Climate Change Mitigation To Adaptation And Resilience Environmental Sciences Essay

Recent studies on climatic science suggest that our climate does not increase or decrease in a steady and slow pace as we once thought (Parry, et al. 2007). Rather, it changes abruptly over a short period due to a combination of natural or external forcing and anthropological factors (Parry, et al. 2007). However, the most compelling issue regarding climate change is not its main contributing agent but the reality that our climate is indeed or will inevitably change and that we have to do something in response to that change. In its fourth assessment report (AR4) in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges that by the turn of the century our ecosystem will be overwhelmed by unprecedented combination of climate change and natural disasters such as flooding, wildfire and insect infestation, and other anthropogenic global change drivers such as land-use change, over pollution and over extraction of natural resources. The impact and magnitude of these disruptions would take a costly toll on food security, water supply, health and the economy especially on settlements in low lying areas such as coastal and flood plains where most rapid urbanization in many developing countries is taking place. This is compounded by the fact that these will leave urban poor communities, which are usually in high concentration on those areas, highly vulnerable and unable to deal with these changes due to their limited adaptive capacity.

This research explores the need to shift the current emphasis of climate change agenda on developing countries from mitigation to adaptation and resilience. It also relates the current trends in urban adaption on climate change concerning global perspective of international communities and the perspective of local state actors. It further explores the growing interests on utilizing resilience principles on top of conventional adaptation measures on its potency to address uncertainties that adaptation plans are not able to predict and account for.

Research Problem

I am studying how the practices and characteristics of low-lying and coastal urban poor communities in Metro Manila, which are perennially exposed to climatic stresses, make them sensitive or resilient to climate change, and to what extent these attributes able to contribute to the communities’ climate resiliency.

While many studies point out that urban poor communities are one the highest vulnerable to climate change and ASLR, very few studies have actually been made that assess their needs for resilience. Without sufficient information regarding adaptation strategies to climate change, urban planners and managers are bound to haphazardly develop action plans in response to climate change.

By exploring the strengths and limitations of these practices, this research aims to provide a better understanding on how urban planners and managers could improve upon these practices in addressing the residual effects of climate variability.

Research Questions

Vulnerability

What are the effects of unpredictable climate variability to low-lying and coastal urban communities?

Resilience

What are the intrinsic characteristics of the barangay that makes them resilient to climate change?

What indicators can be used to assess climate resilience at the barangay level?

What are the national programs, policies and plans that aim to directly enhance climate change resilience and to what extent do these address issues of resilience at the barangay level?

Implications

What are the implications of the results of this study to urban planning and management at the city level and, concurrently, at the barangay level?

Research Objectives

To explore the characteristics of vulnerable urban settlements with respect to unpredictable climate variability

To explore the climate resilient characteristics of communities

The describe the extent of these characteristics in degrading and/or enhancing the resilience of urban communities

To explain the validity of existing literature on generally accepted indicators for climate change resilience at the community level

To evaluate how the results of this study could influence decision-making at the local level

Scope and Limitations

The study will involve the vulnerability and resilience assessment of two urban barangays in Metro Manila or in the Greater Manila Area, one with CBRM and the other with no CBRM. Further, the selection barangays is limited by the availability of required secondary data for the assessment. The study shall cover social, economic and environmental indicators linked to vulnerability and resilience based on the studies of Ibarrarán et al. (2009) on VRIM and Cutter (2008) on DROP. Limitations are directly derived from the limitations of the assessments models as acknowledged by their authors.

Literature Review

Responding to climate change necessitates a two-pronged approach: decreasing amount of GHG emissions will while at the same time addressing the impacts that are already manifested on vulnerable populations. Whether by merit good or by the financial prospects of clean development mechanism projects, a significant number of mitigation programs have already been implemented all over the even among countries that are non-Annex I party to UNFCCC (Chandler, et al. 2002) (UNFCCC 2010). Reduction of carbon emissions and carbon footprint are widely associated nowadays with climate change and became new buzzwords in media literature. These positively reflect on the existing attitude towards global commitment in reducing target GHG emissions. Adaptation, on the other hand, receives less media mileage and more or less the same attention from international assistance community in the form of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the bilateral and multilateral donors (Hayes 2006) due to its fuzzy nature.

