risks of global warming.
 |
| Time to flip the 'action' switch? |
The stated purpose of the framework is to:
• increase Auckland’s resilience to the impact of climate change
• reduce emissions that cause climate change.
It appears that the framework concentrates on the actions to reduce (or at least not increase) emissions that cause climate change. Increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change (adaptation) takes less prominence. The focus on mitigation rather than adaptation is perhaps understandable given the urgent need to meet the 1.5 degree target set in Paris. When considering climate change, it is easy to get side-tracked onto adaptation while allowing emissions to continue to rise.
Yet reducing emissions requires national-level direction and international action, but adaptation has to occur at the local level no matter what level of emission reduction is achieved. Readying the city for the new climate reality is in many ways more challenging than slowing global warming itself.
The Framework
The framework does not provide sufficient direction on the key adaptation measures that need to be taken in respect to urban form. In particular is adaptation to:
• increased natural hazard risks (flooding, sea level rise and coastal inundation and wildfire)
• increased transport and energy costs for households and businesses as carbon becomes more fully priced.
11 key moves are identified in the framework, and the above two forms of adaptation are referred to in these moves. But 11 ‘key moves’ is a substantial number of moves, and too many to focus effort.
There does not seem to be a clear link to the climate change
risk assessments that have been undertaken. The report: ‘Climate Change Risks
in Auckland’ (note 2) appears to be a compilation of a number of separate assessments. The
combined report does not appear to rank the individual climate risks in terms
of the combination of risks and consequences. This then leaves open the
question of which are the more important tasks, given limited resources.
The framework provides little guidance on how to deliver
long term, sustainable adaptation. There will be immense pressure on Council to
commit to short term, interim ‘fixes’ that help today's communities cope with
rising risks, such as larger stormwater pipes and hard protection structures
along coastlines, but which may amplify the consequences of future risks for
future generations.
The action plan does take a positive approach to what it
acknowledges are major issues – there are both risks and opportunities with
climate change. I agree that there is a danger in making the risks of climate
change and responses to these risks too daunting to contemplate, and hence
avoiding action. But there is also risk in implying that some form of
acceleration of current plans and strategies is sufficient to deal with the
issues present. The strategy should better articulate the positive steps that
need to be taken to help off-set (compensate for) the adverse effects of
climate change on the city’s resources and its sense of identity.
Urban form
The implications of climate change for urban form are considerable. Urban resources will come under pressure from
the twin forces of a retreat from coastal areas and flood plains, and a
reduction in the viability of peripheral, greenfield areas as carbon prices
increase.
Yet the framework does not appear to acknowledge the scale
of the task and the need to start to take preparatory actions now and,
critically, who will face the bills.
The framework refers to: ‘Plan for a quality compact urban
form that supports low carbon, resilient development’ under the heading: key
move 3: Make development and infrastructure climate-compatible.
This action is not a new action. The Auckland Plan already
envisages a compact urban form, as does the Auckland Unitary Plan (although
there will always be debate over the extent of greenfields developments
provided for under both plans).
So where is the added value in the action plan framework?
The added value would come from the strategy identifying the
actions that should be taken now to start to lay the foundation for replacement
of the urban amenities and resources that will be lost through climate change.
Adapting urban
areas to hazard risks
Coastal hazards
NIWA’s latest assessment of coastal inundation risks (note 3) is
that, for the Auckland Region, 12,610 residents and 7,296 buildings with an
assessed replacement value of $5.32
billion lie within coastal areas that would be inundated by a 1% annual exceedance
probability sea level elevation event (storm surge) plus 1.2 m rise in sea
level above present-day mean sea level.
With ever rising sea levels, any defensive strategy is ultimately a temporary measure. There is the question of where these residents and businesses will relocate to as coastal hazards increase. But more than just how to manage physical relocation of people and businesses is the bigger issue of the sense of identity of Auckland as a coastal city.
With ever rising sea levels, any defensive strategy is ultimately a temporary measure. There is the question of where these residents and businesses will relocate to as coastal hazards increase. But more than just how to manage physical relocation of people and businesses is the bigger issue of the sense of identity of Auckland as a coastal city.
Coastal areas are one of the main sources of identity and
sense of place for Auckland. The urban coastal areas of the city are the great
'melting pots' of Auckland. They are the places that people from all
backgrounds use and interact with each other. Yet beaches and coastal reserves are all at risk
of increased erosion and inundation. The
ability for coastal reserves and beaches to move inland as sea levels rise appears
limited due to the adjacent housing and roading. Council's estimate is that 850
ha (or 10% of total local park land area) could be exposed under 1 m sea level
rise scenario, with a 50% increase to 1,280 ha under a 2 m sea level rise
future. The future for this resource would appear to be one of gradually diminishing
recreational values. The question then arises as to what and where are the replacement
open spaces and recreational areas to those that will be lost? Does planning
need to start now for a string of new open space areas that can offer
compensatory values, and which are accessible to many people? This will involve a major financial
investment.
