Integrating climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies in cities: Examining Passive Design Techniques from a Sociotechnical Approach.

Introduction

In the last few years, reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proved that there is scientific consensus around the risks that climate change poses to society and the urgent need to mitigate and adapt to it (Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2022). As the main cause of climate change can be expressed in simple terms by the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and their accumulation in the atmosphere that leads to increasing global warming effect, mitigation can also be simplified as the reduction in the emission of those gases and, in some cases, its recapture (Zwickel et al., 2014). Despite this sounding simple, climate change is a complex issue that presents different characteristics of a super wicked problem (Alford & Head, 2017). On one hand, the cause of GHG emissions lies in different technical, sociocultural, institutional, and economic factors. On the other hand, these different factors also comprehend different stakeholders with diverging interests. From a Socio-Technical approach, it is possible to say that climate change is a result of the fossil-fuels sociotechnical landscape or regime?(Geels, Frank, 2005), that drove an increase in atmospheric CO2 emissions worldwide. This regime has different lock-in mechanisms that difficult innovations to diffuse into a Clean-Energy regime. First, the technologies to extract, refine and distribute gas and oil, as well as those that use them as their main source of energy, have been developed for more than 100 years, making them increasingly cheap compared to their clean alternatives. Additionally, current investments in fossil-fuel facilities make investors want to preserve the status quo, being reluctant to switch into clean energy. According to Frank Geels’s explanation (2019) we can call this a techno-economic lock-in. Second, fossil-fuels-based technologies have spread into people’s lives and become part of their daily routines, creating a fossil-fuels culture, which represents a social lock-in mechanism. Third, governments have made fossil fuel expansion a central topic in their policies, giving them protective legal frameworks and economic incentives, creating an institutional and political lock-in mechanism. A full-scale Climate Change Mitigation strategy would mean the transition from the Fossil-Fuel regime into a Clean-Energy one and would need to overcome these different lock-ins.

However, as the transition delays, the consequences of Climate Change become more evident in the climate system. Therefore, cities need to prepare to face more extreme rainfalls, that will result in floods, hail, and wind damage, together with heatwaves, droughts, water scarcity, crop failures and food shortages, putting people’s lives at risk and generating economic losses on urban infrastructure (including transport and energy supply) and buildings (Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2022). Climate Change Adaptation is the set of strategies aiming at reducing these risks and damages. It involves measures that lead to a more resilient built environment and its social and economic aspects. By resilience we refer to the capacity of a system to maintain its properties and functions in the event of a disturbance, considering its social, ecological and technological dimensions, together with the community one?(Elmqvist et al., 2019). This means, for the urban environment, that cities should be able to keep their social functions and their ecosystems and technological services for the wellbeing of the community, even in the event of extreme rain and flood, heatwaves, polar waves, crop failures and water scarcity. As complex adaptive systems, cities have the capacity to learn and adapt to external forces by changing their configuration and exchanging resources and information with the inner and outer environment (Turner & Baker, 2019). Tyler and Moench (2012) build on this to propose a framework to increase urban resilience through three main elements: systems, agents and institutions. In this case, the authors refer to systems as the urban infrastructure that delivers essential services. To increase resilience in these systems the authors mention a triple strategy consisting of flexibility and diversity, redundancy and modularity, and safe failure mechanisms. Agents refer to the actors or stakeholders involved in the process of generating resilience. Different agents provide different resources and skills, but also have different degrees of vulnerabilities. Finally, institutions refer to the social rules, regardless of being formal or informal, implicit, or explicit, and influence the way in which climates and systems interact to face climate challenges.

?

Passive Design Strategies as a Tool for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

While in the literature is common to approach adaptation and mitigation separately, this can create conflicts between the two. For example, actions to adapt to droughts like improving water desalinization capabilities, imply the consumption of large quantities of energy and resources, having a negative impact on mitigation (Sharifi, 2020).?Alternatively, actions to reduce energy consumption can translate into the loss of redundant systems needed for resilience. Moreover, since IPCC experts urge world leaders to act quickly, dividing these two fields forces decision-makers to choose between allocating the budget to only one of them, delaying the necessary outcomes. On the contrary, by considering them together, it becomes possible to identify actions that contribute to both goals at the same time.