While this study does not discount the fact of the fundamental import of reducing global GHG emissions to their natural assimilation levels, it tries to highlight the increasing urgency of adapting to climate change. Füssel (2007) posits four arguments which presuppose the emerging need for climate change adaptation: (1) the effects of anthropogenic GHG emissions are already felt on recent history of climatic extremes and unprecedented variability, (2) climate records from fossil data show that climate changed periodically in the past and will continue to do so indefinitely, (3) GHG continuous to accumulate so do the rate of global warming, (4) the effectiveness of adaptation programs implemented whether locally and/or regionally are not easily influenced by other strategic actions, and (5) there is a growing momentum of interest among development organizations to fund climate adaptation programs as reflected by the growing number of climate change assessment techniques. Hayes (2006) adds that unlike mitigation measures, adaptation measures have always been practiced by societies and governments in responding to climate variability. While this makes it difficult to separate it from for those done in response or in anticipation to anthropogenic induced climate change, it is also in the realm of familiarity for many related professions and state actors. Many civilizations have learned to deal with the climate constraints overtime, usually in response to lack of water resources during dry periods (e.g., Egyptian’s Nile River irrigation system, Roman aqueduct, Mesopotamian dams) or the exceeding abundance of it during rainy season (Venetian Grand Canal, floating villages in Thailand and Cambodia). Fussel and Klein (2006) also points out the difficulty in monitoring the results and impacts of adaptation programs in aiding its intended beneficiary. There is a significant degree of uncertainty to what extent is the program able to reduce the impact of climate change. This raises a concern among international funding institutions as development programs necessitate a certain measure that ensures their effectiveness. Moreover, while mitigation measures done local level is generally considered to have a global impact, the same cannot be said for adaptation strategies that have a more localized benefit (Hayes 2006). Ironically, those who are least able to pay for it – local communities from poor and under developed countries, suffer the brunt of costs by climate change. UNFCCC estimated that by 2030 the total investment and financial flows needed for adaptation is about $49-171 billion, of which $28-67 billion are needed by developing countries alone (UNFCCC, 2007).

Emergence of resilience

Climate change adaptation refers to a broad range of initiatives and measures that reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change effects such as (Metz, et al. 2007). Adaptation to climate change occurs as a response to an extreme event that exceeds the normal coping range of a system. It reacts and anticipates to these shocks continuously, given that the system is given sufficient capability, time and resources to cope up – increasing its adaptive capacity. The context of adaptation is influenced by the climate-sensitive domain under study, types of climate hazard present, certainty of climate change models, on-climatic conditions in the form of political, economic, cultural and other environmental forcings, purposefulness, timing, planning horizon, form whether technical, institutional, legal or otherwise; and the actors involved. Due to its diverse context, there is no single approach to adaptation. It may take in the form or combination of anticipatory and reactive measures, private and public domains, and autonomous and planned measures.

As stated before, many forms adaptation measures are not new. It incorporates well-established disciplines already practiced in the realm of regional and urban planning such as coastal resource management, disaster risk management, and integrated flood management. It is also present in public health management and advances in agricultural science research in developing pest/drought/flood resistant crops. However, we should also consider that some aspects of climate change adaptation arose very recently in contemporary history. Further elaborating on this paper’s introduction, our world have are starting to experience unprecedented climate conditions and extremes at an unprecedented rate of change. This limits the ability of many ecological systems and human communities to cope and adapt with changes. Further, the domain of identified climate sensitive receptors is continually expanding, necessitates the involvement of disciplinary approaches and actors not traditionally involved with regional-local planning and development such as gender, mathematics, communication, sociology, atmospheric sciences. Recent advances in climatic sciences also offer decision-makers and planners critical and timely information on determining the extent, magnitude, origin and, to some extent, the trajectory of climate induced impacts that are not available before. However, these new developments also bring with discoveries also pits traditional approaches to local climate variability with the more complex dynamics global climate change. Access to better prediction models also exposes limitations of adaptation structures in resolving uncertainties which results from sudden and extreme changes. Most urban planners and policy makers take into account the risk of natural disasters such as storms, flood and earthquake and by extension climate change. However, it is often in the light of natural catastrophic disaster such as floods, tsunamis and typhoons. It is less seen in the context of the multiple hazards of an ever-changing climate to food security, health, disruptions to ecological balance and increasing vulnerabilities of urban centers.

