Urban Climate Change Research Network

Benchmarked Learning

ARC3.3 builds upon the preceding UCCRN Assessment Reports on Climate Change and Cities, ARC3.1 (2011), and ARC3.2 (2018). The purpose of the ARC3 series is to provide the benchmarked knowledge base for cities as they affirm their essential responsibility as climate change leaders. The ARC3 Series, with newly added ARC3.3 Elements, presents knowledge that builds on accumulated and shared experiences and thus advances and deepens with time.

In ARC3.1, cities were identified as key actors – “first responders” – in rising to the challenges posed by climate change (Rosenzweig et al., Reference Rosenzweig, Solecki, Hammer and Mehrotra2011). According to ARC3.1, “Cities around the world are highly vulnerable to climate change but have great potential to lead on both adaptation and mitigation efforts.”

In ARC3.2, this focus advanced into understanding of how cities can achieve their potential by establishing a multifaceted pathway to transformation (Rosenzweig et al., Reference Rosenzweig, Solecki, Romero-Lankao, Mehrotra, Dhakal, Ali Ibrahim, Rosenzweig, Solecki, Rotter, Hoffmann, Hirschfeld, Schröder, Mohaupt and Schäfer2018). It provided a roadmap for cities to fulfill their leadership potential in responding to climate change. According to ARC3.2, “As cities mitigate the causes of climate change and adapt to new climate conditions, profound changes will be required in urban energy, transportation, water use, land use, ecosystems, growth patterns, consumption, and lifestyles.”

Now, as the urgency of climate change is brought home daily, ARC3.3 offers the knowledge needed to speed up and scale up urban action on climate change. To accomplish this, ARC3.3 presents practical methods and case study examples for accelerating change into rapid transformation in cities across the globe.

UCCRN Assessment Process

ARC3.3 authors were either self-nominated or nominated by a third party and were selected by the ARC3.3 Editorial Board through comprehensive vetting that prioritizes expertise, diversity, gender, and geographic balance. Each Author Team develops a robust assessment of an Element topic, using the latest literature, while also conducting new research. All Author Teams are responsible for conducting a stakeholder engagement session during the writing period, with the goal of ensuring relevance to a diverse group of urban decision-makers. During self-coined “Stakeholder Soundings,” authors present emerging major findings and key messages to stakeholders, including city leaders from the authors’ home cities, for their feedback. UCCRN also coordinates a rigorous iterative peer-review process for each ARC3.3 Element that engages with both academic and practitioner experts, both in and out of the network.

UCCRN’s Case Study Docking Station (CSDS) is a searchable database designed to facilitate peer-learning between and among cities, benchmark actions over time, and enable cross comparisons.Footnote ¹ The CSDS includes more than 200 peer-reviewed case studies covering a range of topics such as climate change vulnerability, hazards and impacts, and mitigation and adaptation actions for specific sectors. The CSDS has a total of sixteen searchable variables.Footnote ² For example, users can filter searches by climate zone, city population size, human development index, gross national income, and mitigation versus adaptation, or directly type in keywords and city names. Case study examples include flood adaptation in Bridgetown, cloudburst planning in Copenhagen, and climate action financing in Durban.

Cities are vanguard sites for opportunities to enhance equity and inclusion. Besides ARC3.3 Justice for Resilient Development in Climate-Stressed Cities, equity and inclusion permeate every ARC3.3 Element, as city experts delve into the multiple dimensions of climate change justice: distributive (relating to differential vulnerability of groups and neighborhoods), contextual (relating to the root causes of vulnerability), and procedural (relating to participation in decision-making for climate change interventions) (Foster et al., Reference Foster, Leichenko, Nguyen, Blake, Kunreuther, Madajewicz, Petkova, Zimmerman, Corbin-Mark, Yeampierre, Tovar, Herrera and Ravenborg2019). Recognitional (valuing of diverse identities) and restorative justice (restoring dignity and repairing the societal harm caused by earlier actions) concepts are now emerging, as well. Elucidation of ways to achieve all types of climate justice for the most vulnerable urban groups and equal access to financial and technological resources for all cities underpins ARC3.3.

ARC3.3 Elements

UCCRN has conducted city-centered assessments since its founding in 2007. With more than 2,000 scholars and experts from cities around the world, UCCRN is addressing the research agenda that was formulated at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Conference on Cities and Climate Conference (Prieur-Richard et al., Reference 143Prieur-Richard, Walsh, Craig, Melamed, Pathak, Bai, Barau, Bulkeley, Cleugh, Cohen, Colenbrander, Dodman, Dhakal, Dawson, Greenwalt, Kurian, Lee, Leonardsen, Masson-Delmotte, Munshi, Okem, Delgado Ramos, Sanchez Rodriguez, Roberts, Rosenzweig, Schultz, Seto, Solecki, van Staden and Ürge- Vorsatz2018).Footnote ³ Key components of this research agenda include urban planning and urban design; green and blue infrastructure; equity, health, and sustainable production and consumption; and finance. More than 300 UCCRN authors have now advanced this research agenda and other critical topics through the Third Assessment Report on Climate Change and Cities, which consists of twelve peer-reviewed monographs published as Cambridge University Press Elements, both separately and together, throughout 2025 and 2026.Footnote ⁴

ARC3.3 Major Findings and Key Messages

Besides the basic assessment content, each Element includes a statement of Major Findings and Key Messages. Major Findings bring forward significant new knowledge that emerged through the assessment process, while Key Messages are recommendations for new directions, plans, and activities with a specific focus on opportunities to speed up and scale up urban climate action.

Cross-Cutting Themes

Cities are complex social-ecological-technological systems. While ARC3.3 is composed of twelve separate Elements, together they comprise multiple synergies, interdependencies, and points of intersection. To highlight these connections, each Element addresses its own selection of relevant cross-cutting themes (CCTs). Figure 1 illustrates how significant recurring themes appear within an Element and the interlinkages to related Elements. Cross-cutting themes encompass drivers of urban function, change, and management; governance of cities across municipal, state/provincial, national, and international levels; and the role of city-level models and data.

Figure 1 Cross-cutting themes associated with the overall ARC3.3 assessment and the first six Elements, with Planning, Urban Design, and Architecture highlighted in lower right.

This figure is also available to view at www.cambridge.org/raven-et-al.

Figure 1Long description

Figure 1_long desThe diagram has a central hexagon labeled ARC 3.3 Climate Change and Cities. Surrounding this central hexagon are eight hexagons labeled: Climate resilient development, Mitigation adaptation (with the word Transformation above it), Scaling up local to global, Science and remote sensing, City stocktakes, Urban N D C s and N A P s (with the word Transformation below it), 1.5-degree Celsius overshoot, and Financing innovative solutions. This group is further connected to 6 other clusters of hexagons with different labels all around it.

Cluster 1: Urban Climate Science. It is surrounded by 6 hexagons labeled City projections, Urban micro-climates, indicators and monitoring, S L R and coastal adaptation, U H I mitigation, and Urban compound risk.

Cluster 2: COVID-19. It is surrounded by 6 hexagons labeled Health infrastructure systems, Awareness and communication, Sanitation and water, Community-led adaptation, Emergency management, and Digital networks.

Cluster 3: Justice. It is surrounded by 6 hexagons labeled Informality, Root causes of risk, Limitations and constraints, Traditional ecological knowledge, Drivers of vulnerability, and Resilient development.

Cluster 4: Planning, Architecture and Design. It is surrounded by 6 hexagons labeled Green/blue spaces, Engineering and technology, Climate action roadmaps, Integrative design models, Land use and zoning, and Compact urban form.

Cluster 5: Financial Action. It is surrounded by 6 hexagons labeled E S G disclosures, Innovative financial instruments, Measuring urban impacts, Retrofits and infrastructure financing, Climate risk insurance, and Public & private investments.

Climate 6: Governance and Policy. It is surrounded by 6 hexagons labeled Capacity building, Actors, Multi-level decision-making, Autonomy, Just transitions, and City networks.

At the bottom, there is a note explaining abbreviations: E S G - environmental, social, and governance, N A Ps – National Adaptation Plans, N D Cs – Nationally Determined Contributions, U H I - urban heat island, and S L R - sea level rise. The diagram is branded with U C C R N Urban Climate Change Research Network at the bottom right. cription.docx

Because the fundamental contribution of the ARC3 series is to enable a learning process for urban climate action, CCTs across the ARC3.3 Elements aim to shed light on cause-and-effect relationships and elucidate effective entry-points for interventions. This focused knowledge of urban social-ecological-technological systems can inform planners, implementers, and other city actors as they undertake ways to translate the latest science into climate action in their own urban communities.

Major Findings

1. 1. For urban climate actions to succeed, they must be integrated with solutions to immediate challenges facing cities and their inhabitants. Cities around the globe face multiple stresses, with many residents beset by insecure tenure, economic turbulence, and growing inequality, as well as increasing climate extremes. Holistic planning and design that addresses the full range of stresses, including climate, is an important new path to effective action. (Section 4)

2. 2. Urban services and associated co-benefits generated by climate-resilient planning and urban design represent a significant opportunity to address past and current inequalities experienced by vulnerable groups and areas. Top-down climate action initiatives often prioritize central urban core areas and fail to benefit historically marginalized neighborhoods. Since only a very low percentage of cities have fully integrated justice and equity effectively into their climate actions, there is great potential for restorative justice through climate initiatives. (Section 6)

3. 3. Moving from top-down planning and implementation toward local participatory processes can help to integrate justice and equity into climate resilient development. In the context of planning and urban design practices, collaborative processes for knowledge-sharing and co-design in multi-stakeholder contexts are key to embedding inclusive capacity-building practices, while co-producing essential knowledge components integrated into project development. A shift to inclusive, climate-sensitive development can only be realized through collaboration with many stakeholders, including local residents as well as policymakers, investors, and researchers. (Section 6)

4. 4. Climate policy is often developed at the city, regional, national, or even international level, but the neighborhood is a nimble scale for urban designers and planners to effectively test and deploy innovative climate-aligned strategies. Focusing on neighborhoods, while integrating policy information across relevant urban scales, is essential for developing practical urban design and planning actions to respond to climate change (Section 5).

5. 5. Adaptation is occurring in fragmented and incremental ways and is lagging behind mitigation. Few urban climate change plans consider mitigation and adaptation jointly. There is great potential to integrate adaptation and mitigation goals at building, neighborhood, city, and metropolitan scales. Mitigation and adaptation strategies include compact land use development, sustainable mobility, green and blue infrastructure, renewable energy utilization, as well as recycling and reuse of water and solid waste (Section 5).

6. 6. Incorporation of urban climate science is essential for the implementation and testing of innovative and practical urban design and planning climate actions. Urban climate research provides background information, observations, and climate change projections for metropolitan, city, neighborhood, and building design scales at the mesoscale (50–500km), local scale (1–50km), and micro scale (1m–1km). The spatial scales in these two systems are correlated, enabling both communities of practice to understand each other reciprocally and to transfer knowledge effectively. (Section 8)

7. 7. Planning, design, and architecture that incorporate climate strategies foster co-benefits that proliferate across urban systems. Observed social, economic, and environmental co-benefits fulfill human needs and enhance the quality of life of urban communities. Specific key co-benefits of climate actions include increased quality of public spaces and access to social services; employment and income generation from new green jobs creation; improved quality of water, soil, and air; and increased urban biodiversity. (Section 4)

8. 8. A transition to a more equitable, climate-integrated, collaborative, and rapidly deployable design paradigm is underway. Elements of the new paradigm include understanding and appreciation by researchers and practitioners of overlapping interests and expertise; applying off-the-shelf digital platforms to rapidly enable and foster sharing and communications between the sectors; governments and private sector investment in applied research to advance innovation and learning on climate change in cities; integrated educational opportunities for students in professional programs learning about climate change and the built environment; rapid deployment of research findings to the marketplace; and promotion of sustainable infrastructure research in all regions of the world. (Section 2)

Key Messages

1. 1. Transformative urban climate adaptation and mitigation will require evolution and innovation of planning discourse, governance, and tools, as well as greater integration of design practice across spatial scales. Systemic transformation that simultaneously encompasses metropolitan region, city, neighborhood, and building scales will motivate decision-makers, urban planners, designers, and architects to generate new practices for thinking, organizing, and acting that support climate action and justice.

2. 2. Urban climate justice including restoration of past harms and greenhouse gas emissions reductions need to be embedded in all development projects along with solutions for current challenges. Urban transformation requires centering the lived experiences and priorities of marginalized communities, ensuring that climate action simultaneously addresses structural inequalities and environmental risks. Incorporating baseline and historic studies of local vulnerabilities alongside climate analyses enables development projects to align mitigation and adaptation measures with community-defined needs and goals.

3. 3. Enhancing participatory urban climate-resilient planning and deployment is an important priority for policymakers and practitioners alike. In the context of planning and urban design practices, collaborative processes for knowledge sharing and co-design in multi-stakeholder contexts are key to embed inclusive capacity-building practice while co-producing essential knowledge components integrated into project development. A shift to inclusive, climate-sensitive development can only be realized through collaboration across many stakeholders, including policymakers, investors, researchers, and residents.

4. 4. All projects should include both mitigation and adaptation. Integrating mitigation and adaptation within urban planning, design, and architecture is essential to ensure cities address both the drivers and impacts of climate change. There is a need to highlight more deliberate strategies that align long-term resilience with emissions reduction efforts.

5. 5. More attention needs to be paid to climate action at the neighborhood scale. The fine-grained spatial scale of a neighborhood enables local communities to be actively engaged in the process of decision-making, design, and implementation for adaptation. The neighborhood scale also provides important mitigation opportunities, such as compact neighborhood development, which decreases resource use and prevents urban sprawl, thereby reducing GHG emissions.

6. 6. Design professionals should proactively interact with urban climate scientists. Collaboration between design professionals and urban climate scientists enables the testing of relevant climate change scenarios and interventions for specific urban areas. Such cross-sectoral engagement ensures that urban form and spatial strategies are informed by climate science, strengthening the potential for transformative action at all design scales.

7. 7. Professional planning, design, and architecture organizations need to enable and promote effective capacity building for climate action among their members. Climate action focused on capacity building is lagging. To respond to this deficit, climate-aligned standards, training, and guidelines for practitioners should be advanced to build professional capacity. Design guidelines play an important role in capacity building by integrating and transforming multi-disciplinary scientific knowledge into intuitive and straightforward planning practice and should align development needs and local priorities.

2.1 International Climate Policy Processes and the Built Environment

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has cited the built environment as one of the most important, economical, and practical sites for immediate and substantial GHG emissions reductions (Lucon et al., Reference Lucon, Ürge-Vorsatz, Ahmed, Akbari, Bertoldi, Cabeza, Eyre, Gadgil, Harvey, Jiang, Liphoto, Mirasgedis, Murakami, Parikh, Pyke, Vilariño, Edenhofer, Pichs-Madruga, Sokona, Farahani, Kadner, Seyboth, Adler, Baum, Brunner, Eickemeier, Kriemann, Savolainen, Schlömer, von Stechow, Zwickel and Minx2014; Cabeza et al., Reference Cabeza, Bai, Bertoldi, Kihila, Lucena, Mata, Mirasgedis, Novikova, Saheb, Shukla, Skea, Slade, Khourdajie, van Diemen, McCollum, 125Pathak, Some, Vyas, Fradera, Belkacemi, Hasija, Lisboa, Luz and Malley2022). The technology solutions to achieve a reduction in energy use in the built environment by mid-century exist today: these include high-performance and low-cost insulation materials, units glazed with solar control films and gases, high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, energy-efficient appliances and equipment, and smart and digital control systems (GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP, 2020).

However, obstacles that currently hinder widespread adoption of such low/zero-carbon and adaptive solutions in the built environment are weak building codes, ineffective zoning that does not prevent urban sprawl, lack of financing solutions for higher upfront investments, imperfect information, lack of awareness of available technologies, and industry fragmentation. There are also vested interests in maintaining ‘business-as-usual’ practices that utilize the same construction methods as before, thus limiting choices for consumers.

The 26th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), held in Glasgow in 2021, had positive outcomes that have created momentum for better embedding climate action into the built environment sector. Directly relevant is the commitment “urging parties to further integrate adaptation into local, national and regional planning (s8 and s51).” Furthermore, more than twenty-four countries and a group of leading automobile manufacturers committed to ending fossil fuel vehicles by 2040. The outcome of COP26 confirmed that a major global challenge is building and retrofitting more climate-sensitive cities. This challenge for the built environment can only be tackled successfully by a much stronger interactive connection between knowledge and practice, and thus between research and practice.

COP27, held in Sharm-el-Sheik in November 2022, further expanded the focus on buildings as a critical industrial sector to achieve decarbonization. It highlighted the embodied carbon of materials and technologies used in the construction sector, in addition to carbon emissions from building operation. The establishment of a Loss and Damage Fund now underway is expected to accelerate the development of solutions simultaneously targeting climate mitigation and adaptation by investing in resilient infrastructure, promoting sustainable design, and enhancing urban capacity-building among stakeholders.

At COP28 in Dubai, UN-Habitat promoted the role of cities in addressing climate change and launched the call for climate action through transformative urban planning, together with leading organizations including C40 Cities, Urban Partners, United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), and enhancing the Our City Plans toolbox through climate change and infrastructure modules. At COP29 in Baku, more than 160 stakeholders, including countries and cities, endorsed the Multisectoral Actions Pathways (MAP) Declaration for Resilient and Healthy Cities, with an emphasis on advanced planning and design for urban sustainable transport, green construction, urban agriculture, and nature-based solutions.

