1 s2.0 S2212096315000042 Main

Climate Risk Management 7 (2015) 31–50
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Climate Risk Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/crm
An integrated method for assessing climate-related risks and

adaptation alternatives in urban areas
Yvonne Andersson-Sköld a,b,⇑, Sofia Thorsson a, David Rayner a, Fredrik Lindberg a,
Sara Janhäll c, Anna Jonsson d, Ulf Moback e, Ramona Bergman f, Mikael Granberg g,h
a
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Box 460, SE-405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
b
COWI AB, Skärgårdsgatan 1, SE 414 58 Gothenburg, Sweden
c
The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Box 8072, SE 402 78 Gothenburg, Sweden
d
Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research (CSPR), Linköping University, SE 601 74 Norrköping, Sweden
e
City of Gothenburg (Göteborgs stad), Box 2554, SE 403 17 Gothenburg, Sweden
f
Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI), Hugo Grauers gata 5B, SE 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
g
Political Science, Department of Political, Historical, Religious and Cultural Studies, Karlstad University, Universitetsgatan 2, SE 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
h
The Centre for Climate and Safety, Karlstad University, Universitetsgatan 2, SE 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The urban environment is a complex structure with interlinked social, ecological and techni-
Available online 4 February 2015 cal structures. Global warming is expected to have a broad variety of impacts, which will add
to the complexity. Climate changes will force adaptation, to reduce climate-related risks.
Keywords: Adaptation measures can address one aspect at the time, or aim for a holistic approach to
Urban climate avoid maladaptation. This paper presents a systematic, integrated approach for assessing
Adaption measures alternatives for reducing the risks of heat waves, flooding and air pollution in urban settings,
Heat
with the aim of reducing the risk of maladaptation. The study includes strategies covering
Flooding
Air pollution
different spatial scales, and both the current climate situation and the climate predicted
Integrated assessment under climate change scenarios. The adaptation strategies investigated included increasing
vegetation; selecting density, height and colour of buildings; and retreat or resist (defend)
against sea-level rise. Their effectiveness was assessed with regard to not only flooding, heat
stress and air quality but also with regard to resource use, emissions to air (incl. GHG), soil
and water, and people’s perceptions and vulnerability. The effectiveness of the strategies
were ranked on a common scale (from 3 to 3) in an integrated assessment. Integrated
assessments are recommended, as they help identify the most sustainable solutions, but to
reduce the risk of maladaptation they require experts from a variety of disciplines. The most
generally applicable recommendation, derived from the integrated assessment here, taking
into account both expertise from different municipal departments, literature surveys, life
cycle assessments and publics perceptions, is to increase the urban greenery, as it contributes
to several positive aspects such as heat stress mitigation, air quality improvement, effective
storm-water and flood-risk management, and it has several positive social impacts. The most
favourable alternative was compact, mid-rise, light coloured building design with large
parks/green areas and trees near buildings.
Ó 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Box 460, SE-405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden. Tel.: +46 31 8501000,
mobile: +46 (0)706 00 54 94.
E-mail address: yvan@cowi.se (Y. Andersson-Sköld).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.01.003
2212-0963/Ó 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
32 Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / Climate Risk Management 7 (2015) 31–50
Introduction
The urban environment is a complex structure of interlinked social, ecological and technical systems (Bulkeley et al.,
2014; Castán Broto and Bulkeley, 2013; Hodson and Marvin, 2012; Rosenzweig et al., 2011). Global warming is projected
to have a broad variety of impacts on societies and ecosystems in combination with other environmental, economic and
political stresses and this, of course, adds to the complexity (Granberg and Glover, 2014; Leichenko, 2011). Likely temper-
ature increases will lead to increased sea level and changes in precipitation patterns with impacts on infrastructure, envi-
ronment and health (IPCC, 2013). The increased temperature will also affect human-health through increased morbidity
and mortality during the warmer seasons (Oudin Åström et al., 2011; Reid et al., 2009).
It is clear that changed climatic conditions impact society and drive demands for adaptation to reduce climate-related
risks (Adger et al., 2013; Bauer et al., 2012; Granberg and Glover, 2014; Moser and Boykoff, 2013; Palutikof, 2013;
Pelling, 2011). In a longer, historic perspective, the development of society has entailed constant adaptation to changing
weather conditions (Bauer et al., 2012). Adaptation to climate change, however, addresses risks outside the range of expe-
rience (cf. Adger et al., 2007). Climate change impacts always manifests themselves at the local level and the urban setting
thus becomes a crucial site for adaptation to climate change impacts (van den Berg and Coenen, 2012; Castán Broto and
Bulkeley, 2013; Fünfgeld, 2015; Storbjörk, 2010). Cities have to adapt to contemporary and future impacts of climate change,
despite the uncertainty surrounding climate change and its local impacts (IPCC, 2012; Pelling, 2011).
Adaptation measures can range from local to the regional scales (Füssel, 2007), and their time horizons from the short to
long-term. They can be tactical or strategic; can seek immediate, delayed, or cumulative effects; and can encompass widely
differing outcomes (such as retreat, accommodation, protection, prevention, toleration, change, and restoration) (Barnett and
O’Neill, 2010; Granberg and Glover, 2014). There are examples in the literature where one aspect of adaptation, for example
measures to reduce heat stress, have been tested and assessed (Barnett and O’Neill, 2013; Lee et al., 2013). Maladaptation,
however, may occur. For example, when a measure to reduce climate-change induced risks contributes to increased emis-
sions of greenhouse gases, thereby exacerbating the cause. Maladaptation also covers adaptation actions that increase dis-
proportionately the burdens of already vulnerable people, or result in high economic, social or environmental costs (Barnett
and O’Neill, 2010). Identifying the occurrence of maladaptation is difficult for there are no widely accepted criteria to define
its occurrence (cf. Turner et al., 2014).
We know of no study that investigates how a strategy to reduce one climate related risk interacts with other climate
related risks in potentially positive or negative ways, simultaneously taking into account maladaptation from a broader per-
spective. We therefore see a need for integrated assessment methods that can be applied within existing planning processes.
Aim of paper
This paper presents a systematic, integrated approach for assessing different alternatives for reducing the risks of heat
stress, flooding and air pollution in urban settings, with the aim of reducing the potential for maladaptation. The study
includes strategies covering different spatial scales, and both the current climate situation and the climate predicted under
climate change scenarios. There are three major objectives with the study:
Rank the effectiveness of the investigated alternatives.

Apply the individual rankings in an integrated evaluation system, taking into account environmental and social impacts
with short and long-term perspectives, under both current and future climate conditions.
Provide recommendations that can be used in physical planning, management and design, limiting the risks of
maladaptation.
The individual ranking system is generically applicable for integrated assessments and easy to use in, for example, exist-
ing planning process.
Background
Climate related risks and adaptation measures in urban environments – today and in a future climate
The costs related to extreme weather events and urban air pollution are severe already today, and expected to increase
with future climate change (e.g. EEA, 2011; IPCC, 2013). The risks are expected to increase as a consequence of both climate
change, increasing urbanisation and increased demands for resources in urban areas (DePaul, 2012; Grimm et al., 2008; IPCC,
2013; While and Whitehead, 2013). Adapting to tangible climate impacts and trying to mitigate risks today also includes the
potential risk of maladaptation in the future (Barnett and O’Neill, 2010; Granberg and Glover, 2014; IPCC, 2012).
Flooding
Already today, there are high costs and consequences due to flooding in urban areas with land being eroded away, fatalities,
construction, infrastructure failures and disease (e.g. IPCC, 2013; McBean, 2004). Higher sea level and changes in precipitation
patterns will not only increase the risk of flooding but also of erosion and landslides (e.g. Andersson-Sköld et al., 2013, 2014a).
Y. Andersson-Sköld et al. / Climate Risk Management 7 (2015) 31–50 33
Retreat and resistance are two classic approaches to reduce flooding due to high water levels in coastal areas (sea, lakes
and watercourses) (Klein et al., 1998; Knapp et al., 2001). Retreat means to move away from the threat. The strategy includes
soft measures by imposing a minimum elevation for constructions, beach protection or other restrictions, such as spatial
plans that do not allow new buildings in certain areas. In already built up areas, activities and existing buildings may need
to move or be adapted (SPUR, 2011).
Resistance is a system’s ability to avoid interference, to ‘‘defend’’ itself, by avoiding being affected and changed in the case
of flooding (Klein et al., 1998; Knapp et al., 2001). Measures to increase the resistance are, for example, classical flood-risk-
reduction methods such as barriers, embankments, walls and dams. Compilations of alternative designs, their pros and cons,
can for example be found in Water Wiki (Goltermann and Marengwa, 2012; SAWA, 2011).
Within each major strategy approach (i.e. retreat and resistance), different design alternatives can be applied to mitigate
flooding caused by precipitation. Vegetation can be used for stormwater retention and as a water path regulator to reduce
water surface accumulation (Lee et al., 2013; Poresky, 2012). Retention ponds are used to manage stormwater runoff and
to prevent flooding due to heavy precipitation (Olsson et al., 2013; Vassilios and Hamid, 1997; Villarreal et al., 2004). Per-
meable surfaces (roads, sidewalks, parking lots and roofs) can be used in combination with other measures (Imran et al.,
2013). Permeable surfaces, retention ponds and vegetation trap suspended solids and filter pollutants from the water
(Davis et al., 2010; Hamel et al., 2013). Construction measures can also be taken, for example flood-proofing cellars
(Bubeck et al., 2012; SPUR, 2011).
Heat stress
Intense heat events (‘‘heat waves’’) may cause severe illnesses and deaths, especially in urban areas due the urban heat
island effect (e.g. Dousset et al., 2011; Gabriel and Endlicher, 2011; Pascal et al., 2006). During the last decades, periods of
extreme heat have become more frequent. The frequency and severity of heat waves is projected to progressively increase as
a result of climate change (IPCC, 2013). Besides having major impacts on health, intense heat waves also affect work produc-
tivity (Lundgren et al., 2013) as well as accident rates (Parson, 2003).
Both daytime and night-time heat stress are associated with increased risks of illnesses and deaths (e.g. Fouillet et al.,
2006; Laaidi et al., 2012; Rocklöv et al., 2011; Thorsson et al., 2014). Elderly people and people living in social isolation, indi-
viduals afflicted by pre-existing diseases or taking medications that affect heat perception or thermal regulation are espe-
cially at risk (e.g. Bouchama et al., 2007; Hajat et al., 2010; Kovats and Hajat, 2008; Åström et al., 2011). During the day,
the hottest areas are found near sunlit southeast–southwest facing walls, in northeastern corners of courtyards and in open
spaces with high sky view factors (e.g. Thorsson et al., 2014). Daytime outdoor heat stress can be mitigated by maximising
shading, reducing the absorption of heat into buildings and the ground, and by increasing evapotranspirative cooling. Shad-
ing can be increased by increasing either the building density or the amount of trees (e.g. Konarska et al., 2013; Lindberg and
Grimmond, 2011). Absorption of heat into buildings/ground can be reduced by increasing the surface albedo and thermal
admittance (e.g. Christen et al., 2012).
Evapotranspirative cooling can be enhanced by increasing the amount of urban greenery and permeable surfaces
(Hedquist and Brazel, 2013). During the night, the warmest areas are found in dense build-up areas with no or little vege-
tation, and impermeable surfaces (e.g., Holmer et al., 2007; Petralli et al., 2013; Unger, 2004). Night-time heat stress can be
mitigated either by decreasing the built density or increasing the amount of vegetation and permeable surfaces (Holmer
et al., 2007, 2012).
Air quality
Urban areas are dense, and air quality is a major concern due to the high air pollution and exposure (Forsberg et al., 2009;
Tiwary et al., 2009). Compact urban settings may reduce emissions by less need for transport but they also reduce dilution of
air pollutants. All else being equal, there are indications that higher near-surface temperatures in polluted regions under cli-
mate change will alter local wind systems and trigger regional feedbacks in chemistry and local emissions that will increase
peak air pollution levels. There may be altered natural aerosol sources, aerosol composition and removal (Gustafsson et al.,
2008; IPCC, 2013; Janhäll et al., 2012; Kupiainen, 2007; Norman and Johansson, 2006; Pleijel, 2009). Increased humidity will
decrease dust related to suspension from traffic (Amato et al., 2012; Denby et al., 2013; Gustafsson et al., 2008; Kupiainen,
2007; Norman and Johansson, 2006) and increased precipitation will decrease most air pollutant concentrations (Jacob and
Winner, 2009; Janhäll et al., 2004, 2012). During heat waves, when the wind speed is very low, the air quality will deteriorate
due to increased capping of local emissions resulting in combined health stresses from air pollution and heat (Meng et al.,
2012; Noyes et al., 2009).
Significant technology and policy-related efforts are continuously being made to reduce air-pollution emissions, but
increased transportation counteracts the efforts. Measures to reduce exposure by, for example, sheltering the emission
sources using different types of barriers, or increase the ventilation by altering wind systems using the built design
(Balogun et al., 2010; Ning et al., 2010) are therefore needed.
Impacts of climate change and adaptation strategies on resource-usage and the environment
Urban settings contribute significantly to emissions of greenhouse gases and other emissions to air, soil and water, and
require vast quantities of resources and land-area due to their high population and supporting material, services and infra-
structure (e.g. Agudelo-Vera et al., 2011; Batty, 2008; Tainter, 2000. Both climate change and measures to mitigate climate-
related risks will affect the current ecosystems, resource-use and carry risks for maladaptation (Andersson-Sköld et al.,
2014b; IPCC, 2013). In order to minimise negative effects, adaptation and planning strategies need to be assessed with regard
to their environmental and social impacts, and the results need to be applied in the planning process (e.g. Agudelo-Vera et al.,
2011; Andersson-Sköld et al., 2014b; Senécal et al., 1999).
Vulnerability and perception of climate change and adaptation strategies
Climate-related risks and stresses can be reduced through coping measures at the individual level (Wilhelmi and Hayden,
2010). The adaptive capacity and vulnerability varies between different population segments since factors such as age, gen-
der, socio economy and ethnicity are driving social vulnerability (Cutter et al., 2003; Dwyer et al., 2004; Holand et al., 2011).
Thus, understanding the vulnerability of individuals at different societal levels is very important. Individual’s perception of
risk, risk reduction measures and social factors such as urban attractiveness, wellbeing and access to services and infrastruc-
ture are important and the key for sustainable and effective climate risk reduction and management (Brown and Walker,
2008; Qin et al., 2012; Wilhelmi and Hayden, 2010). Accordingly, adaptation measures must be assessed with-regard-to indi-
vidual’s perception (e.g. Dempsey et al., 2012).
Framework of the study
Our research is situated within the wider research framework of sustainability in urban settings (Rydin, 2010; Bulkeley,
2013; Mazmanian and Blanco, 2014). More precisely within studies of adaptation to climate change, risk and planning in
cities in a risk governance context (Bicknell et al., 2009; Renn, 2008; Rydin, 2011). Research has shown that urban climate
change adaptation responses take place in a complex setting consisting of actors from different spheres (public, civil society
and business) and from different levels ranging from the local to the global (Bulkeley et al., 2014). This points towards the
need of research focusing the potential of integrated approach enabling assessing different alternatives for reducing climate
change related risks and mitigating perils of maladaptation.
This study uses an integrated approach to assess adaptation alternatives that can be applied to reduce climate-related
risks. The strategies assessed cover retreat or defend to reduce the risk of flooding due to high sea level; using urban geom-
etry and vegetation to mitigate flooding due to heavy precipitation and heat waves; and measures to improve urban air qual-
ity. This study builds an integrated assessment in a transparent and systematic way by expanding the environmental impact
assessment method of Andersson-Sköld et al. (2014b) to include the following steps (Fig. 1):
1. Identification of climate related risks.

