Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
income levels, bus rapid transit and cycling offer equitable (and healthy) travel options for
all. In Delhi, there will be a substantial increase in both travel and CO2, but this is explained
by the growth in population (nearly +50 per cent 2010-2030) and the existing low levels of
CO2 emissions, both in aggregate and per capita terms.
Achieving climate change targets in all cities is both possible and desirable, and as noted
here it helps achieve much more than carbon reduction in policy terms. This is only one of
many important policy objectives, and such a limited approach focusing on carbon could be
called reductionist in that it over-simplifies the policy objectives of sustainability in cities.
But it does help to focus the discussion. A fuller interpretation of the issues relating to climate
change and the implications for mobility requires a vision of the city that would include an
assessment of its viability (in terms of its economic rationale), its vibrancy (in terms of its
social and cultural rationale), and its vitality (in terms of its environmental and health rationale).
In this context, the role of transport can then be implemented as an integral and supportive
part of city design. In recent years, conventional transport investment (e.g. in highways and
flyovers) has often had an adverse impact on the quality of the city, and there has been a
discontinuity between transport planning and city design.
With respect to the methodological issues raised here, scenario analysis provides a rich
background against which to think about city futures and how they can actively respond to
climate change. Table 8.1 uses four key descriptors to describe the underlying rationale for
scenario building. Many of the scenario studies overlap and do not fall conveniently in any
one category, and elements of several different approaches have been used or adapted to
particular applications. This is a key strength of the general scenario building approach.
Table 8.1 The rationale for scenario building
(1) Shaping and adapting : Focus of scenario building is directed at specific issues, often with others
being discarded or not given much attention. All interested parties should be included in the discourse
at all stages, and the role of experts needs to be limited. Shaping takes place in a specific direction,
and uncertainties and contingencies are often underestimated. Robust processes (see below) need to
be adaptive to changing internal and external situations. This means that options must be kept open
and the agenda should not be single issue or exclusive.
(2) Single futures or multiple futures : Single visions of the future provide powerful images and they are
useful in building coalitions and setting agendas. Multiple approaches, often based in socio-technical
scenarios, are less prescriptive and allow space for thinking about alternative courses of action. This
greater flexibility may have advantages for decision-makers as it keeps more options open.
(3) Normative or exploratory : The more normative single vision driven future, often used in backcasting,
has a strong element of what is desirable, and this is helpful if there is a clear overriding imperative.
Exploratory scenarios can deal more easily with the unexpected, but increasingly they also have to
become more normative when producing policy recommendations. Perhaps the two approaches ought
to be combined, as an Adaptive Foresight scenario building process, where more normative elements
are central to the exploratory scenarios and where more explicit but divergent normative futures can
be addressed.
(4) Robustness and adaptability of policy portfolios : Options need to be maintained in terms of the
normative objectives, but they also need to respond to the changing external environment as portrayed
in the exploratory scenarios. Robustness is really a measure of whether the policy options being
considered are beneficial under all alternative scenarios, whilst the adaptability relates to the ease
with which unexpected events (risks and opportunities) can be included.
Source : Based on Weber, 2004; Eriksson and Weber, 2006; Eriksson and Weber, 2008.
 
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search