2.2 Research and Practice

Research communities and practitioners are generally served by conferences, journals, and academic and professional societies that foster intradisciplinary interactions, collaborations, and communications. However, intradisciplinary communication and collaboration in research and practice communities have not resulted in ease of interdisciplinary communication and collaboration to the extent needed for rapid development of effective climate actions. Communication and collaboration among fields begin to diverge at the university level when students choose to specialize in planning, urban design, architecture, engineering, or other fields. Many professional educational programs separate these disciplines upon matriculation into one field or the other. As students graduate and become certified by the relevant professional organizations, the disciplinary separation is locked in.

The separation is even greater between the built environment professional fields and the physical, biophysical, and social sciences. The sciences generally are taught in academic units (departments, colleges, schools) that are separate from those specializing in planning, urban design, architecture, and engineering.

Furthermore, research communities remain substantially siloed from practicing communities and vice versa. The complex and evolving challenges of climate change action – embedded in both mitigation and adaptation – are not easily separated into discrete issues that can be effectively tackled by one discipline. Many evolving climate threats – for example, sea level rise, extreme heat, and increasing heavy downbursts – require multiple research and practicing communities to come together to understand the fundamental science of the phenomenon, develop science-based solutions, and deploy resources and professional knowledge from practice in the real world (Rosenthal et al., Reference Rosenthal, Sclar, Kinney, Knowlton, Crauderueff and Brandt-Rauf2007).

Fortunately, a significant portion of research focused on the built environment is generally considered applied, where research inquiries are guided by agendas in fields such as engineering and urban climate science informed by opportunities for actualized deployment in buildings and cities. These research agendas for the built environment are now fundamentally influenced by the challenges of climate change.

Partly because of the applied nature of this work, researchers today can connect to practice in several ways: through networks; joint conferences and special issue publications focused on climate change; integrated foundational and professional educational opportunities (see Box 1); innovation activities, including startups; and consultations and engagements with industry and building professionals. However, there is a critical need for broader, deeper, and more sustained communications and interactions between researchers and practitioners, both those who are ready to engage with climate change and those who are already addressing its challenges.

Today, research and practice communities can dramatically strengthen their interactions to accelerate the emergence and deployment of solutions to climate change (Fallman et al., Reference Fallmann and Emeis2020). This requires building new bridges and strengthening existing ones to enhance two-way interactions and communications between the priorities and insights of the research community and those of practitioners.

Architects and planners worldwide understand that climate change is a present and growing challenge for the built environment. However, specific agendas that drive research in the social and biophysical sciences focused on the climate are not well known and not broadly understood by individuals and organizations in professional practice (Hosey, Reference Hosey2017). This is the case in most regions of the world, and it is thus reasonable to state that the typical architect is not deeply knowledgeable about the science of climate change.

Similarly, scientists and engineers working in specialized and highly technical fields are not generally familiar with the priorities of practicing communities of planners, urban designers, architects, and engineers. Specific points of common interests can motivate more effective communication and deeper collaboration between research and practice.

The need for creating bridges between research and practice is being answered by boundary organizations and city networks. The role of nonprofit, advocacy, think tank, and other types of organizations in advancing the deployment of research into practice and facilitating connections between practitioners and researchers is crucially important. Organizations such as the Urban Climate Change Research Network, World Green Building Council, Local Governments for Sustainability, C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, and the World Economic Forum develop practical climate-informed research to bridge the science-to-practice gap.

As planning and urban design in cities involves a wide range of stakeholders, research and practice will be bridged only if they arise from integrative approaches that employ co-design (Webb et al., Reference Webb, Bai, Smith, Costanza, Griggs, Moglia and Thomson2018). UCCRN’s UDCWs bring research into practice by exploring how urban design and planning can drive impactful climate action in urban areas through a co-designed and bottom-up approach (see Section 9). Embedding transformative approaches into the planning process, such as through UDCWs, enables cities and stakeholders to move away from models and prototypes to actionable solutions.

2.3 Design in Transition

For both research and practice, solving fundamental questions of how cities change and how they can increase their resilience to climate shocks demands new forms of inquiry and practice. Cities are socio-ecological-technological systems (SETS) operating in specific geographic locations with multiple intersecting social, geographical, historical, economic, and ecological factors (Figure 4) (McPhearson et al., Reference McPhearson, Cook, Cheng, Grimm, Andersson, Barbosa, Chandler, Chang, Chester, Childers, Elser, Frantzeskaki, Grabowski, Groffman, Hale, Iwaniec, Kabisch, Kennedy and Troxler2022; Chester et al., Reference Chester, Miller, Muñoz-Erickson, Helmrich, Iwaniec, McPhearson, Cook, Grimm and Markolf2023).

Figure 4 The SETS framework acknowledges the interactions and interdependencies among the social–cultural–economic–governance systems.

(Social), climate–biophysical–ecological systems (Ecological), and technological-engineered infrastructural systems (Technological) that drive urban patterns and processes (McPhearson et al., Reference McPhearson, Cook, Cheng, Grimm, Andersson, Barbosa, Chandler, Chang, Chester, Childers, Elser, Frantzeskaki, Grabowski, Groffman, Hale, Iwaniec, Kabisch, Kennedy and Troxler2022)

Figure 4Long description

The diagram shows a triangular structure labeled SETS at the center, with three sides labeled as Ecological, Social, and Technological. Each side connects to a domain: Ecological - Biophysical Domain, Social - Economic Domain and Technological - Infrastructural Domain. Arrows indicate interactions between these domains: Social - Ecological Interactions, Ecological - Technological Interactions and Social - Technological Interactions.

Enabling integrated climate action in cities requires expanding the agency of urban planning, urban design, architecture, engineering, and construction. Evidence-based, cross-sectoral design and planning processes require development and rezoning scenarios that include climate mitigation and adaptation. The process includes visioning, stakeholder exchange, and solutions testing, while critically engaging with established planning paradigms. Desired outcomes include zero-carbon urban mitigation strategies and adaptation interventions for biodiverse, flood-resilient, and green cities with cleaner air, lower summer temperatures, ubiquitous urban encounters with nature, and enhanced civic life.

Climate action also requires integration across multiple scales – telescoping through metropolitan region, city, neighborhood, and building lenses. Embedding climate action in urban areas needs to occur at each level to ensure it is incorporated into strategic planning and urban design, local area and neighborhood development, and building construction, each supporting the others.

Research informing practice and practice informing research may involve different approaches at each of these spatial scales. Some focus on more governmental aspects, others more partnerships with the private sector, and others with academia. New platforms for connections are increasingly required to support multi-stakeholder exchanges – for example smart digital platforms – to enable greater sharing of knowledge, co-design and co-production of innovative planning, and urban design solutions. The digital city approach, i.e. a city that utilizes information technologies and web-based platforms to manage its infrastructure, services, and citizen interactions, provides greater opportunity for collaboration when accompanied by appropriate ethical considerations such as privacy (Norman, Reference Norman2018; Yigitcanlar et al., Reference Yigitcanlar, Mehmood and Corchado2021). These tools can provide important spatial platforms for more efficient integrated decision-making, such as the Smart City Initiatives in Rio de Janeiro (Calzada, Reference Calzada, Pérez-Batlle and Batlle-Montserrat2021).

Problem setting and solution formulation in the context of climate change requires new methodologies of engagement and knowledge production to generate the system level change that is called for. “Transition Design” is a new methodology that has emerged from the scholarship of design practice in response to climate change (Norman & Stappers, Reference Norman and Stappers2016; Irwin, Reference Irwin2019). Transition Design draws on approaches from the social sciences to understand the historical and cultural roots of problems and places, stakeholder concerns, co-design, and collaboration at the center of the problem-solving process. Traditional design approaches (characterized by linear processes and decontextualized problem frames, whose objective was the swift realization of predictable and profitable solutions) are inadequate for addressing this class of problems. (See Additional Resources, Figure 1, for the Transition Design Framework.)

2.4 Accelerated Climate Solutions

The urgent need for substantial climate action in the built environment this decade demands a concerted effort to connect the latest science with the best practice (IPCC, 2018). Accelerating climate solutions requires that research and practice communities transition toward an open, integrated, and collaborative new model that constructively influences the nature of design. Climate justice, sustainable infrastructure in developing countries, and co-design are three key elements of this new model.

Climate justice is a key element of this transition. Research and practice can prioritize climate justice into their distinct modes of inquiry and add climate justice as a measure of the implications of a new technology to vulnerable communities. In setting priorities, architects, planners, building professionals, owners, and investors of the built environment can incorporate progress toward climate justice as a fundamental measure of success.

Additionally, there is a paucity of research on sustainable infrastructure in developing countries (Thome et al., Reference Thome, Ceryno, Scavarda and Remmen2016). Fostering important research/practice collaborations in developing countries is critical to a future of low carbon and equitable cities (Costello & Zumla, Reference Costello and Zumla2000). Effective solutions will also arise from integrative approaches in a continuous and self-reinforcing manner from a systems approach that employs co-design (Webb et al., Reference Webb, Bai, Smith, Costanza, Griggs, Moglia and Thomson2018).

Key considerations for research and practice in advancing climate change actions in cities include:

• Understanding and appreciation by academics and practitioners of the valuable contribution of different perspectives

• Smart digital platforms that enable and foster better sharing and communications between sectors

• Investment by governments and the private sector in applied research that can advance innovation and learning of urban climate change

• Integrated educational opportunities for professional students learning about climate change and the built environment

• Rapid movement of research findings to the marketplace

• Promotion of sustainable infrastructure research especially in developing regions

3.1 A Human Needs-Driven Agenda

If the goal of urban and spatial planning is to develop “good” cities and make them better places to live, it is essential to define these concepts to understand how planning could best achieve them. Defining the notion of a “good” city has been a topic of debate by urban scholars for decades, with notable scholars, including Lefebvre (Reference Lefebvre1996) and Friedmann (Reference Friedmann2000), contributing to the discourse. Utopian visions of cities are not intended to be a blueprint but rather to establish a foundation of values informed by contextual factors that offer transformative and creative alternatives to current practices.

Harvey (Reference Harvey1973) called for “genuinely humanizing urbanism,” and Lefebvre (Reference Lefebvre1968) for “the right to the city.” Amin (Reference Amin2006) argues that a “good” city is one built upon “an ethic of care incorporating principles of social justice, equality, and mutuality.” He summarizes this idea as “contemporary urban solidarity.” How to achieve this solidarity hinges upon the capacity of institutions of governance to engage with local complexity. The “good” city contains robust climate action plans that balance the economic activity necessary to sustain livelihoods and urban processes while innovating new methods to nurture and enhance existing social and environmental systems. This requires fundamental transformation at the systemic level to redefine development and how success is measured (see Case Study 1). Kaika (Reference Kaika2017) argues that humans are “living indicators” of the quality of urban environments and that learning from the experiences of individuals through established platforms for inclusive engagement in decision-making processes is essential.

One illustrative example of a city iteratively following on this approach is Naples, Italy, which is building local climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and identifying synergies with community needs, with a focus on urban redevelopment of peripheral areas and the application of UDCW methods and tools since 2018. Local communities and stakeholders are engaged through collaborative mapping exercises and parametric design tools to assess climate mitigation and adaptation potential of different design scenarios. The outcome of these workshops resulted in a set of user-friendly analysis tools which showed the effects of heat and flood risk on buildings’ layout and morphology, surface materials, vegetation and public spaces. This work expanded in 2024 through the development of the Naples Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan (SECAP) for GCoM. (See the additional resources for more details on the Naples UDCW).

Daphne Gondhalekar

Case Study 1Leveraging the Water–Energy–Food Nexus: Synergistic Opportunities for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in LehFootnote ⁸

Leh, located in the Indian Himalayas, is a rapidly transforming small city facing serious water scarcity and wastewater management issues. As the population grows and tourism is steadily rising, groundwater extraction and wastewater seepage is increasing. In 2009, the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council commissioned an international consulting company to address this challenge. They designed a centralized sewerage system with a conventional energy-intensive sewage treatment plant at the foot of Leh. In 2014, construction began, however, as project costs increased over the years, the system could not be constructed as planned and, today, only half of Leh can be connected.

Since 2012, the Nexus Research Lab at the Technical University of Munich, has been collaborating with Leh through a human needs-driven agenda to address the city’s continuing water stress through the design of a Water–Energy–Food (WEF) Nexus approach for replication in the area of Leh that is not connected to the centralized sewerage system. Stakeholder workshops and consultations have been held in Leh, involving local NGOs, government, academia, civil society, and spiritual leaders.

The WEF Nexus approach acknowledges that planning water, energy, food, and other relevant sectors in conjunction, rather than in “silos” as is conventionally done, can support more efficient use of natural resources, thereby lowering GHG emissions (Hoff, Reference Hoff2011).

Wastewater is generally an untapped resource that can serve as a valuable alternative source of water, particularly in water-stressed regions (UNESCO, 2017). Decentralized water reclamation with integrated resource recovery can yield several inherent benefits in Leh, such as supporting water conservation, as decentralized systems are smaller and require less water to flush. Water can be reused locally, for example, for toilet flushing, groundwater recharge, and agricultural irrigation. Lifting and treating less water also implies energy conservation, and organic fertilizer can be recovered from fecal sludge, which can improve soil fertility. Decentralized water reclamation with resource recovery can support water, energy, and food security in Leh as well as be a more manageable and affordable option for the local population.

In 2023, Leh’s local government put together a consortium to secure funding to implement the Nexus pilot project, starting in 2024. Using a Nexus approach, cities can become not only consumers but producers of valuable resources to regenerate entire city regions (Gondhalekar & Ramsauer, 2017).

Figure 5 Groundwater extraction in Leh quadrupled from 2005 to 2017 (million liters daily [MLD]), and accrual of wastewater pose threats to drinking water quantity and quality.

(Source: Gondhalekar, 2023)

Figure 5Long description

: The left map shows rapid tourist growth from 1980 to 2013, with an increase in hotels and guesthouses. The center map shows the water demand increasing from 2005 to 2017 due to the influx of hotels and guesthouses. The right map shows the resulting increased water pollution in the surrounding areas.

In response to the notion of a good city, a human need-driven agenda contains two parts. First, all humans are included, both current and future generations. This means the solutions must work in a world where 8 billion people today and 11 billion in the future will live – with the majority residing in cities. The resource efficiency and cost efficiency required for such a world necessitate a new approach to everything from climate and innovation policy to global collaboration and city planning. Second, all human needs must be met. This includes the basic human needs required for survival, that is, nutrition/health, shelter, security, and social and cultural needs that allow individuals and cultures to flourish. In parallel, ecosystem balance is considered an essential component of human well-being and an ethical agent with an intrinsic value (see the expanding concept of “rights” by Nash, Reference Nash1989).

A focus on human needs provides an opportunity to ask and challenge various stakeholders, including companies, how they are making life better for people. This is essential for cities and regions as they are responsible for providing and enabling fundamental services for their citizens. Most companies only provide a part of the solutions needed, and many are even undermining human needs by creating artificial needs, manipulating markets, and by selling more than is needed. Food and goods value chains in general have a direct impact on the physical dimension of cities, profoundly impacting on available spaces for public services, housing quality, energy consumption, pollution, and waste generation.

Achieving climate-resilient urban transformation thus requires considering the impact of innovation and emerging economic sectors in cities and society as a whole. To effectively address this gap in the context of urban transformations, it is essential to reflect on the impacts that technological (product or process) innovations have on the spatial, functional, and environmental components of cities. New types of spaces and functions – such as coworking, maker spaces, circular hubs, technological and creative offices – reflect the strategies of both industrial entrepreneurs who propose innovative development models, and of the subjects who control land use, economic policies, and urban infrastructures (Zukin, Reference Zukin2020). A good example concerns key infrastructures linked to digital economy models, rooted in recurring transformative land use patterns, which include executive offices in central urban areas, data centers in isolated areas, and fulfillment and logistics hubs that often contribute to urban sprawl.

On the other hand, big tech and e-commerce companies are increasingly demanding green building standards for their critical infrastructure, and the size of their investments in cities can become an important asset to drive transformation towards more equitable, sustainable, and climate-resilient goals (Grainger, Reference Grainger2024). Nevertheless, making these investments synergized with community and environmental priorities requires going beyond current approaches that are mostly driven by corporate sustainability policies towards a more systematic dialogue between companies, city officials, planners/designers, and citizens (Temple, Reference Temple2024).

This is particularly relevant for projects of new business/innovation districts, where issues related to rising house prices and the loss of integrity of multigenerational neighborhoods are observed, and of new critical infrastructures (e.g., logistic hubs, data centers) negatively impacting urban sprawl, soil consumption, and private car usage. Careful consideration should be paid to systemic impacts of such transformations and the induced system dynamics in a life-cycle perspective. These projects should better tackle issues such as embodied carbon of materials (e.g., steel and glass) and spatially and thermally inefficient form, rather than only balancing these factors with increased renewable energy production. Anticipating the need for adaptive reuse of office buildings, avoiding the risk of new monofunctional areas, and using existing transit-oriented and mixed-use urban design are also areas for careful consideration (Raven et al., Reference Raven, Stone, Mills, Towers, Katzschner, Leone and Hariri2018). (See Additional Resources for information on scaling up of sustainable innovative solutions.)

3.2 Planning and Urban Design Capacities for Implementation

Most city planning related to climate change has so far been based on static problem assumption, a compliance approach focused on reducing GHG emissions and where the city is seen in isolation. An expanded climate and innovation agenda also includes a dynamic solution approach where the city prioritizes human needs in a way that is compatible with a world where the global population can live flourishing lives in the next decades, as well as the role of the city as a solution provider and community enabler (Table 1). For example, the New York Climate Exchange, located on Governors Island in New York City, is a recently developed global center that harnesses the combined strengths of education, research, workforce development, policy creation, and public programming to drive climate action on local, national, and international scales (New York Climate Exchange, 2021).

