Implementing Climate Change Adaptability an exploration of the values and need of climate adaptation theories
AR3U022, Theory of Urbanism
Rahul Dewan 4505719 email: r.dewan@tudelft.student.nl
Januray, 2017
Abstract: Climate change combined with the current mode of fossil-driven urbanization has contributed to the increased negative impact on the disadvantaged population across the globe. Increased frequencies of environmental hazards such as sea level rise, decreased snowpack, severe storms, loss of biodiversity have triggered a discourse on ‘climate adaptation’ as a solution both in mainstream media as well as in academia. This paper argues that climate adaptation framework cannot act as an ultimate solution and that there is a requirement to rethink the way the rapid urbanization combines with climate change affecting the disadvantaged population. Navigating this discourse, the paper also highlights the shortcomings and knowledge gap in the implementation of such climate adaptation frameworks in real-world, empirical situations. As a possible recommendation, the concept of ‘international design competitions’ is presented as a tool to execute a transdisciplinary model of adaptation. This model, argued by the paper can have a sizable effect at the local scale, where the impact of climate change is most visible as well as contribute to the theoretical models, which operate at a larger scale. Key words: Climate change, climate adaptation, vulnerability, adaptive governance
1
1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the lack of implementation of theoretical and scientific definitions particularly in the light of climate change and adaptive policies, addressing the scientific gap present in this theoretical discourse. With time and technology, we are urbanising towards ‘development’ at a faster rate and the proportion and contrast in socioeconomic inequality is widening even faster. In the face of a natural disaster majority of the urban poor are the ones who face the hardest challenge to response and recover from these uncertain events. Especially highlighted in the wake of the disastrous Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005, many authors have contributed different notions about the devastation and ruins to land and water brought by the neo-liberal cult of the free market across the world. Academically, as a response to the increasing frequency of such climatic disasters on the urban sphere, ‘climate adaptation’ has become the new focus in the existing body of literature. Many writers have addressed the subject of adaptive capacity and adaptation to climate change as a conceptual framework as well as a systematic framework. Experts against the current traditional approach towards uncertain events and are propagating the new trend of ‘adaptation by design/resilience by design’. Also in this discourse lies the argument that climate change and its adaptability need to be reworked keeping in mind the current mode of rapid urbanisation and its associated complexities. Climate adaptation framework cannot act as an ultimate solution and that there is a requirement to rethink the way the rapid urbanisation combines with climate
change affecting population.
the
disadvantaged
Although the impact of climate change is a global issue its consequences are felt at the very local scale (Saavedra, C. and Budd, W.W., 2009), resulting in a gap between this theoretical framework and its implementation in the real world. In order to explore this knowledge gap, this paper first explores the premise of climate change with respect to urbanisation complexities resulting in socioeconomical expulsion of the urban poor from the basic services, illustrated by the example of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. It then moves to a review of the predominant categories of the theories spouted in this larger problem field, highlighting the gap in its implementation, proposing the value and challenges of using ‘design competitions’ as trans disciplinary solution.
2i. Premise: Climate change in combination with urbanization In the latter half of the 21st century, rapid urbanization leading to a gradual increase in the number of people living in urban areas and a resulting spatial transformation have led us to think of it as an unpropitious thing. Throughout modern history urbanization meant socio-economic development and poverty reduction. However post 1989, after the collapse of the iron curtain, the world seems to be marked by some global victory of neoliberalism backed by the ubiquitous presence of United States witnessing the widening of socio-economic inequality (Appadurai, A., 2001). This was clearly reflected in most of the urban development, especially in the Western world.
