Discussed here: Planning for Disaster (Cities Matter, Nov. 14, 2012)
And here:Urban environmental challenges and climate change action in New York City(Abstract, William Solecki, Environment and Urbanization. Oct 2012)
And here: On Sandy and Humanity’s ‘Blah, Blah, Blah Bang’ Disaster Plans(Andrew C. Revkin, Dot Earth, New Yrok Times, Oct. 31, 2012)
And here:“Natural” Disaster Losses Driven by a Building Boom in America’s “Red Zones”(Andrew C. Revkin, Dot Earth, New York Times, Nov.13, 2012)
Today we review a paper that looks at lessons learned from recent disasters in New York City (storm surge) and Wellington, New Zealand (earthquake) where each city suffered because of damage to their urban infrastructures and exceeding the limits that had been built into them. Although controversial among urban planners, the conclusion drawn is both to upgrade building codes to meet the greater range of possibilities being brought by climate change and to decentralize as much as possible to create more independent and self-sufficient communities rather than a centralized core vulnerable to disruption. Urban intensification can reduce sprawl and costs of services, particularly public transit and emergency services. However, there needs to be consideration given as well to the degree of vulnerability to infrastructural failure that this could entail. This is true not only for the more severe and more frequent impacts that come with climate change but also to meet the challenges of the variability of today’s climate.
Key Quotes:
“Climate change presents cities with significant challenges such as adaptation to dynamic climate risks and protection of critical infrastructure systems and residents’ livelihoods”
“Even as a mature, mega-city in a developed country, lessons from the New York City experience can be transferred to a variety of other urban contexts”
“much of the disaster that unfolded as it came ashore was the result of human actions and decisions — ranging from where we’ve chosen to build or subsidize development to how seriously our governments take the need to build with the worst in mind”
“Authorities in New York and New Jersey simply allowed heavy development of at-risk coastal areas to continue largely unabated in recent decades, even as the potential for a massive storm surge in the region became increasingly clear”
“Economic and community costs are driven in large part by failures in critical infrastructure, particularly the supply of water, sanitation services, electricity, gas, roads and public transport.”
“Among planning responses is the push for more rigorous building codes, although given the built-up nature of the city these will only have a marginal effect and will reduce the impact of extreme events only over the long term…The New Zealand response following the Canterbury quake has been for councils to identify buildings of insufficient structural integrity to withstand a significant earthquake and require them to be strengthened or abandoned”
“A penchant among planners and politicians for centralised, high density, water-edge development focuses expansion (and public and private capital) in places where critical infrastructure converges and where, because of its age, infrastructure is usually most vulnerable, where network capacities are already strained, and outages or congestion are not uncommon. It concentrates risk in areas that, because of their waterside location, are almost inevitably hazardous, often on or beneath ground that is naturally unstable or prone to liquefaction.”
“It is time ..to develop plans that limit the capacity for extreme events to turn into disasters, and to consider a future built around decentralised urbanism, distributed infrastructure, and resilient communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment