Municipal planning challenges in adapting to heat and the role of practical guidelines – Nature

Report on the Integration of Climate Adaptation Measures in Municipal Urban Planning

Executive Summary

This report analyzes the practical implementation of climate adaptation measures within municipal urban planning, highlighting a significant gap between policy guidance and on-the-ground application. A case study conducted in Germany evaluated 24 heat adaptation measures with municipal planners, revealing that a majority are considered difficult or impossible to implement. Key barriers include systemic and legal constraints, lack of political support, and planners’ discretionary power to ignore recommendations. These findings indicate that current urban planning practices are insufficiently aligned with critical Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). The study underscores the urgent need to address institutional, legal, and procedural barriers to effectively integrate climate resilience into urban development and advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

1.0 Introduction: Aligning Urban Planning with Global Sustainability Goals

Climate change presents a significant threat to urban areas, jeopardizing progress towards multiple Sustainable Development Goals. Effective municipal planning is a critical instrument for achieving SDG 13 (Climate Action) by strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards. Urban planning directly influences the development of safe, resilient, and sustainable cities, a core objective of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). However, global studies indicate a persistent failure to translate climate adaptation strategies into practice.

This report examines the challenges of mainstreaming climate adaptation into local land-use planning, using a German case study focused on heat adaptation. While practice guidelines exist to support municipalities, their acceptance and implementation remain low. This disconnect hinders the achievement of several interconnected SDGs:

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Failure to implement heat adaptation measures like green infrastructure directly impacts public health by increasing vulnerability to heat stress.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Inadequate adaptation planning undermines Target 11.b, which calls for integrated policies and plans towards climate change adaptation and disaster risk management.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): The reluctance to implement green infrastructure measures limits the potential to enhance urban biodiversity and ecosystem services.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The study reveals institutional fragmentation and legal barriers that impede effective and accountable governance for climate action.

2.0 Analysis of Climate Adaptation Measures in Practice

2.1 Methodology

A transdisciplinary research project was conducted in a mid-sized German city to evaluate the practical applicability of climate adaptation measures. The study involved semi-structured interviews with two municipal planners, who assessed 24 heat adaptation measures drawn from established practice guidelines. This approach provided firsthand insight into the decision-making processes and barriers within a municipal planning department, offering a micro-level analysis of the challenges in achieving climate-resilient urban development in line with SDG 11 and SDG 13.

2.2 Evaluation of Heat Adaptation Measures

The 24 proposed measures were evaluated by planners and subsequently grouped into five categories based on their practical applicability in local development plans. The results reveal a significant discrepancy between recommended actions and feasible implementation, posing a direct challenge to integrating climate action (SDG 13) into urban planning frameworks (SDG 11).

1. Category I: Regularly Used (3 of 24 measures)

   Measures in this category, such as minimizing impermeable surfaces and creating green roofs and pocket parks, are supported by the Federal Building Code and are considered justifiable. Their implementation contributes to SDG 11.7 (provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

2. Category II: Reluctantly Used (5 of 24 measures)

   Measures like façade greening are used cautiously due to challenges with enforcement, maintenance on private property, and high costs. This reluctance impedes the full realization of green infrastructure’s benefits for climate adaptation (SDG 13) and urban biodiversity (SDG 15).

3. Category III: Indirectly Applicable or Serve as Overall Objectives (6 of 24 measures)

   This category includes objectives like avoiding multiple reflections or positioning buildings to support air circulation. While these goals are crucial for creating healthy urban environments (SDG 3), they can only be implemented indirectly through stipulations on building lines or greenery, rather than as standalone, enforceable measures.

4. Category IV: Unfamiliar or Not Trusted (2 of 24 measures)

   Measures such as optimizing street geometry for shading or using photovoltaics for shading were considered “too scientific” or unfamiliar. This highlights a gap between scientific knowledge and planning practice, which is a barrier to leveraging innovative solutions for SDG 13.

5. Category V: Not Applicable in Development Planning (8 of 24 measures)

   A third of the measures were deemed inapplicable because they fall under higher-level planning, are general objectives rather than specific actions, or are the responsibility of other departments. This points to institutional fragmentation, a key challenge for creating the strong institutions required by SDG 16.

3.0 Barriers to SDG Implementation in Urban Planning

The evaluation revealed fundamental barriers that prevent the comprehensive integration of climate adaptation into municipal planning, thereby obstructing progress on SDGs 11, 13, and 16.

3.1 Systemic and Legal Barriers

• Justification Pressure: Planners face high pressure to justify every measure under the German Federal Building Code, which prioritizes land-related aspects over climate concerns. This legal framework weakens the standing of climate adaptation (SDG 13) in the mandatory weighing of planning interests.
• Property Rights: The constitutional right to freedom of property ownership restricts planners’ ability to impose measures like specific open space qualities or building colors, limiting the scope for climate-resilient design.
• Lack of Political and Ministerial Support: Planners reported a lack of clear mandates and support from politicians and higher-level bodies to enforce climate adaptation goals that go beyond standard requirements. This reflects a need for stronger institutional commitment, as called for in SDG 16.

3.2 Institutional and Procedural Barriers

• Information Overload: The proliferation of lengthy and non-specific guidelines makes it difficult for planners to identify and apply relevant measures, indicating a failure in knowledge translation that hinders effective partnerships between science and policy (SDG 17).
• Institutional Fragmentation: A lack of coordination between planning, climate management, and civil engineering departments prevents a holistic approach. This “silo” mentality is a significant obstacle to developing the effective and accountable institutions needed to achieve SDG 16.
• Planner Autonomy: The study highlights that planners possess considerable autonomy to ignore or argue against adaptation measures based on past negative experiences, internal politics, or a desire to maintain procedural control.

