Quay - adaptation - governance tool

This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries] On: 23 July 2011, At: 08:12 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the American Planning Association Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

Anticipatory Governance Ray Quay a

a

Decision Center for a Desert City. Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University

Available online: 25 Aug 2010

To cite this article: Ray Quay (2010): Anticipatory Governance, Journal of the American Planning Association, 76:4, 496-511 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2010.508428

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 496

496

Anticipatory Governance A Tool for Climate Change Adaptation

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

Ray Quay

Problem: Human and natural systems will probably have to adapt to climate change impacts, but this cannot be planned for using the traditional approach based on predictions because of the subject’s great complexity, its planning horizon more than 50 years away, and uncertainty about the future climate and how effectively CO2 emissions will be reduced.

Purpose: This article proposes a more appropriate basis for planning climate change adaptation. Anticipatory governance is a flexible decision framework that uses a wide range of possible futures to prepare for change and to guide current decisions toward maximizing future alternatives or minimizing future threats. Rather than trying to tame or ignore uncertainty, this approach explores uncertainty and its implications for current and future decision making.

Methods: I review and summarize the literature on anticipatory governance and provide three case studies to demonstrate its application to climate change planning.

Results and conclusions: Denver Water, New York City, and the City of Phoenix are all using scenarios to anticipate the range of global climate changes that may impact their communities and to develop adaptation strategies to address these impacts. Each is developing a decision framework for implementing adaptation strategies incrementally based on climate monitoring. An incremental

I

t is becoming evident that the traditional planning paradigm that I term “predict and plan” will not be adequate to address the highly complex and uncertain issue of climate change (Barben, Fisher, Selin, & Guston, 2007; Guston, 2007; Milly et al., 2008). Uncertainty, and the extended planning horizon that climate change calls for, will likely still exist at the time governance decisions are required. In response to this problem, a new approach is emerging in literature and practice. Anticipatory governance, a new model of decision making under high uncertainty based on concepts of foresight and flexibility, uses a wide range of possible futures to anticipate adaptation strategies, and then monitors change and uses these strategies to guide decision making (Chi, 2008; Fuerth, 2009; Quay, 2009). I review the approach minimizes the resources that must be allocated to address these risks and has allowed these cities to plan in spite of the high uncertainty associated with climate change science and social change.

Takeaway for practice: The complexity, uncertainty, and distant planning horizon associated with climate change cannot be managed sufficiently for the traditional predict-and-plan approach to yield good decisions about the significant social and capital investments likely to be required for adaptation. To be successful, social institutions must embrace new methods that explore uncertainty and that provide strategic guidance for current and future decisions.

Keywords: sustainability, adaptation, resiliency, anticipatory governance

Research support: None.

About the author: Ray Quay (ray.quay@asu.edu), FAICP, is a research professional at the Decision Center for a Desert City, Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University. He was previously an assistant director of the Water Services Department and assistant director of planning for the City of Phoenix, AZ. He has written several books and articles about urban planning, including Mastering Change (Planners Press, 1988), which he coauthored with Bruce McClendon. He is a doctoral candidate in the College of Design at Arizona State University.

Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 4, Autumn 2010 DOI 10.1080/01944363.2010.508428 © American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 497

Quay: Anticipatory Governance

emerging anticipatory governance literature and how it addresses planning under uncertainty. I then describe three cases in which cities are applying concepts of anticipatory governance to climate change adaptation planning.

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

Resilience, Sustainability, and Climate Change Adaptation Concepts important to adaptation are well rooted in theories of sustainability. Resiliency, the capacity of a system to absorb change or reorganize while retaining essential functions, has emerged in the literature as vital to the long-term sustainability of social-ecological systems (Folke et al., 2002; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Lambin, 2005; Voss, Bauknecht, & Kemp, 2006; Walker, Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004). Adaptability, the capacity of the actors in a social system to manage the system to successfully accommodate to change, has been identified as one of the major components of resiliency (Brooks, 2003; Brooks & Adger, 2004; Walker, Gunderson, et al., 2006; Walker, Holling, et al., 2004). Society’s ability to anticipate change and effect a response are often cited as the key factors in successful adaptation (Diamond, 2005; Easterling, Hurd, & Smith, 2004; Yohe & Tol, 2002).

Unfortunately, our ability to forecast the future is still limited (Brewer, 1983; Candau, 2000; Cox & Stephenson, 2007; Flyvbjerg, Holm, & Buhl, 2005; Lempert & Schlesinger, 2000; Pielke, Sarewitz, & Byerly, 2000; Sarewitz & Pielke, 2000; Stewart, 2000; Taleb, 2007; Waddell, Bhat, & Outwater, 2001) and social institutions continue to be unable to solve complex and uncertain problems like global climate change (Farmer, 1999; Popper, Lempert, & Bankes, 2005; Ringquist, Worsham, & Eisner, 2003; Rittel & Webber, 1973; Sarewitz, 2004; Storbjörk, 2007; van Bueren, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 2003; Wildavsky, 2006; Willson & Brown, 2008).

Planning for Climate Change Adaptation Climate change has been an international concern for several decades, but only lately has climate change planning become widespread in the United States, and most such planning efforts have been focused on the reduction of CO2 emissions, not adaptation (Donatantonio, 2009; Sheppard, Comrie, Packin, Angersbach, & Hughes, 2002; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009; Wheeler, 2008). While efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are laudable, how successful they will be is highly uncertain

497

(Willson Brown, 2008; Wheeler, 2009) and there is a growing concern that, regardless of the success of CO2 reduction strategies, some amount of global climate change is going to occur (Begley, 2007; Hauser et al., 2009; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2007). Thus, attention to climate change adaptation is as important as reducing CO2 emissions (Quay, 2009; Schipper, 2006).

Although the green movement of the past decade caused some of the focus on mitigation results (Cavendish, 2006; Makower, 2007; National Assocation of Home Builders, 2006; Walsh, 2007), the wicked nature of climate change (meaning its inevitability, the lack of agreement on its causes, uncertainty about its effects and their spatial and temporal distribution, the wide range of solutions, and the potentially extreme consequences of being wrong; Rittel & Webber, 1973) has stymied adaptation efforts (Lazarus, 2009). Current climate change discussions are based on the significant body of scientific research represented in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007). The climate change estimates in this report are based on the aggregation of 23 different global climate models run with different scenarios of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction that range from business as usual (no alteration is trends) to holding emissions at year 2000 levels.

The most frequently used emission scenarios are labeled in the IPCC report as the “constant composition commitment scenario,” referred to here as the baseline, representing holding emissions at year 2000 levels; B1, representing a high degree of success at reducing emissions; A1B, representing moderate success at reducing emissions; and A2, representing low success at reducing emissions (IPCC, 2007). The large variance in temperature and precipitation reported by the different models and emission scenarios represents the uncertainty about how natural climate systems will respond over time to a variety of factors and how successful social systems will be at reducing GHG emissions.

Local and regional assessments of climate change impacts use these results as inputs to other models for estimating impacts such as stream-flow changes and flooding, seaice and snowpack melting, and sea-level rise. These models also use as inputs the outputs from other models such as land cover and land use models. The result is a web of models that represents a wide range of disciplines and multiple spatial scales (Blanco et al., 2009). Each layer of models introduces more variance and uncertainty. These high levels of uncertainty, combined with a 100-year time frame, have so far prevented successful mitigation and adaptation (Camacho, 2009; Hallegatte, 2009; Patt, Klein, & de la Vega-Leinert, 2005; Popper et al., 2005),

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 498

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

498 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2010, Vol. 76, No. 4

and the traditional paradigm of predict and plan will likely not be adequate to overcome these hurdles (Barben et al., 2007; Guston, 2007; Milly et al., 2008).

