(7th REHABEND Congress) Caceres (Spain)

REHABEND 2018 CONSTRUCTION PATHOLOGY, REHABILITATION TECHNOLOGY AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT (7th REHABEND Congress) Caceres (Spain), May 15th-18th, 2018

PERMANENT SECRETARIAT: UNIVERSITY OF CANTABRIA Civil Engineering School Department of Structural and Mechanical Engineering Building Technology R&D Group (GTED-UC) Avenue Los Castros s/n 39005 SANTANDER (SPAIN) Tel: +34 942 201 738 (43) Fax: +34 942 201 747 E-mail: [email protected] www.rehabend.unican.es

7TH EURO-AMERICAN CONGRESS ON CONSTRUCTION PATHOLOGY, REHABILITATION TECHNOLOGY AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

REHABEND 2018 ORGANIZED BY:

UNIVERSITY OF CANTABRIA (SPAIN) www.unican.es // www.gted.unican.es

UNIVERSITY OF EXTREMADURA (SPAIN) www.unex.es

CO-ORGANIZERS ENTITIES: TECNALIA (SPAIN)

POLITÉCNICO DI BARI (ITALY)

UNIV. ESTADUAL PAULISTA “JÚLIO DE MESQUIDA FILHO” (BRAZIL)

UNIV. MICHOACANA SAN NICOLÁS HIDALGO (MEXICO)

UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID (SPAIN)

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI (USA)

UNIVERSIDADE DE AVEIRO (PORTUGAL)

UNIVERSIDAD AUSTRAL (CHILE)

UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA (SPAIN)

UNIV. DE LA REPÚBLICA (URUGUAY)

UNIV. EUROPEA MIGUEL DE CERVANTES (SPAIN)

UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE CATALUÑA (SPAIN)

UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAÍS VASCO (SPAIN)

INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TÉCNICO (PORTUGAL)

UNIVERSIDAD DE BURGOS (SPAIN)

UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS (BRAZIL)

UNIV. ARGENTINA JOHN F. KENNEDY (ARGENTINA)

UNIV. NACIONAL PEDRO RUIZ GALLO (PERU)

CONFERENCE CHAIRMEN: LUIS VILLEGAS CÉSAR MEDINA

CONGRESS COORDINATORS: IGNACIO LOMBILLO HAYDEE BLANCO YOSBEL BOFFILL MARÍA BEATRIZ MONTALBÁN AGUSTÍN MATÍAS

EDITORS: LUIS VILLEGAS IGNACIO LOMBILLO HAYDEE BLANCO YOSBEL BOFFILL

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE: HUMBERTO VARUM – UNIVERSITY OF AVEIRO (PORTUGAL) PERE ROCA – TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CATALONIA (SPAIN) ANTONIO NANNI – UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI (USA) The editors does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or quality of the information provided by any article published. The information and opinion contained in the publications of are solely those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors. Therefore, we exclude any claims against the author for the damage caused by use of any kind of the information provided herein, whether incorrect or incomplete. The appearance of advertisements in this Scientific Publications (Printed Abstracts Proceedings & Digital Book of Articles - REHABEND 2018) is not a warranty, endorsement or approval of any products or services advertised or of their safety. The Editors does not claim any responsibility for any type of injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas or products referred to in the articles or advertisements. The sole responsibility to obtain the necessary permission to reproduce any copyright material from other sources lies with the authors and the REHABEND 2018 Congress can not be held responsible for any copyright violation by the authors in their article. Any material created and published by REHABEND 2018 Congress is protected by copyright held exclusively by the referred Congress. Any reproduction or utilization of such material and texts in other electronic or printed publications is explicitly subjected to prior approval by REHABEND 2018 Congress.

