Adaptation Strategies For Cilimate Change

This article was downloaded by: [Ira Irawati]
On: 25 January 2015, At: 23:16

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Risk Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjrr20
Adaptation Strategies for Climate

Change in the Urban Environment:
Assessing Climate Change Related Risk
in UK Urban Areas
a a a a
S. J. Lindley , J. F. Handley , N. Theuray , E. Peet & D.
a
Mcevoy
a
Centre for Urban & Regional Ecology , School of Environment
and Development , The University of Manchester , UK
Published online: 18 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: S. J. Lindley , J. F. Handley , N. Theuray , E. Peet & D. Mcevoy (2006)
Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change in the Urban Environment: Assessing Climate
Change Related Risk in UK Urban Areas, Journal of Risk Research, 9:5, 543-568, DOI:
10.1080/13669870600798020
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669870600798020
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Ira Irawati] at 23:16 25 January 2015
Journal of Risk Research
Vol. 9, No. 5, 543–568, July 2006
ARTICLE
Adaptation Strategies for Climate

Change in the Urban Environment:
Assessing Climate Change Related
Risk in UK Urban Areas
S. J. LINDLEY, J. F. HANDLEY, N. THEURAY, E. PEET &

D. MCEVOY
Centre for Urban & Regional Ecology, School of Environment and Development, The
University of Manchester, UK
ABSTRACT This paper presents a conurbation-scale risk assessment methodology which

aims to provide a screening tool to assist with planning for climate change-related risks in
the urban environment. This work has been undertaken as part of a wider,
interdisciplinary project, Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change in the Urban
Environment (ASCCUE). The main focus of ASCCUE is to help improve understanding
of the consequences of climate change for urban areas and how these, and the
neighbourhoods within them, can best be adapted. Adaptation options will be explored
in the context of both conurbation-scale strategic planning and neighbourhood-level
urban design. The paper conveys some of the initial outputs from the ASCCUE project. It
firstly presents the overarching risk assessment framework, before outlining the GIS-
based elements of the methodology. This draws on a characterisation of the urban area
into distinctive ‘‘urban morphology units’’ as the spatial framework for the analytical
work. An example of heat related risk is given by way of an illustrative application of the
methodology. The paper concludes with a consideration of the limitations of the
approach and how some of these will be tackled as part of the ongoing work programme.
KEY WORDS: GIS, vulnerability, heat hazard, scenarios
Introduction
The InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have confirmed
that the trends in global temperature experienced over the last century
Correspondence Address: S. J. Lindley, Centre for Urban & Regional Ecology, School of
Environment and Development (Geography), The University of Manchester, Manchester
M13 9PL, UK. Tel.: +44 (0) 161 275 8685; Email: sarah.lindley@manchester.ac.uk
1366-9877 Print/1466-4461 Online/06/050543–26 # 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13669870600798020
544 S. J. Lindley et al.
cannot be explained solely on the basis of the inherent variability of the

climate system (IPCC, 2001). Indeed, their work indicates that human-
induced climate change is already with us. Regardless of the actions of
government to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases, the inertia of the
climate system will mean that a climatic response to past emissions is
inevitable. Although there is still much debate about the nature of the
response and its extent, the fact that it will happen has now galvanised
governments into considering appropriate action (Hulme and Turnpenny,
2004). In addition to making efforts to mitigate emissions, the UK
government has increasingly recognised the need to try and plan for the
likely effects of anticipated climate change, however uncertain these may be.
The United Kingdom Climate Impacts Program (UKCIP) was established in
April 1997 to increase knowledge about climate change and associated
impacts across the nation. One of its core roles is to provide a set of
scenarios to demonstrate the different climate regimes of the UK under a
variety of emissions scenarios (Hulme et al., 2002).

The research which has been carried out to date suggests that climate
change may affect different places, as well as society in general, in ways that
can be considered positive as well as negative. For example, in Britain milder
winters are expected to reduce winter mortality, whilst higher minimum and
maximum summer temperatures and the intensification of the urban heat
island may increase summer mortality (DoH, 2001). Although they may
benefit from some aspects of climate change, it is urban areas that will be
especially vulnerable to the negative aspects of climate change (such as more
frequent and severe floods, heat waves, etc.), not least since this is where there
is a high concentration of people and associated infrastructure. Urban
environments are distinctive in human and physical-biological terms. Urban
communities often have different socio-economic characteristics compared to
their rural hinterlands and many exhibit high variability over relatively short
distances. They also have distinct physical characteristics, such as the extent of
‘‘surface sealing’’ which inhibits percolation and encourages runoff of rainfall;
and the combined effects of reduced evapotranspiration (because of less
vegetation cover) and the thermal mass of buildings, contribute to the heat
island effect (Whitford et al., 2001). Climate change is of special significance
for cities because it accentuates this distinctive behaviour, producing a more
hazardous and less comfortable environment for citizens. This requires the
development of appropriate urban adaptation strategies to capture the
benefits of climate change and to mitigate its more negative anticipated
impacts. As a complement to such adaptation measures, there is a need to
ensure that future land-use developments do not worsen the current level of
risk, either through influencing the hazards themselves or through affecting
the future vulnerability and adaptive capacity of the urban system.
Planning therefore has a critical role to play, for mitigating the severity
of hazards and for reducing the levels of exposure and vulnerability
experienced by the urban system. Different scales of planning from macro
scale land-use planning to micro scale urban design are both important to
Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change 545
this process, responding to the different scales over which risk and
vulnerability are expressed (O’Brien et al., 2004). This recognises that
although many aspects of adaptive behaviour associated with vulnerability
are the result of a decision-making process that operates at an individual
level, the government and other policy makers can shape this process
through their activities, whether responsive or anticipatory in nature (Adger
and Vincent, 2005; Patt et al., 2005). Given the length of time involved in
the strategic planning process, and the long lifetime of urban infrastructure,
it is even more critical that decision-making does not reinforce negative
feedback in any part of the process.
The urgency for information to assist with ‘‘climate conscious’’ planning
is clear. Climate change can be seen to be already impacting some sectors,
such as the insurance industry and this has consequences for business,
commerce and the general public. For example, an analysis of weather
related risks and the cost of household and property insurance found that
the value of claims doubled to £6 billion during 1998–2003 compared to

