13 Urban and Rural Settlements - RIOCCADAPT
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
13 Urban and Rural Settlements Gian Carlo Delgado Ramos (Mexico), Fernando Aragón Durand (Mexico), José Di Bella (Mexico/Canada), Carol Franco (Dominican Republic), Cristián Henríquez Ruiz (Chile), and Gladys Cecilia Hernández Pedraza (Cuba). This chapter should be cited as: Delgado Ramos, G.C., F. Aragón Durand, J. Di Bella, C. Franco, C. Henríquez Ruiz, and G.C. Hernández Pedraza, 2020: Urban, and Rural Settlements. In: Adaptation to Clima- te Change Risks in Ibero-American Countries — RIOCCADAPT Report [Moreno, J.M., C. Laguna-Defior, V. Barros, E. Calvo Buendía, J.A. Marengo, and U. Oswald Spring (eds.)], McGraw Hill, Madrid, Spain (pp. 497-540, ISBN: 9788448621667).
Chapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
CO N T E NTS
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 499
13.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 499
13.1.1. Key aspects and scope of the chapter....................................................................................................................................................... 499
13.1.2. Conceptual framework: vulnerability and urban-rural interactions........................................................................................... 500
13.1.3. Human settlements and their relationship to climate change...................................................................................................... 500
13.2. Risk components in relation to human settlements...................................................................................................................................... 502
13.2.1. Hazards..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 502
13.2.2. Exposure and vulnerability.............................................................................................................................................................................. 505
13.3. Characterization of climate change risks and impacts................................................................................................................................. 506
13.4. Adaptation measures ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 508
13.4.1. Adaptation options............................................................................................................................................................................................. 508
13.4.2. Planned adaptation activities........................................................................................................................................................................ 511
13.4.2.1. Supranational and national scale............................................................................................................................................... 511
13.4.2.2. Sub-national and local scale......................................................................................................................................................... 514
13.4.3. Autonomous adaptation actions.................................................................................................................................................................. 517
13.5. Barriers, opportunities and interactions............................................................................................................................................................... 518
13.6. Indicators on the effectiveness of adaptation in human settlements................................................................................................. 520
13.7. Case studies.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 520
13.7.1. Strategies developed as part of the 100 Resilient Cities Program............................................................................................ 520
13.7.1.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 520
13.7.1.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 520
13.7.1.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 523
13.7.1.4. Limitations and interactions........................................................................................................................................................ 524
13.7.1.5. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 524
13.7.2. Neighborhood Contingency Plan for Early Response to Flooding in Las Terrenas (Dominican Republic)............. 524
13.7.2.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 524
13.7.2.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 524
13.7.2.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 524
13.7.2.4. Limitations and interactions........................................................................................................................................................ 525
13.7.2.5. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 525
13.7.3. Flood risk management in Blumenau, Santa Catarina (Brazil)...................................................................................................... 525
13.7.3.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 525
13.7.3.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 525
13.7.3.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 525
13.7.3.4. Limitations and interactions........................................................................................................................................................ 526
13.7.3.5. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 526
13.7.4. Actions to reduce vulnerability and water insecurity of the poorest population in Mexico City (CDMX):
rainwater harvesting in homes...................................................................................................................................................................... 526
13.7.4.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 526
13.7.4.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 526
13.7.4.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 527
13.7.4.4. Limitations and interactions........................................................................................................................................................ 527
13.7.4.5. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 529
13.7.5. Manizales, from autonomous to planned adaptation....................................................................................................................... 529
13.7.5.1. Case summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 529
13.7.5.2. Introduction to the case problem.............................................................................................................................................. 529
13.7.5.3. Case description................................................................................................................................................................................. 529
13.7.5.4. Limitations and interactions........................................................................................................................................................ 529
13.7.5.5. Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................................................. 530
13.8. Main knowledge gaps and priority lines of action........................................................................................................................................... 530
13.9. Conclusions............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 531
Frequently Asked Questions...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 531
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 533
Bibliography......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 533
498 RIOCCADAPT REPORT
Chapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
Executive Summary To make way for more robust climate governance, participa-
tion, partnerships, cooperation, and even the co-production
of solutions need to be encouraged. The effectiveness of
The multidimensional and multi-temporal nature of climate local adaptation will have to be measured in terms of the
change impacts constitutes an enormous challenge for lo- concrete improvement of the most vulnerable populations, so
cal solution and capacity building for comprehensive, inclu- actions will have to transcend adjustments in managing the
sive, and long-term adaptation. response to climate impacts and instead promote in-depth
The degree to which climate change impacts are felt varies structural or systemic changes that modify the conditions
between rural and urban settlements, and among cities with that created the vulnerability in the first place.
different urbanization patterns. Moreover, the vulnerability
and potential risks associated with climate change are not
only a function of the typology and intensity of the potential
threats and impacts, but also of the social, economic, polit-
13.1. Introduction
ical, and cultural characteristics of each case.
13.1.1. Key aspects and scope of the
The expected aggravation of climate change impacts
means moving towards a systemic transition based on in- chapter
creasingly rapid and effective actions, leveraging existing
Many social and environmental problems linked to urban-
positive synergies and co-benefits to the maximum. Such
ization remain unresolved and are likely to be exacerbated
a transition will depend on the knowledge available, on the
proportionally to the impacts of climate change, and to the
interaction of science with the decision-making process, and
extent that rapid and unplanned urban growth continues
on the concrete actions of social, institutional, and private
(UNEP, 2019).
stakeholders.
The high vulnerability of the rural economy to environmental
While planned adaptation at the local level has made prog-
degradation and the impacts of climate change make action
ress, a number of issues and challenges remain. These
in rural settlements an equally important issue, especially
include a lack of robust knowledge about unplanned adap- when it comes to strengthening the social justice agenda.
tation experiences in the RIOCC region and hence about the This is particularly important in those countries where the
best way to channel their interaction and coordination with rural population carries weight, either in absolute terms (to-
planned adaptation measures. tal number of inhabitants, as in Mexico) or in relative terms
Many local governments have yet to implement adaptation (percentage of the total population, as in Guatemala). The
measures, restricting themselves at best to a reactive ap- same is true for those cases that concentrate the bulk of
proach to potential disasters. In other cases, the measures indigenous peoples and, consequently, of historical-cultural
are insufficient compared to the magnitude of the expected heritage and traditional knowledge, as is the case in Ecuador,
impacts, and in many cases, there is no adequate follow-up. Peru, and Bolivia.
The prevailing informality and inequality, the lack of local However, the degree to which climate change impacts and
capacities, and the weak coordination between both gov- the potential and capacities for action vary between rural and
ernmental and non-governmental stakeholders are aspects urban settlements and between cities with different dynam-
that often restrict the progress of the climate agenda, par- ics and urbanization patterns must be acknowledged. While
ticularly that of adaptation. This is compounded by an insuf- large cities are key because of their population concentra-
ficient production of robust and consistent data and models tion, wealth, and infrastructure, and therefore because of
at a local scale, especially in the case of small settlements, the size of economies of scale and the potential for transfor-
coupled with limited access to financing, credit, and invest- mative capacities residing there (Revi et al., 2014a; Revi et
ment for medium- and long-term adaptation actions. al., 2014b; Seto et al., 2014; Delgado, coord., 2017), small
and intermediate cities will become increasingly important
To ensure more successful pathways to systemic transition, because of the rapid growth they are already experiencing
not only is it desirable to remove the above constraints, (McKinsey Global Institute, 2011) and because they have
but also to balance and plan for synergies, co-benefits, and comparatively more limited capacities than large cities and
potential trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation. The mega-cities (Birkmann et al., 2016; UNU-EHS, 2014).
same should be done with other actions that stem from the
Progress achieved at a local scale will therefore define cli-
(overall) development agenda and from the (specific) inter-
mate change governance for a much more far-reaching sys-
national agendas parallel to the climate agenda, whether
temic transition that, as warned by the Intergovernmental
concerning resilience, sustainable development, or others.
Panel on Climate Change, can keep average temperatures
Good practices can help to expand climate action, especial- below 1.5°C (IPCC, 2018). Despite such recognition, contri-
ly where it lags behind. Mutual learning is certainly desir- butions on this scale remain limited (IPCC, 2014a; Revi et al.,
able, provided that the resulting actions are responsive and 2014b). For example, the potential residing in cities has not
appropriate to the various local specificities and priorities. been fully exploited, even though 60% of the signatories to
RIOCCADAPT REPORT 499
Chapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change climate risk (Pelling, 2003; Baker, 2012; Delgado, 2015;
(UNFCCC) have already incorporated some aspect of this into Eakin et al., 2016; Andersen, Verner and Wiebelt, 2017;
their national adaptation and mitigation plans (ICLEI, 2017). among others). Identifying these aggravating factors and
their interactions is essential to developing robust climate
To explore how to reverse this situation, this chapter reviews
governance that could enable the coordination of ever more
what we know about the risk components associated with
effective adaptation and mitigation measures in the face of
climate change at the local scale, and then characterizes
increasingly costly impacts, which in Latin America could
and assesses the state of affairs in RIOCC countries. To this
represent between 1.5% and 5% of GDP in 2050 (ECLAC,
end, it explores adaptation options at the urban and rural
2015) or some USD 100 billion per year under a 2ºC sce-
scale and provides an overview of proposed or implemented
nario (Vergara et al., 2013).
adaptation actions from which the main action pathways can
be clarified and prioritized. Figure 13.1 describes how urban adaptation, if well de-
signed, can have a positive impact on vulnerability reduction
and risk management, which is key for the RIOCC region, as
13.1.2. Conceptual framework: it has a largely urban population.
vulnerability and urban-rural
interactions 13.1.3. Human settlements and their
Urban and rural settlements, despite their differences, can relationship to climate change
be analyzed in an integrated manner. Both are co-produced
through biophysical, economic, political, and socio-cultural in- Climate stressors, including El Niño and La Niña (ENSO),
teractions (Tacoli, 2003 and 2006) that take place in specific which strongly impact Latin America, exacerbate the vulner-
ecosystems or bioregions that also share biophysical risks. abilities of human settlements to effects such as sea level
These interactions, which crystallize into flows of energy, rise, increased intensity and frequency of extreme events,
materials, population, and information, in turn create interde- or sudden surges and salinization of aquifers, in the case
terminations, positive and negative synergies, and trade-offs of coastal settlements. This is also due to extreme precipi-
that cannot be abstracted from a comprehensive or systemic tation, thermal stress, floods, mass movements, droughts,
analysis (Delgado and Guibrunet, 2017). For example, the desertification, water scarcity or loss of air quality (Rome-
melting of Andean glaciers, changes in river flows, and the ro-Lankao et al., 2012; Revi et al., 2014b; Díaz et al., 2015;
decline in water availability in various areas of Ibero-America Reguero et al., 2015; Lins De Barros et al., 2016). Such
all call into question the region’s urban water security, partic- effects are generally felt more in urbanized areas, due to the
ularly for the poorest people, who often lack regular access high concentration of population (81% in the RIOCC region;
to this vital liquid (see Chapter 6 of this report). UN-DESA, 2018), means of production, infrastructure, and
wealth (the 20 largest cities in the RIOCC concentrate about
Adaptation in rural settlements involves a relatively different one third of total GDP). This situation will be further exacer-
process, as population density and social complexity are bated in the mid-21st century, with the expected increase in
usually lower. In addition, the quality, coverage, and intensity the urban population, the significant loss of rural population,
of infrastructure is mainly associated with primary productive and the consequent increase in the formation of urban set-
activities, which are highly dependent on climate variability tlements of various sizes.