“Predict and plan” is my own phrase to describe the current practice of physical urban and regional planning.

It has been my experience that most physical planning (including land use planning, transportation planning, and water and sewer planning) forecasts future trends or a future desired state and then identifies the infrastructure needed to serve or create this future. This approach has its roots in the early works of Chapin (1965) and Kent (1964), who both suggest that forecasts of population and employment drive physical plans. Kent (1964) went as far as to say “A so-called flexible plan is no plan at all” (p. 20). This approach is even more evident in transportation and water and sewer facility planning (Brevard, 1985; Dzurik, 1990; Prasifka, 1988). This approach worked when social and environmental systems were stable and predictable over short periods of time; however, when uncertainty and complexity are high this is not the case (Milly et al., 2008), making forecasting difficult.

Strategic planning and scenario planning have been used in city and regional planning to explore a range of uncertain futures (Envision Utah, n.d.; Hulse, Gregory, & Baker, 2002; Margerum, 2005; McClendon & Quay, 1988; Steinitz, et al., 2003). But strategic and scenario planning have not always been successful and have been subject to criticism. Atlanta's regional visioning effort in the early 1990s, VISION 2020, failed to develop an accepted regional growth strategy (Helling, 1998) and a regional visioning effort in Los Angeles failed to achieve a consensus (Maundry, 2009). Some researchers have criticized scenario planning for failing to explore the full range of possible futures (Bartholomew, 2007; O’Toole, 2008), attributing this in part to experts’ inability to speculate beyond their past experience (Bartholomew, 2007; Postma & Liebl, 2005) and policy analysts’ reluctance to explore the possibility of rare events (Taleb, 2007). Strategic and scenario planning have also been criticized for failing to produce significant effects on decision making (Phelps, Chan, & Kapsalis, 2001; Wack, 1985b). Even in cases in which scenario planning was considered successful, single scenarios may be selected for implementation, leaving communities vulnerable to the limitations of forecasting (Envision Utah, n.d.; McClendon & Quay, 1988).

Adaptation and Anticipatory Governance In its 2010 report, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate, the Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change

of the National Academy of Science suggests, “…[A]daptation to climate change calls for a new paradigm that takes into account a range of possible future climate conditions and associated changes in human and natural systems, instead of managing our resources based on previous experience and the historical range and variability of climate” (p. 3). Accordingly, anticipatory governance has emerged in the literature as a tool of scenario planning (Chi, 2008; Cole, 2001; Quay, 2009), adaptive management (Camacho, 2009), nanotechnology governance (Guston, 2007), and military adaptive capacity (Bankston & Key, 2006). Most of this literature is new, and the method itself is not yet well defined in theory or practice.

Fuerth (2009) describes anticipatory governance as “a system of institutions, rules and norms that provide a way to use foresight for the purpose of reducing risk, and to increase capacity to respond to events at early rather than later stages of their development” (p. 29). My review of the literature and practice suggests that anticipatory governance consists of three basic steps: anticipation and futures analysis, creation of flexible adaptation strategies, and monitoring and action.

Anticipation and Futures Analysis Anticipatory governance recognizes that some aspects of the future are not knowable and that any prediction or forecast represents only one of many possible futures. In the early scenario planning literature, Berger (1964), Kahn (1965), Kahn and Wiener (1967), and later Ringland (1998, 2002, 2006), Schwartz (1991), van der Heijden (1996, 2000, 2005), and Wack (1985a, 1985b), recognized the limitations of forecasting and discussed the use of scenarios to explore future uncertainty. Lempert and his coauthors suggest that analysis must cover a broad range of possible futures when there is high uncertainty (Lempert, Popper, & Bankes, 2003; Lempert & Schlesinger, 2000), and he and others have proposed and used advanced scenario planning methods for considering hundreds of scenarios (Ahmed, Sundaram, & Srinivasan, 2003; Bankes, 1993; Bankes, Lempert, & Popper, 2003; Burke & Ewan, 1999; Menke, 1979; Quay, 1999). Such analysis typically uses aggregated averages, risk assessment, sensitivity analysis of factors or decisions driving the scenarios, identification of unacceptable scenarios or worst cases, and assessment of common and different impacts among the scenarios. Thus, anticipatory governance relies on the development and analysis of a range of possible scenarios, rather than a forecast or selection of a single scenario.

Creation of Flexible Adaptation Strategies Using the analysis of the defined range of anticipated futures, actions to adapt to one or more of these possible

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 499

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

Quay: Anticipatory Governance

futures are then developed. Hallegatte (2009) and Easterling et al. (2004) suggest creating flexible actions that can be broken into modules and implemented as needed as the future unfolds. This allows spreading costs out over time and reducing losses if investments must be abandoned. Such strategies can include actions that preserve future options, contingency plans to respond to specific scenarios, and noregrets strategies (near-term actions that can be adapted over time to address several possible scenarios) or worst case strategies (actions that address the worst outcomes, thus, all scenarios; City of Phoenix Water Services Department, 2005; Means, Laugier, Daw, Kaatz, & Waage, 2010).

Robust actions are those that work well enough across many possible futures based on accepted levels of risk (Lempert & Schlesinger, 2000).

Monitoring and Action Even though Kent (1964) called for physical planning to be based on forecasts, he did recognize that over time community conditions would change and plans would have to be revised in a continuing process. Foley (1964) articulated the dichotomy between a more fixed predict and plan approach, which he called the unitary approach, and a more adaptive approach in which the city evolves over time in response to change. It has been suggested that for adaptation to be successful, monitoring and response to change must be constant (Bankston & Key, 2006; Camacho, 2009; Chi, 2008; Fuerth, 2009). Given that climate change will unfold slowly over the next 100 years, decisions on and implementation of adaptation actions will be spread over a long period of time. Indicators of change should be monitored on a regular basis and decisions to implement anticipated adaption strategies considered in light of actual trends.

Climate Change and Anticipatory Governance: Case Studies Although a number of cities in North America are including some level of adaptation in their climate change planning efforts, most have not moved beyond reviewing vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies (H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, 2007; Lowe, Foster, & Winkelman, 2009; Wheeler, 2008). Only a small number have begun to address the uncertainty inherent in current estimates of future climate change and possible resulting impacts. I present case studies for three communities that are engaged in climate change adaptation planning and are using anticipatory governance concepts to consider the uncertainty of cli-

499

mate change. I developed these cases studies by reviewing both primary documents produced by each planning process as well as secondary reports on the efforts and their results, and by conducting structured and informal interviews with their leaders. The planning processes are ongoing in all of these communities, thus, they cannot yet be evaluated. However, given that global climate change may become significant by midcentury, and that these planning efforts will continue for decades, assessing them after they conclude might not leave time for other communities to make necessary changes in their adaptation planning efforts. Thus, I describe the progress to date for each case and critically examine it using the anticipatory governance framework. All the case studies have progressed through the anticipation and futures analysis phase and are now developing flexible adaptation strategies.

None have yet moved to monitoring and action.