ISSN: 2386-8198 (printed) ISBN: 978-84-697-7032-0 (Printed Book of Abstracts) ISBN: 978-84-697-7033-7 (Digital Book of Articles) Legal deposit: SA - 132 - 2014

Construction Pathology, Rehabilitation Technology and Heritage Management May 15-18, 2018. Caceres, Spain

CODE 182

INDICATORS FOR URBAN REGENERATION, A VISION FROM CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION García Sánchez, Francisco J.1; Ribalaygua Batalla, Cecilia2 1: EDUC, Doctoral School. Programa de Doctorado en Patrimonio Arquitectónico, Civil, Urbanístico y Rehabilitación de Construcciones Existentes University of Cantabria / Universidad de Cantabria e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] web: http://www.unican.es 2: Department of Geography, Urban and Spatial Planning University of Cantabria / Universidad de Cantabria e-mail: [email protected], web: http://www.unican.es

KEYWORDS: Climate Change Adaptation, Urban Planning, Indicators, Monitoring and Evaluation, Sustainability ABSTRACT Climate change impact will be particularly strong on historic centres of cities, where urban planning is a decisive tool for managing this phenomenon, ensuring the integration of sustainability criteria with mitigation and adaptation measures. There is considerable experience in introducing sustainability and mitigation indicators in urban planning, but there is a knowledge gap about the way adaptation parameters are incorporated. Adaptation is an iterative process that calls for close monitoring and regulation review in order to ensure its effectiveness. The variability in the climatic effects in the long term requires an increment in adaptation measures that are only controllable through adequate management of their evaluation. The definition of indicators could increase the resilience capacity in cities. If there are parameters in the planning process about green areas and public facilities, why not define specific adaptation parameters in urban planning? The increase in risk due to new extreme events implies that those adaptation strategies that have been reflected in scientific literature for many years must now be incorporated in terms of urban planning legislation. In this context, a separation has been produced in the definition of those urban projects related to sustainable environment and those that are specific to strategies of mitigation and adaptation on historic centres. This work reviews the recent experience incorporating indicators and parameters in urban planning as adaptation policies in order to contribute to their integration in city planning, based on previous knowledge. The application of these indicators in different case studies allows us to verify how the sustainability parameters are valid when applying adaptation strategies. 1.

INTRODUCTION

The anthropic territorial transformations undergone over the last century have led us to a very different global society model [1]. From the beginning of the Holocene period, the global population has modified the productive and functional structures to unprecedented urban processes [2]. For instance, the residents strictly urban had risen to 54% of the world’s population, while in the 1960s they were 34% [3]. The growth of twenty percent in the last half century clearly describes that the demographic pressure on cities is unstoppable. In 2050, all the continents will have surpassed the current limit. As the same report REHABEND 2018 Congress

352

REHABEND 2018. May 15-18, 2018. Caceres, Spain

explains, the expected urban growth between 2015 and 2020 is approximately 1.84% per year, continuing until 2030 at a moderate 1.44% per year. This rising tendency highlights the role that spatial and urban planning will have in controlling this phenomenon. The European case is especially significant due to the relevance of medium and small cities in spatial terms. Currently, around 359 million people, approximately 73% of the total EU population, live in cities and peripheral neighbourhoods [4]. The European urban structure is characterized by a combination of large urban centres and polycentric structures. In the intermediate space, disperse urbanization processes are generalized producing low-density areas very like those occurring in American sprawl [5] [6]. At the same time, this confluence of urban structures drives new interconnected networks of small and medium cities that generate structures of city-regions without an administrative and functional framework to provide them with support [7] [8]. In communitarian Europe, the increment in the degree of urbanization has been constant since the 1960s [9], and this developmental period continues nowadays [10]. The territorial pressure of European cities was showed by the Union to re-establish the spatial role despite the numerous campaign for urban regeneration done in last decades [11] [12]. After more than a decade since the proposals made in 1997 supported in a sustainability and social equality, the Union has newly promoted the necessity of an Urban Agenda ([4]; p. 7). This document is also in the same line as the EU Strategy on Adaptation [13], to establish a development model that responds to this expansive phenomenon. The imperative need for better management of public funds in the organization of cities has a new milestone with the agreement of the “Pact of Amsterdam”, an Urban Agenda for the European Union [14] where with the environmental and social aspects incorporates the climate adaptation as a priority theme. The agreement considers that the risks derived from climate should be faced in the planning process in order to a greater urban resilience. In this changing context, urban and spatial planning faces new challenges, where the integration of sustainability criteria will be closely linked to strategies for adapting to climate change. As cultural heritage, ancient and historic areas in cities are not prepared, nor being adapted to an unpredictable climate [15] [16], so how to make the historic built environment more resilient to future disasters is now quite pertinent. 2.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