1993–1998, with the expectation of a further tripling by 2050 (Dlugolecki,
2004).
In response to these identified needs, UKCIP and the UK Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) have funded a series of projects
under the umbrella Building Knowledge for a Changing Climate (BKCC)
(UKCIP, 2005). One of these projects aims to develop an improved
understanding of the consequences of climate change for urban areas and
how these, and the neighbourhoods within them, can best be adapted.
Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change in the Urban Environment
(ASCCUE) is an inter-disciplinary project bridging physical and social
science, with inputs from civil engineers, planners, architects and geogra-
phers. The project involves the input of recognised experts for the detailed
assessment of three key exposure units: the built environment, human
comfort and urban greenspace. Stakeholder engagement, organised through
a national steering group and local advisory group with public and private
representation, is considered extremely important in terms of both
methodological development and solution testing. It informs the project
frames of reference; feedback on methods and applied aspects of the work;
and provision of spatial and aspatial datasets. The wider BKCC network
further engages relevant stakeholders through regular forum events to
involve stakeholders in the research process and to disseminate outputs.
ASCCUE aims to explore adaptation options in the context of both
strategic planning at the conurbation level and neighbourhood urban design.
To do this, it focuses on an analysis of two contrasting case studies, Greater
Manchester and Lewes. The former was selected as a large and
representative conurbation in the North West of England and the latter as
an extreme case in the South East of England in terms of exposure to both
riverine flooding and sea level rise.
The 10 districts of Greater Manchester have a total population of some
2.5 million people and cover an area of around 1280 km2, 42% of which is
classified as being built up. Greater Manchester is large enough to fully

express distinctive urban risks but is not generally associated with any
specific overt hazards. It is therefore considered to be ideal as a
representative case.
A central component of ASCCUE aims to develop a generic framework
for climate related risk management and a coupled methodology for
screening relative degrees of associated risk within the urban environment.
This highlights the point that the inherent level of risk associated with a
particular place cannot be fully expressed at aggregate scales of analysis
since this often masks the geographies of vulnerability that operate at finer
spatial resolutions (O’ Brien et al., 2004). The risk methodology is intended
as a conurbation-scale screening tool which has three main planning related
functions. Firstly, it identifies areas of potentially high risk where future
development should be avoided without additional investigative work.
Secondly, it acts to prioritise areas for further investigative study. Finally, it
identifies areas where adaptation strategies may be most urgently required.

The spatial framework for the work is a set of derived Urban Morphology
Type (UMT) units, designed to provide logical analysis units for the
assessment of hazards and vulnerabilities in UK cities at an appropriate
spatial scale. The method has been developed with a view to making it
applicable to any urban environment in the UK and can be modified for
urban environments elsewhere.
Specifically, this paper presents the theoretical foundation for the risk
assessment process used in ASCCUE. Within this, two elements of the
methodology will be discussed in particular detail. Firstly, the proposed
climate change related risk assessment screening methodology will be
outlined, illustrated by an indicative example of heat related risk to the
urban population. Secondly, the methodology employed for the develop-
ment of the UMT framework used to characterise the case study areas will
be outlined. The paper concludes with a discussion of the issues encountered
in the development of the methodology and the main limitations of the work
to date.
Methodological Framework and Approach

There are many ways that the impacts of climate change can be considered,
including the analysis of observed data, consideration of modelled output
and, where no quantitative methods are available, expert opinion (DoH,
2001; Parson et al., 2003, Willows and Connell, 2003). Much existing work
in the climate change and applied policy literature focuses on understanding
the nature and dimensions of impacts. For instance, the London Climate
Change Partnership has developed a thorough description of the potential
environmental, social and economic impacts of climate change on the city of
London (Clarke et al., 2002). The term impact implies a methodological
process that is deceptively simple, i.e. the change of some condition, process
or outcome in response to some degree of change in a climate variable
against baseline climate conditions. However, masked within it is a complex

network of feedback mechanisms associated with adaptation, secondary
influences and inherent vulnerabilities which makes this an extremely
challenging task (Parson et al., 2003). For ASCCUE, the most pressing
requirements were considered to be those that assisted the process of making
more informed planning decisions in relation to the likely negative impacts
of climate change.
In their simplest form, impact assessments of climate change often focus
on the degree of changes of hazardous events or situations without
necessarily taking into account the vulnerability of infrastructure or
population. On the other hand, a risk-based approach has the advantage
of explicitly handling the hazard itself, exposure to the hazard and the
vulnerability of the elements at risk. Risk assessment and risk decision
making processes are commonly used to manage more overt threats to
society such as chemical installations (e.g. Salvi and Gaston, 2004), but they
are equally useful in assessing other types of risk. Another reason for taking
this approach is that this can help identify ‘‘external obstacles’’ to adaptation
(Brooks, 2003). The value of a risk assessment approach is further
highlighted by UKCIP in their development of a risk based decision-making
framework for use by organisations in the UK (Willows and Connell, 2003).
This decision-making framework is an important complementary process
within which the analytical tools developed by ASCCUE can sit. For these
reasons a risk based framework was considered an appropriate one for this
work. Indeed, it also helps address calls for the inclusion of environmental
risks and hazards within the UK planning process from other sources (Rydin,
2004).
Following the identification of the need for a risk-based approach an
allied task was to determine an appropriate framework for climate change
related risk management. Many risk management methodological frame-
works exist in the literature but these are often independent of explicit
geography and the full suite of environmental processes and socio-economic
vulnerability relevant for climate change risk assessment and management.
The ASCCUE risk management over-arching methodology is adapted from
Granger (2001) (see Figure 1). Initially developed in relation to managing
urban geohazards, the framework lends itself well to developing a
comprehensive understanding of the climate related risks faced by an urban
community and important elements of their subsequent management. The
framework has been applied to a climate change planning and management
focus with a central GIS-based analytical core. Elements of other work have
also been incorporated, such as the idea of exposure units similar to those
discussed in Jones (2001) and elements of GIS related risk assessment
methodologies such as those discussed in Cova (1999) and Chen et al.
(2004).
The main focus of this paper is on the central GIS-based risk assessment
component of the process in Figure 1. This is not intended to overshadow the
Figure 1. ASCCUE risk management process (after Granger, 2001)
importance of the complementary processes of initial risk identification and

subsequent evaluation and adaptation to the wider project as a whole.
The themes to be investigated within the project were developed with
local and national stakeholders, the former through a dedicated workshop
session involving local advisors to complement consultation of historical
documentation and a broader literature review. The involvement of local
advisors can be loosely compared to a Participatory Integrated Assessment
approach: as a means of problematising climate change related issues;
communicating meta-level information and related uncertainties; identifying
conflicts; and determining a set of priorities and objectives for the work
(Schlumpf et al., 2001). From this dialogue a list of prioritised risk themes
was developed (see Table 1).
A GIS-based risk analysis approach has the advantage of providing a
direct means to assess the spatial dimension of risk and, furthermore, the
spatial aspects of potential adaptation responses. The UMT unit framework
provides the spatial expression of the urban system, allowing the spatial and
temporal dimensions of combinations of hazard, vulnerability and exposure
to be explored for different scenarios.
The final phase of the methodology, not discussed in detail here, involves
aspects of evaluation and adaptation. Evaluation of the risk assessment
process is challenging for climate change related applications, due to the
high levels of uncertainty involved in the process of projecting climate and
social change as well as in relation to uncertainties associated with
subsequent impacts (Lempert et al., 2004). In addition, there are other
uncertainties introduced through the GIS methodology itself, discussed in
further detail in relation to the heat risk application.
Table 1. Indicative risk themes included in the ASCCUE project
Exposure unit Hazard Elements at risk and associated

vulnerability
Built environment Flooding, geohazards Density of the built
(including running sands, environment, key
landslides, shrink-swell clays) infrastructure and services
Urban greenspace Drought (available water Key greenspace infrastructure
content), runoff, temperature such as parks and gardens,
density of urban trees
Human comfort1 Temperature (day and night Receptive environments such
maximums), precipitation as those associated with
shoppers and commuters
Human health2 Temperature (day and night Population density and
maximums) characteristics
1
Not specifically expressed as risk themes for this exposure unit group.
2
Only considered at the conurbation scale.
Risk Assessment Methodology and its Application

There are many different definitions of the same terms in the risk assessment
literature (Brooks, 2003). It is considered important to identify the key terms
that are used in this research for two reasons. Firstly, ASCCUE is an
interdisciplinary project and clarity of terminology was considered
particularly important given the different interpretations of the notion of
risk, especially in view of the need for continued inter-disciplinary dialogue
within the project. The second reason was due to the need to take definitions
one stage further in interpreting them within the context of a GIS database
and associated analytical processes and then communicating them effectively
to a wide range of non-specialist stakeholders. In creating a specific
terminology for ASCCUE, various sources have been consulted including
Brooks (2003), Chen et al. (2004), Cova (1999), Crichton (2001),
Environment Agency (2003), Granger (2001), NZCCO (2004) and
Willows and Connell (2003) with an emphasis, as far as possible, on the
terms most often used by authorities and organisations within the UK.
The definitions used in this work conform to the recognised elements of
risk assessment with their relationship shown graphically in Figure 2
(Crichton, 2001), i.e. risk5f (hazard, exposure, vulnerability). For risks to
be realised, there must be a spatial coincidence of both the hazard and
vulnerable elements within an exposed area to the hazard. This lends itself
well to interpretation within a GIS framework since some of the key
analytical functions are based on spatial coincidence. This is borne out by
the growing number of thematic risk assessment exercises in different
discipline areas that have utilised GIS (see for example, Bennion et al., 2005;
Bein et al., 2004; Anderson et al., 2004; Salvi and Gaston, 2004).
Figure 2. Risk triangle (Crichton, 2001)
The GIS approach translates these ideas into discrete layers which identify
the elements of Crichton’s risk triangle. These layers estimate the spatial
patterns of the location; likelihood, extent and severity of hazards and the
vulnerability of elements at risk from which the associated risk can be derived
using overlay analysis. One of the key steps in the GIS-based methodology is
to establish threshold criteria to create the hazard layer, vulnerability layer
and consequently, the risk layer. It is important that tables are created with
meaningful thresholds based on current knowledge. Accordingly, the thresh-
olds used here have been linked, wherever possible, to recognised scales that
conform to suggested quality criteria (Jones, 2001) which provide a semi-
quantitative expression of risk and facilitate the understanding of the risk
outputs. The project stakeholders also provide guidance on some of the most
appropriate thresholds and scales to select for each identified risk theme. This
was one of the specific advantages associated with the involvement of
stakeholders in the risk assessment process, i.e. it helped to provide an agreed
frame of reference and a related basis for deciding levels of risk acceptability.
However, it is recognised that there are also limitations, for example the
difficulty and time involved in reaching a consensus and the possibility of
introducing erroneous value judgements (Jones, 2001).
The following sections go on to illustrate the GIS methodology through
providing an assessment of heat related risk to the urban population. It
identifies the processes and outcomes associated with deriving the hazard,
urban system, exposure, elements at risk, vulnerability and risk layers
(Figure 3).
Figure 3. Overview of the GIS elements of the conurbation scale risk assessment methodology
Hazard Layer
Hazard layers show the likelihood of a particular hazard occurring at a
particular point in time and space. Where possible they are based on
quantitative measures (ideally probabilistic data) but otherwise use a
qualitative index based on standard thresholds, such as those in NZCCO
(2004).
For the heat hazard layer, temperature data were obtained through
BETWIXT, a sister BKCC project (BETWIXT, 2004). BETWIXT utilises
stochastic weather generators to develop high-resolution climate scenarios
for selected weather stations across the UK. This operates through
characterising ‘‘current’’ 1961–1990 climate and using this with downscaled
regional climate model output from UKCIP02 as the basis for estimating
daily weather characteristics for three future time slices: the 2020s, 2050s
and 2080s (Watts et al., 2004). These time periods have therefore become
the temporal framework of the ASCCUE work. BETWIXT also provided
guidance on the treatment of scenario uncertainty and the nature of specific
urban-scale effects.
ASCCUE also uses data directly from UKCIP02, the methodology for
which includes a capability for further refining downscaled 50 km resolution
climate models to a 5 km grid. Care is needed is interpreting such finer scale

representations because in practice the behaviour of the local climate system
may itself be modified (Hulme et al., 2002). Data from UKCIP02 (5 km grid)
and BETWIXT (for Manchester Ringway) are the basis for estimating the
likely spatial and temporal likelihood of future hazards across the
conurbation.
Analysis of the BETWIXT scenario data enables an assessment to be made
of the expected changes in exceedence of UK government recognised heat
thresholds. The Heat Health Watch (HHW) initiative, launched by the Met
Office and Department of Health (DoH), aims to assist with the effective
management of heat related health issues. It operates annually from 1 June to 15
September, when heatwaves are likely to occur (DoH, 2004). It was developed
in response to the scientific evidence for increased frequency and severity of
such events in England and the health impacts that they are associated with. For
example, DoH (2001) note that the hot summer of 1976 has a current climate
probability of 1 in 310 years, whereas under the HadCM3 2050 (UKCIP98)
scenario that probability was estimated to be reduced to one in every five or six
years. It is considered appropriate for this work to make reference to
government sources given the strong policy dimensions of the work. It is also
useful for the identification of vulnerable groups.
Table 2 shows the relative proportion of July and August days associated
with ‘‘hot days’’ (maximum temperature greater than 30uC) and ‘‘warm
Table 2. Percentage of hot days and warm nights per month for current conditions compared
to those projected for the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s (Greater Manchester)
% of ‘warm
% of ‘hot days’ nights’ with a
with a maximum minimum
temperature > temperature >
Time slice Scenario Month 30uC 15uC
Current ‘1970s’ Observed July 0.0 9.4

