Future Visions and Policy Recommendations for the Metropolitan Region of Hamburg - Adaptation to Climate Change - According to the outcomes of the ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Adaptation to Climate Change – Future Visions and Policy Recommendations for the Metropolitan Region of Hamburg According to the outcomes of the scenario workshop “Climate change in the Metropolitan Region of Hamburg” (June 2010)
Research Project BaltCICA http://www.baltcica.org/ HafenCity University Hamburg (HCU) City planning and regional Development Winterhuder Weg 29-31 22085 Hamburg Compiled by Felix Kalkowsky, Philipp Schuster & Lisa Warwel Picture on front cover: Jannes Fröhlich (HCU) Hamburg 2011
Content
1. Introduction
2. Metropolitan Region of Hamburg (MRH): Political and Climatic Situation
3. The Scenario-Workshops
3.1. Summary
3.2. Outcomes
3.3. Policy Recommendations
4. Workshop Evaluation
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography
1. Introduction During the past years it has become more and more distinct how strongly the impacts of climate change already affect us. The 2007 IPCC report pointed out possible changes, some of them inevitable already, by depicting different scenarios for future development. But although these scenarios are reliable in large-scale, projections on regional and local level still are quite uncertain (Claussen et Al. 2011: 2). The Metropolitan Region of Hamburg is affected by this and increasingly will be in the future. At HafenCity University Hamburg, Climate adaptation is an important focus in the Unit Urban Planning and Regional development. In this respect, the research project BaltCICA focuses on climate change impacts and adaption. As a part of this work, the workshop “Cli- mate change in the Metropolitan Region of Hamburg” took place in June 2010. During this workshop, stakeholders discussed possible vulnerabilities and adequate adaption measu- res for the Metropolitan region of Hamburg (MRH). The outcomes of the workshop as well as resulting policy recommendations are depicted in this paper. 2. Metropolitan Region of Hamburg (MRH): political and climatic situation The Metropolitan Region of Hamburg is very complex, politically as well as geographically. The first is caused by the participation of three federal states (Lower Saxony, Schleswig- Holstein and the city state of Hamburg) in the region (see figure 1). This fact makes con- sistent political decision making (as is would be highly necessary in the case of climate adaptation) extremely difficult. Figure 1: The Metropolitan Region of Hamburg (politically)
For instance there might be different governing coalitions and hence differing priorities in
political goals, or even completely different political structures, e.g. in decision making pro-
cesses. Whilst the duties of federal state and municipality are not separated in the MRH,
both of the other federal states have different responsibilities and competences.
The most important characteristic of the MRH and the entire tidal Elbe region when it comes
to geographical location is the Elbe estuary (see figure 2). By the direct impact of sea-level
rise in the tidal Elbe region, the entire MRH is highly endangered by flooding. Moreover,
scenarios show that the number and strength of storm surges are going to increase in the
next 70 years. The adaption of the areas vulnerable towards flooding along the Elbe is one
focus of future planning. Exemplary adaptation measures could be the upgrading of dikes,
designation of retention areas or even resettlement.
Figure 2: The Metropolitan Region of Hamburg (geographically)
The “Climate report for the MRH”, published in 2011, assumes on the basis of dynamic and
statistic models that by the year 2109 there will be:
• An increase on the mean temperature of up to 3°C (relatively more in winter)
• A shift in precipitation patterns (40% less in summer, 40% more in winter)
• Sea level rise and increase of the water temperature, increase of storm surge heights
of up to 10dm
• Marine ecosystems: immigration of thermopile species, fish mortality through oxygen
deficiency
• Protracted vegetation period and increasing temperatures make adaption of fruit and
crop growing necessary
Those numbers correspond to the IPCC scenario A1B. In fact, the changes could turn out quite differently (even more extreme), depending on the actual increase of emissions (Clausen et Al. 2011: 2) 3. The scenario-workshop In the following part, the scenario workshop that took place in June 2010 and its outcome shall be depicted, concluding to policy recommendations based on the visions of the work- shop participants. 3.1. Summary The scenario workshop “Climate adaption in the Metropolitan Region of Hamburg”, which was arranged by HafenCity University Hamburg, took place on the 2nd and 22nd of June 2010. The participating stakeholders were composed of representatives of city administra- tion, politics, management and NGO’s. It was the aim of the workshops to identify vulnerabilities in the MRH and find adequate adaptation measures by group work and debate with the participants using scenarios. The scenarios the groups were given are: 1. “Nothing” No particular adaptation measures before damages occur (see fig. 3). Figure 3: Scenario 1 „Nothing“ 2. “Protection” Existing settlement patterns and land use are being protected by constructional and tech- nical measures (see fig. 4). 3. “Change” Active adaptation, e.g. resettlement, public awareness raising (see fig. 5)
Figure 4: Scenario 2: „Protection“ Figure 5: Scenario 3 „Change“ Those three scenarios, based on the IPCC scenario A1B, are supposed to point out pos- sible impacts of climate change for MRH as well as problems and conflicts that could arise from them, such as flood control upgrading, land use conflicts and resettlement. After a presentation of these scenarios, several short introductory presentations and an introducing discussion, the participants divided into four groups:
• housing,
• harbor and industrial zones,
• technical infrastructure and traffic zones,
• environmental zones/agriculture.
The groups then discussed hazards and chances for their sectors within the MRH in the
course of climate change, displayed them on a map and concluded with five central state-
ments.
3.2. Outcome
By the end of the first workshop day, the participants had elaborated four different spaces
of reference in the MRH that require different measures of adaptation. These spaces of
reference are:
1. Rural area with urban settlement concentrated in marsh zones: extension of dikes,
return to the concept of central places , relocation of acreage, different cultivation
methods
2. Rural area with important infrastructure: relocation of traffic routes and sewage
plants, shutdown of nuclear power plant/interim storage in Stade, additional draina-
ges
3. Urban space with developing areas: additional flooding protection, relocation of vul-
nerable land use to areas higher above sea level than status quo, upgrading of coo-
ling systems/sun blinding
4. Urban area/inner city: air- and green corridors, expanses of water, more clearances
and gaps in the settlement structure, unsealing of surfaces, designation of multifunc-
tional spaces (retention and flooding areas)
The participants located those areas on a map and defined the specific vulnerabilities. Ge-
nerally, adaptation to climate change and mitigation should always be coordinated. Since
the aim of this workshop was to define visions for specifically adaptation in the MRH, mea-
sures for mitigation are not included.
Day two of the workshop started with a little summary of first day results, followed by a
discussion focusing two central questions:
1. How is the MRH supposed to develop until the year 2071?
2. How can general visions be constructed based on the adaptation measures that
were depicted?
The participants phrased the following visions, based on the measures mentioned and the
requirements they had discussed:
• Establishing climate awareness
• Constitution/consolidation of a planning association in the MRH
• Creation of multifunctional spaces
• Establish (sense of) responsibility
• Protection of open spaces in vulnerable areas
• Covering the financial aspects
• Flexibly defined standards (no 100% protection everywhere)
• Dynamic sampling of water management
• Promote research
• Stabilise protection categories in sectoral planning
• Collect and communicate best practice solutions
• Support of natural capabilities
3.3. Policy recommendations
Based on the visions as pointed out by the participants of the workshops, the following
policy recommendations can be deduced:
• Information: Scientific knowledge regarding climate change needs to be published
and presented to the public and stakeholders of the MRH in order to raise new cli-
mate awareness and help supporting the strategies applied. This could be accom-
plished by the more frequent arrangement of workshops and panel discussions or a
fortified focus on climate change related issues in the educational.
• Communication: The Constitution of a planning association in the MRH is going to be
necessary in order to bridge political differences of the three federal states involved
and simplify political decision making processes. “Hamburg Metropolitan Region”, a
cooperation of the City of Hamburg, Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein, could be
useful as a foundation. Within this cooperation, economic, environmental and acade-
mic projects that are meaningful for the entire MRH are being planned and establis-
hed. Party political differences must not be an obstacle in climate change adaption.
• Research: well-directed sponsorship to help gaining further knowledge on clima-
te change, possible impacts and adaptation strategies. Research projects such as
BaltCICA. should be brought forward by a safe financial backup and long-term com-
mitment.
• Finances: The funding of adaptation measures needs to be provided, competences
and responsibilities need to be assigned. Especially in the MRH funding is a difficult
issue due to the special political situation (three federal states involved).
• No regret-/win-win-strategies: Climate Scenarios are never going to be absolutely
reliable regarding future impacts of climate change. Hence the strategies appliedmust not have any negative effects in case of changing basic conditions. Preferably
they should even have positive side effects instead. The reduction of fuel consump-
tion or insulation of buildings for example are going to have positive financial effects
either way.
• Future land use: A rethinking process in aspects of land use is necessary. Multifunc-
tional spaces need to be created within densely settled areas (e.g. simultaneous use
as retention area and park or pleasure ground). Those spaces can have numerous
benefits for urban climate, flooding protection, recreational activities etc.
4. Workshop Evaluation
Subsequent to the Scenario Workshop, an evaluation was made. The participants were
asked about their background and their opinion on course and outcomes of the workshop.
The results shall be outlined in the following.
12 out of 19 surveyed participants attended the workshop on both days. The mayor part of
the participants were stakeholders in administration or science/research, about one fifth of
them were regional/city planners (see figure 6).
Figure 6: Professional composition of workshop participants
The organisation of the workshop was predominantly regarded as „good“ (35%) or „very
good“ (53%) and most participants were „content“ (47%) or even „very content“ (47%) with
the workshop outcomes. Merely one participants found them to be insufficient. An other
participant found the further examination of the issue not reasonable in the context of his/
her occupation, but noted that it already is very well anchored in the regarding insitutional
field. The level of anchoring within the institutional occupations of the participants variied:
27% regarded the level of institutional implementation in their secotor as „very good“, 37%
as „good“ and 27% as „moderate“. Moreover, the bigger part of the participants regardedfurther examination of the issue as „expedient“ (21%) or „very expedient“ (63%).
The workshop participants regarded the integration of a broad variety of stakeholders and
experts as very important. The forecast of extreme weather events should be focused as
an element of adaptation strategies. Furthermore there should be an open debate on the is-
sue, which demonstrates interrelations and enables cross-sectoral observation. The issue
of Climate Adaptation was largely assigned to regional planning and nature conservation.
Figure 7: Usability of results in the MRH
The outcomes of the scenario workshops can be used in varying ways. Most participants
regard the results as useful for the MRH Adaptation strategy (see figure 7). In addition the
participants made multitudous suggestions on how the results could be used. It was menti-
oned several times that the results might be used for raising and strengthening awareness.
Furthermore an extension of networking with other projects , e.g. KLIMZUG-Nord and OP-
TEL (operational tidal Elbe model), was suggested. The surveyed participants also sugge-
sted an medial preparation of the results (e.g. a newsletter, presentations, a recapitulating
report) in order to develop new strategies based on them in future.
The interdisciplinary group of participants was regarded positively. The participants deman-
ded continuation of the assignment and information on further proceeding in the project. In
this context the participants were interested in how the results can be forwarded to decision
makers. It was also warned about the lack of competence in some topics though.
5. Conclusion
First of all it is of highest importance for the MRH to define competences and responsi-
bilities on a political level; that means: forming a powerful planning association. In line
with this, financial responsibilities of the federal states need to be defined as well, to en-
sure the funding of future adaptation measures. Current agreements such as the supportfund for the MRH, financed by the city state of Hamburg and 14 administrative districts in Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony, might be a good foundation for further collaborati- on. The association “Metropolitan Region of Hamburg” already deals with different subjects concerning the entire region such as climate change (metropolregion.hamburg.de). This confederation could be strengthened and endowed with further authorities. This is absolu- tely necessary due to the political situation and a basic requirement for future action. While collaboration might work very well already in the field of science (e.g. the North German Climate Office, which is supported by different federal states), there is still a growing need for political cooperation in terms of actions. Another focus needs to be on the well-directed information and communication of scientific findings and research results to the public and stakeholders. This is the only way climate awareness can be achieved and hence required for every further action. At the same time research needs to be furthermore supported, e.g. in projects such as MARE or BaltCICA on the international level, to gain trusted findings an climate changes and impacts as soon as possible to find adequate measures and make precise planning possible. This is also required to develop and imply no regret-/win-win-strategies. All practical measures concerning climate adaptation need to be adjusted on reducing vul- nerabilities (e.g. flooding protection) and maximizing resilience (e.g. retention areas). A massive focus on the subject of climate change (adaptation as well as mitigation) is re- commendable in the future in order to handle the upcoming impacts. So far the subject has been precariously neglected. Long-term strategies and measures in the case of climate adaptation urgently need to be developed and applied.
6. Bibliography Literature Christaller, Walter (2006): Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland : eine ökonomisch-geo- graphische Untersuchung über die Gesetzmäßigkeit der Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Siedlungen mit städtischen Funktionen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Claussen, Martin; von Storch, Hans (Hrsg.), KlimaCampus Autorenteam (2011): Klimabe- richt für die Metropolregion Hamburg. Heidelberg: Springer. Kunert, Lisa; Schönherr, Uwe; Schuster, Philipp (2010): Klimaanpassung in der Metropol- region Hamburg. Szenarioworkshop zur Siedlungs- und Flächenentwicklung im Raum der Tideelbe (Documentation). Online Ressources Metropolitan Region of Hamburg: http://metropolregion.hamburg.de/foerderfonds (last ac- cess: February 17th 2011) Figures Figure 1: The Metropolitan Region of Hamburg (politically) KLIMZUG-Nord Figure 2: The Metropolitan Region of Hamburg (geographically): http://www.hamburg.de/ start-elbeaestuar (Access: June 22nd 2011) Figure 3: Scenario 1 „Nothing“: Kunert, Lisa; Schönherr, Uwe; Schuster, Philipp (2010): Klimaanpassung in der Metropolregion Hamburg. Szenarioworkshop zur Siedlungs- und Flächenentwicklung im Raum der Tideelbe (Documentation). Figure 4: Scenario 2: „Protection“: Kunert, Lisa; Schönherr, Uwe; Schuster, Philipp (2010): Klimaanpassung in der Metropolregion Hamburg. Szenarioworkshop zur Siedlungs- und Flächenentwicklung im Raum der Tideelbe (Documentation). Figure 5: Scenario 3 „Change“: Kunert, Lisa; Schönherr, Uwe; Schuster, Philipp (2010): Klimaanpassung in der Metropolregion Hamburg. Szenarioworkshop zur Siedlungs- und Flächenentwicklung im Raum der Tideelbe (Documentation). Figure 6: Professional composition of workshop participants: compiled by authors accor- ding to the workshop evaluation survey Figure 7: Usability of results in the MRH: compiled by authors according to the workshop evaluation survey
You can also read