2. Identification of measures to reduce the climate related risk (e.g. building density and height, and vegetation alternatives
as described above), considering one risk at a time.
3. Ranking of the effectiveness of the individual alternatives with regard to one climate related risk at the time.
4. Identification and ranking of other impacts, that otherwise may result in maladaptation (i.e. impacts on use of resources,
emissions to air (incl. GHG), soil and water, and people’s perception of the individual risk management alternatives
(impacts on climate related risks, resources, emissions and individuals perceptions.
5. Integrated assessment based on the results of the individual rankings with regard to effectiveness, impacts on environment
and people’s perceptions.
Steps 1–3 are often done in classic risk reduction, e.g., flood risk reductions assessments, here also the measures impact
on other climate related risks, environmental impacts and people’s perceptions are included in the assessment (Fig. 1).
The ranking of measures and impacts is conducted in a semi-quantitative approach, i.e., ranking on a scale from 2 (very
negative/highly counteracting a wanted impact) to 2 (very positive/highly contributing to a wanted impact), of the investi-
gated strategies with regard to their (a) effectiveness, and (b) their impacts on resources, emissions and individuals
perceptions.
The rankings for effectiveness, impacts on resources and emissions were based on literature, case study simulations and
expert judgments. The rankings for perceptions were based on focus group interviews with key stakeholders in municipal-
ities (i.e. planning and operational staff) and face-to-face questionnaire-based interviews with the public.
The integrated assessment incorporated the individual rankings in a multi-criteria system, the ranking now ranged from
3 (very negative/highly counteracting a wanted impact) to 3 (very positive/highly contributing to a wanted impact), of the
investigated strategies with regard to both their effectiveness and their impacts on resources, emissions and individuals
perceptions.
Vulnerability: A qualitative approach was used to understand how drivers of vulnerability of individuals work together
and how underlying vulnerabilities could be reduced by formulating adaptation responses at various societal levels. The
aim was to investigate local decision-makers’ perceptions of what determines the vulnerability of individuals, and what
can be done to manage this vulnerability at different decision-making levels (formal and informal, public and private).
Fig. 1. Framework of integrated approach developed and applied in this study.
Case study
A case study area was used to ensure a common basis for the individual rankings. Such approach provides opportunities
to build an in-depth understanding of complex social, environmental and ecological interactions (Jonsson et al., 2012) and
incorporate the stakeholder-oriented research.
Description of the case study area: the free-port area
The free-port area (Frihamnen) is located by the Göta River (Göta älv) in Gothenburg, Sweden, Fig. 2. The area will soon be
transformed from industrial docklands to a modern residential and commercial area. As in most new developments of urban
water front locations in Sweden, the future inhabitants of the Freeport area is likely to be middle- to high-income groups.
Already today, flooding events occur occasionally in the area. In the future, the frequency, the extent and the conse-
quences of flooding will increase due to the expected sea-level rise (Bergström, 2011).
The open water front locations make the area prone to high winds, which may affect both the comfort as well the air qual-
ity conditions (high winds generally dilute air pollutants). The air quality in the area is heavily affected by heavy as well as
light duty road traffic, intense rail traffic and sea transport on the river.
Fig. 2. The case study area (Frihamnen, Gothenburg) and the areas where building constructions can be allowed in scenarios Retreat (land areas within the
blue lined areas) and Defend (land areas within the red circle). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.)
Climate change in the case study area

In order to assess the impacts of climate change on society, reliable predictions of climate change and variability are
required. The assessments presented in this paper are based on changes in daily maximum and minimum air temperature
and daily average short-wave incoming solar radiation at the location of Gothenburg compiled from 16 regional-scale cli-
mate simulations from the ENSEMBLES project (van der Linden and Mitchell, 2009). The simulations comprise outputs from
six global climate model experiments with the SRES A1B emission scenario, downscaled with seven regional climate models.
As part of this project, a new technique to generate hourly climate-change scenarios for air temperature and solar radi-
ation by combining observed climate data with climate model outputs was developed (Rayner et al., 2014). Changes in
extreme temperature and thermal stress were then calculated following the methods described in Lindberg et al. (2013)
and Thorsson et al. (2011).
All of the simulations showed increases in air temperature in the future, with a mean increase in average temperature
from 1980–2010 to 2070–2100 of 3.0 °C, and a range from 2.2 °C to 4.2 °C. These increases are consistent with the more-
recent CMIP5 global climate models (1–1.25 °C rise in local temperature per-1 °C of global warning; IPCC, 2013), taking into
account that global warming in the GCMs in the ENSEMBLES project is 3 °C over this period.
The average maximum temperature during the summer months was simulated to increase by 1 °C in the period 2020–
2050 and 1.9 °C in the period 2070–2100 compared to the reference period (1980–2010). The corresponding changes in max-
imum temperature during the winter months were 1.2 °C and 2.5 °C, respectively. The change in minimum temperature in
the period 2070–2100 is most pronounced during midwinter (Dec, Jan and Feb), increasing by 3 °C, and is more than 2 °C the
rest of the year. The largest increases in temperature were seen for the lowest percentile (i.e. the coldest) winter days. Most
of the simulations also showed declining solar radiation, caused by an increase in cloudiness. The decrease is seen already in
the period 2020–2050 were it varies from 1.1% in summer to 2.7% in midwinter compared to the reference period. In the
later period, 2070–2100, the decrease is more pronounced ( 12% in midwinter, 5.7% in spring and 2% in summer).
The simulations give a picture of a future climate in Gothenburg that is different to our present experience of warmer-
than-average seasons. That is, warmer summer days in Gothenburg tend to be clear days accompanied by relatively cool
nights (Rayner et al., 2014). However, the RCMs used in this study mostly suggest that the warmer summer days of the future
will be cloudier and accompanied by relatively warmer summer nights. The decline in solar radiation will more or less coun-
terbalance the increase in air temperature in-terms-of future changes in heat stress (Lindberg et al., 2014). Although future
changes are small, health effects from intense heat stress events constitute a problem already today (Thorsson et al., 2014).
The mean change in annual precipitation for Gothenburg from 1980–2010 to 2070–2100 was calculated using 12 RCM
simulations. Of these, 11 simulations showed an increase in annual precipitation, with an average change of +11%, and range
of 11% to +19%. Such increases are less than those shown in Persson et al. (2011), where average change between 1961–
1990 and 2069–2098 was found to be in the interval +21 to +24% (interpreting their figure 5.2–2), but are more consistent
with the CMIP5 (3–6%-per-1 °C of global warning, assuming 3 °C in ENSEMBLES). Extreme precipitation in summer has also
been shown to increase in these simulations, with 20-year return period 1-day precipitation increasing by 20% by 2100
(Nikulin et al., 2011).
Global sea level rise between 1986–2005 and 2081–2100 is likely to be in the range 0.3–0.8 m for the RCP scenarios (IPCC,
2013). Glacial isostatic adjustment for Gothenburg over the same period is estimated to be +0.3 m (Persson et al., 2011),
which will mitigate the effects of rising sea levels.
Climate adaption measures considered in this study
The study includes assessments of different adaptation alternatives to reduce the impact of flooding due to sea level rise
and heavy precipitation and heat stress, and measures to improve the local air quality taking into account impacts on
resources and environment and people’s perceptions of the different alternatives.
Alternatives to reduce consequences of sea level rise

Two flood risk adaptation alternatives are analysed: Retreat and Defend. In Retreat the three piers are relatively undev-
eloped and the areas are used for recreation, sea and land sports, music and other large events, and green parks. Buildings
are, in this alternative, allowed on the adjacent, not flood prone, harbour area. A maximum 600 000 m2 apartment area can
be allowed (the area outside the blue dashed line in Fig. 2).
In the Defend scenario the area will be protected by a permanent barrier with an operable gate, i.e., a resistance strategy,
and buildings will also be allowed on the piers. The total area that can be built on is twice the Retreat area, i.e., 1 200 000 m2
(Fig. 2).
Both Retreat and Defend will protect the built up area from the increased sea level expected in a future climate. The two
alternatives investigated are based on a previous study of the area and discussions with experts (Roth et al., 2011; Bergdahl &
Elliot, private communication, 2013-04-05).
Independent of Retreat or Defend, the flood risk due to heavy precipitation and stormwater management depends on the
amount of vegetation and impermeable surfaces in the area.
Building density, height and colour and vegetation alternatives

The following alternative combinations of building density, height and colour, along with vegetation (i.e. trees near build-
ings), were investigated with-regard-to heat stress, air quality and people’s perceptions:
(a) Compact, mid-rise, no vegetation – reference (zero) alternative.