This is the case of Passive Design Strategies (PDS), a concept that focuses on keeping buildings at comfortable temperatures by choosing the right orientation and materials to store heat or create cooling air flows, using mainly the energy of the sun (Omrany & Marsono, 2016; Rodriguez-Ubinas et al., 2014). PDS could be effective at reducing energy consumption and have the potential as an element of energy transition and climate mitigation. Energy use in buildings represents 17.5% of global GHG emissions?(Ritchie, Roser, & Rosado, 2020), being its main use is to protect from the external climate and preserve indoor comfort (Rodriguez-Ubinas et al., 2014). In a study to retrofit an existing building in the Netherlands, Raji et. Al.?(2016) developed an envelope that reduced 42% of total energy consumption, 64% for heating and 34% for lightning, through passive design. Moreover, in the competition Solar Decathlon Europe different buildings kept temperatures between 21°C and 26°C using just passive strategies while monitoring external temperatures ranging from 10°C to 30°C. Similarly, Freney et. Al?(2013) monitored an Earthship building that uses passive design for 12 months in Taos, New Mexico, Unites States. During this period outdoor temperatures ranged from -22.1 °C to 34.8°C, while indoor temperatures stayed between 16.7°C and 27.7°C. These values prove that PDS can keep citizens at healthy temperatures in the event of heat waves and polar waves regardless of potential power outages and prevent the economic effects on households of increased energy needs, making it a contribution to climate adaptation from an environmental, social, and economic perspective. When analysing it from the lens of Tylor and Moench (2012), PDS contribute to resilience by reinforcing these systems:

·???????Diversity: It adds a mechanism for temperature comfort that is independent of powered devices and energy supply.

·???????Redundancy: It adds to other strategies for temperature comfort, such as technology-based solutions.

·???????Safe Failure Mechanisms: It provides conditions that, in the event of energy shortages caused by extreme weather events, allow people to withstand those infrastructure failures.

But despite the increasing evidence to support the use of PDS for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, its use in the construction industry is still rare. To exploit their full potential, PDS should diffuse into the socio-technical regime until they become part of the new landscape. Geels (2005; 2019) suggests a process of four phases for this diffusion that applied to PDS could be pictured as follows:

Phase 1: Niche. PDS is tested in different buildings and its efficacy is measured. This could be done through pilot projects supported by universities, governmental agencies, real estate developers or construction companies. As an experimental stage, it should happen both with new developments and the retrofit of existing ones.

Phase 2: If phase 1 is successful then PDS will be able to diffuse into market niches. Potential consumers might include companies that are interested in having a sustainable profile, individual citizens with environmental awareness, real estate developers looking for an innovative image or builders interested in providing climate-proof solutions. At this stage is also necessary that the knowledge diffuses on educational universities to develop a skilled workforce for Phase 3 as well. Additionally, a network governance approach could foster the process by inviting different incumbent actors to discuss the possibility of further diffusing PDS into construction projects.

Phase 3: In phase 3 the technology diffuses into mainstream markets. This means that there is enough population that is aware of its benefits, regulations that encourage its use, skilled labour that knows how to apply it, most real state agencies offering buildings that include them in their portfolios, and a constant flow between the offer and the demand. Combining with elements of the socio-institutional approach?(Loorbach et al., 2021), a successful transition will also require the integration of PDS into regulations and its promotion through policy mechanisms to overcome institutional lock-ins.

Phase 4: In phase 4 the new landscape replaces the old one. Regulations force all new buildings to include passive design criteria and actively encourage existing ones to retrofit. PDS become mainstream in architecture curriculums and builders and developers make it real on the construction site. Citizens fully understand the advantages of this technology and its economic benefits and operate them in their buildings in their daily life, becoming part of their routines.

Nonetheless, Geels also explains that this four-phases approach has limitations. First, it does not consider the power struggles that could emerge during the transition. Second, cultural discourses and hegemonic narratives could pose a barrier. Third, niche innovations are sometimes carried out by informal, voluntary commitments of activists that lack formal knowledge and processes to document their learnings, and might not even be interested in scaling up their innovations. Fourth, transition pathways are not a single one-way homogeneous process but can vary within different typologies. Finally, Geels claims that incumbent firms that are critical to embody transitions are normally reluctant to make a shift. When it comes to the fossil fuels companies behind CO2 emissions, this implies strong opposition from sectors that are among the most powerful in the world. All these respects need to be considered for the accomplishment of the transition.

?

Conclusion

IPCC reports highlight the risks of climate change and urge to take action for adaptation and mitigation?(IPCC, 2012; IPCC, 2020; IPCC, 2021; Seneviratne & Zhang, 2021; Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2022) As energy consumption in buildings is one of the main sources of emissions?(Ritchie et al., 2020) it also constitutes an opportunity for climate change mitigation from an urban management perspective. Additionally, cities need to prepare for future climate extremes, including heat waves and polar waves. To increase resilience, redundancy between systems is needed?(Elmqvist et al., 2019; Tyler & Moench, 2012). But as both mitigation and adaptation are important, approaching them separately can lead to conflicts between the two (Sharifi, 2020). Therefore, as the climate urgency requires society’s best efforts to minimize the impacts of climate change, fostering initiatives that put them together becomes increasingly necessary. Examples like PDS prove that adaptation and mitigation can be approached together for time and resource efficiency of climate action, being capable of reducing up to 42% of buildings’ total energy consumption and staying at comfortable temperatures despite extreme outdoors ones?(Freney et al., 2013; Rodriguez-Ubinas et al., 2014). The literature review suggests that buildings that make the best use of PDS lack the need for technological solutions like heaters and air conditioners for thermal comfort. Moreover, if used together they can provide increased redundancy, becoming an element of resilience.