and which, in turn, can impact food security in both rural and
urban settlements. The latter is particularly true in Peru, As shown in Figure 13.2, Portugal, Guatemala, Honduras,
where 70.6% of the country’s food producers are smallhold- Nicaragua, Panama, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Ecuador will tend
ers found in the sierra (Ministry of the Environment, 2016). towards a significant loss of rural population in 2050, giv-
ing way to the formation of cities with less than 500,000
The vulnerability of urban and rural settlements is distinct inhabitants (or intermediate cities), the latter with a greater
and depends not only on the potential impacts of various presence in Portugal and RIOCC countries in South America.
natural and anthropogenic hazards, but also on the sensi-
tivities and capacities of the systems to respond. These Thus, while intermediate cities will be focal points for urban
capacities are determined and conditioned by socioeconomic adaptation in such countries, in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil,
and cultural factors and by the quality of governance regard- Colombia, Chile, and Peru, the challenges of urban adapta-
ing the prevailing climate risks. In this regard, we can speak tion will also be addressed in large cities and mega-cities
of the social construction of vulnerability. (see Table 13.1).
Access to housing and public services, social security, land The inevitable emphasis on the urban does not mean that
tenure, and multiple resources —from quality energy, wa- adaptation in rural settlements is less important; on the con-
ter, sundry materials, and healthy food, even to informa- trary, these are spaces that will continue to play a relevant
tion, technologies and financing— are all elements that role, for at least two reasons. On the one hand —and spe-
are expressed differently in each settlement and social cifically in the case of the less urbanized countries of the
group. As such, they are listed as aggravating elements of RIOCC, such as Guatemala and Nicaragua— because the
500 RIOCCADAPT REPORT
Chapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
Threats Urban adaptation
(Potential events)
Weather monitoring systems
Heat waves
Rise in Risk maps and atlases
Glacier reduction temperatures
Early warning systems
Spread of infectious vectors
Contingency and shelter planning
Droughts
Decreased Epidemic monitoring
Water stress
precipitation Zoning
Loss of biodiversity
Building adaptations
Mass movements Heavy
rain Infrastructure including “green” and “blue”
Floods
Cyclones Independent adaptation actions
Coastal erosion
Ecosystem based adaptation
Saline intrusion Rise in
sea levels Population resettlement
Coastal flooding
Modeling and information systems
Financing and economic loss decrease
Risk transfer schemes
Social communication of risk
Urban exposure Adaptation culture
Local capacity building
Physical vulnerability Social frailness and lack of urban resilience Climate governance
(hazard dependent) (non-hazard dependent)
Intersecretarial and sectoral coordination
Poverty and marginalization
Transport infrastructure
Poor nutrition and health
Telecommunications and internet infrastructure Social insecurity
Illiteracy Disaster handling
[ex post]
Electric infrastructure Gender inequality Risk management
Emergency response and
Lack of water and sanitation recovery actions
Buildings Reduction of vulnerability
Energy insecurity
Unemployment and informality Threat
Food supply
Inequality materialization
Non-planned urbanization [event]
Water and sanitation
Loss of ecosystem services Risk Impact
[Potential impact]
Medical and educational facilities Insecurity and corruption
Lack of governance
Urban and ecosystem integrity
Debt
Figure 13.1. Hazards, vulnerability, aggravating factors, and key urban adaptation measures. Source: compiled by the authors.
rural population will continue to represent a significant por- Paz and Cochabamba (MMAyA, 2009). Similarly, Cuba has
tion of the total population by 2050, ranging from one-third tried to integrate cities and their respective suburbs through
to two-fifths. On the other hand, because rural settlements a food production scheme that includes gardens, organic
are located and have a direct impact on valuable and vulner- permaculture farming (organopónico), family backyards,
able ecosystem spaces that are key to the preservation of and farms (Republic of Cuba, 2015). Venezuela has done
biological and cultural diversity, but also of other ecosystem the same with its AgroCiudad program (MINEA, 2017), while
services, food production, and resource extraction which, inci- Mexico City does so through its “Altepetl” program, which
dentally, to a large extent supply cities and the international integrates support for sustainable agricultural, livestock,
market. and agri-food production with the recovery and preservation
of urban and peri-urban forest areas, and the maintenance,
Therefore, climate change impact adaptation measures will
safeguarding, conditioning, and promotion of tangible cultural
inevitably have to be framed within the complex, ongoing,
heritage (SEDEMA, 2019a).
and changing relationship between the global and the local,
as well as between the urban and the rural and vice versa, a Local climate governance will therefore have to move for-
context in which areas of transition or peri-urban interaction ward from the urban, peri-urban, and rural levels, taking
will be increasingly important (Zhu et al., 2017; Dasgupta into account global dynamics and a shrinking time frame
et al., 2014; Eakin, Lerner and Murtinho, 2010). The latter for action. Therefore, this systemic transition will have to
has already been acknowledged by Bolivia, a country that be increasingly effective, which will only be possible if ex-
from its “Water for All” policy, has proposed adaptive ac- isting positive synergies and co-benefits are exploited fully
tions related to water resources in the peri-urban areas of La (see below).
RIOCCADAPT REPORT 501Chapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
Mexico Iberian Peninsula
Population by type and size of settlement Urban Population 1950-2050 Population by type and size of settlement Urban Population 1950-2050
100% 100%
100% 100%
80% 80% 80% 80%
60% 60%
60% 60%
40% 40%
40% 40%
20% 20%
20% 0% 20% 0%
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
0% 0%
2015 2035 Mexico 2015 2035 Andorra Spain Portugal
South America
Population by type and size of settlement Urban Population 1950-2050
100%
100%
80% 80%
60%
60%
40%
40% 20%
0%
20%
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
0% Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile
2015 2035
Colombia Ecuador Paraguay Peru
Central America and the Caribbean Uruguay Venezuela
Population by type and size of settlement Urban Population 1950-2050
100% 100%
80%
80%
60% Urban populationTable 13.1. Rural and urban population and urbanization index in the RIOCC region. Note: (*) The regions indicated include only countries of the RIOCC. Source: Compiled by the authors
based on data from UN DESA, 2018b and urban population data by settlement size of UN DESA, 2018c.