(b) Compact, mid-rise with trees near building.
(c) Open, low-rise, no vegetation.
(d) Open, low-rise, with trees near buildings.
(e) Open, mid-rise, no vegetation.
(f) Compact, low-rise, no vegetation.
(g) Compact mid-rise, light colour, no vegetation.
(h) Compact mid-rise, light colour with trees near building.
(i) Compact mid-rise, dark colour, no vegetation.
In this study, the compact mid-rise alternatives (a, b and g–i) are set to demand a quarter of the surface area needed for
open low-rise alternatives (c and d) and half the surface area needed for the open mid-rise and compact low-rise alternatives
(e and f).
The study also includes an additional evaluation of the individual impacts (not part of the integrated assessment) of
choice of material (albedo, thermal admittance and permeability, water resistance).
Methodology to rank the impacts of Retreat, Defend, vegetation and building density, height and colour alternatives
Retreat and Defend were assessed with regard to their effectiveness to mitigate flooding due to sea level rise, their
impacts on use of resources and emissions, and people’s perceptions.
The vegetation, urban geometry and surface material alternatives (a–i) were ranked with regard to: their effectiveness for
mitigating negative impacts of heavy precipitation, heat stress, and local air quality; their impacts on use of resources and
emissions; and people’s perceptions.
The integrated-assessment combined the individual results using a multi-criteria methodology based on Andersson-
Sköld et al. (2014b), considering both a short and long time horizon.
Methods applied for the ranking
The different measures were ranked based on available information from literature, previous investigations and compi-
lations. The impacts on resources and emissions were based on both literature and life cycle assessment (LCA), conducted as
part of this study. The LCA utilised the software SimaProÒ, the database Ecoinvent and the ReCiPe 2008 environmental
impact evaluation indicator. The inventory data applied is provided in Table S3. The impacts evaluated were categorised into
contribution to climate change; consequences related by other emissions to air; environmental and ecological status;
impacts on soil and water; energy and raw material consumption.
Perceptions of adaptation measures and social vulnerability
Public perceptions: To understand the public’s perceptions of the adaptation measures Retreat and Defend and their per-
ceptions of the alternatives a–i (i.e. urban geometry, colour and vegetation alternatives) 120 face-to-face interviews using a
questionnaire were conducted. The questionnaires investigated: (1) pros and cons with Retreat and Defend; (2) which key
words the respondents find important in the planning of a residential area; and (3) how the different alternatives (a–i) are
perceived. Further details and the individual questions and statements are provided in Supporting material (Tables S1 and
S2).
Planners and selected stakeholders: To understand planners’ and selected stakeholders’ perception of the risk-reduction
alternatives, and their views on social vulnerability, five focus group interviews (Jonsson et al., 2005; Wilkinsson, 1998) were
conducted.
Participants for the five focus groups were selected to enable the investigation of knowledge and perceptions from more
perspectives than usually included in this type of study; i.e., technical and urban planning perspectives. Therefore, strategic
and operational municipal planners from ‘‘hard1’’ and ‘‘soft2’’ departments, operational staff within care2 and a group of elderly
(here representing one group of often referred to as ‘‘vulnerable’’) citizens were recruited. These all are decision-makers at dif-
ferent levels (from municipal strategic decision-making, to decisions about medication or water intake during a heatwave) with
a bearing on climate vulnerability and adaptation measures. In total 25 persons participated in the focus groups.
The focus group interviews included the same questions as the face-to-face questions. The vulnerability perceptions were
generated as qualitative data with specific regard to drivers of vulnerability, adaptive capacity and adaptation responses at
different levels.
Integrated assessment
The integrated assessment involved compiling the effectiveness-rankings of the individual aspects: flood risk; heat stress;
local air quality; use of resources and environmental impacts; and perception of social aspects related to land use value,
wellbeing and socioeconomic impacts (attractiveness, ability for recreation, accessibility, etc.), into a multi-criteria matrix.
The basis for assessments in a short time perspective is the current situation and for the future the local climate is based on
the expected future climate conditions described above (Rayner et al., 2014).
To rank the investigated alternatives (Retreat/Defend, and alternatives a–i) from a sustainability perspective, the impacts
were compiled in Table 6. For each impact, the investigated alternatives were ranked based on the sum of the impacts within
each category and thereafter normalised to a scale (again) ranging from 2 (very high negative impact) to +2 (very high posi-
tive impact). The importance of each individual impact in relation to the others can be discussed, but the method allows the
importance to be altered by adding weights that can vary among the investigated impacts. For example, under some condi-
tions the heat stress may be more important to regulate than the other impacts, while under others the flood risk may be of
most concern. Also less/no weight can be applied on some impacts when they are not of relevance for the decision. In the
integrated assessment presented here, all impacts were given the same weight.
1
Representatives from infrastructure-focused strategic perspective (i.e. representatives from the city strategic physical planning department, road and
railroad management, energy, water and sewage management, environmental management.
2
Representatives from health and social wealth with a strategic and operational perspective, staff working operationally with child care, aged care and
health care at home.
The ranking was done on a relative scale, i.e., the different alternatives are compared to a reference alternative under cur-
rent climate conditions. The ranking is based on the ranking of the effectiveness of individual strategies (Tables 1–5).
In the integrated assessment, all impacts contributing to a wanted response (e.g. more effective risk mitigation or less
emissions than the reference alternative), are given a positive value and those with an unwanted contribution a negative.
For example carbon sequestration is regarded as a positive impact on global warming, while higher emissions of carbon
dioxide than the reference case are regarded as negative impact on global warming. Commuting impacts over 20 years have
also been taken into account, as suggested by Lindgren (private communication, 2012-10-12).
Results – individual assessments
Effectiveness of climate adaptation measures in the urban environment
Measures to reduce consequences of sea level rise

The two alternatives Retreat and Defend are effective in different ways. Provided sea level rise does not exceed current
expectations, i.e., less than 1 m rise, both alternatives can prevent flooding due to low-pressure events (Roth et al., 2011;
Bergdahl and Elliot, private communication, 2013-04-05).
If the sea level rises is higher than expected there will be negative consequences for large areas behind the Free-port for
both alternatives. The Retreat alternative provides higher adaptive capacity as the area offers more no-regret options for
additional flood-prevention measures to be taken in the future. Retreat therefore is less vulnerable compared to the Defend
alternative with its more complex constructions in the area (Bergdahl and Elliot, private communication, 2013-04-05). The
flood-risk mitigation capacity in both areas further depends on the building design and vegetation in the area.
In addition to the local Free-port flood risk management strategy, city and catchment-level flood risk management strat-
egies will also impact the area. Such larger scale impacts can be both positive and negative for the Free-port area. Currently
the local government of Gothenburg city is discussing constructing operable barriers to protect from high sea levels under
extreme low-pressure events. The barriers will need to be both upstream and downstream Gothenburg. Such barriers are
considered to be cost effective to protect large parts of Gothenburg. They will be positive for the Free-port area with regard
to flooding but will also result in some known and unknown impacts. For example, the water management will be affected in
the whole city as the groundwater level will increase and the hydrological system will change. The constructions may also
pose unwanted and unexpected impacts on infrastructure, buildings and the environment up- and downstream of the
barriers.
Urban geometry and vegetation as adaption measures to reduce local climate-related risks in the urban environment
The effectiveness of the mitigation strategies are rated in Tables 1–5.
Table 1
Potential water regulation strategies, their effects and estimated impact values (rating). The rating ranges from 0 (no significant effect) to 2 (very effective). The
rating is based on literature and focus group discussions (expert judgments) in according with the references provided in table.
Strategy Measure Effect Rate Reference

Building materials and Water resistant materials and Reduced consequences inside buildings 2 Bubeck et al. (2012) and refer-
construction waterproof ground constructions due to flooding (e.g. material damages, ences therein
water borne diseases)
Infrastructure Keep key constructions for Keeps key infrastructure functions 2 SAWA (2011); Focus group,
infrastructure (roads, energy supply working, and reduces the recovery time hard planners
system, IT and telecommunication after local potential damages on the
etc) flood safe infrastructure system
Building geometry Building density and building Higher building structures creates more 1 Brattebo and Booth (2003),
material open space which allows more permeable Imran et al. (2013), Vassilios
surfaces, under otherwise equal and Hamid (1997)
conditions
Vegetation Parks/urban forests Increased evapotranspiration and water 2 Bischetti et al. (2005), Florgård
retention and Palm (1980), Burns et al.
(2012)
Retention ponds Increased evapotranspiration, water 2 Olsson et al. (2013), Brattebo
retention and water collection and Booth (2003), Vassilios and
Hamid (1997), Villarreal et al.
(2004)
Street trees Increased evapotranspiration and water 1 Florgård and Palm (1980),
retention Bischetti et al. (2005), SAWA
(2011)
Green roofs and walls Increased evapotranspiration and water 1 Florgård and Palm (1980),
retention Bischetti et al. (2005), Lee et al.
(2013), SAWA (2011)
Table 2
Potential climate regulation strategies, their effects and estimated impact values (rating) on mitigating daytime and night-time outdoor heat stress. The rating
ranges from 2 (counter-productive), through 0 (no significant effect), to 2 (very effective) and are based on the literature referred to in table.
Strategies Measure Effect daytime Rate Effect night-time Rate References

