climate impacts.
This requires that cities view adaptation as an opportunity for strategic planning
and for experimentation and innovation.
Cities, climate science, and uncertainty
Climate science attempts to understand and predict the changes that will take
place as a result of increased greenhouse gas emissions. At a minimum, this
includes projections of changes in temperature and precipitation, patterns and
rates of glacial melt, and variations in sea level (IPCC 2007). Increasingly, these
projections are being downscaled to the regional level. While some cities use
more generalized scenarios (Birkmann et al. 2010), many use these regional
scenarios to understand what types of changes they can expect will take place
and how these changes will affect municipal service provision, the built
environment, ecosystems and biodiversity, economic stability, and quality of life
for residents in their urban areas. For instance, higher temperatures can damage
buildings and infrastructure and reduce air quality. Increases in precipitation can
disrupt transport and lead to flooding and mudslides, while decreases in precipitation can result in water shortages for households and businesses (Wilbanks et al.
2007; UN Habitat 2011). Taken together, these and other climate impacts can
result in significant challenges and expenditures for local governments and
populations (Parry et al. 2009).
Preparing for the impacts of climate change requires that cities develop plans
and implement adaptation programs. However, since urban adaptation is a nascent
policy domain, there are an increasing number of programs and guidebooks but
Book 1.indb 221
08/02/2013 11:37
222
JoAnn Carmin and David Dodman
no established best practices or norms for planning and implementation they
can follow (Anguelovski and Carmin 2011). Nonetheless, some cities have begun
to acknowledge the importance of preparing for climate impacts and initiated
planning, either for the entire urban area or for specific departments or sectors
(Preston et al. 2010; Carmin et al. 2012b). For some cities, it is the realization of
being vulnerable that compels them to take action, while, for others, it is the
recognition that adaptation is a means to advancing local goals and priorities, such
as sustainability or economic development (Carmin et al. 2012a).
The prevailing view of many scholars and international organizations providing
advice to cities is that achieving success in adaptation requires rooting adaptation
initiatives in scientific assessments that identify how the climate is projected to
change and the likely impacts these changes will have on an urban area (Mehrotra
et al. 2012; ICLEI/CSES 2007; World Bank 2010; UN Habitat 2011). For example,
Mehrotra et al. maintain that researchers need to ensure the availability of climate
science in order to “trigger a realistic assessment of vulnerability of the city and
its systems so as to facilitate the development of pragmatic strategies” (2011: 20).
The emphasis on establishing a scientific basis for action is also advanced in
professional guidebooks and frameworks, such as those prepared by the World
Bank (2010, 2011) and ICLEI-CSES (2007). Although cities are following a
variety of trajectories in their planning, including with respect to the timing
and approach to assessments, the advice provided to cities by many international
and intergovernmental organizations is that they should create a foundation for
their adaptation efforts by obtaining climate data that projects expected changes
and assessing the impacts of anticipated change through models and scenarios.
Two basic approaches to assessments have emerged: hazard-based and
vulnerability-based approaches (Burton et al. 2005; Füssel 2007). The hazardbased approach, also referred to as the risk-based approach, typically draws on
scientific models to identify anticipated changes in the climate system (Füssel
2007). These changes are then examined with respect to how they will be
experienced in the city. When projected changes are assessed in the context of a
city, the hazard-based approach enables the development of scenarios and
evaluation of how climate change will affect a local area (Romero Lankao and
Qin 2011). Alternatively, the vulnerability-based approach evaluates climate
change in the context of current stresses, placing an emphasis on the social factors
associated with exposure, sensitivity, and coping capacity. Inherent in this
approach is recognition that the nature of climate risk is shaped by the development
context (Ayers and Dodman 2010), that climate vulnerability is linked to both
development patterns and government failure (Romero Lankao and Qin 2011),
that reducing vulnerability requires reducing the sensitivity of social and economic
systems and increasing the adaptive capacity of households and communities, and
that good (or sustainable) development often leads to strengthening of adaptive
capacity (Huq and Ayers 2008). Although both of these approaches are being
adopted, the legitimacy of science and scientific evidence has led many urban
adaptation practitioners to view the hazard-based approach as an essential aspect
of developing an adaptation program.
