May 4

Dr. Nola-Kate Seymoar, President and CEO of the International Institute for Sustainable Cities

Nola-Kate Seymoar stated that the biggest challenge to adaptation is changing human behaviour.

In thinking about this issue Seymoar said some questions intrigued her. Why, for example, has sustainable development not lived up to its potential? It is in everybody’s mandate and in the mainstream, yet it has not changed behaviour.

Secondly, why has global warming not driven a stronger agenda for change. Experience with other issues demonstrated that senior decision maker interest in the issue is essential. The message needs to be bought, and understood, to be acted upon.

Thirdly, how can people be so well informed and not act with the information in front of them? If not information, asked Seymoar, what will motivate people to change their behaviour?

She gave participants a brief overview of the professional influences on her current perspectives on climate change adaptation.

From all these experiences, Seymoar has identified some common lessons and elements of approaches to sustainability that work:

Scientific certainty does not matter, but the weight and direction of the evidence does. “We can argue about the details, but we are not focused on communicating the evidence to the people.”

Bringing ideas into action includes learning from cases—best practices, failures, and shared stories. Seymoar commented that best practices have not been used in the way they might be. Failures are only shared in informal settings—e.g., over a beer, which is often a place where decisions can be made.

“Everything comes down to relationships.”

Seymoar outlined some of the research and experiences in British Columbia and within ICSC where the underlying theme of community resilience emerged. British Columbia’s paper in preparation for the World Urban Forum 2006 focused on single-industry communities and came to similar conclusions as did CitiesPLUS, the 100-year planning process undertaken by the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD).

ICSC’s own experiences in post-disaster situations confirm the importance of community resilience and have led to a disaster risk matrix that sees a continuum of long-term, slow acting risks such as climate change or pine beetle infestation on one end, to short-term, catastrophic risks such as tsunamis and floods at the other. In the matrix, risks from natural causes are also distinguished from human-caused ones (e.g., HIV/AIDS).

Seymoar pointed out that depending at which end of the continuum one is, there are common lessons and actions. Is there an opportunity for a common model? “Yes, if the long-term crisis people talk to the disaster people,” said Seymoar, adding that both ends of the continuum are needed.

“We also need to deal with perception of risk.” Slovik’s work on this topic shows that there is a tendency to overreact to dread and unknown threats and to underreact to known and controllable threats. The problem is that, although science has shown that climate change is long-term and uncontrollable with dread consequences, it has been communicated as a known and controllable threat. “No wonder it is ignored by the public,” said Seymoar, suggesting that “you want to increase dread.”

How then can risk be communicated? Seymoar suggested that risks should be reasonably compared. For example, rather than comparing the risks of dying from asbestos exposure to those of being struck by lightning, compare them to exposure risks from radon in a brick building. Risks also must be communicated honestly and put in a larger context. Finally, identification of current action and actions that can be taken by individuals will facilitate risk communication. “Telling people what they can do has impact.”

“No one wants to change unless they have to,” observed Seymoar; “you have to throw them off-base.” How?

Sometimes human behaviour can be changed by changing structures (e.g., desegregation in the US). This is why regulations can be worthwhile.

Most people change because there are emotional relationships at stake (e.g., fear, happiness, etc.)

Changing people’s groups where they share experiences that fundamentally change behaviour can also be effective.

Major events can signal changes and even arranged events can galvanize action.

“We seldom change because of information,” said Seymoar, adding that “all of us in education have to bring information forward in a different way.”

With this knowledge, what are the implications for climate change? Seymoar suggested using emotions, signal events, hope, and sometimes, as in case of climate change, fear.

Seymoar turned participants’ attention to CitiesPLUS, the winning entry by GVRD in the International Gas Union-sponsored worldwide competition.

Subsequently, CitiesPLUS has generated 18 different foundation projects that are organized around core themes, a one-system approach, and adaptive management.

Initially, 100 themes were brought together and their interconnections considered. From this emerged core themes of livability, sustainability, and resiliency. Seymoar said that resiliency implied the design had, amongst other characteristics, to be adaptable and robust within a process that identifies threats in a culture that learns from experience.

The one-system approach considers the city as a whole community where waste water management, transportation, water management, and all other sectors come together. Adaptive management, Seymoar said, provides a framework to envision the future, explore the options, and implement a plan.

In CitiesPLUS stakeholders gathered to identify eight catalyst strategies that solved more than one problem. The strategies included creating shock resilient cells, protecting and connecting ribbons of blue (water flows) and webs of green (green spaces and corridors), and enhancing the diversity of choices. These were developed by looking at best practices and immediate actions, and pulling together what was already known. Furthermore, each catalyst strategy has planning initiatives, research and demonstration, education and inspiration, legislation and enforcement, and financial instruments associated with it.

Seymoar illustrated the visual nature of the 100-year plan. “By using the kind of communication tool we did, we got the attention of mayors and policymakers,”

When participants realized that resources would be compromised within their lifetime (e.g., water in 30–35 years), many had an “oh-my-God experience.”

She pointed out many advantages of a 50–100-year timeframe. Since it went beyond anyone’s budget, term of office, or career, the team could move beyond its own interests to envision the whole system. The team was forced into a new way of looking at things;

One of the overall results of the project is a network with other cities around the world and a plan for long-term urban sustainability (PLUS). The network, called +30, represents 30 or more cities who share their learning, expertise, and tools about 100-year plans for sustainability.

Seymoar noted that ICSC and its partners not only plan but also carry out demonstration projects. Although they won the prize, theirs is not an expert but rather a peer model. “After all Vancouver can’t tell Ottawa what to do.”

In working with cities all over the world, her group looked at a range of frameworks and tools for long-term planning. It analyzed strengths and eventually compiled a book that considers some of the following and how they might be appropriate for communities: CASE (UNEP program), Smart Growth, QUEST scenarios, and Sheltair.

Providing an overview of the partners in the initiative and those supporting it, Seymoar summarized the requirements of effective change that arose from the lessons of the CitiesPLUS experience.

First, the right guiding ideas are necessary. “We learned that sustainable development is not adequate; the future timeframe was left out.” While the one-system approach is complicated, the holistic perspective is necessary. Furthermore, one must deal with humans in bioregions (e.g., at the watershed level) and “unless you address how to change behaviour, you’ve just created ideas for the shelf.”

Further, the appropriate processes and institutions must be in place. The +30 network, for example, is one of the most exciting developments in this area. As a peer learning network that is multi-disciplinary with diverse stakeholders, it is designed to facilitate discussion and fair exchange.

Finally, Seymoar asked participants to consider what frameworks and tools are used to promote change. In bringing together all of the various tools, her group discovered “there was room for everyone,” said Seymoar.

In conclusion, Seymoar outlined a number of challenges and opportunities:

A focus on long-term planning and community resilience puts things into a different, more advantageous perspective. “You have to have an immediate plan to keep up with climate change and a plan to plan ahead.”

The World Urban Forum in 2006 presents a number of opportunities to put the message forward and also provides room for private-public partnerships.

The potential synergy among the objectives of different federal government departments should be investigated (e.g., NRCan, Industry Canada, Environment Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, etc.)

2005-04-05