As per UN Habitat 6 out of 10 people will live in urban areas by 2030. It takes up to 2% of the total land, consume 60% of the global energy, responsible for 70% of greenhouse gas emission and contribute to 70% of global waste (New Urban Agenda, UN Habitat). Activist Naomi Klein in her book ‘This changes everything: Capitalism vs. Climate’ critically mentions how large companies and corporations led by neoliberal elitists along with human activities such as large scale extraction programs such as oil drilling, construction of dams etc. turn resource rich land into dead land and sea affecting our very biosphere (Klein, N., 2015). Arguing against individual elements (such as humans or carbon) to share the blame for climate collapse, Klein (2015) posits that it is the particular arrangement of these elements forming a particular type of urbanization, which is to share the blame. This fossil dependent urbanization results in greenhouse gas emission, un-captured methane gas emission from landfills to name a few directly accelerates the impact of climate change as evident from the rising frequencies in the number of natural disasters in this epoch. Moreover this pattern of fossil dependent urbanization has its fair share of negative consequences, visible especially on weaker socio-economic sections of the society. This current form of urbanization, led by political and corporate elitist has only worsened and widened the socio-economic gap creating a disparity between the privileged and the underserved. In addition, it has the power in expelling low-income workers and unemployed disadvantaged communities from government social welfare and health programs familiarly seen in the West. It can also be argued that the complexity that arises because of this uneven
development leads to a socio economic expulsion. Today’s socio economic and environmental dislocations cannot be understood within the bubble of poverty and injustice rather it should be addressed more as type of expulsion (Sassen, S., 2014). This new language of ‘expulsion’ by Sassen (2014) derives from her argument that the new dynamics in this type of urbanization requires a change of approach. This argument states that the new dynamics may get filtered through harsh realities such as poverty, inequality, economy and its politics, taking on familiar forms. This can form a pitfall, as these dynamics signal a change in meanings, and should be approached through a different tactic- expulsion (Sassen, S., 2014).
2ii. Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans – an example In this era of a dramatic rise in natural hazards (such as storms, drought, flooding, temperature rise and fall, decreased snowpack, loss of biodiversity) can have a large impact leading to disastrous outcomes visible in the urban poor. Uneven development results in poor infrastructure and lack of accessibility to resources for the disadvantaged communities. Moreover this results in poor spatial qualities that cannot withstand the force of a natural disaster. In recent years, perhaps the most prolific example of such an ‘expulsion’ which was brought to limelight, was the impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 revealed a complex picture of vulnerability in New Orleans. New Orleans was surrounded levees, keeping the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain out of the city which is below the sea level. A combination of land loss in the shore lands
and a change in priorities from the federal government left the levees and other protective measures weak. Thus, New Orleans was left vulnerable to harmful hurricane exposure. Although Hurricane Katrina was only a level 3 category, and not the “big one” (Yarnal, B., 2007), the dramatic variation in the impact it created was greater than the storm itself. Engineered levee built by the Army Corps of Engineers could not resist the intensity of the storm. The storm crashed into the levees and the water poured in flooding the entire city. An estimated 1840 casualties were registered causing $108 billion damage. This storm became extremely politicized and it brought the issues of race and class relation to the forefront of public attention, with the most vulnerable areas in New Orleans being inhabited by poorer African-American communities. Scholars such as Yarnel (2007) have explored this socio-economic phenomena arguing that both race and class contributed to social expulsion in the aftermath of Katrina. On the “race” aspect it is argued that industry and government organizations locate environmental hazards in low-income, minority communities as these communities lack the social, political, and economic power to resist such treatment (Elliott, J.R. and Pais, J., 2006). On the other hand “class” divisions result in low-income minority communities settle around areas susceptible to environmental hazards having lower property values. Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans was one of the first examples of a natural disaster combined with the effects of expulsion which was picked up by global media and was carried forward by social media. Apart from just the physical nature of vulnerability, it was the social vulnerability which caught the interest of the media as well as scholars. In a region cross-cut by the deep and complex
divisions of race and class, the physical and social vulnerability only highlighted the nature of urbanization and the socio-economic dynamics it produced. As a response, many experts have addressed the subject of vulnerability to climate change and the “climate adaptation” by design to better cope with such disastrous events. Several cities, such as London, Rotterdam and Hamburg deal with a long term vision focusing on dealing with climate change and its adaptation. These methods and schemes, at times using a system approach to identify and conceptualize relationships resulting from climate change & urbanization and its impact on the resulting socioeconomic dynamics and the phenomena of expulsion.
3. Climate Adaptation Frameworks Climate change and its adaptive measures have been a part of the academic discourse for a long time, although it has gained prominence in the light of increased natural hazards. Climate adaptation emerged as a rational solution to not fear water rather embrace and adapt to the changed brought along with it. It sky rocketed as the framework for building a robust society against the impacts of climate change. Many writers have embraced climate adaptation as the possible solution to be resilient against the impacts of climate change. Because of this wide body of literature, there are many definitions of adaptations, which broadly mean the adjustments in a system’s behavior, and characteristics that enhance its ability to cope with external stresses (Yarnal, B., 2007). The Global Change Research Community describes it as ‘the degree to which people can
mitigate the potential for harm by taking action to reduce exposure or sensitivity both before and after the event. On the other hand The Hazards and Disaster Research Community views adaptation as a mix of 2 components: coping capacity and resilience. Coping refers to the ability of people and places to face the hazard while resilience is the ability to bounce back after exposure to the hazard. The following section will present a review of two of the adaptive frameworks, one as a conceptual framework, and the other as a system approach. Nick Brooks (2003) presents a tentative conceptual framework incorporating notions of risk, vulnerability and adaptive capacity that synthesizes a variety of approaches. He presents a framework where the social and biophysical vulnerability are distinguished between in order to resolve the different formulations of vulnerability in climate change literature (Brooks, N., 2003). This differentiation argued by brooks helps us appreciate the compatibility of risk-based and vulnerability-based approaches. Deriving from the reasoning presented by Kasperson, et. al. (2001), this framework posits that it is necessary to assess vulnerability as a vital part to the ‘causal chain’ of risk and the aspect of alternating vulnerability is an effective risk management strategy (Kasperson, R.E. et al., 2001). Navigating this discourse, Brooks places the study of social vulnerability within a risk management system. He concludes with terming adaptive capacity of a human system as the potential of the system to reduce its social vulnerability and as a follow up to minimize the risk associated with a given hazard (Brooks, N., 2003). As a recommendation for future usage and development of this framework, several questions are raised regarding the definition
of adaptive capacity at a system or a subsystem level. Viewing adaptive capacity and associated concepts such as vulnerability and resilience from a systematic perspective, Gallopín (2006) attempts to illustrate the interconnection between them in non-trivial ways. This is viewed from a larger framework of SES, i.e., the socio-ecological system. Exploring the linkages, Gallopin views vulnerability, not as a flipside of resilience, but more structural changes in the stability landscape. On the other hand, the concept resilience is defined by him in terms of state shifts between domains of attraction and is an internal property of the system (Gallopín, G.C., 2006). However, Gallopin falls short of linking ‘adaptive capacity’ apart from acknowledging its existence in the system. Criticizing the notion of ‘adaptive capacity’ by citing its limitations to cope with element of increasing adaptivity when the environment does not change.
4. Conclusion: Failure of implementation These many definitions of the related terminology of vulnerability, resilience, hazards and adaptive capacity, and they constitute an extremely important framework that needs to be considered in our epoch. What is common in both categories of the conceptual framework and the system approach is an emphasis on how to make it operable as an additional aspect. Termed as ‘adaptive governance’, it aims to provide an alternative to the traditional ‘predict and control regime’ (Rijke, J. et al., 2012). This approach of making ‘adaptive capacity’ has still remained mainly theoretical with ‘adaptive governance’ facing a challenge
regarding the inability of practitioners and policy makers to complexities and various uncertainties (Rijke, J. et al., 2012). It is evident that there is a gap when comes to translation of developing ‘adaptive capacity’ and its resulting ‘adaptive governance’ in terms of climate change and urbanization processes. It can be reasoned that as the impact of climate change and its resulting social expulsion is faced mainly by the minorities and the urban poor, the adaptation strategies have failed to be executed as they till now have only been focused at a larger scale. The majority of the efforts have been in the direction of determining and trends related to dealing with climate change, however there has been little effort to address the dichotomy in between the theorization and at its application in empirical projects attributed mainly to the incongruencies in the local actors involved. Arguing that in order to make theories of ‘adaptive capacity’ and ‘adaptive governance’ implementable, this paper agrees with the arguments presented by Rijke, Et al (2012) stating that a mix of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ management is requires to establish a resilient system in disadvantaged communities as they face the brunt of climate change resulting in socio-economic expulsion. However, one must be careful not to conclude that this would be enough, and should consider the varied stakeholder needs depending on the context. An evaluationbased approach, adapting to the different points in time in order to include different purposes such as coordination of activities, generating new knowledge, and distributing knowledge (Rijke, J. et al., 2012) is required to ensure the applicability of any theoretical framework on deprived communities. This is due to the existence of other more pressing
and urgent issues in disadvantaged and deprived communities, and is enhanced by limited knowledge and the lack of resources, which aggravate their vulnerability to socioeconomic and bio-physical hazards. This is primarily because when it concerns climate adaptation, it has been observed for disadvantaged communities that there is more pressing issues that need immediate concern. The disadvantaged communities because of limited knowledge and lack of access to resources do not believe when it comes to climate adaptation. Although the impact of climate change is a global issue its consequences are felt at the very local scale (Saavedra, C. and Budd, W.W., 2009). The paper argues that the main international focus has been on mitigation of greenhouse gases in response to climate change and local communities need to deal with increased flooding, drought, sea level rise and other consequences of climate change. The success of reducing the impact of climate change is at the local level. However local climate adaptation becomes a more complex framework to be implemented when it concerns the disadvantaged communities.