The city centre, port and Wynyard Quarter area are all
vulnerable longer term to sea level rise and associated storm surge. Council’s
estimate is that 0.5% of the Business-City Centre Zone may be affected by
coastal inundation from a storm with a 1% probability of annual occurrence, but
exposure jumps to almost 20% when combined with 1 m sea level rise and almost
50% when combined with 2 m sea level rise.
The recently released draft Auckland City Centre Masterplan
does not appear to acknowledge the need for adaptation of urban form and public
spaces in the face of these threats. There is no mention of climate change and rising sea levels. The
ability for business activities in the City Centre to move 'inland' is possible given the potential to redevelop the higher elevations of the
Queen Street valley and spread into the Newton / Upper Symonds Street
areas. What is questionable is the
public money that is being spent on areas like Wynyard Quarter (and possibly
the port area in the future). The long term sustainability of this investment
must be questioned given the increasing risk profile.
As with coastal reserves and beaches, the moves to open up the central waterfront to people have had a major positive impact on how the city sees itself. Yet this new resource is at risk and the associated investment will potentially come to be seen as an example of the negative consequences of short term thinking. Again, alternative, city identity forming projects are needed to replace that which will inevitably be lost
Stormwater flooding
In relation to stormwater flooding, NIWA’s assessment (note 4) is that in the Auckland Region, as of 2013, 118,172 people and 48,167 buildings with a replacement value of $27.6 billion lie within 1% AEP flood hazard areas.
There are many floodplains in the city, and while many are relatively small, they nevertheless occupy a significant land area. As flood events increase in frequency and insurance becomes more costly to obtain, then there will likely be a move out of floodplains by many businesses and households. Many industrial areas are in floodplains. Businesses in these areas will need alternative locations to move to, for example, yet such alternatives are scarce. On the other side of the coin, as land values drop in areas subject to flooding, then these areas will attract households and activities that have fewer financial resources to cope with hazards. This will create a moral dilemma as how to assist these activities, if at all. The Council’s risk assessment notes that "Responding to climate change requires fundamental changes in how we think about and plan for the future of our catchments, coastlines and communities. Some hard decisions will be required about the acceptability and affordability of sustaining human habitation and infrastructure". The sooner guidance is provided around what level of public support will be provided the better for all involved.
As with coastal areas, there are many reserves, walkways and open space areas along stream corridors. These assets will also come under pressure from more frequent events.
Recipient areas for activities displaced from flood plains and replacement assets need to be identified.
Increasing urban running costs
Reducing emissions has to mean increasing energy and transport costs for households and businesses. Price signals are needed to reduce carbon consumption and shift demand to alternatives. Yet these alternatives will not be cheaper than current prices. In other words, households and businesses will face higher costs. In response, they will likely seek out alternative locations that help to compensate for these increased costs. Urban densification, rather than expansion, is the classic response of households and businesses to increased costs.
The framework acknowledges the benefits of more compact forms of urban development, but is silent on the potential scale of the adjustment needed. In particular would be the nature and extent of redevelopment of the existing urban area and the associated upgrade and replacement of existing infrastructure including three waters, transport and social and community facilities needed to cope with a significant migration of people and businesses from peripheral (and coastal and floodplain) areas. This infrastructure investment should be front loaded.
Meanwhile compact development can increase the consequences of some climate change risks:
• Urban heat island effects will be exacerbated by more apartment type developments unless green space increases.
• Impervious area coverage could increase with compact development, and with it run off during storm events, unless actions are taken to retain and detain stormwater on-site.
• Wildfire risks will increase in the future as droughts become more common. This is a growing risk for various residential areas on the edge of the city.
Strategies are also needed to mitigate these risks.
Notes:
2: http://www.knowledgeauckland.org.nz/assets/publications/TR2019-019-Climate-change-risks-in-Auckland-Arup-March-2019-final.pdf
3. https://www.deepsouthchallenge.co.nz/sites/default/files/2019-08/2019119WN_DEPSI18301_Coast_Flood_Exp_under_Fut_Sealevel_rise_FINAL%20%281%29_0.pdf
4. https://www.deepsouthchallenge.co.nz/sites/default/files/2019-08/2019118WN_DEPSI18301_Flood%20Exposure_Final%20%281%29.pdf