(day) (night)
Material Albedo Increase fraction Increased reflection of 0 Negligible effect 0 Erell et al. (2014), Muller
of light, reflective solar (short-wave) et al. (2014)
surfaces radiation; decreased
surface and air
temperatures
Thermal Increase fractions Decreased surface and 1 Increased surface 1 Christen et al. (2012)
admittance with low thermal air temperatures and air
admittance temperatures
Permeability Increase fraction Increased evaporation, 1 Increased 1 Hedquist and Brazel (2013)
of pervious decreased surface and evaporation,
surfaces air temperatures decreased surface
and air
temperatures
Building Building Increase building Increased shadowing; 2 Increased trapping 2 Lindberg (2005), Hedquist
geometry density density, i.e., high decreased surface and of heat, increased and Brazel (2013), Holmer
and compact air temperatures; surface and air et al. (2007), Thorsson et al.
building decreased wind speed temperatures (2011), Svensson (2014),
structures Unger (2004)
Street Favour dense Increased shadowing; 1 Negligible effect 0 Erell and Williamson
orientation north–south decreased surface and (2007), Shishegar (2013)
canyons to air temperatures
decrease solar
access. Latitude
dependent
Vegetation Parks/urban Increase fraction Increased shadowing 2 Increased 1 Honjo and Takakura (1990–
forests of parks and and evapotranspiration, 1991), Muller et al. (2014),
urban forests evapotranspiration; increased trapping Uppmanis et al. (1998),
decreased surface and of heat Petralli et al. (2013)
air temperatures and
wind speed
Street trees Increase and Increased shadowing 2 Increased 1 Holmer et al. (2012),
locate in sun and evapotranspiration, Konarska et al. (2013),
exposed locations evapotranspiration, decreased surface Shashua-Bar et al. (2011)
prone to heating decreased surface and and air
air temperature and temperatures
wind speed.
Green roofs Increase fraction Increased 1 Increased 0 Muller et al. (2014), Nyuk
and walls of green roofs and evapotranspiration; evapotranspiration, Hien et al. (2007), Perini
walls decreased surface decrease surface et al. (2011)
temperatures temperatures
Extreme precipitation
In terms of water retardation, retention ponds are effective measures to mitigate flooding due to heavy and extreme pre-
cipitation (Table 1). Large areas with vegetation also are effective as water regulators. Vegetation is highly effective for man-
aging large amounts of precipitation over long periods, but less effective than retention ponds for extreme precipitation
events. Individual trees and green roofs and walls are less effective than large areas with vegetation (Table 1).
Key infrastructure should be located in flood-safe places or have flood-safe construction. Water-resistant building con-
structions are highly effective for reducing personal damages from flooding (Bubeck et al., 2012 and references therein).
Permeable surfaces are less effective as individual measures, but can be applied in combination with other measures.
Heat stress
The highest-ranked measures for reducing daytime outdoor heat stress are foremost measures that create shade, e.g.,
increased building density and increased amount of street trees and urban forests/parks (Table 2). Manipulation of surface
materials, i.e., increasing albedo, thermal admittance and permeability has only a minor effect on the outdoor thermal con-
ditions, although it has a significant impact on the surface heat storage and thus indoor climate (Erell et al., 2014).
Some of the measures that can be used to mitigate daytime heat stress can also be used to mitigate night-time heat stress,
i.e., increasing fraction of trees and permeable surface (Table 2). However, increasing building-density and fraction of sur-
faces with high thermal admittance mitigate daytime heat stress but aggravate night-time heat stress.
Air quality
The most effective measure to improve the air quality is to reduce emissions in residential areas, but also urban geometry
and vegetation can be used to improve residential air quality (Table 3 including references). Open areas are able to dilute
Table 3
Estimated impacts and impact values (ratings) of potential spatial planning and design strategies to improve the local air quality in urban areas. The rating
ranges from 0 (no significant effect) to 2 (very effective) and are based on the literature referred to in table.
Strategy Measure Effect Rate Reference

Infrastructure In compact Limit traffic in Limit emissions where dispersion is limited 2 Vardoulakis et al. (2003)
building compact urban
structure areas
In open High traffic streets Lower concentrations in high emissions areas, 1 Vardoulakis et al. (2003)
building should be open or slightly higher at other locations
structure without people
Building Open building Increase dilution Decreased concentrations due to increased 2 Eeftens et al. (2013), Vos et al.
geometry structure dilution (2012)
Solid barrier Barriers between High pollution close to traffic low pollution close 2 Hagler et al. (2012), Ning et al.
(noise shield traffic and people to shield, changed pollution at larger distance ( 1) (2010)
or building)
Vegetation Vegetative Barriers between Less effect than solid shield but a larger removal 1 Litschke and Kuttler (2008),
barrier traffic and people of pollution from air Petroff et al. (2008), Tiwary et al.
(2008)
Parks/urban Increase fraction of Increased deposition surface. Increased 2 Baumgardner et al. (2012),
forests parks and urban availability of low pollution areas. Increased Bealey et al. (2007)
forests humidity that decreases PM10- concentrations
Trafficked Increase low Improved removal of air pollutants. Increased 1 Vos et al. (2012), Wania et al.
street canyon vegetation humidity decreases PM10-concentrations (2012)
Decrease high Improved dispersion. Decreased deposition 1 Buccolieri et al. (2011), Gromke
vegetation and Ruck (2012), Vos et al.
(2012), Wania et al. (2012)
Non- Increase high Limit influence from neighbouring streets. 1 Salmond et al. (2013)
trafficked vegetation Removal of pollutants through deposition
street canyon
Green roofs Increase fraction of Increased deposition surface area. Increased 1 Pugh et al. (2012)
and walls green roofs and humidity decreases PM10-concentrations
walls
Table 4
Ratings for environmental impacts regarded in the Retreat and Defend alternatives. The rating ranges from 2 (very negative impact) to 2 (very positive
impact). The rating represents the combined contribution to climate change, use of raw materials, emissions to air, and energy consumption. The rating is based
on simulations by SimaProÒ and the inventory presented in Table S3.
Strategy Measure Effect Rating

Defence from Construction of permanent (operable flood barrier (Fig 1 Need of building materials and reinforcements result in 2
flooding – red dashed line)) consumption of materials and energy for production, working
processes and transportation
Construction Construction of apartment building Need of building materials, reinforcements, paths and small
of 300 000 m2 apartment area roads result in consumption of materials and energy for 2
buildings 150 000 m2 apartment area production, working processes and transportation 1
Commuting Compensatory buildings located in less central area Commuting result in fuel consumption and increases the
resulting in increased commuting by an average emissions
commuting distance of 10 km
300 000 m2 compensatory area 2
150 000 m2 compensatory area 1
more traffic exhaust, while compact settings reduce dilution of local exhaust, deteriorating local air quality, but also prevent
external air pollutants from entering the area (Gromke and Ruck, 2012). Thus, within low emission areas reduced wind speed
might reduce transport of external pollution into the area, e.g., by changing the direction of the buildings in order to hinder
the high wind speeds that occur between long houses and by adding vegetation. Buildings with non-trafficked yards expe-
rience improved air quality within the yard (Weber and Weber, 2008), implying lower exposure to air pollution if people
reside in low emission yards instead of high emission sidewalks. Compact structures with local emissions thus decrease
air quality, but open structures spread people and might increase transport demands and hence emissions.
High vegetation-density increases the deposition of air pollutants on the vegetation, but also reduce dilution of local
emissions (Table 3 and Janhäll, 2015). Large trees within trafficked street canyons decrease air quality due to limited dilution
(Gromke and Ruck, 2012). Constructed barriers mainly redirect winds, while vegetative barriers also filter out the pollutants.
Barriers increase concentrations close to the barrier on the same side as emissions, while the air quality on the other side of
the barrier is often significantly improved (Tiwary et al., 2008). The concentrations are, however, increased further down-
wind of the barrier due to turbulence as compared to a situation without the barriers (Ning et al., 2010). Large amounts
of vegetation in urban areas increase the humidity of the local air and give shadow, which may help in abating the (re)sus-
pension of road dust (Denby et al., 2013).
Table 5
Rated impacts of the vegetation strategy on the ecological status of soil and water, and on emissions, and energy and raw material use. The rating ranges from
2 (very negative impact) to 2 (very positive impact). The ratings are based on the amount, and thereby the effectiveness, of vegetation based on results from
previous studies referred to in table.
Measure Effect Rate Reference

Strategy: Vegetation
Parks/ Increased biodiversity 2 Allen et al. (2010), Bardos et al. (2011), Brattebo and Booth
urban Stabilisation, extraction or degradation of contaminants in soil, 2 (2003), Suer and Andersson-Sköld (2011), Hamel et al.
forests water and sediments (2013)
Carbon sequestration 1
Emissions and use of energy and raw material (plantation and 0
maintenance)
Street trees Increased biodiversity 1 Scaled from above
Stabilisation, extraction or degradation of contaminants in soil, 1
water and sediments
maintenance)
Green roofs Increased biodiversity 1 Bischetti et al. (2005); and scaled from above
and Stabilisation, extraction or degradation of contaminants in soil, 1
walls water and sediments
maintenance) to 0
Retention Increased biodiversity 1 Brattebo and Booth (2003), Vassilios and Hamid (1997)
ponds Stabilisation, extraction or degradation of contaminants 2
Emissions (green house gases and other emissions to air), use of 2
energy and raw material (construction and maintenance)
Use of resources and environmental impact assessment
Measures to reduce consequences of sea level rise

A summary of the results from the SimaProÒ simulations is provided in Table 4. One rating is given for the combined con-
tributions to climate change, emissions to air, use of raw material and energy, but we note that these factors could be rated
independently. The impacts on freshwater, marine and terrestrial environments were very low compared to the emissions to
air and use of resources and therefore omitted in Table 4.
The permanent flood barrier, in the Defend alternative, uses natural resources and releases emissions to air, soil and
water. Despite that the barrier was simulated to be partly incorporated into the building constructions (Bergdahl and Elliot,
private communication, 2013-04-05) the impact is very high (Table 4). The use of resources and emissions due to the barrier
are within the same range as the construction of 300 000 m2 apartment area, and twice the construction of 150 000 m2 apart-
ment areas (Table 4). The major impacts for all constructions are found in the construction phase. There is no significant use
of resources or emissions, other than related to the building constructions, in the Retreat alternative.
For the design alternatives (c)–(f) in the Retreat strategy, there is a need of compensatory buildings to hold a total apart-
ment area of 600 000 m2. This may result in a need of commuting. In the simulations, therefor, compensatory buildings
assumed to be located less central than the Freeport area increase commuting by an average distance of 10 km (personal
car, Table S3). The resulting impact on resources and emissions is of the same magnitude as the construction of buildings
(Table 4) but with the difference that the impacts occur over a long time.
Environmental impacts of vegetation

In Table 5 the environmental impact ratings for different vegetation strategies is provided. The ranking scale applied here
ranges from 2 (very large use of resources or energy, contribution to emissions or other non-wanted environmental impacts)
to 2 (very positive impact, i.e., contributes to reducing the use of resources, energy, emissions or to increase biodiversity and
other wanted environmental impacts). The rating is based on the amount, and thereby the effectiveness, of vegetation based
on results from previous studies. Vegetation contributes to increased biodiversity and stabilises, extracts or degrades contam-
inants in soil, water and sediments thereby effectively contributing to good water and soil environmental and ecological sta-
tus. The construction and maintenance of green roofs and walls may demand higher use of resources and emissions ( 1 to 0,
Table 5). The environmental impacts of cultivation and maintenance of vegetation are insignificant. The use of material and
energy for the construction of retention ponds is expected to be very high ( 2, Table 5), but limited to the construction phase.
In general the positive impacts – such as increased biodiversity – are more important in a long-term perspective (2, Table 5).
Stakeholder perceptions of adaptation measures
Involving stakeholders’ perceptions in the planning and adaptation process is important for acceptance and successful
implementation (Innes and Booher, 2010; Torfing and Sørensen, 2008; Åström et al., 2011). As perception is highly con-
text-dependent, the results are not presented using generic rankings (as provided in Tables 1–5). The results are, however,
used with a ranking scale from 2 to 2 in the integrated assessment presented below.
Retreat and Defend to reduce consequences of sea level rise