Observed August 0.1 11.4
2020s Low July 0.3 22.8
High July 0.3 23.4
Low August 0.1 22.5
High August 0.1 28.3
2050s Low July 0.4 25.7
High July 1.0 41.2
Low August 0.5 30.8
2080s Low July 1.0 42.8
High July 5.6 63.1
Low August 1.3 41.5
nights’’ (minimum temperature greater than 15uC) under current and

projected future scenarios. The table shows the steady increase in numbers of
days exceeding 30uC, which becomes much more marked by the 2080s.
However, it is the changes in expected numbers of warm nights that is
particularly dramatic with over one quarter of all July and August minimum
temperatures expected to exceed the threshold value from the 2050s. In
practice, alerts only come into effect when temperatures are reached on a
least two consecutive days and intervening nights but this still gives a good
indicator of the degree and direction of changes. Analysis of heat wave
duration is also being carried out as part of the BETWIXT and ASCCUE
projects.
The UKCIP02 565 km grid is used as the spatial framework of the
hazard layer (Figure 4). The spatial distribution of UKCIP02 mean monthly
temperatures are then used as the basis for mapping the 90th percentiles of
current and future daily maximum and minimum temperatures for July and
August (i.e. identifying the threshold over which extreme temperatures—the
top 10% of daily maxima and minima—are expected to occur in different
parts of the city). This assumes that the spatial characteristics of mean and
maximum temperatures are the same and does not explicitly consider the
impact of an enhanced urban heat island effect. The UKCIP02 downscaled
Figure 4. Hazard layer spatial framework (left) and derived example exposure maps for heat
related risk to human health (July TMax 90th percentiles). Source: Derived from UKCIP02 &
BETWIXT
Figure 5. Nocturnal heat island in Greater Manchester (mean minimum seasonal

temperatures). Data refer to Manchester Weather station 1975–1985 (central), Bolton mean
minimum temperature 1967–1990 (north), Manchester Ringway 1949–1981 (south) and
Knutsford 1949–1995 (semi-rural south west) Source Goodess and Chineke (forthcoming)
data do not currently include a specific urban heat island component (other
than what is represented in the UK Met Office 5 km baseline climate data). It
is recognised that Greater Manchester does have an urban heat island
(Figure 5). However, in contrast to London where the intensity of the
nocturnal heat island during the spring and summer months has been found
to be increasing by 0.12uC per decade (Wilby, 2003), analysis to date has not
found a discernable temporal trend in its behaviour in Manchester over the
time period for which data are available (Goodess and Chineke, forth-
coming).
Urban System Layer

The UMT units represent the settlements, infrastructure, and vegetation
associated with the urban system of the city (Figure 6). The units were
delineated from digital orthorectified 1:10000 aerial photography using land
cover interpretation techniques. Most of the work was carried out using
photographs surveyed in 1997 but this was supplemented with data from
2001 for areas known to have undergone considerable redevelopment since
the initial survey year, such as in East Manchester with the construction of
facilities for the recent Commonwealth Games.
Figure 6. Urban Morphology Type units for a selected area of the city (a) with unit
boundaries outlined (Imagery # GetMapping plc) (b) with selected land cover/use
classifications
Units were classified based on a predefined nomenclature of urban

morphology. This was based on a classification scheme which was originally
developed for characterising the urban environment prior to estimating the
density of the urban tree population (LUC, 1993; Handley et al., 2000). The
final scheme (Table 3) is compatible with the UK National Land Use
Database (NLUD) making the framework more widely applicable across the
UK (NLUD, 2005).
Aerial photo interpretation is one way to determine land cover
characteristics but there are others. For example, representations of urban
form can also be generated using remotely sensed imagery (Mesev et al.,
1995). Using these techniques, it is difficult to map land use without
additional data sources and some form of ground truthing. To verify the
mapping of the Greater Manchester area, a map of each district of the
conurbation was sent to each local authority. The UMT units were further
checked against local survey data (TEP, 2004) and Ordnance Survey digital
data products. Local contextual knowledge was also used to complete this
process. These processes of verification have ensured that the urban system
layer is representative, something that is borne out by the use of the data by
the city council for emergency planning purposes in relation to the UK Civil
Contingencies Act.
Exposure Layer
The exposure layer represents the urban system layer combined with the
hazard layer to determine areas of spatial coincidence of, in this case, the
spatial likelihood of high temperatures for each urban morphology unit.
Table 3. UMT classification
Level 1 Level 2
1. Farmland 1.1 Improved farmland

1.2 Unimproved farmland
2. Woodland 2.1 Woodland
3. Minerals 3.1 Mineral workings and quarries
4. Recreation and leisure 4.1 Formal recreation
4.2 Formal open space
4.3 Informal open space
4.4 Allotments
5. Transport 5.1 Major roads
5.2 Airports
5.3 Rail
5.4 River, canal

6. Utilities and infrastructure 6.1 Energy production and distribution
6.2 Water storage and treatment
6.3 Refuse disposal
6.4 Cemeteries and crematoria
7. Residential 7.1 High density residential
7.2 Medium density residential
7.3 Low density residential
7.4 Rural settlement
8. Community services 8.1 Schools
8.2 Hospitals
9. Retail 9.1 Retail
9.2 Town centre
10. Industry and business 10.1 Manufacturing
10.2 Offices
10.3 Storage and distribution
11. Previously developed land 11.1 Disused and derelict land
12. Defense 12.1 Defense
13. Unused land 13.1 Remnant countryside
Figure 4 shows the increased likelihood of higher temperatures across the

conurbation, with a noticeable temperature gradient from the lower altitude
south-west and city centre areas compared to the more upland parts of the
conurbation in the north and west.
The mapping classification scheme is based on equal intervals, taking
into account HHW thresholds. Other mapping scheme options, which are
also important for the vulnerability layers, are currently being discussed with
project stakeholders. The results of this process will be reflected in the final
outputs. The main requirement of the exposure map is the ability to spatially
differentiate the likelihood (if not the probability) of the selected threshold
value(s) being exceeded for a particular UMT unit or set of units.
Elements at Risk and Vulnerability Layers

