Seminar leader: Radley Horton, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
About the Readings
Do We Need Better Predictions to Adapt to a Changing Climate? (2009), Dessai et al.
Recently, there has been a call for an increase in climate modeling investment, to improve the accuracy, precision, and reliability of climate predictions. This is based on the idea that stakeholders use modeling and rely on accurate climate predictions to make decisions on adaptation strategies. In order to develop the level of accuracy needed for effective adaptation decisions, this new investment is necessary. The authors call this relationship into question, as effective adaptation strategies are thus limited by the inherently inaccurate and imprecise nature of climate predictions. They posit alternatives to a reliance on accuracy, including “robust decision making,” or using information from climate simulations to explore a wide range of assumptions and possibilities, thus creating a robust, rather than vulnerable, adaptation strategy. The authors question the “predict-then-act” approach to climate science, as it is not guaranteed that increased investment and research will improve the accuracy of predictions, and may in fact make them more uncertain. The policy implications for robust decision making are significant, for if policy makers rely on “overprecise” models, they make their decisions vulnerable to misinterpretation of the models. Overall, rather than increasing investment in prediction accuracy, society will benefit from understanding climate decisions in light of uncertainty.
Experiences of integrated assessment of climate impacts, adaptation and mitigation modelling in London and Durban (2013), Walsh et al.
The urgent need to reconfigure and transform urban areas to consume fewer resources, emit less pollution, minimize greenhouse gas production, protect natural ecosystems and increase the adaptive capacity to deal with climate risks is widely recognized. The implementation of improved sustainability measures in cities requires integrated thinking that encompasses a whole range of urban functions, often implying a major restructuring of urban energy systems, transport and the built environment, as well as a new approach to the planning and management of natural systems that service urban areas. Many local governments have a limited capacity to deal with such complex and interrelated problems, and this hampers their ability to deal with climate change. With these issues in mind, teams of scientists, practitioners and stakeholders in Durban (led by eThekwini Municipality) and London (led by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research) developed city-scale integrated assessment modelling tools that represent interactions between different urban functions and objectives by linking climate change issues to broader agendas such a spatial planning. This paper reviews each integrated assessment tool, and critically analyzes their effectiveness in terms of technical approach, extent to which they meet policy needs, role of stakeholders and effort required for integration. While these integrated assessment tools did not provide the detailed design information sought by some decision makers, importantly they have stimulated stakeholders to think strategically and hold cross-sectoral conversations around implementing sustainability measures. Despite the technical and institutional challenges associated with the development and uptake of an integrated assessment model, we conclude that they do contribute to the quest for urban sustainability.