This gives rise to two fundamental questions central to urban planning:

1. 1) Facilitating Flourishing Lives: How can urban planning ensure the well-being of citizens while aligning with the context of natural boundaries (Rockström et al., Reference Rockström, Steffen, Noone, Persson, Chapin, Lambin, Lenton, Scheffer, Folke, Schellnhuber, Nykvist, De Wit, Hughes, van der Leeuw, Rodhe, Sörlin, Snyder, Costanza, Svedin, Falkenmark, Karlberg, Corell, Fabry, Hansen, Walker, Liverman, Richardson, Crutzen and Foley2009)? This challenge holds particular significance for the Global North, given its resource-intensive existing systems that necessitate transformation.

2. 2) City-Led Solution Export: How can cities position themselves to actively export essential solutions that address global needs and goals?

Table 1 outlines five capacities that can help cities implement an Expanded Climate and Innovation Agenda by addressing the two questions, with a focus on planning and urban design methods and tools. (See Additional Resources, Figure 14, for the role of the innovation quadrant and start-ups.)

3.3 Systems Thinking, Multi-Disciplinarity, and Multi-Stakeholder Visioning

Addressing critical challenges from the nexus of urbanization and climate change cannot be accomplished without a system-based approach, including social science, ecology, and technology. Strategies to plan and develop a more just and resilient future require cities to face multiple climate risks that overlap in space and time. Strategies to build resilience to one event may decrease resilience to another event happening at the same time and place (Elmqvist et al., Reference Elmqvist, Andersson, Frantzeskaki, McPhearson, Olsson, Gaffney and Folke2019).

Systems knowledge in the context of climate change and cities relates to understanding the current state of critical urban systems (e.g., energy, transport, material flows, water supply and management, food, and waste). Net-zero carbon, climate-resilient infrastructure, designed and delivered through a systems approach, can directly benefit people’s health, well-being, livelihoods and the environment. For example, urban density is supported by well-designed transport systems in tandem with effective urban planning. Urban density creates economies of agglomeration, reduces commuting times, and supports social capital. New infrastructure projects and retrofits of existing infrastructure can create significant employment opportunities while driving economic gains (Grainger, Reference Grainger2022).

The generation of target knowledge and transformation knowledge calls for creative imagination of new system concepts and an articulation of pathways that can link unsustainable present states of urban systems to envisioned sustainable future states (Gaziulusoy & Ryan, Reference Gaziulusoy and Ryan2017). In the envisioning process, multidisciplinary stakeholders are brought together to collect ideas and formulate a joint vision that can take the form of qualitative or quantitative goals and targets, combining data gathering, analysis, and interpretation.

The complexity and diversity of cities and related vulnerabilities inevitably lead to a plurality of perspectives, values, visions, and knowledge systems that define what cities are or should be. Transdisciplinary urban systems science and practice can mobilize a diverse array of knowledge creators to develop resilient futures. Scientific data, quantitative risk analysis, and computational models are important to such transdisciplinary science, but not sufficient. Intangible, nonmaterial flows and dynamics of urban systems, such as how different people experience risks or how they connect and interact with other groups in the city to build social capital, are challenging to measure and model (McPhearson et al., Reference McPhearson, Cook, Cheng, Grimm, Andersson, Barbosa, Chandler, Chang, Chester, Childers, Elser, Frantzeskaki, Grabowski, Groffman, Hale, Iwaniec, Kabisch, Kennedy and Troxler2022). This raises an urgent need for an “urban systems science” that includes multiple forms of knowledge collaboratively produced to define a legitimate and transformative urban climate action process (Romero-Lankao et al., Reference Romero-Lankao, Bulkeley, Pelling, Burch, Gordon, Gupta, Johnson, Kurian, Lecavalier, Simon, Tozer, Ziervogel and Munshi2018).

Co-production of knowledge includes processes that iteratively unite ways of knowing and acting – including ideas, norms, practices, and discourses – leading to mutual reinforcement and reciprocal transformation of societal outcomes (Wyborn et al., Reference Wyborn, Datta, Montana, Ryan, Leith, Chaffin, Miller and van Kerkhoff2019). It embraces multiple ambitions and engages multiple actors (researchers, decision-makers, and citizens) to produce new knowledge and new ways of integrating knowledge into decision-making and action, ultimately producing new outcomes. Decision-making cannot be conducted in a silo but rather an iterative participatory process.

This points to a strong need to advance knowledge and policies that are currently available with continuous interaction between multiple city actors, building the climate response together from the beginning. For this to happen, both science and policy institutions can help to advance diverse participatory initiatives that are not a threat to their power or something to be controlled but rather an opportunity for learning (Galende-Sánchez & Sorman, Reference Galende-Sánchez and Sorman2021). Imagining and co-producing shared positive visions is the basis for developing transformative plans, policies, and actions to drive toward building a longer-term, more just, resilient, and sustainable world (McPhearson et al., Reference McPhearson, Iwaniec, Hamstead, Berbés-Blázquez, Cook, Muñoz-Erickson, Mannetti, Grimm, Hamstead, Iwaniec, McPhearson, Berbés-Blázquez, Cook and Muñoz-Erickson2021).

Collaboration to achieve transformative solutions to climate change in cities requires that experts from a range of disciplines and representatives from the city’s communities and government interact substantively. These interactions depend on a set of critical factors for success. Adame (Reference Adame2021) points out the following five elements for success in stakeholder interactions: 1. Experience of local context; 2. Meeting people in the field; 3. Enabling knowledge sharing; 4. Engaging continuously, 5. Valuing local actors’ input (see Table 2).

As opposed to ‘helicopter research,’ which is far removed from local contexts and jumps to quick conclusions, recognition of the diversity in understanding among all participants improves the research itself. In this sense, local communities are an important resource for the conceptualization of local and regional solutions for complex and unprecedented climate change (Roggema et al., Reference Roggema, Vos, Martin, Yan and Galloway2017).

While there is no shortage of institutional drivers, standards, guidance, and training for practitioners to draw upon to enhance capacity engagement, the procedural mechanisms for effective collaboration are lagging behind intentions, declarations, commitments, strategies, and action plans.

4.1 Generating Value with Climate Strategies

For many urban residents, daily life is tenuous. Lack of housing, rising rents, low-paying jobs, poverty, crime, environmental hazards, and limited access to basic services (education, health, safe and reliable water, and sanitation) create significant stress and require immediate time and attention. While severe weather events and chronic stresses from a warming planet are bringing long-term climate threats to the forefront of policymaking, they remain often removed from the daily concerns of many city residents.

The widespread equity imbalance in urban conditions – both globally and locally – has resulted from decades of resource-extraction practices and inequitable consumption patterns. In the global economic order of the 2020s, wealth imbalances have never been greater (Hasell et al., Reference Hasell, Arriagada, Ortiz-Ospina and Roser2023). Wealthy nations are consuming more resources and emitting more GHGs than ever before, while poor nations are left to fend for themselves and bear the brunt of increasingly disruptive climate trends. The necessary shift away from carbon-intensive urban practices is not just a shift away from polluting fuel sources: it represents a profound opportunity to address the systemic imbalances that created the climate crisis in the first place.

Climate action in cities has demonstrated a potential pathway to addressing development needs, including job creation, improved public health, social inclusion, and increased accessibility (see Case Study 2) (Gouldson et al. Reference Gouldson, Sudmant, Khreis and Papargyropoulou2018). To realize these outcomes for all stakeholders, municipal governments need to make explicit commitments to prioritize climate investment in ways that benefit their most vulnerable populations and to address historic inequities. In absence of such commitments, the benefits of sustainable design and planning have accrued disproportionately to the wealthy (Mahendra et al., Reference Mahendra, King, Du, Dasgupta, Beard, Kallergis and Schalch2021). Without unprecedented effort to protect the urban poor and vulnerable from the steadily increasing impacts of climate change, city economies and populations will be placed at extreme risk (IPCC, 2022).

Rob Roggema

Case Study 2A Climate Resilient Urban Landscape in Western Parkland City, SydneyFootnote ¹⁰

The metropolitan area of Sydney is expected to grow from approximately five to over seven million people in the next twenty years. Locations of new housing and required infrastructure are issues that need to be addressed at the larger scale. The Greater Sydney Commission has developed a long-term spatial strategy, dividing the total area into three complementary cities. In this strategy, the majority of new housing is planned in the so-called third city of the Western Sydney Parklands. This area will be home to over one million new residents over the next ten to twenty-five years and requires a large-scale urban plan in which future resilience is the condition for newly built homes.

Western Sydney is part of an inland climate zone that sits within the mountainous surrounds and therefore, captures heat, dust, and is relatively hidden from sea breezes, causing accelerated climate impacts. Extreme heat leads to bushfires and droughts in the summer months, and severe flooding during the rainy season. In this context, urban growth in this area implicitly increases the vulnerability of its residents, as more and more people will be exposed.

To improve climate resilience for future populations, city planners have placed the landscape at the heart of future regional planning through a series of six nature-based mapping stages. In Stage 1, the current water network is captured, with the flow of main water courses based on the local topography, determining the ecological gradients and pathways of discharging water flows through the landscape. In Stage 2, alongside the streams, a riparian zone was planned in which wet forests would create the ideal conditions for sensitive ecologies, increasing biodiversity and capturing surpluses of water, preventing flooding. Stage 3 entailed the introduction of an ecological grid forming the frame for structural ecological connections, linking wet and dry, and nutrient-rich and -poor parts of the landscape to increase ecological connectivity and exchange, enhancing eco-capacity. Stage 4 introduces plantations of timber forests in the inner parts of the landscape to produce building materials for homes. The final two stages will be designed to host agroforestry and free-range livestock farming.

This planning strategy shows the way landscapes can be put first in developing a new urban precinct. The way ecology, water, and soil systems form the underlying layers of the landscape, hence defining the landscape tissue for land use activities, is an approach that can be applied in every region in the world, to create a resilient and climate-adaptive urban future.

Figure 6 Topographical regional maps showing flood risk and potential areas for development in Western Parkland City, Sydney.

(Source: Roggema, Reference Roggema2023)

4.2 Adding Value through Co-Benefits

The potential economic benefits of addressing climate change in cities are increasingly clear. The Coalition for Urban Transition found that an annual investment of US $1.8 trillion in existing technologies and strategies could cut 90 percent of global GHG emissions, generate annual returns of $2.8 trillion in 2030 from energy and material cost savings, and create a net present value of $16.6 trillion by 2050 (Coalition for Urban Transitions, 2019; Gouldson et al., Reference Gouldson, Sudmant, Khreis and Papargyropoulou2018). The cost of inaction is also well studied (UNEP, 2023).

The World Bank estimates that by 2030, climate change could drive an additional 132 million people into poverty, and the annual climate-related spending for low and middle income countries other than China is estimated at $783 billion between now and 2030 (World Bank, 2022). Urgent infrastructure interventions include adaptation of energy systems, creation of coastal-defense systems, and heat and wildfire mitigation measures. As the scale of change required to respond to climate change continues to mount, so, too, does the potential return on investment for cities.Footnote ¹¹

Climate-action economics are also increasingly favorable in the private sector, and real estate investments are becoming tied to strong sustainable development outcomes. As of 2023, the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB), an Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting tool for real estate, included approximately 1,800 real estate investment fund members representing $8.4 trillion in combined asset value. Approximately 50 percent of funds are based in Europe, 27 percent in the Americas, 15 percent in Asia, 7 percent in Oceania, and 1 percent in Africa (GRESB, 2023). As of 2021, the UN Principles for Responsible Investment reporting had more than $121 trillion in assets under management (UNEP-PRI, 2021).

While the correlation between climate action and economic outcomes is strengthening, the broader value proposition for communities requires further investigation. It is not guaranteed that high-performing real estate assets will yield true environmental or social benefits (Kempeneer et al., Reference Kempeneer, Peeters and Compernolle2021). Nor are positive returns on investment for municipalities and private real estate investors automatically shared equitably across local communities. Similarly, urban development decisions based on GHG emissions targets alone often do not provide near-term value to residents and could potentially exacerbate or perpetuate existing inequities. The impacts of climate change are projected to increase in all urban regions in the coming decade, even as mitigation efforts ramp up (IPCC, 2022).

Urban interventions can be designed to provide near-term value beyond emissions reductions to meet city needs and garner support, purposefully integrating equity criteria in their design and delivery. The UN proposes a broad definition of urban development value as the “totality of economic, environmental, social, and intangible outcomes that have the potential to improve quality of life for residents in meaningful and tangible ways” (UN-Habitat, 2020). To achieve this, cities need to prioritize climate actions that have the potential of delivering multiple benefits.

Another framework for urban planning climate initiatives illustrates the concept of Integrated Climate Action. Effective strategies to achieve net-zero cities are intentional to advance the three core goals of sustainable development (economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection) and related co-benefits while reducing GHG emissions (Figure 7). They are enabled by complementary policy, action, and investment at different scales. Value proposition for climate resilient urban design and planning is strengthened when clearly emphasizing links between mitigation/adaptation goals and local socioeconomic priorities.

Figure 7 Integrated climate action framework: Value proposition for climate resilient urban development.

(Driskell, D. 2025)

Figure 7Long description

The diagram presents the concept of Climate Resilient Cities, which is central to three interconnected components: Live in Balance, Bring Everyone Along, and Advance Livelihoods. Live in Balance means Environmental co-benefits: Healthy, resilient buildings and systems; Reduced waste and greater efficiency; Environmental risk reduction; Biodiversity and access to nature; Clean air and water; Ecosystem services. Bring Everyone Along means End poverty: Greater housing security; Reduced income disparity; Inclusive urban neighborhoods; Access to quality healthcare; Thriving community cultures. Advance Livelihoods means Social co-benefits: Abundant, accessible green jobs; Greater access to opportunity; Community wealth-building; Affordable, reliable energy; Resilient food systems. The outer circle mentions Community-based initiatives and interventions, City and regional policies, actions, and investments, and National and subnational policies, actions, and investments.

In this Element, the co-benefits of climate action are referred to as “the development and implementation of policies and strategies that simultaneously contribute to tackling climate change whilst addressing local environmental and developmental problems” (UN; Puppim de Oliveira, Reference Puppim de Oliveira, Doll and Suwa2013). When well defined and understood amongst stakeholders, co-benefits can help increase stakeholder support for urban projects, enable mobilization and funding within city agencies (see Box 2), and increase the speed and impact of climate actions (Floater et al., Reference Floater, Heeckt, Ulterino, Mackie, Rode, Bhardwaj, Carvalho, Gill, Bailey and Huxley2016; Bain et al., Reference Bain, Milfont and Kashima2016). Cities citing the co-benefits of their climate action reported 2.5 times more climate actions than cities that did not (Bachra et al., Reference Bachra, Lovell, McLachlan and Minas2020).

4.3 Responding to Local Development Needs

Climate change is intangible and appears intractable to many urban residents. Climate-oriented planning and design that do not demonstrate clear progress in areas of higher priority for stakeholders have ultimately failed to yield both climate impact and investment returns (Jennings et al., Reference Jennings, Fecht and De Matteis2020). Furthermore, such projects slow progress and dampen political will for climate-oriented development by calling into question the value of climate action. Identifying and communicating linked co-benefits encourages both public and private buy-in on climate strategies, independent of perception of climate change urgency or political ideology (Bain, Reference Bain, Milfont and Kashima2016).

In 2021, the World Economic Forum global survey found that the top public priorities for the seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were “No Poverty,” “Zero Hunger,” and “Good Health and Wellbeing,” while “Climate Action” ranked thirteenth on the list (Ipsos, 2021). However, the relationship between climate action, health, and poverty are both direct (such as in the case of cardiopulmonary diseases associated with local air pollution) and indirect (as in the case of food insecurity). In any city, urban practitioners can map interdependencies between local climate and socioeconomic issues to determine local development priorities that address both, thereby selecting climate strategies that respond to the most pressing stakeholder priorities.

Design for equitable access to co-benefits of climate projects is critical. Many top-down sustainability planning initiatives have prioritized central urban areas and assumed a spatial diffusion of the benefits to all parts of the city. They have often failed to benefit historically marginalized neighborhoods (Mahmoudi, Reference Mahmoudi, Lubitow and Christensen2019). Cycling infrastructure can reduce emissions and local air pollution while improving health, safety, and quality of life, promoting job access and reducing transportation inequality.

However, these benefits are only realized if infrastructure is built consciously to address them, and to do so equitably across the city. For example, only 23 percent of New Yorkers have access to the city’s bike share system, and this same population is proportionally whiter and wealthier than the remaining 77 percent who have no access (Wachsmuth et al., Reference Wachsmuth, Basalaev-Binder, Pcae and Seltz2019). Similar disparities have occurred in flood prevention planning that favors wealthier urban populations and exacerbates historic environmental injustices, inequitable access to renewable energy, and other climate-oriented investments (Liao et al., Reference Liao, Chan and Huang2019; Sovacool et al., Reference Sovacool, Barnacle, Smith and Brisbois2022).

4.4 Translating the Value Proposition to New Contexts

Urban practitioners rely heavily on precedent for informing planning and design decisions and often refer to successful case studies that demonstrate clear potential value for their city or community. However, appropriate translation of “best practice” strategies requires moving away from a business-as-usual approach and a consideration of factors that led to project success (including the political, social, behavioral, environmental, economic, technological, and geographical context) in the local project context (see Case Study 3). Without this, even the most well-intentioned climate planning decisions may not provide local value or respond to community needs. Without stakeholder engagement, climate measures may fail to realize their mitigation potential and broader development goals (Gouldson et al., Reference Gouldson, Sudmant, Khreis and Papargyropoulou2018).

Case Study 3Making Sustainable, Affordable Housing a Reality in Melbourne

The IPCC and United Nations have identified the development of sustainable, accessible housing solutions as one of the most pressing challenges for cities in the climate transition (Habitat for Humanity, 2021; IPCC, 2022 ). Urban planners and designers are uniquely positioned to provide housing solutions that achieve the triple bottom line of affordability, social justice, and environmental sustainability. However, these multilayered value propositions cannot be delivered using a business-as-usual approach (Moore & Doyon, Reference Moore and Doyon2018).

