Dominant vision: seeking solutions to risks

The first vision aims to avoid or reduce climate risks: the city wants to protect its inhabitants and infrastructures from climate effects. At the moment, this vision seems dominant. From this vision, a city first explores where the climate risks are and then looks for solutions to those risks. But if a city approaches climate adaptation from this vision, there is a chance that the city mainly opts for sectoral and technical solutions. This approach often leads to  small changes and short-term solutions: the city remains the same as much as possible. As a result, the city misses opportunities for long-term sustainable urban development. Cities do try to combine goals from different departments, but often these are short-term goals.

Promising vision: an ideal image for the city’s future

The second vision of climate adaptation is based on opportunities. The city thinks about an ideal image and asks itself the question: what kind of city do we want to have in 100 years? By developing a vision of an attractive, resilient and sustainable city, the city can discover new solutions to climate threats. Instead of seeking solutions to short-term risks, it develops a vision that focuses on the long-term transformation of the city. This requires policymakers and urban planners to think less in terms of sectors and risk mitigation, and more in terms of a positive vision for the city. Opportunities will then arise to link climate risks to other challenges, such as sustainability, health, mobility and biodiversity. Cities could thus use climate change as an opportunity to reinvent themselves. There are already examples where such a positive and integral vision has been developed, such as the vision for the Netherlands in 2120.

Proposal: add an extra step to the adaptation process

In our essay, we further propose adding an extra step to the adaptation process. In this step, a city first develops a positive image and a transformative approach for the long term before selecting concrete measures. We propose this extra step because most current roadmaps, frameworks and guidelines do not invite cities to tackle climate adaptation from a possible ideal vision of the future. Instead, many of these tools lead cities directly from risk analysis to targeted adaptation solutions. As a result, cities often opt for technocratic, sector-based measures. Examples of tools from this dominant vision are the IPCC’s risk management process (2014), the ‘adaptation cycle’ (Willows et al. 2003), the European Adaptation Portal’s Adaptation Support Tool (Climate-Adapt), and the recent ISO standard 14091 (ISO 2021).

Many ideas about a successful climate service

The study shows that there are many different ideas about what makes a climate service successful. However, few scientists give a clear definition of a successful climate service. Some scientists emphasise the process around climate services. For example: the climate service should be co-created. Or: all parties involved should learn something from it. Other scientists focus on the quality of the underlying data and whether new scientific publications on the climate service will be published. Other scientists are particularly interested in the actual use of a climate service. 

Few evaluations  

The study also shows that there is still little evaluation by scientists of the success of climate services. As a result, we do not really know which factors and processes contribute to success. Although there are many ideas on this subject, it is still difficult to prove success. 

Context plays an important role  

Many scientists state in their articles that context often plays an important role in the success of a climate service. For example: someone who takes climate risks very seriously will use a climate service more than someone who thinks that climate change is not that bad. And a user with good technical skills will be better able to use a climate impact atlas than a user who is less technically skilled. Another factor is what data and knowledge are available for a particular area. 

How do we move forward?

In order to understand what makes a climate service successful, it is important to have a clear definition of a successful climate service. In a new study, Eva is therefore working together with climate service experts from all over the world to come up with one clear definition. In the future, she would also like to investigate which factors and processes contribute to success, and in what context. 

Three types of adaptation

There are three types of adaptation: reactive, incremental and transformational adaptation. Reactive adaptation means you try to minimise the damage during climate extremes, for example with a heat plan. Incremental adaptation means you try to prevent climate risks by better protecting existing facilities, for instance by building dykes. And with transformational adaptation you go one step further: you tackle the cause of the vulnerabilities and choose solutions that fit sustainable development. For instance, you can green a city in a way that also contributes to biodiversity. But it could also mean deciding not to build on some flood-prone areas. You can then use these areas for nature and water storage.

Knowledge and tools for transformational adaptation

There are many tools for reactive and incremental adaptation, just think of stress tests and measure databases. But how to ensure that the adaptation you choose is also sustainable in the long term? In other words, how can transformational adaptation become part of a strategy? As a climate services provider, you can help policymakers do that in four ways:

• You can offer policymakers systemic knowledge about the underlying causes of climate risks and possible long-term solutions.
• You can offer them inspiring and interdisciplinary knowledge that will help them develop a long-term vision.
• Then you can help them integrate that vision into policy.
• You can also work with them to establish design principles that match stakeholders’ priorities and interests.

This means combining a lot of knowledge about climate in a straightforward way, and also linking it to economic and social knowledge about cities and regions. This requires broadening your area of focus and working with experts in spatial planning, landscape architecture, ecology, health and sociology.