2015 2035
Urban population by type of city (%) Urban population by type of city (%)
Country Rural 500,000 Rural 500,000
pop. (%) < 500 1–5 5–10 > 10 Urbanization pop. (%) < 500 1–5 5–10 > 10 Urbanization
to 1 to
thousand million million million Index thousand million million million Index
million 1 million
Iberian
22,8 53,5 2 13,4 8,3 0,00 0,77 17,9 54,8 2,5 15,5 9,3 0,00 0,82
Peninsula
Andorra 11,7 88,3 0 0 0 0 0,88 11,8 88,2 0 0 0 0 0,88
Spain 20,4 48,8 6 0 24,8 0 0,80 15,4 49 7,6 0 28 0 0,85
Portugal 36,5 23,4 0 40,1 0 0 0,63 26,4 27,2 0 46,4 0 0 0,74
Mexico 20,7 28,8 12,7 20,8 0 17 0,79 15,2 28,3 7,1 24,8 8 16,6 0,85
Central America
and the 33,5 42,1 1,8 22,6 0 0 0,66 24,7 48,1 0,8 26,4 0 0 0,75
Caribbean (*)
Costa Rica 23,1 49,9 0 27 0 0 0,77 12,8 57,2 0 30 0 0 0,87
Cuba 23,1 58,4 0 18,5 0 0 0,77 20,1 60,7 0 19,2 0 0 0,80
El Salvador 30,3 52,3 0 17,4 0 0 0,70 18,8 63,2 0 18 0 0 0,81
Guatemala 50 33,1 0 16,9 0 0 0,50 40,9 41,1 0 18 0 0 0,59
Honduras 44,8 32,8 8,6 13,8 0 0 0,55 33 38,8 0% 28,2 0 0 0,67
Nicaragua 42,1 41 0 16,9 0 0 0,58 35,7 46,7 0 17,6 0 0 0,64
Panama 33,3 24,5 0 42,2 0 0 0,67 25,8 26,9 0 47,3 0 0 0,74
Dominican
21,4 44,6 6 28 0 0 0,79 10,6 50 6,4 33 0 0 0,89
Republic
Soth America 20,2 37 4,5 24,3 9 5 0,80 16,1 36,1 4,4 28,3 4,3 10,8 0,84
Argentina 8,5 39 9,3 9,3 0 33,9 0,92 6,2 39,8 6,5 13,9 0 33,6 0,94
Bolivia 31,6 27,3 0 41,1 0 0 0,68 24,5 30 0 45,5 0 0 0,76
Brazil 14,2 41,3 4,1 21,2 2,8 16,4 0,86 10 40,9 4,1 22,8 5,3 17,1 0,90
Chile 12,6 40,8 9,9 0 36,7 0 0,87 10,5 39,1 7,8 5,4 37,2 0 0,90
Colombia 20,2 33,6 6,1 20 20,1 0 0,80 14,4 29,3 6,8 25,9 0 23,6 0,86
Ecuador 36,6 35,7 0 27,7 0 0 0,63 31,5 36 2,6 29,9 0 0 0,69
Paraguay 39,2 16,1 0 44,7 0 0 0,61 32,3 16,2 0% 51,5 0 0 0,68
Peru 22,6 38,9 7,2 0% 31,3 0 0,77 18,2 35,8 6,5 5,6 0 33,9 0,82
Uruguay 5 45,3 0 49,7 0 0 0,95 3,4 45,8 0% 50,8 0 0 0,97
Chapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
Venezuela 11,8 50,7 8,5 29 0 0 10,4 48,3 9,4 31,9 0 0 0,90
RIOCCADAPT REPORT 503Chapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
IBE
Hazards
Vulnerability
Impacts VI
AMZ
Hazards
Vulnerability
VI
MEX Impacts EI
Hazards
Vulnerability SI
VI ACI
Impacts EI
SI
ACI
NEB
Hazards
Vulnerability
CAC VI
Hazards
Vulnerability
Impacts EI
VI SI
Impacts EI ACI
SI
ACI NAP CAP SSA
Hazards Hazards Hazards
Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
VI VI VI
Impacts EI Impacts EI Impacts EI
SI SI SI
ACI ACI ACI
Hazards: Impacts: Vulnerability:
Heavy Cyclones Floods Frosts Critical VI: Vulnerability Index
rainfall
Coastal erosion High EI: Exposure Index
Mass movement Saline intrusion
Decreased Gales Medium SI: Sensitivity Index
precipitation Infectious
Drought Low ACI: Adaptive Capacity Index
Water stress vectors
Temperature
Sea level rise Damage to infrastructure
rise Heat waves and buildings
Cities with Cities without
Chills Glacier Impacts on livelihoods, adaptation or urban adaptation or urban
reduction health and economies resilience plans resilience plans
Figure 13.3. Hazards, impacts, degree of vulnerability, and main cities with adaptation or urban resilience plans in the RIOCC. Source: compiled by the
authors based on information from the National Communications of RIOCC countries to the UNFCCC, the Vulnerability and Adaptation Index to climate
change in the Latin American and Caribbean Region (CAF, 2014), and information from the following local initiatives: 100 Resilient Cities (100 RC), Local
Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), IDB’s Emerging and Sustainable Cities Program (IDB-ESC), C40 Cities Climate
Leadership Group (C40), Spanish Cities Network for Climate (RECC), the Chilean Network of Municipalities on Climate Change (RCMCC), and the Forum
of the Secretaries of the Environment of Brazilian Capital Cities (CB27).
504 RIOCCADAPT REPORTChapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
solution and capacity building for comprehensive, inclusive leads to settlements with a lower population concentration
management and adaptation with a long-term focus. which, unlike urban areas, depend on the climatic-environ-
mental viability of primary activities. While this chapter does
not analyze the latter (see Chapters 7 and 8), it must in-
13.2.2. Exposure and vulnerability evitably be considered here insofar as it may impact rural
socioeconomic and environmental dynamics, for example,
In addition to the climatic pressures described in the previous in terms of sufficient access to quality food. Although this
section, there is a wide range of non-climatic pressures that is undoubtedly an urban problem—cities import almost all
are independent of individual GHG emissions contributions. their food—in many cases it is also experienced in rural ar-
The degree of vulnerability of human settlements therefore eas due to high poverty rates, lack of technical assistance,
derives from their encounter with potential threats and im- incentives, or support, limited access to productive land,
pacts and their sensitivity, degree of exposure, and adaptive low soil productivity, and specialization in export crops that
capacities. The latter result from population dynamics, land are not always part of the staple diet (Rubio, 2014; Almeyra
use, and the characteristics of the built space. et al., 2014; Hidalgo, Houtart and Lizárraga, 2014). This
Fast-growing, poorly planned settlements will therefore be is clearly the case for the strong presence of African palm
more vulnerable. This is especially the case for informal set- crops in countries such as Costa Rica, Paraguay, and Brazil.
tlements or those located in risk-prone areas where there is Climate change impacts on agriculture, which in Latin Ameri-
a lack of infrastructure, services, or appropriate adaptation ca is largely rainfed, are another factor that adds to produc-
measures and actions (Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009; Revi et ers’ vulnerability. One can therefore argue that the future
al., 2014b). These are typical characteristics of many Latin of food production, and consequently urban and rural food
American cities; hence, one can say that political economy, security, will depend on the successful measures adopted
power relations, and multilevel governance are key issues in rural environments.
for expanding urban vulnerability or, conversely, adaptation
(Romero-Lankao et al., 2018). Rural settlements are also linked—and to a very large ex-
tent—to the demands of cities, but not necessarily to those
On the other hand, and even though the rural built space can
of the surrounding area, since globalized economic rela-
display certain characteristics of urbanization, this usually
tions are increasingly involved. The forces of the national,
regional, and international market, which demand energy,
materials, and food, have become key to (re)structuring the
Note on Figure 13.3.: The affiliation to local initiatives by selected rural space and, consequently, to its possibilities of adapt-
cities, if any, is as follows: 1. Mexico City, MX (C40, 100 RC, ICLEI), ing to climate change. The expansion and intensification of
2. Guadalajara, MX (100 RC, ICLEI), 3. Monterrey, MX., 4. Puebla, MX extractive processes in Latin America (UNEP, 2013; West
(ICLEI), 5. Ciudad Juárez, MX (100 RC), 6. Tijuana, MX (ICLEI), 7. León, and Schandl, 2013; UNEP, 2016; Samaniego et al., 2017),
MX (ICLEI), 8. Toluca, MX (ICLEI), 9. Queretaro, MX., 10. La Laguna,
MX., 11. San Luis Potosí, MX., 12. Mérida, MX (ICLEI), 13. Mexicali,
in addition to displacing food production, sometimes poses
MX., 14. Aguascalientes, MX (ICLEI), 15. Guatemala, GT., 16. San Sal- an obstacle to adaptation and mitigation. On the one hand,
vador, SV., 17. Tegucigalpa, HN (BID-CES), 18. Managua, NI (BID-CES), by reducing or affecting carbon sinks (as clearly shown by
19. San Jose, CR (ICLEI, BID-CES), 20. Panama, PA (BID-CES), 21. La satellite images of the Amazon in the face of advancing
Habana, CU., 22. Santo Domingo, RD., 23. Santiago de los Caballeros, urbanization, agribusiness, and mining; Wantzen and Mol,
RD (100 RC, BID-CES), 24. Bogotá, CO (C40, ICLEI), 25. Medellin, CO 2013; Cremers, Kolen, and De Theije, 2013; Richards and
(C40, 100RC, ICLEI), 26. Cali, CO (100 RC, ICLEI), 27. Barranquilla, CO
(BID-CES), 28. Cartagena, CO (BID-CES), 29. Quito, EC (C40, 100 RC,
VanWey, 2015), and on the other, by promoting activities
ICLEI), 30. Guayaquil, EC., 31. Lima, PE (ICLEI), 32. Arequipa, PE., 33. that in themselves are highly demanding of energy, water,
La Paz, BO (ICLEI)., 34. Santa Cruz de la Sierra, BO., 35. Asunción, PY and other materials. Such competition for resources as es-
(BID-CES)., 36. Santiago de Chile, CL (C40, 100 RC, ICLEI, RCMCC), sential as water often leads to a greater vulnerability of the
37. Buenos Aires, AR (C40, 100 RC, ICLEI, CDP), 38. Córdoba, AR., population, especially in rural areas. Moreover, local envi-
39. Rosario, AR (ICLEI), 40. Santa Fe, AR (100 RC, ICLEI)., 41. Mon- ronmental degradation can further contribute to increasing
tevideo, UY (100 RC, ICLEI, BID-CES), 42. Brasilia, BR (CB27), 43. Rio
de Janeiro, BR (C40, 100 RC, CB27), 44. Sao Paulo, BR (C40, ICLEI, the intensity or diversity of risks and vulnerabilities faced
CB27), 45. Fortaleza, BR (ICLEI, CB27), 46. Belo Horizonte, BR (ICLEI, by both rural and urban populations.
CB27), 47. Porto Alegre, BR (100 RC, ICLEI, CB27), 48. Maceió, BR
(CB27), 49. Recife, BR (CB27), 50. Curitiba, BR (C40, ICLEI, CB27), 51.
