climatechangeandurbandesign-conferencereader-short

1

CLIMATE CHANGE AND URBAN DESIGN The Third Annual Congress of the Council for European Urbanism

Oslo, Norway, 14‐16 September, 2008

CONFERENCE READER Background Papers and Excerpts* Selected Conference Papers

2

Acknowledgements This reader, and the conference for which it was produced, was made possible in part by grants from the European Union’s Leonardo da Vinci Programme in vocational education and training, and the EU’s Lifelong Learning Programme, whose purpose is to build a skilled workforce across Europe. They are sponsors of two pilot projects in innovative education and development to meet the most urgent challenges of European urbanism, the European School of Urbanism and Architecture (ESUA), and the European Dissemination of Urbanism, Architecture and Crafts (EDUAC). For more information please see www.esua.org

3

CLIMATE CHANGE AND URBAN DESIGN The Third Annual Congress of the Council for European Urbanism

Oslo, Norway, 14‐16 September, 2008 CONTENTS Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 About the Council for European Urbanism……………………………………………………… 11 About the European School of Urbanism and Architecture……………………………………..13 TOPIC 1: Urban Morphology: Measuring It, Re‐shaping It Policy, Urban Form and Tools for Measuring and Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The North American Problem Nicole Miller, Duncan Cavens, Patrick Condon Ronald Kellett and Armando Carbonell………………………………………………………….. 15 Environment and urban form ‐ The real scale of its morphological anatomy Teresa Marquito Marat‐Mendes Lisbon University Institute – ISCTE……………………………………………………………... 28 Low‐carbon, Attractive, Resilient Communities: New Imperatives for Sustainable Retrofitting of Existing Neighbourhoods Dr. Stephen R.J. Sheppard, Ellen Pond, and Cam Campbell Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP) University of British Columbia…………………………………………………………………… 42 Abstract: Urban Form, Energy and the Environment: A Review of Issues, Evidence and Policy William P. Anderson Urban Studies, Volume 33, Issue 1 February 1996 , pages 7 – 36………………………………. 60 Abstract: Urban Structure and Energy—A Review Peter Rickwood; Garry Glazebrook; Glen Searle Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building, University of Technology, Australia Urban Policy and Research, Volume 26, Issue 1 March 2008 , pages 57 – 81……………………………………………………60 Excerpt from: Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America Marilyn A. Brown, Frank Southworth, Andrea Sarzynski Brookings Institution, May 2008…………………………………………………………………….61

4

TOPIC 2: Historic Fabric and Embodied Energy Building Reuse: Finding a Place on American Climate Policy Agendas Patrice Frey Director of Sustainability Research National Trust for Historic Preservation………………………………………………………….65 TOPIC 3: Adaptation and Mitigation Socio‐spatial Vulnerability Analysis of Coastal Regions during Disaster: Experience of a Pilot Research Project in Bangladesh Bishawjit Mallick, PhD Student; Tamer Soylu, PhD Student; Prof. Dr. Joachim Vogt, Institute for Regional Science/Planning, University of Karlsruhe (TH)……………………………………………………………………….88 The influence of urban features on air temperature distribution Martina Petralli, University of Florence Luciano Massetti, Institute of Biometerology, IBIMET – CNR Simone Orlandini, University of Florence………………………………………………………..110 Febrile cities: the influence of construction materials in the production of heat islands in low‐income districts of urban areas with tropical climate in Brazil . João Lima Sant’Anna Neto Margarete Cristiane de Costa Trindade Amorim Department of Geography, Sao Paulo State University, UNESP………………………………119 A new thermal comfort index for urban design: The case of São Paulo, Brazil. Leonardo Marques Monteiro (corresponding author) Marcia Peinado Alucci Department of Technology Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism University of São Paulo…………………………………………………………………………….134 Earth monitoring and Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS) for Climate Change Mitigation Nina Milkova Ilieva Architect and Independent Scholar, Sofia, Bulgaria……………………………………………143 Disappearances and apparitions: Urban ecosystem research and education relating to the Chao Phraya River delta and the city of Bangkok, Thailand. Brian McGrath Department of Architecture, Parson the New School for Design Danai Thaitakoo Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University, Phyathai Rd., Bangkok 10330, Thailand…………………………154

5

Urban micro‐climate in the City of Mosul, Iraq Turki Hassan Ali Department of Architecture College of Engineering, Mosul University Bahjat Rashad Shaheen Department of Architecture College of Engineering, Baghdad University……………………………………………………170 Urban Heat Island: Urban analysis, assessment and measuring mitigation in cities of extreme dry weather Jorge Villanueva Solis* Francisco Raúl Venegas Cardoso** Onofre Rafael García Cueto *** Universidad Autonomica de Baja California………………………………………………….…180 Micro Climatic House Design: A Way to Adapt to Climate Change through Urban Design? Kh Md Nahiduzzaman Tigran Haas, PhD Department of Urban Planning and Environment KTH, Stockholm…………………………………………………………………………………….191 Urban geometry parameters as indicators for urbanization effects: A case study in Paranhos, Portugal Licinia Balkeståhl*1, Ana Monteiro*1, Joaquim Góis*2,3 , Roger Taesler*4 1Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, Departamento de Geografia, Portugal 2Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Portugal 3Centro de Investigação em Geoambiente e Recursos, CIGAR, Porto, Portugal 4 Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Norrköping, Sweden…………………………………214 TOPIC 4: Local and Regional Policy Issues ABSTRACT: Climate Change and the Future of Havana: A Heritage of Beauty Under Threat Julio César Pérez Hernández Chair, Cuban Chapter, CEU……………………………………………………………………....224 A Regional Government’s Effort to Manage Growth in California’s Central Valley Cynthia van Empel City of Modesto…………………………………………………………………………………….225 Climate Change: How Local Authorities in the Lake Victoria Basin can rise to the challenge Cecilia Kinuthia‐Njenga Human Settlements Office UN‐Habitat Nairobi, Kenya………………………………………………………………………………………235 “Cities and Climate Change: What is to be Gained or Lost from Reframing

6

an Urban Sustainability Agenda in Terms of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions?” Shiri Bass Specktor, Yodan Rofè, Alon Tal Department of Man in the Desert J. Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research Ben Gurion University, Israel……………………………………………………………………...246 Walking the Talk? Climate Change and UK Spatial Design Policy Dellé Odeleye & Michael Maguire London Borough of Brent, UK Anglia Ruskin University, UK……………………………………………………………………..259 Twenty Percent By 2020: A Local Carbon Reduction Strategy for the US Ken Hughes Energy Conservation and Management Division State of New Mexico, US…………………………………………………………………………...287 TOPIC 5: Codes, Certification and Legal Reforms Sustainable Nrighbourhood Rating Systems: An International Comparison Faith Cable Fukbright Scholar Berlin Technische Universität..........................................................................................................302 Plan Implementation for Smart Growth: The U.S. Standard Climate Change Enabling Act Lora A. Lucero, AICP, Esq. Editor, Planning & Environmental Law American Planning Association......................................................................................................337 TOPIC 6: New Curricula Proposals on China’s City Planning Education and Climate Change Jian Guo College of Architecture of Wuhan University of Technology, China…………………………353 Designing for Change: A Studio Model Associate Professor Penny Allan Victoria University of Wellington, NZ…………………………………………………………...358 TOPIC 7: Best Practice Case Studies Resilient Urban Design Models Brian McGrath Victoria Marshall Parsons New School of Design, US……………………………………………………………….363 The mixed‐use urban block: A fundamental brick for an economic and sustainable urban development Michael Stojan City of Garbsen, Germany…………………………………………………………………………381

