• Energy Research

Abstract Background Natural flood management (NFM) measures seek to protect, enhance, emulate, or restore the natural function of rivers as part of approaches to flood risk management (FRM). While there is agreement in both academic and practice/policy literature that NFM, in a general sense, should be part of a holistic FRM strategy to address current and future flood risk, the specifics of how to consistently implement NFM successfully in practice are less well known. This is particularly acute for practitioners in the UK given the nature of the UK’s biophysical and socio-political context. There is a recognition that existing reviews of NFM effectiveness in the UK tend to focus on the natural science basis and it is unclear how studies account for climate change. Further, reviews tend to focus only on UK studies. This systematic map aims to highlight the way in which existing NFM studies, from different disciplinary backgrounds and across Europe, evaluate effectiveness, and the extent to which they account for climate change. This knowledge can help to make recommendations for future areas of research where the multiple issues around understanding effectiveness can be synthesised, and where climate change is systematically taken into account. Methods This systematic map protocol addresses the following question: what approaches exist to evaluate the effectiveness of UK-relevant natural flood management measures? The protocol details the methodology that will be used to conduct a systematic map of the range of peer-reviewed journal papers, policy documents, guidance, and other forms of grey literature which currently exist on NFM to give an overview on the way in which the effectiveness of NFM is conceived. The methods detail the search strategy employed for gathering items across the peer-reviewed academic literature and grey literature. Additionally, the methods outline how the reviewers will approach article screening, and the eligibility criteria to include/exclude articles. The methods section also details the steps taken to ensure consistency across all reviewers, the data coding strategy, and methods for presenting the final systematic map. Together, the methods employed will help to identify current knowledge gaps, and will enable recommendations to be made for future research.

In 2012, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) moved from a vulnerability to a risk-based conception of climate change adaptation. However, there are few examples of work that translates this approach into climate change adaptation practice, in order to demonstrate the practical utility of following a risk-based approach to adapting to climate change. The paper explores critically the differing conceptions of vulnerability and risk across the literature relating to disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. The paper also examines a selection of spatially focused climate change vulnerability and risk assessment methodologies in this context. In doing so, we identify issues with the availability of spatial data to enable spatial risk-based climate change assessments. We argue that the concept of risk is potentially favorable in helping cities to understand the challenges posed by climate change, identify adaptation options, and build resilience to the changing climate. However, we suggest that change is needed in the way that practitioners and policymakers engage with risk-based concepts if they are to be embed into climate change adaptation activities.

Cities are major drivers of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions--the sources of anthropocentric climate change, whilst also concentrating people, buildings, and infrastructures and therefore potential risk and impacts of the latter. As a consequence, planning for climate change in urban areas does not only provide the opportunity but should necessitate considering interactions between mitigation and adaptation actions. However, existing research found that only a minority of urban areas consider both mitigation and adaptation in their climate action plans, i.e. 147 Climate Change Action Plans (CCAPs) were identified among a representative sample of 885 European cities. We investigate these 147 CCAPs to understand the degree of integration of adaptation and mitigation and draw implications for the maximization of synergies and co-benefits of such a combined approach. Using the developed scoring framework to evaluate the level of integration of CCAPs, the research finds that most of the plans reveal a ‘moderate’ level of integration. Moderate integration characterizes a plan that identifies sources of emissions and vulnerabilities to climate change, as well as some qualitative consideration of the synergies, but one that lacks a systematic consideration of potential integration opportunities. Furthermore, the analysis reveals that one of the main gaps of the evaluation and implementation of more integrated climate change actions in cities is the insufficient quantitative evaluation of the costs and funding schemes for adaptation and mitigation action implementation.

AbstractThe significant shifts in climate variables projected for the 21st century, coupled with the observed impacts of ongoing extreme weather and climate events, ensures that adaptation to climate change is set to remain a pressing issue for urban areas over the coming decades. This volume of Progress in Planning seeks to contribute to the widening debate about how the transformation of cities to respond to the changing climate is being understood, managed and achieved. We focus particularly on spatial planning, and building the capacity of this key mechanism for responding to the adaptation imperative in urban areas. The core focus is the outcomes of a collaborative research project, EcoCities, undertaken at the University of Manchester's School of Environment and Development. EcoCities drew upon inter-disciplinary research on climate science, environmental planning and urban design working within a socio-technical framework to investigate climate change hazards, vulnerabilities and adaptation responses in the conurbation of Greater Manchester, UK. Emerging transferable learning with potential relevance for adaptation planning in other cities and urban areas is drawn out to inform this rapidly emerging international agenda. Approaches to build adaptive capacity challenge traditional approaches to environmental and spatial planning, and the role of researchers in this process, raising questions over whether appropriate governance structures are in place to develop effective responses. The cross-cutting nature of the adaptation agenda exposes the silo based approaches that drive many organisations. The development of a collaborative, sociotechnical agenda is vital if we are to meet the climate change adaptation challenge in cities.