Figure 13.3 shows the degree of vulnerability of the various
Manaus, BR (CB27), 52. Goiania, BR (ICLEI, CB27, BID-CES), 53. Sao sub-regions of the RIOCC, based on the estimates of the
Luis, BR (CB27), 54. Natal, BR (ICLEI, CB27), 55. Campo Grande, BR Vulnerability index to climate change in the Latin Ameri-
(CB27), 56. Belem, BR (CB27), 57. Teresina, BR (CB27), 58. Salvador, can and Caribbean Region prepared by the Development
BR (C40, 100 RC, ICLEI, CB27), 59. Vitoria, BR (ICLEI, CB27, BID-CES), Bank of Latin America (CAF), which evaluates the degree of
60. Cuiaba, BR (CB27), 61. Joao Pessoa, BR (ICLEI, CB27, BID-CES), exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (CAF, 2014).
62. Porto Velho, BR (CB27), 63. Florianópolis, BR (CB27, BID-CES), 64.
Arancaju, BR (CB27), 65. Palmas, BR (CB27, BID-CES), 66. Caracas, VE
According to this index, 50% of Latin America’s GDP, as well
(C40), 67. Maracaibo, VE., 68. Barquisimeto, VE., 69. Valencia, VE., 70. as half of its population, resides in countries with a high
Maracay, VE., 71. Lisbon, PT (100 RC, ICLEI)., 72. Madrid, ES (RECC), or extreme vulnerability to climate change, a context in the
73. Barcelona, ES (100RC, ICLEI, RECC). most vulnerable countries are those that, comparatively
RIOCCADAPT REPORT 505Chapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
Box 13.1. Heat waves and the urban heat island effect
Given their high degree of exposure, sensitivity, and limited adaptive century (with peaks of up to 8°C during the dry season), to an aver-
capacities, Central America and the Caribbean are highly vulnerable age of 6.5°C by 2030 (Jáuregui et al., 2008). The heat island effect
to climate change impacts. The increase in temperatures and recur- resulting from the loss of plant cover, the depletion of water tables,
rent heat waves experienced most strongly in urban settlements population growth, the expansion of the urban area, and worsening
should be noted among the impacts identified. Warming due to air pollution has been estimated at 3ºC for Bogotá, 4.6ºC for Buenos
global urban expansion could increase air temperature by 0.5–0.7°C Aires, 4.8ºC for Santiago de Chile, 5ºC for Rio de Janeiro, and up to
and, in some locations, by as much as ~3°C (Huang et al., 2019). 8ºC for Sao Paulo (Sarricolea and Meseguer-Ruiz, 2019). This rise in
According to data from 1980 to 2010, the area of the Caribbean average temperature has a negative impact on thermal comfort and
Sea shows an increase in the heat index (Hi) of around 0.05ºC/ health (Lancet, 2019), an issue that will become increasingly import-
year (Ramírez-Beltrán et al., 2017), a condition under which heat ant as the population of the RIOCC region ages and the prevalence
waves have been more recurrent, especially during the period from of diabetes or cardiovascular disease increases (see Chapter 16 of
2003 to 2010 (Ramírez-Beltrán et al., 2017). In the specific case this report). Furthermore, increased energy consumption for cooling
of the Dominican Republic, the study on future climate (USAID-IN- contributes to higher GHG emissions. The inclusion of provisions to
TEC, 2018) estimated heat waves for three of the country’s largest mitigate the heat island effect, for example, through zoning propos-
cities: Santo Domingo, Santiago, and Samaná. Santo Domingo, for als on land use and soil cover, green areas, and climate comfort, is
example, was affected by 36 heat waves between 2005 and 2014, undoubtedly among future and current land-use planning challenges
while Santiago recorded 38 heat waves during the same period. in RIOCC cities. Many solutions to urban problems and the local
Forward-looking projections estimate an increase in heat waves for climate depend on better public spaces, better (bioclimatic) building
Santo Domingo, Santiago, and Samaná, especially for the periods standards, and more social inclusion (Sarricolea and Meseguer-Ruiz,
2071–2085 and 2086–2100 (USAID-INTEC, 2018). The trend holds 2019). In the process, the search for comprehensive solutions that
true for other RIOCC countries. At Mexico City, heat waves increased account for potential unwanted effects is essential, as poor urban
from 6 in the 1950s to 16 in the 1990s (Jáuregui, 2009). Projec- revegetation can increase respiratory problems associated with
tions suggest that the heat island effect in that city will increase pollen release, while water surfaces can promote the spread of
from an average temperature increase of almost 4°C during the 20th infectious vectors in hot climates.
speaking, are lagging behind in terms of planned adapta-
tion policies, i.e. Guatemala, Paraguay, and Bolivia, but 13.3. Characterization of climate
also Honduras and Nicaragua.
change risks and impacts
With regard to capital cities in particular, 48% of them reg-
ister values that correspond to the “extreme risk” category, Figure 13.4 briefly discusses some of the major risks asso-
owing to their location and the concentration of their popu- ciated with climate change in urban and rural settlements.
lation and assets (Ibid.). The highest levels of urban vulner-
ability were identified in Central America and the Dominican The main impacts of climate change on urban and rural set-
Republic, with the exception of Haiti, which is not part of tlements are floods and mass movements. However, the
the RIOCC. The cities that register extreme vulnerability are heat island effect and heat waves affect cities more, while
Guatemala City and other cities in that country, such as droughts and frosts tend to have a greater impact on rural
Chimaltenango, Escuintla, Quetzaltenango, Antigua, or San settlements and their economic activities. Coastal encroach-
Marcos; Choluteca, La Ceiba, Puerto Lempira, and Teguci- ment and saline intrusion affect coastal settlements, while
galpa, among other settlements in Honduras; Managua and glacier melt compromises the water security of inland rural
practically all of the relevant settlements in Nicaragua, with and urban settlements, especially in the Andean region. The
the exception of Bluefields and Ocotal, which have high, but potential consequences or specific effects, whether on in-
not extreme, rates; and Santo Domingo and various small- frastructure and buildings, livelihoods, economic processes,
er settlements in the Dominican Republic (Neyba, Nagua, health, and life itself, depend on many variables, from the
Bonao, Monte Cristi, or Monte Plata). These are followed by geographical location and biophysical characteristics of each
others such as San Salvador and multiple settlements in El settlement, to the degree and spatial distribution of informal-
Salvador (San Francisco Gotera, Zacatecoluca, San Vicente, ity and inequality.