7

Adaptive urban design Prof. Arch. Benno Albrecht, Arch. Mauro Frate University IUAV, Venice, Italy, Faculty of Architecture……………………………………….384 The dramatic increase of car traffic in and around Romanian cities after 1990: The case of Timişoara, Romania Prof. Arch. Smaranda Maria Bica, Ph.D. Ass. Prof. Arch. Liliana Lucia Roşiu, Ph.D. Universitatea “Politehnica” din Timişoara, Facultatea de Arhitectură……………………….395 The role of landscape ecology applied to urban realms in climate change mitigation Roberto Bio Architect and Urban Designer Via Gioia 11 10040 Rivalta di Torino……………………………………………………………………………..400 Assessing the Incorporation of Watershed Protective Techniques in New Urban Development Site Plans: What are the Implications for Mitigating Climate Change? Joseph A. MacDonald, Ph.D., AICP Program Development Senior Associate American Planning Association, US Philip R. Berke, Ph.D. Professor Department of City & Regional Planning The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, US…………………………………………..410 TOPIC 8: Aesthetics, Biophilia and Evidence‐Based Design Thermal comfort and psychological adaptation as a guide for designing urban spaces Marialena Nikolopoulou Centre for Renewable Energy Sources (CRES) Koen Steemers The Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies University of Cambridge…………………………………………………………………………..457 View from a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery Roger S. Ulrich Texas A&M University……………………………………………………………………………..458 Urban Design Aesthetics: The Evaluative Qualities of Building Exteriors Jack L. Nasar Ohio State University in Columbus………………………………………………………………458 Excerpt from Aesthetics, Well‐Being and Health: Abstracts on theoretical and empirical research within environmental aesthetics Birgit Cold Formskrift, Oslo………………………………………………………………………………….…459

8

TOPIC 9: Social and Economic Issues Protect and Grow Ogunlande Davidson Dean, Post‐Graduate Studies University of Sierra Leone CO‐Chair, Working Group III Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change……………………………………………………462 Climate Change and Land Use: The Choices Before Us Laura Hall Hall Alminana Michael Mehaffy Sustasis Foundation………………………………………………………………………………...465 Social housing in Latin America: A method to utilize processes of self‐organization Nikos Salingaros David Brain Andres Duany Michael Mehaffy Ernesto Philibert‐Petit……………………………………………………………………...………476

9

FOREWORD The paper excerpts that follow are meant as a beginning point of the conference discussion, and a stimulus to that discussion. They are not and cannot be an exhaustive summary of the topic of climate change and urban design, or even of the work of the many remarkable people gathered for the conference. (Although they do represent a topical selection of the papers that will be presented, supplemented by a few others.) Nonetheless we hope these papers and excerpts will also offer useful links and connections to the growing body of work of others beyond the conference itself. The Council for European Urbanism is meant to be a meeting place of ideas and resources for urbanists of all disciplines and interests. It seeks to promote greater collaboration and advancement of best practice, and the research, policy and education needed to advance it. In that spirit, this conference will be a success if it helps to catalyse more diverse international collaboration on the vital topic of climate change as it relates to urbanism. During the conference we will consider a range of key topics: new research, new understanding of the potential effects of urban design, new opportunities for mitigation and adaptation, and new approaches to policy, education and best practice. Among all these topics, we suggest that one in particular looms large. In tackling climate change, the role of urban morphology – the pattern of urbanism, operating as a system ‐ has been a less prominent factor up to now. That is for obvious reasons: it is harder to quantify, harder and slower to alter, and complex by nature. Naturally we want to pursue the lower‐hanging fruits of energy generation, transport systems and building systems. And that is very sensible, up to a point. But in a deeper sense, we cannot expect merely to provide technical solutions to increase the efficiency of current ways of life – that is, those ways of life that were made possible by the historically bounded era of cheap fossil‐fuel energy. The current crisis surely demands a thorough‐going re‐assessment of those patterns of living and of making things that developed during this exceptional period – and in that re‐assessment, urban settlement patterns must loom large. After all, these are the patterns that have made the modern world what it is, for better and for worse – and the negative side of the ledger includes such intolerable and unsustainable phenomena as climate change, and more. At such a gathering it is important to remind ourselves that, as grim as it is, climate change is not the only thing we have to worry about. Our modern industrial ways are also producing the

10

unintended consequences of resource depletion, toxic pollution, habitat destruction, species extinction, soil and water degradation, and a host of other familiar ills. While we are at it, let us re‐assess the return in terms of human happiness and quality of life. Let us not merely concentrate on the technical and the quantitative – and risk being the sorts of “bean‐counters” who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. There are reasons to think these qualitative matters are much more important than they may appear, and more connected to the quantitative issues before us. As new research from the promising new field of evidence‐based design is showing, the pleasurable quality of a streetscape is linked to the walkability of the streetscape, which in turn is linked to the question of whether people actually will walk (emitting hardly any carbon) or drive (emitting quite a lot of carbon). Many other factors appear to link to qualitative ones: for example, whether high residential density, which is a lower‐carbon pattern on average, can be made desirable and marketable and culturally valuable. Or whether low‐density suburban development is really a satisfying pattern of living in human terms, in relation to its high cost – or an increasingly desperate chase after an unfulfilling form of consumption. Or, even more broadly, whether the current system of marketing and advertising and volume is really delivering sufficient quality of life, on a sufficiently sustainable basis. (Does anyone really believe this any more?) And there are many other such qualitative factors to consider, that go to our core ways of living and operating today. The current challenge forces us to put everything on the table for discussion and careful re‐assessment. Having taken such a hard look, then we must ask questions about how we are going to make the transitions it appears we must: what specific policy changes, educational reforms, innovations in best practice, are going to be needed – and what are the practical, collaborative steps from here? What changes will be needed in our economics, in our institutional structures, in our national and international governmental operations? What assumptions about modern life – consumption, debt, other economic foundations – must be changed, by choice now, or perhaps by grim circumstance later? These are the kinds of questions we aim to begin to explore in the conference. It may well be (and it is this author’s hunch) that in doing so we will confirm a core proposition of the Council for European Urbanism: that beautiful, diverse, high‐quality urbanism is a key ingredient in a survivable future, and a future worth surviving into. It will be a most worthwhile achievement if this congress of the Council for European Urbanism serves to explore and to deepen that idea. Michael Mehaffy Chair, CEU Academic Committee

11

ABOUT THE COUNCIL FOR EUROPEAN URBANISM

Welcome to our third world congress ‐ this year on Climate Change and Urban Design.

The Council for European Urbanism (C.E.U.) is a pan European movement that includes members from across Europe. The Council for European Urbanism started at a gathering in Bruges in the early 2000s as a movement dedicated to promoting (and protecting) the qualities that make European cities, towns, villages and countryside unique and humane. We launched our Charter in Stockholm in 2003. It aims to distil these qualities and aspirations and is a starting point for national, regional and local action on urbanism. A section is reproduced below:

MISSION ‐ The Council for European Urbanism is dedicated to the well being of present and future generations through the advancement of humane cities, towns, villages and countryside in Europe.

CHALLENGE ‐ Cities, towns and villages are being destroyed by social exclusion and isolation, urban sprawl, waste of land and cultural resources, monofunctional development, lack of competitiveness, and a loss of respect for local and regional culture.

OBJECTIVES ‐ Cities, towns and villages should have mixed uses and social diversity; make efficient and sustainable use of buildings, land and other resources; be safe and accessible by foot, bicycle, car and public transport; have clearly defined boundaries at all stages of development; have streets and spaces formed by an architecture that respects local history, climate, landscape and geography; and have a variety that allows for the evolution of society, function and design.

ACTION ‐ The C.E.U. will promote: the distinctive character of European cities, towns, villages and countryside; consolidation, renewal and growth in keeping with regional identity and the aspirations of citizens; where appropriate, the creation of new towns and villages according to these objectives; the reorganisation and redesign of declining suburbs into thriving mixed use areas; respect for the natural environment and its balance with human habitation; and the protection of our built and landscape heritage.

To that end we have developed chapters and networks in a number of countries and regions that promote human scaled urbanism based on the European City Model ‐ fine grained, mixed use, transport centred, walkable, inclusive and socially rich and robust. We think that such places are good in their own right and that if we can stick to designing urban places with these kinds of qualities we have a better chance of limiting and mitigating sprawl.

We’ve held two world congresses so far ‐ on the European City (in Berlin in 2005), and on Sustainable Urbanism (in Leeds in 2006) ‐ as well as many smaller meetings, workshops and symposia on issues as broad as urbanist education (in Viseu in 2004) and waterfront

12

development (in Lisbon in 2007). We take part in charrettes and summer schools to help teach the message of sustainable urbanism to students involved in architecture, planning and urban design. And more latterly we have become involved in the development of curricula for a planned European School of Architecture and Urbanism to the same end.

This year’s World Congress ‐ our third ‐ is in Oslo from the 14‐16th September. The topic is the extremely urgent issue of Climate Change and Urban Design. This exceptional gathering is bringing together researchers and institutions from around the world, representing 30 countries from every continent except Antarctica. It promises to be an excellent opportunity for people from all parts of the world to come together to both learn from European Urbanism and to suggest ways to improve its capacity to both mitigate and adapt to climate change effects, in keeping with our Stockholm Charter principles.

This year we appointed a new chair, Dr Harald Kegler, while last year we established a foundation in Stockholm where our CEO and secretariat is based. At the same time we initiated our constitution to make sure we have a proper basis for our activities in future. While we have very active chapters in places as diverse as Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, Portugal and the United Kingdom ‐ and excellent links with other urbanists in places as diverse as Israel, Cuba, the United Kingdom and the United States ‐ we are keen to start chapters or more informal networks in other European countries ‐ especially in the south and east where there are of course many significant urban issues. So if you would like to get involved wherever you are in Europe please contact us. We are very open to proposals for new networks, new projects and new events within the framework of our Charter principles.

It’s worth pointing out that the Council for European Urbanism is not just another professional association that only includes architects or planners. People involved come from a very broad range of backgrounds. What we share is a passionate concern for the future of urbanism in Europe. Please look at our website to find out more about us: http://www.ceunet.org/index.html. There are links there to national chapters and to interesting research through the Journal of Urbanism which presents peer reviewed international research on place making and urban sustainability: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t782882883~db=all

If you would like to join discussion and debate about urbanist issues, anther good start is to join Euro‐Urb ‐ a lively, moderated email group where many of these issues are aired. Find out more at http://www.ceunet.org/euro‐urb.html. So please do join us if you feel the same way!

To contact us directly please email Tigran Haas, the C.E.U. Board Secretary based in Sweden: [email protected]

Susan Parham C.E.U Board September 2008

N.M.Ilieva Earth monitoring and GEOSS for CC mitigation

Earth monitoring and Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS) for Climate

Change mitigation Nina Milkova Ilieva

Abstract: On February 16, 2005, 61 countries joined forces through the Group of Earth Observation (U.S.EPA, 2008) to build what is known as the

Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) which has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the planet. Historically,

the Earth has been studied in fragments and in isolation. This new system of systems, will enable a deeper understanding of environmental variablity and change that will more fully address the interdependence and interaction between society and the natural environment. This

vast amount of data and information will be available to all people and decision makers. By making possible the integration of different types

of data and information, GEOSS will bring an unprecedented power of control over our choices. It will advance many public sectors and

industries such as natural resource management, the study of ecosystems, and planning. GEOSS will help us strengthen our understanding

of natural and manmade disasters, it will help promote sustainable agriculture, conserve biodiversity, and help us better respond to climate

change. keywords: climate change, GEOSS, adaptive urbanism

Introduction: General System Theory (GST), which was introduced by the biologist Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1936, laid out the foundation for system thinking, providing new ground for development as an organizational theory with

applications in numerous areas of study and disciplines, including environmental and urban design. The theory

proposed an alternative to the dominant organizational model , known as reductionism. Bartalanffy proposed that one can only understand a system by viewing it in a holistic manner, examining the linkages and

interactions between the elements and the nonlinearity of these interactions. Unlike the old model, which

concerned itself only with discrete elements, General System Theory posited that the only way to fully evaluate a problem or element is to understand the part in relation to the whole. Testament to the theory’s relevance, Bertalanffy’s concept began to appear in all branches of science,

irrespective of whether the object of study was inanimate objects, living organisms, or social phenomena.

(Bertalanffy, Ludwig Von.,1968). The adoption of the theory in the social sciences and design field began in the 1960’s. Jane Jacobs first introduced system thinking in urbanism in 1961 with her book “The Death and Life of

the Great American Cities”. At that time, the dominant method was to examine the city as a collection of

independent parts. She changed the worldview of urban study by adopting a holistic approach, viewing the city as a living organism, rejecting the view that one can understand a city while looking at the different elements in

isolation. (Jacobs, 1961) Later Christopher Alexander, architect and urbanist also trained as a scientist,” redefined with his writings a

theory of architecture, matter, and organization for the 21st century. At the core of his work lies a radical new

theoretical framework for understanding the act of design, and the system

in which it occurs. His recognition of good design is not a matter of elements working properly in an additive

atomic system, but rather of regions of space amplifying one another in a larger totality. That is, one cannot

really take the environment apart into recombinable elements, as is routinely done in the analysis stage of

design programming.” (Mehaffy,2007a)