4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The findings demonstrate a critical disconnect between the availability of climate adaptation knowledge and its application in municipal planning. Systemic, legal, and institutional barriers currently prevent the comprehensive implementation of measures necessary to build resilient cities and achieve key Sustainable Development Goals.

To bridge this gap and align urban planning with the 2030 Agenda, the following actions are recommended:

1. Strengthen Legal and Policy Frameworks: National and regional governments must amend building codes and planning laws to give climate adaptation (SDG 13) a stronger legal standing, reducing the justification burden on municipal planners. The new Federal Climate Adaptation Act is a step in this direction but requires robust implementation.
2. Enhance Institutional Capacity and Collaboration: Municipalities must break down departmental silos to foster integrated planning. This supports SDG 16 by creating more effective and accountable institutions and facilitates the cross-sectoral partnerships essential for SDG 17.
3. Develop Targeted and Practical Guidance: Future guidelines should be co-developed with planners and tailored to specific planning levels and departmental needs, ensuring they are practical tools rather than sources of information overload.
4. Foster Political Leadership: Strong and consistent political support is essential to empower planners to prioritize climate adaptation and implement measures that advance the long-term sustainability and well-being of communities, in line with SDG 11 and SDG 3.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire study revolves around the challenges of implementing climate adaptation measures within municipal urban planning. The article explicitly discusses land-use planning, the development of new city districts, and making urban areas resilient to climate change impacts like heat waves.

• The article’s abstract states, “climate adaptation is still insufficiently implemented in urban planning practice,” directly addressing the core of sustainable urban development.
• It analyzes measures like “green roofs,” “pocket parks,” and “rainwater management,” which are key components of creating sustainable and resilient cities.

SDG 13: Climate Action

The article’s primary theme is climate adaptation. It investigates the practical barriers to taking action against climate change impacts at the local level. The focus on “heat adaptation measures” and the discussion of Germany’s national “German Adaptation Strategy (DAS)” and the “Federal Climate Adaptation Act” firmly connect the content to this goal.

• The study aims to “evaluate adaptation measures proposed in guidelines in terms of their actual use and applicability in local land-use planning” to combat climate hazards like “summer heat and especially heat waves.”
• It highlights the gap between national climate strategies and their implementation, stating that despite these strategies, “climate adaptation is still insufficiently implemented in urban planning practice.”

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The article implicitly and explicitly discusses the need for better partnerships and institutional coherence. It identifies “institutional fragmentation,” lack of support from politicians, and poor communication between different municipal departments (e.g., planning, civil engineering, climate management) as significant barriers to implementing climate adaptation.

• The article notes that “internal maneuvers can hamper comprehensive and balanced planning” and describes how planners avoided contact with the climate manager due to departmental competition.
• It also points to the disconnect between researchers who develop guidelines and the planners who are meant to use them, highlighting a need for more effective multi-stakeholder partnerships to bridge the gap between science and practice.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Under SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.
  • The article directly addresses the challenges in achieving integrated and sustainable planning. It reveals that “Systemic and legal barriers currently prevent comprehensive municipal climate adaptation,” indicating a lack of capacity for integrated management.
• Target 11.b: By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters…
  • The article’s core focus is the failure to implement such integrated plans. It cites a 2021 study of German cities where “25% of cities showing no activities like adaptation plans or other commitments at all, and another 17% showing only very little activity,” demonstrating a clear link to this target.

Under SDG 13: Climate Action

• Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
  • The entire study is an analysis of the barriers to strengthening adaptive capacity. The evaluation of 24 heat adaptation measures is a direct examination of the tools available to build resilience against climate hazards like heat waves.
• Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
  • The article discusses the concept of “mainstreaming,” which it defines as “the integration of climate adaptation in urban planning.” It analyzes why this integration fails in practice, despite national policies like the German Adaptation Strategy (DAS), thus directly engaging with the challenges of this target.

Under SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.
  • The article highlights a lack of coherence between national climate adaptation goals, the guidelines developed to support them, and the legal and procedural realities of local planning. Planners noted that many measures in guidelines were not applicable because they “are part of a higher-level formal planning” or “describe general objectives rather than specific measures,” pointing to a policy coherence gap.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article, being a qualitative case study, does not focus on quantitative indicators. However, it mentions and implies several ways progress could be measured:

Implied Indicators

• Proportion of proposed climate adaptation measures that are implemented in local land-use plans.
  • The study’s own methodology serves as a framework for this indicator. It evaluated 24 measures and categorized them by applicability: “regularly used in the development plan (3 of 24),” “could be used reluctantly (5 of 24),” etc. This categorization is a form of measurement that tracks the integration of climate measures into planning practice (relevant to Target 13.2).
• Number of municipalities with legally adopted and implemented local climate adaptation plans or concepts.
  • The article references a study that ranked 104 German cities on their adaptation activities, noting that “25% of cities showing no activities.” This ranking is a direct application of such an indicator to measure progress on Target 11.b. The new Federal Climate Adaptation Act, which “mandates the development of… adaptation concepts at the municipal level,” also points to this as a key future indicator.

Indicators related to Institutional Capacity

• Existence of established mechanisms for inter-departmental cooperation on climate adaptation.
  • The article identifies “institutional fragmentation” and departmental “silos” as major barriers. It describes a situation where “there was no direct exchange between the current planners and the climate manager.” The presence or absence of formal cooperation mechanisms could therefore serve as an indicator of institutional capacity for integrated planning (relevant to Target 11.3 and 17.14).

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: nature.com