Adaptation costs. Few cities have undertaken comprehensive estimates of the costs of adapting to increased flooding due to climate change. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is currently spending USD 1.7bn (EUR 1.3bn) on building resilience into the wastewater and sewage system, following the damages caused by Hurricane Xxxxx (Xxxxxxx et al., 2013). In the UK, a permanent flood barrier has been installed in Tewkesbury in order to protect a water treatment work. The barrier cost GBP 5.5m (EUR 6.2bn) (Xxxxx et al., 2013). In another example, all properties in Seattle (with the exception of city streets and state highways) are charged a drainage fee based on percentage of impervious surface area and land parcel size (Seattle, 2014). For example a small residential parcel of under 280 m2 would be charged USD 180.96 in 2014 (EUR 131.25), while a larger one of between 650 m2 and 930 m2 would have a charge of USD 403.70 (EUR 292.81) (Seattle, 2014). This money is used for storm water management services. One of the few cities to have a costed cross-sector adaptation plan is Copenhagen. A summary of the adaptation measures and costs is set out in Table 3.4. Measure Costs Total costs estimated Stormwater Reduction of the hydraulic watercourses DKK 200,000 DKK 1,101,850,000 Passing on knowledge to the public/businesses on options for climate- proofing DKK 100,000 Planning and implementation of the plan B solutions in the city of Copenhagen DKK 500,000 Opening of piped watercourses DKK 1,100,600,000 Disconnection of stormwater from the sewer DKK 150,000 Quantification of the effect of different suds elements DKK 300,000 Coordinated wastewater planning in the whole catchment of Lynettefællesskabet 0 Seawater Surveying of coastline DKK 100,000 DKK 200,000 Selection of instruments DKK 100,000 Soil and Groundwater Risk of infiltration to the drinking water resource DKK 75,000 DKK 200,000 Calculations of effects of increased infiltration of stormwater DKK 75,000 Possibility of putting surplus soil to use in climate adaptation DKK 50,000 Monitoring of groundwater level DKK 150,000 Buildings Registration of buildings in areas at risk DKK 100,000 DKK 300,000 Upgrading of qualifications/training DKK 200,000 Emergency Preparedness Warning systems DKK 100,000 DKK 100,000
Adaptation costs. Measures for reducing the impact of storms tend to focus on prevention, emergency planning and post-disaster relief (EEA, 2011). The EEA states that perhaps one of the best storm management options to reduce losses from storms is prevention by the building of strong infrastructure capable of withstanding strong gusts of wind. Emergency planning and management has already been well developed in Europe, with storms and their paths having been successfully predicted in the past, for example Xxxxxx and Xxxxx, which has meant that the population has been accurately alerted. The most widespread option remains post-disaster aid and insurance to cover the damage and destruction of both public and private assets. However, information on costs for rehabilitation of non-insured public infrastructure and services is scarce. FM Global (2008) reports that the most economically effective way to reduce windstorm loss in commercial roofing is to attach additional fasteners to the small edge areas of the roof. For example, a quote they provide for the reinforcement of 3m edges of a 9.1m high building of up to 30.5m in width is “most of the time, less than USD 5,000” (EUR 3,800) (FM Global, 2008). It should be noted that little rigorous evidence is available on the adaptation costs of measures for reducing the impact of strong winds and storms in cities. This is an area that should receive more attention for research.
Adaptation costs. Xxxxxxxxxx et al. (2007) consider Paris, and present the following four adaption measures for the city to better cope with heatwaves. The first adaptation measure proposed by Xxxxxxxxxx et al. (2007) is to install air conditioning (AC) in sensitive places such as hospitals, subways and apartments for elderly people. This could be implemented within months but depends on the availability and production of the necessary equipment (Xxxxxxxxxx et al., 2007). This measure generates short term moderate costs and necessitates small investments in the electric supply system to adapt to an energy increase in summer (Xxxxxxxxxx et al., 2007). The second adaptation measure proposed is to provide AC in all dwelling places, Xxxxxxxxxx et al. (2007) declare that this could be undertaken within one or two decades and would need to be combined with the development of new electric-production capacities. In the warmest European countries AC facilities increases very regularly with GDP (EECCAC, 2002). The impact of having widespread AC on the energy grid has been calculated in the US – where 64% of households have some type of AC – and been estimated to increase energy demand by 10 TWh/year (Xxxxxxxxxx et al., 2007). In Paris the cost of such an increase of energy demand would require an investment of EUR 7bn, and additional costs of EUR 400m a year (Xxxxxxxxxx et al., 2007). A third measure is to adapt building infrastructure and urban planning regulation to make new buildings less vulnerable to high temperatures and/or enable low cost AC (Xxxxxxxxxx et al., 2007). The timescale required for this strategy is about 150 years, and “the permanent capital cost […] would be small since the ratio of the construction costs of a low-class building to an upper-class one is only one to two” (Xxxxxxxxxx et al., 2007, p.53). Xxxxxxxxxx et al. (2007) calculate that this would cost Paris about EUR 1.2bn per year. The fourth measure is to adapt buildings rapidly to warmer temperatures - this would be necessary in case of drastic and rapid warming. Such a measure would be substantial: “assuming a mean rehabilitation cost per apartment of 25,000 € yields 80 G€ for Paris-IDF”. It would also take approximately 20 years to complete but would prevent the higher energy demand expected with the first two adaptation measures (Xxxxxxxxxx et al., 2007, p.54). In the United States, fatalities due to heatwaves have declined, in part because of the increasing number of households with air condititionin...
Adaptation costs. Due to the incremental effects of drought, few studies have been undertaken to assess the costs of adaptation measures for example in reducing the future impacts of subsidence on building and infrastructure damages. The World Bank (2006) has suggested that a risk-based approach to droughts would be more cost effective than the reactive response which has historically been the common response. For example, a study by Xxxxxxx et al. (2006) indicated that households and businesses in Canberra, Australia were more willing to endure drought water restrictions than to pay higher water bills. Xxxxxxx et al. (2006) argue this has implications for policy makers. The findings indicate that implementing permanent low-level restrictions may be justified and easily accepted by the public. Logar and xxx xxx Xxxxx (2013) also argue that the social impacts of droughts depend on how willing people are to live with less water during a drought period, and their willingness to change their habits. In order to be successful, drought mitigation and adaptation policies will need to expand over a 20 or more year period. This is because the effects of drought are difficult to observe in the short term, so in order to not lose momentum or incentives for mitigation or adaptation a long term initiative would be necessary (Logar and xxx xxx Xxxxx, 2013).
Adaptation costs. The main responsibility for strategic climate change adaptation policy for the London urban region lies with the GLA (GLA, 2011a). The 33 Boroughs of London and the UK Government also play important roles in adaptation policy development, and infrastructure delivery. The GLA's Managing risks and increasing resilience, The Mayor's Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (2011a) outlines health, environment, economy and infrastructure as key focus areas. The overall approach is focusing on extreme weather events and to increase the resilience for the economy, quality of life, social equality and the environment. At the national level The Climate Change Act 2008 requires the UK Government to conduct a climate change risk assessment every five years. The UK Government’s Climate Change Risk Assessment sets out the main threats of climate change for the country across agriculture, forestry, business, health and well-being, infrastructure and natural environment sectors (HM Government, 2012). The complementary National Adaptation Programme 2013 suggests a mix of adaption policies to tackle these issues across the UK (HM Government, 2013). The local borough level is responsible for planning measures within their own area to address challenges posed to local transportation, housing, education and minimising the flood risk in their own area.
Adaptation costs. 8.2.3.1 Sea (tidal) flood protection
Adaptation costs. New York City has an adaptation plan, PlaNYC, originally launched in 2007, but updated in 2011, encompassing many goals for achieving a greener city by increasing resilience of communities, natural systems and infrastructure to climate risks (City of New York, 2011). In terms of climate change mitigation, the city aims to reduce GHG emissions by more than 30%, to be achieved by an ongoing planning process. In 2013, a resilience plan was published as part of PlaNYC, including a breakdown of 10- year capital and study cost preliminary estimates (City of New York, 2013). The following sections outline the major conclusions of the plan (see Table 8.8). A full breakdown by initiative can be found in the report. Overall, if NYC implements all the resilience measures in the plan, the total cost is estimated to be EUR 10-12bn (1.14-1.35% of the city’s GDP). Water and waste water Protect wastewater treatment facilities from storm surge Improve and expand drainage infrastructure Promote redundancy and flexibility to ensure constant supply of high-quality water Total 3,445-4,020 Coastal protection Increasing coastal edge elevations Minimising upland wave zones Protection against storm surge Improve coastal design and governance Total 2,660-3,060 Buildings Strengthen new and substantially rebuilt structures to meet the highest resiliency standards moving forward Retrofit as many buildings as possible so that they will be significantly more resilient than they are today Total 2,290-2,490 Healthcare Ensure critical providers’ operability through redundancy and the prevention of physical damage Reduce barriers to care during and after emergencies Total 620-710 Transportation Protect assets to maintain system operations Prepare the transportation system to restore service after extreme climate events Implement new and expanded services to increase system flexibility and redundancy Total 607-767 Parks Adapt parks and expand green infrastructure to shield adjacent communities from the impacts of extreme weather events Retrofit or xxxxxx park facilities to withstand the impacts of climate change Protect wetlands, other natural areas, and the urban forest Develop tools for comprehensive climate adaptation planning and design Total 508-840 Economic recovery Support community and economic recovery in impacted areas Total 235-290 Utilities Redesign the regulatory framework to support resiliency Xxxxxx existing infrastructure to withstand climate events Reconfigure utility networ...
Adaptation costs. Almost no published evidence exists for the costs of adaptation for the case study cities. One exception is New York City where, following Hurricane Xxxxx, the authorities commissioned an adaptation plan to build resilience to a similar future hurricane. The estimated adaptation costs ranged from EUR 3.45bn – 4.02bn for upgrading the water and waste water systems to improvements in healthcare, transport and parks resilience each requiring over EUR 500m.
Adaptation costs. All Adaptation Costs are to be borne by Navistar. They will be paid through amortization payments for each Engine (including components) over defined periods and volumes to be agreed by the VW T&B Affiliate and Navistar in the respective Individual Contracts (i.e. no upfront payments). The respective volume targets may be revised by Navistar after a period of *** from the start of production of the products covered by the respective Individual Contract (“Reset”). The Reset will only apply once for each Individual Contract. After the expiration of an additional *** period, a lump-sum payment shall be immediately and automatically due in order to fully cover VW T&B Group’s Adaptation Costs (following such payment, Navistar’s license to all Adaptations covered by the respective Individual Contract shall be fully paid up). In any event, at termination (other than termination by VW T&B Framework Agreement dated 5 September 2016 for convenience, in which case the payment schedule contemplated by this Section 5.1.2 shall not be amended) or expiry of the respective Individual Contract, all unpaid Adaptation Costs shall be immediately and automatically due and paid in full to VW T&B Group. The above applies to all Individual Contracts that are concluded in accordance with Section 4.1 above. For any other potential future components the Parties will be free to determine another manner of payment of the respective Adaptation Costs (for instance upfront payment, full amortization or a mix of partial upfront payment and partial amortization).
