Climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process in Tanzania

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100155

Abstract

Abstract:

Climate change vulnerability assessment is an essential tool for identifying regions that are most susceptible to the impacts of climate change and designing effective adaptation actions that can reduce vulnerability and enhance long-term resilience of these regions. This study explored a framework for climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process in Jangwani Ward, Tanzania. Specifically, taking flood as an example, this study highlighted the steps and methods for climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process. In the study area, 95 households were selected and interviewed through purposeful sampling. Additionally, 10 respondents (4 females and 6 males) were interviewed for Focus Group Discussion (FGD), and 3 respondents (1 female and 2 males) were selected for Key Informant Interviews (KII) at the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development. This study indicated that climate change vulnerability assessment framework involves the assessment of climatic hazards, risk elements, and adaptive capacity, and the determination of vulnerability levels. The average hazard risk rating of flood was 2.3. Socioeconomic and livelihood activities and physical infrastructures both had the average risk element rating of 3.0, and ecosystems had the average risk element rating of 2.9. Adaptive capacity ratings of knowledge, technology, economy or finance, and institution were 1.6, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.2, respectively. The vulnerability levels of socioeconomic and livelihood activities and physical infrastructure were very high (4.0). Ecosystems had a high vulnerability level (3.8) to flood. The very high vulnerability level of socioeconomic and livelihood activities was driven by high exposure and sensitivity to risk elements and low adaptive capacity. The study recommends adoption of the new urban planning process including preparation, planning, implementation, and monitoring-evaluation-review phases that integrates climate change vulnerability assessment in all phases.

Key words: Climate change, Vulnerability level, Climatic hazard, Risk elements, Adaptive capacity, New urban planning process

Issa NYASHILU, Robert KIUNSI, Alphonce KYESSI. Climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process in Tanzania[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2024, 5(3): 100155.

