From risk-based model to pro-active and adaptive management:

‘The Birmingham Project’

Claudia Carter (Birmingham City University)

Nick Grayson (Birmingham City Council)

The journey so far

Context

Concepts and uses of ‘risk’

Evolving vision

Critical reflection on uses of ‘risk’

Context: ‘Birmingham Project’

Pressures/Drivers

• Sustainability (but many landscape scale projects unsupported – ‘’not essential’)

• Climate Change

• Health and Wellbeing

Key Policy / Political Drivers

• National Indicators (esp. NI188)

• Local Area Agreements

• Public health placed within LA again - ‘new solution’

The sheer internal scale of the authority makes it particularly difficult to achieve cross-disciplinary working or close co-operations across

its various strategic directorships. Yet the scale of operations, budgets involved and numbers of people affected means that

the potential for synergistic working is great.

Concepts and uses of ‘risk’

1. Risk assessment as base evidence

2. Risk concept as a political hook

3. Risk management/reduction as guide for investment and management

4. Risk mapping as a visual communication tool

EVIDENCE BASE

RISK Assessment to establish

BUCCANEER – Birmingham Urban Climate Change Adaptation

Neighborhood Estimates of Environmental Risk (2008-2011)

BIRMINGHAM’S RISK LANGUAGE – CLIMATE CHANGE : Urban Heat Island

UHI=Urban Heat Island

Extreme events: e.g. Heatwave 18 July 2006

Social data: household density, age structure, ill health

Combined

Evidence

BUCANEER tool: 31 GIS layers Environmental, social, economic baseline factors

(e.g. flood risk, NO2, multiple deprivation index, rail access)

Overlaid with UKCIP climate change scenarios, Met Office data, satellite data (applied to local scale)

Fine-grained Urban Heat Island Model revealed importance of GI / ‘natural capital’

Green Infrastructure Strategy Examined (network of) green spaces

Valued ecosystem services (NEA methodology; applied to constituency level)

y = -0.6963x + 1.0846R² = 0.3646

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

UH

I

Greenspace

Relationship between UHI and Greenspace in Birmingham

Crichton’s Risk Triangle (1999)

Hazard

e.g. high temperatures

Exposure

e.g. all households in specific area

Vulnerability

e.g. old age

POLITICAL HOOK

RISK Concept as a

Informing and influencing policy

Risk concept and messages has currency with and support from local politicians

Has stayed on the agenda despite national and local government changes… and economic downturn

Embedding into local policy and plans> Green Infrastructure and Adaptation Delivery Group

• NIA, WFD, National Health System restructuring

Climate Change Adaptation Plan (2010, reviewed annually)

Green Living Spaces Plan (in draft)

Development Plan to 2031 (‘Core Strategy’) (being developed)

Sustainable Development Policy (being developed)

Health and Wellbeing Strategy (under consultation)

Linking into policy discourses

Lawton Report Making Space for Nature

Marmot Review Fair Society Healthy Lives

Natural Capital, Ecosystem Assessment (Defra,

Research Councils, Welsh Government, Scottish Government)

INVESTMENT AND FOCUS

RISK Management to guide

Guiding decision-making

GIADGThe 9-piece jigsaw model based on the key themes of Birmingham’s Green Infrastructure and Adaptation Delivery Group, the associated risk-based processes (risk mapping, contingency planning, future proofing) and planning processes/cycle

Guiding /getting investment

Adopt key principles, cross-connections• Climate Change Adaptation Plan

• Green Living Spaces Plan

• Development Plan

• Sustainable Development Policy – ‘Places for the Future’

Better integration of sectors and goals than e.g. • Big City Plan (economic development focus)

“We will put natural capital at the centre of economic thinking;and at the heart of the way we measure economic progress.”

NATURAL CAPITAL COMMITTEE

COMMUNICATION TOOL

RISK Mapping as a

Risk and Vision Maps

Green Living Spaces Plan will use map(s) for each constituency

Show evidence and flag up ‘hot-spots’ for action / adaptation

Highlight ecosystem services / natural capital demand-supply and flows

Act as economic blueprint for Birmingham (Corporate Ecosystem Valuation tool)

NI188 STAGE 4 ---ECOSYSTEM CITY MODEL

Evolving VISIONS

NI188 level 4 Ecosystem City Model

National Indicator NI188 on planning to adapt to climate change

Measures progress on assessing and managing climate risks (and opportunities)

Cross-sector joined-up action plan with funding commitment for implementation

Looking beyond public sector to private sector (and voluntary sector)

Co-funding Co-production of vision Collaboration and joint

implementation

MAKING CONNECTIONS

First global Ecosystem City

Adapting to changing political context, policy drivers, funding needs/sources, role(s)

CRITICAL REFLECTION

RISK

Works as… What about …?

Part of evidence base

Persisting political hook

Possible incentive mechanism

First step management guide

Possible communication tool

Strategic approach; expert driven

Pro-active

Uncertainties; ignored variables

Values, normative approaches (risk - data intensive and time consuming)

‘Ordinary’ place and low risk areas

Ownership, agency, power

Bottom-up visions and actions

Risks with ‘risk’

Risk methods

Only as good as data; availability/gaps?

‘Relative’ measure (but looks absolute)

Confidence levels?

Single issue(s)?; stacking vs connections

Risk concept

Combination of risk factors / synergies - powerful political tool (too complex? – local ‘translation’ & innovation)

As part of e.g. MCDA framework

Adaptive management (research – policy – practice)

THANK YOU!claudia.carter@bcu.ac.uk nick.grayson@birmingham.gov.uk