Understanding the Governance of a New Climate Urbanism
The rapid pace of urbanization has ensured that the governance of cities is a topic that now touches more than half of the world population. This chapter puts forward three propositions that can be seen as preconditions to understand the new climate urban
- PDF / 229,219 Bytes
- 14 Pages / 419.528 x 595.276 pts Page_size
- 85 Downloads / 205 Views
1 Introduction The emergence of climate change as a result of urbanization and possible threat to urban areas has prompted a significant effort both in terms of scholarship and practical action in cities. With more than half of the world population now living in cities, we need to understand how cities are governed. In relation to climate change, this means understanding whether and how mitigation and adaptation strategies shape the way cities develop, how urban governance is changing as a result, and how these changes manifest in urban decision-making. When discussing the “climate” in climate urbanism, it is useful to keep in mind that climate policy consists of both mitigation and adaptation strategies. Mitigation relates to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, while adaptation relates to actions seeking to reduce climate risks or take advantage of climate S. Juhola (*) Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme, University of Helsinki and Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 V. Castán Broto et al. (eds.), Climate Urbanism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53386-1_5
67
68
S. Juhola
impacts. Historically, adaptation has been overlooked and some have argued that a focus on adaptation would reduce interests to mitigate emissions (Pielke et al. 2007). Furthermore, there have been long-standing debates on the differences between adaptation and mitigation as part of integrated climate policy (Tol 2005). According to many—including the IPCC—mitigation efforts benefit the common good as the emissions reductions benefit everyone, irrespective of who acts. Conversely, adaptation is mainly designed to benefit those that implement measures locally, particularly if the action is taken as a response to particular climate risks or impacts that affect a particular place. Thus, trade-offs—but also synergies—may appear between mitigation and adaptation goals as they are most often discussed together with regards to urban governance (Landauer et al. 2015). For instance, trade-offs can play out in terms of physical planning, that is, densification schemes to mitigate emissions from transport may have negative effects on the ability to use nature-based solutions to reduce urban heat island effects or managing surface runoff water (Martens et al. 2009). There will also be inevitable trade-offs in terms of resource allocation and goal-setting for adaptation and mitigation policy, as both compete in the same “environmental” decision-making arena. Despite these challenges, both adaptation and mitigation strategies will deeply impact the emergence of new forms of climate urbanism by reorienting urban governance and by influencing how the urban form evolves as a result of and in response to climate change. Mitigation efforts for instance reshape how cities consume energy, organize their transport, and provide food. Through adaptation, cities are reconfigured to create safe living environments by reducing risks from extreme weather
Data Loading...
