Urban Environmental Problems: Climate Change

The direct impacts of climate change befall on municipalities. Thus, local governments along with community-based organizations design mitigation and adaptation strategies to cope with climate change-related disasters and their cascade effects. A decentralized decision-making process, however, must follow state, federal and international regulatory frameworks so that technical and financial resources are accordingly allocated and milestones adequately monitored and assessed. Contingency plans should prioritize the most vulnerable populations and the main industries. The low-income elderly, women, and children living in low coastal areas and densely populated regions are the ones most frequently affected by and with the least abilities to rapidly respond to acute droughts, storms, and floods (Lavell, 2002). These social groups should receive not only special public attention but also training to identify natural and social hazards (Dodman, 2010). The main institutional challenge regarding the protection of vulnerable groups, however, is not to carry out risk assessments and design mitigation plans that create a more resilient locality through structural and non-structural investments but to come up with a plan that addresses the broad scope that these vulnerable groups have been historically trapped in -- the poverty cycle (Jabeen, 2010). In the case of developed and densely populated areas, the main concern is on the relocation of the affected population and the protection of the existing industries such as the tourism sector in the Waikiki area, which is predicted to be entirely flooded by the end of this century if nothing is done to offset the effects of sea-level rising (Fletcher, 2008) “Double vulnerability” -- climate change and poverty -- is addressed by providing institutional mechanisms for mayors and community leaders from poor areas to participate in regional and federal decision-making processes (Dodman, 2008). Even though local governments rely on institutional support to put forth mitigation and adaptation plans, mayors and community leaders are the ones in the best position to assess the urgent needs of their community before, during, and after a disaster strikes, and so should be held accountable for the living standards, livelihoods and the reduction of vulnerability to environmental hazards (Hardoy, 2001). Grassroots organizations and local government enact disaster management plans by encouraging, facilitating and preventing what other stakeholders can and cannot do (Satterthwaite, 2007). This command-and-control approach is necessary since climate-change effects are also exacerbated by endogenous urban problems like overpopulation and illegal constructions (Reed, 2011). In terms of how local public administrations should address the impacts of climate change while promoting development, there is a constant tension between planners’ and economists’ positions. Planners advocate that land use provides a better basis for efficient and equitable resolutions on adaptation strategies and development challenges (McGranahan, 2007). Economists, however, claim that excessive regulations and subsidies prevent the market from operating efficiently, and as a result, increase the financial and environmental costs of dealing with climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives (Coffman, 2010). Neither market-driven solutions nor institutional planning, the main challenge of climate change adaptive plans is the empowerment of local communities through development strategies in the context of fragile political decision-making processes (Schuftan, 1996). National and state decision-making processes should deliberate through systematic consultations with mayors and community leaders especially from disaster-prone areas (Rich, 1995). In addition, local leaders should have technical and financial access to state, federal, and international funding and manpower so that mitigation and adaptation plans are enacted cooperatively and become part of a long-term development strategy (Klein, 2005). In this context, local elected officials are not only legally responsible for action plans but should also anticipate the challenges imposed by decision-making processes that allow every group and citizen to conveniently provide inputs to and monitor climate-change adaptive plans (Few, 2011). Poverty magnifies exposure -- material and human -- and is a result of poor management and non-participative decision-making processes at the local, regional and national levels (Adger, 2003). Even though grassroots communities receive appropriate training and indigenous knowledge is recognized as instrumental to mitigate the effects of storms and droughts, the extension of local initiatives are greatly restricted by lack of financial, material, and human resources to consistently and adequately address the cyclical and accidental impacts of climate change (Raygorodetsky, 2010). Even if householders identify hazard areas and are aware of the magnitude, frequency, and intensity of these events on their livelihoods, they are invariably forced or helplessly resettle in hazardous areas due to lack of living alternatives (Burton, 1972). As poverty is historical and contextual, the state and federal agencies are also responsible to reinforce laws and policies that address this issue in the long term and, more specifically, that provide institutional mechanisms to help localities prepare and respond to disasters in the short term (Farber, 2007). In addition to the provision of resources for making communities become more resilient, state and federal agencies must enact consequence management systems that define trigger points for assistance whenever local capacity is overwhelmed (Breitmeier, 2009). The main benefit of these response systems is that they give room for localities to be the first responders but also acknowledge that crisis management itself not rarely requires deployment of surge capacity from other jurisdictions (Comfort, 2010). Community-based adaptation also benefits from international assistance. Even though indicators and circumstances differ widely, local communities benefit from an international framework of disaster risk reduction plans like the Hyogo Framework for Action from the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (McGoldrick, 2007). This international set of standards provides a platform that mayors and community leaders voluntarily decide to follow so that they are able to meet international standards and benchmarks and to exchange management best practices (Cutter, 2008). By having not only national agencies but also international organisms contributing to local decision-making processes, grassroots communities strengthen their political statements within their operating borders and, above all, ensure that local climate change adaptive plans are definitely incorporated into national and regional institutional development strategies (Jones, 2010). References: Adger, W. “Adaptation to climate change in the developing world”, v. 3, n. 3, pp. 179-195, 2003. Breitmeier, H. et al. “Analyzing Urban Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change: A Comparison of the Coastal Cities of Dhaka, Lagos and Hamburg”, DVPW-Kongress 21, 2009. Burton, I. “Cultural and personality variables in the perception of natural hazards”, Environment and the social sciences: perspectives and applications, pp. 184-195, 1972. Coffman, M. et al. “A “Primer” on Climate Change and Hawai’i”, 2010. Comfort, L. et al. “Designing Resilience: Preparing for Extreme Events”, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010. Cutter, S. “A placed-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters”, v. 18, i. 4, pp. 598-606, 2008. Dodman, D. “Institutional Capacity, Climate Change Adaptation and the Urban Poor”, IDS Bulletin, v. 39, n. 4, 2008. Dodman, D. et al. “Victims to victors, disasters to opportunities”, IDPR, v. 32, i. 1, 2010. Farber, D. “Disaster Law and Inequality”, 25 Law & Inequality, 297, 2007. Few, R. “Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion”, Climate Policy, v. 7, I. 1, pp. 46-59, 2007. Fletcher, C. “The Blue Line”, Sea Level Rise Website, Accessed on March 1, 2012. http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/sealevel/ Jabeen, H. et al. “Built-in resilience: learning from grassroots coping strategies for climate variability”, Environment and Urbanization, i. 22, p. 415, 2010. Jones, L. et al. “Responding to a Changing Climate: Exploring how Disaster Risk reduction, Social Protection and Livelihoods Approaches Promote Features of Adaptive Capacity”, Overseas Development Institute, 2010. Klein, R. “Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions”, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change, v. 8, i. 6, pp. 579-588, 2005. Lavell, A. “Local Level Risk Management: Concepts and Experience in Central America”, paper presented at Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation Summit, New Delhi, India, 21–23, November, 2002. McGoldrick, W. “Financing Adaptation in Pacific Island Countries: Prospects for the Post-2012 Climate Change Regime”, Financing Adaptation in Pacific Island Countries: Prospects for the Post-2012 Climate Change Regime, 45, 2007. McGranahan, G. et al. “The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones”, Environment & Urbanization, v. 19, i. 1, pp. 17-37, 2007. Reed, B. “Climate Change And Faith Collide in Kiribati”, NPR, February 16, 2011. Accessed on March 1, 2012. http://www.npr.org/2011/02/16/133650679/climate-change-and-faith-collide-in-kiribati Rich, R. “Citizen Participation and Empowerment: The Case of Local Environmental Hazards”, American Journal of Community Psychology, v. 23, n. 5, 1995. Satterthwaite, D. et al. “Adapting to Climate Change in Urban Areas: The Possibilities and Constraints in Low- and Middle-income Nations”, Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series, Climate Change and Cities 1, London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2007. Schuftan, C. “The Community Development Dilemma: What is really empowering?”, Community Development Journal, v. 31, n. 3, pp. 260-264, 1996.