Denver Water Denver Water is a public utility that is separate from the City of Denver, but derives its authority from the Charter of the City and County of Denver. Denver Water’s service area covers more than 335 square miles, including the City and County of Denver and surrounding suburban cities and water distributors. Denver Water utilizes a system of reservoirs networked by tunnels and canals to serve over 1.3 million people.

In August of 2008, Denver Water (2008) initiated work on a new Integrated Resource Plan that would cover a broader range of issues than previous plans, including changes in climate. Climate change has the potential to reduce streamflows in the west and southwest, threatening existing surface water supplies. The planning process scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2010 (see Figure 1), uses a combination of the integrated resource planning approach (Beecher, 1995) and scenario planning (Denver Water, 2008).

Anticipation and Futures Analysis. Denver Water’s futures development consisted of two efforts. First, the water utility initiated a traditional scenario planning effort to prioritize factors contributing to future uncertainty.

With the help of a consultant, they compiled a comprehensive list of such factors, using existing literature that discussed trends and possible future conditions for water utilities. Climate change was only one of several factors that was included in this analysis, explored in a series of briefing papers, and presented to the Board of Water Commissioners. The board was asked to rank these factors by level of uncertainty and importance. Initially, it was hoped that this prioritization process would reduce the number of factors to be explored, however, many were

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 500

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

500 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2010, Vol. 76, No. 4

Figure 1. Denver Water adaptation planning process.

Source: Denver Water (2009). Published with permission.

ranked as highly uncertain and of high importance. To simplify futures exploration, the Denver Water staff grouped these factors into five possible future scenarios (Table 1), which were then reviewed by various experts and the Board of Water Commissioners. These scenarios were assumed to be mutually exclusive and of unknown probability and were not intended to be predictions. Each provides a story of a possible future (Denver Water, 2008; Waage, 2009a).

The second part of Denver Water's scenario development included a more expansive futures analysis exploring the range of potential climate change impacts on Denver Water. A partnership of state and local government agencies (Western Water Assessment, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Denver Water, City of Aurora Utilities, City of Boulder, City of Fort Collins Utilities, Colorado

Springs Utilities Department, Colorado Water Conservation Board) has almost completed the Joint Front Range Climate Change Vulnerability Study (Water Research Foundation, 2010). This study has used statistically downscaled climate data from 10 global climate models to model the potential impacts of changes in temperature and precipitation on streamflow in the central Front Range region of Colorado. All of these scenarios show substantial warming trends; however, their predictions range from above-normal to below-normal precipitation for the region (Waage, 2009a). Denver is now in the process of exploring the implications of these temperature and precipitation trends.

Flexible Adaptation Strategies. At this time, Denver Water is still developing its decision framework using a flexible, no-regrets approach that includes both a detailed shortrange plan and options for longer-range activities. As time

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 501

Quay: Anticipatory Governance Table 1. Summary of Denver Water future scenarios.

Title

Story

Traditional future

Imagine the future is extrapolated from past trends. Few unanticipated major changes occur.

Imagine drinking water quality is a paramount consideration. The public demands the highest practical quality of drinking water. Contaminant removal and other drinking water requirements are extremely stringent.

Imagine a warmer climate accompanied by more frequent and more severe droughts.

Imagine environmental values and sustainable living become dominant social norms.

Imagine an ongoing energy crisis accompanied by a prolonged, deep economic downturn.

Water quality rules

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

Hot water Green revolution Economic woes

Source: Denver Water (2008). Published with permission.

proceeds, the utility will implement short-term strategies based on observed trends that their prior analysis suggests will lead to particular anticipated futures. Signposts, or events or conditions indicating that a certain scenario is likely to occur, can often be identified. For example, if a water reservoir reaches a certain level, it may indicate a high probability that water demand will exceed available water supplies within a given timeframe. Such signposts can warn that it is time to implement an anticipated adaptation strategy in order to effectively respond to that specific scenario. Denver Water will decide which factors to use to track the trends that will bring about each scenario, determine the decision signposts for each scenario, as well as when those signposts may most likely occur. The short-range plan will include both actions to address vulnerabilities that may occur in the short term, as well as strategic actions to preserve or create options that may be needed in the longer term.

Denver is conducting a pilot project to evaluate incorporating the robust decision methods developed by the RAND Corporation (Lempert et al., 2003) into its water systems model to analyze the multiple climate scenarios they have developed and identify robust strategies for adapting to anticipated changes in their water supply (M. Waage, personal communication, October 27, 2009; Waage, 2007, 2009a, 2009b). Denver Water also leads an effort by Water Utility Climate Alliance and Malcolm Pirnie to develop a guide for water utilities desiring to use multi-outcome planning methods, including scenario planning, to address the uncertainties of climate change (Means et al., 2010).

501

New York New York City (NYC) climate adaptation efforts began in 2004 when the NYC Department of Environmental Protection initiated a Climate Change Task Force to study the potential impacts of climate change on the city’s water infrastructure. This resulted in the 2008 Assessment and Action Plan, which includes general adaptation strategies to make NYC’s water, wastewater, and flood control systems more resilient to climate change (NYC Department of Environmental Protection, 2008).

In 2006, NYC initiated PlaNYC, a comprehensive sustainability planning effort including a climate change component that was primarily focused on mitigation. In 2008, Mayor Bloomberg convened the NYC Panel on Climate Change (NPCC). Funded with $350,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation; the NPCC was charged with advising the mayor and the NYC Climate Change Adaptation Task Force (NYCCATF) on the possible impacts of climate change on NYC. The NYCCATF included representatives from 40 local, regional, state, and federal agencies, as well as the private sector, and was charged with managing a broad range of infrastructure and social systems for the region (A. Freed, personal communication, October 30, 2009; Freed & Yohe, 2009; NPCC, 2009).

New York’s process for developing its climate change adaptation plan has four phases: 1) quantify the impacts of climate change, 2) identify the impacts of climate change on the city and develop strategies to mitigate these risks, 3) launch a citywide strategic plan, and 4) work with vulnerable neighborhoods to develop site-specific adaptation strategies. Currently, the NYCCATF is completing the second of these phases and planning phases 3 and 4 (Freed & Yohe, 2009).

Anticipation and Futures Analysis. New York initially explored four major climate risk factors (CRFs): temperature, precipitation, sea-level rise, and short-term extreme events. To define these CRFs, the NPCC examined the temperature and precipitation results from 16 climate change models and sea-level rise results from 7 climate change models for 3 emission scenarios defined by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007) and described earlier (A1, A1B, and B1) in each of three future 30-year time slices (2010–2039, 2040–2069, and 2070–2099). Each climate change model has a baseline scenario. Model results were not scaled down; instead, the NPCC used the smallest areal unit that included New York City and its surrounding area from each model’s original output.

The NPCC estimated the most likely range for each CRF in each future time slice in three steps. First, the difference between the baseline forecast for each global climate

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 502

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

502 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2010, Vol. 76, No. 4

model (which assumes no climate change) and the forecast for each emission scenario was calculated for each of the CRFs in each of the three future time slices. These differences were assumed to be the change each model predicted for each CRF in each future time slice. Second, all of the estimated changes from all models and emission scenarios were treated as a distribution of the possible change that may occur for each CRF for each of the time periods. The mean and variance for each of these distributions was then calculated.

Finally, the means and variances were used to define a range of interest for each CRF. This range of interest was defined to include 67% of the variation among models, with the mean change representing the center of this range.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) does not address the possibility of rapid ice melt raising sea levels.