At the heart of these issues is the enabling capability to alleviate these uncertainties which is compounded by the nature of climate change: (1) it crosses local, national and global boundaries; (2) its effects are felt for many decades or even centuries; (3) overlaps and interacts with many layers of ecological systems; (4) it is a highly dynamic process whose domain entrenches social, economic and environmental spheres – easily a sustainability issue. Adaptation measures are only effective if it is able to account and anticipate the magnitude of shock it is designed to suppress. Effective adaptation policies are developed by decision makers based on available prediction data. Uncertainties in these cases could lead to overestimation, which wastes valuable resources that could be allocated to other tasks, underestimation which exposes them to the risk of overwhelming impact (Barnett 2001), ignorance of a calamity that will hit them or indeterminate and prolonged exposure to climatic stress.

There are many approaches to climate change adaptation in current literature; one of the more prevalent approaches is through increasing the resilience of systems, both human and ecological. Strengthening of resilience aims to increase a system’s ability to cope with shocks, prolonged disturbances and unknown/wildcard forcings. Resilience is a measure of the ability of systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables and parameters (Holling 1973). These systems are able reorganize by undergoing change while retaining essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks (Walker, et al. 2004). Resilience is not simply a return-to-original-state process. In the realm of social-ecological system, by extension the urban environment, Walker et al. (2004) further relates resilience to adaptability and transformability, the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or socio-political conditions make the existing system untenable.

A city’s resilience to climate change is therefore defined by its capacity to continuously respond, withstand the effects of climate variability, and still function organically. Resilience to climate change requires urban governments to display the following characteristics: decentralization and autonomy, accountability and transparency, responsiveness and flexibility, participation and inclusion and experience and support (Tanner, et al. 2009). A study on the role of local government units on climate change adaptation in the province of Albay, Philippines revealed that communities experiencing frequent and severe climate hazards are more aware and responsive to the need climate change adaptation on (Lasco, et al. 2008). This is supported by the presence of political will and the numerous policies, programs and projects (PPPs) that the provincial government has enacted and implemented. Working with adaptation programs at a mesoscale or provincial scale was also found to be more cost-effective than having to delegate it to smaller and more numerous municipalities.

Place-based resilience vs. person-or-household-based resilience

This research body builds upon the arguments presented by Adger (2003) in his paper on social capital, collection action and adaptation. He posits that communities, especially in developing countries, are focal points of social collective action and social capital building necessary for increasing adaptive capacity at the local level. In the Philippines, barangays are the smallest political administration unit entrusted by the government to promote social, economic and environmental welfare. Barangays are also tapped in most local development projects. Moreover, it also forms as the social circle of its inhabitants. However, it should be cautioned that the barangays do not necessarily draw community boundaries. Due to its political nature as an administrative unit, barangay is chosen as the scale for this study due to potential available secondary data from documents and reports from both public and private institutions.

Adger (2003) also highlighted three lessons that are further explored in this study:

“…adaptive capacity… has culture and place-specific characteristics that can be identified only through culture and place- specific research.”

“there are the institutional prerequisites for the evolution and persistence of collective action and its relative importance compared to state intervention”

“institutional theories of social capital provide a means to generalize the macro level determinants of adaptive capacity”

In light of these arguments, while this study shall be looking at the resilience of the community or the barangay as a whole, it will take in to account both place-based and person-based induced resilience as well as the influence of macro level policies that aim to enhance local adaptive capacity. Winnick (1966) and Bolton (1992) discusses the conflict and significance of place prosperity and people prosperity in the development of national policies that aims to assist to individuals and places.

Measuring Resilience

It is important to note that measuring resilience (and adaptive capacity) is a complicated issue that is largely unresolved. The resilience concepts presented above is just a sample of what is currently available in literature. Differences in data types (physical/social, quantitative/qualitative), temporal and spatial scales, and view on what variable and what receptors are critical produce different approaches to resilience building. Wardekker et al. (2009) summarizes the above characteristics of a resilient system into the following six principles listed in the table below.