etc.); Trinidad (Bolivia); Quito and Santo Domingo in Ecuador; Risk management at a local scale needs to recognize not
Philadelphia, Caaguazu, and Coronel Oviedo in Paraguay; Bar- only trends in exposure and likely hazards, but also how
celona, Tucupita, Cumana, and Ciudad Bolívar in Venezuela; vulnerabilities are generated and perceived at that scale,
as well as Cartagena, Bogotá, and Barranquilla in Colombia which differs not only for each settlement, but within each
and Panama City in Panama. settlement. Degrees of exposure and hazards vary in both
506 RIOCCADAPT REPORTChapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
Extension
Main risks identified Main climatic driver Importance Urgency ected
regions)
cient +
or non-existent drainage and waste management systems, and even from
inadequate land use planning and the urban design itself
Water stress derived from the overexploitation of water sources in combination
with the aggravation of alterations to the hydrological cycle, the presence of
deficient or aging infrastructure, and the growing expansion of water demand
Increasingly frequent heat waves that intensify due to the growing expansion of
built environment and to poor urban design that seals the soil and occasionally !
hinders proper ventilation
Mass movements that affect housing and infrastructure owing to poor planning, +
cient risk prevention and management in
both urban and rural settlements
Coastal erosion that mainly affects poorly planned settlements
lacking infrastructure and adaptation actions and in settings of marked
inequality, such as that usually seen in tourist beach towns
ecting urban and rural
settlements that depend on glaciers for water supply
Spread of infectious vectors in a context where the quality of health systems
is heterogeneous, even in settlements that typically do not have such vectors
today
Main climatic drivers: Importance. One of the following levels Extent:
Flooding was assigned: unimportant, important
and very important; in terms of the Mexico Central America IBE
and Caribbean
Temperature Rise significance of its impacts on natural or human Iberian Peninsula
Drought MEX
systems, including the number of people
+ ected. CAC Amazon
Precipitation Increase Sea Level Rise
Urgency. One of the following three levels
AMZ
was assigned: imminent (that may Northern NEB N.E. Brazil
Precipitation Decrease Ocean Acidification be occurring or occur at any time), Andean-Pacific NAP
medium-term (that is expected to occur in the Central SSA
medium term, by mid-century, or when 1.5°C CAP Southeast America
! Extreme Temperatures Changes in Seasonality Andean-Pacific
is exceeded), long-term (that is expected
Intense Storms and CO2 to occur after mid-century or when 2°C of PAT Patagonia
CO2 Fertilization
Hurricanes warming is exceeded).
Figure 13.4. Main identified risks in connection with urban and rural settlements. Source: prepared by the authors.
RIOCCADAPT REPORT 507Chapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
urban and rural settings, as do the structure, shape, and Melgarejo and Lakes, 2014; Aldunce et al., 2016; Valdivieso
design of the built environment, the spatial distribution and et al., 2017; Audefroy and Sanchez, 2017), to adaptation
integrity of infrastructure, the socioeconomic situation of the focused on disaster risk reduction, which involves lowering
population, decision-making capabilities, political inertia, and exposure and vulnerabilities, increasing resilience, and im-
cultural practices, among other issues. proving the capacity for recovery to socially desirable levels
(Meerow et al., 2016; Zimmermann et al., 2016; Mansur et
The challenge of the adaptation agenda is therefore to rec-
al., 2018).
ognize and resolve, under the principle of additionality, the
aggravating factors that variously prevail in different settle- The specificities of these modalities should respond to the
ments and that, moreover, change over time. In the case of particular contexts of each case and ideally be considered
the RIOCC region, this means taking into account the de- and implemented with a holistic approach and at multiple
gree of informality, poverty, and inequality (including gender scales in order to avoid undesired effects. What may repre-
inequality), but also other issues such as the availability sent a strengthening of adaptive capacities for some may
and quality of knowledge, technological dependence, the eventually translate into a risk transfer and/or an increase
formation of local capacities for planning and action, access in vulnerability for others. This can happen when, for ex-
to financing, and even the asymmetric power relations that ample, high-income owners build perimeter walls to protect
block or enable systemic transitions (Delgado, de Luca and themselves from flooding alongside properties whose owners
Vázquez, 2015); Ivanova, 2017; Dodman, Archer and Sat- cannot afford to do the same (Bahadur and Tanner, 2014;
terthwaite, 2019; Romero-Lankao et al., 2018; Henriquez, Fraser, Pelling and Solecki et al., 2016).
2018; WCRP, 2019). The desirable adaptation seeks to catalyze positive syner-
Linked to informality is uncontrolled urbanization, which gies and exploit potential co-benefits. As shown in Figure
can generate situations of increased risk of landslides and 13.5, which summarizes the main adaptation measures pro-
floods, while poor urban planning can lead to the loss of posed by some local governments in the RIOCC, the water
environmental services or entrench spatial asymmetries harvesting program in Mexico City is an example of integrat-
around access to public services that are critical to reducing ing elements of social justice with enhancing co-benefits, in-
vulnerability. Similarly, risks can increase if the infrastructure cluding GHG mitigation (see Section 13.7.4 for more details).
on which cities depend, such as energy, water, and sanita- Another similar action is the ecosystem-based adaptation
tion, is affected. Therefore, the disaggregated spatial and promoted by cities such as Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Barce-
temporal estimation of climate risks is a key aspect when lona, and Bogotá. This measure improves air quality—with
planning and evaluating concrete adaptation strategies and the consequent health benefits—strengthens ecosystem
actions at the local scale (Mehrotra et al., 2009), an as yet services, and reinforces resilience by including actions that
incipient issue for the bulk of urban and rural settlements in promote sustainable urban and peri-urban agriculture, which
the RIOCC region. in turn improves access to fresh food (van Veenhuizen, 2006;
Videiro and Paulo, 2011; Orsini et al., 2013; Cruz, 2016).
Such a degree of specificity does not imply reducing the Other adaptation measures include deploying monitoring
analysis merely to the sectoral; on the contrary, actions will systems and infrastructure, improving and expanding basic
have to further multidimensional and multiscale risk perspec-
tives in order to encourage a genuine and systemic transfor-
mation. This is relevant given the organic relations among
urbanized regions, which can facilitate the propagation of Note on Figure 13.5.: The list of principal hazards or drivers identified
climate change impacts even to the point of affecting the is not exhaustive and, as such, represents only those most relevant
at the local scale. The degree of urgency identified refers to the need
rural sphere, since it depends on certain services and inputs to implement one or more of these measures immediately, which is
produced in the cities and the fact that cities are the main not necessarily equivalent to the importance of the measures in the
market for rural production. medium or long term, since it may vary according to the severity of
one impact or another. For example, infrastructure to mitigate sea
level rise will become more relevant in the medium term and even
13.4. Adaptation measures
more so in the long term. Hence, what must be considered is the
extent to which the specified measures can contribute to adaptation
over different time frames. Risk assessment and adaptation potential
are only indicative. It starts by examining the degree of risk to which
13.4.1. Adaptation options one is exposed if adaptation reaches its highest level in a given time
frame, assuming that in the medium and, above all, the long term
Adaptation takes shape through multiple mechanisms and (assuming a scenario of a 4ºC increase in the average temperature),
diverse degrees of participation, which can be framed around climate change impacts will become more acute. As a result, the
three dimensions: ecological, technological-infrastructural, degree of potential adaptation is revealed and, in that sense, so too
are the potentially missed opportunities if a robust adaptation agenda
and social (Mc Phearson et al., 2016). For example, from
is not implemented as quickly and decisively as possible. Source:
ecosystem- (Frantzeskaki et al., 2019; Kasecker et al., 2018; Compiled by the authors based on the National Communications of
Carro et al., 2018) and (human) community-based adapta- the RIOCC countries, the climate action or urban resilience plans of
tion (Rubin and Rossing, 2012; Hardoy and Hardoy, 2013; the mentioned cities, and expert assessment.
508 RIOCCADAPT REPORTExamples of settlements Risk level and potential for local adaptation
Adaptation action(s) Types of Main hazards or drivers Urgency
that consider such
adaptation
actions Time frame Risk and potential adaptation
Very low Medium High Very high
Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Río de
Janeiro, Madrid, São Paulo, Present
Broadening and strengthening P
of meteorological monitoring networks Santiago de Chile, Quito, Medium term
Montevideo, Tegucigalpa Long term
Very low Medium High Very high
Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Río de
Early warning systems Present
P Janeiro, Madrid, São Paulo,
Contingency plans Bogotá, Tegucigalpa, Managua, Medium term
Shelter network Panamá, Montevideo Long term
Very low Medium High Very high
Risk Atlas Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Río de Present
Strategic infrastructure vulnerabiity assessment to P Janeiro, Madrid, Santiago de Chile,
Medium term
ensure their proper operation Quito, Montevideo, Bogotá
Long term
Very low Medium High Very high
Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Río de Present
Aid or resettlement of vulnerable populations P Janeiro, São Paulo, Bogotá, Quito,
Medium term
Montevideo, Costa Rica
Long term
Very low Medium High Very high
Buenos Aires, Río de Janeiro, Present
Epidemic monitoring P A
(infectious vectors) São Paulo, Quito, Montevideo Medium term
Long term
Very low Medium High Very high
Buenos Aires, Río de Janeiro,
Present
Including adaptation in zoning and urban design; São Paulo, Bogotá, Cartagena,
P Medium term
while containing urban sprawl Quito, Tegucigalpa, Managua,
Panamá, Montevideo Long term
Very low Medium High Very high
Buenos Aires, Mexico City,
Río de Janeiro, Madrid, Present
Improving intersecretarial, sectoral and
P Santiago de Chile, Bogotá, Medium term
non-governmental coordination
Tegucigalpa, Montevideo Long term
Very low Medium High Very high
Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Río de Janeiro,
Madrid, São Paulo, Santiago de Chile, Present
Building local capacities and regulatory compliance P A Medium term
Bogotá, Cartagena, Quito, Tegucigalpa,
Managua, Panamá, Montevideo Long term
Hazards: Impacts: Types of adaptation: Urgency: Risk and potential adaptation:
Frosts
Heavy Floods planned, i.e. if it is the result of
Cyclones Very
rainfall Coastal erosion deliberate political decisions; High Medium Baja
high Additional adaptation
Saline intrusion
Gales Mass movements autonomous, i.e. if it is carried out, usually by potential to reduce risk
Decreased individuals, communities or private entities;
Infectious
precipitation
Sea level Drought vectors
Water stress hard (requires changes in infrastructure,
Temperature rise
regardless of type);
Time frame:
Damage to infrastructure
rise Heat waves and buildings Present Risk level Risk level
soft (political, social, training actions, etc.); with high adaptation with current adaptation
Medium term (2050)
Glacier Impacts on livelihoods, green (ecosystem-based actions).
Chills
reduction health and economies Long term (2100; 4ºC)
Figure 13.5. Climate change impacts, their importance and urgency in capital cities of the RIOCC region, and adaptive response actions. (Continue in the next page).
Chapter 13 – Urban and Rural Settlements
RIOCCADAPT REPORT 509You can also read