To account for this, the NPCC also calculated a range for sea-level rise resulting from rapid ice melt. Table 2 shows the resulting ranges for each CRF. The NPCC also estimated the number of extreme events (heat waves, cold spells, intense rain storms, drought, and coastal storms with flooding) in each of the three future time slices by matching model results for CRFs to historical records, and assuming that extreme events would be similar in years with similar attributes (NPCC, 2009).

The analysis of New York’s range of possible futures and the likely resulting impacts focused on having stakeholders assess the probabilities that each CRF would reach a value in the projected range in each future time slice, and the consequent risk and severity of impacts to social

systems and infrastructure. Using probability ranges and language modeled after that used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2005, 2007; Manning et al., 2004) climate science experts assessed the probability of change within the predicted range for each CRF for each of the three future time slices. Regional experts were then asked to identify which social systems and infrastructure would be vulnerable to impact from CRFs using these probabilities, often through dialogue between scientists and stakeholders. Stakeholders were then asked to assess the risk that each category of vulnerable social system and infrastructure would suffer an impact as a result of change in a CRF and the magnitude of this impact. This was used to create a matrix for each social system and infrastructure with the format shown in Figure 2 (A. Freed, personal communication, October 30, 2009; Horton, 2009).

Flexible Adaptation Strategies. New York is still discussing its adaptation strategies and decision framework. Given its broad regional foundation of social systems and infrastructure, the decision framework will be applied beyond New York City’s jurisdiction, and will suggest an approach for other governmental and private sector organizations. In general, New York is suggesting that any activity that reduces vulnerability to climate change impact makes the city more resilient. However the NPCC recognizes that the impacts likely to result even from CRF values in the centers of the forecasted ranges may overwhelm many organizations. Thus, it is developing a risk-based, cost-benefit approach to assessing initial

Table 2. Climate Change Projections for New York City.a

Air temperatureb Precipitationb Sea-level riseb,c Rapid-ice-melt sea-level rised

Baseline: 1971–2000

2010–2039

2040–2069

2070–2099

55⬚F 46.5 inches Not applicable Not applicable

⫹ 1.5 to 3⬚F ⫹ 0 to 5% ⫹ 2 to 5 inches ≈ 5 to 10 inches

⫹ 3 to 5⬚F ⫹ 0 to 10% ⫹ 7 to 12 inches ≈ 19 to 29 in

⫹ 4 to 7.5⬚F ⫹ 5 to 10% ⫹ 12 to 23 inches ≈ 41 to 55 in

Notes: a. These data are based on 16 global climate models (7 global climate models for sea-level rise) and 3 emissions scenarios. The baseline is 1971–2000 for temperature and precipitation and 2000–2004 for sea-level rise. Data are from the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Temperature data are from Central Park; precipitation data are the mean of the Central Park and La Guardia Airport values; and sea-level data are from the Battery at the southern tip of Manhattan (the only location in NYC for which comprehensive historic sea-levelrise data are available). b. Projections represent the middle 67% of values from model-based probabilities; temperature ranges are rounded to the nearest half-degree, precipitation to the nearest 5%, and sea-level rise to the nearest inch. c. The model-based sea-level rise projections may represent the range of possible outcomes less completely than the temperature and precipitation projections. d. The rapid ice-melt scenario is based on acceleration of recent rates of ice melt in the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets and paleoclimate studies.

Source: New York City Panel on Climate Change (2009). Published with permission.

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 503

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

Quay: Anticipatory Governance

503

Figure 2. New York City climate change adaptation risk matrix.

Source: Horton (2009). Published with permission.

near-term plans for adaptation (Stutz, 2009). At the core of the decision framework is a method called flexible adaptation pathways (Environment Committee of the London Assembly, 2008) that breaks adaptation strategies and decisions into small incremental steps on which action can be taken over time as appropriate, or abandoned at some point, minimizing lost assets (Freed & Yohe, 2009; Horton, 2009; Overpeck, Rosenzweig, Hobbs, & Wuebbles, 2009). The following concepts guide such decision making:

appropriate (A. Freed, personal communication, October 30, 2009; Freed & Yohe, 2009).

To assist in this effort, the city will conduct neighborhood-based workshops to provide information about climate change vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies in the forty communities around the city most vulnerable to climate change impacts (NYC Mayor’s Office of LongTerm Planning and Sustainability, 2009).

Phoenix 1. The impact assessment matrix (see Figure 2) should be used to identify and implement adaptation strategies that address the impacts most likely to occur.

2. Actions with benefits that go beyond climate change adaptation should get special attention.

3. Day-to-day decisions should be reviewed for opportunities to implement adaptation strategies.

4. Strategies for protecting infrastructure or resources from climate-related threats should be developed and implemented in self-contained modules if possible so that protection can be slowly increased in small increments as climate change does or does not unfold.

5. Adaptation actions that require lead time should be started now so they are ready to be implemented when needed.

6. Resources needed for adaptation should be identified and included in financial planning efforts as

The City of Phoenix Water Services Department adaptation efforts were split into two phases, the process creating the Water Resources Plan 2005 Update (City of Phoenix Water Services Department, 2005) and the 2010 process to update that plan. The Water Resources Plan 2005 Update focused primarily on planning for drought, while the 2010 planning process is examining the impacts of global climate change on both normal and drought stream-flow conditions.

The historic climate in the watershed serving Phoenix has oscillated between highly unpredictable wet and dry periods from 10 to 100 years long (Ely, Enzel, Baker, & Cayan, 1993; Sheppard et al., 2002; Smith & Stockton, 1981). Phoenix has used reservoirs to store excess streamflows during wetter periods and to deliver water during dryer periods. As water demand from urban and agricultural growth exceeded surface water supplies and threatened to drain regional aquifers, the state passed the Arizona Groundwater Management Act (GMA) in 1980.

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 504

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

504 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2010, Vol. 76, No. 4

The GMA created active management areas to manage groundwater for sustainable yield, and required new development to demonstrate an “assured water supply�

(Arizona Groundwater Management Act, 1980) for 100 years. However, the GMA assumed that surface water supplies were constant, and did not account for climate variability or long-term droughts (Holway & Jacobs, 2007; Jacobs & Holway, 2004). The Phoenix Water Resource Plan 2005 Update requires 100 years of sustainability under conditions of long-term drought, a standard higher than that required by the State of Arizona (City of Phoenix Water Services Department, 2005; S. Rossi, personal communication, September 1, 2009).

Anticipation and Futures Analysis. In developing the 2005 plan, the Phoenix Water Services Department defined ranges of possible future conditions for three factors that may impact the utility’s water supplies and demand in the future: delivery of surface water supplies (from the Salt and Verde Rivers and the Colorado River), growth and development patterns, and water use behavior. Using paleo-streamflow estimates created from tree-ring data, and working with the staff of the Central Arizona Project and the Salt River Project, Water Services Department staff estimated surface water availability from the Salt/Verde and Colorado River systems under normal, moderate, and severe drought conditions. Since these systems are independent, this established nine different possible watersupply conditions. Working with the Planning Department and HDR, a private consulting firm, the Water Services Department also projected alternative spatial patterns of growth based on assumptions about the population growth rate, economy, shifts to higher densities in the urban core area, and transit-influenced growth. (Phoenix recently completed a 20-mile light-rail system in the central part of the metropolitan area.) Spatial characteristics of growth are important because the use of some surface and groundwater supplies is spatially restricted.