The objective is to identify if indicators for monitoring and evaluation is as an integral part of urban planning and especially of heritage sites and urban regeneration areas in relation of a change of climate. The methodology is based on a review of the literature on adaptation to climate change and introduction of indicators in urban planning. With the intention of exploring new methods of spatial and urban research for confronting the future fate of climate change related to cities, a twofold analysis is proposed. On the one hand, an approximation to the normative strategies of different European countries in comparison to some examples of United States; and on the other hand, an analysis of the new tools related to identification of indicators to incorporate them in planning process. The analysis proposal seeks to identify the current dynamics in the incorporation of indicators of adaptation to climate change within urban planning strategies. Here is, among other, an approach to historical centers and patrimonial assets which may be affected by climate change, with a revision of strategies and ways to face them that can be considered. 3.

THE ITERATIVE PROCESS OF ADAPTATION

Urban planning is a basic tool for managing this phenomenon and should ensure the integration of sustainability criteria with mitigation and adaptation measures. There is considerable experience in introducing sustainability and mitigation indicators in urban planning, but there is a knowledge gap REHABEND 2018 Congress

353


about the way adaptation parameters are incorporated. Adaptation is an iterative process (Figure 1) that calls for close monitoring and regulating review in order to ensure its effectiveness.

Figure 1: The Iterative Process of Adaptation in Urban Planning. Compiled by authors.

One of the most relevant aspects of adaptive strategies in cities is the idea that the variability in the climatic effects in the long term requires an increment in adaptation measures that are only controllable through adequate management of their evaluation. If there are parameters in the planning process about green areas and public facilities, why not define specific adaptation parameters in urban planning? The analysis of the documents reviewed presents the recent experience incorporating indicators and parameters in urban planning as adaptation policies in order to contribute to their integration in city planning based on previous knowledge. Returning to the European case, the identification of Climate-Adaption Indicators of the European Union already focuses its attention on the relationship between sustainability and adaptation. It is necessary to highlight something that is clear, many adaptation indicators can already be measured through existing processes, while the monitoring and assessment processes can be adjusted to achieve better adaptation [17]. In the case of urban heritage and urban regeneration areas, the aspects of urban sustainability and adaptation act globally on historic sites. One of the antecedents of the integration of the criteria of protection of the urban environment and the response to the climatic change was the project commissioned by [18] Climate Change and the Historic Environment Heritage that highlighted eight impacts that could be monitored. The project we are working on focuses the analysis of indicators toward the determination of specific parameters. It attempts to establish, in the urban setting, urban standards of climate change adaptation that must be incorporated into urban planning (this is also applicable to spatial planning). The increase in risk due to new extreme events and adaptation strategies has been reflected in scientific literature for many years, but not in terms of incorporation in urban planning legislation. Here, we wish to highlight two messages we consider important.

REHABEND 2018 Congress

354


Firstly, there is a tendency that suggests the need to manage urban planning in a flexible way, through actuation ranges, given the great variability of extreme events. Moreover, some authors propose the need to plan based on possible scenarios, accepting those of climate change. Up to now classic planning of land use has provided a response to the planning necessities derived from knowledge of the territory, its potential and dynamics. Cities have therefore continually adapted to different events, being planned depending on their experience. Now, we are facing a completely different period. The variability of extreme climatic events requires previously unknown adaptation actions. Thus, it is necessary to generate possible scenarios to then propose more suitable adaptation measures that guarantee a robust response to extreme events (Figure 2). The generation of urban growth scenarios is a useful methodology for identifying the risks faced by cities. For instance, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) within its Emerging and Sustainable Cities Initiative sets out an approach to possible urban growth over a long period (2030 and 2050) to identify future risks. Here, sustainability is focused on adapted cities to climate change. All proposed interventions and the establishment of an indicator monitoring program inside this initiative are aimed at risk control and for a sustainable growth model that makes cities more climate-friendly environments [19]. Three kinds of scenario arise in this initiative; an initial approach with uncontrolled growth and threatened by climate change. A second approach with a utopian vision of risk control and maximum sustainability. Finally, a comparative view of the two previous scenarios that set the ideal model for tackling climate change and making cities environmentally, economically and socially sustainable.