This is exhibited by the approach of Nightingale Housing Pty. Ltd., a not-for-profit founded in Australia in 2016 to help develop and support a sustainable, affordable housing model created through iterative project learning by architect Jeremy McLeod of Breathe Architecture. In conjunction with local architects, the Nightingale goal is to provide higher density housing that properly, and equally, addresses the triple bottom line of social justice, sustainability, and affordability. The concept was first demonstrated with the development of The Commons, completed in 2013, a five-story, twenty-four-unit apartment building located in Melbourne. This development demonstrated what can paradoxically be gained – specifically, increased social interaction, as well as cost and environmental savings – through strategic elimination and reduction. The architects reduced car parking in favor of bike parking and communal car share, eliminated second restrooms and laundry in units in favor of shared facilities, and eliminated the need for AC and associated costs through passive design and renewable energy installation (Moore & Doyon, Reference Moore and Doyon2018).

The second development, Nightingale 1, was completed in 2017 in Melbourne. The experience and outcomes from the Commons were solidified into a set of principles for affordability, transparency, sustainability, deliberative design, and community contribution. Nightingale 1 further improved affordability by capping project profits at 15 percent and introducing a covenant that prevents the homes from selling at higher than the average price rise of the neighborhood (Moore & Doyon, Reference Moore and Doyon2018).

To scale the design and learnings quickly, architects can apply for Nightingale licenses to develop similar projects and receive access to the intellectual property and the waiting list of potential residents. As of 2023, there are fifteen completed Nightingale developments and seven under construction, each led by different coalitions of architects. Such developments have spread outside of Victoria to other parts of Australia and New Zealand.

Figure 8 Left: The Commons, Melbourne, with increased bike lanes, open frontage, and green wall.

Right: The façade of Nightingale 1, made of recycled brick.

(Source: Tom Ross, Reference Ross2013) (Source: Peter Clarke, Reference Clarke2017).

One example is the failure of Seattle’s bike share program Pronto! in 2017. While docked bike share systems have been successfully implemented in many other global cities (from Hangzhou to Paris to New York), Pronto! bikes were decommissioned after three years due to low ridership. While the attributing factors were many and nuanced (including lack of private funding and political will), improperly addressed stakeholder needs were also found to contribute. Station placement did not adequately consider hilly topography and rainy weather, commuting and tourism patterns, and existing public transportation, which ultimately limited the ridership of both members and non-members (Sun et al., Reference Sun, Chen and Jiao2018).

Another example is the Huangbaiyu Project in China’s Liaoning province, a redevelopment project envisioned to be the “world’s first eco-city.” Homes constructed through this project were ultimately unaffordable to residents and remained unoccupied by local farmers who did not have enough space in the new yards to farm. Some of the houses were built with garages, though the villagers did not have cars (de Jong et al., Reference de Jong, Yu, Joss, Wennersten, Yu, Zhang and Ma2016).

Research and evidence on context-specific drivers of co-benefits is limited (Gouldson et al., Reference Gouldson, Sudmant, Khreis and Papargyropoulou2018). Much of the research has been done at an international and national level, with a small portion of research conducted at the city level (Deng et al., Reference Deng, Liang, Liu and Anadon2017). In particular, there is lack of co-benefits research in Oceania, South America, and Africa, which often have different development needs than those of regions in the Global North (Deng et al., Reference Deng, Liang, Liu and Anadon2017). Without this evidence, local urban practitioners can evaluate the viability of solutions proven in other contexts for their own project locations, in consultation with communities (Gouldson et al., Reference Gouldson, Sudmant, Khreis and Papargyropoulou2018). This can lead to scaling of successful climate projects.

5.1 Defining Integration of Mitigation and Adaptation and Relationship to Climate Resilient Development

Integration of these two paradigms – adaptation and mitigation – recognizes the need for urban systems to both dramatically reduce emissions while simultaneously being resilient, adaptive, and transformative in the face of climate change. More explicitly, Hürlimann and colleagues (Reference Hürlimann, Moosavi and Browne2021a) define “climate change transformation” as “the explicit integration of adaptation and mitigation actions, to achieve a new regime of 1.5 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100, and to be well adapted to it,” setting tangible mitigation and adaptation benchmarks.

Integration of mitigation and adaptation speaks to a systems-based approach to addressing urban climate change, understanding the complex interrelations that connect climate, ecosystems, biodiversity, and people (IPCC, Reference Lee and Romero2023). At the foundation of this approach is the understanding that critical urban services that support communities – such as energy, mobility, materials, waste, water, and food – have been made available at the price of biodiversity loss, unsustainable consumption of natural resources, ecosystem degradation, and economic inequalities.

The IPCC WGII in AR6 introduced the concept of Climate Resilient Development as an integrated adaptation and mitigation framework that combines “strategies to deal with climate risks (adaptation) with actions to reduce GHG emissions (mitigation) which result in improvements for nature’s and people’s well-being” (IPCC, 2022).

In Figure 9, climate resilient development pathways show varying levels of integration of adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development (the bigger the size, the more integration). In turn, the graph shows the consequences of lower levels of action.

Figure 9 Climate-resilient urban development pathways.

(Elaborated from IPCC, 2022; Singh & Chudasama, Reference Singh and Chudasama2021)

Figure 9Long description

The infographic presents a comparison between implementing and constraining actions in urban development, leading to different outcomes. On the left, implementing actions include reduced land consumption, sustainable water management, accessibility of urban services, public transport, cycling, and walkability, smart energy generation and distribution, green infrastructure, dense mixed-use districts, energy-efficient buildings, enhanced circularity, and on-site renewables. Constraining Actions include Accessibility of urban spaces, Complexity of climate impact information, Understanding emission sources, and Consideration of competing interests. On the right, outcomes are divided into climate-resilient urban design and business-as-usual urban design. Climate-resilient outcomes include reduced impact of extreme events, zero-carbon districts, re-natured cities, new job opportunities, integrated management of urban systems, polycentric development, affordable housing and proximity of urban services, and a participatory approach to decision-making. Business-as-usual outcomes include increased impact of extreme events, unequal distribution of vulnerabilities, increased air, soil, and water pollution, massive concentration of population, increased risk of green gentrification, dependency on centralized energy and food production, and increased water scarcity. The central graph shows a timeline from past conditions to the present world and beyond 2100, with paths diverging based on actions taken, illustrating shocks that disrupt development and opportunities missed. The graph is labeled with Sustainable Development Goal (S D G) achievement and Climate Resilient Urban Development.

5.2 Role of Cities

Cities are responsible for more than 70 percent of global GHG emissions (IEA, 2021) but also highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Interactions between climate hazards, infrastructure systems, growing urban populations, diverse cultures, real-estate development, and economic activities in cities can exacerbate climate change and disaster impacts (Chang et al., Reference Chang, Yip and Tse2018; Rosenzweig et al., Reference Rosenzweig, Solecki, Romero-Lankao, Mehrotra, Dhakal, Ali Ibrahim, Rosenzweig, Solecki, Rotter, Hoffmann, Hirschfeld, Schröder, Mohaupt and Schäfer2018). Cities that substantially reduce GHG emissions while simultaneously ensuring that their land use and infrastructure adapts to a changing climate are better positioned to remain livable and economically robust in the years ahead.

The Paris Agreement brought hope that initiatives through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) would help combat climate change, but urban actions appear notably missing.Footnote ¹² Nationally Determined Contributions, which stem from the 2015 Paris Agreement, are climate action plans to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. Each country that has joined the Paris Agreement develops an NDC and updates it every five years (UNFCCC, 2015). While developed countries are better prepared to provide direct assistance and support services towards adaptation and mitigation activities, developing countries need financial and technical support to implement more robust mitigation-adaptation measures (Shammin et al., Reference Shammin, Haque and Faisal2022). This is especially true for cities.

The next decade is essential to achieving urban decarbonization through mitigation strategies for different sectors of the built environment such as mobility, waste and resource management, buildings, and energy systems (IPCC, Reference Lee and Romero2023). A wide range of stakeholders needs to be included in these strategies (Norman, Reference Norman2018). Mitigation initiatives are most effective when they reduce, rather than increase, risks related to climate change hazards, while urban adaptation initiatives work best when aligned with decarbonization and mitigation objectives. An example is how sustainable infrastructure can support transport systems (e.g., integrating trees and vegetative areas along tramways, pedestrian paths, and cycling routes) to offer co-benefits such as improved access to green space, boosted public/active mobility, increased biodiversity, and reduced air-soil-water pollution (see Case Study 4) (Sharifi, Reference Sharifi2021).

Ione Avila-Palencia and Jole Lutzu

Case Study 4The Superblock Programme in BarcelonaFootnote ¹³

In the 1850s, urban planner Ildelfons Cerdà proposed a plan for a large, grid-like district outside the old walls of Barcelona, called the Eixample (“expansion” in Catalan). Aiming to improve public health, the plan considered the human needs for natural light and ventilation, open space and greenery, and a transport network accommodating pedestrians, carriages, and tram lines. Unfortunately, Cerdà’s plan was not realized until the mid−1990s, when Barcelona’s first superblockFootnote ¹⁴ was developed. Since then, Barcelona has built six new superblocks with a plan to have twenty-one by 2030 (Marco, 2024). As Barcelona’s air and noise pollutants have reached the highest levels in Europe, superblocks offer an alternative to traditional urban planning.

The superblock model emphasizes the reduction of traffic based on limiting the space dedicated to cars and promoting a transport mode shift offering better public transport service and wider infrastructure for active modes of transport (walking, cycling), as well as an increase in green spaces. Decreasing cars and expanding green spaces reduce GHG emissions and creates a more climate-resilient city.

The superblock is an intervention aiming to reclaim space for people, reduce motorized transport, promote sustainable mobility and active lifestyles, provide urban greening, and mitigate climate change effects. The original idea was to take nine city blocks and close them internally to through traffic. Due to the traffic congestion poorly redistributed in the roads outside the block, the model was recently optimized using green “axes” instead of blocks (City of Barcelona, 2020). Green axes are tree-lined corridors, often with rain gardens, that provide shade, increase air quality, and improve flood drainage systems.

Figure 10 Superblocks in Horta and Sant Antoni.

(Source: Ione Avila-Palencia & Jole Lutzu, Reference Avila-Palencia and Lutzu2023)

Figure 11 Barcelona Superblocks.

(Source: Zigurat Institute of Technology, 2021).

Between 2013 and 2018, Superblocks were implemented in the areas of Poblenou, Horta, and Sant Antoni. After a controversial lack of participation processes in Poblenou, multi-stakeholder decision-making processes have occurred in working groups that are steering the design of the Superblocks in different neighborhoods. A study published in 2020 suggested that the full implementation of the Superblocks could prevent 667 premature deaths annually in Barcelona because of reducing air pollution, noise, heat, and increasing physical activity levels and access to green space (Mueller et al., Reference Mueller, Rojas-Rueda, Khreis, Cirach, Andrés, Ballester, Bartoll, Daher, Deluca, Echave, Márquez, Palou, Pérez, Tonne, Stevenson, Rueda and Nieuwenhuijsen2020).

Superblocks are now being implemented in several cities in the world, including Vienna, Los Angeles, Bogota, and Rotterdam (IAA Mobility, Reference Mobility2024). However, they can still encounter barriers and result in negative outcomes that could limit their development and effectiveness. Future research should evaluate potential consequences such as risk and effects of gentrification and the current housing crisis.

Cities are ideal testbeds for innovative technology and policy development and implementation. They are shaping adaptation interventions that confront climate change at the much-needed ground level. Mitigation and adaptation strategies can drive innovative urban management to concurrently meet sustainability goals and natural hazard risk assessments (Scorza & Santopietro, Reference Scorza and Santopietro2021). Focused and central administrative oversight of relatively small-scale projects bodes well for cities to lead in coupled mitigation/adaptation strategies.

Lee and colleagues (Reference Lee, Yang and Blok2020) suggest that adaptation is positively influenced in cities with mitigation action policies through monitoring systems, rather than mere mitigation commitments. This is evident in the case of cities worldwide that are signatories of GCoM and commit to updating their Sustainable Energy Action Plans (SEAPs) into Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans (SECAPs), which use quantitative indicators to concurrently monitor the benefits of implemented projects and measure for mitigation and adaptation. The study also finds that national mandates are important drivers of local adoption of adaptation policies. In Copenhagen, the city’s adaptation strategy aligns with national laws on energy efficiency in the building sector, enhancing regulations for retrofitting buildings to improve energy use while also incorporating disaster risk preparedness.

Cities need to be well equipped and prepared in the face of increasing climate change-induced disasters (Sharifi & Yamagata, Reference Sharifi and Yamagata2015). Preparedness should include governance, finance, and climate policy aspects. Implementation of goals and policies in practice is largely determined by the robustness of institutions (e.g., strategic plans, policies) and systems (e.g., infrastructure, ecosystems) (Birchall & Bonnett, Reference Birchall and Bonnett2021). Improving the dialogue among planners, designers, and emergency managers can help understanding, in a multi-hazard perspective, the implications of spatial, physical, and functional features of buildings, public spaces and critical infrastructure on the effective management of response operations during disaster risk events (Poljanšek et al., Reference Poljansek, Casajus Valles, Marin Ferrer, Artes Vivancos, Boca, Bonadonna, Branco, Campanharo, De Jager, De Rigo, Dottori, Durrant, Estreguil, Ferrari, Frischknecht, Galbusera, Garcia Puerta, Giannopoulos, Girgin and Wood2021).

5.3 Approaches

While mitigation and adaptation actions reduce risks associated with climate change, they have mostly operated as separate paradigms. Historically, climate action planning focused primarily on mitigation, with a main goal of preventing climate change tipping points (Watkiss et al., Reference Watkiss, Benzie and Klein2015). In response to such priorities, mitigation efforts in planning, urban design, and architecture mainly resulted in strategies to increase energy efficiency of buildings and the share of energy production from renewable sources, while strengthening public transportation and promoting sustainable mobility. Adaptation planning, long neglected in cities, is now increasing rapidly. Cities, out of necessity, are now addressing growing impacts from climate hazards such as heat waves, intense precipitation events, coastal and riverine flooding, hurricanes and typhoons, droughts, and wildfires.

While mitigation targets focus on a single global metric, that is, GHG emissions (Watkiss et al., Reference Watkiss, Benzie and Klein2015), adaptation and resilience are primarily concerned with impacts that are local or regional and have a range of non-objective metrics to assess impacts and adaptation responses (Christiansen et al., Reference Christiansen, Martinez and Naswa2018). (See Additional Resources, Table 1, for characteristics of adaptation and mitigation measurements.)

Mitigating climate change to achieve the 1.5°C global goal of limiting warming requires a drastic reduction in GHG emissions in urban areas from buildings, transportation, industry, and all material streams entering and leaving the city. These are Scope 3 emissions in the GHG Protocol (De Abreu et al., Reference De Abreu, Santos and Monteiro2022). Carbon reduction targets and carbon pricing can drive retrofit programs and have led to increased building efficiency standards in provincial and national building codes (e.g., the NYStretch Energy Code 2020 in US, or the Level(s) system in Europe) (NYSERDA, 2019; European Commission, 2021a).

Municipal governments often set the pace through ambitious retrofit programs of their own assets, while the private sector and homeowners are often reluctant to pay upfront investment costs with long payback times. Innovative financing concepts and bundling of assets to achieve economies of scale could be solutions to such barriers (e.g., Energy Performance Contracts (EPCs) and Renewable Energy Communities (RECs)).Footnote ¹⁵

Some mitigation strategies also support adaptation to climate change, but the achievement of climate benefits strongly depends on the quality of urban design. For example, urban greening initiatives can contribute to carbon sequestration while reducing flood and heat impacts, but require careful design with the support of ecologists and hydrologists to ensure that targeted ecosystem services are actually realized over time. In October 2020, the city of Izmir, Turkey, opened its Mavisehir Peynircioglu Stream Ecological Corridor, a 41,000m² greenbelt (European Commission, 2021b). The project aims to sequester carbon, increase biodiversity, reduce UHI, and mitigate flood risk (European Commission, 2021). Implemented as part of an EU-funded project (Urban GreenUP), the corridor was a massive undertaking that required the expertise of a wide range of specialists. To strengthen the outcome of this initiative and lock-in greening without requiring major funding, Izmir constructed several “parklets” throughout the city. These small green areas take up less space than the ecological corridor, offer more cost-effective urban greening solutions, and improve pedestrian flow by repurposing street parking spaces (European Commission, 2021).

With the growing number of climate hazard events, city governments are now allocating resources for adaptation initiatives. Depending upon the context and hazard in question, there are opportunities to align adaptation efforts with decarbonization objectives. However, some crucial adaptation strategies may increase GHG emissions. In Singapore, 99 percent of private condominiums are air conditioned, with many crediting the city-state’s economic rise to accessible air conditioning. However, while air conditioning can be viewed as a legitimate adaptation strategy amidst rising temperatures, it increases GHG emissions and anthropogenic heat, thus intensifying UHI and creating a vicious cycle (Yuan et al., Reference Yuan, Zhu, Tong, Mei and Zhu2022; Chen, Reference Chen2023).

Urban and regional planning is a key strategic tool that can facilitate implementing an integrated approach to both mitigation and adaptation actions, for example, the siting and design of renewable energy solutions (Norman et al., Reference Norman, Newman and Steffen2021). However, an analysis in Europe indicates that planning for climate change mitigation does not always precede adaptation, with about 66 percent, 26 percent, and only 17 percent of cities, respectively, having mitigation, adaptation, or joint plans in place (Reckien et al., 2018b). (See Additional Resources for an analysis of synergies, trade-offs, and conflicts of adaptation and mitigation approaches.)

