Search results

Climate risk management evolves rapidly from one additional challenge for urban planning into a radical driver of urban development. In addition to fundamental changes in urban planning to increase long-term resilience, the creation of new opportunities for sustainable transformation is imperative. While urban planners increasingly add climate risks to their menu, implementation of effective action is lagging. To reduce urban infrastructure's vulnerability to heat and flooding, cities often rely on short-term incremental adjustments rather than considering longer-term transformative solutions. The transdisciplinary co-development of inspiring urban visions with local stakeholders over timescales of decades or more, can provide an appealing prospect of the city we desire - a city that is attractive to live and work in, and simultaneously resilient to climate hazards. Taking an historic perspective, we argue that re-imagining historical urban planning concepts, such as the late 19th-century garden city until early 21st century urban greening through nature-based solutions, is a pertinent example of how climate risk management can be combined with a wide-range of socio-economic and environmental goals. Climate knowledge has expanded rapidly over the last decades. However, climate experts mainly focus on the refinement of and access to observations and model results, rather than on translating their knowledge effectively to meet today's urban planning needs. In this commentary we discuss how the two associated areas (urban planning and climate expertise) should be more fully integrated to address today's long-term challenges effectively.

International audience ; Dealing consistently with risk and uncertainty across the IPCC reports is a difficult challenge. Huge practical difficulties arise from the Panel's scale and interdisciplinary context, the complexity of the climate change issue and its political context. The key question of this paper is if the observed differences in the handling of uncertainties by the three IPCC Working Groups can be clarified. To address this question, the paper reviews a few key issues on the foundations of uncertainty analysis, and summarizes the history of the treatment of uncertainty by the IPCC. One of the key findings is that there is reason to agree to disagree: the fundamental differences between the issues covered by the IPCC's three interdisciplinary Working Groups, between the type of information available, and between the dominant paradigms of the practitioners, legitimately lead to different approaches. We argue that properly using the IPCC's Guidance Notes for Lead Authors for addressing uncertainty, adding a pedigree analysis for key findings, and particularly communicating the diverse nature of uncertainty to the users of the assessment would increase the quality of the assessment. This approach would provide information about the nature of the uncertainties in addition to their magnitude and the confidence assessors have in their findings. ; Ce texte examine le traitement de l'incertitude dans les rapports du Groupe d'experts Intergouvernemental sur les Changements Climatiques (IPCC). La première partie rappelle les différences fondamentales entre probabilités objectives et subjectives, entre probabilités précises et imprécises, ainsi qu'entre les systèmes causaux et intentionels. La seconde partie met en évidence les divergences entre les trois groupes de travail persistantes au cours de l'histoire de l'IPCC. On montre en particulier que les incertitudes sur la notion de coût et de potentiel de réduction ne sont pas quantifiables en termes de probabilités. En conclusion, le texte recommande de reconnaitre la diversité des approches épistémiques dans les différentes disciplines, et d'adopter une caractérisation multidimensionnelle permettant de jauger la confiance des jugements (approche par pedigree).

International audience ; Dealing consistently with risk and uncertainty across the IPCC reports is a difficult challenge. Huge practical difficulties arise from the Panel's scale and interdisciplinary context, the complexity of the climate change issue and its political context. The key question of this paper is if the observed differences in the handling of uncertainties by the three IPCC Working Groups can be clarified. To address this question, the paper reviews a few key issues on the foundations of uncertainty analysis, and summarizes the history of the treatment of uncertainty by the IPCC. One of the key findings is that there is reason to agree to disagree: the fundamental differences between the issues covered by the IPCC's three interdisciplinary Working Groups, between the type of information available, and between the dominant paradigms of the practitioners, legitimately lead to different approaches. We argue that properly using the IPCC's Guidance Notes for Lead Authors for addressing uncertainty, adding a pedigree analysis for key findings, and particularly communicating the diverse nature of uncertainty to the users of the assessment would increase the quality of the assessment. This approach would provide information about the nature of the uncertainties in addition to their magnitude and the confidence assessors have in their findings. ; Ce texte examine le traitement de l'incertitude dans les rapports du Groupe d'experts Intergouvernemental sur les Changements Climatiques (IPCC). La première partie rappelle les différences fondamentales entre probabilités objectives et subjectives, entre probabilités précises et imprécises, ainsi qu'entre les systèmes causaux et intentionels. La seconde partie met en évidence les divergences entre les trois groupes de travail persistantes au cours de l'histoire de l'IPCC. On montre en particulier que les incertitudes sur la notion de coût et de potentiel de réduction ne sont pas quantifiables en termes de probabilités. En conclusion, le texte recommande de ...

International audience ; Dealing consistently with risk and uncertainty across the IPCC reports is a difficult challenge. Huge practical difficulties arise from the Panel's scale and interdisciplinary context, the complexity of the climate change issue and its political context. The key question of this paper is if the observed differences in the handling of uncertainties by the three IPCC Working Groups can be clarified. To address this question, the paper reviews a few key issues on the foundations of uncertainty analysis, and summarizes the history of the treatment of uncertainty by the IPCC. One of the key findings is that there is reason to agree to disagree: the fundamental differences between the issues covered by the IPCC's three interdisciplinary Working Groups, between the type of information available, and between the dominant paradigms of the practitioners, legitimately lead to different approaches. We argue that properly using the IPCC's Guidance Notes for Lead Authors for addressing uncertainty, adding a pedigree analysis for key findings, and particularly communicating the diverse nature of uncertainty to the users of the assessment would increase the quality of the assessment. This approach would provide information about the nature of the uncertainties in addition to their magnitude and the confidence assessors have in their findings. ; Ce texte examine le traitement de l'incertitude dans les rapports du Groupe d'experts Intergouvernemental sur les Changements Climatiques (IPCC). La première partie rappelle les différences fondamentales entre probabilités objectives et subjectives, entre probabilités précises et imprécises, ainsi qu'entre les systèmes causaux et intentionels. La seconde partie met en évidence les divergences entre les trois groupes de travail persistantes au cours de l'histoire de l'IPCC. On montre en particulier que les incertitudes sur la notion de coût et de potentiel de réduction ne sont pas quantifiables en termes de probabilités. En conclusion, le texte recommande de reconnaitre la diversité des approches épistémiques dans les différentes disciplines, et d'adopter une caractérisation multidimensionnelle permettant de jauger la confiance des jugements (approche par pedigree).

International audience ; Dealing consistently with risk and uncertainty across the IPCC reports is a difficult challenge. Huge practical difficulties arise from the Panel's scale and interdisciplinary context, the complexity of the climate change issue and its political context. The key question of this paper is if the observed differences in the handling of uncertainties by the three IPCC Working Groups can be clarified. To address this question, the paper reviews a few key issues on the foundations of uncertainty analysis, and summarizes the history of the treatment of uncertainty by the IPCC. One of the key findings is that there is reason to agree to disagree: the fundamental differences between the issues covered by the IPCC's three interdisciplinary Working Groups, between the type of information available, and between the dominant paradigms of the practitioners, legitimately lead to different approaches. We argue that properly using the IPCC's Guidance Notes for Lead Authors for addressing uncertainty, adding a pedigree analysis for key findings, and particularly communicating the diverse nature of uncertainty to the users of the assessment would increase the quality of the assessment. This approach would provide information about the nature of the uncertainties in addition to their magnitude and the confidence assessors have in their findings. ; Ce texte examine le traitement de l'incertitude dans les rapports du Groupe d'experts Intergouvernemental sur les Changements Climatiques (IPCC). La première partie rappelle les différences fondamentales entre probabilités objectives et subjectives, entre probabilités précises et imprécises, ainsi qu'entre les systèmes causaux et intentionels. La seconde partie met en évidence les divergences entre les trois groupes de travail persistantes au cours de l'histoire de l'IPCC. On montre en particulier que les incertitudes sur la notion de coût et de potentiel de réduction ne sont pas quantifiables en termes de probabilités. En conclusion, le texte recommande de reconnaitre la diversité des approches épistémiques dans les différentes disciplines, et d'adopter une caractérisation multidimensionnelle permettant de jauger la confiance des jugements (approche par pedigree).

Due to the lack of success in climate change mitigation efforts, the importance of adaptation is becoming more and more apparent and is now one of the main imperatives of international research and action. However, research on adaptation is mostly not directly applicable to adaptation policy or practice, leaving a gap between scientific results and practical advice for decision makers and planners. This book seeks to address this problem and bridge the gap and should provide readers with practical and applicable information on climate change adaptation. Following an introduction, the book is o