Figure 2: New approach in Urban Planning for facing Climate Change. Compiled by authors.

A separation has been produced for many years in the definition of those urban projects related to sustainable environment and those that are specific to strategies of mitigation and adaptation. The urban sustainability projects have received strong institutional support, but in parallel we find the climate change phenomenon that has generated programmes of actuation intrinsically related to sustainability. For years, sustainability has been associated with the control of greenhouse gases. Mitigation measures seemed sufficient to improve the quality of life and make cities sustainable places. However, the phenomenon of climate change and the emergence of extreme events with irreversible damage has led to a change in the conception of sustainability towards a wider panorama. The nexus of union among the policies of sustainability, mitigation and adaptation is urban legislation is the next challenge. Therefore, it is necessary to define a new scheme of urban standards that enable the conciliation among these policies. In the discipline of urban sustainability numerous indicators and parameters have been identified that guarantee environmental quality in the urban setting. The transposition of these indicators and parameters to urban planning is being done progressively. Environmental certifications such as CASBEE, BREEAM or LEED are examples, but so are others at governmental level such as that of the Government of Spain [20].


355


Although institutional support for adaptation has gradually increased in the European Union, the integration into urban legislation is scarce and the production of indicators and parameters is practically non-existent. Perhaps the European Urban Agenda, will change this dynamic, integrating in a whole these three areas of study. In the case of the United States, the sustainability parameters have not been introduced in the adaptation strategies, although this possibility begins to be evaluated. In the North American case, the risk dimension is more clearly present and the indicators are directed to control of insurance premiums. However, in Europe there is an increase in the use of sustainability indicators as a resource for adaptation to climate change, this trend is very initial and disparate between and within states. As an example, analysed the adaptation plans of the seventeen Spanish Autonomous Communities. Only three have been developed in some aspect related to their integration into urban legislation and of those, only the Basque Country has specified, with a manual, the way to integrate the adaptation strategies into urban planning but it is not yet regulated [21]. The Spanish case is similar to other European regions where progress in adapting to climate change remains unpromising [13]. 4.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The proposals of indicators in the national adaptation plans should be specified for application at local level. Europe and United States are in a quite incipient process. As has been mentioned before, the evolution of the indicators and parameters in the sustainability-mitigation context and the adaptation one has followed parallel paths. We will focus on an infrastructure that provides us with very intuitive data, namely, the “Green and Blue Infrastructure”. This kind of infrastructure, inside the cities, allows to be analysed of simple way, with diverse parameters. The green infrastructure corresponds to parks, landscaped spaces, environmental corridors, etc. The blue infrastructure is associated with green infrastructure and corresponds to rivers, lakes and urban lagoons. These spaces allow to be measured and controlled over time, where the monitoring parameters are suitable. The challenge is to define the value range of these parameters so that they become useful indicators. Independently of the initial origin of the indicator, be it a Process Indicator or an Outcome Indicator, the normative regulations analysed in Europe or the USA have been developed very disparately. On the one hand, those only related to sustainability, over a long period and with a clear parameter definition, and on the other hand, those linked only with adaptation and resilience strategies with no definition at all of reference parameters. Finally, there is a third path between sustainability and adaptation that starts to define adaptation parameters, still weak in comparison with the sustainability ones. In a review of some alternative models to the sustainable urban planning certifications, an example of the definition of parameters of Green and Blue Infrastructure of the Spanish Government clearly defines the sustainability parameters of the infrastructure which has a close relation to the adaptation indicators proposed by the national plans. However, some examples about definition of adaptation indicators as the British and the German Adaptation Strategy or in the US [22] like the New York City Panel on Climate Change (PlaNYC) after Hurricane Sandy in 2012 [23] where the proposed indicator does not establish a parameter of maximums or minimums. These examples have a very integrating approach because it includes many aspects related to sustainability but they are still in a very initial phase. For instance, the PlanNYC establishes indicators such as change in vegetation cover or number of tree planted per year, but there is no quantification of the objective to be achieved. Finally, a third line of work that compiles scientific knowledge; that carried out for instance by the European Project RAMSES (Reconciling Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development for Cities). The core goal of RAMSES is to provide a taxonomy of resilient infrastructure indicators, to facilitate the evaluation and monitoring of measures being deployed in response to climate change. Some definition of the calculation ranges (parameters) is incorporated in these kinds of projects, for instance like the percentage of peak flow reduction and the average retention of REHABEND 2018 Congress

356


precipitation in the green and blue roofs. Although this example shows an initial state, we can observe the intention to specify calculation parameters that can be transposed to urban legislation and which attempt to manage in a coordinated way both Adaptation and Sustainability. In relation to historical sites, urban regeneration programs do not introduce adequate standardized measures for adaptation. From the study of the literature we can consider the need to establish a quantification of them based on the following analyzed impacts (Table 1). In the process of evaluating climate variability we can establish two phases; In the first, the indicators allow us to establish the most appropriate adaptation actions for heritage environments. In the second phase, adaptation actions should be introduced in the urban planning tools and in the management of heritage assets. Undoubtedly, urban planning supported by sustainability, benefits in a greater urban adaptation of these areas. Table 1: Proposal of indicators for M&E for facing Climate Change in Urban Regeneration Areas

Climate Change Impacts Extreme Temperatures Extreme Precipitations Other associated problems

Impacts Extreme event postaffection

PHASE 1: PRE-ADAPTATION Indicators for Monitoring & Implications Evaluation Urban Heat-Island. No. of days affected Impairment of Assets No. of affected assets Floods, damage to historic Flooding area, level of sites waterlogging Loss of environmental Replenishment of the original quality, diseases, parasites, state with cost quantification loss of plant cover PHASE 2: ADAPTATION Indicators for Monitoring & Implications Evaluation Damage due to changes in Existing of an appropriate urban the relative humidity, planning and asset management replacement of assets tool

At this point, it can be seen how the close relationship between sustainability indicators and those of adaptation to climate change are incorporated from different perspectives into normative and legislative documents, as well as related research projects. In all the cases studied, there is a fragile connection between sustainability indicators and their use for monitoring adaptation strategies. Sustainability indicators related to green and blue infrastructure make possible to generate cities that are more friendly, but also, cities that should be able to deal with climate change problems. The inevitability of the climate phenomenon implies that cities must undertake adaptation actions to reduce the negative impact of change. The long experience in this type of sustainability indicators is being used partially by public agencies and is also being analysed from the Academia through the realization of different research projects. Urban planning is a decisive tool for managing this phenomenon, ensuring the integration of sustainability criteria with mitigation and adaptation measures. There is considerable experience in introducing sustainability and mitigation indicators in urban planning, but there is a knowledge gap about the way adaptation parameters are incorporated. 5.

CONCLUSIONS

The heritage areas of our cities, despite having the capacity to withstand historical changes, are facing a new process derived from the current climate change that implies new forms of management of these urban environments by adaptation. The different strategies of incorporation of indicators in the follow-up of adaptation within urban planning present very different REHABEND 2018 Congress