5.4 Urban Scales

Integrated mitigation and adaptation in cities can assume many forms across spatial scales, urban systems, and physical networks; a wide range of strategies adopted in service of urban sustainability already advances this objective (Raven et al., Reference Raven, Stone, Mills, Towers, Katzschner, Leone and Hariri2018). However, recent research indicates that implementation of adaptation planning is lagging behind mitigation action in urban areas, and that overall, adaptation planning is often occurring in a sector-specific way with limited consultation (IPCC, 2022). While there is sparse published research analyzing methods for integrating mitigation and adaptation, they are increasing in practice.

Early academic attention focused primarily on governance frameworks for overcoming the adaptation/mitigation dichotomy rather than identifying and investigating adaptation-mitigation interactions in detail (Tol, Reference Tol2005). Analysis of adaptation-mitigation interactions was aimed at broadly determining the right policy mix of adaptation and mitigation actions (McKibbin & Wilcoxen, Reference McKibbin and Wilcoxen2004), typically at larger scales (i.e., global and national scales) (Watkiss et al., Reference Watkiss, Benzie and Klein2015). As research has evolved, some integrated adaptation–mitigation frameworks have been developed for municipal scales (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Dawson, Hall, Barr, Batty, Bristow, Carney, Dagoumas, Ford, Harpham, Tight, Watters and Zanni2011; Solecki et al., Reference Solecki, Seto, Balk, Bigio, Boone, Creutzig and Zwickel2015), community and infrastructure scales (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2024; Green Business Certification Inc., 2018), and the building scale (Judah, Reference Judah2020). More broadly, they have been integrated into sustainable development planning (IPCC, 2022).

Sections 5.4.1 to 5.4.4 outline approaches and initiatives to integrate adaptation and mitigation at four scales: metropolitan region, city, (largely focusing on urban planning mechanisms), neighborhood (urban design mechanisms), and building (architecture/design).

5.4.4 Building

A limited number of integrated adaptation-mitigation frameworks currently exist for buildings (see Table 4). C40 Cities developed the Adaptation and Mitigation Interaction Assessment (AMIA) Excel-based tool, where users can select from a database of adaptation and mitigation strategies at multiple scales, including the building scale, to identify potential synergies and trade-offs (C40, 2018).

Table 4Integrated adaptation-mitigation frameworks for buildings

Framework	Description
Adaptation and Mitigation Interaction Assessment (AMIA)	Users select from a database of adaptation and mitigation strategies at multiple scales, to identify potential synergies and trade-offs.
LEED v5®	Points-based green building design rating system encompassing carbon neutrality, climate adaptation, social and environmental quality.
FEMA Natural Hazards and Sustainability for Residential Buildings	Guidelines focus on impact of natural hazard risks on specific sustainable building strategies; explains how strategies could be synergistic for one hazard but create a conflict for another.
Resilient Adaptation of Sustainable Buildings	Uses regenerative framework to delve into specifics of meeting an adaptation goal for a predetermined hazard scenario while prioritizing sustainable strategies.
Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA)	Twelve-part process-based framework to assist building developers, owners, and design teams in increasing project’s resilience and adaptation to climate hazards while optimizing climate mitigation and sustainability goals and strategies

The LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) voluntary green building certification system, one of the most recognized of such systems worldwide, is for the first time introducing, in its “version 5,” an assessment of climate resilient development components, strengthening aspects related to emissions reduction and explicitly including adaptation, spatial justice,Footnote ¹⁸ habitats, and biodiversity. (See Additional Resources, Table 2, for green building principles in LEED v5 linked to climate resilient development.)

In the US, the FEMA’s (Federal Emergency Management Agency) report, Natural Hazards and Sustainability for Residential Buildings (Gromala et al., Reference Gromala, Kapur, Kochkin, Line, Passman, Reeder and Trusty2010), considers interactions between sustainable building strategies and adaptation objectives. The guideline looks at the impact of natural hazard risks on specific sustainable building strategies, though impacts of resilience strategies on sustainability and climate mitigation objectives are not investigated. The document also notes how strategies could be synergistic for one hazard but create a conflict for another. Using life cycle assessment (LCA), the document addresses embodied GHGs and introduces the concept of post-disaster sustainability benefits.

Resilient Adaptation of Sustainable Buildings posits that using a regenerative framework rather than an efficiency-based approach (i.e., focusing on ecosystem services restoration rather than on reduction of energy consumption and GHG emissions only) will result in buildings that are both sustainable and resilient. It serves as a valuable design approach for delving into the specifics of meeting an adaptation goal for a predetermined hazard scenario while also prioritizing sustainable strategies. However, it does not specifically address trade-offs and excludes embodied carbon factors (Graves, Reference Graves2020).

Passive buildings, which relates to the structure of the building itself, including orientation, window placement, skylight installation, insulation and building materials, and specific elements such as windows and window shades, are another form of integrated mitigation and adaptation (Anand et al., Reference Anand, Kadiri and Putcha2023). These approaches can maximize natural light and wind to decrease heat gain, improve ventilation, and minimize energy load (International Passive House Association, 2018). Green roofs and walls can cool entire buildings, reducing the need for indoor air conditioning because green facades and surfaces help cool them via evapotranspiration. Building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) can serve as both the outer layer of a structure and generate electricity for on-site use or export to the grid. Wastewater reuse systems and solid waste sorting systems can also be installed in buildings.

Originally developed for multi-unit residential buildings, the Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment (IBAMA) is a twelve-part process-based framework to assist building developers, owners, and design teams to increase a project’s resilience and adaptation to climate hazards while optimizing mitigation and sustainability goals/strategies (see Figure 12). The Integrated Building Adaptation and Mitigation Assessment functions as a flexible decision-making tool rather than a checklist or series of requirements. This enables teams to respond to the unique context, vulnerabilities, and circumstances of each project. The framework provides twenty-one quantifiable evaluation criteria to determine synergies, conflicts, and trade-offs among all proposed adaptation and mitigation strategies, as well as alignment of the proposed strategies with other project priorities such as cost, constructability, and ease of operations (Judah, Reference Judah2020). (See Additional Resources, Figure 7, for IBAMA evaluation criteria.)

Figure 12 IBAMA framework guides a project’s approach to climate adaptation and resilience and includes consideration of the neighborhood scale.

(Judah, Reference Judah2020)

Figure 12Long description

The flowchart shows a process for developing strategies for neighborhood resilience. It begins with section A, Gather Information, which includes steps: 1. Project information, 2. Climate parameters, 3. Climate hazards, and 4. Neighborhood resilience to hazard. The process then moves to section B, Evaluate Assets and Risks, with steps: 5. Neighborhood assets, 6. Neighborhood risks, and 7. Project risks. Section C, Set Goals & Develop Strategies, follows with steps: 8. Adaptation goals, 9. Mitigation & sustainability goals, 10. Adaptation strategies and 11. Mitigation & sustainability strategies. Finally, section D, Evaluate Strategies, includes step 12. Integrated evaluation of strategies. The chart indicates connections between these steps, showing a flow from gathering information to evaluating strategies, with an option to adjust and re-evaluate in section E. Arrows point from 1 to 7 and 9, 2 to 3, 3 to 4 and 7, 4 to 5 and 6, 5 to 10, 6 to 7, 7 to 8, 8 to 10, 9 to 11, and 11 to 12.

6.1 Intersection of Climate Policy, Urban Planning and Design, and Justice

Integrating climate justice into climate policymaking and planning can help avoid the perpetuation of social inequities in cities. As seen in Table 5, pioneer cities have recognized this opportunity and have incorporated climate justice into their climate action plans creating intersectional climate and land use policy aimed explicitly at addressing inequality and vulnerability (Table 5) (Diezmartínez & Short Gianotti, Reference Diezmartínez and Short Gianotti2022).

Conversely, policy focused too narrowly on climate benefits has failed to address social inequalities, and in some cases exacerbated vulnerabilities in historically marginalized populations (Bouyé et al., Reference Bouyé, O’Connor, Tankou, Grinspan, Waskow, Chattopadhyay and Scott2020).Footnote ²⁰ Climate policy and planning decisions that do not explicitly prioritize procedural and distributional climate justice have been criticized as technocratic and exclusionary (Ajibade, Reference Ajibade2019). This has alienated local stakeholders and slowed climate progress (Cohen, Reference Cohen2018).

Examples of these outcomes can be found in urban densification policies that are driven by environmental benefits alone. Resulting projects have exacerbated spatial inequalities, such as unequal access to green space, a phenomenon which can be observed in cities in both the Global North and South (Rigolon et al., Reference Rigolon, Browning, Lee and Shin2018; Schüle et al., Reference Schüle, Hilz, Dreger and Bolte2019). This phenomenon can be seen in some cities with left-leaning politics and progressive sustainability policies. In Oslo, while compact city planning policy efforts were often located in lower income and immigrant districts with low provision of blue-green space (Venter et al., Reference Venter, Figari, Krange and Gundersen2023).

Climate-oriented development projects have often focused too narrowly on climate benefits, failing to address the needs of local stakeholders and thus garnering resistance. A São Paulo urban densification project, Nova Luz, exemplifies this. The project was envisioned in response to the city’s newly enacted emissions reduction law in 2011. Despite the promise of affordable housing, the project was met with resistance by those occupying the site, which grew to include resistance by the broader housing movements in the city. These groups argued that affordable housing had previously failed to materialize in urban development projects that did not identify it as the main objective. The subsequent administration proposed a densification plan designed explicitly to tackle inequality, which received broad community support from the same housing movements. This plan reduced emissions even further than the previous plan, though this was not a part of the messaging (Cohen, Reference Cohen2018).

An increasing body of literature has linked urban greening policy to displacement, primarily as the result of the increased real estate value phenomenon often termed “green gentrification” or “climate gentrification.” (Oscilowicz et al., Reference Oscilowicz, Anguelovski, García-Lamarca, Cole, Shokry, Perez-del-Pulgar, Argüelles and Connolly2025). In collaboration with local policymakers, urban planners can play a key role in identifying anti-displacement strategies, such as preserving existing affordable housing and business ownership and demanding rent control through local value capture mechanisms (Rigolon et al., Reference Rigolon, Browning, Lee and Shin2018; Oscilowicz et al., Reference Oscilowicz, Anguelovski, Triguero-Mas, García-Lamarca, Baró and Cole2022).

Climate policy that distributes funding is most effective when carefully designed to meet distributive, procedural, restorative, and recognitional justice objectives (See Case Study 5).Footnote ²¹ Energy incentives are particularly susceptible to an overly narrow focus on technical criteria and missed opportunities to ensure fair and just allocation of funds. Though minority and low-income populations disproportionately experience energy poverty, energy incentives and associated projects have predominantly served high-income populations. Examples include access to electric-vehicle-only carpool lanes and charging infrastructure, public bike shares, spatial inequities in renewable energy project funding and siting, and uneven distribution of building retrofit incentives (Yenneti et al., Reference Yenneti and Day2016; Babagoli et al., Reference Babagoli, Kaufman, Noyes and Sheffield2019; Sovacool et al., Reference Sovacool, Kester, Noel and de Rubens2019; Hsu et al., Reference Hsu and Fingerman2021).

Enjoli Hall , Aliyu Salisu Barau , and Darien Alexander Williams

Case Study 5City-Level Climate Action Planning in Kano, Nigeria

Kano, Nigeria, is the southernmost trans-Sahara trading city and has roughly four million residents who are predominantly Hausa and Fulani language-speaking people, with strong Indigenous and Islamic cultural and spiritual heterogeneity. Rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, and severe flooding events pose threats to the city’s economy, human settlements, and heritage sites, including its ancient city walls and the Great Mosque. Unlike Lagos, Kano does not have a comprehensive state-led strategic plan for climate mitigation and adaptation, and the Urban Planning Authority’s current stance is that climate strategies are not a priority. For these reasons, Kano is an example of how local adaptation efforts can reaffirm precolonial Indigenous knowledge systems and meet environmental justice objectives.

Community-based actors in Kano are responding to observed climate change impacts in the absence of formal plans. “Barefoot planners,” that is, local actors who have no formal policy authority, draw their power from ordinary, incremental, and persistent practices of adaptation, such as tree planting, community-scale water management, and mutual aid networks to repair damaged infrastructure. Barefoot planners often act as first responders to the most devastating impacts of climate change in Kano, forming grassroots groups that pool resources and labor to repair damaged infrastructure in informal settlements in the wake of disastrous floods (Barau, Reference Barau, Squires and Gaur2020).

For example, the Millennials and Resilience: City, Innovation and Transformation of Youths Laboratory (MR CITY Lab) is an initiative aimed at engaging young people to restore urban biodiversity in Kano through planting of local tree species. The team – composed of university students, local youth, scientists and researchers, practitioners, and community leaders – has planted more than 400 Indigenous trees in communities across the city and facilitated communal dialogue about land and flora, built skills, and heightened gender equity. The project has served as a point of decolonial capacity-building to address the erasure brought by generations of colonial rule, as knowledge of local flora is shared. It highlights the important role of informal knowledge, actors, and practices in local climate action planning. It remains to be seen, however, whether the micro-practices of nongovernmental actors encourage coordinated, citywide climate action in Kano.

Figure 13 Left: University students participating in tree restoration activities with the MR CITY Lab.

Right: Typical mud-built homes in Kano, Nigeria, seen from Dala Hill.

(Source: MR CITY Lab) (Source: Tadej Znidarcic, Reference Znidarcic2015)

In these examples, a utilitarian approach to subsidy allocation is economically inefficient and disempowers energy-poor communities. Effective regulatory frameworks that include low-income groups with a focus on energy retrofitting in housing have been developed in the UK with its Energy Act and the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard. This policy gives dwellers a voice in decision-making related to energy retrofitting (Klinsky & Mavrgianni, Reference Klinsky and Mavrogianni2020).

6.2 Approaches for Just Climate Resilient Planning and Design

In many cases, climate policy is developed at the city, regional, national, or even international level, but is ultimately interpreted and carried out at the neighborhood scale by urban planners and urban designers. Appropriate strategies for achieving just climate objectives are therefore best rooted in the local context. Climate priorities that are coupled with local needs by contextualizing climate-aligned urban design and planning measures to places and people are likely to be more effective.

Fundamental tools for the translation of this aim into the urban form are equitable spatial distribution of green and blue infrastructures, adaptive land/building uses, and inclusive and collaborative planning and urban design models. Developing novel planning and urban design methods that link urban climate science with community engagement in collaborative mapping, design, and evaluation of solutions can help to achieve procedural, recognitional, and distributive justice while legitimizing and recognizing the needs of those most exposed and vulnerable to climate risks (Mohtat & Kirfan, Reference Mohtat and Khirfan2021).

For example, in 2019, UCCRN conducted a district-level UDCW program in Isipingo, a town outside Durban, South Africa. To facilitate participating City Teams to incorporate climate change initiatives into the Isipingo Rehabilitation Programme (Figure 14). The purpose of the UDCWs was to develop implementation actions that considered governmental, developmental, socioeconomic, and ecological conditions and build capacity across multiple stakeholder groups to respond to climate change. The UDCW enabled city officials from eThekwini Municipality to integrate and scale up mitigation and adaptation principles by reducing energy consumption, strengthening resilience, and enhancing human well-being. The group worked synergistically with construction and landscape configurations to create equitable, interconnected, protective, resilient, and attractive urban areas. (See the additional resources for more details on the Durban UDCW).

Figure 14 Community engagement session: Finding synergies between community and climate priorities for the Durban Isipingo central business district (CBD).

(Source: Enza Tersigni, Reference Tersigni2019)

Figure 14Long description

The image on the left shows a bulletin board covered with numerous handwritten notes on circular and rectangular papers. The notes discuss various needs and issues such as traffic congestion, pollution, socio-economic problems and lack of facilities. Some notes are titled NEEDS and POLLUTION, while others mention specific topics like MO-TRAFFIC, MO-REPLACE and What is Display Allocated Budget. The notes are pinned with different colored pins, and the board appears to be a brainstorming or planning session with various ideas and concerns listed. On the right, there is a large room filled with multiple round tables where various individuals are seated. The people are engaged in discussions or activities, some looking at papers or mobile devices.

Transformation of the built environment is key to leveraging the reduction of existing socio-spatial inequalities and root causes of vulnerability, but this can be achieved only conjunctly with more democratic and participatory governance and spatial decision-making (Wolfram et al., Reference Wolfram, Borgström and Farrelly2019; Hughes & Hoffmann, Reference Hughes and Hoffmann2020; Castan Broto, Reference Castan Broto2021). Of paramount importance is the integration of inclusiveness and climate action through embedding the claims and needs of the populations usually excluded from spatial decisions due to race, gender, income, culture, religion, or other social factors of exclusion. Urban services and the environmental benefits and co-benefits generated by climate-resilient planning and design measures deliver a major opportunity to address inequalities in vulnerable groups and areas.

A critical component of a collaborative and inclusive systematic approach is active and effective stakeholder and community engagement. Climate equity and justice outcomes have been shown to increase through inclusive planning and collaborative design processes (Chu, Reference Chu, Anguelovski and Carmin2016). Without such engagement, both climate and equity goals may be undermined due to lack of public support for implementation and lack of ownership to encourage sustained equitable low-carbon transition outcomes. Moving from a top-down toward a participatory climate planning and execution process is thus an important priority for policymakers and practitioners alike. McCauley et al. (2019) highlighted that this is particularly important in cities experiencing rapid and informal expansion.

Different cities have employed a range of public engagement methods from consultation to co-design, co-production, and co-dissemination of results within their climate plans (Table 6, Bremer et al., Reference Bremer, Wardekker, Dessai, Slaattelid and van der Sluijs2019; Satorras et al., Reference Satorras, Ruiz-Mallén, Monterde and March2020).

