Search

Climate change action in built environments has not been at the scale or pace required to achieve the global goal (Paris Agreement) to limit warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. Action towards climate change goals can be facilitated by effective policy design, and policy reform. However, this is challenging because built environment policy contexts are complex and include policy from multiple sectors (e.g. urban planning, construction, design and property); supporting infrastructures (e.g. transport and water) and areas of cross cutting importance (e.g. climate change and sustainability). Limited guidance exists on how to design or analyse portfolios of policy instruments to meet climate change goals and challenges. The aim of this paper is to develop a framework for designing and analysing policy portfolios. The method of developing this framework was via a descriptive and explorative review of literature and a synthesis of key attributes yielded in the review. The framework is comprised of seven attributes: inclusion, prescription, discretion, legibility, vertical integration, horizontal integration, and balance. The framework can be used to analyse the appropriateness of the content of existing policy instruments and portfolios of policy instruments to address climate change goals. Additionally, the framework can be used to guide the development and design of policy portfolios for urbanising and rapidly urbanising areas, to address the challenge of climate change effectively and adequately. [Display omitted] • A well-designed portfolio of policy instruments is needed for climate change action. • Guidance for design and assessment of portfolios in built environments is lacking. • Identifies seven key attributes of an appropriate and effective policy portfolio. • Framework developed to assess existing policy portfolios for climate change action. • Can be used to design policy portfolios to adequately address climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Built environments are key spaces for social and economic activities. They are critical sources of greenhouse gas emissions and will be important locations for adaptation to climate change impacts. To transform built environments to adequately address climate change, necessary policy instruments must be identified and activated. However, the application of 'policy instrument' typologies to empirical research and analysis of the built environment holistically is limited. We present a 'built environment policy framework' consisting of a policy instrument typology (strategies, laws, regulations, guidelines, voluntary instruments and programs) and a built environment policy setting (governance level, sector, property type, life stage, timeframe). The framework was tested in an Australian context, and used to map and visually represent built environment policy instruments. The results highlight the suitability of the framework for understanding the policy portfolio of a built environment context. The mapping identified that strategies were the dominant policy instrument. Fewer policy instruments were found to directly address the built environment's later life stages, and there were fewer at federal and international levels of governance. This new framework makes a theoretical contribution to policy instrument development for built environments – by applying a holistic and complex approach. It also makes a practical contribution, to assist built environment professionals and governments assess their current policy instrument portfolio to inform policy development that progresses climate change transformation. • Policy instruments must be identified and activated to transform built environments for climate change. • We present a 'built environment policy framework' consisting of a policy instrument typology and setting. • The framework was tested in an Australian context. • Then used to map built environment policy instruments across four governance levels. • Framework can assist built environment professionals assess and reform current policy instrument portfolios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Research examining the construction industry demonstrates that it is the source of a large percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions, subject to future climate change risks, and that there is limited evidence of adaptation. This paper explores the preparedness of the Australian construction industry to adapt to climate change risks, through twenty-one key stakeholder interviews. The interviews addressed participants' perceptions of the industry's: climate change risk awareness, analytical capacity to address climate change risk, and current actions to address these risks. The main risk participants identified was extreme weather during construction (e.g. heat and wind) with impacts for occupational health and safety, supply chain reliability, project delivery delays, and profit. The impact of these risks was somewhat down played. While a high level of perceived analytical capacity to respond to climate change was observed, real action was limited by systemic, outdated regulations, lack of client motivation, and perceived costs. The climate change actions which were undertaken were predominantly climate change mitigation activities, largely focussing on organisational processes, rather than adaptations to built form. The results indicate that if Australia's built form is to be well adapted to climate change, greater preparedness to facilitate tangible and systemic actions to address climate change risk in the Australian construction industry is needed. Specifically, interviewees responses imply that increased awareness of the impacts of climate change, better translation of existing solutions into practice, and regulatory reform are needed. Highlights • Climate change preparedness of the Australian construction industry was investigated. • Main risks identified - extreme weather impacts to: worker safety, supply chain reliability, project