Finally, Water Services Department staff considered three different levels of customer water use based on past and possible future trends. These factors were combined to generate 144 scenarios of water supply and demand and resulting water budgets, including water deficits (City of Phoenix Water Services Department, 2005; S. Rossi, personal communication, September 1, 2009).

As part of the 2010 plan, Phoenix is participating in a project to downscale global climate model output to replace the nine climate scenarios in the 2005 plan. The partnership includes the City of Phoenix, the Salt River Project, the Central Arizona Project, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the University of Arizona, and Arizona State University. The project has five components: 1) selection

of global climate models, 2) downscaling model precipitation and temperature projections to the Phoenix region, 3) estimation of future streamflows, 4) analysis of impacts on reservoir management, and 5) analysis of impacts on local municipal water allocations. The partnership will undertake both statistical and regional dynamic model downscaling and compare the two methods (Dominguez, 2009). Estimates of streamflows will be done using the variable infiltration capacity model for normal and drought conditions. Impacts on reservoir management will be tested using the Salt River Project reservoir management model and scenarios for local municipal water allocations will be derived from the reservoir model results. Impacts on local water management will be assessed using the same process used in the Water Resource Plan 2005 Update (City of Phoenix Water Services Department, 2005; S. Rossi, personal communication, September 1, 2009).

Flexible Adaptation Strategies. Phoenix identified two types of adaptation strategies to implement in its Water Resource Plan 2005 Update: robust short-term strategies that would work well across a wide range of scenarios; and a worst-case infrastructure timeline for drought response. One example of a robust strategy arose from the finding that all scenarios assuming no further growth showed water supplies to be adequate to meet almost all existing demand even under the most severe water shortage scenarios. In all cases, it was growth of new accounts that would either trigger the need for new or supplemental water supplies or require significant demand reduction. In response, the city increased its water acquisition impact fee to shift the burden of financing additional supplies to new growth.

The 2005 plan included a worst-case timeline portraying the timing and magnitude of water shortages over 25 years assuming that current precipitation trends in the watersheds reflected the early stages of the most severe water shortage scenario, a 30-year dry period (see Figure 3).

(Phoenix was in its 10th consecutive dry year in 2005.)

Using this timeline with different demand scenarios (different growth and water use rates), Water Services Department staff estimated trigger points when new water resources or demand reductions would need to be deployed. Since adoption of the 2005 plan, Phoenix has been monitoring growth, demand, and climate trends, and adjusting these trigger points accordingly. For example, the recent economic recession resulted in negative growth in new water accounts, pushing some of the trigger points further into the future (City of Phoenix Water Services Department, 2005; S. Rossi, personal communication, September 1, 2009).

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 505

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

Quay: Anticipatory Governance

505

Figure 3. The Phoenix worst-case planning timeline.

Source: City of Phoenix Department of Water Services (2005). Published with permission.

Phoenix’s ability to finance infrastructure for rehabilitation, environmental compliance, and growth has declined recently, and financial resources to respond to climate change are likely to be limited in the near term. The city plans to modify its worst-case timeline to minimize the investment required to ensure that adequate water supplies will be available to meet water shortage conditions. Based on characteristics such as water volume, certainty of availability, cost and time to deploy, the Water Services Department will create a decision tree indicating the latest possible time at which action can be taken to either preserve future options, plan for deployment of future options, or fund and deploy future options. Indicators of climate, drought, and certainty of water supplies will be monitored for change, and every five years the decision tree will be reassessed and a short-term plan developed. When the partnership the Water Services Department is participating in completes its work assessing the potential impacts of global climate change on regional water supplies, the results will be incorporated into this worst case decision framework (S. Rossi, personal communication, September 1, 2009).

Analysis Although there are differences among these three case studies, their commonalities illustrate the elements of anticipatory governance. All three cases used scenarios to anticipate future climate change possibilities, developed

flexible adaptation strategies, and are contemplating using a flexible and incremental decision-making framework over long time periods. The following examines the commonalities and differences between the cases for each of these three phases.

Anticipation and Futures Analysis Each case has developed a wide range of climate change scenarios based on climate science information and carried forward the full range of climate change scenarios into their decision-making processes. Denver and Phoenix initially used paleo-streamflow records from tree-ring research to anticipate possible future stream-flow conditions. All three are using multiple global climate models (ranging from 3 to 16) and are engaged in some level of downscaling global climate model results to higher resolution at the regional level. The Denver and Phoenix scenarios also vary population growth and economic factors.

Although each presents the range of scenarios in different ways, none is trying to reduce them to a single, best-guess scenario. All utilized assistance from local universities in developing their climate change scenarios.

Neither Phoenix nor Denver assigned probabilities to their scenarios, but New York assigned very simple probabilities to specified indications of climate change and possible resulting impacts. New York is using these probabilities to create priorities to guide short-term decision making.

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 506

506 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2010, Vol. 76, No. 4

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

Flexible Adaptation Strategies Given that uncertainty is unavoidable when planning for climate change, all three cases emphasize maintaining flexibility to allow responding to a range of possible future conditions. Phoenix has developed contingency plans in anticipation of different possible patterns of growth and climate-driven water shortages. Denver and Phoenix have recommended robust actions that will be desirable across a large number of scenarios in their current short-term plans. New York has suggested taking prompt action on alternatives that will take a long time to implement, so they will be available if needed. Similarly, Phoenix has proposed taking low-cost actions that will prevent options from being precluded in the future, such as acquiring well sites but not drilling the wells.

One important difference among these three cases is stakeholder involvement. Stakeholder participation has been cited as a key element in successfully implementing programs to develop public policy that is based on forecasts (van der Helm, 2007) and programs to develop climate change adaptation policies (Sales, 2009). New York’s technical and stakeholder committees engaged in extensive dialogue with local business and community leaders to frame the climate risk assessment and adaptation priorities (A. Freed, personal communication, October 30, 2009; Freed & Yohe, 2009). Denver’s process focused on a discussion of scenarios and priorities with the Denver Water board and partnerships with their customers and regional water providers. Phoenix focused on regional water suppliers, interest groups, and the city council, but had no formal priority-setting process with these stakeholders.

Monitoring and Action All of the cases are still in the process of developing adaptation strategies and have not yet begun to implement climate change adaptation, however, the drought adaptation efforts of Phoenix and Denver have prepared these cities well for climate change adaptation. All have indicated that they intend to implement long-term decisionmaking processes based on monitoring climate change and making incremental decisions guided by anticipated change in climate trends. The Phoenix drought adaptation is structured around a worst-case timeline with a defined set of triggers for deploying various water resources to respond promptly to climate-driven water shortages.

New York has proposed to respond to the uncertainty of sea-level rise with protection structures designed in modules, with decisions made to deploy them incrementally as sea levels begin to rise. Denver is prepared to take actions to preserve options if climate-driven changes in precipitation

and demand occur. In each case, planners recognize that some investment can be anticipated, but delayed.

Although each city reports that monitoring will be a key feature of its decision-making framework, none have yet formally developed a structured climate change monitoring program to be included in these frameworks. One reason for this is the current state of climate science. By the time actual changes in temperature, precipitation, and sea levels are recognized it may be too late to adapt.