An approach recurrent in climate justice literature is partnering with community-based organizations and grassroots movements. The organizations and movements provide expertise and leadership within the communities they serve, facilitating implementation of climate resilience projects (Gonzalez et al., Reference Gonzalez, James and Ross2017; Urban Sustainability Directors Network, 2017; Amorim-Maia et al., Reference Amorim-Maia, Anguelovski, Chu and Connolly2022). They enable design and development of adaptation projects from within communities, promoting jobs, skills creation, and achievement of community-driven adaptation (Gonzalez, et al., Reference Gonzalez, James and Ross2017; Amorim-Maia et al., Reference Amorim-Maia, Anguelovski, Chu and Connolly2022).

The place-based and place-making approach involves integrating within projects the relationship of different communities with space, including recognition of vernacular and local knowledge especially of Indigenous communities (Anguelovski et al., 2018). It also implies a decolonial approach to land distribution and access, including return and redistribution options. Additionally, promotion of cross-identity and vulnerability activism can strengthen government actions that are already established in the community, empowering local organizations to manage changes (Olazabal et al., Reference Olazabal, Chu, Castán Broto and Patterson2021).

Community-Based Adaptation (CBA) is a complementary framework for just climate-resilient urban planning and urban design that focuses on vulnerable communities through participatory activities at multiple levels (from national to neighborhood scales) in a wide range of spheres (project implementation, policy, education, and research) (Ayers & Forsyth, Reference Ayers and Forsyth2009; Forsyth, Reference Forsyth2013; Archer et al., Reference Archer, Almansi, DiGregorio, Roberts, Sharma and Syam2014; Kirkby et al., Reference Kirkby, Williams and Huq2018; Rosenzweig et al., Reference Rosenzweig, Parry and De Mel2021). In this framework, the analysis and assessment of vulnerabilities and risk, as well as response measures are developed according to a participatory learning and action model (Kindon et al., Reference Kindon, Pain and Kesby2007).

In CBA, communities are the central focus in both studies of climate risks and vulnerability and in spatial decision-making (Kirby, Reference Kirby2014). Culture can play different roles in community-based adaptation, for example, including local social norms, effecting change from within, entraining adaptation (see Box 3). Practical application of planning tools for CBA have been conducted mainly in developing countries with justice outcomes including inclusive socioeconomic measures, land use modifications, and spatial interventions (Spires at al., Reference Spires, Shackleton and Cundill2014; Endo et al., Reference Endo, Magcale-Macandog, Kojima, Johnson, Bragais, Macandog and Scheyvens2017; Kim et al., Reference Kim and Kang2018, Han et al., Reference Han, Bai and Dong2025). Cape Town, South Africa, is one example of a city where CBA is occurring, as local community-based organizations are rearranging homes in informal settlements to allow for flood drainage and service delivery amid increasing rainstorms (Fox et al., Reference Fox, Ziervogel and Scheba2021).

6.3 Future Research and Practice for Advancing Urban Climate Justice

Urban planners and urban designers can serve as the link between climate policy and environmental justice outcomes, leveraging policy and spatial interventions as tools for increasing wealth and prosperity in marginalized communities. This requires a shift in the standard approach to both climate-oriented and equitable development practices and acknowledging different forms of knowledge (see Box 4). To ensure these outcomes, urban climate justice ought to be elevated to the primary objective and driving purpose, while emissions reductions toward climate policy compliance can be seen as a baseline requirement for all development projects. Business-as-usual planning and urban design approaches will not achieve both climate and equity goals in tandem and should therefore be re-examined. Elements to be better considered in future planning and design practices include rectifying vulnerabilities by tackling underlying economic reinforcers of racial and gender inequalities, as well as adopting place-based and co-produced approaches and promoting community resilience-building and activism (Amorim-Maira et al., Reference Amorim-Maia, Anguelovski, Chu and Connolly2022).

Box 4Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in Urban Planning and Design

Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is understood as the “knowledge of the environment that is derived from experience and traditions particular to a specific group of people” (Leonard et al., Reference Leonard, Parsons, Olawsky and Kofod2013, 2). Although TEK is usually associated with ancestral communities, it can be attributed to communities that have historical continuity in a particular environment, with particular resource use (Leonard et al., Reference Leonard, Parsons, Olawsky and Kofod2013). In the context of TEK, people’s resilience is permeated by local social networks or traditional community structures that constitute the “social capital” for adaptation (Heimann & Mallick, Reference Heimann and Mallick2016).

When including TEK in urban planning and design, it is possible to gather specific information for implementation associated with the traditions of the communities that will be affected by the various proposed interventions. In this regard, it is feasible to design community engagement based on the different categories of TEK.

For diagnostic and planning purposes, efforts can be focused on environmental knowledge, which relates to seasonal indicators, water availability, and, in general, various observations of climate variability and change (Leonard et al., Reference Leonard, Parsons, Olawsky and Kofod2013). For Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL), consideration of biodiversity resource usage and environmental management can ensure the long-term sustainability of the interventions. Finally, the worldview should serve as the framework in adaptation solutions are tested for different communities, understanding how their cultural identity interacts with their ethics and values concerning urban climate action (Leonard et al., Reference Leonard, Parsons, Olawsky and Kofod2013).

Figure 15 Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in urban planning and design.

Rectifying vulnerabilities includes diversifying funding sources for climate projects. Studies show that a reliance on private funds has caused investment and real estate firms to speculate on land values, often generating further marginalization and intra-urban displacement (Teicher, Reference Teicher2018; Robin & Castan Broto, Reference Castan Broto2021). This is exemplified in Chicago, where publicly owned lots in gentrifying areas are often sold to create green spaces (Riglon et al., 2020). Unfortunately, the benefits of these new green spaces are rarely distributed equitably, raising property values and often displacing already marginalized communities (Riglon et al., 2020).

To avoid climate gentrification, unequal land use and zoning policies need to be rectified (Anguelovski et al., Reference Anguelovski, Argüelles, Baró, Cole, Connolly, García Lamarca, Loveless, Pérez del Pulgar, Shokry, Trebic and Wood2018b; Conolly & Anguelovski, 2021). An example is the need to ensure affordable housing, while simultaneously ensuring access to green spaces (Anguelovski et al., Reference Anguelovski, Argüelles, Baró, Cole, Connolly, García Lamarca, Loveless, Pérez del Pulgar, Shokry, Trebic and Wood2018b). Vienna is a city that seeks to mitigate the risk of green gentrification. The city has a broad dispersion of social housing across neighborhoods to prevent segregation and isolation and has strict rent controls and open-ended contracts that limit price increases (Friesenecker et al., Reference Friesenecker, Thaler and Clar2024). These regulations have made social housing more equitable and ensure that rents stay consistent despite changing neighborhood demographics. A 2015 plan also introduced an initiative to provide all Vienna residents with green spaces within 250 meters, guaranteeing equitable access to nature (Friesenecker et al., Reference Friesenecker, Thaler and Clar2024).

Innovating participatory practices in planning and urban design towards inclusive co-production processes requires governance and advocacy through urban policies tailored to the vulnerability of certain groups. Knowledge sharing is needed so that reliable data about climate risks, vulnerabilities, and systemic barriers are available to all.Footnote ²² Training to build awareness of inequities and social injustices and to facilitate dialogue among grassroots organizations, NGOs, communities, and policymakers is also required (Klinsky & Mavrogianni, Reference Klinsky and Mavrogianni2020; Mohan & Muraleedharan, Reference Mohan and Muraleedharan2025).

The need is rapidly emerging for much greater attention to be paid to advancing understanding of equity and justice implications of urban form and of functional, spatial, environmental, and technological outcomes of plans and projects. The lack of empirical studies on the subject has long been coupled with an excessive focus on normative recommendations and critical analyses, which too often fail to expound upon the practical methodologies for propelling climate justice objectives (Hughes & Hoffman, Reference Hughes and Hoffmann2020; Mohtat & Kirfan, Reference Mohtat and Khirfan2021). More research and exchange between theory and practice are required to assess the results in terms of justice of changes in the size, orientation, geometry and layout patterns of streets, blocks and plots, buildings and their footprints, as well as changes in land use.

Appropriate methodologies belonging to the spatial dimension can be implemented to foster the evaluation of existing urban injustice and the enhancement of equitable interventions in the built environment. These include spatial analysis and on-site measurements with a specific focus on participatory GIS (see Section 8); the latter are used to co-survey and co-own local spatial knowledge of different groups (Korpilo et al., Reference Korpilo, Kaaronen, Olafsson and Raymond2022; Rice-Boayue, Reference Rice-Boayue, Garo and Ilboudo Nebie2025). This holds particular significance in the Global South, where limited access to spatial data is a gap in the implementation of urban climate justice actions.

Moreover, the use of indicators for the evaluation of justice and equity in cities can support spatial planning and urban design in the elaboration of proposals that are aware of the specific context. Examples of these indicators are the Equity Indicators tool developed by the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance (ISLG), available for six US cities, and the Environmental Justice Index elaborated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry (US Department of Health and Human Services). Toolboxes for Community-based Adaptation (CBA) such as the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) and the CBA Toolkit are also useful tools to help in delivering justice at a practical level in the built environment (CARE, 2010).

Since urban transformation can actively reduce existing socio-spatial inequalities, the demands of vulnerable groups and individuals, especially of marginalized and discriminated communities, are key to deliver climate-resilient cities. When specific studies on root causes and factors influencing local vulnerabilities are included as baselines in planning and urban design proposals, they can be joined with urban climate analyses to match mitigation and adaptation goals with local priorities. These contextualize climate strategies and measures to people and places. Risks of maladaptation generated by the creation of environmental benefits that favor high-income groups (climate elites) at the expense of the more disempowered, such as green gentrification, can thus be better understood and reduced. Multi-stakeholder, multilevel, and context-based urban processes that embed a justice and equity agenda can help transform how spatial decisions are taken and implemented, how rights are guaranteed, and how responsibilities for climate and community action are undertaken.

7.1 Defining Capacity and Capacity Building

In a report for the World Health Organization (WHO) on capacity building focused on health systems, Milèn (Reference Milèn2001) defined capacity across three levels, as “an ability of individuals, organizations, or systems to perform appropriate functions effectively, efficiently and sustainably.” This is consistent with the UNDP’s (1998) earlier work on capacity building. The definitions of the term “capacity building” and “capacity development” have limited consensus (Klinsky & Sagar, Reference Klinsky and Sagar2022). As detailed by Nautiyal and Klinsky (Reference Nautiyal and Klinsky2022), capacity building for the environment gained prominence in the 1990s through multilateral environmental agreements and continues to have prominence at international forums to date. They identify problems with the use and implementation of the concept. Through an analysis of UNFCCC documents, they identify two dominant narratives of capacity building.

The first narrative was characterized by “tecno-managerial and standardized data-driven goals,” which is well supported by the UNFCCC (Nautiyal & Klinsky, Reference Nautiyal and Klinsky2022). The second narrative, which they found was not well supported, was capacity building that is inclusive and diverse, implemented through holistic and transdisciplinary approaches. Nautiyal and Klinsky (Reference Nautiyal and Klinsky2022) advocate that to increase capacity building for climate change, greater support for the second narrative is needed. In the context of planning and design practices, collaborative processes for knowledge sharing and co-design in multi-stakeholder contexts are key to embed inclusive capacity-building practice while co-producing essential knowledge components integrated into project development (see Section 6).

In this UCCRN Element, capacity building is defined as “the process by which individuals, groups, organizations, institutions, and societies increase their abilities to perform core functions, solve problems, define and achieve objectives, and understand and deal with development needs in a broad context and in a sustainable manner” (Milèn, Reference Milèn2001). For climate change, it is important to develop capacity in both developing and developed countries. Climate change is global in nature and building capacity for both mitigation and adaptation in all nations will enable smoother international cooperation. Building capacity to expand the green jobs sector in both developing and developed countries will also provide mutual, symbiotic economic opportunities and resiliency.

Following the UNDP (1998), the UN (Reference Nations2023a, Reference Nations2023b) adopted a three-level approach in its climate change capacity-building activities: individuals, organizations and systems (see Figure 16). When assessing the UN’s framework on climate change capacity, Figure 16 articulates the development of knowledge, skills, and competency across the three levels to achieve climate change outcomes. Competency is defined by the European Commission (2008) as: “the proven ability to use knowledge, skills, and personal, social, and/or methodological abilities in work or study situations and in professional and personal development.”

Figure 16 Climate change capacity building at the individual, institutional, and systemic levels with a focus on urban decision-makers and practitioners.

(Adapted from UNFCCC, 2023)

Figure 16Long description

The infographic outlines three levels of capacity building: Individual level, Institutional level, and Systemic level. At the Individual level, the actions include: Perform analyses to assess solution outcomes with respect to future climate; Promote knowledge sharing and co-design practices with range of stakeholders; Pursue professional qualifications in domain of environment, climate, and energy design. At the Institutional level, the actions include: Incorporate strict criteria that ensure carbon neutrality, adaptation, and sustainability targets; Improve knowledge and operational capacity of local administration technical offices; Enable collaboration through digital platforms and shared management approaches. At the Systemic level, the actions include: Pursue systemic change in processes through desiloization and advancing policy and practice; Introduce metrics to quantify carbon/energy and D R R/C C A in plan and project approval processes; Assess effects on shifting lifestyles towards climate resilient development. The impact is described as enabling climate-resilient transition in cities through effective plans and designs for building and open spaces, supporting behavioral changes, and promoting innovation. The entire process is encapsulated under the theme of Capacity building. A note at the bottom explains the abbreviations: D R R – Disaster risk reduction; C C A – Climate change adaptation.

Effective climate change action needs more than the acquisition of knowledge and skills, but the development of competence. Competence and functional skills are recognized components of being a professional (Biggs & Tang, Reference Biggs and Tang2007). In this context, professional, project, and process-based agency of planners and designers is expanded through creativity, multidisciplinarity, systems thinking and co-design (see Section 3). This is key to building the capacities of colleagues, clients, community stakeholders, and institutions to change attitudes and behaviors at all levels to stimulate proactive and effective climate action across sectors (Murtagh & Sergeeva, 2021; Arnett, 2023).

7.2 Enhancing Climate Change Capacity for Built Environment Professionals

This section’s focus is climate change capacity building for built environment professionals (with a focus on urban planners, designers, and architects), and the institutions and systems within which they operate. Both developing and developed nations are considered. The actors involved in the production of the built environment include practitioners, professionals, academics, researchers, policymakers and community members. These actors vary across the life stages of producing and altering the built environment. They come from disciplines including urban planning, design, architecture, landscape design, construction, and engineering, and can also be from secondary sectors and actors who have a role supporting the production of the built environment (Hartenberger et al., Reference Hartenberger, Lorenz and Lützkendorf2013).

Each sector and actor brings with them skill sets and capabilities that contribute to different components of the built environment and the regulatory and policy frameworks that guide its development. Moving from the status quo to facilitating the necessary climate change actions in each of these sectors/across multiple actors is critical. The built environment process encompasses multiple interrelationships, and thus the need for urban planners, designers, and architects to work with actors from other sectors and key stakeholders to advance climate change action.

Four broad challenges to facilitating climate change action in built environments relating directly to capacity building are identified:

• Need to increase the number of built environment professionals in practice. A recent collaborative study by the Commonwealth Association of Architects, the Commonwealth Association of Planners, the Commonwealth Association of Surveying and Land Economy, and the Commonwealth Engineers Council (2020) found a critical shortage of qualified architects, urban planners, engineers and surveyors in many developing Commonwealth countries, demonstrating the need to both increase the number of architecture, urban design, and planning professionals working in cities, as well as enhancing climate training for existing professionals.

• Need to build the climate change capacity of existing professionals. Recent research indicates that there are climate change capacity gaps expressed by built environment professionals and urban planners in Australia and Canada, and coastal managers in the US (Tribbia & Moser, Reference Tribbia and Moser2008; Canadian Planning Institute, 2019; Hürlimann et al., Reference Hürlimann, Beilin and March2023a, Reference Hürlimann, Cobbinah, Bush and Gaisie2023b). Similar skills shortages were explored in depth by the UK Parliamentary House of Commons in relation to built environment professionals since 2007, highlighting a lack of clear strategy, inadequate supply of skilled workers, and low levels of diversity in the existing workforce, especially in relation to the current “Net Zero” Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy (UK House of Commons, 2008; UK House of Commons, 2021; UK Parliamentary Committee on Climate Change, 2023). The EU also finds this labor shortage more generally in construction and engineering, particularly in relation to Net-Zero skills (European Commission, 2023).

• Need to develop climate change curriculum in education programs degrees. Recent research into the coverage of climate change in urban planning degree curriculums across multiple contexts has shown that climate change is not well addressed (Preston-Jones, Reference Preston-Jones, Filho, Nagy, Borga, Muñoz and Magnuszewski2020, Hürlimann et al., Reference Hürlimann, Cobbinah, Bush and March2021c). Collaborative efforts across fields are seeking to address curriculum gaps. For example, Planners for Climate Action (P4CA 2023a,b) have developed a repository of course manuals with the explicit purpose to facilitate climate change capacity building for urban planners. In 2023, UCCRN and MIT delivered a free online course on “Cities and Climate Change,” focusing on core interdisciplinary topics supporting urban climate mitigation and adaptation. Yet, further coordinated work is needed to advance curriculum and continuing professional development opportunities.

• Need to complement mainstream approaches by engaging a diverse actors. This includes Indigenous peoples, gender-specific constituencies and communities, using transdisciplinary and holistic approaches and co-creating pathways that gives meaningful space for marginalized actors to participate in, direct, and benefit from the capacity-building agenda (Klinsky, Reference Nautiyal and Klinsky2022) (see Box 5).