delays, profit. • High level of perceived analytical capacity to respond to climate change observed. • Action limited due to: outdated regulations, lack of client motivation, perceived costs. • Greater climate change preparedness is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is increasingly recognised that the risks associated with climate change must be addressed through both mitigation and adaptation. Buildings are vulnerable to climate change risk and are also the source of a significant proportion of greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to climate change. The construction industry has significant potential to facilitate adaptation through actions that both reduce its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions across the construction and building lifecycle, and through physical adaptation of buildings and settlements to withstand present and future changes. However, there is limited evidence of significant adaptive action to date, and little is known about existing barriers to adaptation actions in the construction industry. This research explores barriers to climate change adaptation in the Australian construction industry through qualitative interviews with twenty-one key stakeholders. The barriers identified included: the use of inconsistent and unclear language, limited regulation, perceived unaffordability of initiatives, lack of awareness of climate change, and lack of client demand to implement initiatives. Recommendations to facilitate strategies for adaptation to climate change in the construction industry are provided. These focus on the need to a) address climate change through regulatory reform, and b) address the structure of the construction industry and its interrelationship with other built environment professions and processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social cohesion and local democracy (SCLD) are determinants of health. They contribute to health via complex pathways that include the free exchange of ideas and values, mutual trust and benefit, the sharing of resources and a sense of agency and efficacy in one's community. Like other determinants, SCLD can be affected by major infrastructures in subtle yet pervasive ways, both positively and negatively. Health impact assessment (HIA) is an established method of assessing major infrastructure projects and is capable of detecting and proposing responses to such impacts. Despite this, HIA is not undertaken as frequently as could be beneficial. Given governments' interest in the concept of liveability, we conducted an independent study to apply one domain of a previously introduced, eleven-domain liveability conceptual framework for HIA to assess a level crossing removal (LXR) project in Australia. Social cohesion and local democracy was assessed using a survey, interviews and data obtained via freedom of information (FOI). Local democracy was significantly negatively affected, primarily due to shallow and non-genuine consultation, with impacts on the mental health of a small but important segment of the community. Paradoxically, social cohesion was positively affected as a result of the new community groups and networks that evolved in opposition to the project. We conclude that the government's broadly granted social licence, established using popular but unproven claims that the LXR would increase safety and decrease congestion, allowed tokenistic local consultation. We comment on our experience with FOI processes, and on the potential of using 'liveability' to raise the profile of HIA, to yield better results for community health from major projects. • A Liveability framework for elevating health impact assessment is tested • Case study is a level crossing removal major infrastructure project in Australia • Health impacts attributable to 'social cohesion & local democracy' assessed • Mental health affected positively via social cohesion, negatively via democracy • This liveability domain (1 of 11) can detect subtle but pervasive impacts on health [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A new definition of 'climate change transformation' and an accompanying typology is presented. • Climate change transformation is defined to include: 1) the explicit coordination of adaptation and mitigation actions. • 2) a new regime of 1.5 degrees Celsius (only) of warming by 2100. • 3) sufficient actions to be well adapted to this new regime. • The definition and typology aim to guide climate change decision making in the built environment. Climate change presents a threat to the sustainability of cities and their societies, and must be adequately addressed. Urban environments (cities) are responsible for the creation of a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions which are the source of climate change. Cities have been increasingly the focus of action to address climate change, yet emissions are not significantly reducing. Additionally, there a lack of integration between adaptation and mitigation. This prevents responses adequate to limit global warming to 1.5OC, and to be well adapted to anticipated changes. This paper critically analyses existing definitions and typologies of climate change actions. A definition of 'climate change transformation' is proposed which includes the integration of adaptation and mitigation goals to enable a new regime in which global warming is limited to 1.5OC. A new three-part typology: 'coping, malaction and transformation,' is presented for categorising climate change actions by the extent to which they integrate adaptation and mitigation, and define a new regime. The typology is accompanied by illustrations to demonstrate the relationship between adaptation and mitigation. The definition, typology and illustration serve to guide effective climate change decision making, and provides principles to guide application in urban environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major urban infrastructure projects are intended to alter the built, human ecology for the better. Even