The Retreat alternative is (possibly) perceived as more positive than Defend as it generated more positive key words in
total (Retreat 192 and Defend 169), but both alternatives are within the same magnitude (Table S1). There were more posi-
tive (in total 361) than negative (in total 230) key words for both Retreat and Defend (Table S1). The results thereby indicate
that neither alternative is preferred over the other and the respondents see both positive and negative aspects in both
alternatives.
Among the positive aspects mentioned with the Retreat alternative are: opportunities for large green areas, which also
provide access to nature and recreation; and low consequences in case of flooding. Among the positive aspects with Defend
were living near the water, the area is used for densification, and the alternative provides a flood-safe atmosphere.
Negative aspects mentioned with the Retreat alternative were that there are very few buildings near the water and the
land is not used (for buildings), the area will occasionally be flooded and not used during those occasions.
Among negative aspects mentioned regarding the Defend alternative was false safety, too compact, and not allowing
much greenery.
Vegetation, building density, height and colour

Vegetation generated three-times more positive key words (445) than negative (146) (Table S1). The ratio is high, both in
the questionnaire and in the focus groups, though the ratio in the focus group is lower (2.5) than the questionnaire (3.2) on
the 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5. Among negative aspects mentioned were need of maintenance, risk of roots and
branches damaging building surfaces, and potential damage of water and sewage pipes (focus groups only). Among the posi-
tive aspects mentioned were that vegetation is nice and/or beautiful, promotes recreation and increases wellbeing.
There was also a positive perception of trees near buildings as they were ranked as beautiful (mean values = 4.5), positive
for indoor and outdoor activities (M = 4.1 and M = 4.6, respectively), and considered to increase the attractiveness of the area
(M = 4.4). In summary trees near buildings are regarded as positive and vegetation in general is regarded as very positive.
The respondents perceived a light coloured building design as very positive with regard to all the aspects investigated, i.e.,
aesthetics (M = 4.3), indoor activities (M = 4.2), outdoor (M = 4.1) activities, safety (M = 4.2) and attractiveness (M = 4.3). This
is to be compared to dark coloured building design which was perceived as negative with regards to aesthetics (M = 2.6),
indoor activities (M = 2.8), outdoor activities (M = 2.4), safety (M = 2.6) and attractiveness (M = 2.5). Open and low designs
are perceived as more safe (M = 3.7) and beautiful (M = 4.3) than dense and mid-rise designs (M = 3.2 and M = 3.3,
respectively).
Vulnerability
There is a substantial amount of local knowledge about vulnerability drivers and inter-relations between social factors and
vulnerability. Focus group participants defined a wide range of possible measures that could be implemented at different levels,
particularly proactive measures such as educational efforts, development of plans (taking into account urban geometry and
vegetation) and routines. Both municipal planners and operational staff noted the lack of routines for systematically consider
heat or other climate related risks, although they did not perceive that they lacked knowledge to deal with it once exposed.
Their qualitative character makes these results difficult to integrate in the assessment based on ranking of the different devel-
opment alternatives (Retreat, Defend, urban geometry and vegetation) investigated here, but are still vital to consider in the
planning process. For a more extensive presentation and discussion of results, see Jonsson and Lundgren (2014).
Results – integrated assessment of planning and design alternatives
The results from the integrated assessment are presented in two sections. The integrated assessment for the Retreat alter-
native combined with the urban geometry and vegetation alternatives (a–i) are presented first, in Section ‘‘Retreat combined
with vegetation and building density, height and colour alternatives’’ and Table 6. Results for Defend combined with a-i
are then presented in Section ‘‘Defend combined with vegetation and building density, height and colour alternatives’’ by
noting where they differ from Table 6. This is justified because the impacts of Retreat and Defend on heat stress and local
air quality depend more on the detailed planning and design within the area than on the Retreat/Defend strategy per se,
and also because both alternatives generated positive and negative keywords of the same order of magnitude and conse-
quently the can be regarded as equal with regard to land use value, wellbeing and socio economic aspects.
The alternatives are ranked relative to the base-case of Retreat combined with alternative (a) – dense mid-rise building
design, no vegetation, and current climate conditions. That is, impacts for Retreat with alternative (a) in the current climate
are ranked as zero, by definition.
In order to increase the ability to read and interpret the results, the ranking is marked green for positive net impacts, yel-
low for no significant net impact, and red for negative net impacts of the individual alternatives investigated. This colouring
reveals both a view of the most preferable alternative and information on counteracting results.
Table 6
Estimated impacts of vegetation, building density, height and facade colour in the Retreat alternative. All individual aspects/impacts are
normalised to the semi quantitative scale ranging from 3 (very negative contribution) to +3 (very positive contribution). The ratings are based
on the ratings from Tables 1–5 and perceptions.**
Design alternatives
(rating in relation to compact, mid-rise, no vegetation zero alternative)
a b b d e f g h i
Compact, Compact, Open, low- Open, low- Open, mid- Compact, Compact Compact Compact
mid-rise, no mid-rise rise, no rise, with rise, no low-rise, no mid-rise, mid-rise, mid-rise,
vegetation with vegetation park/large vegetation vegetation light, no light dark
park/large (need of areas with (some need (some need vegetation, coloured coloured
areas with commuting) vegetation of of facades facades, no
Impact
vegetation and trees commuting) commuting) with vegetation
category
and trees near park/large
near buildings areas with
building (need of vegetation
commuting) and trees
near
building
Flood risk
mitigation Short 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
term
Long term -2 2 -2 2 -1 -1 -2 2 -2
Urban heat
stress (day and
night) Short 0 3 -3 1 -2 -1 0 3 0
term
Long term 0 3 -3 1 -2 -1 0 3 0
Local urban air
quality Short 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
term
Long term 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Climate change
0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0
Short term
Long term 0 1 -2 -1 -1 -1 0 1 0
Emissions to air
0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0
Short term
Long term 0 0 -3 -3 -1 -1 0 0 0
Soil and water
quality* 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0
Short term
Long term 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0
Energy and raw
material
0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0
consumption
Short term
Long term 0 0 -3 -3 -1 -1 0 0 0
Land use value 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Wellbeing and
perceived 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 -1
welfare**
Social economic
0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0
impacts**
⁄
Environmental and ecological status, biodiversity.
**
The values are based on interviews therefore only one value provided. The values are based on the results presented under Section 5.4.2.
Retreat combined with vegetation and building density, height and colour alternatives
The most favourable alternative is the compact mid-rise light coloured building design with large parks/green areas and
trees near buildings (alternative h, Table 6). It is the most favourable with regard to most of the individual aspects regarded,
i.e., flooding, heat stress, local air quality, use of resources and emissions, and people’s perception, and thereby also for the
total assessment. This alternative ranks high both in a short and long-term perspective (Table 6).
The vegetation helps to reduce the impacts of extreme precipitation by providing permeable surfaces and water retarda-
tion; it reduces heat stress and regulates the local climate; it contributes to increased air quality by providing more depo-
sition surfaces and provides a wind barrier to reduce the (re)suspension of particles; it contributes to carbon sequestration;
and it increases the water and soil quality by increasing biodiversity and stabilisation of contaminants. Vegetation also pro-
motes outdoor activities, provides pedagogical services and promotes mental health (wellbeing), is attractive in general for
an area and contributes to the ability for recreation, accessibility, meeting places (socio economic), etc. The importance for
flooding and heat stress will increase in a long-term perspective as climate change will result in higher temperatures and
more frequent extreme precipitation. The light coloured building facades was of high importance for the public.
The compact mid-rise alternative without light coloured facades, alternative b, is the second most preferable alternative
when taking all aspects into account. For flooding, local air quality, and resources and emissions, this alternative is identical
to alternative (h) (Table 6).
With regard to people’s views, an open building design with large parks/green areas and trees near buildings (alternative
d) is preferred over alternative b (Table 6). The reason is that the open and low designs are perceived as more safe and beau-
tiful than the compact and mid-rise design. Alternative b and d are equal in ranking with regard to heat stress and local air
quality. With regard to impacts on resources and emissions alternative d ranks very low due to the extra commuting (Tables
4 and 6).
In summary, there are both advantages and disadvantages with an open and/or low-rise design compared to compact
mid-rise designs. The compact mid-rise design is offering an effective use of the land for houses (apartments and offices/
business which is important for business and accessibility) but the open low-rise structure increases the attractiveness
and ability for outdoor activities of an area to many of the respondents. For both open and/or low rise as well as compact
mid-rise designs the vegetation plays an important positive role for all the aspects considered in this study (Table 6).
Defend combined with vegetation and building density, height and colour alternatives
The integrated assessment with regard to vegetation and building density, height and facade colour alternatives are iden-
tical for most aspects when applied for the Defend strategy instead of the Retreat strategy, but differ with regard to use of
resources and emissions. This because a less-compact building design can be used without any need of extra commuting for
the Defend strategy with alternatives b, d, and h. All the living area needed can be allowed on the Defend area.
On the other hand, the Defend alternative significantly consumes resources and contributes to emissions in its construc-
tion phase (Table 4). This is due to the extra reinforcements and the construction of the flood protective barrier and, conse-
quently, with regard to use of resources and emissions the two strategies have similar magnitude of impacts. The difference
is that the construction in the Defend strategy has a very high impact from a short-term perspective, while the commuting in
the Retreat alternative has a long-term impact.
There are other aspects to consider such as the need of control and maintenance for the flood protective barrier to work
and the impacts of unexpected sea level rise, which makes the Retreat alternative possibly a more resilient solution in a long-
term, highly uncertain, perspective.
Depending on selected building design and vegetation, both alternatives can offer large areas with parks/greenery, con-
tributing to improved storm-water management, air quality, and reduced heat stress while at the same time being attractive,
promoting recreation and other outdoor activities.
Discussion
In this study, we have looked at an integrated approach enabling assessing different alternatives for reducing climate
change related risks and mitigating the perils of maladaptation. We have done this focusing on issues of sustainability in
urban settings in terms of adaptation to climate change risks. This has been motivated by the fact that urban climate change
adaptation responses take place in a complex setting consisting of actors from different societal spheres and from different
levels ranging from the local to the global and that the need for understanding integrated approaches and their potential in
evident.
We have utilised a ranking system on a common scale (from 2 to 2) in order to compare the effectiveness and impacts of
Retreat, Defend, vegetation, building density, height and colour on heat stress, flooding, local air quality, use of resources and
emissions, and public and stakeholder perceptions. The common scale allows the integrated assessment to consider all the
impacts of the adaptive measures at the same time (Table 6). The integrated assessment is useful for comparing different
strategies as it provides both a view of the individual impacts investigated, i.e., each column in the matrix, but also an over-
view of all the impacts on the aspects considered.
The relevance of a common scale can be discussed as the importance of each individual impact in relation to the others
may vary. The method, however, can allow the importance to be altered by applying weights that can vary due to special
concerns, needs or demands, with lower weights applied for impacts when they are less relevant for the decision. In the inte-
grated assessment presented here, all impacts are given the same weight, i.e., 1. The ranking has also been complemented
with colouring the impact value: negative impacts are coloured red, no significant impacts are yellow, and wanted impacts
are green. Such a colouring simplifies the readability and the interpretation of the results as it shows potential conflicts
between different impacts and if one or more impacts are very negative or very positive. The resulting matrix therefore is
suitable to be used as a basis for discussions before decisions are taken. Such an application has been shown successful in
previous expert-based test studies (Andersson-Sköld et al., 2014b) as it offers the ability to include several aspects and views
in the decision process. This promotes increased awareness among the participants and ensures that wider sustainability
aspects (including environmental impacts) are systematically included. This is not the case in the current spatial planning
processes or in related assessments of, for example, the importance of ecosystem services in the urban environment
(Andersson-Sköld et al., 2014b; Haase et al., 2014).
In this study, we aimed to include not only wider environmental impacts, but also individual’s perspectives of the risks
and adaptation alternatives. In addition, we wanted to analyse the individuals’ vulnerability and measures they can take to
reduce it. We found substantial local knowledge and a wide range of possible measures that can be implemented at different
levels. At this stage, however, we have not been able to rank vulnerability in the same way as the other aspects considered,
despite its importance in planning and risk management processes.
Public and stakeholder perceptions are context-dependent. It is crucial to include public and stakeholders views, experi-
ences and perceptions when assessing spatial planning and climate adaptation strategies in order to that decisions can be
implementable, but consultation needs to regard the specific context. Here, we demonstrate a method to involve the public
(questionnaire) and key stakeholders (focus group discussions) to achieve an understanding of views and perceptions that
can be combined with other aspects including impacts on climate related risks, air quality, resources and emissions. As with
all planning and decision-making processes, the outcome of the results is based on the participants in the process, but the
ranking offers a base to encourage less individual dependence.
Large-scale problems, such as adapting to the unwanted consequences of sea-level rise, can be addressed by measures on
different scales. Here, local-scale Retreat and Defend solutions have been part of the investigation. More cost-effective solu-
tions may be found on larger scales, for examples stationary, operable or movable larger-scale barriers, closing off estuaries,
river system solutions etc. Such alternatives are also important to consider, including the impacts on the environment, econ-
omy and social dimensions in a short and long-term perspective, but demand impact-assessments involving stakeholder-
representatives from the geographic area affected. When considering local-scale solutions, larger scale planning needs to
be taken into account. For example in the case of a larger-scale flood risk adaptation strategy, the Retreat and Defend alter-
natives investigated here may be irrelevant as flood risk reduction strategies.
Recommendations for physical planning
Despite the context dependence, the results from this project can provide general recommendations for use in spatial
planning and climate change adaptation processes:
As integrated assessment should identify the most sustainable solutions (regarding risk, environment, economy and
social aspects in short and long-term perspectives) this demands experts from a variety of disciplines. Adaptation to
reduce climate related risks/stresses affects municipal operations such as urban planning, water and sewage, environ-
ment and parks, education, and care of the elderly and disabled. Risk reduction and adaptation measures should therefore
be dealt with in an inter- and intradepartmental manner to reduce the occurrence of maladaptive responses.
The results presented in this study also provide some recommendations based on the rankings from the individual
aspects considered that can be applied in the spatial planning process, for example in a city’s master plan, and we recom-
mend the rankings provided in Tables 1–5 be used as guidance. The most important and generally applicable recommenda-
tions are:
Increase and preserve the urban greenery as it contributes to several positive aspects:
- Heat stress mitigation – low daytime temperatures and low night-time temperatures. To maximise the cooling
effect:
Trees are to be preferred over lover vegetation as they proved more shade.
Deciduous trees are to be preferred over evergreen trees, as they give shade in summer but allows solar radiation to
penetrate in winter.
Add trees to urban spaces that currently lack trees and are prone to heat, where it contributes both to shading and high
transpiration.
- Air quality improvement, as vegetation increases the deposition surface-area.

- The largest effect is seen for dense and porous vegetation in barriers and for dense vegetation near emission sources.
- Effective storm-water and flood-mitigation management due to water retardation.
- Several positive social aspects have been identified: greenery encourages outdoor activities, recreation and natural
meeting places; it contributes to wellbeing; and it increases the biological diversity and thus the ecosystem services
it supports.
The vegetation selection (type of species, location and shape) is important and must take into account the potential trade-
offs related to increased urban greenery. Dense vegetation may contribute to perceived (or real) reduced security due to
decreased visibility. Sunlight may be blocked from entering buildings, which is negative in northern countries like Sweden.
It also may reduce the ventilation and thereby have negative impact on the air quality. Vegetation adds maintenance both
with regard to visibility but also from other perspectives such as falling accidents (wet leaves), and damages to ground infra-
structures (water, sewage pipes etc). Badly maintained vegetation also decreases attractiveness and reduces the sense of
wellbeing, and may counteract the desired positive impacts (e.g. reduced heat stress and improved air quality).
In flood safe areas, plan for compact cites, as compact cities offer the ability to make efficient use of resources and reduce
emissions due to less need of commuting and (if planned accordingly) higher access to different services. This is impor-
tant as higher emissions will increase demands for future adaptation and mitigation measures and, therefore, must be
considered as maladaptation. Although being very effective in reducing daytime heat stress by shading, a compact build-
ing geometry increases night-time heat stress. Thus, additional measures must be taken to reduce heat stress by for
example increasing the amount of urban greenery.
Acknowledgements
The project is funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas, the Swedish Energy Agency, the Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency, the Swedish National Heritage Board and the Swedish Transport Administration. Malin Hedlund has pro-
vided valuable help through the course of the project. The authors also want to acknowledge all participants in focus group
discussion and the questionnaire.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.
2015.01.003.
References
Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K.L., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B., Takahashi, K., 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices,
options, constraints and capacity. In: Parry, Martin, L., et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Adger, W.N., Quinn, T., Lorenzoni, I., Murphy, C., Sweeney, J., 2013. Changing social contracts in climate change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 330–333.
Agudelo-Vera, C.M., Mels, A.R., Keesman, K.R., Rijnaarts, H.H.M., 2011. Resource management as a key factor for sustainable urban planning. A review. J.
Environ. Manag. 92, 2295–2303.
Allen, P.D., Traver, R.G., Hunt, W.F., 2010. Improving urban stormwater quality: applying fundamental principles. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 146 (1), 3–10.
Amato, F., Schaap, M., van der Gon, H., Pandolfi, M., Alastuey, A., Keuken, M., Querol, X., 2012. Effect of rain events on the mobility of road dust load in two
Dutch and Spanish roads. Atmos. Environ. 62, 352–358.
Andersson-Sköld, Y., Bergman, R., Johansson, M., Persson, E., Nyberg, L., 2013. Efficiency of landslide prevention tools – evaluation of Scandinavian practices.
Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduction 3, 44–61.
Andersson-Sköld, Y., Falemo, S., Tremblay, 2014a. Development of methodology for quantitative landslide risk assessment – example Göta river valley. Nat.
Sci. 6 (3), 130–143.
Andersson-Sköld, Y., Suer, P., Bergman, R., Helgesson, H., 2014b. Sustainable decisions on the agenda – a decision support tool and its application on climate-
change adaptation. Local Environ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.922531.
Åström, J., Granberg, M., Khakee, A., 2011. Apple pie-spinach metaphor: shall e-democracy make participatory planning more wholesome? Plann. Pract. Res.
26 (5), 571–586.
Balogun, A.A., Tomlin, A.S., Wood, C.R., Barlow, J.F., Belcher, S.E., Smalley, R.J., Lingard, J.J.N., Arnold, S.J., Dobre, A., Robins, A.G., Martin, D., Shallcross, D.E.,
2010. In-street wind direction variability in the vicinity of a busy intersection in Central London. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 136 (3), 489–513.
Bardos, R.P., Bone, B., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Suer, P., Track, T., Wagelmans, M., 2011. Crop-based systems for sustainable risk-based land management for
economically marginal damaged land. Remed. J. 21, 11–33.
Barnett, J., O’Neill, S., 2013. Minimising the risk of maladaptation: a framework for analysis. In: Palutikof, J. (Ed.), Climate Adaptation Futures. Wiley-
Blackwell, Chichester.
Barnett, J., O’Neill, S., 2010. Maladaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 211–213.
Batty, M., 2008. The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science 319, 769–771.
Bauer, A., Feichtinger, J., Steurer, R., 2012. The governance of climate change adaptation in 10 OECD countries: challenges and approaches. J. Environ.
Planning Policy Manage. 14 (3), 297–304.
Baumgardner, D., Varela, S., Escobedo, F.J., Chacalo, A., Ochoa, C., 2012. The role of a peri-urban forest on air quality improvement in the Mexico City
megalopolis. Environ. Pollut. 163, 174–183.
Bealey, W.J., McDonald, A.G., Nemitz, E., Donovan, R., Dragosits, U., Duffy, T.R., Fowler, D., 2007. Estimating the reduction of urban PM10 concentrations by
trees within an environmental information system for planners. J. Environ. Manage. 85 (1), 44–58.
Bergström, S., et al., 2011. Gäu – delrapport 27, Linköping, available at: <http://www.swedgeo.se/upload/Publikationer/Gota%20alvutredningen/GAU_
delrapport_27.pdf>.
Bicknell, J., Dodman, D., Satterthwaite, D. (Eds.), 2009. Adapting Cities to Climate Change. Understanding and Addressing the Development Challenges.
Earthscan, London.
Bischetti, G.B., Mattia, C., Gentile, F., 2005. Biotechnical characteristics of root systems of typical mediterranean species. Plant Soil 278 (1–2), 23–32.
Bouchama, A., Dehbi, M., Mohamed, G., Matthies, F., Shoukri, M., Menne, B., 2007. Prognostic factors in heat wave related deaths: a meta-analysis. Arch.
Intern. Med. 167, 2170–2176.
Brattebo, B.O., Booth, D.B., 2003. Long-term stormwater quantity and quality performance of permeable pavement systems. Water Res. 37 (18), 4369–4376.
Brown, S., Walker, G., 2008. Understanding heat wave vulnerability in nursing and residential homes. Build. Res. Inform. 36 (4), 363–372.
Bubeck, P., Botzen, W.J.W., Kreibich, H., Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2012. Long-term development and effectiveness of private flood mitigation measures: an analysis for
the German part of the river Rhine. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12 (11), 3507–3518.
Buccolieri, R., Salim, S.M., Leo, L.S., Di Sabatino, S., Chan, A., Ielpo, P., De Gennaro, G., Gromke, C., 2011. Analysis of local scale tree–atmosphere interaction on
pollutant concentration in idealized street canyons and application to a real urban junction. Atmos. Environ. 45, 1702–1713.
Bulkeley, H., 2013. Cities and Climate Change. Routledge, Abingdon.
Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., Edwards, G.A.S., 2014. An Urban Politics of Climate Change: Experimentation and the Governing of Socio-Technical
Transitions. Routledge, London.
Burns, M.J., Fletcher, T.D., Walsh, C.J., Ladson, A.R., Hatt, B.E., 2012. Hydrological shortcomings of conventional urban stormwater management and
opportunities for reform. Landscape Urban Plann. 105, 230–240.
Castán Broto, V., Bulkeley, H., 2013. A survey of climate change experiments in 100 cities. Glob. Environ. Change 23 (1), 92–102.
Christen, A., Meier, F., Scherer, D., 2012. High-frequency fluctuations of surface temperatures in an urban environment. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 108, 301–324.
Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., Shirley, W.L., 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 84 (2), 242–261.
Davis, A.P., Traver, R.G., Hunt, W.F., 2010. Improving urban stormwater quality: applying fundamental principles. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 146 (1), 3–
10.
Dempsey, N., Brown, C., Bramley, G., 2012. The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social sustainability. Progr.
Plann. 77 (3), 89–141.
Denby, B.R., Sundvor, I., Johansson, C., Pirjola, L., Ketzel, M., Norman, M., Kupiainen, K., Gustafsson, M., Blomqvist, G., Kauhaniemi, M., Omstedt, G., 2013. A
coupled road dust and surface moisture model to predict non-exhaust road traffic induced particle emissions (NORTRIP). Part 2: surface moisture and
salt impact modelling. Atmos. Environ. 81, 485–503.
DePaul, M., 2012. Climate change, migration, and megacities: addressing the dual stresses of mass urbanization and climate vulnerability. Paterson Rev. Int.
Aff. 12, 145–162.
Dousset, B., Gourmelon, F., Laaidi, K., Zeghnoun, A., Giraudet, E., Bretin, P., Mauri, E., Vandentorren, S., 2011. Satellite monitoring of summer heat waves in
the Paris metropolitan area. Int. J. Climatol. 31, 313–323.
Dwyer, A., Zoppou, C., Mielsen, O., Day, S., Roberts, S., 2004. Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards.
Geosci. Aust. Rec., 2004/14
EEA, 2011. Revealing the costs of air pollution from industrial facilities in Europe—a summary for policymakers, EEA Technical report No 15/2011, EEA
(European Environment Agency), Copenhagen.
Eeftens, M., Beekhuizen, J., Beelen, R., Wang, M., Vermeulen, R., Brunekreef, B., Huss, A., Hoek, G., 2013. Quantifying urban street configuration for
improvements in air pollution models. Atmos. Environ. 72, 1–9.
Erell, E., Williamson, T., 2007. Intra-urban differences in canopy layer air temperature at a mid- latitude city. Int. J. Climatol. 27, 1243–1255.
Erell, E., Pearlmutter, D., Boneh, D., Kutiel, P.B., 2014. Effect of high-albedo materials on pedestrian heat stress in urban street canyons. Urban. Clim. 10 (2),
367–386.
Florgård, C., Palm, R., 1980. Vegetation i dagvattenhantering. Sven Lundström, Liber, Stockholm.
Forsberg, B., Johansson, C., Burman, L., 2009. The effects of congestions tax on air quality and health. Atmos. Environ. 43 (31), 4843–4854.
Fouillet, A., Rey, G., Laurent, F., Pavillon, G., Bellec, S., Guihenneuc-Jouyaux, C., Clavel, J., Jougla, E., Hémon, D., 2006. Excess mortality related to the August
2003 heat wave in France. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 80, 16–24.
Fünfgeld, H., 2015. Facilitating local climate change adaptation through transnational municipal networks. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 12, 67–73.
Füssel, H.-M., 2007. Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Rev. Art. Sustainability Sci. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-007-0032-y.
Gabriel, K.M.A., Endlicher, W.R., 2011. Urban and rural mortality rates during heat waves in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany. Environ. Pollut. 159, 2044–
2050.
Goltermann, D., Marengwa, J., 2012. SAWA Final Report Summary, Hamburg.
Granberg, M., Glover, L., 2014. Adaptation and maladaptation in Australian national climate change policy. J. Environ. Planning Policy Manage. 16 (2), 147–
159.
Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., Redman, C.L., Wu, J., Bai, X., Briggs, J.M., 2008. Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science 319, 756–760.
Gromke, C., Ruck, B., 2012. Pollutant concentrations in street canyons of different aspect ratio with avenues of trees for various wind directions. Bound.-
Layer Meteorol. 144, 41–64.
Gustafsson, M., Blomquist, G., Gudmundsson, A., Dahl, A., Swietlicki, E., Bohyard, M., Lindbom, J., Ljungman, A., 2008. Properties and toxicological effects of
particles from the interaction between tyres, road pavement and winter traction material. Sci. Total Environ. 393 (2–3), 226–240.
Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgstrom, S., Breuste, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Hamstead, Z., Hansen, R., Kabisch, N., Kremer,
P., Langemeyer, J., Lorance Rall, E., McPhearson, T., Pauleit, S., Qureshi, S., Schwarz, N., Voigt, A., Wurster, D., Elmqvist, T., 2014. A quantitative review of
urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43, 413–433.
Hagler, G.S.W., Lin, M.-Y., Khlystov, A., Baldauf, R.W., Isakov, V., Faircloth, J., Jackson, L.E., 2012. Field investigation of roadside vegetative and structural
barrier impact on near-road ultrafine particle concentrations under a variety of wind conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 419, 7–15.
Hajat, S., O’Connor, M., Kosatsky, T., 2010. Health effects of hot weather: from awareness of risk factors to effective health protection. Lancet 375, 856–863.
Hamel, P., Daly, E., Fletcher, T.D., 2013. Source-control stormwater management for mitigating the impacts of urbanisation on baseflow: a review. J. Hydrol.
485, 201–211.
Hedquist, B.C., Brazel, A.J., 2013. Seasonal variability of temperatures and outdoor human comfort in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A. Build. Environ.
Hodson, M., Marvin, S., 2012. Mediating low-carbon transitions? Forms of organization, knowledge and action. Eur. Plann. Stud. 20 (3), 193–215.
Holand, I.S., Lujala, P., Rod, J.K., 2011. Social vulnerability assessment for Norway: a quantitative approach. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr. 65 (1), 1–17.
Holmer, B., Thorsson, S., Eliasson, I., 2007. Cooling rates, sky view factors and the development of intra-urban air temperature differences. Geogr. Ann. 89A,
1–12.
Holmer, B., Thorsson, S., Linden, J., 2012. Evening evapotranspirative cooling in relation to vegetation and urban geometry in the city of Ouagadougou,
Burkina Faso. Int. J. Climatol. 31, 3089–3105.
Honjo, T., Takakura, T., 1990–1991. Simulation of thermal effects of urban green areas on their surrounding areas. Energy Build. 15, 443–446.
Imran, H.M., Shatirah, A., Karim, A.S., Rehan, M., 2013. Permeable pavement and stormwater management systems: a review. Environ. Technol. 34 (18),
2649–2656.
Innes, J.E., Booher, D.G., 2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. Routledge, New York.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013. Climate Change 2013: The physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jacob, D.J., Winner, D.A., 2009. Effect of climate change on air quality. Atmos. Environ. 43 (1), 51–63.
Janhäll, S., 2015. Review on urban vegetation and particle air pollution – deposition and dispersion. Atmos. Environ. 105, 130–137. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.052.
Janhäll, S., Jonsson, Å.M., Molnár, P., Svensson, E.A., Hallquist, M., 2004. Size resolved traffic emission factors of submicrometer particles. Atmos. Environ. 38
(26), 4331–4340.
Janhäll, S., Molnar, P., Hallquist, M., 2012. Traffic emission factors of ultrafine particles: effects from ambient air. Journal of environmental monitoring: JEM
14 (9), 2488–2496, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22858604 (accessed 9.12.14).
Jonsson, A.C., Lundgren, L., 2014. Vulnerability and adaptation to heat: perspectives in research and perceptions of local adaptation decision-makers. Local
Environ., in print
Jonsson, A., Danielsson, I., Jöborn, A., 2005. Designing a multipurpose methodology for strategic environmental research: the Rönneå Catchment Dialogues.
Ambio 34 (7), 489–494.
Jonsson, A.C., Hjerpe, M., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Glaas, E., André, K., Simonsson, L., 2012. Cities’ capacity to manage climate vulnerability: experiences from
participatory vulnerability assessments in the lower Göta Älv Catchment, Sweden. Local Environ. 17 (6–7), 735–750.
Klein, R.J.T., Smit, M.J., Goosen, H., Hulsbergen, C.H., 1998. Resilience and vulnerability: coastal dynamics or Dutch dikes? Geog. J. 164, 259–268.
Knapp, R.A., Matthews, K.R., Sarnelle, O., 2001. Resistance and resilience of alpine lake fauna to fish introductions. Ecol. Monogr. 71 (3), 401–421.
Konarska, J., Lindberg, F., Larsson, A., Thorsson, S., Holmer, B., 2013. Transmissivity of solar radiation through crowns of single urban trees – application for
outdoor thermal climate modelling. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 117, 363–376.
Kovats, R.S., Hajat, S., 2008. Heat stress and public health: a critical review. Annu. Rev. Public Health 29, 41–55.
Kupiainen, K., 2007. Road dust from pavement wear and traction sanding. In: MONOGRAPHS of the Boreal Environment Research. Finnish Environment
Institute, Helsinki, <https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/39334/BERMon_26.pdf?sequence=1> (accessed 9.12.14).
Laaidi, K., Zeghnoun, A., Dousset, B., Bretin, P., Vandentorren, S., Giraudet, E., Beaudeau, P., 2012. The impact of heat islands on mortality in Paris during the
August 2003 heat wave. Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 254–259.
Lee, H., Holst, J., Mayer, H., 2013. Modification of human-biometeorologically significant radiant flux densities by shading as local method to mitigate heat
stress in summer within urban street canyons. Advances in Meteorology 2013, 1–13, <http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2013/312572/>
(accessed 9.12.14).
Leichenko, R., 2011. Climate change and urban resilience. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 3 (3), 164–168.
Lindberg, F., 2005. Towards the use of local governmental 3-d data within urban climatology studies. Mapp. Image Sci. 2, 32–37.
Lindberg, F., Grimmond, C.S.B., 2011. Nature of vegetation and building morphology characteristics across a city: influence on shadow patterns and mean
radiant temperatures in London. Urban Ecosyst. 14 (4), 617–634.
Lindberg, F., Holmer, B., Thorsson, S., Rayner, D., 2013. Characteristics of the mean radiant temperature in high latitude cities—implications for sensitive
climate planning applications. Int. J. Biometeorol. 58, 613–627.
Lindberg, F., Thorsson, S., Rayner, D., Lau, K., 2014. The impact of urban planning strategies for reducing heat stress in climate change perspective. Under
review in Landscape and Urban Planning.
Litschke, T., Kuttler, W., 2008. On the reduction of urban particle concentration by vegetation; a review. Meteorol. Z. 17, 229–240.
Lundgren, K., Kuklane, K., Gao, C., Holmer, I., 2013. Effects of heat stress on working populations when facing climate change. Ind. Health 51, 3–15.
Mazmanian, D.A., Blanco, H. (Eds.), 2014. Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities. Strategies, Methods and Outlook. Edvard Elgar, Cheltenhem.
McBean, G., 2004. Climate change and extreme weather: a basis for action. Nat. Hazards 31 (1), 177–190.
Meng, X., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Z., Duan, X., Xu, X., Kan, H., 2012. Temperature modifies the acute effect of particulate air pollution on mortality in eight Chinese
cities. Sci. Total Environ. 435–436, 215–221.
Moser, S.C., Boykoff, M.C. (Eds.), 2013. Successful Adaptation to Climate Change: Linking Science and Practice in a Rapidly Changing World. Routledge,
London.
Mu} ller, N., Kuttler, W., Barlag, A.-B., 2014. Counteracting urban climate change: adaptation measures and thier effect on thermal comfort. Theoret. Appl.
Climatol. 115, 243–257.
Nikulin, G., Kjellström, E., Hansson, U., Strandberg, G., Ullerstig, A., 2011. Evaluation and future projections of temperature, precipitation and wind extremes
over europe in an ensemble of regional climate simulations. Tellus 63 (1), 41–55.
Ning, Z., Hudda, N., Daher, N., Kam, W., Herner, J., Kozawa, K., Mara, S., Sioutas, C., 2010. Impact of roadside noise barriers on particle size distributions and
pollutants concentrations near freeways. Atmos. Environ. 44, 3118–3127.
Norman, M., Johansson, C., 2006. Studies of some measures to reduce road dust emissions from paved roads in Scandinavia. Atmos. Environ. 40 (32), 6154–
6164, <http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S135223100600505X> (accessed 12.11.13).
Noyes, P.D., McElwee, M.K., Miller, H.D., Clark, B.W., Van Tiem, L.A., Walcott, K.C., Erwin, K.N., Levin, E.D., 2009. The toxicology of climate change:
environmental contaminants in a warming world. Environ. Int. 35 (6), 971–986.
Nyuk Hien, W., Puay Yok, T., Yu, C., 2007. Study of thermal performance of extensive rooftop greenery systems in the tropical climate. Build. Environ. 42, 25–
54.
Olsson, J., Yang, W., Graham, L.P., Rosberg, J., Andréasson, J., 2013. Adaptation to climate change impacts on urban stormwater: a case study in Arvika,
Sweden. Clim. Change 116 (2), 231–247.
Oudin Åström, D., Forsberg, B., Rocklöv, J., 2011. Heat wave impact on morbidity and mortality in the elderly population: a review of recent studies.
Maturitas 69 (2), 99–105.
Palutikof, J. (Ed.), 2013. Climate Adaptation Futures. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.
Parson, K., 2003. Human thermal environments, 2nd ed. Taylor and Frances, New York.
Pascal, M., Laadi, K., Ledrans, M., Baffert, E., Caseario-Schönemann, C., Le Tertre, A., Manach, J., Medina, S., Rudant, J., Empereur-Bissonnet, P., 2006. France’s
heat health watch warning system. Int. J. Climatol. 5, 144–153.
Pelling, M., 2011. Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. Routledge, London.
Perini, K., Ottelé, M., Fraaij, A.L.A., Haas, E.M., Raiteri, R., 2011. Vertical greening systems and the effect on air flow and temperature on the building
envelope. Build. Environ. 46, 2287–2294.
Persson, G., Andréasson, J., Eklund, D., Hallberg, K., Nerheim, S., Sjökvist, E., Wern, L., Åström, S., 2011, Klimatanalys för Västra Götalands län, SMHI Report,
Rapport Nr 2011-45.
Petralli, M., Massetti, L., Brandani, G., Orlandini, S., 2013. Urban planning indicators: useful tools to measure the effect of urbanization and vegetation on
summer temperatures. Int. J. Climatol. 34 (4), 1236–1244.
Petroff, A., Mailliat, A., Amielh, M., Anselmet, F., 2008. Aerosol dry deposition on vegetative canopies. Part I: review of present knowledge. Atmos. Environ.
42, 3625–3653.
Pleijel, H., 2009. Air pollution and climate change – two sides of the same coin? Swedish Environmental Agency.
Poresky, A., et al., 2012. Expanded Analysis of Volume Reduction in Bioretention BMPs, <http://www.bmpdatabase.org/> (accessed 9.12.14).
Pugh, T.A.M., Mackenzie, A.R., Whyatt, J.D., Hewitt, C.N., 2012. Effectiveness of green infrastructure for improvement of air quality in urban street canyons.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 7692–7699.
Qin, H., Dickinson, K., Romero-Lankao, P., 2012. Urban vulnerability to temperature-related hazards: a meta-analysis and meta-knowledge approach. Glob.
Environ. Change 22 (3), 670–683.
Rayner, D., Lindberg, F., Thorsson, S., Holmer, B., 2014. A statistical downscaling algorithm for thermal comfort applications. Theoret. Appl. Climatol.,
accepted for publication
Reid, C.E., O’Neill, M.S., Gronlund, C.J., Brines, S.J., Brown, D.G., Diez-Roux, A.V., Schwartz, J., 2009. Mapping community determinants of heat vulnerability.
Environ. Health Perspect. 117 (11), 1730–1736.
Renn, O., 2008. Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. Earthscan, London.
Rocklöv, J., Ebi, K., Forsberg, B., 2011. Mortality related to temperature and persistent extreme temperatures: a study of cause-specific and age-stratified
mortality. Occup. Environ. Med. 68, 531–536.
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W.D., Hammer, S.A., Mehrotra, S. (Eds.), 2011. Climate Change and Cities. First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change
Research Network. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Roth, S., Thörn, P., Buhr, K., Moback, U., Morrison, G., Knutsson, P., Areslätt, H., 2011. Frihamnen i ett förändrat klimat/-Klimatanpassningsstrategiers
påverkan på hållbar utveckling, MISTRA URBAN FUTURES. (accessed 9.12.14).
Rydin, Y., 2010. Governing for Sustainable Urban Development. Earthscan, London.
Rydin, Y., 2011. The Purpose of Planning. Creating Sustainable Towns and Cities. The Policy Press, Bristol.
Salmond, J.A., Williams, D.E., Laing, G., Kingham, S., Dirks, K., Longley, I., Henshaw, G.S., 2013. The influence of vegetation on the horizontal and vertical
distribution of pollutants in a street canyon. Sci. Total Environ. 443, 287–298.
SAWA, 2011. Strategic Alliance for Water Management Action, <http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Organizations/SAWA>.
Senécal, P., et al., 1999. Principles of environmental impact assessment, best practice. International Association for Impact Assessment, USA, 14.
Shashua-Bar, L., Pearlmutter, D., Erell, E., 2011. The influence of trees and grass on outdoor thermal comfort in a hot-arid environment. Int. J. Climatol. 31,
1498–1506.
Shishegar, N., 2013. Street design and urban microclimate: analyzing the effects of street geometry and orientation on airflow and solar access in urban
canyons. J. Clean Energy Technol. 1 (1), 52–56.
SPUR, 2011. Strategies for managing sea level rise. San Francisco planning and urban research association, <http://www.spur.org/publications/library/
report/strategiesformanagingsealevelrise_110109> (access 9.12.14).
Storbjörk, S., 2010. It takes more to get a ship to change course: barriers for organizational learning and local climate adaptation in Sweden. J. Environ.
Planning Policy Manage. 12 (3), 235–254.
Suer, P., Andersson-Sköld, Y., 2011. Biofuel or excavation? – LIFE cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options. Biomass Bioenergy 35 (3), 1097–1102.
Svensson, M., 2014. Sky view factor analysis – implications for urban air temperature differences. Meteorol. Appl. 11 (3), 201–211.
Tainter, J.A., 2000. Problem solving: complexity, history, sustainability. Popul. Environ. 22 (1), 3–41.
Thorsson, S., Lindberg, F., Björklund, J., Holmer, B., Rayner, D., 2011. Potential changes in outdoor thermal comfort conditions in Gothenburg, Sweden due to
climate change: the influence of urban geometry. Int. J. Climatol. 31 (2), 324–335.
Thorsson, S., Rocklöv, J., Konarska, J., Lindberg, F., Holmer, B., Dousset, B., Rayner, D., 2014. Mean radiant temperature – a predictor of heat related mortality.
Urban Clim. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2014.01.004.
Tiwary, A., Reff, A., Colls, J.J., 2008. Collection of ambient particulate matter by porous vegetation barriers: sampling and characterization methods. J. Aerosol
Sci. 39, 40–47.
Tiwary, A., Sinnett, D., Peachey, C., Chalabi, Z., Vardoulakis, S., Fletcher, T., Leonardi, G., Grundy, C., Azapagic, A., Hutchings, T.R., 2009. An integrated tool to
assess the role of new planting in PM10 capture and the human health benefits: a case study in London. Environ. Pollut. 157, 2645–2653.
Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., 2008. Enhancing effective and democratic governance through empowered participation: some critical reflections. Plann. Theory
Pract. 9 (3), 394–400.
Turner, S., Moloney, S., Glover, A., Fünfgeld, H., 2014. A Review of the Monitoring and Evaluation Literature for Climate Change Adaptation. Centre for Urban
Research, RMIT University, Melbourne.
Unger, J., 2004. Intra-urban relationship between surface geometry and urban heat island: review and new approach. Clim. Res. 27, 253–264.
Uppmanis, H., Eliasson, I., Lindqvist, S., 1998. The influence of green areas on nocturnal temperatures in a high latitude city (Göteborg, Sweden). Int. J.
Climatol. 18, 681–700.
van den Berg, M., Coenen, F., 2012. Integrating climate change adaptation into Dutch local policies and the role of contextual factors. Local Environ. 17 (4),
441–460.
van der Linden, P., Mitchell, J.F.B., 2009. ENSEMBLES: climate change and its impacts: summary of research and results from the ENSEMBLES project.
Vardoulakis, S., Fisher, B.E., Pericleous, K., Gonzalez-Flesca, N., 2003. Modelling air quality in street canyons: a review. Atmos. Environ. 37, 155–182.
Vassilios, A.T., Hamid, R., 1997. Modeling and management of urban stormwater runoff quality: a review. Water Resour. Manage 11 (2), 136–164.
Villarreal, E., Semadeni Davies, A., Bengtsson, L., 2004. Inner city stormwater control using a combination of BMPs. Ecol. Eng. 22 (4–5), 279–298.
Vos, P.E.J., Maiheu, B., Vankerkom, J., Janssen, S., 2012. Improving local air quality in cities: to tree or not to tree? Environ. Pollut.
Wania, A., Bruse, M., Blond, N., Weber, C., 2012. Analysing the influence of different street vegetation on traffic-induced particle dispersion using microscale
simulations. J. Environ. Manage. 94 (1), 91–101.
Weber, S., Weber, K., 2008. Coupling of urban street canyon and backyard particle concentrations. Meteorol. Z. 17 (3), 251–261.
While, A., Whitehead, M., 2013. Cities, Urbanisation and Climate Change. Urban Stud. 50 (7), 1325–1331.
Wilhelmi, O.V., Hayden, M.H., 2010. Connecting people and place: a new framework for reducing urban vulnerability to extreme heat. Environ. Res. Lett. 5
(1), 1–7.
Wilkinsson, S., 1998. Focus group methodology: a review. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methods 1 (3), 181–203.

1 s2.0 S2212096315000042 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2212096315000042 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Climate Risk Management 7 (2015) 31–50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Climate Risk Management

An integrated method for assessing climate-related risks and

 Rank the effectiveness of the investigated alternatives.

Vulnerability and perception of climate change and adaptation strategies

Framework of the study

1. Identiﬁcation of climate related risks.

Fig. 1. Framework of integrated approach developed and applied in this study.

Description of the case study area: the free-port area

Climate change in the case study area

Climate adaption measures considered in this study

Alternatives to reduce consequences of sea level rise

Building density, height and colour and vegetation alternatives

(a) Compact, mid-rise, no vegetation – reference (zero) alternative.

Methods applied for the ranking

Perceptions of adaptation measures and social vulnerability

Results – individual assessments

Effectiveness of climate adaptation measures in the urban environment

Measures to reduce consequences of sea level rise

The effectiveness of the mitigation strategies are rated in Tables 1–5.

Strategy Measure Effect Rate Reference

Strategies Measure Effect daytime Rate Effect night-time Rate References

Strategy Measure Effect Rate Reference

Strategy Measure Effect Rating

Measure Effect Rate Reference

Use of resources and environmental impact assessment

Measures to reduce consequences of sea level rise

Environmental impacts of vegetation

Stakeholder perceptions of adaptation measures

Retreat and Defend to reduce consequences of sea level rise

Vegetation, building density, height and colour

Results – integrated assessment of planning and design alternatives

Land use value 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Recommendations for physical planning

- Air quality improvement, as vegetation increases the deposition surface-area.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

You might also like

Rank the effectiveness of the investigated alternatives.