Table 2‑: Principles and characteristics of a resilient system

Principles

Characteristics

Homeostasis

multiple feedback loops counteract disturbances and stabilize the system

Omnivory

vulnerability is reduced by diversification of resources and means

High flux

a fast rate of movement of resources through the system ensures fast mobilization of these resources to cope with perturbations

Flatness

the hierarchical levels relative to the base should not be top-heavy. Overly hierarchical systems with no local formal competence to act are too inflexible and too slow to cope with surprise and to rapidly implement non-standard highly local responses.

Buffering

essential capacities are over-dimensioned such that critical thresholds in capacities are less likely to be crossed

Redundancy

overlapping functions; if one fails, others can take over

Source: Adapted from Operationalising a resilience approach to adapting an urban delta to uncertain climate change by Wardekker, et al. (2009)

Another method for measuring resilience is proposed by Malone and Brenkert (2008) and Moss et al. (2000) using a vulnerability-resilience indicator model (VRIM). The said model utilizes a comprehensive framework that goes beyond the analysis of hazards exposure at the same time taking into account location based factors of resilience. VRIM is a four-tier model: (1) resilience index from sensitivity and adaptive capacity, (2) vital sectors (human, economy, environment), (3) proxy variables for each sector; and (4) scenario projection. Malone and Brenkert (2008) point out that the said model, as with many indicator based research, is not able to account for the function of demographic and social characteristics.

Shaw et al. (2009) also proposed a similar approach but on a city scale. They developed a Climate Disaster Resilience Index that tries to account for the localized effects of climate-induced disasters, such as cyclone, flood, heat wave, drought and heavy rainfall induced landslide. The model assessed overall resilience based on natural, physical, social, economic and institutional resilience.

Cutter et al. (2008) provides an attempt in integrating these unaccounted socioeconomic characteristics by proposing a new framework for measuring disaster resilience called disaster resilience of place (DROP) model. The said model improves upon the existing comparative assessment for disaster resilience at the community level. Their seminal paper in 2008 provides an initial candidate set of variables that will be used in the model. The model has three limitations: (1) it is specifically designed to address natural hazards; (2) it focuses on community-level resilience; (3) it focuses on social resilience of places; and (4) it does not into account national policies and legislations that may have significant influence of on community resilience. The model measures inherent vulnerability and resilience of the community using the following indicators: ecological, social, economic, institutional, infrastructure, and community competence. As of the paper’s publication, the model proposed was not yet operationalized. The authors also suggest on improving and standardizing the initial set of indicators.

Adaptation planning in Southeast Asia

Lao PDR, Cambodia, Myanmar

Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore

National adaptation planning in the Philippines

Existing Policies (CAA, CWA, ESWM, Rainwater (RA 6716)

Recently passed CC law and recently signed National Framework on Climate Change

Initiatives (CCCI Sorsogon, Albay, Malabon)

Assessments (EEPSEA, Manila Observatory, IACCC, Sales)

Gaps

A recent project of UN Habitat in the Sorsogon City, Sorsogon, Philippines on promoting community resilience reflects the still-prevailing needs of many cities in developing countries – (1) enabling capacity to implement measures in combating contemporary issues such as climate change; and (2) strong public involvement at all levels of planning, decision-making process and implementation. The latter case being largely solved (or at least in the process of being solved) already at least in countries where there is a strong presence of internationally denominated donor agencies. The former however is still largely unresolved. This is clearly echoed by the development priorities on capacity building and technical assistance from international assistance mentioned. Prioritizing the acquisition of knowledge and skills is clearly the first step in the effort of achieving climate change resilience. This, together with the strengthening of organic links within the city further inspires local cooperative action. Further, while it is one of the most essential parts for climate adaptation action, it is also one of the easiest to implement technically and financially. These effort necessitates only the participation of the vulnerably populations (which is a sufficient incentive given the perceived threat) and political willingness and resolve of local authorities (vulnerable populations are also potential voters). Local governments, such as Sorsogon City, as pointed out by Lasco et al. (2008), which are often exposed to the climate-induced hazards are those who are more readily aware to the needs of climate change, yet are unable to respond due to their limited set of knowledge and skills.