when they are not labelled as health projects, arguably they should produce public health benefits that are commensurate with their scale, particularly when they are publicly funded. Health impact assessment (HIA) is an established method of evaluating major infrastructure projects using a determinants of health equity lens. HIA explicitly puts health front and centre to ask, 'How should the proposed infrastructure project be altered to improve the determinants of health equity?' There are well-established HIA protocols, but few provide a framework for scoping possible impacts. Given interest in the concept of liveability we introduce an exhaustive, evidence-based framework of 11 liveability domains for HIA. We then test the framework by scoping the impacts of the Upfield Level Crossing Removal (LXR) project in Melbourne, Australia to hypothesise its impacts on health. Scoping this case study suggests that many domains will be affected in complex ways, some positively and some negatively, exemplifying the potential for the framework to detect major infrastructures' pervasive impacts on determinants of health. The paper includes a plan to validate the liveability framework with empirical research in the HIA assessment stage. The paper concludes with a discussion of the contribution and usefulness of the liveability domains as a framework for structuring HIA and for building its profile, thus advancing the discipline, and helping to ensure that all major infrastructures constitute a prudent investment in public health. • New infrastructure alters the human ecology, health is not explicitly considered. • Health impact assessment evaluates projects' impacts on health via determinants. • An evidence-based, collectively exhaustive liveability framework is presented. • The liveability framework is tested on HIA of level crossing removal in Australia. • Liveability is useful for identifying pervasive yet subtle health impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Evaluates urban planning policy documents across scales of government and sectors. • Limited inclusion of climate change in urban policy documents was found. • Limited integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation was evident. • Identifies opportunities for climate change action to be implemented in land use planning. • Framework developed can assist urban planners meet Paris Agreement targets. Well-designed urban planning policy can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to anticipated climate change impacts. However, there has been limited analysis of the extent to which urban planning policy documents addresses climate change adaptation and or mitigation. There is a need to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100, and to be well adapted to this change (in line with the Paris Agreement). Achieving this goal will assist in limiting damage and loss to humans and the natural environment. This paper presents a detailed qualitative and quantitative evaluation of urban planning documents (policy, regulation and law) in the state of Victoria, Australia, and the degree to which climate change mitigation and adaptation (with a focus on sea level rise) are addressed and integrated. Two scales of government (state and local) were analysed across three policy disciplines (urban planning, climate change and flood management). The evaluation framework contributes to the few tools for analyzing legislation, regulation and strategic policies for climate change adequacy. The findings reveal limited climate change adaptation and mitigation actions in urban planning documents. Additionally, there is limited integration of adaptation and mitigation actions. Important opportunities for better alignment of policies across disciplines and government levels in line Paris Agreement goals are identified, to ensure implementation in decisions made about land use and development. The analysis finds that urban planning policy must do more to include and integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The term Nature-based Solutions has not been widely adopted in Australian policy and praxis. • We asked 27 water researchers and practitioners how they perceive and use NBS. • Alternative terminologies such as GI and WSUD are dominantly used in practice and policy. • Clarifications around NBS criteria and what can be expected from NBS-type interventions are required. • New ways are proposed for a shared understanding of NBS and its uptake in Australia. Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) have recently gained traction as integrated approaches that can address societal challenges by simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits. Among the benefits of NBS, their capacity to address urban water challenges – such as inland and coastal flooding –while providing ecological benefits has been a recent area of focus globally. While interventions that are labelled 'Nature-Based Solutions' have been widely integrated into policy and practice in Europe, the term has not been extensively adopted in Australian policy and praxis. This research examines how Australian water professionals from research and practice understand, conceptualise and use the concept, 'Nature-Based Solutions' (NBS) in addressing urban water challenges. We interviewed 27 water professionals in research and practice with diverse disciplinary backgrounds across four Australian states and asked them to provide their definition of NBS. The results show that alternative terminologies such as Green Infrastructure and Water Sensitive Urban Design are predominantly used. We present the participants' perspectives on the adoption of this term in Australia, and discuss the value and contributions of NBS as an umbrella concept. We conclude by providing insights on the potentials and limitations of the term, and propose ways to move beyond a focus on terminology and definitions towards facilitating the uptake and implementation of NBS in our cities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]