Search

There is urgent need for the transformation of built environments to tackle climate change. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to well below 2 °C is of paramount importance, as is planning for future climate change risks. Architects, as designers of the built environment hold an important role in advocating and enabling the necessary mitigation and adaptation actions required in the design and construction of new buildings, and the reuse of existing built fabric – to reduced embodied carbon and achieve operational energy efficiency. Despite the importance, most built environments do not yet adequately address climate change. Limited research has examined the barriers that architectural professionals encounter when integrating climate change action in their projects during their role designing built environments. This is the gap that this research addresses. Interviews with twenty-two Australian architectural practitioners were undertaken, to investigate their experience of barriers to and facilitators of climate change action in their professional practice. Four key themes were found: 1) actors, 2) processes and structures, 3) information and knowledge, and 4) the role of government. Barriers and facilitators were found to be embedded in architects' perception of their role, the processes and practices they undertake, and their relationship with other stakeholders. The facilitators identified can assist drive better outcomes for future design and construction of buildings. Recommendations identified include: 1) build architects' confidence and capability to be advocates; 2) develop of architects' climate change knowledge and competence; 3) transform design processes to be more circular, interdisciplinary and long term focused, and 4) reform current built environment policy to adequately consider climate change. [Display omitted] • Architects are crucial to achieving climate change action, but there is limited information on how to achieve this. • This study interviewed Australian architects about the barriers and facilitators they face to climate change action. • Key barriers for architects to enable change include limited influence, reach and decision-making capabilities. • Barriers and facilitators to climate action are influenced by both internal and external factors. • Identifies initiatives to facilitate climate change action: building knowledge and capacity, and transforming design processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of local planning for climate change by collecting and analysing information about local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and framework for analysis was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their alignment with spatial (local, national and international) and other climate related policies. Out of eight types of local climate plans identified in total we document three types of stand-alone local climate plans classified as type A1 (autonomously produced plans), A2 (plans produced to comply with national regulations) or A3 (plans developed for international climate networks). There is wide variation among countries in the prevalence of local climate plans, with generally more plans developed by central and northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have a type A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, and 17% a joint adaptation and mitigation plan, while about 33% lack any form of stand-alone local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but planning for mitigation does not always precede planning for adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 80% of the cities with above 500,000 inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1). Cities in four countries with national climate legislation (A2), i.e. Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are nearly twice as likely to produce local mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce local adaptation plans, compared to cities in countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in two countries where local climate plans are compulsory, i.e. France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans produced for international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous (type A1) plans are less common. This is the most comprehensive analysis of local climate planning to date. The findings are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making towards climate planning and policy development at national, EU and global level being based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of local climate planning available to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ambitious goals to limit global warming can only be reached with a broad acceptance and participation of the general public. This paper relies on surveys among citizens in China, Germany and the U.S. and investigates the determinants of the acceptance of national and international adaptation and mitigation efforts. The empirical findings indicate that specific beliefs and environmental awareness are important drivers in all three countries, while political attitudes and socio-economic characteristics are the main sources of cross-country heterogeneity. The study thereby points at important starting points and target groups for raising the acceptance of national and international climate policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the climate emergency declaration (CED) movement in cities and its effects and synergies with local climate planning. Urban areas are experiencing a wide range of climate-induced extreme events, particularly those located in the Mediterranean hotspot. The focus is on Italian cities, which have only recently become key players in climate planning. The method is based on the collection, analysis, and comparison of data on CEDs and local climate plans (LCPs), integrated with information on city membership in climate networks, to extrapolate key performance indicators of the CED movement. The results show that the CED movement can motivate municipalities to become more ambitious in climate action. As of February 2021, the "climate emergency" movement was supported by 105 Italian cities geographically concentrated in the northern regions (66.7%). The motivation behind a CED is often attributable to local populations calling for concrete climate action (91.1% referred to the Fridays for Future movement) but also to a greater perception of the impacts of climate change (85.6% referred to the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C). Networking plays an important role (85 cities in the Covenant of Mayors). Interestingly, 36 cities (34.3%) were not engaged in local climate planning previously, but the CED shows now they see the urgency to act. 24.4% cities aim at carbon neutrality in their CEDs (most with local adaptation aspirations), with a much smaller fraction of cities doing so in LCPs and generally lower ambition in terms of greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. [Display omitted] • Case study: 105 IT cities that have declared climate emergency (66.7% in the north). • Motivation: 91.1% refer to the FFF movement, 85.6% to the 2018 IPCC Special Report. • Networking: 85 cities are members of CoM and 33 of the Italian Green City Network. • 34.3% of the CED cities had not previously a mitigation or adaptation plan. • 24.4% of CEDs aim at carbon neutrality, while LCPs have less ambitious GHG targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: With 60% of the population younger than 26years, a need of about 1.5 million residential units per year for the next 5years and the necessity of mitigating its rapidly growing GHG emissions together with adapting cities to the expected drastic effects of climate change, Iran’s urban agglomerations are facing tremendous challenges now and in the future. The paper presents interim findings of the German–Iranian research initiative “Young Cities” (2005–2013) that investigates approaches for these immense challenges. The project aims at developing energy-efficient and resilient housing in a real-life pilot project, the 35ha area in Hashtgerd New Town in the Tehran province. The article explores the framing conditions and the master plan of this pilot and identifies four key planning strategies. Besides applying climate-sensitive urban form, the project stresses the need to develop culturally adapted building typologies for reduced heating and cooling, an efficient public transport in a mixed and dense urban structure and integrated water and energy systems on the neighborhood level. Simulations of these planning approaches have proven a significant reduction of energy- and resource consumption and the capacity of the design to adapt to (a potentially changing) environment. These promising strategies for energy-efficiency and resilience were transferred into a legally binding comprehensive plan commissioned in October 2010, though the major challenge in the second phase of the project (2011–2013) will be making these innovations a built reality. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We use behavioral and experimental economics to study a particular aspect of the economics of climate change: the potential trade-off between countries'' investments in mitigation versus adaptation. While mitigation of greenhouse gases can be viewed as a public good, adaptation to climate change is a private good, benefiting only the country or the individual that invests in adaptation. We use a one-shot public-goods game that deviates from the standard public-goods game by introducing a stochastic term to account for probabilistic destruction in a climate-change setting, where the probability density function is mapped to within-group levels of mitigation. We compare low-vulnerability and high-vulnerability treatments by varying the magnitude of disaster across treatments. Our results show that there is no significant difference in the level of mitigation across these treatments. Further, our results emphasize the role of trust in enhancing cooperation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]