Urban Planning & Management and resilience

Urban planning and management has big role, nay, it has the central role in building urban climate resiliency. Already illustrated in the examples given in the previous section are domains such as effective land use, public transport systems and housing on which urban planning are already championed in the circles of environmental sustainability, equity, economic development and climate change. On the other hand, there are also domains which are new (or whose responsibility is not often relegated or less visible) with urban planning such as energy, water and food security. Sourcing (or outsourcing) of these three sectors are often outside urban governance. These are often nationally or regionally shared resource and are also largely dealt with by such authorities. But then again, with the increasing need for resilience from external shocks brought by oil crisis, prolonged drought, food-biofuel competition, flood and other man-made and natural calamities, cities should start focusing on developing alternative options for these three sectors. This concept evades urban planning and management cultures even in many developed cities that are still highly reliant on resources taken outside (city as a parasite).

Urban climate resilience is the marriage of urban management and governance, both old and new, which is of an advantage as it is already in the sphere of familiarity. It is wrong, however, to assume that climate resilience is just about semantics and simply a repackaging of existing concepts. Climate change resilience puts these concepts into perspective. It gives us a framework that guides us coherently toward securing sustained and uninterrupted city development that is responsive to the growing threats of climate change. In an age of unprecedented extremes in climate variability, selective and compartmental adaptation measures for climate change, marred with the inability to respond to uncertainties and ignorance of unforeseen calamities, only give misguided notion of resolution and maybe suspect to failure.

Methodology

The proceeding section discusses the specific aims and the methodologies of this research.

Type of Research

This research uses mixed method approach. It is a primarily qualitative study but augmented and validated by quantitative approaches as well. The qualitative approach aims to:

Explore the characteristics of vulnerable urban settlements with respect to unpredictable climate variability. Determine the perceived effects of climate change. It aims to map out economic and livelihood fabrics and determine how these dependencies strengthen or weaken the communities’ resilience.

Explore the climate resilient characteristics of communities with respect to their inherent capacities and local practices

Describe the extent of these characteristics in degrading and/or enhancing the resilience of urban communities

Evaluate how the results of this study could influence decision-making at the local and meso level

The quantitative approach of this study aims to:

Describe the effects of climate variability on the urban community using indicator-based measurement tools

Explain the validity and limitations of existing literature on generally accepted indicators for climate change resilience at the community level

Methodological Framework

Research Instruments

Unstructured interviews

Key informant interviews (semi-structured)

Review of published reports and public documents

Livelihood mapping/zoning

Onsite observations

FGD

Analysis Instruments

Research Question

Critical Information Set

Data Sources

Data Collection Techniques

What are the effects of unpredictable climate variability to low-lying and coastal urban communities?

Flood data

Health records

Mortality rate

Other effects identified/perceived by respondents (exploratory)

News articles

Journal articles

Published reports

Key informant and respondent’s account

Communities’ accounts

Public documents and reports

Documentation

Analyses of published accounts/reports and public documents

Unstructured interviews

FGDs

What makes these communities vulnerable to climate change?

Settlement/infrastructure sensitivity

Food security

Ecosystem sensitivity

Human health sensitivity

Water resource sensitivity

Economic and livelihood fabric

Key informant accounts

News articles

Published reports

Public documents and reports

Journal articles

Documentation

Analyses of published accounts/reports and public documents

Key informant interviews

On site observations

Livelihood mapping/zoning

What are the intrinsic characteristics of the community that makes them resilient to climate change?

Community competence

Social networks and social embeddedness

Community values-cohesion

Institutional capacity

Economic capacity

Human &civic resources

Access to vital infrastructure and services

Institutional capacity

Social capital

Indigenous practices

Key informant and respondent’s account

Communities’ accounts

Observation

News articles

Published reports

Public documents and reports

Documentation

Analyses of published accounts/reports and public documents

Unstructured interviews

FGDs

Attitude surveys

Key informant interviews

On site observations

What are the national programs, policies and plans that aim to directly enhance climate change resilience?

Number and nature of strategic actions (PPPs)

Public documents and reports

Authorative reports and analyses regarding these PPPs

Key informant interviews with experts

Analyses of published accounts/reports and public documents

Key informant interviews

What are the implications of the results of this study to urban planning and management?

Results of the study

Expert judgment

Study area

The study shall be conducted on two communities located in Metro Manila or in Greater Manila Area: (1) urban barangay located on the coastal zone with CBRM and (1) urban barangay located along the coast with NO CBRM. The barangays can be selected from already-identified vulnerable cities or communities from existing studies of Perez et al. (1996), Sales (2009), EEPSEA and others.