143


Although system thinking has been in use in science since the 1930’s, it has only recently begun attracting the

attention of scholars in other fields, mainly due to improved computational and technological advances, as well

as through interdisciplinary collaborations. Current paradigms in scientific thought have widely informed the design field, dominated by the broader philosophy of complexity thinking, which potentially has an even greater capacity for understanding complicated phenomena than system thinking alone. Complexity thinking, like General System Theory, studies the relationships between parts, but goes further to describe systems which give rise to a collective behavior of co-evolving and self-organizing dynamic systems, which have led to ideas of emergence and morphogenesis. More recently the design practice has seen morpho-ecological design, defined by Michael Hensel and Achim Menges as a “multitude of effects, the mileu of conditions, modulations and microclimates that emanate from the exchange of an object with its specific environment - a dynamic relationship that is both perceived and interacted with by the subject.” (Hensel, Menges 2008). Further on Michael Hensel emphasizes the importance of creating a new architectural tool-set and techniques to

which supplement the existing with techniques that register environmental dynamics such as mapping, serving

both analytical and generative purposes of design. (Hensel, 2007) Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS): At the time GEOSS (Global Earth Observing System of Systems) came into existence a myriad of ongoing programs for Earth observation existed, but none were coordinated and all these programs were specific to a single focus problem. There were global climate observing systems, ocean observing systems, terrestrial observing systems, biodiversity observing systems and a number of other observing systems on disasters, such as the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters. To use these discrete tools for Earth observation in a more powerful and effective manner one must be able to observe their interaction out of isolation. GEOSS is an attempt to coordinate all of them instead of having many isolated observing systems. (Fairley, 2008), Fig.1. This is happening at a time when The United Nations Association outlines in a briefing on climate change that one of the core challenges will be to bring coherence in often fragmented systems and to ensure that, as much as possible, the duplication of efforts is minimized and the whole adds up to more than the sum of the parts. (Evans, 2008)

(fig.1) @ EPA GEO

144


On February 16, 2005, 61 countries joined forces trough the Group of Earth Observations (GEO) to build a

Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) that will revolutionize our understanding of the planet.

Historically the Earth was studied in fragments and in isolation. The new “ System of Systems” for the first time,

will enable us to get real-time environmental monitoring of the entirety of Earth’s conditions, linking diverse

systems together and studying their interactions. Emergent geo-spatial technologies, which will expand our

observation scale and enable deeper understanding of environmental variability and change, will address better

the interdependence between human society and the natural environment. By making possible the integration of

different types of data and information, GEOSS will bring an unprecedented power of control over our choices.

This vast amount of data and information will be available to all people and decision makers, through the GEO

Portal web-based interface that provide free, reliable, and up-to- date integrated and user-friendly information. It

is expected to advance many public sectors and industries such as natural resource management, the study of

ecosystems, and planning. GEOSS will help us strengthen our understanding of natural and manmade

disasters, it will help promote sustainable agriculture, conserve biodiversity, and help us better respond to

climate change. (U.S. EPA, 2008)

GEOSS and Climate Change: Understanding, Assessing, Predicting, Mitigating, and Adapting to Climate

Variability and Change. Climate Change is affected by many variables. The Global Earth Observing System of Systems will help us track

these variables more effectively, to develop better forecasting models. The global prediction models will also

enable us to monitor long-term changes and enable planners and decision makers to consider future adaptable

scenarios to these changes. These models will eventually become interoperable, creating a system of systems

that will facilitate the global exchange and observation of data and forecasting information. The resulting ability

to access new and more powerful decision support tools will eventually change the way we approach the

problem. It will also help to reduce risk over the long term by providing a better understanding of the relationship

between natural disasters and climate change. Climate forecasts must become an integral part of sustainable

development planning and of strategies for adaptation and risk management. The climate has societal impact as well, including urbanism. Coping with climate change and variability demands

a scientific understanding based on sufficient and reliable observations and internationally, multidisciplinary

collaborations. GEOSS outcomes will enhance the capacity to model, mitigate, and adapt to climate change and

variability. Better understanding of its impacts on the Earth system, including its human and economic aspects,

will contribute to improved climate prediction and facilitate sustainable development. (GEO, Cape Town