The vulnerability layer represents the degree of damage likely to be
experienced by the specified elements at risk in relation to the particular
hazard of interest. It is generated from the elements at risk layer which
describes the spatial distribution of receptors (be they buildings or people)
across the conurbation, usually using a specific geography such as census
districts. The vulnerability layer is created with reference to a vulnerability
table which attempts to give a meaningful set of indicators of damage for the
receptors of interest. Once again, a wide range of scales and indices are
available. Damage scales may rely on raw monetary values, percentage loss
estimates, damage states, normalized values or macrodamage categories
(Blong, 2003). Where specific data are not available, a series of qualitative
measures can be used in their place to assess the relative degree of loss
associated with a particular hazardous event or situation.
Table 4 lists the groups that are recognised as requiring particular advice
in the event of HHW thresholds being exceeded. The spatial distribution of
vulnerability can be assessed through developing layers which represent
some or all of these groups, based on the 2001 UK Census and the UMT unit
mapping. Although using conurbation scale data it is not possible to identify
all of the specific subgroups identified in Table 4, most of the key groups for
residential locations have been included. Possible additions could be the
locations of high rise buildings and industrial/commercial zones, the latter as
non-residential vulnerable locations.
Vulnerability indicators are mapped separately in order to retain an
appropriate level of transparency. For ease of communication of the final
results the separate indicators can also be combined into a single
vulnerability index as the basis for the final layer (Figure 7).
Risk Layer
Table 5 shows how the hazard and vulnerability criteria are translated into
risk categories. The risk map itself (Figure 8) is then based on the spatial
coincidence of areas exposed to a severe hazard and high levels of
vulnerability of the elements at risk.
Stakeholders expressed a desire to see as much disaggregation of
information as possible to ensure that the final risk results maintained an
appropriate level of transparency as well as promoting flexibility in
modifying input data. This also facilitated the communication of uncertainty
since this could be attributed to individual layers, albeit qualitatively for the
most part, rather than relying on an assessment of the final output alone.
This also suggests that there is considerable scope for the development of a
complementary spatial decision support tool which would build on the
methodology but provide more scope for user-oriented exploration, as with
the emerging field of planning support systems (Klosterman, 1997).
Table 4. Use of indicators to spatially represent groups vulnerable to heat stress
DOH vulnerable groups Indicator of vulnerable Indicator of vulnerable

(DoH 2004) groups (current) groups (future)
Older people .75 years old Census based indicator Population projections
and/or living alone of population age .75
or nearest banding
Babies and young children Census based indicator Population projections

,4 years old of population age ,4 or
nearest banding
People taking certain types Census based indicator Income disparity projections
of medication People of population health used as the basis for
suffering from chronic ill health modification of current
social deprivation.
People suffering from mental Census based indicator

health problems and/or of dependency
those dependant on carers for (residential)
day-to-day activities
People who are bed bound
People with an already raised No specific data

temperature available
People using psychoactive drugs
including alcohol or illicit drugs
People who have already
experienced problems in
extreme heat
People living in top floor flats,
without air conditioning
People working in places that
generate heat such as
foundries and bakeries.
Decision-support systems for shorter term planning for climate related

hazards, for example, are already being developed (Michelozzi et al., 2004).
Results and Discussion

The results of the methodology outlined above, as applied to conurbation
scale heat related risk, are shown in Figure 8. Once the screening process has
been completed, it is possible to identify those UMT units or clusters of units
that are of particular interest for further study, i.e. that are highlighted as
being at elevated risk relative to other zones in the conurbation. Figure 8
Figure 7. Heat vulnerability layer (current case). Source: Derived from UK Census of
Population (2001)
Table 5. Generic risk table
Hazard/Vulnerability High Medium High Medium Low Low

High High 4 High 4 Medium High 3 Medium Low 2
Medium High High 4 High 4 Medium high 3 Medium Low 2
Medium Low Medium High 3 Medium high 3 Low 1 Low 1
Low Medium Low 2 Medium Low 2 Low 1 Low 1
Note: The relative balance of hazard and vulnerability is considered to be equal but it is
recognised that risk categories could be interpreted differently where vulnerability to a
particular hazard is considered more influential than the hazard itself, or vice versa.
clearly shows areas of particular concern for further analysis at a

neighbourhood scale.
However, the impacts of climate change on the urban environment
cannot be assessed by using climate prediction models in isolation, since
society itself will also evolve over time. Another BKCC project, BESEECH
(PSI, 2005), is producing a set of four socio-economic scenarios based on
projections of UK population characteristics and behaviour. Where possible,
these are being tailored to specific case study areas.
Here, BESEECH variables of population age and income disparity for
each of the four UKCIP socio-economic storylines World Markets, Local
Stewardship, Global Responsibility and National Enterprise (Figure 9) have
Figure 8. Heat related risk in Greater Machester under current and selected future scenarios
based on summer (July) 90th percentile Tmax. Source: Derived from UKCIP02, BETWIXT,
UK Census of Population (2001)
Figure 9. Socio-economic scenarios being used in the BESEECH and ASCCUE projects
(UKCIP 2001)
been used as the basis of estimating future population characteristics

(UKCIP, 2001). These are taken as being representative of future
vulnerability—i.e. taking a subset of the full range of vulnerability groups.
In this case it was possible to use population age projections to 2050 and
social deprivation as an aggregate indicator of other vulnerability factors.
Since BESEECH provides a quantitative assessment of changes in levels of
income disparity, this has been used to reclassify 2001 social deprivation to
mirror the suggestion that different scenarios will be associated with a
widening or narrowing gap between the rich and poor. Inevitably, there are
limitations in this process but it does provide some indication of potential
changes in vulnerability characteristics (Table 4). The socio-economic
scenarios are in the process of being developed still further to produce
‘‘spatial storylines’’ to accompany the broader non-spatial storylines being
produced by BESEECH. The spatial storylines will investigate plausible,
internally consistent modifications to the classifications of individual UMTs

