page 3
A preliminary desk-top review was undertaken to identify an initial list of Climate Adaptation Tools for potential assessment within the project. (5 See appendix 2 - references)
Personal communication with a range of stakeholders also identified further tools currently under development in Australia and overseas.
Themes emerging from this review include:
-
The need to address broader sustainability parameters when establishing climate adaptation performance targets and indicators within the built environment1. In Australia, for example, while single-sector rating tools such as BASIX (NSW) and NABERS play an important role in improving energy and water efficiency outcomes at individual building scale, there is currently no legislative or planning requirement for the building and development industry to employ integrated assessment methodologies aimed at achieving broader sustainability outcomes across a range of landscape scales.
-
This situation can potentially result in adaptation efforts producing ‘perverse outcomes’ in relation to climate mitigation strategies – i.e. where the measures used to achieve efficiencies in one sector are effectively negated by unintended negative impacts on another sector – even sometimes creating outcomes which further compound the original problem.
-
Recognition that as climate change impacts are location-specific, so too must adaptation responses be tailored to specific local parameters – hence there can be no single one-size-fits-all tool or strategic approach which will be functionally applicable across all human settlements. The challenge rather appears to be in how we might best locate existing and emerging tools within a broader strategic framework for regional and national sustainability outcomes, in order to assist integrated decision-making processes in the context of specific local social, environmental and economic challenges.
-
Multiplication of effort and lack of co-ordination in responding to the challenge of adaptation to climate change, in relation to broader sustainability outcomes. In the Australian context, in particular:
“States, cities and towns attempt, on a piece-meal basis, to craft and implement sustainability strategies. Government agencies and businesses somewhat haphazardly implement triple-bottom-line reporting protocols. Many individuals and organisations take such action as they can currently see might lead them to live more sustainably. But there is no central vision, no consistency of approach, and no developing and accessible knowledge base. We are not pulling together.”3
- Recognition of potential vested interest in development of adaptation tools, including sustainability assessment tools. Many existing sustainability appraisal methods currently in use in Australia, for example, have been developed either by the private construction industry sector or government land development agencies - i.e. those with vested interests in development outcomes. While these efforts have undoubtedly had a positive influence in terms of raising awareness of the need for setting targets and benchmarks for sustainability, they also raise legitimate concerns as to whether targets set within such a context actually stretch industry for continuous improvement. Emerging strategies currently being developed by CSIRO and a range of environmental design professionals appear promising in addressing this particular issue.
- The need for a nationally co-ordinated, integrated strategic framework to guide sustainability planning - including climate adaptation responses - within the Australian built environment.4 The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, recently announced the intention of the Commonwealth government to address this issue:
“… in 2010 through COAG we propose to develop - in consultation with the states and territories and the Australian Local Government Association - the first ever national criteria for the future strategic planning of our major cities.”5
It is anticipated that the findings of the CATSS project will provide a timely and valuable resource for identifying ‘best practice’ examples of appropriate criteria & methodologies to guide/inform the abovementioned process.
- In general, it is recognised that the degree of co-ordination between legislative & governance arrangements relating to the built environment – i.e. between high-level sustainability goals and subsequent flow-on of those objectives through successive stages of planning policy & processes - can impact significantly on overall adaptive response capacity. This is also related to the level of complexity of particular regional & national governance structures for individual countries, and could possibly inform future development of vulnerability/risk assessment strategies
6 Fyfe et al. (2009), Sheppard et al. (2008), BEDP National Sustainable Settlement Policy (2009)
7 Hurley et al. (2007), Oswald et al. (2008)
8 BEDP National Sustainable Settlement Policy (2009)
9 BEDP National Sustainable Settlement Policy (2009), Oswald et al. (2008); Fyfe et al (2009); Palich (2007).
10 In a speech delivered to the Australian Business Council (23.10.09) http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6282
A set of selection criteria (outlined below) was developed to aid identification of potential candidates for inclusion in the project study, and to clarify attributes determining whether particular tools would be selected for further detailed review within the project study or rejected all together. These criteria were derived from previous comparative studies of sustainability assessment methodologies11, and incorporated consideration of identified strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches.
Tool Selection Criteria:
- Single domain or building scale approaches are not considered. As previously defined, the focal scale of interest is those tools which target climate change adaptation within a broader sustainable urban development context.
- Selected tools must pursue an integrated or systems-based approach: i.e. incorporate multiple performance measures and/or lifecycle approaches.
- Selected tools must represent a range of diverse institutional perspectives: i.e. including examples from science and research, planning authorities, local and state government agencies, as well as non-government organisations.
- Selected tools must represent a range of different scales of urban planning, design and management: i.e. metropolitan and statutory planning, regional planning, state and local government, community-based initiatives, etc.
Using the above selection criteria, a range of Climate Adaptation Tools 12 was then identified for more detailed review.
Individual assessment review sheets for the tools can be found at www.aila.org.au/climate . Assessment review sheets incorporate material from previously published reviews, independent research and interviews with tool developers and/or representatives of relevant stakeholder organisations undertaken during the course of this project.
Comparative analysis of performance of tools against review criteria was conducted on the basis of available information at the time of publication. The following section of this report includes a summary of review findings.
11 Oswald et al. (2008); Fyfe et al. (2009)
12 See Appendix 3 for full list of tools
A wide range of climate adaptation tools has been developed both in Australia and overseas over the past 10 – 15 years with the stated objective of assessing climate adaptation response capacity in relation to broader built environment sustainability.
Yet despite significant commonality of aims, the great majority of the tools have been developed in isolation, and there are currently no identified common legislative or strategic planning frameworks in place to guide climate adaptation responses and sustainability planning at either national or international level.
There are also no currently accepted national or international standards for measurement metrics, normalisation approaches or even agreed sustainability indicator sets for the development or comparison of built environment sustainability assessment methods and/or climate adaptation tools.
Within Australia, there have been attempts to address such issues via recent Council of Australian Governments (COAG) initiatives such as the National Objective And Criteria for Future Strategic Planning of Capital Cities 13 as well as the proposed development by the Commonwealth Government of a Principle-Based Climate Change Adaptation Requirement Standard for Settlements and Infrastructure 14.
The findings of this study will be used to derive recommendations for complementing and building on these government initiatives by identifying current knowledge gaps in tool development and applications, as well as highlighting opportunities for future improvements.
13 A follow-on from the prime minister’s speech to the Australian Business Council (12)
14 Refer - link
>> Report Continues next Page
Full Report (June 2010) - download PDF here
