Speakers
Description
Climate change is posing emerging challenges on multiple levels and scales of socio-spatial organization, especially impacting existing land use patterns and standards of living in urban as well as exurban areas. As already widely established in current literature, planning for climate change is regarded as dynamic adaptation process involving a multitude of scientific disciplines, while pertaining a core role for spatial planning. The present research focuses on crucial methodological issues that are still poorly handled by current planning theory and practice, specifically: a) the need for a better connection between data-driven methodologies of climate risk analysis and applied practices regarding that risk in urban/rural contexts, b) the need for better positioning and accounting for “user requirements”, i.e. the risk-related information layers (hazard-exposure-vulnerability, and response) necessitated by different stakeholders directly involved into the planning process.
To this end, we propose a framework of evaluating existing current spatial planning procedures and practices at a pan-European/global context, by adopting such a perspective. A wide set of relevant information is extracted through published research of the past decade, and a classification/evaluation scheme is applied. This exploration sheds light into the climate change adaptation at the local level, highlighting its inherent inconsistencies with regard to the applied dimension of urban planning. A number of characteristic case studies is used to highlight such constraints, while the software OpenAlex is used to systematized relevant bibliometric research and classify its outputs.
Our preliminary results underline the need for new multidisciplinary frameworks such as those incorporated within the ongoing CLIMASPIN research project; in this project, added value is gained by the direct involvement of planning stakeholders into specifying end-users’ needs for climate risk assessment and evaluation at crucial urban and regional scales. Better matching possible solutions with specific place-based vulnerabilities emerges as a crucial pathway for future climate adaptation instruments and research framework. At the same time, dynamic integration of planning practice toolkit-based solutions and corresponding anticipated spatial outputs emerges as a potential field where advanced geospatial technologies maintain a key role.
| Keywords | climate change; adaptation; planning practice; urban planning; risk; vulnerability |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