7.3 How to Build Capacity

Capacity building typically follows three phases in a continuing cycle: assessing needs; developing strategies to address these needs; and monitoring and evaluating the capacity-building actions (Milèn, Reference Milèn2001). Critical capacity gaps have been assessed in a context-specific way across the three scales of individual, organizational, and systemic – for each built environment sector and its actors. However, limited assessment of climate change capacity gaps and needs has been undertaken for built environment professionals and the sector at large.

7.3.1 Developing Strategies to Address Climate Change Capacity Needs

There is an increasing body of work conducted by built environment professional associations and independent organizations at both international and national scales to advance climate change capacity across sectors of the built environment. Impetus for many initiatives appears to have come from the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015) and IPCC reports, including the Special Report on 1.5°C (IPCC, 2018). In response, some professional organizations at national and international levels made declarations of climate change emergency (e.g., IFLA, 2019; RIBA, 2019) and have facilitated actions to improve sector competency. (See Additional Resources, Figure 9, for a Sankey diagram of climate change facilitators for built environment professionals.)

Information sources trusted by built environment professionals include industry bodies, government sources, and academic researchers. These results were found in the Australian property and construction sectors, and in urban planning studies (Hürlimann et al., Reference Hürlimann, Browne, Warren-Myers and Francis2018; Canadian Institute of Planners, 2019; Warren-Myers et al., Reference Warren-Myers, Hürlimann and Bush2020). Research also indicates that colleagues can be an important source of climate change information for coastal managers and urban planners (Tribbia & Moser, Reference Tribbia and Moser2008; Canadian Institute of Planners, 2019; Hürlimann et al., Reference Hürlimann, Beilin and March2023a, Reference Hürlimann, Cobbinah, Bush and Gaisie2023b). However, work is uneven across sectors and among professional organizations and is not necessarily translated into current university curricula.

Capacity building for climate change in built environment professions can encompass a range of formats and structures. Formal programs include degrees or diplomas provided through universities, of which some may receive professional accreditation. Less formal opportunities include short courses or training modules facilitated by professional associations or government authorities. Similarly, professional association publications and resources can be important catalysts and guides for change. Capacities also can be built through new “Learning Landscapes” centered on 1. Integrating pedagogical tools to generate individualized learning experiences; 2. Enabling educators to conceptualize sociocultural influences in and beyond educational space boundaries; and 3. Specifically designing spaces for experiential learning (Hansen, Reference Hansen2012; Neary et al., Reference Neary, Harrison, Crellin, Parekh, Saunders, Duggan, Williams and Austin2010) (see Case Study 6). (See Additional Resources for specific capacity building tools.)

Sara Arteaga-Morales and Juliana Vélez-Duque

Case Study 6Flooding Adaptation Strategy in Apartadó’s River Master PlanFootnote ²³

Apartadó, Colombia, is located along the Apartadó River in the Urabá region and is home to one of the thirty-six recognized biodiversity hotspots around the world, the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena in Colombia. Severe flash flooding occurs in the river basin approximately every six to ten years, exposing almost half of the city of Apartadó and its neighborhoods, which include seventy-two Indigenous and six afro-Colombian communities, to damage and displacement. With precipitation projected to increase due to climate change, extreme weather events associated with the river will become stronger and more frequent. Recognizing the need to adapt to climate change, the Apartadó River Master Plan aims to reduce risk exposure and increase flooding protection along the river basin through participatory planning, nature-based solutions, and ecosystem restoration.

The methodology for the Master Plan included three stages: due diligence, diagnostics, and formulation. Community mapping and participatory planning workshops were conducted with different communities to understand their relationship with the river at cultural and economic levels their knowledge of ecological restoration, and to build their capacity for experiential learning. The plan’s formulation stage resulted in proposals that encompassed environmental education, disaster preparedness, ecological restoration, community monitoring, eco-resilient neighborhoods, and nature-based tourism. It also emphasized preservation of cultural and ecological memory associated with the river.

Figure 17 Community mapping and participatory planning workshop during the development of the Apartadó River Master Plan.

(Source: Sara Arteaga, Reference Arteaga2023a)

Figure 18 The Apartadó River crosses the city from east to west.

(Source: Sara Arteaga, Reference Arteaga2023b)

The Apartadó River Master Plan addresses risk management, governance issues, environmental degradation, social inclusion, and cultural representation to create a proposal that strengthens disaster response within the city. It promotes climate and environmental justice, cultural appropriation programs, and public–private partnerships to tackle weak governance institutions. The methodology demonstrates the importance of centering adaptation interventions around communities and local stakeholders that can guide the narrative of disaster response while incorporating unique cultural elements to risk management. This climate and environmental justice approach promotes social empowerment within communities and enables decision-support frameworks and resilience.

8.1 Climate Scales versus Planning and Urban Design Scales

In urban climate science, a useful hierarchy of scales correspond to different dominant processes that inform observation and modeling (Oke et al., Reference Oke, Mills, Christen and Voogt2017). The background climate/weather within which metropolitan regions are embedded operates at the regional or mesoscale (~500 km). The influence of cities on weather through modifications of land cover and subsequent impacts on the overlying air occurs at an urban scale (~10 km).

At the local or neighborhood scale (~1–5 km), the influence of distinct urban land use land cover (LULC) types (e.g., residential, commercial, green space) is evident; these are linked with typical building dimensions, tree canopy cover, and traffic patterns (Chow & Roth, Reference Chow and Roth2006; Chow et al., Reference Chow, Brennan and Brazel2012). Each neighborhood type has a myriad of climates at the microscale (≤100 m) that are created by the specific characteristics of buildings (e.g., dimensions), layout (e.g., street width and orientation), and landscaping. The range of these microclimates is consistent across a neighborhood type.

Using a similar spatial framework, planning, urban design, and architecture practice can be categorized by scale from regional plan to building design. The hierarchies of spatial scales in these two working systems can be correlated, as shown in Figure 19. Thus, both communities of practice can understand each other reciprocally and transfer knowledge effectively.

Figure 19 Relation between urban climate scales and design scales.

Figure 19Long description

The diagram presents a hierarchical structure linking climatic scales with corresponding design scales. It starts with the Climatic Scale, divided into three categories: Meso scale (50 to 500 kilometers), Local scale (1 to 50 kilometers), and Micro scale (1 meter to 1 kilometer). Each climatic scale is connected to specific Design Scales through arrows indicating their applicability. The design scales are detailed as follows: Regional plan (1:200,000 to 1:1,000,000) corresponding to the Meso scale, City master plan (1:50,000 to 1:20,000) and District plan (1:50,000 to 1:20,000) linked to the Local scale, and Building design (1:500 to 1:100) associated with the Micro scale. The diagram includes visual representations for each design scale, showing maps and architectural layouts that illustrate the level of detail and focus appropriate to each scale.

At the mesoscale to urban (city) scale, urban climate research provides background information, including climate change projections.Footnote ²⁴ The climate models that operate at this scale do not routinely include urban land use types but rather simple urban land cover. The outputs of these models correspond to the scale of synoptic weather reports and observations of weather patterns over large areas at specific times. They can be used to support planners and policymakers as they prepare regional plans to reduce long-distance travel related to high GHG emissions and propose design guidelines for responding to extreme events such as coastal flooding.

Global analysis data include weather observations, computer simulations of historical weather patterns, and climate model projections. They describe current and future climate, including extreme events such as heat waves and heavy downpours, providing a context for urban-scale decisions (see https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu). Climate models that focus on city and neighborhood scales use “urbanized” models that can account for different urban LULC types and three-dimensional form (morphology).

Observational weather data at city and neighborhood scales is not generally available, although there are a growing number of cities that have their own weather station networks or have utilized volunteer citizen weather station data that capture the UHI effect. New York City, London, Berlin, and Nairobi are all cities that use both independent weather stations and volunteer citizen weather data (Klimastadt Berlin, 2023; NOAA, 2025; TAHMO, 2024; UK Met Office, 2011; USDA, 2024). This scale corresponds to that of urban planning (i.e., cities and neighborhoods) related to decisions on land use, transportation, and urban morphology that can enhance climate resilience. Correlating climatic and policy information via the integration of spatial scales is essential for better understanding the urban environment and proposing climate-aligned architecture, design, and planning actions (see Case Study 7).

Martina Kohler

Case Study 7Integrated Storm Water Management in New York City: Implementation of Green Infrastructure MeasuresFootnote ²⁵

Every year in New York City, around 20 billion gallons of untreated raw sewage and polluted runoff are diverted from the City’s wastewater treatment plants during combined sewer overflow (CSO) events (Levine, 2020). These are directed into the rivers along the shoreline of the city because the designed capacity of the system is reached quickly when it rains. Future climate change-induced increases in precipitation will put further stresses on the already overloaded system. This case study assesses the implementation of NYC’s Green Infrastructure (GI) plan to reduce rainwater overflow and address combined sewer overflows to both adapt to increased rainfall and to reduce Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.

New York City’s GI program aims to reduce combined sewer overflows into NYC waterways and the UHI effect through urban greening. The plan, introduced in 2010, has the overarching goal of enabling NYC to manage 1” of storm water runoff with GI across 10 percent of the impervious surfaces within the combined sewer area of the city by 2030. More than 11,050 GI assets, predominantly rain gardens, have been installed or are currently under construction since 2012.

Figure 20 New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),Green Infrastructure Program Map.

(Source: NYC OpenData, State of NJ, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA, NPS, April 13, 2022)

The installation of rain gardens in the public right of way faces some challenges including necessary maintenance to ensure proper performance, conflict with density of city infrastructure below the streets and sidewalk surfaces (gas, cable, freshwater lines), high bedrock, and high-water-table levels in some areas of the city.

The GI program has made progress despite unanticipated challenges. Reaching its stated goal in 2030 will require an increased focus on GI measures on private properties. Currently DEP’s grant program and DEP’s Private Property Retrofit program both focus on private properties 50,000 square feet and larger. As a result, there remains significant unrealized potential to capture water and divert roof runoff from the sewer system in many smaller catchment areas.

Figure 21 Rain garden installations at Denton Place, Brooklyn, New York City, part of the Green Infrastructure Plan.

(Source: Kohler, Reference Kohler2023)

8.2 Analytical and Modeling Tools for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

To implement climate-aligned interventions, numerous analytical and modeling tools have been developed to support the work of researchers and practitioners. These are relevant to urban scales and aid in assessing the effects of planning and urban design scenarios in terms of climate mitigation and adaptation (Figure 22).

Figure 22 Design, spatial, and climate scales of analytical and modeling tools for mitigation and adaptation.

Figure 22Long description

The infographic presents tools for mitigation and adaptation across various design and spatial scales. The design scales are categorized as Metropolitan Region Plan (1 by 200,000 to 1 by 1,000,000), City Master Plan (1 by 50,000 to 1 by 20,000), and Neighborhood plan (1 by 50,000 to 1 by 20,000). Tools for mitigation include Guidelines and protocols at international, national, and regional scales (Metropolitan Region Plan), Local/city scale frameworks for sustainable development (City Master Plan), and Energy simulation and ecosystem services assessment (Neighborhood Plan). The spatial scales range from greater than 500 kilometers to 50 kilometers, 50 kilometers to 10 kilometers, and 10 kilometers to less than 1 kilometer, respectively. Tools for adaptation: Climate Modeling for the Metropolitan Region Plan (Simulation of atmospheric phenomena like clouds, precipitation, wind, temperature; Production of climate datasets; Climate scenarios). Hazard Modeling for the City Master Plan (Heatwave hazard analysis for land surface temperature, apparent temperature; Flood hazard analysis and probability indices). Microclimate Simulations for the Neighborhood Plan (Outdoor thermal comfort analysis, like mean radiant temperature, universal thermal climate; Computational fluid dynamics analysis; Indoor thermal comfort using predicted mean vote). All of these, left to right, range from the Meso scale, through the local scale, to the micro scale, respectively.

8.2.2 Analytical and Modeling Tools for Climate Adaptation

For adaptation to manage risks at the mesoscale and local scale, the Crichton’s Risk Triangle framework (Crichton, Reference Crichton and Ingleton1999) can be linked with the risk concepts of the IPCC (IPCC, Reference Pachauri and Meyer2014). These methods provide useful tools to assess and map climate-related risks, such as flood hazards (Chen, Reference Chen2021), extreme heat (Hua et al., Reference Hua, Zhang, Ren, Shi and Lee2021), and air pollution (Shi et al., Reference Shi, Bilal, Ho and Omar2020). The techniques overlay the frequency and intensity of hazards with the presence of exposed assets, thereby measuring the propensity or predisposition of urban areas to be adversely affected. (See Additional Resources, Figure 12, for a spatial distribution of heat vulnerability in Hong Kong.)

There are several mesoscale climate models capable of simulating weather at urban scales. The best known of these is the open-source community-based Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. The urbanized version of this model accounts for variations in the urban landscape in the form of numerical descriptors (known as urban canopy parameters or UCPs). The resolution of this model is variable, but it has been applied at sub-kilometer scales (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Kusaka, Bornstein, Ching, Grimmond, Grossman‐Clarke, Loridan, Manning, Martilli, Miao and Sailor2011). Running mesoscale models such as WRF requires a considerable amount of training and resources, beyond the scope of urban planning skills. Planners and urban designers can work with urban climate scientists to test relevant climate change scenarios and interventions for individual urban areas.

One of the difficulties in applying mesoscale models to study urban phenomena is acquiring the numerical description (UCPs) of the city’s LULC composition. One approach to acquiring these is to use the Local Climate Zone (LCZ) scheme, which categorizes the urban landscape into ten neighborhood types, each of which is associated with a range of UCP values for climatically relevant variables, such as the impermeable surface fraction, UHI, and Sky View Factor (SVF) (Han et al., Reference Han, Mo, Cai, Ouyang and Liu2024). Recently, a global LCZ map has been generated that provides a basic physical geography of cities, which can be used in urban climate modeling. An online LCZ generator enables users to create their own city map of neighborhood types.Footnote ²⁹

For investigating climate conditions within urban areas, there are a range of models and techniques that can be employed to guide climate-sensitive planning. For example, the Urban Multi-Scale Environmental Predictor (UMEP) combines models and tools for climate simulations and is linked to the Quantum GIS system (Lindberg et al., Reference Lindberg, Grimmond, Gabey, Huang, Kent, Sun, Theeuwes, Järvi, Ward, Capel-Timms, Chang, Jonsson, Krave, Liu, Olofson, Tan, Wästberg, Xue and Zhang2018). The UMEP has a suite of submodels that can be used to examine surface and air temperatures, shadowing patterns and runoff and supports scenario testing.

A more intuitive and city-specific technique uses the Urban Climatic Map (UC-Map) method as an evaluation tool to integrate urban climatic factors and town planning considerations. It presents individual climatic phenomena and hazards on a common spatial frame and uses maps to combine planning relevant information (Ren et al., Reference Ren, Ng and Katzschner2011, see Section 8). A complete UC-Map system is composed of an Urban Climatic Analysis Map (UC-AnMap) and an Urban Climatic Planning Recommendation Map (UC-ReMap) (Figure 23). The latter is a planning and action-oriented assessment base that can be operated at the city or the district scale. Currently, more than fifteen countries have developed their own UC-Map system and applied it to develop climatic measures or guidelines for local planning. (See Additional Resources for tools that utilize computational fluid dynamics.)

Figure 23 Structure of Urban Climatic Map.

(elaborated from: Ren et al., 2010)

Figure 23Long description

The infographic starts with 3 sections: Analytical Maps of Climatic Elements (Air Temperature, Atmospheric Humidity, Wind Velocity & Direction, Precipitation, Fog/Mist, and Air Pollution), Geographic Terrain Information (Topographic Map, Slope/Valley Map, and Soil Type Map), and Greenery Information and Planning Parameters (Land Use Map, Landscape Map, and Building Info Map). When combined, these help us to Define the Climatopes and Cold-air Collection Areas and Urban Climatic Analysis Map (Synthetic Climate Function Maps). This finally leads to Urban Climatic Recommendation Maps with Planning Instructions.

Figure 24 Urban Climate Factors

(Adapted from Raven, Reference Raven2019)

These tools have various limitations regarding spatial scale, modeling resolution, simulation time, and suitability. Therefore, the integration of multiple tools and simulations across spatial scales can be useful in responding to a range of needs in practice. For example, synthesizing the results of the UC-Map and LCZ facilitates the synthesis of building morphology and urban climate zones. This provides the evidence base for urban climate planning recommendations to support planners and decision-makers on improving mitigation and adaptation performance (Yin et al., Reference Yin, Ren, Zhang, Hidalgo, Schoetter, Ting Kwok and Ka-Lun Lau2022). (See Additional Resources for description of modeling tools to respond to extreme heat; see also Heat Vulnerability Index (HVI) map of New York.)

8.3 Metrics and Performance Indicators for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

8.4 Barriers and Bridges to Integrating Mitigation and Adaptation

Successful integration of carbon-neutral and climate-adaptive principles into urban design and planning processes faces three major challenges:

• Understanding of Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissionsFootnote ³¹ connected to critical urban systems such as energy, mobility, materials, food, water, and waste (Wiedmann et al., Reference Wiedmann, Chen, Owen, Lenzen, Doust, Barrett and Steele2021; Lwasa et al., Reference Lwasa, Seto, Bai, Blanco, Gurney, Kilkiş and Yamagata2022);

• Management of complex information on climate impacts (IPCC, Reference Pachauri and Meyer2014); and

• consideration of the range of stakeholder interests and concerns (Rotter et al., Reference Rotter, Hoffman, Hirschfeld, Schröder, Mohaupt and Schäfer2013).