Book 1.indb 222
08/02/2013 11:37
Science and uncertainty in urban adaptation 223
Scientific evidence plays a critical role in defining and legitimating policy
initiatives from the local to the global. In adaptation, assessments contribute to
success since they provide information to decision-makers about future conditions
with the goal of reducing risk and vulnerability. From a practical standpoint,
assessments facilitate the selection of adaptation options that can contribute to
adaptive capacity (Hay and Mimura 2006; Romero Lankao and Qin 2011). For
example, Chicago identified extreme heat and precipitation, infrastructure
damage, and ecosystem degradation as major issues that would affect the city as
a result of climate change (Coffee et al. 2010), while London’s adaptation strategy
focuses on flooding, drought, and overheating (Greater London Authority 2010).
Using assessments as a foundation, both cities identified a wide range of actions
they could take to reduce vulnerability and then pared back their options based on
what they could feasibly achieve given cost, time, and implementation-related
issues. This resulted in a focused set of measures that could be readily achieved,
such as planting trees where they could reduce heat island effect and amendments
to the air ordinance to protect air quality as temperatures increased.
The emphasis placed on using assessments based on climate science as a
foundation for adaptation planning and action is aligned with the rational
perspective, which is predicated on the assumption that scientific data and findings
will guide decision-makers in selecting the best possible course of action.
However, there are three critical limitations to this point of view with respect to
urban adaptation. First, this perspective ignores the fact that scientific analyses,
including the results of assessments, are themselves the product of social and
political processes. These influences, including the knowledge base of the
stakeholders involved in the process, shape both the types of assessments
conducted and the findings that are produced (Tierney 1999; Jasanoff and Martello
2004; Clark et al. 2006). Second, the findings of assessments often are used as a
basis for advancing political and organizational agendas. For instance, when
results diverge from the preferences or aims of decision-makers, they may be
compelled to change their option or they may challenge the methods or the
findings (Clark et al. 2006; Farrell et al. 2006). Third, although science often is
envisioned as producing unbiased and irrefutable results, all scientific endeavors
are an emerging process of knowledge acquisition: that is, knowledge is
constructed via social interaction even as it influences and interacts with individual
and organizational beliefs and actions. While many scholars and practitioners are
focusing on how to design assessment processes that cities can adopt, as is the
case with science in general, the estimations used in these and other types of urban
climate assessments are inherently social and uncertain.
The uncertainty in most climate assessments is due to the reliance on estimates
of future emissions derived from a range of socioeconomic development scenarios,
with additional uncertainty arising from the way in which the climate system itself
will respond to these potential concentrations (Mastrandrea et al. 2010; van
Vuuren et al. 2011). Since the future is uncertain, and since methods and models
are continually refined, the science provides a high level of confidence in largescale future trends and outcomes, but remains unable to give precise predictions
Book 1.indb 223
08/02/2013 11:37
224
JoAnn Carmin and David Dodman
at local levels. Of further importance to cities, global models cannot yet estimate
regional patterns with a high degree of confidence and efforts to develop models
at the city and neighborhood scale are still under development (Mastrandrea et al.
2010; Oreskes et al. 2010). This means that the results of assessments and
scenarios are far from precise, generating results contingent on the methodology
employed (Mastrandrea et al. 2010) and producing projections based on data that
are not specific to the urban scale of action (Oreskes et al. 2010). These can be
further complicated by the local effects of urbanization on weather and climate,
including the urban heat island, which are also difficult to model with precision.
Planners and politicians do not have the luxury of waiting for the science to be
perfected as they are under increasing pressure from their constituencies to
account for potential climate impacts in their decisions and actions. Further, not
all cities generate local data that can support climate assessments or have the
capacity to pay for services to provide locally specific analyses. In situations such
as these, which are not uncommon in policy and planning, decision-makers often
will acknowledge existing limitations and then proceed with caution (Reckhow
1994). One approach to limit exposure, for instance, is to focus on measures that
have co-benefits and limited costs (Reckhow 1994; Hallegatte 2009). To some
extent, this may reflect why many cities are adopting low-risk and “no-regrets”
measures that produce benefits under all climate scenarios (Bulkeley 2001;
Preston et al. 2010) or finding ways to integrate adaptation into ongoing activities
and existing policies and plans (Carmin et al. 2012a). In keeping with principles
of adaptive management (Holling 1978), a second approach reflecting caution is
to take incremental action and then learn from these efforts. In urban and
environmental planning, this often takes the form of testing ideas through
a process of trial and error and then using the lessons learned as a basis for
subsequent action (Bruton et al. 2005). Incrementalism also reinforces the view
that in highly uncertain contexts such as climate change there is a need for
decision-makers and planners to adopt flexible measures and modes of action
(Hallegatte 2009; Hunt and Watkiss 2011).