Rather, climate indicators such as variability in the North Atlantic oscillation and the El NiĂąo southern oscillation, as well as CO2 in the atmosphere, should be monitored and used to suggest possible trends in long-term global climate change patterns. However, how these factors can be used to advise decision makers of possible changes at a regional level is not yet clear. All three cities have been participating in national discussions with climate scientists and adaptation planners about what type of decision support systems are needed to support regional and local planning and decision making (American Water Works Associaton Research Foundation, Water Environment Research Foundation, & United Kingdom Water Industry Research, 2008).

Conclusion There is valid concern that traditional physical planning efforts will not be adequate to adapt to climate change given the high uncertainty and long time frame involved. Anticipatory governance, which has roots in scenario planning and adaptive management, represents a governance framework in which planning and decision making may be able to overcome these obstacles to traditional physical planning for climate change. Although I could not assess the success of the anticipatory concepts currently being applied in Denver, New York, and Phoenix because their adaptation planning efforts are not complete, other communities will experience the impacts of climate change at roughly the same time, leaving little time to transfer lessons from these cases. These three cases are on the leading edge, incorporating the uncertainty of climate change into their adaptation planning and implementation, and their experience provides several lessons.

1. The uncertainty inherent in climate science need not be a barrier to taking action to adapt to climate change. A set of scenarios representing a wide range of possible climate change futures and their resulting impacts can be used to devise possible actions for adapting to this range of futures. Methods for

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 507

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

Quay: Anticipatory Governance

analyzing a wide range of scenarios (from dozens to hundreds) are emerging in the literature and in practice, and further research and development of such methods is needed. Implementing these methods will also require more resources than traditional scenario planning methods because they must incorporate climate change science and assess climate change impacts.

2. Flexible strategies that can be initiated incrementally over an extended period will make the cost of climate change adaptation more manageable and avoid waste. This will require new approaches to engineering large projects such as water, wastewater, and flood protection systems, so that they can remain functional while being implemented in modules over time. It will also challenge traditional capital planning and financing processes which are structured around one-time investments and life-cycle cost analysis.

3. Anticipatory governance requires monitoring change over time and recognizing future consequences in sufficient time to take effective action.

Unfortunately, such a system does not exist today, in part because global and regional climate modeling are so complex. An effective monitoring system would require identifying climate factors that are closely associated with future local impacts and can be forecast at least 10 years into the future. It should advise local stakeholders periodically on how climate change is proceeding, and which anticipated climate scenarios are likely relevant and which can be ignored in the short term. Developing such a monitoring system will require cooperation between national agencies, research centers familiar with global climate systems, and local adaptation planners familiar with applying climate change to unique local issues.

4. Finally, it will be critically important for localities to institutionalize flexible decision-making frameworks that extend long into the future, possibly for 50 or more years. Such frameworks will exceed the careers of existing politicians and policy managers and, even if initiated successfully, may be difficult to sustain. Politicians are often unwilling make investments that pay off only after they leave office. Public support for such efforts may also diminish as the costs of energy, water, and taxes to pay for adaptation increase over time. Strong and ongoing stakeholder participation in the process, as is planned

507

in New York, may be critical to sustaining political and public support for 50 to 100 years.

These three cities are not the only cities engaged in anticipatory approaches to climate change adaptation.

Although the literature of adaptation is smaller than that on climate change mitigation, three recent publications discuss the issues in this article and provide further examples of climate change adaptation planning in the United States and Europe (Adger, Lorenzoni, & O'Brien, 2009; Davoudi, Crawford, & Mehmood, 2009; Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, 2010). The concepts of anticipatory governance, such as scenarios, incrementalism, and flexibility are in themselves not new. What is new is how they are blended into a governance framework that acknowledges uncertainty through the entire process, from planning through decision making and implementation. This recognizes that climate science and climate policy cannot be reduced to a single forecast. Rather practitioners must embrace the uncertainty of climate science, which will be difficult for many. We are used to believing that we can know the future because we know the past, but to remain resilient in the face of climate change, society must be prepared to adapt over a long time period to a future that can be anticipated, but not known.

References Adger, W. N., Lorenzoni, I., & O’Brien, K. L. (Eds.). (2009). Adapting to climate change: Thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ahmed, M. D., Sundaram, D., & Srinivasan, A. (2003, June). Scenario driven decision systems: Concepts and implementation. Proceedings of evaluation of modeling methods in systems analysis and design (EMMSAD), Veldon, Austria.

American Water Works Associaton Research Foundation, Water Environment Research Foundation, & United Kingdom Water Industry Research. (2008, January). Water industry climate change research needs workshop (Project #4160, Subject area: Environmental leadership). Denver, CO. Arizona Groundwater Management Act. Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 45: Waters, Chapter 2: Groundwater Code. (1980).

Bankes, S. C. (1993). Exploratory modeling for policy analysis.

Operations Research, 41(3), 435–449.

Bankes, S. C., Lempert, R. J., & Popper, S. W. (2003). Computer assisted reasoning for robust strategies. Scientific and technical: Final report. Arlington, VA: Defense Advance Research Projects Agency.

Bankston, B., & Key, T. (2006, April). White paper on capabilities based planning. Paper presented at the Military Operations Research Society’s Capabilities-Based Planning II Workshop: Identifying, Classifying and Measuring Risk in a Post 9-11 World, McLean,

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 508

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

508 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2010, Vol. 76, No. 4 Virginia. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.mors.org/ UserFiles/file/meetings/06cbpII/bankston_key.pdf Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. H. (2007). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement and integration. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 979–1000). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bartholomew, K. (2007). Land use-transportation scenario planning: Promise and reality. Transportation, 34(4), 397–412.

Beecher, J. A. (1995). Integrated resource planning fundamentals.

Journal American Water Works Association, 87(6 ), 34–48.

Begley, S. (2007). Learning to love climate “adaptation.” Newsweek, 151(1), 84.

Berger, G. (1964). Phénoménologies du temps et prospectives. Paris, France: Presse Universitaires de France.

Blanco, H., Alberti, M., Forsyth, A., Krizek, K. J., Rodríguez, D. A., Talen, E., & Ellis, C. (2009). Hot, congested, crowded and diverse: Emerging research agendas in planning. Progress in Planning, 71(4), 153–205.

Brevard, J. H. (1985). Capital facilities planning: A tactical approach.

Washington, DC: Planners Press.

Brewer, G. D. (1983). Some costs and consequences of large-scale social systems modeling. Behavioral Science, 28(2), 166–185.

Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: A conceptual framework (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Working Paper 38).

Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/ vulnerability-risk-and-adaptation-conceptual-framework Brooks, N., & Adger, W. N. (2004). Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity. In B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone, & S. Huq (Eds.), Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: Developing strategies, policies, and measures (pp. 165–181). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Burke, J., & Ewan, J. (1999). Sonoran Preserve master plan: An open space plan for the Phoenix Sonoran Desert. Tempe, AZ: City of Phoenix Parks, Recreation and Library Department. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://phoenix.gov/PARKS/sonorcvr.pdf Camacho, A. E. (2009). Adapting governance to climate change: Managing uncertainty through a learning infrastructure. Emory Law Journal, 59(1), 1–77.

Candau, J. (2000, October). Visualizing modeled land cover change and related uncertainty. Presented at the GIScience 2000 International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Savannah, GA. Cavendish, C. (2006). Green tipping point. Times Online. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ comment/article1264775.ece Chapin, F. S. (1965). Urban land use planning (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Chi, K. S. (2008). Four strategies to transform state governance. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/ default/files/ChiReport.pdf City of Phoenix Water Services Department. (2005). Water resources plan 2005 update. Phoenix, AZ: Author.