Taking up these challenges requires multiscale and multidisciplinary perspectives integrating economic, environmental, and social aspects, as well as dedicated stakeholder engagement. Holistic considerations of climate change adaptation have in recent years brought forward the concept of adaptation cobenefits, now embedded in the concept of climate-resilient development (Raymond et al., Reference Raymond, Frantzeskaki, Kabisch, Berry, Breil, Nita, Geneletti and Calfapietra2017; IPCC, Reference Lee and Romero2023). Examples of relevant co-benefits linked to climate action in cities include increased quality of public spaces and social services; employment and income generation from new green jobs creation; improved quality of water, soil and air; increased urban biodiversity (Bachra et al., Reference Bachra, Lovell, McLachlan and Minas2020). Novel climate-resilient planning and urban design tools connect climate benefits in terms of mitigation and adaptation with relevant social, economic, and environmental co-benefits responding to human needs and enhancing quality of life of urban communities (see Sections 6, 8, and 9).

9.1 UDCW Process and Phasing

The UDCW methodology focuses on sequential and iterative phases that lead to the development of neighborhood transformation through a multidisciplinary and multiscale approach (Raven et al., Reference Raven, Stone, Mills, Towers, Katzschner, Leone and Hariri2018). Phases of the methodology are implemented with the support of UCCRN multidisciplinary experts, community experts, and other stakeholders. This process combines knowledge sharing and co-design actions with urban decision-makers and local communities together with the development of simulations based on computational design tools to control the main indicators that determine the performance of buildings and open spaces in relation to climatic stress conditions. (See Additional Resources for a list of partners engaged by local city hosts and UCCRN Regional Hubs that helped to develop UDCWs.)

Depending on the location, objectives, available resources, and participants, different types of UDCWs have been designed. A key feature is that they are designed to be iterative and replicable, not “one-offs.” Multiple encounters enable the development of long-term relationships with stakeholders and of persistent engagement with climate change challenges experienced by the participating city over time.

Urban Design Climate Workshop types can be summarized as follows:

• Knowledge Exchange. One to two days (plus two to four weeks preparatory activities involving UCCRN team) with panel discussion/post-it session with UCCRN facilitators, session, or side event within a conference (with experts, scientists, practitioners) (Example: Bonn UDCW, 2019).

• Capacity Building. Three to five days (plus four to eight weeks preparatory activities involving UCCRN team and local hosts), a workshop with multidisciplinary UCCRN experts, local authorities’ representatives (technical experts, scientists, practitioners, local authorities and communities) (Example: Durban UDCW, 2019).

• Design Studio. Seven to fifteen days (plus eight to sixteen weeks preparatory activities involving UCCRN team and local hosts), a workshop with multidisciplinary UCCRN experts, students (technical experts, scientists, practitioners, local stakeholders, and communities, with an opening conference and a final event involving external audience (Example: Gowanus UDCW, see Case Study 8; UCCRN_edu UDCW series, 2022–2024).

The UDCW process is intended to explore “climate synergies” that can be activated with respect to stakeholder priorities, specificities of urban systems, and planning/design opportunities in relation to the study area and the targeted program. The UDCW comprises stakeholder priorities, urban systems, co-design, Metrics, Policies and Feedback Loops. The UDCW Design Process (Figure 27) describes six phases:

1. 1. Synergies & Adjacencies: Urban Systems & Users;

2. 2. Synergies & Adjacencies: Spatial Scales;

3. 3. Hybrid Neighborhood: Simulation & Modeling;

4. 4. Urban Climate Factors;

5. 5. Urban Form - Opportunities & Constraints;

6. 6. Urban Climate Goals

These phases are not necessarily engaged in chronological order but are interchangeable, based on specific needs.

Case Study 8Gowanus, New York City Urban Design Climate WorkshopFootnote ³³

A 2019 UDCW for the Gowanus canal area of Brooklyn, New York City, focused on urban heat stress adaptation integrated with flood resiliency and GHG mitigation. The Gowanus neighborhood is rapidly being transformed from an industrial area fraught with nineteenth- and twentieth-century pollution issues into a twenty-first-century residential and commercial community. The Urban Land Institute’s Gowanus Technical Advisory Panel acknowledged that the anticipated Gowanus rezoning would likely create greater density in the neighborhood, particularly for residential uses. Unfortunately, more density increases exposure to higher heat and flood risk.

The UDCW Team configured prototype interventions for strategic sites in Gowanus through baseline (business-as-usual) and best practices (climate-aligned urban design). These provide compelling evidence to NYC policymakers on the value proposition (financial/health/public real co-benefits) from the UDCW evidence-based strategies. With support from the Urban Land Institute and the National Science Foundation, the UDCW worked in close collaboration with stakeholders to co-produce scenarios to achieve climate resilience and net-zero carbon emissions by balancing a measured amount of carbon (or CO₂ equivalents) released with an equal amount sequestered or offset to support existing NYC policy benchmarks.

Urban heat deserts throughout the study area were identified – all of which lack vegetative cover. The Panel recommended strategies that increase vegetation and leverage the network of hidden creeks in Gowanus and the prevailing summer winds to create “paths of respite” throughout the study area.

Figure 25 Climate-aligned scenario for Gowanus, Brooklyn, New York City.

(NYIT SoAD Urban Design Climate Lab, 2019)

The full list of integrated mitigation and adaptation actions for the Gowanus UDCW can be found in UCCRN’s Case Study Docking Station.^*

Figure 26 See the scenarios and results for the Gowanus UDCW.

(Raven et al., Reference Raven, Braneon and Esposito2020)

Figure 26Long description

The diagram displays three climate scenarios, three scoped carbon footprints, three scenario maps of Gowanus, and three urban heat island scenario maps for the neighborhood.

^*Notes: See https://uccrn.ei.columbia.edu/case-studies

9.2 Urban Climate Factors

Urban Climate Factors have been updated in this Element following five years of UDCW activities (2018–2023), and represent a fundamental tool used throughout UDCW phases for planning and urban design (Raven et al., Reference Raven, Stone, Mills, Towers, Katzschner, Leone and Hariri2018; Raven, Reference Raven2019) (Figure 24). Mitigation and adaptation solutions are embedded within a knowledge-sharing process to explicitly connect stakeholder priorities to climate benefits. This provides a framework to map co-benefits for climate action within the local context.

The four Urban Climate Factors are:

• Efficiency of Urban Systems: Efficient urban systems reduce anthropogenic emissions from energy, food, transportation, and waste. Reducing the impact of polluting vehicles, manufacturing, construction, and waste heat from buildings are critical priorities.

• Form and Layout: Climate-aligned urban design can configure densely occupied urban settlements to offset a challenging local climate context. Urban districts can be designed to enhance cooling and ventilation to reduce energy use and allow citizens to cope with higher surrounding temperatures, while enabling cities to better manage flooding. Climate-aligned urban design that integrates compact urban form with natural systems can achieve a network of attractive and healthy microclimates.

• Building Envelope and Surface Materials: Selecting low heat capacity construction materials and reflective coatings can improve building performance by managing heat exchange at the surface. Air conditioning-reliant buildings are often isolated from their neighborhood microclimate. One approach is to define a wider range of acceptable indoor temperatures by enabling buildings to be better connected to healthier, outdoor microclimates, whose surface materials and equipment enhance shading, solar reflection, and reduce water infiltration

• Green and Blue Infrastructure: Increasing vegetative and tree canopy cover can simultaneously lower outdoor temperatures, building cooling demand, rain and floodwater runoff, and pollution, while sequestering carbon. Investments in pedestrian and cycling corridors aligned with parks, water bodies, and other natural systems, can reduce carbon emissions, enhance carbon sequestration, capture stormwater and perhaps most effectively, cool cities through evapotranspiration and shading.

Shaped by phased policy mandates and aspirations emerging from stakeholder priorities, the synergies between urban systems and climate play a central role in configuring the mitigation and adaptation design process. The urban systems include energy, food, water, waste, transportation, natural systems, and the built environment. The climate profile includes heat, flooding, drought, and GHG emissions.

The urban systems and climate profile form the basis for modeling future development scenarios. The models assess potential mitigation and adaptation outcomes based upon local climate projections by:

• Performing robust climate hazard/impact and mitigation/adaptation assessments based on IPCC climate scenario approaches

• Streamlining use of quantitative and qualitative indicators to support multiscale evaluation of planning and design solutions across metropolitan region, city, neighborhood, and building scales

• Linking climate mitigation and adaptation outputs from urban development projects to social, economic and environmental co-benefits

Climate analysis maps identify urban zones subject to the greatest impacts associated with rising temperatures, increasing precipitation, and extreme weather events. A climate analysis map is based on spatial reference data. For climate adaptation, commonly employed climate analysis maps include urban heat “hotspots” and flood zone maps. The spatial resolution is tailored to the urban planning and urban design level.

Urban Design Climate Workshop climate analysis mapping is conducted at the district and subdistrict scale. District-scale mapping analyzes surface radiation obtained from LiDAR satellite data. These are a proxy for UHI and urban microclimate that helps identify district-level “hot spots,” i.e., zones of greatest heat intensity. Potential pilot subdistricts are identified from this hotspot data. Priority districts characterized by population activities, projected development, and infrastructure investment overlap natural hazard zones and extreme weather events. In effect, as the urban climate gets hotter and wetter, higher density increases urban heat stress; and risk of flooding. Urban climate and hazard/impact assessment models and tools (e.g., Solweig, LadyBug, EnviMet, Sfincs, HEC-RAS, and the UDCW simulation tools – such as GIS tools, three-dimensional modeling, and climate-resilient neighborhood three-dimensional configurator) — can identify priority zones and hotspots at a neighborhood level. (See Additional Resources, Box 3, for a description of UDCW simulation tools.)

Table 8 Urban climate factors, indicators, and metrics.

Supporting tools have been developed to analyze relevant metrics linked to the urban climate factors within identified priority areas (Table 8). Analytical parametric design tools have been integrated into the UDCW simulation toolkit as a way for planners and designers to easily analyze climate change projections and local conditions determined by the urban climate factors. Off-the-shelf mapping tools generate and illustrate urban systems and climate outcomes, including heat hazards, flood-prone zones, and GHG emissions. GIS models perform two-dimensional analyses, while three-dimensional computational design tools simulate the climate and energy drivers from neighborhood to building scale. (See Additional Resources, Box 3.)

Drawing from the UDCW taxonomy for input data requirements at neighborhood scales, urban development scenarios are evaluated through the lens of integrated climate adaptation and mitigation benefits. These quantitative climate indicators are supported by quantitative and qualitative assessment of social, economic and environmental co-benefits. A three-dimensional modeling configurator supports a co-design process between practitioners (planners, architects, and engineers) and local authorities (see the Additional Resources, Box 4). This provides insights into the mitigation and adaptation performance of design alternatives at the conceptual stage of project development (Nocerino & Leone, Reference Nocerino and Leone2023; Nocerino & Leone, Reference Nocerino and Leone2024).

9.3 Stakeholder Priorities

The stakeholder priorities phase provides a program framework between aspirational urban transformation scenarios and the daily lives of people, emphasizing interconnections between among climate, social, economic, and environmental co-benefits. This phase includes collaborative and participatory activities to assess the needs and expectations of stakeholders and local communities in an inclusive co-production process (see Case Study 8). Methods include collaborative mapping and co-design sessions through innovative approaches, such as Public Participation Geographic Information System (PP-GIS). Site surveys and collaborative sessions involve local administration representatives, residents, neighborhoods, and associations. (See Additional Resources, Box 5 and Table 4, for detailed steps, methods and activities of the UDCW’s “Stakeholder Priorities” phase.)

A major goal is to develop a shared understanding of the urban system network in relation to the environmental, functional, spatial, and socioeconomic contexts. Aspirational relationships among stakeholder groups are explored as a component of the future scenarios. (For further discussion of integrating societal challenges into the fabric of climate-driven planning and design processes, see Section 6; See Section 7 for an explanation of how community experts, policymakers, and practitioners strengthen knowledge sharing, co-design, and co-evaluation.)

9.4 Co-Design

Urban transformation pathways are shaped by demographic projections, socioeconomic considerations, and driven by stakeholder aspirations or policy mandates (see Section 5). The co-design process demonstrates how urban design, planning and development confront the nexus between climate hazards, urban systems, and low-carbon development. Urban Design Climate Workshop participants draw from a wide range of cross-sectoral stakeholders. The process challenges contemporary rules of engagement in shaping the contemporary city. The UDCWs often occur in cities whose strategic, vulnerable neighborhoods face large-scale rezoning or development pressures. Outputs range from guidelines to analogue diagrams, from off-the-shelf digital parametric three-dimensional modeling tools to GIS mapping (Figure 27).

Figure 27 Phasing of the Urban Design Climate Workshop process.

(Raven, Reference Raven2025)

Figure 27Long description

The infographic is titled Planning and Urban Design: Integrated Climate Mitigation and Adaptation. It is divided into several sections: Synergies & Adjacencies Urban Systems Users, Synergies & Adjacencies Scales, Hybrid Neighborhood Simulation & Modeling, Urban Climate Factors, Urban Form - Opportunities & Constraints, and Urban Climate Goals. 1. Synergies & Adjacencies Urban Systems Users: This section lists population categories as existing, future business as usual, and future climate aligned. It includes systems like energy, waste, water, green infrastructure, transportation, and food, with users categorized as residential, commercial, institutional, manufacturer, and infrastructure. 2. Synergies & Adjacencies Scales: This section shows layers labeled as neighborhood, district, city, and region. 3. Hybrid Neighborhood Simulation & Modeling: This section highlights a neighbourhood with all types of users, labeled as a Hub. 4. Urban Climate Factors: This section shows layers labeled as form and layout, surface and materials and green and blue infrastructure. 5. Urban Form - Opportunities & Constraints: This section includes factors like wind, flood, roots, soils, water, culture, set sites, landscape, public health, activity nodes, memory, history, ecology, circulation corridors, topography, natural systems, and biodiversity. 6. This section shows G H G mitigation and adaptation for existing, future business as usual, and future practice.

9.5 Outcomes and Feedback

A critical review of outputs from previous UDCW phases focuses on synergies, trade-offs, constraints, and opportunities across urban systems, spatial scales, and stakeholders. Outputs include:

1. (1) Prototypes identifying functions, built environment and natural systems

2. (2) Portfolio of meta-design solutions whose replicable approaches are tailored to local conditions

3. (3) Design prototypes that consider architectural/technical standards and performance benchmarks

4. (4) Future scenario comparisons enabled by simulation tools and complemented by multicriteria and cost-benefit analyses.

(See Additional Resources, Table 5, for a complete list of UDCW output.)

Points for further research and consideration that have emerged from the UDCW activities include:

• Opportunities for regulatory and urban systems’ synergy overlays at the neighborhood scale

• Prioritizing policies integrating climate adaptation (urban heat/flooding) and climate mitigation (net-zero GHG) in the context of competing policy and investment alternatives

• Private-sector investment and actions through policy, metrics, and incentives

• Framing the nexus of climate justice through the lens of health, equity, poverty, race, education, training, and professional qualification opportunities

• Balancing stakeholder priorities with emissions, adaptation, energy, and environmental performance

• In situ or crowd-sourced monitoring information to compare actual project co-benefits of adaptation and mitigation measures with design scenarios

• Follow-up stakeholder workshops as feedback loop opportunities for continuation of the UDCW process.

A common take away from the different UDCWs is that despite the climate action plan and urban resilience strategies that are in place in many cities, a prevalence of “business as usual” approaches in urban (re)development projects is observed, with major risks for historic residents, vulnerable groups, and carbon neutrality goals.

UDCWs represent auxiliary activities with respect to the complex governance, planning and design processes of the cities in which the workshops took place UDCWs help to connect diverse stakeholder visions through evidence-based data, knowledge sharing, creativity and thus contribute to city climate action planning and design.

10.1 Research Gaps

10.2 Way Forward

To scale up and speed up climate action in cities, transformative approaches that integrate novel strategies tackling interconnected technological, environmental, socioeconomic, and governance challenges linked to climate-resilient urban development must be adopted. A shift in mindset is essential, emphasizing equitable, resilient, and net-zero urban transitions that respect biodiversity, protect ecosystems, and promote inclusivity. Achieving these goals requires systemic change across urban scales and systems, fostering innovation and collaboration at every level.

A key priority is to support through innovative planning and design concepts the integration of urban systems across scales, from buildings and neighborhoods to metropolitan regions. Informing projects and plans through advanced risk assessments can help to update building codes, land-use planning, and infrastructure development, ensuring that climate considerations become central to urban decision-making. Housing and infrastructure systems, including water supply, drainage, sanitation, transport, energy, and waste management, play a critical role in enhancing resilience, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving well-being and equity. Adopting holistic frameworks, such as those reflecting on water–energy–food and climate–pollution–biodiversity nexuses, can inform transformative solutions that are both integrative and scalable.

Monitoring and learning are vital components of this transition. Co-creating city-specific indicators, metrics, and environmental sensing technologies to assess responsiveness of urban transformation to community and climate priorities can enable the implementation of climate-resilient urban development pathways towards shared future visions. Interoperable, user-friendly data systems will facilitate the monitoring of diverse policy domains while supporting the needs of local contexts, including informal settlements and marginalized communities.

Neighborhood-scale climate action offers a valuable testing ground for innovative solutions. Effective climate-resilient development at this scale requires engaging a diverse range of stakeholders and addressing local power dynamics. By aligning community priorities with climate science, cities can create actionable plans that meet the specific needs of local authorities, residents, and private actors. These localized efforts can aim for rapid transferability, enabling the adoption of successful approaches across different contexts and scales.

Ultimately, the future of cities lies in the ability of planners, urban designers, architects, engineers, policymakers, developers, and researchers to foster multisectoral collaboration, harnessing innovation, equity, and cutting-edge technology to transform cities into resilient, sustainable hubs to confront not only the climate crisis but to ensure the well-being of people and nature.