Ministerial Summit, 2007)


SERVIR VIZ and GEOSS (Global Earth Observing System of

Systems) decision support tool: SERVIR VIZ is a customized version of NASA’s free, open source 3D earth exploration tool known as World Wind, allowing users to employ GEOSS (Global Earth Observation System of System) data. (fig.3). In this user-friendly interface, using the GEOSS decision support tool (fig.2), one can easily access and analyze important environmental data such as disaster, ecology, weather and climate change. Currently, it is available only for the Mesoamerica region in an interactive, 3D globe environment, but it is expected to be developed soon for the entire globe. Integrating satellite and other geospatial data improves vital scientific knowledge and decision making by managers, researchers, students and the general public. Information on past weather and projected climate should inform development practitioners as they design projects to be more resilient to climate variability and change.

(fig.3)

According to the GEO Secretariat Director Jose Achahce we are not going to find a solution to climate change

for number of decades, possibly centuries, so adaptation is going to be a priority. Forecasting information is

essential for planning adaptation efforts. Whatever the adaptation scenarios are, early anticipation is crucial.

These estimates can be used to develop regional and national climate change simulations, as well as identify

adaptive management strategies for responding to these changes. (Fairley, 20)

Conclusion: Although the systemic, holistic approach for understanding, assessing, mitigating and adapting to environmental

variability and change is not new, the GEOSS ( Global Earth Observing System of Systems) will enable us for

the first time to test the limits of this new paradigm in planning and architecture as never before. The new interface is an example of how the next generation of computer tools, using dramatic improvements in computer power and the availability of spatially related data, will support decision makers on all levels, from intergovernmental organizations to everyday citizens. It provides a user -friendly information and decision support tool, which is easily accessible. By having available this data and analysis, linking diverse environmental monitoring network data and models, GEOSS will enable us to make evidence based decisions about global environmental challenges. It provides us a new perspective on how to gather and manage information globally and implement it regionally. GEOSS brings a global vision and perspective to address the current and future environmental challenge, while

supporting multidisciplinary, cross-cultural collaboration and coordination, which is crucial for coping with climate

change, bringing normally independent disciplines together to create new alliances.

Bibliography: 1. Hensel, Menges. 2008, Versatility and Vicissitude: Performance in Morpho-Ecological Design. Wiley 2. Hensel, Michael, Menges, Achim.2007, Morpho-Ecologies: Towards Heterogeneous Space In Architecture Design .

AA Publications

3. Evans, Alexander.2008.UNA-UK Briefing paper series on climate change., United Nations Association of the UK 4.Walonick David S. Walonick., General Systems Theory.[online] Available from: <http://www.survey-

software-solutions.com/walonick/systems-theory.htm>. [Accessed 06/20008] 5. Bertalanffy, Ludwig Von.,1968."General System Theory: Foundation, Development, Application." George Braziller

Inc. 6. Michael Mehaffy, 2007." Notes on the genesis of wholes, Christopher Alexander and his .continuing

influence." Urban Design International ( p. 41-44) 7. Jacobs, Jane., "The Death and Life of Great Amreican cities",1961 p432, Publisher: Random House 8. Alexander, Christopher. 2004. The Nature of Order, Center for Environmental Structure 9. A Pattern language: Towns, buildings, constructions by Christopher Alexander Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA 1977, ISBN-10 -019509199

10. Katarxis #3, September 2004, London UK, " New Science, new urbanism, new architecture" 11. US Environmental Protecting Agency.,(2008)., Global Earth Observing System of Systems

(GEOSS)report.[online] Available from:

<http://www.epa.gov/geoss/>. [Accessed 05.20.2008] 12. Fairley, Peter, 2008. Conversation With GEO Secretariat Director José Achache.[online].Earthzine.Available from:

<http://www.earthzine.org/2008/04/15/the-geo-challenge-an-earthzine-conversation-with-geo-secretariat-

director-jose-achache>. [Accessed 06.08.2008] 13. Cape Town Ministerial Summit. (2007), The First 100 Steps to GEOSS, GEOSS 10-Year Implementation Plan, Section

4.1.4, GEO 2007-2009 –Work Plan, Toward Converge

climatechangeandurbandesign-conferencereader-short

Documents