5. Possible Recommendations Attempts have been made to bridge this gap between the theoretical discourse and its implementation in real world. One of the methods of incorporating a consortium of a variety of stakeholders in a new model where government agencies can partner with philanthropy, academia, the nonprofit and private sectors is the platform of ‘design competitions’. One of the most illustrative example of such a competition is the ‘Rebuild by Design’ organized in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in New York.
Understanding the limited capacity of rebuilding by only the state and local governments, a ‘Rebuilding task Force’ was formed, which recommended a process that was different from the existing federal model. It claimed that designing successful interventions would need to rely on intensive collaboration between community members, government agencies and talented experts (Bisker, J., 2013). Working as a ‘process by design’ competition broadens the spectrum and helps in understanding the problem with specific needs as intervention, which are meant for adaptation through time. This consortium, consisting of over 535 organizations, 181 government agencies, 10 teams, 4 partner organizations focusing on 1 region (Bisker, J., 2013), illustrated how design competitions can provide a platform to generate new ideas and its real world application. Although the pros and cons of conducting such competitions can be debated it is undoubtedly an illustrative example of how ‘adaptive capacity’ leading to ‘adaptive governance’ can be visualized. The challenge is to translate the results from the variety of ideas generated into an implementable framework, which contributes back to the theoretical knowledge. This would ensure that the different terminology related to ‘vulnerability’, ‘adaptive capacity’ and ‘adaptive governance’ move beyond its theoretical construct and adapt to real world empirical situations. This approach results in a move from a multidisciplinary to a transdisciplinary model, which is would have a sizable effect at the local level, where the impact of climate change is most observed. This process needs to be clubbed with the theoretical models targeting large-scale adaptability to climate
change and its trends so as to have an implementable model, which can be adapted to different contexts and sites.
7. References APPADURAI, ARJUN 2001. Deep democracy: urban governmentality and the horizon of politics. Environment and Urbanization, 13, 23-43. BISKER, JOHN 2013. Promoting Resiliece Post-Sandy Through Innovative Planning and Design. New York City. BROOKS, NICK 2003. Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: A conceptual framework. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper, 38, 1-16. ELLIOTT, JAMES R & PAIS, JEREMY 2006. Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina: Social differences in human responses to disaster. Social Science Research, 35, 295321. GALLOPÍN, GILBERTO C 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global environmental change, 16, 293-303. ESCOBAR, A. 2011. Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World, Princeton University Press KASPERSON, ROGER E, KASPERSON, JEANNE X & DOW, KIRSTIN 2001. Vulnerability, equity, and global environmental change. Global Environmental Risk, United Nations University Press and Earthscan, 247-272. KLEIN, NAOMI 2015. This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate, Simon and Schuster. RIJKE, JEROEN, BROWN, REBEKAH, ZEVENBERGEN, CHRIS, ASHLEY, RICHARD, FARRELLY, MEGAN, MORISON, PETER & VAN HERK, SEBASTIAAN 2012. Fit-for-purpose
governance: A framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environmental Science & Policy, 22, 73-84. SAAVEDRA, CASILDA & BUDD, WILLIAM W 2009. Climate change and environmental planning: Working to build community resilience and adaptive capacity in Washington State, USA. Habitat international, 33, 246-252. SASSEN, SASKIA 2014. Expulsions, Harvard University Press. YARNAL, BRENT 2007. Vulnerability and all that jazz: Addressing vulnerability in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Technology in Society, 29, 249-255.