Changing Climate in Philadelphia: Expert Elicitation of Climate Risks and Recommendations A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty Of Drexel University By Griffin M. Kidd in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Engineering June 2015
75
Embed
Changing Climate in Philadelphia : Expert Elicitation of ...6525/datastream... · Changing Climate in Philadelphia: Expert Elicitation of Climate Risks and Recommendations Griffin
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Changing Climate in Philadelphia: Expert Elicitation of
change, four of the experts referred to historical data stating that the effects from
25
climate change have already been observed, sea level is rising, there are more extremes
in temperature and intensity in weather. According to a report put out by the Federal
Transit Administration about SEPTA’s vulnerability to climate change, 13 of the 21 floods
in the recorded history of the Schyulkill River have occurred since 2003 (Federal Transit
Administration, 2013). Climate change is not something we are waiting for to happen, it is
happening. One expert explained, “Climate change is here and will only get worse. Even
if we start addressing greenhouse gas the effects are already progressing. We are going
to have to adapt to a new reality. How much damage will be done until we get there?”
Another way that four of the experts responded to the question about climate
change is that it does not change their answers, but makes the recommendations for
action even more important, creating a sense of urgency. There are many organizations
in Philadelphia that were listed by the experts that are already implementing adaptation
strategies specifically incorporating climate change predictions, however based on the
expert responses, much more needs to be done.
Some experts warned that Philadelphia will be at great risk for substantial
impacts if nothing more is done and while it is important to study the various adaptation
strategies it is possible to get stuck in “analysis paralysis” where nothing actually gets
done. Another expert explained that there needs to be a holistic approach, and warned
against focusing on any one approach.
While climate change presents Philadelphia with many upcoming challenges as
the effects progress, it also presents unique opportunities. Some experts asserted the
26
need to educate and engage the community in climate change actions in order to inform
the public and create political will to initiate action.
Figure 1: Mental Model of Expert Responses
This figure represents the risks and recommendations provided by experts in the semi-structured interview. The recommendation for reduction in greenhouse gas has been omitted from this model as this recommendation addresses every listed risk.
27
4.2 The Risks
In the semi-structured interviews experts were asked to identify what they
consider to be the most serious climate related risks faced by Philadelphia. While the
underlying focus of this study is to be able to propose climate change adaptation
strategies, current climate related risks that exist in Philadelphia were asked for in the
semi-structured interviews because current conditions provide the foundation for the
risks that are already present as the regional effects of climate change progresses. The
effects of climate change in cities do not produce new issues, the issues of stormwater
runoff, drought, and extreme heat have been ongoing and cities already have strategies
in place to deal with them (Lowe, Foster & Winkelmand, 2009). The regional effects of
climate change in Philadelphia will predominantly be to exacerbate the risks that
currently exist. The expert respondents each provided a response that reflected their
area of expertise and collectively provided a comprehensive list of the major risks in
Philadelphia. While responses varied from person to person there were trends of
responses that emerged with multiple experts citing the same risks.
28
Figure 2: Frequency of Expert Responses on Climate Risks This figure represents an exhaustive listing of the risks provided by the expert respondents.
4.2.1 Stormwater Runoff
Extreme rainfall events resulting in stormwater runoff and localized flooding was
one of the primary risks identified in the semi-structured interviews. This risk was
identified by 14 out of the 20 expert respondents. With regional climate change
predictions of increased frequency and intensity of storms in the Northeastern United
States (Karl, 2009), issues associated stormwater runoff are only going to intensify in
Philadelphia as the effects of climate change progress in the region.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Stormwaterrunoff
Excessiveheat
Increasedstorm
intensity
Poor airquality
Sea level rise Loss of treecanopy
Nu
mb
er
of
resp
on
ses
o
ut
of
20
exp
ert
s Frequency of Expert Risk Responses
29
When describing the risks associated with stormwater runoff, experts explained
that stormwater runoff greatly contributes to localized flooding as well as pollution.
Many experts focused on the damaging effects of stormwater in terms of the localized
flooding when a heavy rain event occurs citing the amount of impervious surfaces in
Philadelphia as a contributing factor to the flooding. One major concern raised about
flooding was the strain flooding puts on an already aging infrastructure in Philadelphia
with an emphasis on infrastructure that is in flood prone areas along the Delaware and
Schuylkill rivers as well as several other low lying neighborhoods.
Another effect of stormwater runoff is that as the water runs down across the
impervious surfaces it collects pollutants that have collected on roads and sidewalks and
pollutes the water downstream. Water pollution from polluted watershed affecting
drinking water quality demonstrates the upstream and downstream concerns
connecting Philadelphia to the surrounding regions. It was also identified by experts that
the combined sewer system in Philadelphia has a limited capacity and once that
capacity is exceeded there is a potential for overflow of raw sewage that would produce
additional health hazards to Philadelphia citizens.
4.2.2 Sea Level Rise
Coastal flooding along the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers was another main
concern. This flooding was listed separately from flooding from stormwater runoff
because sea level rise will impact Philadelphia flooding due to the tidal nature of the
30
Delaware and Schuylkill rivers. Of the 14 experts who provided flooding as one of the
major risks Philadelphia faces, five of them specifically referred to tidal flooding and/or
sea level rise with an additional two experts specifically discussing flooding from the
Delaware and Schuylkill rivers, which are tidal rivers. One expert raised the point that
the Delaware River is tidal up as far as Trenton, NJ and stated specific concerns about
the infrastructure such as power supply, roadways and railways along the Delaware and
Schuylkill rivers that will be impacted by coastal flooding. Another expert cited that 10
of the 18 highest crests in the recorded history for the Schuylkill River have occurred
since 2010. Experts discussed the fact that in addition to the impact to coastal residents
and businesses that get flooded there will be additional economic impacts due to the
disruption of public services and transportation interruptions as a result of coastal
flooding.
4.2.3 Excessive Heat
Another risk identified by the expert respondents is excessive heat days
threatening the health and lives of vulnerable populations and causing heat stress to the
infrastructure such as roads and rail lines. This risk was identified by 10 out of the 20
expert respondents. There were two main causes provided by the experts for the
inclusion of excessive heat as a major risk for Philadelphia; the increasing number of
31
excessive heat days brought on by climate change, and the urban heat island effect. The
urban heat island effect is caused by the large amount of impervious in cities and the
lack of surface moisture, the effect is that on a hot day the surface temperatures of
impervious surfaces can be as much as 50o to 90o hotter than the air temperature,
retain the heat and then radiate heat after the sun goes down (Reducing Urban Heat
Islands: Compendium of Strategies, 2008). A recent downscaled climate change projection
developed specifically for Philadelphia, Boston and New York asserts, “Increased heat-
related mortality is projected to be among the major impacts of climate change on
human health, and the United States urban Northeast region is likely to be particularly
vulnerable” (Petkova et al 2013).
While excessive heat was provided as one of the major risks to Philadelphia by
half of the experts responding to the semi-structured interview, there were a wide
variety of reasons given by these experts as to why excessive heat is a major risk. Among
them is the risk excessive heat is to the elderly population in Philadelphia, with an
emphasis placed on the elderly who are living on their own and lack social
connectedness. Heat related mortality rates are higher with this population, according
to experts, and will only continue to grow with a greater number of days with excessive
heat as well as higher extremes in temperature. Another population that was identified
by experts of being at greater risk from the heat is the low income population in
Philadelphia, people who lack the means to afford air conditioning or other means of
32
escaping the heat. One factor that exacerbates the risk to low income neighborhoods,
according to several of the expert respondents, is that low income neighborhoods
disproportionately lack a tree canopy that would provide much needed shade, cooling
neighborhoods and reducing the heat island effect, therefore reducing the need for
running an air conditioner. The benefits of a healthy tree canopy are presented in a
report released by the Forrest Service, stating “Tree canopy provides many benefits to
communities, improving water quality, saving energy, lowering city temperatures,
reducing air pollution, enhancing property values, providing wildlife habitat, facilitating
social and educational opportunities, and providing aesthetic benefits (Pelletier, 2011).
The third population at risk from excessive heat is the trees themselves. Older trees and
trees that are currently at the southern end of their temperature range will experience
increased stress with the predicted increase in temperature in the region accompanying
the progression of climate change effects in Philadelphia. With an increase in
temperature coupled with a reduction in the tree canopy the rising temperatures will
have an even worse effect on the city of Philadelphia increasing the need to respond to
heat related incidents.
33
4.2.4 Poor Air Quality
Poor air quality including increased Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and
ground level ozone was another environmental risk that was provided by five of the
twenty expert respondents. The populations that were identified as being most at risk
are children, elderly, and people who have some sort of respiratory condition.
Essentially the same population that is vulnerable to excessive heat also is susceptible to
health impacts from poor air quality. According to the American Lung Association’s 2014
report, State of the Air, the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden Metropolitan region is ranked
the 16th worst region for high ozone days and 11th worst region for annual particle
pollution out of 277 metropolitan regions in the United States and received a failing
grade for both of these categories. This report further warns that with the rising
temperatures brought on by climate change there are also more favorable conditions
for the production of ozone; therefore cities need to do more to curtail ozone
production (State of the Air 2015, 2015).
4.2.5 Loss of Tree Canopy
In the semi-structured interviews, when asked for recommendations for
addressing climate risks seven of the twenty experts specifically discussed trees as being
an integral part of the solution, while an additional five included some form of Green
34
Infrastructure. A discussion about trees and their role in protecting Philadelphia has
been a theme that has emerged in the expert responses, so it is not surprising that four
of the twenty experts listed invasive species and migrating pests leading to loss of urban
tree canopy as another climate-related risk for Philadelphia. There is significant support
from the expert responses for the importance of the tree canopy in Philadelphia, many
of whom state that increasing the tree canopy is one of the primary ways to address the
climate risks in Philadelphia. If the existing canopy is insufficient and there are additional
pressures such as invasive species and migrating pests leading to an additional loss of
trees then Philadelphia will be at an even greater disadvantage in managing the climate
risks as climate change effects progress in the region.
4.2.6 Increased Storm Intensity
Climate change projections for the Northeastern United States predict more
intense storms, high winds, and increased precipitation. While 14 of the 20 experts
discussed intense storms with greater precipitation leading to increased pressures from
flooding, six experts specifically discussed increased intensity of storms with damaging
winds as being a significant risk to Philadelphia. This coincides with the regional
predictions of climate change impacts for the Northeastern United States which include
an increase in heavy downpours, increased intensity of storms, and increased
the additional strain more intense storms will place on infrastructure while other
experts expressed concerns for the effects high winds and intense storms will have on
the tree canopy.
4.3 Vulnerable Populations
The second question the experts responded to in the semi-structured interviews
asked them to identify populations that are the most vulnerable to the risks that they
identified. Several of the experts asserted that the entire population of Philadelphia is
vulnerable to the climate risks, stating that not only is there the potential destruction of
property, businesses and infrastructure from extreme weather but there is also a
secondary effect in the disruption of services citywide as well as the negative economic
impacts any destruction or disruption would cause to both residents and businesses.
One expert asserted that all income brackets will be affected, but that residents who
depend on public services will experience the greatest hardship.
36
Figure 3: Frequency of Expert Responses on Vulnerable Populations
4.3.1 Flood Prone Regions
Since flooding was the most common climate related risk identified by the
experts, it is not surprising that neighborhoods and businesses along the rivers and in
flood prone regions were provided as being significantly vulnerable. The population
living and working in these regions was specifically provided by seven of the twenty
expert respondents. There are several low lying regions of Philadelphia that were
identified as being especially susceptible to flooding by various experts, such as the
airport, the Delaware River basin, Kelly Drive, Germantown, and Eastwick. Eastwick was
specifically identified as an especially vulnerable neighborhood by multiple experts due
to the fact that this neighborhood is already below sea level and since it was originally
built on unstable marshland some of the homes are sinking even further. This led one
0123456789
10
Coastal Property /Flood prone
neighborhoods
Elderly and Children Poor residents andneighborhoods
Nu
mb
er
of
resp
on
ses
o
ut
of
20
exp
ert
s
Vulnerable Populations
37
expert to ask the question, “What is going to happen when climate change makes a
neighborhood no longer viable?”
4.3.2 Elderly and Young
Another population that arose in the interviews as being at a greater risk was the
elderly and the young due to the fact that they are less able to cope with extreme
temperatures and poor air quality. This population was specifically identified by six of
the 20 respondents. One particular concern about this population was for the elderly
population that is aging in place and may lack social connectedness. These residents
have been found to succumb to the heat unnecessarily.
4.3.3 Poverty
A third factor that arose as a major contributor to climate change vulnerability is
poverty, which was provided by nine of the 20 experts responding; listing low income
neighborhoods and/or people with a low socioeconomic status (SES) as a community
that was at greater risk from climate change. One reason provided by experts for the
increased risk is that the neighborhoods with greater environmental risks, such as flood
prone communities like Eastwick, are neighborhoods where housing is more affordable.
38
Many residents who live in these neighborhoods lack the financial means to move
somewhere else or even to make repairs to their homes when they are damaged.
Another reason given that poverty is identified by experts as a risk factor is that
the tree canopy in Philadelphia is disproportionately distributed with a much greater
coverage in more affluent neighborhoods. There are many ecosystem services that trees
provide to neighborhoods, such as reducing stormwater runoff, reducing the localized
urban heat island effect, and providing shade. These ecosystem services contribute to
real personal economic impacts as well as tangible health benefits. With more shade on
hot days there is less need to run an air conditioner and also a reduction in heat stress.
It is the economically disadvantaged neighborhoods and residents that need these
services the most but have them the least. Many Philadelphia residents living below the
poverty line cannot afford an air conditioner or even the electric bill from running an air
conditioner. It was also cited by expert respondents that there are higher asthma rates
in communities with a low SES. One expert spoke about these issues identifying the lack
of environmental justice for individuals and communities living in poverty in part
because there is a lack of representation for this population in city government, stating
“this community is not at the decision table when policies are enacted and are not
educated on the issue.”
39
4.4 Recommendations
One purpose of this study is to determine a list of recommendations for actions
that can reduce the climate related risks to Philadelphia. Given the predictions of the
regional effects of climate change for Philadelphia, the climate risks that have been
identified by the expert respondents are storm intensity, precipitation amounts,
excessive heat days, and sea level rise will only worsen as climate change progresses.
These actions are designed to improve the lives of Philadelphia residents, boost the
economic health of businesses and residents, and reduce the economic impacts of
climate change. While there are many initiatives taking place in Philadelphia to address
the climate risks, there is much more that can be done. As the effects from climate
change progress further in Philadelphia the economic impacts to the city, businesses,
and residents could be devastating. One expert warned against climate change paralysis,
stating; “we need to refuse to be paralyzed by the overwhelming nature of climate
change.”
40
Figure 4: Frequency of Expert Responses on Recommendations
There are two approaches to addressing climate change: adaptation and
mitigation. Mitigation strategies are designed to significantly reduce the emission of
greenhouse gas in an effort to slow down the progression of climate change. Adaptation
strategies are designed to protect a region from the negative effects of climate change
(such as flooding, extreme heat, and sea level rise) by increasing the resiliency of a
region. Adaptation strategies are difficult to implement for two main reasons; first
because they require planning for future predicted conditions as opposed to being able
to look at historical data, and second because implementing adaptation strategies
implies an acceptance that the effects of climate change will not be stopped by any
mitigation strategies being implemented. Unfortunately, the worsening effects of
41
climate change will continue regardless of any greenhouse gas emission reductions that
take place due to the current levels of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and the
longevity of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations ("Northeast Impacts &
Adaptation," 2013). Although it may be difficult, the overwhelming sentiment of expert
respondents was that adaptation strategies need to be implemented in Philadelphia.
The following is an exhaustive list of the adaptation strategies provided by the 20
experts who responded to the semi-structured interview questions as well as some
insights they provided regarding their recommendations.
4.4.1 Greenhouse Gas Reductions
The 20 experts who were interviewed for this study were asked what specific
actions can be taken to reduce the climate risks that they identified. Of the 20 experts
who participated in this interview process, five cited a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions in Philadelphia and/or specific actions that lead to a reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions as one way to reduce the risks to Philadelphia. One of these five experts
explained that “in a broad sense we need to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Philadelphia
along with other regions can collectively reduce emissions.” This sentiment was echoed
by four other experts who provided some actions that can be taken to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. It was suggested that this can be accomplished in a
42
combination of ways, such as enacting mitigation policy and shifting to more renewable
energy sources, reducing the use of carbon based sources. It was also suggested that
there needs to be a “cultural shift in terms of energy resources affecting climate
change.” There were also recommendations about what individual citizens can do to
help reduce greenhouse gas production such as riding SEPTA, biking to work, and
investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar panels, for their homes.
4.4.2 Reduce Impervious Surfaces
While mitigation of climate change is predominantly accomplished through
significant reductions in GHG emissions on a global scale, there are a myriad of
adaptation strategies addressing climate risks that will vary from region to region. One
strategy that was proposed for Philadelphia by six of the 20 expert respondents is to
replace impervious paved surfaces. This is the main goal set forth in the Green 2015
action plan which identifies 500 acres of paved surfaces in Philadelphia that can be
converted to green space (Green 2015: An Action Plan for the First 500 Acres, 2010). While
not all surfaces can be replaced there are many vacant lots that have been identified
that are paved over and in a state of disrepair and are not being utilized for any
purpose. This type of property is a blight for a neighborhood. This proposal potentially
reduces several of the risks that have been identified. A report released by the Forrest
43
Service discusses the benefits of replacing impervious surfaces in Philadelphia with
green spaces and trees, stating “Philadelphia’s urban tree canopy is a vital city asset that
reduces stormwater runoff, improves air quality, reduces the city’s carbon footprint,
enhances quality of life, contributes to savings on energy bills, and serves as habitat for
wildlife” (Pelletier, 2011).
The extensive amount of impervious surfaces in Philadelphia is the main cause of
stormwater runoff that leads to flooding in low lying neighborhoods and downstream
pollution. In an extreme rain event if the water is not able to be absorbed into the
ground it flows downhill along any paved surface, collecting oils and other pollutants
that have been deposited on the pavement, flooding low lying neighborhoods and
inundating the combined sewer system. While replacing impervious surfaces will reduce
these effects, there are many viable options of pervious surfaces that it can be replaced
with. Urban parks and green infrastructure are not the only option, and according to
one study not necessarily the best option for water infiltration; in a study conducted in
Philadelphia and New York in 2002 porous concrete provided the greatest infiltration
rate with a mean above 0.7 cm/min while urban parks had the lowest infiltration results
with a mean below 0.1 cm/min (Alizadehtazi, 2012).
Additionally, impervious surfaces are the main cause of the urban heat island
effect. This is caused when paved surfaces such as asphalt and concrete are heated up
during the day well beyond the surrounding air temperature through absorption of solar
44
radiation and retain and radiate that heat in the night time (Reducing Urban Heat Islands:
Compendium of Strategies, 2008). This effect causes the city of Philadelphia to remain
much hotter in the day time as well as the night time than surrounding suburban and
rural communities (Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies, 2008). Any
reduction of this effect would reduce the amount of heat stress residents experience
and reduce the power demand that is otherwise being used to run air conditioners in
order to cope with the hot summer nights in Philadelphia.
4.4.3 Retreat from Flood Prone Areas
There were a few different strategies for risk reduction offered by experts that
specifically address risks from flooding. Retreating from flood prone areas, ceasing
development in flood prone regions and/or deciding not to rebuild homes and
businesses that are damaged from flooding was one of these strategies that was
provided by three of the 20 expert respondents. One of these experts suggested that
significantly increasing the cost of flood insurance would provide enough of an incentive
to cause residents and businesses to retreat from flood prone regions. Unfortunately,
this strategy may further disadvantage poor residents in Philadelphia who live in flood
prone neighborhoods because they are affordable. Many of these residents lack the
financial means to pay higher insurance premiums or to relocate.
45
4.4.4 Implement Flood Resiliency Strategies
Another approach to addressing the risk of flooding is to implement a strategy of
resilience where flooding will have less impact and will be easier to recover from. This
approach was included in the responses of seven out of the 20 experts participating in
the study, many of whom specifically discussed the need to update and protect the
infrastructure in Philadelphia. Some specific solutions provided were using bulkheads,
retaining walls, slope stabilization, upsizing culverts, and raising buildings along the
coast. Other suggestions were to implement geo-engineered structures to dissipate the
energy of surging flood waters and to build infrastructure that is submersible so that
there will be less damage left behind after flood waters subside. It was also stated by
multiple experts that any infrastructure improvements that take place need to
incorporate down scaled climate change predictions specific to Philadelphia so that they
are not designed only to address current conditions, but predicted changes in the region
as well. This approach to infrastructure improvement has already been adopted by
some agencies, with some experts providing examples of this strategy in practice, but
there needs to be a more widespread adoption of this strategy in order to provide any
significant protection from the potential economic devastation that would accompany a
large scale infrastructure failure. One way or another there will be the need for
investment in infrastructure. The only question is will it be an investment to update and
46
protect Philadelphia’s infrastructure from upcoming conditions, or to repair it once it
has been damaged or destroyed?
4.4.5 More Green Infrastructure (Public)
While some of the strategies offered by experts provided solutions in the event
of flooding, other recommended actions are designed to reduce the incidence of
flooding in an extreme rain event. Implementing additional green stormwater
infrastructure and stormwater management was a priority listed by 10 of the 20 experts
responding to the survey. Many of the experts that offered green infrastructure for
stormwater management cited the work that the Philadelphia Water Department
(PWD) has been doing in their Green City Clean Waters program and suggested that
other agencies should partner with them to expand this endeavor, this sentiment is
echoed in the Green 2015 report that recommends specifically that the Philadelphia
Department of Parks and Recreation and PWD should partner together since they had
similar initiatives (Green 2015: An Action Plan for the First 500 Acres, 2010). Experts
responding to the interview explained that increasing the amount of green
infrastructure would reduce the flow of stormwater runoff which will be needed even
more as rainfall amounts increase as climate change effects progress in Philadelphia.
The implementation of additional green infrastructure in Philadelphia would bring
47
reductions in flooding from intense rainfall, reduce the pollution from runoff, and
provide relief from the inundation of the combined sewer system potentially preventing
overflow (Pelletier, 2011).
4.4.6 Green Roofs, Gardens, and Rain Barrels (Private)
While many of the suggested stormwater interventions involving green
infrastructure would require significant investment from the City and other NGOs such
as the Water Department, there were some strategies offered by experts that could be
implemented by individual citizens. In fact seven of the 20 experts listed actions that
could be taken by Philadelphia citizens as well as individual businesses that can
contribute to a reduction in stormwater runoff: green roofs, rain barrels, urban gardens
and other means of intercepting water were offered as a way that residents could
contribute. Much like the concept of mitigation efforts through the reduction of GHG in
the atmosphere, where any one region taking action may have a nominal effect, with a
combined effort the cumulative effect can be significant. Providing incentives for green
roofs, roof gardens, and rain barrels is one way that was suggested that could help
engage Philadelphia citizens and business owners in Philadelphia’s fight against climate
change.
48
4.4.7 A Greater Investment in Trees
A greater investment in trees such as inventorying the tree canopy, planting
trees in neighborhoods that have none, and replacing dead and dying trees is a specific
action to reduce climate risk that was offered by seven of the 20 expert respondents.
Trees address the climate risks that have been outlined in a few different ways. When
impervious pavement is taken up for tree planting there is a direct intervention for
stormwater runoff because of the reduction in impervious pavement as well as the
water that the tree will intercept, trees also provide shade reducing the urban heat
island effect, and trees also perform carbon sequestration trapping the CO2 reducing the
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (Pelletier, 2011, Green 2015: An Action
Plan for the First 500 Acres, 2010). These are three very important ecosystem services that
trees provide for Philadelphia so it is no surprise that trees are presented as a part of
the recommendations for risk reduction. Experts offered a range of actions designed to
improve the health and proliferation of Philadelphia’s tree canopy. It was stated that
there needs to be an accurate inventory of the tree canopy in Philadelphia that includes
the dead and dying trees so that they can be removed and replaced. Several experts
asserted that there needs to be close attention paid to what trees should be planted
and where they should be planted. Experts explained that the trees that get planted
need to provide a full canopy without interfering with any existing wires. They also need
to be selected with the temperature regime in mind, not selecting species that are at
49
the southern end of their temperature regime, but instead look at predicted
temperature regimes 50 years from now. Experts also warned that in the selection of
tree species there needs to be consideration of disease and invasive insects such as the
Emerald ash borer that is moving into the region. One positive note about climate
change that was offered by one expert is that increased atmospheric CO2 has a positive
effect on vegetation, stating that trees grow faster and are more drought resistant.
In looking at the existing tree canopy and knowing the value trees provide to
neighborhoods through their ecosystem services, one expert pointed out the inequity in
Philadelphia in terms of the distribution of trees, citing neighborhoods such as
Kensington and South West Philadelphia where the tree canopy is in the single digits.
This statistic is also found in a detailed report on the tree canopy in Philadelphia that
cites
“Chinatown North, and South Philadelphia have the lowest percentage of their land covered by tree canopy at 3%. The Navy Yard, Eastwick, and Bridesburg have the highest percentage of their land available for tree canopy, with Possible Tree Canopy values of 76%, 72%, and 70% respectively” (Pelletier, 2011).
These poorer neighborhoods are the ones that need the ecosystem services of trees the
most, because residents in these neighborhoods are less able to afford air conditioning
or to make repairs in the event of a flood, yet with a lack of trees they are at a greater
risk from increased heat and inundation from stormwater runoff.
50
4.4.8 Education and Outreach
While many of the actions that were provided by the expert respondents to
reduce climate risk in Philadelphia involve major infrastructure projects there were also
many experts that recommended community engagement and education as a means of
reducing risk. In fact, eight of the 20 experts included specific actions that should be
taken on the community level to engage, inform, and protect the citizens of
Philadelphia. The communities that will benefit most from this strategy are the ones
that have already been identified by experts as being at greatest risk: the poor and the
elderly.
Respondents conveyed the importance of engaging residents in climate change
action through education of community members by communicating the risks that exist
in their community as well as teaching residents things they can do in their homes and
in their neighborhoods to reduce these risks. Some experts expressed that community
outreach is often overlooked or at times not well received. One explanation offered was
that it is difficult for people in low income neighborhoods to be concerned about
climate change when they are trying to find a way to feed their family. Despite any
inherent difficulty, providing education and outreach in these neighborhoods that need
intervention the most can ultimately improve the health and wellbeing of individual
residents as well as the community. Even small changes in personal habits can have a
lasting positive impact on health. Some of the personal actions provided in the expert
51
responses were to teach people how to make their home environment safer and more
efficient through small changes. Some examples provided are putting up curtains to
block the sun in the summer and hold in heat in the winter, using “green” cleaners or
learning how to make their own cleaning products, monitoring humidity levels, fixing
leaks, not leaving food out, and vacuuming. All of these interventions would improve
indoor air quality, reduce indoor levels of VOCs, and ultimately relieve some of the
environmental conditions that exacerbate respiratory conditions. Improved health
provides opportunities for increased productivity as well as a reduction in personal
medical expenses.
Community engagement is a two way street. Experts and policy makers can learn
from residents who can best identify the vulnerabilities in their own neighborhoods
because they are the ones who experience the effects. Because of this residents could
also provide unique solutions for their specific locations that may not otherwise be
considered. In establishing a partnership communication can go in both directions.
Heat stress and extreme heat events (EHE) are a main environmental risk in the
City of Philadelphia, identified by 10 of the experts responding to this survey, which can
be mitigated through various outreach programs. Populations at the greatest risk from
EHE, among others, are the very young, the elderly, individuals with cognitive
impairments, and the poor due to economic constraints limiting access to air
conditioning ("Northeast Impacts & Adaptation," 2013). There are several strategies offered
52
by experts for reducing the risks and in turn reducing the mortality rate associated with
extreme heat events in Philadelphia. Some recommendations addressing the risks of
heat are to greatly expand on some programs that are currently in place and implement
additional interventions such as giving away fans and air conditioners to low income
residents, educate the community on the symptoms of heat stress, and to keep public
libraries open longer in a heat wave. One of the risks factors identified by experts was
for the elderly population that may lack social connectedness; people who choose to
age at home may not have the means to keep cool or to escape the heat. Increasing
social connectedness with outreach programs to check on vulnerable citizens was given
as an intervention to reduce this risk.
4.5 Costs and Benefits
After being asked to provide a list of recommendations for reducing the climate
risks in Philadelphia, experts were then asked how much their solutions would cost,
either monetarily or in tradeoffs, asked who would bear these costs, and asked what
benefits their solutions would bring. The responses were as varied as the
recommendations, but certain trends arose in their responses. The simplest answer that
was provided to the question of cost is that it will cost “more than we are currently
spending.”
53
When discussing the costs of implementing adaptation strategies, some experts
discussed the personal expenses that would be incurred by a homeowner in order to
implement adaptation strategies. These experts explained that the expense to the
resident/homeowner could vary greatly depending on the methods they chose. There
are some actions individuals can take such as planting a garden or changing cleaning
habits around the home that would be low cost interventions and some actions such as
going to cooling centers that would have no personal cost at all. In order to affect the
change in communities to promote personal involvement from citizens there needs to
be an investment in education. While the financial cost of climate education can be
minimal, there needs to be a buy in from community outreach organizations and
volunteers to make climate education a priority. Several experts suggested a grassroots
campaign to educate residents on low cost ways for improving their homes and
neighborhoods would help create a safer home environment and offer health benefits
such as potentially reducing childhood asthma. One expert explained the benefits of
educational outreach as providing, “a multitude of health benefits. You should be able
to breathe easier, have a home environment that supports your health in a sustainable
way.” Ultimately creating a healthier environment would reduce personal health care
costs as well as a reduction in expenses on the health care system.
Other actions that were offered by experts in order to help reduce the risks to
the elderly and the poor involved various interventions and alternatives to help these
54
residents stay cool in an extreme heat event. Respondents explained that there are
certainly costs associated with these interventions: costs of the air conditioners being
donated, extra staffing and hours at libraries, senior centers, and phone operators for
heat crisis hotlines. The expenses for these interventions would be incurred by the City
of Philadelphia, the Health Department, and the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging,
among others. One expert estimated the costs of these interventions to be under
$500,000 per summer, while the benefit is to reduce the number of heat related deaths.
Other options available to residents, such as putting in a green roof or investing
in solar panels, would have a greater impact, but would also have a much greater
upfront expense and therefore are not a viable option for many residents. The
overwhelming opinion offered by experts is that in the long run the benefits of a
personal investment outweigh the detriment of inaction. Taking actions to reduce
climate risks ultimately reduce personal energy costs, improve property value, and
improve the esthetics of the property, where the effects of inaction would cause
residents to incur the costs of repairing their property as well as the cost of repairing
infrastructure that would otherwise be damaged by flooding.
One source of revenue that was offered in the expert survey was an ecological
services tax, where a threshold of reasonable use of services such as water use and
waste management is set and beyond this threshold there would be an additional fee or
increase in cost. Similar fee structures based on water usage are currently being
55
implemented in response to the drought in Santa Fe, N.M. ("Santa Fe Cuts Water
Consumption By Imposing Tiered Pricing Model," 2015).
Urban forest management and significantly increasing the tree canopy in
Philadelphia is a strategy that was offered by seven of the 20 experts who were then
asked to then discuss the costs of proper implementation of this strategy. Two of these
experts each estimated a cost of one million dollars per year for planting and
maintenance and justified the expense in the savings trees would provide through
various ecosystem services. When experts were asked who would bear the cost of an
increased investment in trees there were a range of responses that ultimately tied back
to the citizens in Philadelphia subsidizing the cost through taxes and fees paid to the city
and other NGOs such as the Water Department. While there is a significant upfront
expense associated with the vast expansion of the tree canopy in Philadelphia that is
needed to cause any measurable effect, there is a real financial return on this
investment throughout the city. Some of the benefits provided in the expert responses
were benefits in energy costs to residents, but additionally there are benefits that would
resonate through the city. The reduction in the urban heat island effect, reducing heat
stress and reducing the EHE mortality rate would translate into significant healthcare
savings and a decrease in heat related deaths. One expert asserted, “Maintaining the
trees is important, it is not a tradeoff if it is saving lives. Urban forest management as a
56
health plan justifies the expense.” This expert went on to suggest the opportunity for
more creative funding sources for trees since they can be equated to healthcare savings.
The infrastructure in Philadelphia is another major concern when discussing
climate risks. The proposed strategies to update and protect the infrastructure in
Philadelphia would provide great financial benefits to the businesses and residents in
Philadelphia, protecting them from loss of services and loss of productivity that would
otherwise occur if the infrastructure were damaged or flooded. This strategy of
increasing the resiliency in Philadelphia, according to experts, would require a significant
investment, more money than what is available.
There are agencies in Philadelphia that are currently making significant
investments in climate change adaptation strategies and have made the financial
justification for these investments. For example, the Philadelphia Water Department is
implementing more green stormwater infrastructure with a planned investment of $2.4
Billion over a 25 year period, specifically citing climate change as one of the motivating
factors for this substantial investment (Green City Clean Waters, 2011). There is also the
work being done by SEPTA receiving $87 million in grant money from the Federal Transit
Administration for resiliency projects such as raising signal huts in flood prone regions
and installing turnabouts to divert trains away from flooded sections of track ("FTA
Releases SEPTA Climate Adaptation Report," 2015). This demonstrates the ability of an
agency in operating in Philadelphia to be able to implement a major infrastructure
57
project with the stated objective of addressing climate change impacts and also the
funding solutions so that the financial Burdon for major infrastructure projects does not
fall directly on Philadelphia residents and businesses.
Experts cite that the money needs to come from local, state and federal sources
and that still may not be enough. The investment in infrastructure; rail, roads, and
power that is needed has an enormous cost, potentially in the billions experts stated,
but there is an even greater cost for inaction. This funding shortage leads to a creative
funding suggestion that was offered of getting the private sector involved in funding
infrastructure projects. The thought is that if there is a failure in transportation routes
companies will have difficulties transporting their products to marketplaces, so these
private companies have a stake in the health of the roadways and transportation
systems in Philadelphia. If there is a breakdown in infrastructure there will be a
significant impact to the private sector, so private companies should be invested in
preventing any service disruption. One expert summarized this funding option, stating,
“Philadelphia could not bear the costs for what is needed. Users, industry, all hands on
deck are needed to find funds.”
58
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS
Philadelphia residents and business are at risk from stormwater runoff and
Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hunt, A., & Watkiss, P. (2010). Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: A review of
the literature. Climatic Change, 104(1), 13-49. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9975-6
Hoornweg, D., Bhada, P., Freire, M., Trejos, C. L., & Sugar, L. (2010). Cities and
climate change: An urgent agenda. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
IPCC, 2014: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32.
Karl, T. R., Melillo, J. M., & Peterson, T. C. (Eds.). (2009). Global Climate Change Impacts in
the United States. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lowe, A., Foster, J., & Winkelmand, S. (2009). Ask the climate question: adapting to climate change impacts in urban regions (p. 17). Washington, DC: Center for Clean Air Policy.
McGovern, S. “Mobilization on the Waterfront: The Ideological/Cultural Roots of Potential