The socio-technical approach helps us understand that the transition towards these designs requires a change in the current regime (2005; 2019), as the fossil fuels culture encouraged the construction of less energy-efficient buildings that could be taken to comfortable temperatures using energy-intensive devices. Therefore, fossil fuels culture also shapes and influences the current construction landscape and needs to change accordingly. It could be speculated that PDS are currently within a niche stage and that further collaboration between actors in the construction industry, investors, government authorities, consumers, and educational institutions is needed for it to diffuse into market niches. To do this, a network governance approach in which all these different stakeholders come together could help to foster the transition and help PDS permeate through them to establish a foothold in market niches and stabilize before it can disrupt the mainstream markets. The limitations mentioned could also pose a threat to the diffusion process. Therefore, further research could explore the current state of PDS from a Socio-Technical Approach to understand better what phase they are in and what is required for them to diffuse into the broader socio-technical landscape and address the limitations of the Socio-Technical approach to increase the chances of success for the transition.?

References

Alford, J., & Head, B. W. (2017). Policy and society wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society, 36(3), 397-413. doi:10.1080/14494035.2017.1361634

Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., . . . Folke, C. (2019). Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nature Sustainability, 2, 267-273. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1

Freney, M., Soebarto, V., & Williamson, T. (2013). Earthship monitoring and thermal simulation. Architectural Science Review, 56(3), 208-219.

Geels, F. (2005). Co-evolution of technology and society : The transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the netherlands (1850 - 1930)-a case study in multi-level perspective. Technology in Society, 27(3), 363-397. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.04.008

Geels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the multi-level perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 187-201.

IPCC. (2012). Special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation : Summary for policymakers : A report of working group III of the IPCC and technical summary : A report accepted by working group III of the IPCC but not approved in detail. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/SRREN_FD_SPM_final.pdf

IPCC. (2020). The concept of risk in the IPCC sixth assessment report: A summary of cross working group discussions: Guidance for IPCC authors. In A. Reisinger, M. Howden, C. Vera, M. Garschagen, M. Hurlbert, S. Kreibiehl, . . . R. Ranasinghe (Eds.), The IPCC sixth assessment report (pp. 1-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC. (2021). Summary for policymakers.?. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, . . . B. Zhou (Eds.), Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.001

Loorbach, D., Schwanen, T., Doody, B. J., Arnfalk, P., Langeland, O., & Farstad, E. (2021). Transition governance for just, sustainable urban mobility: An experimental approach from rotterdam, the netherlands. Journal of Urban Mobility, 1, 100009. doi:https://doi-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2021.100009

Omrany, H., & Marsono, A. K. (2016). Optimization of building energy performance through passive design strategies. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 13(6), 1-16.

Raji, B., Tenpierik, M. J., & van den Dobbelsteen, A. (2016). An assessment of energy-saving solutions for the envelope design of high-rise buildings in temperate climates: A case study in the netherlands. Energy and Buildings, 124, 210-221.

Ritchie, H., Roser, M. & Rosado, P. (2020). CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions?. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#citation

Rodriguez-Ubinas, E., Montero, C., Porteros, M., Vega, S., Navarro, I., Castillo-Cagigal, M., . . . Gutiérrez, A. (2014). Passive design strategies and performance of net energy plus houses. Energy and Buildings, 83, 10-22.

Seneviratne, S. I., & Zhang, X. (2021). Weather and climate extreme events in a changing climate. IPCC sith assessment report (pp. 1516-1765). London: IPCC. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter11.pdf

Sharifi, A. (2020). Trade-offs and conflicts between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures : A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276(10 December 2020), 122813. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122813

Turner, J. R., & Baker, R. M. (2019). Complexity theory: An overview with potential applications for the social sciences. Systems, 7(1), 4. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010004

Tyler, S., & Moench, M. (2012). A framework for urban climate resilience. Climate and Development, 4(4), 311-326.

Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. ().IPCC. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/

Zwickel, T., Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Minx, J., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., . . . Von Stechow, C. (2014). Climate change 2014 mitigation of climate change. working group III contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf