INTRODUCTION
Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme events, such as draughts and floods (Kundwicz, Kjellström et al., 2011), which may put people and valuable assets at risk and undermine economic growth (UNSIDR, 2009a; Winsemius et al., 2015). Therefore, to cope with predicted impacts of climate change, urban managers and engineers have begun to search for alternative ways to adapt cities to cope with predicted climate change impacts and increase urban resilience.
Expecting to experience more frequent and intense heavy precipitation events in the future, Copenhagen, capital of Denmark, has been put forward adaptation plans to mitigate flood risk, while achieving the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2030. Those plans propose the integration of nature-based approaches to its stormwater system, using green spaces and sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) to store, filter and evaporate stormwater before it entering the sewer system (Jensen et al.). The climate adaptation plans are therefore accompanied by the prospect of increased resilience against climate change while accelerating the citiy´s transition towards sustainability (van de Meene et al., 2011; rantzeskaki et al., 2012).
However urban planning and decision-making, requires the integration of complex interactions between ecological, economic and social aspects, raising controversies due to differences in views and perspectives of stakeholders about what is considered sound management strategy (Forester, 1999).
Under this context, this research proposes to identify and illustrate the complexities of the decision making process involving the integration of nature-based solutions into urban climate adaptation strategies. Having Copenhagen as a case study, this study aims to answer the following research question:
What are the factors affecting the integration of nature-based solutions into City of Copenhagen´s climate adaptation strategies?
The underlying hypothesis is that the "novelty" of the concept, the lack of "cases of sucess" and experience of the stakeholders with nature-based solutions create conflicting views about its use and favors more traditional, hard-infrastructure solutions, such as stormwater pipes. Therefore, It is proposed the use of participatory system dynamics modelling, combining qualitative interviews and workshops to involve a range of stakeholders and develop a causal loop diagram to identify and illustrate the dynamic complexities and challenges regarding the integration of nature-based solutions to Copenhagen´s climate adaptation strategies and identify possible policy paths to scale up their use.
GENERAL OBJECTIVES
The proposed research aims at assessing the factors that affect the integration of nature-based solutions to Copenhagen´s climate change adaptation and flood mitigation strategies.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1. Use a participatory approach system dynamics to understand the complexities of the decision-making process and differences in views, perspectives and concerns among stakeholders;
2. To develop a causal loop diagram to illustrate and identify factors inducing conflicts among stakeholders;
3. Identify possible measures and policy paths for strenghtening the integration of nature-based solutions to Copenhagen´s climate adapatation strategies;
4. To provide insights into policies aiming at the use of nature-based solutions for climate adaptation in urban environments
METHODS
System dynamic models are applied for issue identification and system conceptualization, offering a means of demonstrating causal relationships and identifying potential issues in the future. System dynamics can generally be categorised in two classes: qualitative, hard system approaches and quantitative, soft system approaches. Clayton & Radcliffe (1996) defined a hard systems approach as a method that starts with a basic acceptance of a well-defined objective and problem specification. In contrast, Checkland (1989) defined soft systems methodology (SSM) as a learning system designed for complex human-dominated systems. In other words, SSM is fundamentally designed as a tool to understand the system and not to solve a 'problem' as is the case of formal hard system-based approach (Rosenhead 1989).
Here we propose a soft system approach, focusing not on accurately predict the future, but to gain a deeper understanding of causal relationships within a system (FORD 2010, p.8). Group model building, a form of participatory system dynamics, will be applied with the aim of maximize involvement of stakeholders during data collection (HOVMAND 2014, p.18) and enhance accuracy and authenticity of the model itself (VENNIX 1996, p.5; ADGER et al. 2004, p.77). Through interviews and workshops, this research intend to incorporate local knowledge and perceptions to develop causal loop diagrams to describe and illustrate the complexities of the described decision-making process, focusing on the institutional, ecological and socio-economic aspects. Causal loop diagrams facilitate the identification of policy links in maps, necessary to the identification of possible policy paths for more effective use of nature-based solutions.