Suchergebnisse

Many cities around the world are undertaking adaptation planning processes in contexts of considerable uncertainty due to climate risks. However, new evidence suggests that current adaptation policies are failing to fully incorporate risk-related information and knowledge. Understanding how policies account for current and future risks becomes crucial to assess whether they will effectively contribute to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience. Exploiting the synergies between the well-established discipline of disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation may be an interesting option. In this paper we develop an Adaptation-Risk Policy Alignment (ARPA) framework to assess whether (and how) climate change adaptation policies integrate risk knowledge and information. ARPA displays a set of risk-based metrics that we test in four early adapters cities: Copenhagen, Durban, Quito and Vancouver. These cities are considered pioneer cities in the design and implementation of adaptation plans and have the potential to show the full applicability of ARPA. The framework is easy to apply and allows to systematically assess whether and how policies appropriately account for major risks and properly integrate risk management into the policy-making process. We propose that the framework can be used for self-evaluation and learning as well as in large-scale adaptation tracking exercises.

Cities are recognised as key players in global adaptation and mitigation efforts because the majority of people live in cities. However, in Europe, which is highly urbanized and one of the most advanced regions in terms of environmental policies, there is considerable diversity in the regional distribution, ambition and scope of climate change responses. This paper explores potential factors contributing to such diversity in 200 large and medium-sized cities across 11 European countries. We statistically investigate institutional, socio-economic, environmental and vulnerability characteristics of cities as potential drivers of or barriers to the development of urban climate change plans. Our results show that factors such as membership of climate networks, population size, GDP per capita and adaptive capacity act as drivers of mitigation and adaptation plans. By contrast, factors such as the unemployment rate, warmer summers, proximity to the coast and projected exposure to future climate impacts act as barriers. We see that, overall, it is predominantly large and prosperous cities that engage in climate planning, while vulnerable cities and those at risk of severe climate impacts in the future are less active. Our analysis suggests that climate change planning in European cities is not proactive, i.e. not significantly influenced by anticipated future impacts. Instead, we found that the current adaptive capacity of a city significantly relates to climate planning. Along with the need to further explore these relations, we see a need for more economic and institutional support for smaller and less resourceful cities and those at high risk from climate change impacts in the future.

The Paris Agreement requires measurement of the progress made on adaptation. Tracking the progress made by governments through analysis of policies provides insight into the goals and means to achieve adaptation targets. Here we show the current state of the art in public adaptation planning affecting 136 of the largest coastal port urban agglomerations, covering 68 countries. We identify 226 adaptation policies: 88 at national level, 57 at regional/state level and 81 at city/metropolitan level. This set of adaptation policies can be considered the latest, most up-to-date database of governmental and public-led adaptations. Our analyses show that (1) in one half of cases, there is no evidence of policy implementation, (2) in almost 85% of cases, planned adaptation actions are not driven by present or future climatic impacts or risks, and (3) formal adaptation planning is relatively recent and is concentrated in more developed areas and countries.

Cities significantly contribute to climate change and at the same time have governance capacity to act efficiently in the field s of mitigation and adaptation. Their capacity is being increasi ngly recognized by international institutions and has been pointed out as crucial i n the multi-level government scenario of the European Union (EU). Addressing the ch allenges of climate change at urban level is a complex issue w hich requires a holistic approach to strategic urban planning. Unders tanding why and how cities start action can help to identify th e barriers they face when addressing climate change, and how national government s, regions and international bodi es can support local authoriti es in their climate fight. This work aims to contribute to the provision of the knowledge needed to gain a better and deeper insight into u rban climate action. The study investigates the state-of -the-art of urban climate plans in Spain and Italy, two countries which share simila rities on many levels (i.e. cultural, geographical, climate vulnerabilities, urban configurations and institutional framework). The research a nalyses cities that are included in the Eurostat Urban Audit (U A), 26 in Spain and 32 in Italy, focusing on the actions taken by large and medium m unicipalities in reducing their contribution to climate change and becoming mo re resilient to changing weather patterns. The results of the a nalysis show a trend towards increasing awarene ss of climate mitigation (highly focused on ener gy efficiency and the promotion of cleaner ener gy sources), while adaptation remains a local policy area in its infancy in both countries. The study also identifies the beneficial influen ce of national and international climate city networks.

Cities significantly contribute to climate change while at the same time have government capacity to efficiently act in the fields of mitigation and adaptation. Their climate capacity is being increasingly recognized by international institutions and has been pointed out as crucial in the multi-level government scenario of the European Union (EU). Addressing the challenges of climate change at urban level is a complex issue which requires a holistic approach to strategic urban planning. Understanding why and how cities start action can help to identify the barriers they face when addressing climate change, and how national governments, regions and international bodies can support local authorities in their climate fight. This work aims to contribute to the provision of knowledge necessary to have a better and deeper insight in urban climate action. The study investigates the state-of-art of urban climate plans in two countries, Spain and Italy, which share similarities on many levels (i.e. cultural, geographical, climate vulnerabilities, urban configurations and institutional framework). The research analyses 26 Spanish cities and 32 Italian cities included in the Eurostat Urban Audit (UA), focusing on the actions taken by big and medium municipalities in reducing their contribution to climate change and to become more resilient to changing weather patterns. The results of the analysis show a trend towards an increasing awareness on climate mitigation (highly focused on energy efficiency and the promotion of cleaner energy sources), while adaptation remains an incipient local policy area in both countries. The analysis identifies also the beneficial influence of national and international climate city networks.

Cities significantly contribute to climate change while at the same time have government capacity to efficiently act in the fields of mitigation and adaptation. Their climate capacity is being increasingly recognized by international institutions and has been pointed out as crucial in the multi-level government scenario of the European Union (EU).Addressing the challenges of climate change at urban level is a complex issue which requires a holistic approach to strategic urban planning. Understanding why and how cities start action can help to identify the barriers they face when addressing climate change, and how national governments, regions and international bodies can support local authorities in their climate fight. This work aims to contribute to the provision of knowledge necessary to have a better and deeper insight in urban climate action.The study investigates the state-of-art of urban climate plans in two countries, Spain and Italy, which share similarities on many levels (i.e. cultural, geographical, climate vulnerabilities, urban configurations and institutional framework). The research analyses 26 Spanish cities and 32 Italian cities included in the Eurostat Urban Audit (UA), focusing on the actions taken by big and medium municipalities in reducing their contribution to climate change and to become more resilient to changing weather patterns.The results of the analysis show a trend towards an increasing awareness on climate mitigation (highly focused on energy efficiency and the promotion of cleaner energy sources), while adaptation remains an incipient local policy area in both countries. The analysis identifies also the beneficial influence of national and international climate city networks. ; Cities significantly contribute to climate change while at the same time have government capacity to efficiently act in the fields of mitigation and adaptation. Their climate capacity is being increasingly recognized by international institutions and has been pointed out as crucial in the multi-level government scenario of the European Union (EU).Addressing the challenges of climate change at urban level is a complex issue which requires a holistic approach to strategic urban planning. Understanding why and how cities start action can help to identify the barriers they face when addressing climate change, and how national governments, regions and international bodies can support local authorities in their climate fight. This work aims to contribute to the provision of knowledge necessary to have a better and deeper insight in urban climate action.The study investigates the state-of-art of urban climate plans in two countries, Spain and Italy, which share similarities on many levels (i.e. cultural, geographical, climate vulnerabilities, urban configurations and institutional framework). The research analyses 26 Spanish cities and 32 Italian cities included in the Eurostat Urban Audit (UA), focusing on the actions taken by big and medium municipalities in reducing their contribution to climate change and to become more resilient to changing weather patterns.The results of the analysis show a trend towards an increasing awareness on climate mitigation (highly focused on energy efficiency and the promotion of cleaner energy sources), while adaptation remains an incipient local policy area in both countries. The analysis identifies also the beneficial influence of national and international climate city networks.