The successful use of science and management
of uncertainty
Previous research suggests that science can be used successfully to lend credibility and provide political leverage to decisions and actions, while uncertainty can
be managed by limiting exposure and engaging in cautious forms of action
(Reckhow 1994; Hallegatte 2009; Bulkeley 2001; Preston et al. 2010). While
these insights apply to policy and planning in general, the specific ways in which
cities successfully use climate data and manage the inherent uncertainty of these
data in their adaptation initiatives has not been examined.
To understand what constitutes successful uses of science and management of
scientific uncertainty in urban adaptation planning, focus groups were conducted
with practitioners who are leading adaptation initiatives in 14 cities in North
America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. These individuals offer
Book 1.indb 224
08/02/2013 11:37
Science and uncertainty in urban adaptation 225
considered perspectives on what actions are appropriate, effective, and reflective
of the overall planning process since they have initiated or are integral to the
activities taking place in their cities. The focus groups took place over three days
and were organized around large and small group sessions. The sessions covered
a variety of topics, including discussions of assessments, the role of science, and
the ways in which uncertainty were managed. All of the sessions were recorded
and the recordings were then transcribed. Using grounded theory techniques
(Corbin and Strauss 1998), the transcripts were coded to identify emergent themes.
This thematic analysis forms the basis for the sections that follow, which illustrate
how urban adaptation practitioners are using science and managing uncertainty in
their adaptation programs.1
Using science in urban adaptation
One way in which urban adaptation leaders engage scientific data and analysis
is through the use of climate change projections. Some cities rely on national
assessments, while others use regional assessments as a means to understand
potential impacts, for example from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and its Regional Integrated Sciences & Assessments
(RISA) program in the United States, or the United Kingdom’s Climate Impacts
Programme (UKCIP). For example, Boston used a regional report prepared by the
Union of Concerned Scientists on climate impacts in the northeast United States
as a framework for planning, while London’s approach was based on national
information from the UKCIP. When scientific data are not available, or when
there is a desire to generate additional specific and detailed information, some
cities commission or conduct dedicated assessments. For instance, as highlighted
by participants in the focus groups, in the initial phase of their adaptation planning
process, Durban hired a consultant to develop models and evaluate projected
climate impacts in the city. While this involved using some regional data, through
this process they were able to focus on localized impacts resulting from sea-level
rise and changes in temperature and precipitation. Seattle also has considered
impacts in a range of sectors, although the initial stages of the planning effort
focused on water. This involved developing projections based on global climate
models to assess impacts on drainage and how changes in demand would impact
the water supply. This work was extended to sea-level rise. Within the water
sector, the city subsequently has been assessing the ways that climate change will
affect water quality and the risk of fires in forested watersheds (Focus Group
2011a: 9).
Variation may be present in the scope and types of data used in assessments,
but cities consistently are drawing on climate science when it is available to
ensure that they have an understanding of projected changes and climate impacts.
Forging partnerships with universities and research institutes, and maintaining a
dialogue, enables cities to extend their capacity for adaptation planning by
ensuring that they have current information and locally relevant analyses. This
information, in turn, is being used to shape planning initiatives, including in
Book 1.indb 225
08/02/2013 11:37
226
JoAnn Carmin and David Dodman
establishing priorities and identifying adaptation measures. This point was
highlighted by one focus group participant who noted:
I do think the engagement in science is really important, and I think it can
really set the parameters, and constrain the policy and managerial options
going forward. So I think it’s really important to have that engagement and
understand the science, particularly as it’s applied at a local level.
(Focus Group 2011f: 11)
Toronto provides an example of how assessments shaped action. In their evaluation
of high-rise, public housing, they found that many units were reaching dangerous
temperatures in the summer. Given that many families could not afford air
conditioning, they were vulnerable to heat stress. In addition to expanding cooling
centers, this program also led to programs targeting energy and building retrofits
and renovations in order to conserve heat in the winter and disperse heat during
the summer (Focus Group 2011d: 30). A further example is Copenhagen, where
projections indicated higher rainfall. The city evaluated a number of options and
elected to pursue cost-effective measures, including reuse of excess water and the
construction of small creeks that would transport water out of the city to offset
stress on the municipal sewer system (Focus Group 2011a: 3).
Climate science, along with projections of the impacts that climate change is
expected to have on urban areas, have been used by departmental representatives
and adaptation champions to provide a rationale for action and engender political
support for action. Because models and estimations based on data were respected
and trusted by these city leaders, they also provided elected officials and political
decision-makers with a level of comfort and confidence in pursuing adaptation.
For instance, the report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists captured
the attention of Boston’s mayor, resulting in his support for initiating adaptation
planning in the city (Focus Group 2011a: 24). Alternatively, in Copenhagen, risk
maps derived from scientific data helped politicians visualize locations where
threats exist and fostered their commitment to an adaptation program (Focus
Group 2011a: 6) (see also Chapter 16).
Beyond generating support for adaptation programs in general, scientific data
has been used to guide specific decisions related to the investment of scarce
resources, or the selection of actions by individuals and organizations. In Durban,
for example, scientific projections forecast a 15 per cent increase in stormwater
runoff, which led to a change in policy requiring that infrastructure be designed to
accommodate this increase. Even where local governments and elected officials
do not view adaptation as a priority, scientific analyses and projections have been
used to legitimate and leverage action:
Although there’s no political support, because the science is so heavily
weighted in our favor, I’ve still been able to maneuver . . . And so, if
the science is bulletproof, does that provide particular kind of tool that can
be leveraged to achieve particular kinds of change? Perhaps in terms of
Book 1.indb 226
08/02/2013 11:37
Science and uncertainty in urban adaptation 227
political or social capital, the ways in which the political game is played. It
means there is the potential to lean on people and lean on institutions to
achieve goals.
(Focus Group 2011g: 6)
By providing evidence that is viewed as credible about the impacts of climate
change, scientific models and data reinforce the need for adaptation and support
proposals from municipal departments and adaptation champions for specific
actions. However, as one representative commented, “politics can overturn the
importance of science . . . your arguments along risk really depend on the type of
institutions and politics you have in place” (Focus Group 2011c: 8).
Managing uncertainty in urban adaptation
Climate science is providing useful data points and lending credibility to decisions
in urban areas. However, adaptation leaders acknowledge that “the climate science
information we have isn’t perfect” (Focus Group 2011b: 20), and that “[it] simply
doesn’t provide the silver bullet I think we hoped it would in terms of ultimate
answers” (Focus Group 2011c: 7). Although scientific uncertainty permeates all
aspects of adaptation activities, many of the focus group participants have
responded creatively and explored new ways they can compensate in order to
develop robust planning programs and adaptation initiatives. Indeed, these are the
approaches that have resulted in these cities and city officials being recognized as
leaders and pioneers in adaptation. In addition, many of the cities represented in
these discussions appreciate the need to routinely update their projections and
analyses:
We emphasized the need of using the best of available science and see science
as in constant evolution, too. We are aware of the need of doing assessments
periodically and to revise assessments. It’s not that we have one vulnerability
assessment in 2011 and then we never do it again.
(Focus Group 2011c: 6)
Many cities at the meeting noted that they have strong ties to the scientific and
academic communities. Importantly, they are not unique among those pursuing
adaptation: a recent survey of urban adaptation activities worldwide suggests that
48 per cent of cities interact with local universities, and 20 per cent engage with
research institutes in the course of their adaptation planning (Carmin 2012).
However, the need for updated science and information is creating a new basis for
ongoing exchanges and working relationships to be established:
You can start with baseline projections and then start a dialogue saying,
“Well, these are interesting, but what the electricity company cares about is
average temperature and precipitation projections. Or, what the electricity
company cares about is the number of days above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. And
Book 1.indb 227
08/02/2013 11:37
228
JoAnn Carmin and David Dodman
so, we’d like the data retranslated into these metrics.” . . . When you can
structure a process so that it’s iterative, and really a dialogue between the
science community and the user community, you end up getting a better
product, in the end.
(Focus Group 2011e: 5)
Professional norms in many planning-related disciplines such as engineering tend
to emphasize certainty, data precision, and expertise. On the one hand, adherence
to norms can present obstacles when dealing with a situation that is continually in
flux and is rife with uncertainty. On the other hand, the willingness to acknowledge
professional limits in this situation can serve as a catalyst for working across
disciplines to solve problems and achieve more successful adaptation programs:
There’s a legacy of engineers and others being trained to design to fixed
points, rather than the uncertainty. So we’ve got that legacy that we need to
overcome almost, and start training in different ways so that people build in
flexibility to their decisions, and that’s where the cross-sectoral working also
comes in, because to build in that flexibility, it won’t necessarily be just met
by your discipline. It’s going to be met across disciplines.
(Focus Group 2011f: 24)
This same principle applies to working across different urban sectors in order to
design flexible interventions. For instance, given the significant expenditures,
stormwater infrastructure is expected to have a lifespan of 20 to 50 years and
typically is in place for much longer. Engineers can amend specifications, such as
by increasing the width of the pipe, to account for anticipated climate impacts.
However, this is a temporary and costly solution since projections generally are
valid only for a short portion of the potential lifespan of the investment. Working
across sectors and disciplines can provide an alternative approach. In addition to
building a pipe to a size that accommodates projected runoff, additional increases
in precipitation levels obtained through ongoing analyses can be managed through
interventions such as household and municipal-level measures to reduce the flow
of water into sewer systems as well as green stormwater infrastructure (Focus
Group 2011f: 25). Relying on expensive and comprehensive approaches to solve
an uncertain problem might result in undesired outcomes. In contrast, as this
example suggests, incremental approaches provide greater flexibility to adjust and
respond to new conditions over time.
In addition to uncertainty around the type and extent of climatic change that
will occur in a given location, there is also uncertainty in relation to the types of
interventions that are most appropriate to reduce impacts. Because adaptation is a
nascent policy arena, some pioneering cities are exploring and testing new ideas
in an iterative manner as they move forward in their adaptation programs:
All the uncertainty that surrounds not only impacts, but also responses and
effectiveness of the solutions, is that what makes that interesting . . . we have
Book 1.indb 228
08/02/2013 11:37
Science and uncertainty in urban adaptation 229
to learn by doing, and while doing because we have to act now. And I think
that gives people a lot of opportunities to innovate and to create.
(Focus Group 2011a: 18)
These innovative processes can include technical measures as well as new
institutional mechanisms for coordination, such as Quito’s creation of an interinstitutional committee for the metropolitan area that includes high-level committee
representatives as well as academic and citizen counterparts to this committee.
Examples of these types of committees are not limited to cities represented in the
focus group. For instance, New York and Chicago relied on multi-stakeholder
committees and panels to provide input and advisement on a range of aspects of the
adaptation planning process (Coffee et al. 2010; Rosenzweig and Solecki 2010).
Conclusion
Cities initiating adaptation plans and programs have recognized the need for
action and taken steps to address this need in the absence of scientific certainty
about the scope of climate change and magnitude of impacts. Despite facing
a range of challenges, those represented in the focus groups all have moved
forward with adaptation planning and, in the process of their discussions, deepen
our understanding of how science can be engaged and scientific uncertainty can
be managed. For these cities, scientific information is being used to achieve three
critical objectives. First, scientific data obtained through assessments have been
used as a basis for gaining insight into projected climate impacts and, in turn,
establishing the need for action. Second, the scientific evidence available has
provided them with a means for setting priorities and identifying what measures
are appropriate for building adaptive capacity. Third, the legitimacy of science is
recognized as a means for generating support by decision-makers and by the
general public. As a result, adaptation leaders use science as a discursive and
symbolic tool to attract interest and commitment from political decision-makers
and to communicate the importance of policies and investments as well as to
justify their adaptation-related activities.