(mimicking potential changes to the urban system as a whole) to
complement the wider non-spatial storylines used as the basis of each of
the socio-economic scenarios.
Figure 10 begins to explore some of the consequences for future
vulnerability and Figure 11 the implications for risk, without any form of
management or adaptation. The next stages of the ASCCUE project as a
whole will then explore these elements in more detail. In the case of heat
related hazard (Figure 12) this may include consideration of the nature of the
urban fabric in high risk areas, such as the amount and nature of available
Figure 10. Heat vulnerability layers for the 2050s: left, local stewardship; right, world
markets. Source: Derived from UK Census of Population (2001) and BESEECH
Figure 11. Heat risk layers for 2050s climate based on summer (July) 90th percentile Tmax
and future socio-economic scenarios. Source: Derived from UKCIP02, BETWIXT, UK Census
of Population (2001) and BESEECH
Figure 12. Urban form at the neighbourhood scale in relation to a set of high risk UMT units
greenspace, in order to suggest ways in which the urban environment might

be better designed to mitigate the degree of risk or facilitate formal and
informal adaptation strategies.
The methodology, as a conurbation-scale screening tool, can successfully
highlight areas that will require action in relation to climate change related
risks in the urban environment. However, it is not without its limitations.
Some of these limitations are associated with the nature and reliability of the
spatial and non-spatial data used in the analytical work whereas others are
more procedural in nature. Some of the input datasets such as the UMT units
are associated with a reasonably high level of confidence due to a relatively
rigorous verification process, but some uncertainty is inevitable. For
example the heat hazard layer presented here refers to outdoor temperatures
and does not specifically account for the enhanced exposure that may be
experienced within a particular buildings or outdoor environments (i.e. at
the micro level). In terms of the vulnerability layers, one of the limitations of
using census variables is that this only relates to the residential population
and does not take into account the considerably enlarged population of
urban areas in view of their role as places of work and recreation. Another
issue that has been raised elsewhere is the problem of applying a two-
dimensional solution to a three-dimensional problem, for example recognis-
ing the multiple uses of some buildings (Suddle and Ale, 2005). In the case of
heat related risk this readily applies since the inhabitants of top floor flats
are known to have a heightened level of risk, something which is not
currently built into the methodology.
In terms of the procedural limitations of the work, it is important to state
that the use of a spatial coincidence approach to risk assessment has
sometimes been criticised in the literature (Chen et al., 2004). One of the
reasons for this is that the processes underlying the hazards and
vulnerabilities are not shown. Another reason is that often the areal unit
used to represent elements at risk and their vulnerability is not representative
of their true spatial patterns (Bartels and van Beurden, 1998). Here, the use
of UMT units overcomes some of these problems especially since the spatial
units are small. However, whenever an analysis requires manipulation and
combination of data from sources using different geographical units it
inevitably introduces some error, for example that associated with the
modifiable area unit problem (Openshaw, 1984).
One of the outcomes of this is that areas may be highlighted as high risk
zones where the actual location of the vulnerable elements and the hazards
are not coincident, i.e. there is no exposure (Chen et al., 2004). One way to
try and identify uncertainties due to the level of spatial aggregation involved
is to investigate risks at the neighbourhood scale. Indeed this may be a valid
additional process once areas of low risk have been screened out. Finally, it
is recognised that all exposed UMT units may contain some vulnerable
elements, even where the relative amount of overall damage is low.
The risk assessment methodology could have been built on a number of
alternative spatial units as its analytical framework, such as planning units,
administrative boundaries or grid-based units. Planning and associated

political-administrative units have the advantage of having a clear linkage
with the spatial frameworks used for data collection and collation as well as
decision-making processes. However, they are problematic for a risk
assessment exercise since they are often independent of the ‘‘natural’’
borders between areas. Another possibility could have been to use natural
physical units (such as those associated with geomorphologic units) but this
approach would not take into account land use characteristics which can
completely modify the underlying physical characteristics of areas and
therefore their ecological conditions. The final possibility considered was the
use of a grid-based framework. This has a number of potential benefits, for
example it is free of assumptions about which existing units are preferential,
and instead uses a regularized framework of equal sized units which
promotes consistency and better supports comparison between areas.
However, for a planner it can be quite difficult to relate grids to what is
on the ground and what the decision-maker needs to influence through