Cities significantly contribute to climate change while at the same time have government capacity to efficiently act in the fields of mitigation and adaptation. Their climate capacity is being increasingly recognized by international institutions and has been pointed out as crucial in the multi-level government scenario of the European Union (EU).Addressing the challenges of climate change at urban level is a complex issue which requires a holistic approach to strategic urban planning. Understanding why and how cities start action can help to identify the barriers they face when addressing climate change, and how national governments, regions and international bodies can support local authorities in their climate fight. This work aims to contribute to the provision of knowledge necessary to have a better and deeper insight in urban climate action.The study investigates the state-of-art of urban climate plans in two countries, Spain and Italy, which share similarities on many levels (i.e. cultural, geographical, climate vulnerabilities, urban configurations and institutional framework). The research analyses 26 Spanish cities and 32 Italian cities included in the Eurostat Urban Audit (UA), focusing on the actions taken by big and medium municipalities in reducing their contribution to climate change and to become more resilient to changing weather patterns.The results of the analysis show a trend towards an increasing awareness on climate mitigation (highly focused on energy efficiency and the promotion of cleaner energy sources), while adaptation remains an incipient local policy area in both countries. The analysis identifies also the beneficial influence of national and international climate city networks. ; Cities significantly contribute to climate change while at the same time have government capacity to efficiently act in the fields of mitigation and adaptation. Their climate capacity is being increasingly recognized by international institutions and has been pointed out as crucial in the multi-level government scenario of the European Union (EU).Addressing the challenges of climate change at urban level is a complex issue which requires a holistic approach to strategic urban planning. Understanding why and how cities start action can help to identify the barriers they face when addressing climate change, and how national governments, regions and international bodies can support local authorities in their climate fight. This work aims to contribute to the provision of knowledge necessary to have a better and deeper insight in urban climate action.The study investigates the state-of-art of urban climate plans in two countries, Spain and Italy, which share similarities on many levels (i.e. cultural, geographical, climate vulnerabilities, urban configurations and institutional framework). The research analyses 26 Spanish cities and 32 Italian cities included in the Eurostat Urban Audit (UA), focusing on the actions taken by big and medium municipalities in reducing their contribution to climate change and to become more resilient to changing weather patterns.The results of the analysis show a trend towards an increasing awareness on climate mitigation (highly focused on energy efficiency and the promotion of cleaner energy sources), while adaptation remains an incipient local policy area in both countries. The analysis identifies also the beneficial influence of national and international climate city networks.

International audience ; The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial proportions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of planning for climate change by collecting and analysing local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and analysis framework was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their spatial (alignment with local, national and international policy) and sectoral integration (alignment into existing local policy documents). We document local climate plans that we call type A1: non-compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international climate networks; A2: compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international networks; A3: plans developed as part of international networks. This most comprehensive analysis to date reveals that there is large diversity in the availability of local climate plans with most being available in Central and Northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have an A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, 17% joint adaptation and mitigation plans, and about 30% lack any form of local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but mitigation does not always precede adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 70% of the cities above 1 million inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1 or A2). Countries with national climate legislation (A2), such as Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are found to have nearly twice as many urban mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce urban adaptation plans, than countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in countries where local climate plans are compulsory, especially in France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans of international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous, i.e. A1 plans are less common. The findings reported here are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making and thinking of stakeholders with similar experiences or developments at all levels and sectors in other regions around the world.

International audience ; The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial proportions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of planning for climate change by collecting and analysing local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and analysis framework was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their spatial (alignment with local, national and international policy) and sectoral integration (alignment into existing local policy documents). We document local climate plans that we call type A1: non-compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international climate networks; A2: compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international networks; A3: plans developed as part of international networks. This most comprehensive analysis to date reveals that there is large diversity in the availability of local climate plans with most being available in Central and Northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have an A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, 17% joint adaptation and mitigation plans, and about 30% lack any form of local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but mitigation does not always precede adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 70% of the cities above 1 million inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1 or A2). Countries with national climate legislation (A2), such as Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are found to have nearly twice as many urban mitigation plans, and five times more likely to ...

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of local planning for climate change by collecting and analysing information about local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and framework for analysis was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their alignment with spatial (local, national and international) and other climate related policies. Out of eight types of local climate plans identified in total we document three types of stand-alone local climate plans classified as type Al (autonomously produced plans), A2 (plans produced to comply with national regulations) or A3 (plans developed for international climate networks). There is wide variation among countries in the prevalence of local climate plans, with generally more plans developed by central and northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have a type Al, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, and 17% a joint adaptation and mitigation plan, while about 33% lack any form of stand-alone local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as Al, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but planning for mitigation does not always precede planning for adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 80% of the cities with above 500,000 inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (Al). Cities in four countries with national climate legislation (A2), i.e. Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are nearly twice as likely to produce local mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce local adaptation plans, compared to cities in countries without such legislation. Al and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland: while Al and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in two countries where local climate plans are compulsory, i.e. France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans produced for international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous (type Al) plans are less common. This is the most comprehensive analysis of local climate planning to date. The findings are of international importance as they will inform and support decision making towards climate planning and policy development at national, EU and global level being based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of local climate planning available to date.

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of local planning for climate change by collecting and analysing information about local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and framework for analysis was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their alignment with spatial (local, national and international) and other climate related policies. Out of eight types of local climate plans identified in total we document three types of stand-alone local climate plans classified as type A1 (autonomously produced plans), A2 (plans produced to comply with national regulations) or A3 (plans developed for international climate networks). There is wide variation among countries in the prevalence of local climate plans, with generally more plans developed by central and northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have a type A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, and 17% a joint adaptation and mitigation plan, while about 33% lack any form of stand-alone local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but planning for mitigation does not always precede planning for adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 80% of the cities with above 500,000 inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1). Cities in four countries with national climate legislation (A2), i.e. Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are nearly twice as likely to produce local mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce local adaptation plans, compared to cities in countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in two countries where local climate plans are compulsory, i.e. France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans produced for international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous (type A1) plans are less common. This is the most comprehensive analysis of local climate planning to date. The findings are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making towards climate planning and policy development at national, EU and global level being based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of local climate planning available to date. ; EU COST Action TU0902 that made the initial work possible and the positive engagement and interaction of the members of this group which led to this work. MO acknowledges funding from the Spanish Government (Grant no. FPDI-2013-16631). EKL was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of CR within the National Sustainability Program I (NPU I), grant number LO1415. OH and RD were funded by the EC project RAMSES Reconciling Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development for Cities (contract Ref 308497) and the EPSRC project LC Transforms: Low Carbon Transitions of Fleet Operations in Metropolitan Sites Project (EP/N010612/1).

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial proportions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of planning for climate change by collecting and analysing local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and analysis framework was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their spatial (alignment with local, national and international policy) and sectoral integration (alignment into existing local policy documents). We document local climate plans that we call type A1: non-compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international climate networks; A2: compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international networks; A3: plans developed as part of international networks. This most comprehensive analysis to date reveals that there is large diversity in the availability of local climate plans with most being available in Central and Northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have an A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, 17% joint adaptation and mitigation plans, and about 30% lack any form of local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but mitigation does not always precede adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 70% of the cities above 1 million inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1 or A2). Countries with national climate legislation (A2), such as Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are found to have nearly twice as many urban mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce urban adaptation plans, than countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in countries where local climate plans are compulsory, especially in France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans of international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous, i.e. A1 plans are less common. The findings reported here are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making and thinking of stakeholders with similar experiences or developments at all levels and sectors in other regions around the world.