Rather than adopting the posture that science is perfect, or being immobilized
by its imperfections, the cities that participated in the focus groups are recognizing
and compensating for uncertainty in their adaptation programs and moving
forward in flexible and creative ways. While science remains influential, and
some seek definitive models and precise metrics so they can plan for future
conditions with greater confidence, many of those gathered understand the limits
to the scientific projections that are available. In these latter instances, city leaders
obtain the best scientific analyses available to them while finding ways to
compensate for limitations they know are present. As suggested by scholars (e.g.
Holling 1978; Reckhow 1994; Hallegatte 2009), in uncertain conditions, actions
and initiatives tend to be cautious and flexible. In keeping with this perspective,
many of the measures cities are pursuing are incremental. Using the science they
have available, city representatives test ideas and then evaluate the outcomes, all
Book 1.indb 229
08/02/2013 11:37
230
JoAnn Carmin and David Dodman
the while moving forward with contingency plans in mind. In addition, many of
these approaches also are initiated with the understanding that as information is
obtained and conditions change it will be necessary to refine their plans. This
often means accounting for the complementarity of structural and non-structural
measures at the outset and then anticipating that these will be phased in as a
response to changes that take place over time. These approaches help limit costs
in the short term while ensuring flexibility in the long term. In addition, because
of the presence of uncertainty, cities are working across sectors and initiating
partnerships with diverse stakeholders as a means for gaining input about current
and anticipated conditions.
The emerging qualities and processes associated with adaptation planning, as
reflected in the patterns revealed in the course of the focus groups, offer insights
into the ways in which cities are successfully using science and dealing with scientific uncertainty when designing and advancing adaptation programs. Science,
as reflected in assessments, provides a foundation that is used to guide action and
to enlist support of politicians. Uncertainty often is thought of in negative terms.
However, scientific uncertainty is leading cities to develop incremental and flexible programs that, in many ways, are aligned with the principles of adaptive
management. In particular, they are cautious in their approaches, being sure
to limit their financial exposure and to select adaptation options that combine
structural and nonstructural approaches.
As city governments plan for the future, and attempt to address vulnerabilities
and reduce risks to local residents, assets, and economies, they need to account for
climate change. This requires moving forward in conditions of scientific
uncertainty. The findings suggest that cities can initiate action using regional
assessments, evaluating the data in light of local changes and local goals. They
also show that incremental and flexible planning can be used to offset some of the
scientific uncertainty that is inherent in climate predictions. At the same time, city
authorities could perhaps pay more attention to strategies that reduce vulnerability
through engaging with the sensitivity and increasing the adaptive capacity of
particular groups within the city – interventions which are less dependent on
predictions of future exposure to climate risk. While more refined scientific
models and data would foster greater certainty in making adaptation decisions at
the city scale, the findings suggest that drawing on the data that are currently
available, along with a reliance on incremental action, flexible measures, and a
willingness to be creative and innovative, provides cities with a foundation for
initiating and sustaining adaptation planning at the present time.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the organizations that supported this research. The meeting of
adaptation leaders was hosted at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Study and
Conference Center. Travel was funded by the US National Science Foundation –
NSF (Grant #0926349), Institute of International Education (IIE), and International
Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Data collection and analysis
Book 1.indb 230
08/02/2013 11:37
Science and uncertainty in urban adaptation 231
were funded by NSF. In addition, we thank Cristina Rumbaitis del Rio and Shuaib
Lwasa for their help facilitating the meeting, Eric Chu for assisting with meeting
coordination and data analysis, and Toddi Steelman and Stacy D. VanDeveer for
suggestions on earlier drafts of the chapter.
Note
1 The ideas presented in the subsections that follow are based on group discussions and
therefore not attributable to individuals. While quotations represent individual comments,
both general points and quotes are referenced by their position in the focus group
transcripts in order to reflect collective views as well as to maintain the confidentiality of
participants.
Bibliography
Adger, W.N., Paavola, J., Huq, S. and Mace, M.J. (eds) (2003) Fairness in Adaptation to
Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Anguelovski, I. and Carmin, J. (2011) ‘Something borrowed, everything new: innovation
and institutionalization in urban climate governance’, Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 3(3): 169–175.
Ayers, J. and Dodman, D. (2010) ‘Climate change adaptation and development I: the state
of the debate’, Progress in Development Studies, 10(2): 161–168.
Birkmann, J., Garschagen, M., Kraas, F. and Quang, N. (2010) ‘Adaptive urban governance:
new challenges for the second generation of urban adaptation strategies to climate
change’, Sustainability Science, 5: 185–206.
Brugmann, J. (2012) ‘Financing the resilient city’, Environment and Urbanization, 24(1):
215–232.
Bruton, M., Bruton, S.G. and Li, Y. (2005) ‘Shenzhen: coping with uncertainties in
planning’, Habitat International, 29: 227–243.
Bulkeley, H. (2001) ‘No regrets? Economy and environment in Australia’s domestic
climate change policy process’, Global Environmental Change, 11: 155–169.
Burton, I., Malone, E., Huq, S., Lim, B. and Spanger-Siegfried, E. (2005) ‘Adaptation
policy frameworks for climate change: developing strategies, policies and measures’,
Climate Policy, 2: 145–149.
Carmin, J. (2012) ‘Progress and challenges in urban climate adaptation planning’, Keynote
address given at the Resilient Cities Congress, Bonn, Germany, 13 May.
Carmin, J., Anguelovski, I. and Roberts, D. (2012a) ‘Urban climate adaptation in the global
South: planning in an emerging policy domain’, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 32: 18–32.
Carmin, J., Nadkarni, N. and Rhie, C. (2012b) Progress and Challenges in Urban
Climate Adaptation Planning: Results of a Global Survey. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Christensen, K.A. (1985) ‘Coping with uncertainty in planning’, Journal of the American
Planning Association, 51: 63–73.
Clark, W.C., Mitchell, R.B. and Cash, D.W. (2006) ‘Evaluating the influence of global
environmental assessments’, in R.B. Mitchell, W.C. Clark, D.W. Cash and N.M.
Dickson (eds), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Book 1.indb 231
08/02/2013 11:37
232
JoAnn Carmin and David Dodman
Coffee, J.E., Parzen, J., Wagstaff, M. and Lewis, R.S. (2010) ‘Preparing for a changing
climate: the Chicago Climate Action Plan’s adaptation strategy’, Journal of Great
Lakes Research, 36: 115–117.
Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dodman, D. and Satterthwaite, D. (2008) ‘Institutional capacity, climate change adaptation
and the urban poor’, IDS Bulletin, 39: 67–74.
Farrell, A.E., Jäger, J. and VanDeveer, S.D. (2006) ‘Overview: understanding design
choices’, in A.E. Farrell and J. Jäger (eds), Assessments of Regional and Global
Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in
Decisionmaking. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Focus Group (2011a) Morning session 1, 20 April, Bellagio, Italy.
Focus Group (2011b) Afternoon session 1, 20 April, Bellagio, Italy.
Focus Group (2011c) Afternoon session 2, 20 April, Bellagio, Italy.
Focus Group (2011d) Morning session 1, 21 April, Bellagio, Italy.
Focus Group (2011e) Morning session 2, 21 April, Bellagio, Italy.
Focus Group (2011f) Afternoon session 1, 22 April, Bellagio, Italy.
Focus Group (2011g) Afternoon session 2, 22 April, Bellagio, Italy.
Füssel, H.M. (2007) ‘Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment
approaches, and key lessons’, Sustainability Science, 2: 265–275.
Gasper, R., Blohm, A. and Ruth, M. (2011) ‘Social and economic impacts of climate
change on the urban environment’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3:
150–157.
Greater London Authority (2010) The Draft Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for
London: Public Consultation Draft. London: Greater London Authority.
Hallegatte, S. (2009) ‘Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change,’ Global
Environmental Change, 19: 240–247.
Hay, J. and Mimura, N. (2006) ‘Supporting climate change vulnerability and adaptation
assessments in the Asia-Pacific region: an example of sustainability science’,
Sustainability Science, 1: 23–35.
Holling, C.S. (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York:
Wiley.
Hunt, A. and Watkiss, P. (2011) ‘Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review
of the literature’, Climatic Change, 104: 13–49.
Huq, S. and Ayers, J. (2008) ‘Streamlining adaptation to climate change into development
projects at the national and local level’, in European Parliament (2008), Financing
Climate Change Policies in Developing Countries, PE 408.546-IP/A/CLIP/A/CLIM/
ST/2008-13, Brussels: European Parliament.
ICLEI/CSES (Centre for Science in the Earth System) (2007) Preparing for Climate
Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments. Seattle, WA:
The Climate Impacts Group / King County, ICLEI–Local Governments for
Sustainability.
IPCC (2007) ‘Summary for policymakers’, in M. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van
der Linden, and C. Hanson (eds) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Jasanoff, S. and Martello, M.L. (2004) Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental
Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Book 1.indb 232
08/02/2013 11:37
Science and uncertainty in urban adaptation 233
Mastrandrea, M.D., Heller, N.E., Root, T.L. and Schneider, S.H. (2010) ‘Bridging the gap:
linking climate-impacts research with adaptation planning and management’, Climatic
Change, 100: 87–101.
Mehrotra S., Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W.D., Natenzon, C.E., Omojola, A., Folorunsho,
R. and Gilbride, J. (2011) ‘Cities, disasters, and climate risk’, in C. Rosenzweig, W.D.
Solecki, S.A. Hammer and S. Mehrotra (eds), Climate Change and Cities: First
Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Mehrotra, S., Natenzon, C., Omojola, A., Folorunsho, R., Gilbride, J. and Rosenzweig,
C. (2012) ‘Framework for city climate risk assessment’, in D. Hoornweg, M. Freire,
M.J. Lee, P. Bhada-Tata and B. Yuen (eds), Cities and Climate Change: Responding to
an Urgent Agenda. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Morgan, M. Granger and Carnegie Mellon (2011) ‘Certainty, uncertainty and climate
change’, Climatic Change, 108: 707–721.
NRC (National Research Council) (2010a) America’s Climate Choices: Advancing the
Science of Climate Change. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
—(2010b) America’s Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Oreskes, N., Stainforth, D.A. and Smith, L.A. (2010) ‘Adaptation to global warming: do
climate models tell us what we need to know?’, Philosophy of Science, 77:
1012–1028.
Parry, M., Arnell, N., Berry, P., Dodman, D., Fankhauser, S., Hope, C., Kovats, S., Nicholls,
R., Satterthwaite, D., Tiffin, R. and Wheeler, T. (2009) Assessing the Costs of Adaptation
to Climate Change: A Review of the UNFCCC and Other Recent Estimates. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development.
Preston, B., Westaway, R. and Yuen, E. (2010) ‘Climate adaptation planning in practice: an
evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations’, Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change, 16: 407–438.
Reckhow, K. (1994) ‘Importance of scientific uncertainty in decision making’,
Environmental Management, 18: 161–166.
Romero Lankao, P. and Qin, H. (2011) ‘Conceptualizing urban vulnerability to global
climate and environmental change’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
3: 142–149.
Rosenzweig, C. and Solecki, W. (2010) ‘New York City adaptation in context’, Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences, 1196: 19–28.
Satterthwaite, D., Huq, S., Pelling, M., Reid, H. and Romero Lankao, P. (2007) Adapting
to Climate Change in Urban Areas: The Possibilities and Constraints in Low- and
Middle-Income Nations. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development.
Tierney, K. (1999) ‘Towards a critical sociology of risk’, Sociological Forum, 14(2):
215–242.
UN (United Nations) (2012) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision, Highlights.
New York: United Nations.
UN Habitat (2011) Global Report on Human Settlements: Cities and Climate Change.
London: Earthscan.
van Vuuren, D., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K. and Weyant, J. (2011) ‘A special
issue on the RCPs’, Climatic Change, 109: 1–4.
Wilbanks, T., Romero Lankao, P., Bao, M., Berkhout, F., Cairncross, S., Ceron, J.P.,
Kapshe, M., Muir-Wood, R. and Zapata-Marti, R. (2007) ‘Industry, settlement and
Book 1.indb 233
08/02/2013 11:37
234
JoAnn Carmin and David Dodman
society’, in M. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden and C. Hanson (eds),
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
World Bank (2010) Climate Risks and Adaptation in Asian Coastal Megacities: A Synthesis
Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.
—(2011) Guide to Climate Adaptation in Cities. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Yohe, G. and Oppenheimer, M. (2011) ‘Evaluation, characterization, and communication
of uncertainty by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – an introductory
essay’, Climatic Change, 108: 629–639.
Book 1.indb 234
08/02/2013 11:37