planning.
The UMT unit spatial framework has a number of influential benefits
which outweigh the initial costs incurred of designing and developing an
alternative representation of an urban area. Some of the reasons why these
form an appropriate tool to analyse the urban environment are that they
(after Pauleit and Duhme, 2000): use commonly recognised land use
classifications; are ecologically meaningful and homogenous in nature;
facilitate an integrated assessment of the urban environment through
relating physical features to land use and environmental features; and
facilitate the analysis of processes operating over larger spatial scales,
avoiding the need to analyse individual buildings and land plots.
A final point relates to the fact that the perception of risk may differ
from estimated or actual risk and this may need to be addressed during the
community liaison phases of the work and at the stage of developing
adaptation responses. There is much research into the field of risk perception
which may help to shed light on some of the issues and the potential
response of different societal groups (Bohm and Pfeister, 2005; Zwick, 2005;
DoH, 2001). Indeed this has also been recognised as an area in which
planning officer’s themselves need to be more aware (Snary, 2004). Risk
perception and therefore adaptation response also has a geographic
dimension, although this is likely to be less of a concern at the scale of
individual urban areas (Palutikof et al., 2004). Coupled with this is the issue
of using mapped output to communicate risk information. It is recognised
that maps are very appropriate means of communication in the light of their
ability to aid comprehension of complex information (Medyckyj-Scott,
1994). However, it is also true that analysis and representation techniques
can (consciously or unconsciously) greatly influence the information derived
and its subsequent interpretation (Monmonier, 1991) and the high graphical
quality of GIS output which tends to mask inherent uncertainty in input and
output data (Heuvelink, 1998; Lindley and Crabbe, 2004).
Conclusion
This methodology has been shown to provide a useful screening approach to
identify areas of relatively high risk for climate change associated hazards in
the urban environment. It can be readily applied to key elements of the
urban environment, such as urban greenspace, human comfort and the built
environment and gives an overview of the different risks faced by cities, both
with and without factoring in the issue of climate change. It is relatively
straightforward to carry out and relies as far as possible on existing data
sources. These, together with methodological transparency, were factors
raised as important in a recent evaluation workshop held with local advisors
from a range of government and non-governmental organisations.
Importantly for this work, the method also provides a mechanism through
which areas suitable for further neighbourhood scale assessment and
potential adaptation strategies can be determined. An analysis of the nature
of hazards and vulnerabilities within cities and other urban areas is clearly a
useful basis for tailoring planning and design strategies to the specific needs
of the affected community.
The UMT basis of the work provides a useful screening tool and has a
series of benefits which overcome the problems of using many other types of
boundaries such as census units and political boundaries. The use of map-
based assessments using GIS has sometimes received criticism, but the
flexibility of the methodology that results is a real asset, especially where
there is a variety of means to represent hazards, vulnerability and associated
risk. The potential for visualised representations of risk and associated
uncertainty may provide a further benefit though providing a mechanism to
assist with the communication of results to decision-makers and the wider
community.
Acknowledgements
The methodologies discussed in this paper have been developed as part of the
ASCCUE project, funded by EPSRC/UKCIP (proposal number GR/S19233/
01), with contributions from CriBE (Cardiff University), DCEE (University
of Southampton) and OCSD (Oxford Brookes University), Susannah Gill
and Gina Cavan (CURE)
References
Adger, W. N. and Vincent, K. (2005) Uncertainty in adaptive capacity external geophysics, climate and
environment, C. R. Geoscience, 337, pp. 399–410.
Anderson, M. C., Thompson, B. and Boykin, K. (2004) Spatial risk assessment across large landscapes
with varied land use: Lessons from a conservation assessment of military lands, Risk Analysis, 24(5),
pp. 1231–1242.
Bartels, C. J. and van Beurden, A. (1998) Using geographic and cartographic principles for environmental
assessment and risk mapping, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 61, pp. 115–124.
Bennion, H., Hilton, J., Hughs, M., Clark, J., Hornby, D., Fozzard, I., Phillips, G. and Reynolds, C.
(2005) The use of a GIS-based inventory to provide a national assessment of standing waters at risk
from eutrophication in Great Britain, Science of the Total Environment, 3441–3, pp. 259–273.
BETWIXT (2004) BETWIXT Project overview. Available at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/
betwixt (last accessed November 2004).
Bien, J. D., ter Meer, J., Rulkens, W. H. and Rijnaarts, H. H. M. (2004) A GIS based approach for the
long-term prediction of human health risks at contaminated sites, Environmental Modelling and
Assessment, 9(4), pp. 221–226.
Blong, R. (2003) A review of damage intensity scales, Natural Hazards, 29, pp. 57–76.
Brookes, N. (2003) Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework (Norwich: Tyndall
Centre, University of East Anglia).
Bohm, G. and Pfister, H. R. (2005) Consequences, morality and time in environmental risk evaluation,
Journal of Risk Research, 8(6), pp. 461–479.
Chen, K., McAneney, J., Blong, R., Leigh, R., Huner, L. and Magill, C. (2004) Defining area at risk and
its effect in catastrophe loss estimation a dasymatric approach, Applied Geography, 24, pp. 97–117.
Clarke, S., Kersey, J., Trevorrow, E., Wilby, R., Shackley, S., Turnpenny, J., Wright, A., Hunt, A. and
Crichton, D. (2002) London’s Warming, The Impacts of Climate Change on London (London:
London Climate Change Partnership).
Cova, T. J. (1999) GIS in emergency management, in: P. A. Longley et al. (Eds)Geographical Information
Systems: Principles, Techniques, Applications, 2nd Edition: Management Issues and Applications,
pp. 845–858 (New York/Chichester: John Wiley).
Crichton, D. (2001) The Implication of Climate Change for the Insurance Industry – an Update and
Outlook to 2020 (Watford, UK: Building Research Establishment).
Department of Health (2001) Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK (London: Department of
Health Expert Group on Climate Change and Health in the UK).
Department of Health (2004) NHS Heatwave Plan for England — Protecting Health and Reducing Harm
from Extreme Heat and Heatwaves, 2004 edition (London: Department of Health). Available at
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/08/68/76/04086876.pdf (last accessed June 2006).
Dlugolecki, A. (2004) A Changing Climate for Insurance – A Summary Report for Chief Executives and
Policymakers (London: Association of British Insurers).
Environment Agency (2003) Strategy for Flood Risk Management (2003/4–2007–8) (Bristol, UK:
Environment Agency).
Goodess, C. M. and Chineke, T. C. (forthcoming) Analysis of a maximum/minimum temperature transect
across the Greater Manchester region. BETWIXT Technical Briefing Note 7, in preparation.
Granger, K. (2001) Geohazards risk to urban communities in Australia, in: CCOP technical bulletin
Volume 30, pp. 165–174 (Canberra: Australian Geological Survey Organisation).
Handley, J., Wood, R. and Ruffin, A. (2000) The Red Rose Forest Urban timber initiative - A report on
the sampling of the street, park and garden tree population, The University of Manchester.
Heuvelink, G. B. M. (1998) Error Propagation in Environmental Modelling with GIS (London: Taylor
and Francis).
Hulme, M., Jenkins, G. J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J. R., Mitchell, T. D., Jones, R. G., Lowe, J., Murphy,
J. M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R. and Hill, S. (2002) Climate Change Scenarios for the
United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report (Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research).
Hulme, M. and Turnpenny, J. (2004) Understanding and managing climate change: the UK experience,
The Geographical Journal, 170(2), pp. 105–115.
IPCC (2001) IPCC Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (Geneva: IPCC
and World Meteorological Society).
Jones, R. N. (2001) An environmental risk assessment/management framework for climate change
impact, Natural Hazards, 23, pp. 197–230.
Klosterman, R. E. (1997) Planning support systems: a new perspective on computer-aided planning,

Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(1), pp. 45–54.
Land Use Consultants (1993) Trees in Towns, Report for the UK Department of the Environment
(London: DoE).
Lempert, R., Nakicenic, N., Sarewitz, D. and Schlesinger, M. (2004) Characterising climate change
uncertainties for decision makers, Climatic Change, 65, pp. 1–9.
Lindley, S. J. and Crabbe, H. (2004) What lies beneath? Issues in the representation of air quality
management data for public consumption, Science of the Total Environment, 334–335, pp.
307–325.
Mesev, T. V., Longley, P. A., Batty, M. and Xie, Y. (1995) Morphology from imagery: detecting and
measuring the density of urban land use, Environment and Planning A, 27(5), pp. 759–780.
Medyckyj-Scott, D. (1994) Visualisation and human-computer interaction in GIS, in: H. M. Hearnshaw
& D. J. Unwin (Eds) Visualisation in Geographical Information Systems, pp. 200–211 (Chichester:
John Wiley).
Michelozzi, P., Kirchmayer, U., Katsouyanni, K., Biggeri, A., Bertollini, R., Anderson, R. H., Menne, B.,
McGregor, G. and Kassomenos, P. (2004) The PHEWE project - Assessment and prevention of acute
health effects of weather conditions in Europe, Epidemiology, 15(4), pp. S102–S103.
Monmonier, M. (1991) How to Lie with Maps (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
New Zealand Climate Change Office, Ministry for the Environment (2004) Climate Change Effects and
Impacts Assessment, A guidance manual for Local Government in New Zealand, Wellington, 140.
NLUD (2005) National Land Use Database Website. Available at http://www.nlud.org.uk
Openshaw, S. (1984) The modifiable areal unit problem, Concepts and Techniques in Modern
Geography, Vol. 38 (Norwich, UK: GeoBooks).
O’Brien, K., Sygna, L. and Haugen, J. E. (2004) Vulnerable or resilient a multi-scale assessment of climate
impacts and vulnerability in Norway, Climatic Change, 64, pp. 193–225.
Palutikof, J. P., Agnew, M. D. and Hoar, M. R. (2004) Public perceptions of unusually warm weather in
the UK: Impacts responses and adaptations, Climate Research, 26(1), pp. 43–59.
Parson, E. A., Corell, R. W., Barron, E. J., Burkett, V., Janetos, A., Joyce, L., Karl, T. R., Maccracken,
M. C., Melillo, J., Morgan, M. G., Schimel, D. S. and Wilbanks, T. (2003) Understanding climatic
impacts, vulnerabilities, and adaptation in the united states: Building a capacity for assessment.
Climatic Change, 57(1–2), pp. 9–42.
PSI Policy Studies Institute (2005) Overview of the BESEECH project. Available at http://
www.psi.org.uk/research/project.asp?project_id5103 (last accessed August 2005).
Patt, A., Klein, R. J. T. and de la Vega-Leinhart, A. (2005) Taking the uncertainty in climate-change
vulnerability assessment seriously, C. R. Geosciences, 337, pp. 411–424.
Pauleit, S. and Duhme, F. (2000) Assessing the environmental performance of land cover types for urban
planning, Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning, 52(1), pp. 1–20.
Rydin, Y. (2004) Planning, Sustainability and Environmental Risks, Report for the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister (London: ODPM).
Salvi, O. and Gaston, D. (2004) Risk assessment and risk decision-making process related to hazardous
installation in France, Journal of Risk Research, 7(6), pp. 599.
Schlumpf, C., Pahl-Wostl, C., Schonbiorn, A., Jaegaer, C. and Imboden, D. (2001) IMPACTS An
information tool for citizens to assess impacts of climate change from a regional perspective,
Climatic Change, 51, pp. 199–241.
Snary, C. (2004) Understanding risk: The planning officer’s perspective, Urban Studies, 41(1), pp. 33–55.
Suddle, S. and Ale, B. (2005) The third spatial dimension risk approach for individual and group risk in
multiple use of space, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 123(1–3), pp. 35–53.
The Environment Partnership (TEP) (2004) Derelict, Underused and Neglected (DUN) survey dataset,
Personal communication (Warrington: TEP).
Watts, M., Goodess, C. M. and Jones, P. D. (2004) The CRU daily weather generator BETWIXT Built
EnvironmenT: Weather scenarios for investigation of Impacts and eXTremes BETWIXT Technical
Briefing Note 1. Available at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/betwixt/documents/
BETWIXT_TBN_1_v22.pdf (last accessed August 2005).
Whitford, V., Ennos, A. R. and Handley, J. F. (2001) ‘City Form and natural process’ – indicators for the
ecological performance of urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK, Landscape and
Urban Planning, 57, pp. 91–103.
Wilby, R. L. (2003) Past and projected trends in London’s urban heat island, Weather, 58, pp. 251–260.
Willows, R. I. and Connell, R. K. (Eds) (2003) Climate Adaptation: Risk, Uncertainty and Decision-
making, UKCIP technical report (Oxford: UKCIP).
UK Climate Impacts Programme (2001) Socio-Economic Scenarios for Climate Change Impact
Assessment: A Guide to Their use in the UK Climate Impacts Programme (Oxford: UKCIP).
UKCIP (2005) Overview of the BKCC research programme. Available at http://www.ukcip.org.uk/
resources/sector/projectsdets.asp?sector51&project_ref55 (last accessed August 2005).
Zwick, M. M. (2005) Risks as perceived by the German public: pervasive risks and ‘switching’ risks,
Journal of Risk Research, 8(6), pp. 481–498.

Adaptation Strategies For Cilimate Change

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adaptation Strategies For Cilimate Change

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Ira Irawati]

On: 25 January 2015, At: 23:16

Journal of Risk Research

Adaptation Strategies for Climate

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669870600798020

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Adaptation Strategies for Climate

S. J. LINDLEY, J. F. HANDLEY, N. THEURAY, E. PEET &

ABSTRACT This paper presents a conurbation-scale risk assessment methodology which

KEY WORDS: GIS, vulnerability, heat hazard, scenarios

cannot be explained solely on the basis of the inherent variability of the

variety of emissions scenarios (Hulme et al., 2002).

the value of claims doubled to £6 billion during 1998–2003 compared to

classified as being built up. Greater Manchester is large enough to fully

identifies areas where adaptation strategies may be most urgently required.

Methodological Framework and Approach

against baseline climate conditions. However, masked within it is a complex

Figure 1. ASCCUE risk management process (after Granger, 2001)

importance of the complementary processes of initial risk identification and

Table 1. Indicative risk themes included in the ASCCUE project

Exposure unit Hazard Elements at risk and associated

Risk Assessment Methodology and its Application

Figure 2. Risk triangle (Crichton, 2001)

climate models to a 5 km grid. Care is needed is interpreting such finer scale

Current ‘1970s’ Observed July 0.0 9.4

nights’’ (minimum temperature greater than 15uC) under current and

Figure 5. Nocturnal heat island in Greater Manchester (mean minimum seasonal

Urban System Layer

Units were classified based on a predefined nomenclature of urban

Table 3. UMT classification

1. Farmland 1.1 Improved farmland

5.4 River, canal

Figure 4 shows the increased likelihood of higher temperatures across the

Elements at Risk and Vulnerability Layers

Table 4. Use of indicators to spatially represent groups vulnerable to heat stress

DOH vulnerable groups Indicator of vulnerable Indicator of vulnerable

Babies and young children Census based indicator Population projections

People suffering from mental Census based indicator

People with an already raised No specific data

Decision-support systems for shorter term planning for climate related

Results and Discussion

Table 5. Generic risk table

Hazard/Vulnerability High Medium High Medium Low Low

clearly shows areas of particular concern for further analysis at a

been used as the basis of estimating future population characteristics

internally consistent modifications to the classifications of individual UMTs

greenspace, in order to suggest ways in which the urban environment might

administrative boundaries or grid-based units. Planning and associated

on the ground and what the decision-maker needs to influence through

Klosterman, R. E. (1997) Planning support systems: a new perspective on computer-aided planning,

You might also like