357


characteristics and stages. As well as the logical criteria that should be taken into consideration when defining adaptation indicators, such as multiscale value and the interrelation capacity of the indicators, the management in the long term of the indicator, its clear and relevant purpose, the efficiency in compiling data and that its cost should not be greater than the value of the information provided, we must take into consideration two main aspects. First, the definition of the existing sustainability indicators and parameters in our cities should incorporate climatic variability. And second, coordination of the adaptation indicators with the sustainability parameters defined by the certifications should be a final objective. In the study carried out, it has been verified that the integration of the sustainability indicators as an element of control of the adaptation measures is being incorporated gradually. Currently this integration is in a very early stage but it is expected that, in the coming years, urban planning incorporates, among its strategies, the inclusion of adaptation indicators as a resource to address climate change. 6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Mackay, A., Battarbee, R., Birks, J. & Oldfield, F. (Eds.). Global Change in the Holocene. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, 2005. [2] Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O. & Ludwig, C. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, Vol. 2(1): 81–98, 2015. [3] United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Published by the United Nations, 2014 [4] European Commission. The Urban Dimension of EU Policies – Key Features of an EU Urban Agenda. Brussels 18.7.2014; COM(2014) 490 final. 2014. [5] Muñoz, F. Lock-living: urban sprawl in Mediterranean cities. Cities 20(6): 381–385, 2003. [6] Van, R., Kempen, M., & Vermeulen, A.B. Urban Issues and Urban Policies in the New EU Countries. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005. [7] Entrena Durán, F. Procesos de periurbanización y cambios en los modelos de ciudad. Un estudio europeo de casos sobre sus causas y consecuencias. Papers, 78: 59-88, 2005. [8] Balducci, A. Why we need a European Urban Agenda. Informal meeting of Directors-General responsible for urban development. Brussels, 17 Feb. 2014. http://www.sandrobalducci.com/download/conferenze-e-seminari/147-2014-cities--cities-oftomorrow-investing-in-europe.html (09/19/2017). [9] Julien, P. Mesurer un univers urbain en expansion, Economie et Statistique, 336: 3-33, 2000. [10] Nabielek K., Hamers, D. & Evers, D. Cities in Europe. PBL Netherlands. Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, 2016. [11] European Commission, 1997. Towards an Urban Agenda in the European Union. Brussels, 06.05.1997; COM(97)197 final. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/pdf/urban/urban_197_en.pdf (09/19/2017).


358


[12] De Gregorio, S. El desarrollo de las Iniciativas Comunitarias Urban y Urban II en las periferias degradadas de las ciudades españolas. Una contribución a la práctica de la regeneración urbana en España. Ciudades, 13, pp. 39-59, 2010. [13] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change. Brussels, Brussels, 16.4.2013. COM(2013) 216 final, 2013 [14] European Commission. Urban Agenda for the EU, Pact of Amsterdam, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/themes/urban-development/agenda/pact-ofamsterdam.pdf (09/19/2017).

2016

[15] Sabbioni, C., Cassar, M., Brimblecombe, P. and Lefevre, R. A. Vulnerability of Cultural Heritage to Climate Change. Strasbourg: European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA), 2008. [16] Howard, A. J. Managing global heritage in the face of future climate change: the importance of understanding geological and geomorphological processes and hazards. International Journal of Heritage Studies, pp.1-27, 2012. [17] Mayors Adapt. The Covenant of Mayors Initiative on Adaptation to Climate Change, MayorsAdapt, European Commission, Brussels, 2015. [18] English Heritage. Climate Change and the Historic Environment. London: English Heritage, 2008. [19] IDB. Methodological Guide, Emerging and Sustainable Cities. (Guía Metodológica Programa de Ciudades Emergentes y Sostenibles: Tercera edición: Anexo de indicadores). InterAmerican Development Bank, Spanish Version, Third Edition, 2016. [20] Gobierno de España. Certificación del Urbanismo Ecológico. Guía Metodológica para los Sistemas de Auditoría, Certificación o Acreditación de la Calidad y Sostenibilidad en el Medio Urbano. Agencia de Ecología Urbana de Barcelona. Ed. Centro de Publicaciones, Ministerio de Fomento, Madrid, 2012. [21] García, F. Patrimonio, regeneración urbana y adaptación al cambio climático: Un estudio de casos en Cantabria, España. Sixth Rehabend Euro-American Congress, Construction Pathology, Rehabilitation Technology and Heritage Management. Burgos, May 2016. [22] Tyler, S., Nugraha, E., Nguyen, H. K., Nguyen, N. V., Sari, A. D., Thinpanga, P., Tran, T. T., Verma, S. S., Swanson, D., & Bizikova, L. Developing indicators of urban climate resilience (Climate Resilience Working Paper No. 2). Boulder, CO: Institute for Social and Environmental TransitionInternational, 2014. [23] Solecki, W., Rosenzweig, C., Blake, R., de Sherbinin, A., Matte, T., Moshary, F., Rosenzweig, B., Arend, M., Gaffin, S., Boud-Zeid, E., Rule, K., Sweeny, G. & Dessy, W. New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report, Chapter 6: Indicators and Monitoring. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Issue: Building the Knowledge Base for Climate Resiliency. New York, 2015.


359