Cole, S. (2001). Dare to dream: Bringing futures into planning.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(4), 372–383.

Cox, P., & Stephenson, D. (2007). A changing climate for prediction.

Science, 317(5835), 207–208.

Davoudi, S., Crawford, J., & Mehmood, A. (Eds.). (2009). Planning for climate change: Strategies for mitigation and adaptation for spatial planners. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Denver Water. (2008). Integrated resource plan. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.denverwater.org/SupplyPlanning/Planning/ FutureWaterSupply/IntegratedResourcePlan/ Denver Water. (2009). Process diagram. (Unpublished). Denver, CO: Author.

Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed.

New York, NY: Viking Penguin.

Dominguez, F. (2009). Status report on model selection. Unpublished report. Phoenix, AZ: Central Arizona Climate Change Assessment Partnership.

Donatantonio, D. (2009, September 18). Councils faulted on climate adaptation. Planning, 2.

Dzurik, A. A. (1990). Water resources planning. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Easterling, W. E., Hurd, B. H., & Smith, J. B. (2004). Coping with global climate change: The role of adaptation in the United States.

Arlington, VA: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Ely, L. L., Enzel, Y., Baker, V. R., & Cayan D. R. (1993). A 5000-year record of extreme floods and climate change in the Southwestern United States. Science, 262(5132), 410–412.

Environment Committee of the London Assembly. (2008). Discussion on draft mayor’s climate change adaptation strategy [Transcript], October 15, 2008. London, UK: London Assembly.

Envision Utah. (n.d.). The history of Envision Utah. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://www.envisionutah.org/historyenvisonutahv5p1.pdf Farmer, D. J. (1999). Public administration discourse: A matter of style? Administration and Society, 31(3), 299–320.

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. K. S., & Buhl, S. (2005). How (in)accurate are demand forecasts in public works projects?: The case of transportation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 131–146.

Foley, D. L. (1964 ). An approach to metropolitan spatial structure. In M. M. Webber, J. W. Dyckman, D. L. Foley, A. Z. Guttenberg, W. L. C. Wheaton, & C. B. Wurster (Eds.), Explorations into urban structure (pp. 21–78). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio, 31(5), 437–440.

Freed, A., & Yohe, G. (2009, October 29). Building climate resiliency in New York City. Stakeholder dialogues—Teleconference with Chicago, New York, and Phoenix. Washington, DC: Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Science Workgroup (White House Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Science and Technology Policy, & National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

Fuerth, L. S. (2009). Foresight and anticipatory governance. Foresight, 11(4), 14–32.

Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington DC: Island Press.

Guston, D. (2007). Toward anticipatory governance. Retrieved February 28, 2009, from http://nanohub.org/resources/3270 H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. (2007). A survey of climate change adaptation planning. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www. heinzctr.org/publications/PDF/Adaptation_Report_October_10_ 2007.pdf Hallegatte, S. (2009). Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 240–247.

Hauser, R., Archer, S., Backlund, P., Hatfield, J., Janetos, A., Lettenmaier, D.,…Walsh, M. (2009). The effects of climate change on U.S.

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 509

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

Quay: Anticipatory Governance ecosystems. Retrieved March 14, 2010, from http://www.usda.gov/img/ content/EffectsofClimateChangeonUSEcosystem.pdf Helling, A. (1998). Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution!

Results from evaluating Atlanta's VISION 2020 project. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3), 335–349.

Holway, J., & Jacobs, K. (2007). Managing for sustainability in Arizona: Linking climate, water management and growth. In L. W. Mays (Ed.), Water resources sustainability (pp. 73–98). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Horton, R. (2009, February). Climate change: Getting to “action” in the face of uncertainty (and gloom). SBRP Research Translation Workshop, Palisades, NY. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://eppropriate. org/RT%20Web%20Materials/RTWorkshop_Climate_R_ Horton_2_12_09.pdf Hulse, D., Gregory, S., & Baker, J. (Eds.). (2002). Willamette River Basin: Trajectories of environmental and ecological change. Corvalis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005). Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report on addressing uncertainties. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.ipcc. ch/meetings/ar4-workshops-express-meetings/ uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Summary for policymakers. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Avery,…H. L. Miller (Eds.) Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, K. L., & Holway, J. M. (2004). Managing for sustainability in an arid climate: Lessons learned from 20 years of groundwater management in Arizona, USA. Hydrogeology Journal, 12(1), 52–65.

Kahn, H. (1965). Thinking about the unthinkable. New York, NY: Horizon Press.

Kahn, H., & Wiener, A. J. (1967). The next thirty-three years: A framework for speculation. Daedalus, 96(3), 705–732.

Kent, T. J. (1964). The urban general plan. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.

Lambin, E. F. (2005). Editorial: Conditions for sustainability of human-environment systems: Information, motivation, and capacity.

Global Environmental Change, 15(3), 177–180.

Lazarus, R. J. (2009). Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Review, 94(1153), 1189–1190.

Lempert, R. J., Popper, S. W., & Bankes, S. C. (2003). Shaping the next one hundred years: New methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.

Lempert, R. J., & Schlesinger, M. E. (2000). Robust strategies for abating climate change Journal of Climatic Change 45(3–4), 387–401.

Lowe, A., Foster, J., & Winkelman, S. (2009). Ask the climate question: Adapting to climate change impacts in urban regions. Washington, DC: Center for Clean Air Policy.

Makower, J. (2007, July 30). Have we reached a green business tipping point? Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://blog.futurelab.net/ 2007/07/have_we_reached_a_green_busine.html Manning, M., Petit, M., Easterling, D., Murphy, J., Patwardhan, A., Rogner, H.,…Yohe, G. (Eds.). (2004). IPCC workshop on describing scientific uncertainties in climate change to support analysis of risk and of options: Workshop report. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/supportingmaterial/ ipcc-workshop-2004-may.pdf

509 Margerum, R. D. (2005). Collaborative growth management in metropolitan Denver: “Fig leaf or valiant effort?” Land Use Policy, 22(4), 373–386.

Maundry, E. (2009, December 28). Our current RHNA numbers are based on criteria SCAG no longer supports? [The Tattler web log post] Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://sierramadretattler.blogspot. com/2009/12/our-current-rhna-numbers-are-based-on.html McClendon, B., & Quay, R. (1988). Mastering change: Winning strategies for effective city planning. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.

Means, E., Laugier, M., Daw, J., Kaatz, L., & Waage, M. (2010).

Decision support planning methods: Incorporating climate change uncertainties into water planning. San Francisco, CA: Water Utility Climate Alliance.

Menke, M. (1979). Strategic planning in an age of uncertainty. Long Range Planning, 12(4), 27–34.

Milly, P. C. D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R. M., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lettenmaier, D. P., & Stouffer, R. J. (2008).

Stationarity is dead: Whither water management? Science, 319(5863), 573–574.

National Association of Home Builders. (2006, March 20). Green building barrels into the mainstream market. Nation's Building News.

Retrieved November 5, 2009, from http://www.nbnnews.com/ NBN/issues/2006-03-20/Front+Page/index.html New York City Department of Environmental Protection. (2008).

Assessment and action plan. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www. nyc.gov/html/dep/html/news/climate_change_report_05-08.shtml New York City Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. (2009). PlaNYC progress report 2009. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/ planyc_progress_report_2009.pdf New York City Panel on Climate Change. (2009). Climate risk information. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.nyc. gov/html/om/pdf/2009/NPCC_CRI.pdf O’Toole, R. (2008, May 27). Roadmap to gridlock: The failure of long-range metropolitan transportation planning. Policy Analysis, 617.

Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa617.pdf Overpeck, J., Rosenzweig, C., Hobbs, K., & Wuebbles, D. (2009).

Climate change in the urban landscape—Stakeholder needs and adaptation strategies that work. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www. ucar.edu/oga/pdf/040109%20House%20Presentation.pdf Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. (2010).

Adapting to the impacts of climate change: America’s climate choices [Prepublication edition]. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Patt, A., Klein, R. J. T., & de la Vega-Leinert, A. (2005). Taking the uncertainty in climate-change vulnerability assessment seriously.

Comptes Rendus Geosciences, 337(4), 411–424.

Phelps, R., Chan, C., & Kapsalis, S. C. (2001). Does scenario planning affect performance? Two exploratory studies. Journal of Business Research, 51(3), 223–232.

Pielke, R. A, Jr., Sarewitz, D., & Byerly, R., Jr. (2000). Decision making and the future of nature: Understanding and using predictions.

In D. Sarewitz, R. A. Pielke, Jr., & R. Byerly, Jr. (Eds.), Prediction: Science, decision making, and the future of nature (pp. 361–387).

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Popper, S. W., Lempert, R. J., & Bankes, S. C. (2005). Shaping the future: Scientific uncertainty often becomes an excuse to ignore longterm problems, such as climate change. It doesn't have to be so.

Scientific American, 292(5), 66–71.

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 510

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

510 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2010, Vol. 76, No. 4 Postma, T. J. B. M., & Liebl, F. (2005). How to improve scenario analysis as a strategic management tool? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(2), 161–173.

Prasifka, D. W. (1988). Current trends in water supply planning: Issues, concepts, and risks. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Quay, R. (1999, April). Desert preserve acquisition strategic analysis.

Paper presented at the American Planning Association National Conference, Seattle WA. Quay, R. (2009). Anticipating adaptation to climate change. Practicing Planner, 7(2). Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://www. planning.org/practicingplanner/2009/sum/specialfeature01.htm Ringland, G. (1998). Scenario planning: Managing for the future. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Ringland, G. (2002). Scenarios in public policy. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Ringland, G. (2006). Scenario planning. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Ringquist, E. J., Worsham J., Eisner, M. A. (2003). Salience, complexity, and the legislative direction of regulatory bureaucracies.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 141–164.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

Sales, R. F. M., Jr. (2009). Vulnerability and adaptation of coastal communities to climate variability and sea-level rise: Their implications for integrated coastal management in Cavite City, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management, 52(7), 395–404.

Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy, 7(5), 385–403.

Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2000). Prediction in science and policy. In D. Sarewitz, R. A. Pielke, Jr., & R. Byerly, Jr. (Eds.), Prediction: Science, decision making, and the future of nature (pp. 11–22). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Schipper, E. L. F. (2006). Conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC process. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 15(1), 82–92.

Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.

Sheppard, P. R., Comrie, A. C., Packin, G. D., Angersbach, K. & Hughes, M. K. (2002). The climate of the US Southwest. Climate Research, 21(3), 219–238.

Smith, L. P., & Stockton, C. W. (1981). Reconstructed streamflow for the Salt and Verde Rivers from tree-ring data. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 17(6), 939–947.

Steinitz, C., Arias, H., Bassett, S., Flaxman, M., Goode, T., Maddock, T., III,…Shearer, A. (2003). Alternative futures for changing landscapes: The Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Stewart, T. (2000). Uncertainty, judgement, and error in prediction.

In D. Sarewitz, R. A. Pielke, Jr., & R. Byerly, Jr. (Eds.), Prediction: Science, decision making, and the future of nature (pp. 41–60).

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Storbjörk, S. (2007). Governing climate adaptation in the local arena: Challenges of risk management and planning in Sweden. Local Environment, 12(5), 457–469.

Stutz, B. (2009, September 10). New York City girds itself for heat and rising seas. Yale Environment 360. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2187 Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York, NY: Random House.

United States Government Accountability Office. (2009). Climate change adaptation: Strategic federal planning could help government officials make more informed decisions. Washington, DC: Author.

Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10113.pdf van Bueren, E. M., Klijn, E., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 193–212. van der Heijden, K. (1996). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation.

West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. van der Heijden, K. (2000). Scenarios and forecasting: Two perspectives. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 65(1), 31–36. van der Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation (2nd ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. van der Helm, R. (2007). Ten insolvable dilemmas of participation and why foresight has to deal with them. Foresight, 9(3), 3–17.

Voss, J., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (Eds.). (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elger.

Waage, M. (2007, November). Climate change planning for Denver Water. Presentation at National Water Resources Association Climate Change Symposium, Las Vegas, NV. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.nvwra.org/docs/2008/Climate%20Change%20Symposium/Waage-NWRA_Climate.pdf Waage, M. (2009a). Incorporating climatic uncertainties into water planning. In Proceedings of the first national expert and stakeholder workshop on water infrastructure sustainability and adaptation to climate change (pp. 19–20). Washington, DC: EPA. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/wqm/wrap/pdf/workshop/ 600r09010.pdf Waage, M. (2009b, August). Integrating climate change and water planning: Examples from water utilities. Presentation at the Colorado Water Congress Summer Conference and Membership Meeting, Steamboat Springs, CO. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.cowatercongress.org/SummerConference/Marc%20 Waage,%20Integrating%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Water%2 0Planning.pdf Wack, P. (1985a). Scenarios: Shooting the rapids. Harvard Business Review, 63(6), 139–150.

Wack, P. (1985b). Scenarios: Uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review 63(5): 72–89.

Waddell, P., Bhat, C. & Outwater, M. (2001). Recommendations for integrated land use and transportation models—Task 5. Seattle, WA: Puget Sound Regional Council.

Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Schultz, L. (2006). A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1). Retrieved August 3, 2010, from http://www.ecology andsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13 Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004).

Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2). Retrieved August 3, 2010, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 Walsh, B. (2007, October 12). A green tipping point. Time Magazine.

Retrieved November 29, 2007, from http://www.time.com/time/ world/article/0,8599,1670871,00.html Water Research Foundation. (2010). Research—Topics and projects: Project snapshot: Joint Front Range Climate Change Vulnerability Study #4205. Retrieved July 7, 2010, from http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/projectSnapshot.aspx?pn=4205

RJPA_A_508428.qxd

9/7/10

5:41 PM

Page 511

Quay: Anticipatory Governance

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:12 23 July 2011

Wheeler, S. M. (2008). State and municipal climate change plans: The first generation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 481–496.

Wheeler, S. M. (2009). California's climate change planning: Policy innovation and structural hurdles. In S. Davoudi, J. Crawford, & A. Mehmood (Eds.), Planning for climate change: Strategies for mitigation and adaptation for spatial planners (pp. 125–135). Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

511 Wildavsky, A. (2006). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Willson, R. W., & Brown, K. D. (2008). Carbon neutrality at the local level: Achievable goal or fantasy? Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 497–504.

Yohe, G., & Tol, R. S. J. (2002). Indicators for social and economic coping capacity—Moving toward an working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 12(1), 25–40.