Figures/Tables 4

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

References 57

[1]	Adger N., 2003. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ. Geogr. 79(4), 387-404.
[2]	Adger W.N., Brooks N., Bentham G., et al., 2004. New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. In: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Technical Paper. Norwich, the United Kingdom.
[3]	Araos M., Berrang-Ford L., Ford J.D., et al., 2016. Climate change adaptation planning in large cities: A systematic global assessment. Environ. Sci. Policy. 66, 375-382.
[4]	Arifah, Salman, D., Yassi, A., et al., 2022. Livelihood vulnerability of smallholder farmers to climate change: A comparative analysis based on irrigation access in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Reg. Sustain. 3(3), 244-253. doi: 10.1016/j.regsus.2022.10.002
[5]	Aslam M., 2018. Flood management current state, challenges and prospects in Pakistan: A review. Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology. 37(2), 297-314.
[6]	Atanga R.A., Inkoom D.K.B., Derbile E.K., 2017. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development planning in Ghana. Ghana Journal of Development Studies. 14(2), 209, doi: 10.4314/gjds.v14i2.11.
[7]	Barsley W., de Young C., Brugere C., 2013. Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies: An Annotated Bibliography for Climate Change and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector. Rome: FAO, 43.
[8]	Bles T., Bessembinder J., Chevreuil M., et al., 2016. Climate change risk assessments and adaptation for roads-results of the ROADAPT project. Transportation Research Procedia. 14, 58-67.
[9]	Borhara K., Pokharel B., Bean B., et al., 2020. On Tanzania’s precipitation climatology, variability, and future projection. Climate. 8(2), 34, doi: 10.3390/cli8020034.
[10]	Cobbinah P.B., Asibey M.O., Opoku-Gyamfi M., et al., 2019. Urban planning and climate change in Ghana. J. Urban. Manag. 8(2), 261-271.
[11]	de León V., Carlos J., 2006. Vulnerability: a conceptual and methodological review. Bonn: United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security, 4.
[12]	European Commission, 2004. Risk, Hazard and People’s Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: A Review of Definitions, Concepts and Data. Strasbourg: European Union, 21410.
[13]	Feyissa G., Zeleke G., Gebremariam E., et al., 2018. GIS based quantification and mapping of climate change vulnerability hotspots in Addis Ababa. Geoenviron. Disasters. 5(1), 14, doi: 10.1186/s40677-018-0106-4.
[14]	Fritzsche K., Schneiderbauer S., Buseck P., et al., 2014. The Vulnerability Sourcebook: Concept and Guidelines for Standardised Vulnerability Assessments. Berlin: Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development GmbH., 171.
[15]	Füssel M., Klein R., 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim. Change. 75(3), 301-329.
[16]	Gibbs M.T., 2015. Guiding principles for infrastructure climate change risk and adaptation studies. Civil Eng. Environ. Sys. 32(3), 206-215.
[17]	Giri M., Bista G., Singh P.K., et al., 2021. Climate change vulnerability assessment of urban informal settlers in Nepal, a least developed country. J. Clean Prod. 307, 127213, doi: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.127213.
[18]	Golubtsov V., 1996. Vulnerability assessment of the water resources of Kazakhstan to anthropogenic climate change and the structure of adaptation measures. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 12(2), 193-208.
[19]	Gombe K., Asanuma I., Park J., 2017. Characterization of Urban Heat Island (UHI) Changes from MODIS Times Series Using Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Case of Dar es Salaam City. In: International Symposium on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (IGARSS). IEEE. Texas, USA, 1554-1557.
[20]	Gupta J., 2010. Mainstreaming climate change:A theoretical exploration. In: Gupta, J., van der Grijp, N., (eds.). Mainstreaming Climate Change in Development Cooperation: Theory, Practice and Implications for the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 67-96.
[21]	IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland.
[22]	IPCC, 2014. Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland.
[23]	IPCC, 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. [2023-04-09]. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
[24]	Kasala S.E., 2015. A return to master planning in Dar es Salaam: A misconception of the theory of paradigm shifts? Global Journal of Human-Social Science. 15(2), 1-7.
[25]	Kikwasi G., Mbuya E., 2019. Vulnerability analysis of building structures to floods: The case of flooding informal settlements in Dar es salaam, Tanzania. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 37(5), 629-656.
[26]	Kiunsi R., 2013. The constraints on climate change adaptation in a city with a large development deficit: The case of Dar es Salaam. Environ. Urban. 25(2), 321-337.
[27]	Leary N., Conde C., Kulkarni J., et al., 2013. Climate Change and Vulnerability. London: Routledge, 1-847.
[28]	Li G.Y., Liu J.H., Shao W., 2023. Urban flood risk assessment under rapid urbanization in Zhengzhou City, China. Reg. Sustain. 4(3), 332-348. doi: 10.1016/j.regsus.2023.08.004
[29]	Li X.C., Jiang T., Chao Q.C., et al., 2015. The core conclusions and interpretation of working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chin. J. Urban Env. Stud. 3(1), doi: 10.1142/s2345748115500049.
[30]	Luhunga P.M., Kijazi A.L., Chang’a L., et al, 2018. Climate change projections for Tanzania based on high-resolution regional climate models from the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX)-Africa. Front. Environ. Sci. 6, 1-20.
[31]	Lupala J.M., 2015. Urban governance in the changing economic and political landscapes: A comparative analysis of major urban centres of Tanzania. Current Urban Studies. 3(2), 147-160.
[32]	Nyashilu I., Kiunsi R., Kyessi A., 2023a. Heliyon Assessment of exposure, coping and adaptation strategies for elements at risk to climate change-induced flooding in urban areas. The case of Jangwani Ward in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania. Heliyon. 9(4), e15000, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15000.
[33]	Nyashilu I.M., Kiunsi R., Kyessi A.G., 2023b. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation planning in Tanzania’s City’s Master Plans. A critical review. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review. 6(1), 160-176.
[34]	Ordóñez C., Duinker P.N., 2014. Assessing the vulnerability of urban forests to climate change. Environ. Rev. 22(3), 311-321.
[35]	Osima S., Gudoshava M., Misiani H.O., et al., 2018. Projected effects of 1.5°C and 2°C global warming levels on the intra-seasonal rainfall characteristics over the Greater Horn of Africa. Environ. Res. Letters, 15(3), 034037, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b33.
[36]	Pandey R., Alatalo J.M., Thapliyal K., et al., 2018. Climate change vulnerability in urban slum communities: Investigating household adaptation and decision-making capacity in the Indian Himalaya. Ecol. Indic. 90, 379-391.
[37]	Reay D., Sabine C., Smith P., 2007. Climate change 2007: Spring-time for sinks. Nature. 446(7137), 727-728.
[38]	Rodríguez R.A.S., Santos A.E.M., 2018. Vulnerability assessment to climate variability and climate change in Tijuana, Mexico. Sustainability. 10(7), 2351, doi: 10.3390/su10072352.
[39]	Rysz K., Mazurek K., 2015. Contemporary foundations of the theory of urban development - case study smart, slow and compact city theory. Environ. Socio-Econ. Studies. 3(4), 39-46.
[40]	Schneiderbauer S., Baunach D., Pedoth L., et al., 2020. Spatial-explicit climate change vulnerability assessments based on impact chains. Findings from a case study in Burundi. Sustainability. 12(16), doi: 10.3390/su12166354.
[41]	Stephen P., Coly A., Fohlmeister S., et al., 2015. Urban Vulnerability and Climate Change in Africa:A Multidisciplinary Approach. Cham: Springer, 4.
[42]	Tapia C., Abajo B., Feliu E., et al., 2017. Profiling urban vulnerabilities to climate change: An indicator-based vulnerability assessment for European cities. Ecol. Indic. 78, 142-155.
[43]	Timberlake T.J., Schultz C.A., 2019. Climate change vulnerability assessment for forest management: The case of the U.S. Forest Service. Forests. 10(11), 1030, doi: 10.3390/f10111030.
[44]	Tu S., Yu S.Y., 2023. Urban planning for climate change: Comparing climate adaptation plans between Taipei and Boston. Sustainability. 15(2), 934, doi: 10.3390/su15020934.
[45]	Ullah W., 2016. Climate change vulnerability of Pakistan towards natural disasters: A review. International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy. 4(5), 126-132.
[46]	UN United Nations, 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [2023-03-09]. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
[47]	UN-Habitat, 2014. Planning for Climate Change: Guide—A Strategic, Values-Based Approach for Urban Planners. [2023-03-09]. https://unhabitat.org/planning-for-climate-change-guide-a-strategic-values-based-approach-for-urban-planners.
[48]	UN-Habitat, 2015. Kathmandu Valley, Nepal: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. [2023-03-09]. https://unhabitat.org/kathmandu-valley-nepal-climate-change-vulnerability-assessment.
[49]	UN-Habitat, 2019. Islamabad, Pakistan: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. [2023-03-09]. https://unhabitat.org/islamabad-pakistan-climate-change-vulnerability-assessment.
[50]	URT United Republic of Tanzania, 2019. Ilala Municipal Council Socio-Economic Profile. [2023-03-09]. https://www.ilalamc.go.tz.
[51]	URT, 2021. Vice President’s Office. [2023-03-09]. https://ncd.co.tz/listing/vice-presidents-office/.
[52]	URT, 2022. 2022 Population and Housing Census. Population Distribution by Administrative Areas. [2023-03-09]. https://www.nbs.go.tz.
[53]	Watson R.T., Noble I.R., Bolin B., et al., 2000. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 375.
[54]	Williams D.S., Costa M.M., Sutherland C., et al., 2019. Vulnerability of informal settlements in the context of rapid urbanization and climate change. Environ. Urban. 31(1), 157-176. doi: 10.1177/0956247818819694
[55]	Yin R.K., 2014. Case Study Research Design and Methods (5^th edition). California: SAGE incorporated, 108-110.
[56]	Younus M.A.F., Kabir M.A., 2018. Climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation of Bangladesh: Mechanisms, Notions and Solutions. Sustainability. 10(11), 4286, doi: 10.3390/su10114286.
[57]	Živković J., 2019. Human settlements and climate change. In: Leal FilhoW., AzeiteiroU., AzulA., (eds.). Climate Action. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Cham: Springer, 1-11.

Parameter	Category	Respondents’ response (%)	Class value	Hazard risk rating
Frequency of occurrence	Every year	100.0	3	3.0
	Every 2 a	0.0	1
	After 5 a	0.0	1
Extent of the affected area	A small part of the ward	9.0	1	1.6
	A large part of the ward	24.4	1
	The whole ward	66.6	2
Extent of the affected population	A small part of the community in the ward	13.7	1	1.5
	A large part of the community in the ward	30.8	1
	The whole community in the ward	55.5	2
Likelihood of occurrence	Occasional	11.6	1	2.7
	Likely	5.2	1
	Very likely	83.2	3
Duration of occurrence	Hours	3.2	1	2.7
	Days	86.3	1
	Weeks	10.5	3
Average hazard risk rating				2.3

Risk element	Exposure				Sensitivity
	Respondents’ response (%)			Risk element rating	Respondents’ response (%)			Risk element rating
	Minimum exposure	Middle exposure	High exposure	Risk element rating	Not sensitive	Sensitive	High sensitive	Risk element rating
Socioeconomic and livelihood activities	0.0	5.0	95.0	3.0	0.0	1.1	98.9	3.0
Physical infrastructures	0.0	1.6	98.4	3.0	0.0	1.0	99.0	3.0
Ecosystems	4.0	3.1	92.9	3.0	0.0	9.1	90.0	2.8

Parameter	Category	Respondents’ response (%)	Class value	Adaptive capacity rating
Knowledge	No knowledge	52.5	1	1.6
	Limited knowledge	35.8	2
	Available knowledge	11.7	3
Technology	Unavailable technology	28.6	1	1.9
	Limited technology	50.5	2
	Available technology	20.9	3
Economy or finance	Weak	52.1	1	1.4
	Not too strong	47.2	2
	Strong	0.7	3
Institution	Ineffective	25.8	1	2.2
	Limited effective	58.5	2
	Effective	15.7	3