Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-6 (section)

== Case Studies ==

<span id="case-study-6.1-urbanisation-and-climate-change-in-the-himalayas-increased-water-insecurity-for-the-poor"></span>
=== Case Study 6.1: Urbanisation and Climate Change in the Himalayas: Increased Water Insecurity for the Poor ===

<div id="h2-27-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The Hindu Kush Himalayan region extends over roughly 3500 km covering eight countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, China, India, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Projections show that by 2050, more than 50% of the population in Hindu Kush countries will live in cities ( [[#UNDESA--2014|UNDESA, 2014]] ). The region is home to 10 major river basins that feed south and south-east Asia. In 2017, the total population in the 10 major river basins with their headwaters in the region was around 1.9 billion, including 240 million in the mountain and hills of the Hindu Kush (Wester et al., 2019). The region is characterised by unique mountain topography, climate, hydrology and hydrogeology. Each one of these factors plays an important role in determining the availability of water for people living in the Himalayas (Nepal, Flügel and Shrestha, 2014; Scott et al., 2019; [[#Prakash--2020|Prakash and Molden, 2020]] ). The total landmass that can support physical infrastructure for towns to develop is much less in the Hindu Kush Himalayan region as compared with the plains. Due to this physical constraint, the process of urbanisation is slow in the region. Only 3% of the total population in the region live in larger cities and 8% in smaller towns (Singh et al., 2019b). However, there has been an increase in urbanisation, largely due to regional imbalances in providing economic opportunities for the poor. People from rural areas are flocking to the nearest urban centres in search of employment and other economic opportunities ( [[#Singh--2019|Singh and Pandey, 2019]] ). As a result, the share of urban population is increasing in the region, while that of the rural population is declining.

One of the major challenges of urbanisation in the Himalayas is sprawling small towns with populations of under 100,000 (see Figure 6.6). These towns are expected to become major urban centres within a decade because of high growth rate. A recent study by [[#Maharjan--2018|Maharjan et al. (2018)]] on migration documented that 39% of rural communities have at least one migrant, of whom 80% are internal and the remaining 20% are international. Around 10% of the migration is reported as environmental displacement. Males account for the majority of the migration, which forms an important aspect of gendered vulnerability (Sugden et al., 2014; Goodrich, Prakash and Udas, 2019). The ever-expanding urban population in the Himalayas generates many challenges, especially in the context of climate change adaptation. First, unplanned urbanisation is causing significant changes in land use and land cover, with recharge areas of springs being reduced. Most of the towns in Hindu Kush Himalayan region meet their water needs using supplies from springs, ponds and lakes which are largely interlinked systems. Water insecurity in hill towns are becoming the order of the day (Virk et al., 2019; Bharti et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2019a; Sharma et al., 2019). Second, climate-induced changes in the physical environment include increased rainfall variability. Due to this, heavy rains are becoming frequent and are leading to more landslides. Third, global warming has increased the average temperature in the Himalayas which has caused glacier melt and subsequent change in hydrological regimes of the region. One of the contributing factors of glacial decline is also the deposition of black carbon (Gautam et al., 2020; Gul et al., 2021) which is contributed by burning of crop residue in Punjab (Kant et al., 2020). These critical stressors, climatic and non-climatic, are adversely affecting the socioecology of urban conglomerations in the region (Pervin et al., 2019). Encroachment or degradation of natural water bodies and the disappearance of traditional water systems such as springs are evident ( [[#Shah--2018|Shah and Badiger, 2018]] ; Sharma et al., 2019). While water availability in these towns has been adversely affected by the climatic and socioeconomic changes, demand for water has increased greatly (Molden, Khanal and Pradhan, 2018). Some of the towns are major tourist attractions that create a floating population in peak tourist seasons, challenging the carrying capacities of the towns. The residents must cope with water scarcity as the demand for water increases in peak seasons and water distribution through the public water supply systems becomes highly inequitable (Raina, Gurung and Suwal, 2018). The usual challenges of utilities being inefficient also applies in these areas, though it becomes much more critical as the sources of water are limited and the local geology limits the ability to access groundwater. All these processes are resulting in increased water insecurity for the poor and marginalised in urban towns of Hindu Kush ( [[#Prakash--2020|Prakash and Molden, 2020]] ). To cope with the scarcity situation, people are adapting through various means such as rationing of intra-household water access and groundwater extraction to access water supply (Virk et al., 2019; Bharti et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2019). This is due to lack of long-term strategies and options provided by utilities.

<div id="_idContainer033" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:b08ac6c0f0d9912444c7ee8ecd3fdecb IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_6_006.png]]

'''Figure 6.6 |''' '''Urbanisation in Hindu Kush Himalayan Region.''' Figure based on Singh et al ''.'' (2019b)

<span id="case-study-6.2-semarang-indonesia"></span>
=== Case Study 6.2: Semarang, Indonesia ===

<div id="h2-28-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The City of Semarang, on the northern coast of Central Java in Indonesia, has a population of nearly 1.8 million ( [[#CBS--2019|CBS, 2019]] ). The city has experienced rapid urbanisation over last three decades, with the population almost doubling and density reaching 4650 people per square kilometre ( [[#Handayani--2014|Handayani and Rudiarto, 2014]] ; Handayani et al., 2020b). Semarang is vulnerable to sea level rise, tidal flooding and inundation ( [[#Suhelmi--2018|Suhelmi and Triwibowo, 2018]] ; Yuniartanti, Handayani and Waskitaningsih, 2016), risks which are worsened by land subsidence along the coast (Abidin et al., 2013). Globally, land subsidence is a notable compounder of climate change-induced sea level rise and coastal flooding (Bagheri et al., 2021). In Semarang, the land subsidence rate is projected to be up to 60 mm yr −1 (Abidin et al., 2013; Bott et al., 2021). Approximately 20% of the city’s coastline is characterised as extremely vulnerable because of sea level rise and enhanced land subsidence (Husnayen et al., 2018), with the north-eastern portions of the city experiencing larger subsidence than the rest (Yastika, Shimizu and Abidin, 2019). Associated public health and sanitation risks are also evident, including increasing outbreaks of dengue fever and diarrhoea (Pratama et al., 2017; [[#Indonesia%20Ministry%20of%20Health--2020|Indonesia Ministry of Health, 2020]] ).

The City of Semarang first engaged with climate change in 2009, when the Rockefeller Foundation launched the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN), an initiative to develop resilience capacity across secondary and rapidly growing cities in South and Southeast Asia (Reed et al., 2015). Semarang was a pilot city for ACCCRN from 2009 to 2016, when it introduced a participatory approach to planning and decision making that challenged the government-dominated tradition in the city, and in turn played a key role in Semarang’s climate adaptation and resilience planning process (Orleans Reed et al., 2013; [[#Moench--2014|Moench, 2014]] ; [[#Kernaghan--2014|Kernaghan and Da Silva, 2014]] ). A City Team was formed in 2010 consisting of City Environmental Agency (BLH; ''Badan Lingkungan Hidup'' ), Regional Disaster Management Agency (BPBD; ''Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah'' ), Water Resources Management Office (PSDA; ''Kantor Dinas Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Air'' ), Regional Planning and Development Agency (BAPPEDA; ''Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah'' ), local universities and NGOs such as the Bintari Foundation, with technical support from Mercy Corps Indonesia ( [[#Nugraha--2018|Nugraha and Lassa, 2018]] ).

The City Team was first established within the City Environment Agency (BLH) but was then transferred to the Development and Planning Agency (BAPPEDA) ( [[#Lassa--2019|Lassa, 2019]] ). This corresponded to a shift in framing of climate change from an environmental priority to encompassing broader development issues such as economic development, housing and infrastructure delivery. By asserting that climate change affects the operations of every critical sector across the city, the number of municipal agencies involved in climate change programming increased significantly ( [[#Setiadi--2015|Setiadi, 2015]] ). Most notably, this approach helped the municipal health agency to recognise the relationship between climate change and health ( [[#Setiadi--2015|Setiadi, 2015]] ), and helped to shift the emphasis of dengue fever management toward a more proactive community-based health early warning system (Pratama et al., 2017). In 2017, these measures helped to reduced dengue fever infection rates by 56% compared with 2011–2016 levels ( [[#Indonesia%20Ministry%20of%20Health--2020|Indonesia Ministry of Health, 2020]] ). ACCCRN also supported policy experimentation through implementing rainwater harvesting facilities and a community-based flood early warning system ( [[#Archer--2015|Archer and Dodman, 2015]] ; Yuniartanti, Handayani and Waskitaningsih, 2016; [[#Sari--2018|Sari and Prayoga, 2018]] ). These projects were designed in conjunction with national government investments in flood management infrastructure, which led to a reduction in the city’s inundated area by 24% or approximately 1% of the total urban area ( [[#Semarang%20City%20Government--2016|Semarang City Government, 2016]] ).

Building on Semarang’s ACCCRN experience, the city then became a member of the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) programme between 2016 and 2018. As in ACCCRN, this new process emphasised stakeholder involvement, with the previous City Team recast as a team of City Resilience Officers (CRO), which was in turn led by the City Mayor and received strategic advisory support from the City Secretary. Semarang synthesised its experiences in climate adaptation planning through the ''Resilient Semarang Strategy'' published in May 2016 ( [[#Semarang%20City%20Government--2016|Semarang City Government, 2016]] ). The ''Resilient Semarang Strategy'' (2016) acknowledged that urban resilience must be pursued in a comprehensive and inclusive manner and highlighted 18 strategies across 6 themes: water and new energy, new economy, disaster and disease, integrated mobility, transparency of public information and competitive human resource, to be mainstreamed into the revision of the Mid-Term Regional Development Plan (RPJMD, ''Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah'' ) of 2016–2021. City Resilience Officers were formally appointed to serve on the RPJMD team, thereby formalising climate resilience as a critical item on the RPJMD programme list.

Engagement with 100RC allowed Semarang’s resilience programmes to appear on 100RC’s ‘marketplace’ of municipal projects, allowing them to be connected with bi-/multi-lateral donor resources, while continuing to align projects with goals articulated within the Mid-Term Regional Development Plan. The 100RC marketplace is a ''resilience platform'' that showcases particular initiatives of 100RC network cities to potential ''resilience partners'' , thereby attracting investment and donor support to Semarang’s resilience programmes. Examples include the Water as Leverage (WaL) project that has been working to conserve urban water resources in the face of climate change since 2018 (Handayani et al., 2020a; Laeni et al., 2021) and the Transboundary Flood Risk Management through Governance and Innovative Information Technology Program (TRANSFORM) that has been helping Semarang tackle flood risks beyond city boundaries through reforestation and development of dry wells and swales in upstream areas, as well as promoting cross-region dialogue ( [[#Global%20Resilience%20Partnership--2018|Global Resilience Partnership, 2018]] ). Other collaborations focused on developing resilience indicators ( [[#ARUP--2018|ARUP, 2018]] ; Rangwala et al., 2018). For example, the Zurich Flood Resilience Program implemented resilience measurement tools in 16 sub-districts along the East Flood Canal. Results of the assessment were then used to develop local disaster contingency plans ( [[#Rangwala--2018|Rangwala et al., 2018]] ).

The conclusion of the Rockefeller Foundation’s formal engagement in Semarang in 2018 has brought forth questions about continued financial and institutional support for climate adaptation action in the city. Increasing land subsidence will also ''likely'' overwhelm current efforts to incrementally adapt to sea level rise and coastal flooding (Abidin et al., 2013). Still, the Semarang case study does highlight several key lessons for urban climate governance in secondary rapidly urbanising cities in the Global South. First, transnational institutions and partnerships are critical enablers ( [[#Aisya--2019|Aisya, 2019]] ; [[#Setiadi--2015|Setiadi, 2015]] ; Chu, Hughes and Mason, 2018; Handayani et al., 2020a). Institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation foster programmes and investment in the city, leverage access to adaptation funding, accelerate climate mainstreaming into wider urban sectors, and promote better knowledge management ( [[#Setiadi--2016|Setiadi, 2016]] ). However, such opportunities are also supported by the city’s ability to further mobilise its own resources in the long term and remove its dependency on the national government and transnational supporters (Handayani et al., 2020a). Second, scaling up of programmes and replication of adaptation actions are increasingly important to close the gap between planning and implementation ( [[#Setiadi--2016|Setiadi, 2016]] ). It is evident that increased community empowerment and participation can help fill this gap ( [[#Hadi--2018|Hadi, 2018]] ; [[#Miladan--2016|Miladan, 2016]] ), but this must also be evidence-based to ensure its applicability and effectiveness (Suarma et al., 2018). Questions remain around how to determine and assess evidence-based participatory adaptation at the local level. Third, sustainable financing (from both external and internal sources) to support proposed adaptation strategies is essential as it allows for more capacity building, technology transfer and programme implementation in the long run (Handayani et al., 2020a; Laeni et al., 2021; [[#Hadi--2017|Hadi, 2017]] ). An example is the development of a water retention on the eastern coast of Semarang using a collaborative financing model, which helped further adaptation by protecting water resources for local industries as well as promote the idea of land value capture for community residents.

<span id="case-study-6.3-institutional-innovation-to-improve-urban-resilience-xixian-new-area-in-china"></span>
=== Case Study 6.3: Institutional Innovation to Improve Urban Resilience: Xi’xian New Area in China ===

<div id="h2-29-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Located in Northwest China and the Silk Road Economic Belt, Xi’Xian covers a total of 882 km 2 of the border zone of two cities of Xi’an and Xianyang, Shaanxi province. Xi”xian accommodates a registered population of 1.06 million, with a planned area of 272 km 2 reserved for urban development. As a new engine for promoting the West Development Strategy and people-centred urbanisation in the northwest China, Xi’xian has paved the way for China’s ecological city agenda since January 2014.

Xi’xian aimed to build a ‘modern garden city’ when it was selected as national demonstration sites for Sponge City (SC) during 2015–2018 and Climate Resilient City (CRC) during 2017–2020. Under the changing climate, the old cities of Xi’xian suffers urban heat island, drying and water scarcity, heavy rains and waterlogging, thunderstorms and so on, which bring adverse effects to transportation, construction, cultural relics tourism resources and other industries (Ma, Yan and Zeyu, 2021). SC status requires innovation to reduce flood risk through design to absorb, store and purify rainfall and storm water in an ecologically friendly way that reduces dangerous and polluted runoff. When required, the stored water is released and added to the urban water supply ( [[#MoHURD--2014|MoHURD, 2014]] ). As a CRC, the aim is to adapt to climate risk and environmental change by integrating climate resilience into urban renewal and revitalisation.

In practice, building ecological cities in China has primarily focused on hard measures ( [[#Li--2020|Li et al., 2020]] ). Key areas of development include stakeholder engagement and horizontal coordination ( [[#Li--2016|Li et al., 2016]] ). Among one of 19 national-level New Areas in China, Xi’xian enjoys special preferential policies in the fields of fiscal autonomy, investment and tax policy, and permission in land utility for industrial development purpose. These policy freedoms allow Xi’Xian to explore adaptation options. This has opened engagement with business through an urban construction investment group sponsored and invested in jointly by Xi’Xian Management Committee (administrative authority) and local enterprises ( [[#Wei--2018|Wei and Zhao, 2018]] ). Second, the municipal government has simplified administrative systems to reduce the project waiting period from evaluation to approval to 50 d. Third, a green financial mechanism creates a leverage effect for national funding, including the first provincial Green Sponge Development Fund (RMB 1.2 billion) and in Shaanxi, special funding from the Urbanization Development Fund (RMB 2.64 billion). Furthermore, a public–private partnership model with a whole-lifecycle-management approach has been introduced, raising funding of RMB 1.24 billion with a packaged project including public pipelines and sewage water treatment facilities.

Such institutional and financial support have allowed Xi’xian to implement a Pilot Construction Plan and Three-year Action Plan for Adapting to Climate Change . In 2020, Xixian formed an urban ecology system including 21 m 2 of green space per capita. The old cities’ underground drainage pipe network has been replaced by sponge designs such as green corridors, grass ditches, water storage gardens and recessed green spaces. The 10 waterlogging prone points in Xi’xian New Area have been eliminated and the green area has alleviated urban heat, with average temperature about 1°C lower than the neighbouring densely populated mega-cities of Xi’an and Xianyang. Groundwater in the New Area has also risen by 3.43 m compared with 2015.

At the end of 2020, Xi’xian New Area has built 2.4 million m 2 of modern garden cities, more than 50 km of sponge roads, 1.4 million m 2 of resilient park green space and established a green coverage of more than 50% of the urban space. The target of becoming a green city in which everyone can ‘see green in 100 meters, step into garden every 300 meter’ has been realised ( [[#Ma--2021|Ma et al., 2021]] ). The urban parks and green spaces play a role in regulating local microclimate and also improve the urban environmental amenities for residents. In a comprehensive performance assessment for the Climate Resilient Cities facilitated by the Climate Change Department of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE), the Xi’xian ranked number 9 among all of the 28 pilot cities.

<span id="case-study-6.4-san-juan-multi-hazard-risk-and-resilience-in-puerto-rico-and-its-urban-areas"></span>
=== Case Study 6.4: San Juan: Multi-Hazard Risk and Resilience in Puerto Rico and Its Urban Areas ===

<div id="h2-30-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

This case study illustrates multi-hazard risk and reviews the formation of a multi-stakeholder adaptation governance regime as one response to this.

In two weeks in 2017, Puerto Rico experienced two powerful hurricanes, Irma (category 5) and María (category 4). The compound effects decimated the island’s power, water, communications and transportation infrastructure, and an estimated 2975 people lost their lives (Irvin-Barnwell et al., 2020; Santos-Burgoa et al., 2018). Soon after, while many homes still had no electricity or roofs and the tree canopy was still bare, Puerto Ricans were faced with cascading effects including environmental health impacts from air pollution, extreme heat and mosquitoes (Ortiz et al., 2020). In 2020, while still recovering, Puerto Ricans experienced earthquakes, extreme African dust events, intense coastal and urban floods, and the COVID-19 pandemic ( [[#Keck--2020|Keck, 2020]] ; [[#NASA%20Explore%20Earth--2020|NASA Explore Earth, 2020]] ; [[#NASA/JPL-Caltech--2020|NASA/JPL-Caltech, 2020]] ). These events continue to unveil unresolved conditions of social vulnerability and its root causes in economic poverty, social inequities, aged and deteriorating infrastructure, and population loss ( [[#Bonilla--2019|Bonilla and LeBrón, 2019]] ). Combined with limited past investment in climate change adaptation and underlying governance challenges including corruption, bankruptcy and political crisis (Holladay et al., 2019), this has constrained a more CRD for Puerto Rico.

It is in this context that government, academic institutions and local civil society have taken important steps and often joint action toward mitigation and adaptation. Federal funding included USD 20 billion of disaster recovery funding with USD 8 billion allocated for adaptation and resilience projects, such as flood risk mitigation. During the year 2020, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved USD 13 billion to rebuild the power grid and education system ( [[#Delgado--2020|Delgado, 2020]] ). These programmes allow communities and local governments to plan and implement strategies and build new infrastructure that reduces risks and builds long-term adaptive capacities. The Government of Puerto Rico also approved two key climate adaptation policies in 2019. The Puerto Rico Mitigation, Adaptation and Resilience to Climate Change Law (Law 33, Senate Bill PS 773) established, for the first time in the island’s history, a legal framework that acknowledges that the climate is changing and threatens the quality of life. The law recognises important scientific projections for the island, including an increase of 0.5 to 1 m in sea levels by 2015, maximum temperatures of up 2.5°C and precipitation decrease of up to 50% by 2100 (Gould et al., 2018). The law generated the formation of an Expert and Advisory Committee on Climate Change to develop the plan with specific recommendations and present it to the Legislature within a year of the passing of the law in 2020. Along with strategies to specifically protect and build the resilience of urban and rural communities to future climate disasters, the law establishes SDGs, including water and food security, urban planning and densification, and transition to renewable and alternative forms of energy. The energy target is reinforced by another key state policy approved in 2019 in response to the failed energy infrastructure during Hurricane María, the Puerto Rico Energy Public Policy Act (Senate Bill PS 1121). This law calls for a transition to 100% renewable and alternative energy by 2050.

Puerto Rico has a strong science base that produced extensive knowledge on climate change and sustainability long before Hurricane María. The Puerto Rico Climate Change Council has collected and synthesised scientific information for Puerto Rico since before its formation in 2009. Many Puerto Rican scientists were also editors and authors on Chapter 20: US Caribbean Region for 4th US National Climate Assessment (Gould et al., 2018). The National Institute of Island Energy and Sustainability (INESI in Spanish) recently published a catalogue with more than 60 scientists and experts working on energy and sustainability innovations in the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) system. The scientific community became very active after the hurricane in efforts to empower local groups and communities to build more sustainable and resilient futures. UPR environmental health scientists worked with communities to design and implement risk reduction action plans, including NBS , through the Community Climate Actions Plans and the Puerto Rico Community Resiliency Initiative sponsored by Fundación Comunitaria de Puerto Rico and Education Development Center-Regional Education Laboratories, Northeast and Islands. A successful example of these alliances is the development of the first solar power community in Toro Negro, Puerto Rico. These initiatives were inspired by principles of human-centred design, a problem-solving approach that starts with the people impacted the most by the problem to be solved. In San Juan, the capital and major urban centre of the island, scientists from UPR and the US Forest Service International Institute of Tropical Forestry worked with local stakeholders and communities to develop sustainable and transformative urban futures with the support of the Urban Resilience to Extreme Events Sustainability Research Network (UREx SRN). The UREx SRN is a knowledge network of 10 cities in the USA and Latin America and 20 other institutions building scientific knowledge, models and participatory tools to build resilience and transformative capacities for cities.

Perhaps the greatest source of adaptive capacity that emerged after the hurricane came from the civic sector and community-based organisations, and local residents. Hundreds of non-profit and grassroots organisations became active in disaster recovery and are now catalysing actions to advance social transformation and sustainable development. In the energy sector, numerous communities and NGOs developed new action plans to promote transitions to renewable energy and community-based microgrids, such as the Queremos Sol initiative ( https://www.queremossolpr.com/ ), and the establishment of solar panels in community centres and residences by the Puerto Rico Community Foundation and Resilient Power Puerto Rico. The San Juan Bay Estuary Program, an NGO in the San Juan metropolitan area, launched alongside the Clinton Global Initiative the development of a watershed-based multi-jusrisdictional hazard mitigation plan, the first watershed-based plan for the metro region. The organisation has established resilience hubs to support the community with critical resources, communications and energy supply during an emergency. In many of the most isolated areas across the island where government aid did not reach them for months, the communities that self-organised during recovery are also leading examples of community social–ecological resilience. In Utuado, one of the hardest hit areas by the hurricane, their main community organisation known as COSSAO (Corporación de Servicios de Salud y Desarrollo Socioeconómico, El Otoao) emerged from the hurricane with a strong and holistic sustainable development vision, the Tetuan Reborn initiative, to improve the socioeconomic status and health of community members while building capacity for disaster resilience through various initiatives. The long-term outcome of this initiative is to support efforts toward self-empowerment within neighbourhoods by identifying and designing viable solutions to hurricane-related and economic development challenges specific to the local context, including constructing a primary health care clinic, a public health promoter programme, pursuing farms rehabilitation, and promoting agritourism, agrotherapy and education (Holladay et al., 2019).

Adaptation efforts, however, continue to face many governance hurdles. Up to 2020, only 2–3% of the USD 20 million Federal Government recovery funds had been spent with hundreds of families that lost their homes or roofs in 2017 yet to receive the help they need ( [[#Colón%20Almenas--2020|Colón Almenas, 2020]] ). Lack of administrative capacities, coordination across sectors and efforts, transparency and accountability are some of the governance barriers that keep recovery and transformation efforts from materialising ( [[#Lamba%20Nieves--2020|Lamba Nieves and Marxuach, 2020]] ). Puerto Ricans are now contending with the reality that the disaster they are experiencing is not an outcome of a singular event but of multiple hazards converging with pre-existing vulnerabilities and low adaptive capacities creating severe multi-hazard risk to the island (Eakin, Muñoz-Erickson and Lemos, 2018; Gould et al., 2018). Many Puerto Ricans now question when the disaster began and when it ended because they have been living in a state of chronic crisis ( [[#Bonilla--2019|Bonilla and LeBrón, 2019]] ).

<span id="case-study-6.5-climate-resilient-pathways-in-informal-settlements-in-cities-in-sub-saharan-africa"></span>
=== Case Study 6.5: Climate-Resilient Pathways in Informal Settlements in Cities in Sub-Saharan Africa ===

<div id="h2-31-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Informal settlements account for over three-quarters of residential areas in sub-Saharan Africa and have grown rapidly over the last three decades ( [[#Visagie--2020|Visagie and Turok, 2020]] ). Informal settlements will remain home to a significant proportion of the urban population of this region which is projected to grow by 2.5 times between 2020 and 2050 ( [[#UNDESA--2018|UNDESA, 2018]] ), driven by a complex set of underlying factors including socioeconomic conditions, inadequate planning systems, local and foreign investment patterns, and rural-to-urban migration (De Longueville et al., 2020). Yet residents of informal settlements are often excluded from macro-level visions and policies that seek to make cities safer and improve resilience (Adenle et al., 2017; Pelling et al., 2018). This case study compares the experience of collective action to manage risk in the informal settlements of Freetown, Sierra Leone, with other cases in Sub-Saharan Africa. These examples show how local knowledge and capacity, engagement of policymakers in meaningful ways with residents of informal communities, and institutional change, can combine to deliver adaptation outcomes at a city scale (Kareem et al., 2020).

Despite their diversity and differences across the continent (Kovacic et al., 2019), informal settlements are frequently located in hazard-prone areas, with residents living in precarious housing conditions on marginal lands (Badmos et al., 2020; [[#Kironde--2016|Kironde, 2016]] ), lacking essential services and risk-reducing infrastructure, and often developing outside the legal systems intended to record land tenure and ownership (Satterthwaite et al., 2020; Adelekan et al., 2015). Consequently, they are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and the urban poor residents suffer disproportionate burdens and losses from natural hazards, which undermines urban resilience (Williams et al., 2019). Recent impacts from flooding have brought wide-spread devastation to urban poor residents in major coastal urban centres including Accra, Lagos, Freetown, Maputo and Dar es Salaam, resulting in injury and death, displacement of people, loss of assets, destruction of public infrastructure and disruption to livelihoods and economies (Douglas et al., 2008; [[#Adelekan--2010|Adelekan, 2010]] ; Yankson et al., 2017; Allen et al., 2017). Flooding and long-term inundation also lead the spread of diseases and health risks ( [[#Sverdlik--2011|Sverdlik, 2011]] ; Zerbo, Delgado and González, 2020). Climate change will also bring stresses such as city-wide reductions in freshwater availability, and heatwaves that have particularly severe consequences for residents of poorly built homes in informal settlements (Pasquini et al., 2020; Kayaga et al., 2021; Wilby et al., 2021).

In response to these risks, a wide range of adaptation efforts have been implemented in cities across sub-Saharan Africa (Hunter et al., 2020). In Freetown, informal settlement residents have led data generation efforts that capture the value of local knowledge in understanding climate risk. Through partnerships with NGOs and research institutions, informal settlement residents have mapped climate hazard hotspots using geo-referenced tools, producing both digital and hardcopy outputs that serve as a blueprint for climate-informed community development discourses (Allen et al., 2020b; Visman et al., 2020). Similarly, residents of informal settlements in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, have profiled community climate and health risks by using an adaptation of the ‘Action at the Frontline’ methodology developed by the Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction (GNDR). Locally informed risk profiles support the development of community action plans based on prioritisation and ranking of scaled-down interventions that communities can collectively do on their own (Osuteye et al., 2020). This process highlights the lived experiences of climate change, and allows communities to develop deliberation spaces, communal solidarity and cohesion, and share adaptation strategies (Sakijege et al., 2014). Such sharing and peer-to-peer learning is particularly useful because adaptive capacities are unevenly distributed among exposed populations ( [[#Ajibade--2014|Ajibade and McBean, 2014]] ). The community-generated assessments and data consider the range of environmental, socioeconomic and political factors that contribute to a better understanding of how climate change affects the vulnerability of low-income urban residents, and how this changes over time.

Data that is generated and owned by residents of informal settlements provides a basis for making the risks facing these neighbourhoods more visible to city planners, and for enabling collaboration between a range of urban stakeholders ( [[#Dobson--2017|Dobson, 2017]] ). In Freetown, this process has been led by the Federation of the Urban and Rural Poor (FEDURP) and the Centre for Dialogue on Human Settlement and Poverty Alleviation (CODOHSAPA). The FEDURP belongs to the global Slum Dwellers International network, committed to empowering poor residents in urban spaces, and has a presence in several other African cities (Macarthy et al., 2017). With the support of CODOHSAPA, FEDURP coordinates community development committees (CDC) and community disaster management committees (CDMC) in nearly all the informal settlements in the city. Both CODOHSAPA and FEDURP work closely with the local research institution, the Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre (SLURC). SLURC has played an essential role in curating spaces for continuous learning and relationship-building between FEDURP and community residents, including the formation of ‘Community Learning Platforms’ (CLP) for mixed groups of community actors ( [[#City%20Learning%20Platform--2019|City Learning Platform, 2019]] ) to build their capacities to address climate risk collectively. This is done by drawing on the data, agency and mobilisation potential of community organisations in informal settlements. In the coastal settlement of Cockle Bay at the western end of the city, uncontrolled traditional land reclamation (‘banking’) along the shores progressively exposed residents to perennial floods from tidal surges, and the settlement received regular threats of evictions from city authorities. However, residents have drawn on their climate risk knowledge and hazard profiling to self-manage a process of action planning resulting in a decision to prohibit further land reclamation. It also identified and demarcated an exterior boundary of the settlement and planned and constructed new drainage channels to carry away runoff water within the community (Allen et al., 2017). The community organisations have subsequently successfully negotiated with the Ministry of Environment to formalise this new exterior boundary, which has led to the authorities dropping their threats of evictions.

The approach taken in Freetown demonstrates a pathway to adaptation that is based on a more people-centred approach to urban planning that understands the aspirations of urban residents, addresses climate risk and advances sustainable development (Woodcraft et al., 2020; Fraser et al., 2017). It further provides an example of the ways in which different sources and scales of data can be co-produced (Kovacic et al., 2019) and targeted interventions can be co-designed with community residents (Musango et al., 2020). The community-generated data on climate and health risks and the subsequent strategic action plans developed through local community organisations’ work have been recognised and incorporated into a new city-wide initiative led by the Office of the Mayor, dubbed Transform Freetown (Allen et al., 2020a). The action has expanded the political space for the urban poor’s collectives to strategically engage in urban resilience planning, highlighting the value and potential of participatory processes and community-generated data.

<div id="cross-working-group-box-urban" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Cross-Working-Group Box URBAN | Cities and Climate Change'''
<div id="h2-39-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Authors: Xuemei Bai (Australia), Vanesa Castán Broto (UK/Spain), Winston Chow (Singapore), Felix Creutzig (Germany), David Dodman (Jamaica/UK), Rafiq Hamdi (Belgium), Bronwyn Hayward (New Zealand), Şiir Kılkış (Turkey), Shuaib Lwasa (Uganda), Timon McPhearson (USA), Minal Pathak (India), Mark Pelling (UK), Diana Reckien (Germany), Karen Seto (USA), Ayyoob Sharifi (Japan/Iran), Diána Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary)

'''Introduction'''
This Cross-Working Group Box on Cities and Climate Change responds to the critical role of urbanisation as a megatrend impacting climate adaptation and mitigation. Issues associated with cities and urbanisation are covered in substantial depth within all three Working Groups (including WGI Box TS.14, WGII [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-6 Chapter 6] ‘Cities, settlements and key infrastructure’; WGII regional chapters; WGII Cross-Chapter Paper ‘Cities and settlements by the sea’; WGIII [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-8|Chapter 8]] ‘Urban systems and other settlements’). This Box highlights key findings from Working Groups II and III and substantial gaps in literature where more research is urgently needed relating to policy action in cities. It describes methods of addressing mitigation and adaptation in an integrated way across sectors and cities to advance sustainable development and equity outcomes; and assesses the governance and finance solutions required to support climate resilient responses.

'''Urbanisation: A Megatrend Driving Global Climate Risk and Potential for Low-Carbon and Resilient Futures'''
Severe weather events, exacerbated by anthropogenic emissions, are already having devastating impacts on people who live in urban areas, and on the infrastructure that supports these communities and those of many other distant places ( ''high confidence'' ) (Cai et al., 2019; Folke et al., 2021). Between 2000 and 2015, the global population in locations that were affected by floods grew by 58–86 million (Tellman et al., 2021). The direct economic costs of all extreme events reached USD 210–268 billion in 2020 (Aon, 2021) or about USD 0.7 billion d -1 ; this figure does not include knock-on costs in supply chains or days off work lost so that the actual economic costs could be far higher. Depending on RCP, between half (RCP2.6) and three-quarters (RCP8.5) of the global population could be exposed to periods of life-threatening climatic conditions arising from coupled impacts of extreme heat and humidity by 2100 (see [[#6.2.2.1|Section 6.2.2.1]] ; WGII Figure 6.3; Mora et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2019).

The interdependencies between infrastructure, services and networks driven by urban production and consumption mean that urban systems are now global; remittance flows and investments reach into rural places shaping natural resource use far from the city and bring risk to the city when these places are impacted by climate change. This urbanisation megatrend (Kourtit, Nijkamp and Scholten, 2015) amplifies and shapes the potential impacts of climate events. It provides the economic and institutional framework for integrating the aims and approaches that can deliver mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) (Zscheischler et al., 2018; Dawson et al., 2018; Tsavdaroglou et al., 2018). For cities facing flood damage, wide-ranging impacts have been recorded on other urban areas ( [[#Simpson--2021|Simpson et al., 2021]] ; [[#Carter--2021|Carter et al., 2021]] ) as production and trade is disrupted (Shughrue et al., 2020). In the absence of integrated mitigation and adaptation across and between infrastructure systems and local places, impacts that bring urban economies to a standstill can extend into supply chains or across energy networks causing power outages.

Urban settlements are drivers of climate change, generating about 70% of global CO 2 -eq emissions ( ''high confidence'' ) (WGI Box TS.14; WGIII 8 ES; WGII 6.1, WGII 6.2). This global impact feeds back to cities through the exposure of infrastructure, people and business to the impacts of climate-related hazards. Especially in the larger cities, this climate feedback is exacerbated by local choices in urban design, land use, building design and human behaviour (Viguié et al., 2020) that shape local environmental conditions. Local and global conditions influence the nature of hazards in urban centres: urban form can add up to 2°C to warming, concretisation of open space can increase runoff and building height and orientation influences wind direction and strength (WGII 6.3).

Building today for resilience and lower emissions is far easier than retrofitting tomorrow. As urbanisation unfolds, its legacy continues to be the locking in of emissions and vulnerabilities ( ''high confidence'' ) (Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2018; Seto et al., 2016). Retrofitting, disaster reconstruction and urban regeneration programmes offer scope for strategic direction changes to low-carbon and high-resilience urban form and function if they are inclusive in design and implementation. Rapid urban growth means new investment, new buildings and infrastructure, new demands for energy and transport and new questions about what a healthy and fulfilling urban life can be. The USD 90 trillion expected to be invested in new urban development by 2030 (NCE, 2018), is a global opportunity to place adaptation and mitigation directly into urban infrastructure and planning, and social policy including education and health care and environmental management (Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2018). If this opportunity is missed, if business as usual urbanisation persists, then social and physical vulnerability will be not be so easily confronted.

The benefits of actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate stressors diminish with delayed action, indicating the necessity for rapid responses. Delaying the same actions for increasing the resilience of infrastructure from 2020 to 2030 is estimated to have a median cost of at least USD 1 trillion ( [[#Hallegatte--2019|Hallegatte et al., 2019]] ), while also missing the carbon emissions reductions required in the narrowing window of opportunity to limit global warming to 1.5°C (WGI). In contrast, taking integrated actions toward mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development will provide multiple benefits for the health and well-being of urban inhabitants and avoid stranded assets (WGII 6.3, WGII 17; WGIII 5; WGIII 8.2; Cross-Chapter Box FEASIB in Chapter 18).

<div id="_idContainer034" class="Box_Header-continued"></div>

Cross-Working Group Box

'''The Policy-Action Gap: Urban Low-Carbon and Climate Resilient Development'''
Cities are critical places to realise actions on both adaptation and mitigation simultaneously, with potential co-benefits that extend far beyond cities ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) (Grafakos et al., 2020; Göpfert, Wamsler and Lang, 2019). Given rapid changes in the built environment, transforming the use of materials and the land intensiveness of urban development including in many parts of the Global South in the next decades will be critical, as well as mainstreaming low-carbon development principles in new urban development in all regions. Much of this development will be self-built and ‘informal’, and new modes of governance and planning will be required to engage with this. Integrating mitigation and adaptation now rather than later, through reshaping patterns of urban development and associated decision making processes, is a prerequisite for attaining resilient and zero carbon cities.

While more cities have developed plans for climate adaptation and mitigation since AR5, many remain to be implemented ( ''limited evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) (Araos et al., 2017; [[#Olazabal--2021|Olazabal and De Gopegui, 2021]] ; Aguiar et al., 2018). A review of local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the European Union suggests mitigation plans are more common than adaptation plans, and that city size, national legislation and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans with an estimated 80% of cities with above 500,000 inhabitants having a mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (Reckien et al., 2018b).

Integrated approaches to tackle common drivers of emissions and cascading risks provide the basis for strengthening synergies across mitigation and adaptation, and managing possible trade-offs with sustainable development ( ''limited evidence, medium agreement'' ) (Grafakos et al., 2019; Landauer, Juhola and Klein, 2019). Analysis of 315 local authority emission reduction plans across the European Union reveals that the most common policies cover municipal assets and structures (Palermo et al. 2020). Estimates of emission reductions by non-state and sub-state actors in 10 high-emitting economies projected GHG emissions in 2030 would be 1.2–2.0 GtCO 2 -eq per year or 3.8–5.5% lower compared to scenario projections for current national policies (31.6–36.8 GtCO 2 -eq per year) if the policies are fully implemented and do not change the pace of action elsewhere (Kuramochi et al. 2020). The value of integrating mitigation and adaptation is underscored in the opportunities for decarbonising existing urban areas, and investing in social, ecological and technological infrastructure resilience (WGII 6.4). Integrating mitigation and adaption is challenging (Landauer, Juhola and Klein, 2019) but can provide multiple benefits for the health and well-being of urban inhabitants ( [[#Sharifi--2020|Sharifi, 2020]] ).

Effective climate strategies combine mitigation and adaptation responses, including through linking adaptive urban land use with GHG emission reductions ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) (Xu et al., 2019; Patterson et al., 2021). For example, urban green and blue infrastructure can provide co-benefits for mitigation and adaptation (Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2018) and is an important entry point for integrating adaptation and mitigation at the urban level (Frantzeskaki et al., 2019). Grey and physical infrastructure such as sea defences can immediately reduce risk, but can also transfer risk and limit future options. Social policy interventions including social safety nets provide financial security for the most at risk and can manage vulnerability determined both by specific hazards and independently. Hazard-independent mechanisms for vulnerability reduction, such as population-wide social security, provide resilience in the face of unanticipated cascading impacts or surprise and novel climate-related hazard exposure. Social interventions can also support, or be led by, ambitions to reach the Sustainable Development Goals ( [[#Archer--2016|Archer, 2016]] ). Climate resilient development invites planners to plan interventions and monitor the effectiveness of outcomes beyond individual projects and across wider remits that reach into sustainable development. Curbing the emission impacts of urban activities to reach net zero in the next decades while improving the resilience of urban areas necessitates an integrated response now.

Key gaps in knowledge include urban enabling environment; how smaller settlements, low-income communities living in slums and informal settlements, but also those in rental housing spread across the city, and actions to reduce supply chain risk can be supported to accelerate equitable and sustainable adaptation in the face of financial and governance constraints (Birkmann et al., 2016; Shi et al., 2016; [[#Dulal--2019|Dulal, 2019]] ; Rosenzweig et al., 2018b).

<div id="_idContainer035" class="Box_Header-continued"></div>

Cross-Working Group Box

'''Enabling Action'''
Innovative governance and finance solutions are required to manage complex and interconnected risks across essential key infrastructures, networks and services and meet basic human needs in urban areas ( ''medium confidence'' ) (Moser et al., 2019; Colenbrander, Dodman and Mitlin, 2018). There are many examples of ‘ready-to-use’ policy tools, technologies and practical interventions for policymakers seeking to act on adaptation and mitigation (Keenan, Chu and Peterson, 2019; [[#Bisaro--2018|Bisaro and Hinkel, 2018]] ; [[#Chirambo--2021|Chirambo, 2021]] ). Tax and fiscal incentives for business and individuals can help support city-wide change behaviour toward low carbon and risk reducing choices. Change can start where governments have most control; in public sector institutions and investment, but the challenge ahead requires partnership with private sector and community actors acting at scale and with accountability. Urban climate governance and finance needs to address urban inequalities at the forefront if the urban opportunity is to realise the ambition of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Increasing investment at pace will put pressure on governance capability and transparency and accountability of decision making ( ''medium confidence'' ) (WG II 6.6.4.5). Urban climate action that actively includes local actors and is built on an evidence base open to independent scrutiny is more likely to avoid unintended, negative maladaptive impacts and mobilise a wide range of local capacities. In the long run, this is also more likely to carry public support, even if some experiments and investments do not deliver the intended social benefits. Legislation, technical capacity and governance capability is required to be able to absorb additional finance. About USD 384 billion yr -1 of climate finance has been invested in urban areas in recent years. This remains at about 10% of the annual climate finance that would be necessary for low-carbon and resilient urban development (Negreiros et al., 2021). Rapid deployment of funds to stimulate economies in recovery from COVID-19 have highlighted the pitfalls of funding expansion ahead of policy innovation and capacity building. The result can be an intensification of existing urban forms, exactly the kinds of choices and preferences that contribute to risk creation and its concentration among those with little public voice or economic power.

Iterative and experimental approaches to climate adaptation and mitigation decision making co-generated in partnership with communities, can advance climate-resilient decarbonisation ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) (Caldarice, Tollin and Pizzorni, 2021; Culwick et al., 2019; [[#van%20der%20Heijden--2021|van der Heijden and Hong, 2021]] ). Conditions of complexity, uncertainty and constrained resources require innovative solutions which are both adaptive and anticipatory. Complex interactions among multiple agents in times of uncertainty makes decision making about social, economic, governance, and infrastructure choices challenges, and can lead decision makers to postpone action. This is the case for those balancing household budgets, residential investment portfolios and city-wide policy responsibilities. Living with climate change requires changes to business-as-usual design making. Co-design and collaboration with communities through iterative policy experimentation can point the way toward CRD pathways ( [[#Ataöv--2021|Ataöv and Peker, 2021]] ). Key to successful learning is transparency in policymaking, inclusive policy processes and robust local modelling, monitoring and evaluation, which are not yet widely undertaken (Ford et al., 2019; Sanchez Rodriguez, Ürge-Vorsatz and Barau, 2018).

The diversity of cities’ experiences of climate mitigation and adaptation strategies brings an advantage for those city government and other actors willing to ‘learn together’ ( ''limited evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Bellinson--2019|Bellinson and Chu, 2019]] ; [[#Haupt--2019|Haupt and Coppola, 2019]] ). While contexts are varied, policy options are often similar enough for the sharing of experiments and policy champions. Sharing expertise can build on existing regional and global networks, many of which have already placed knowledge, learning and capacity building at the centre of their agendas. Learning from innovative forms of governance and financial investment, and strengthening co-production of policy through inclusive access to knowledge and resources, can help address mismatches in local capacities, strengthen wider Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19 Recovery agendas ( ''limited evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ). Perceptions of risk can greatly influence the reallocation of capital and shift financial resources ( [[#Battiston--2021|Battiston et al., 2021]] ). Coupling mitigation and adaptation in an integrated approach offers opportunities to enhance efficiency, increases the coherence of urban climate action, generates cost savings and provides opportunities to reinvest the savings into new climate action projects to make all urban areas and regions more resilient.

Local governments play an important role in driving climate action across mitigation and adaptation as managers of assets, regulators, mobilisers and catalysts of action, but few cities are undertaking transformative climate adaptation or mitigation actions ( ''limited evidence'' , ''medium agreement)'' (Heikkinen, Ylä-Anttila and Juhola, 2019). Local actors are providers of infrastructure and services, regulators of zoning, and can be conveners and champions of an integrated approach for mitigation and adaptation at multiple levels ( ''limited evidence'' , ''high confidence'' ). New opportunities in governance and finance can enable cities to pool resources together and aggregate interventions to innovate ways of mobilising urban climate finance at scale (White and Wahbah, 2019; [[#Simpson--2019|Simpson et al., 2019]] ; Colenbrander, Dodman and Mitlin, 2018). However, research increasingly points toward the difficulties faced during the implementation of climate financing ''in situ'' , such as the fragmentation of structures of governance capable of managing large investments effectively ( [[#Mohammed--2019|Mohammed et al., 2019]] ).

Scaling up transformative place-based action for both adaptation and mitigation requires enabling conditions including land-based financing, intermediaries and local partnerships ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Tirumala--2021|Tirumala and Tiwari, 2021]] ; ). Governance structures that combine actors working at different levels with different mixes of tools are effective in addressing challenges related to implementation of integrated action, while cross-sectoral coordination is necessary ( [[#Singh--2020|Singh et al., 2020]] ). Joint institutionalisation of mitigation and adaptation in local governance structures can also enable integrated action ( [[#Göpfert--2020|Göpfert et al., 2020]] ; [[#Hurlimann--2021|Hurlimann et al., 2021]] ). However, the proportion of international finance that reaches local recipients remains low, despite the repeated focus of climate policy on place-based adaptation and mitigation (Manuamorn, 2019). Green financing instruments that enable local climate action without exacerbating current forms of inequality can jointly address mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development. Climate finance that also reaches beyond non-state enterprises, including SMEs, communities and NGOs, and is responsive to the needs of urban inhabitants, including disabled individuals and different races or ethnicities, is essential for inclusive and resilient urban development (Colenbrander, Dodman and Mitlin, 2018 [[#Frenova--2020)|Frenova, 2020)]] . Developing networks that can exert climate action at scale is another priority for climate finance.

The urbanisation megatrend is an opportunity to transition global society. Enabling urban governance to avert cascading risk and achieve low-carbon, resilient development will involve co-production of policy and planning, rapid implementation and greater cross-sector coordination, monitoring and evaluation ( ''limited evidence'' , ''medium agreement)'' ( [[#Grafakos--2019|Grafakos et al., 2019]] ; [[#Di%20Giulio--2018|Di Giulio et al., 2018]] ). New constellations of responsible actors are required to manage hybrid local-city or cross-city risk management and decarbonisation initiatives ( ''limited evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ). These may increasingly benefit from linkages across more urban and more rural space as recognition of cascading and systemic risk brings recognition of supply chains, remittance flows and migration trends as vectors of risk and resilience. Urban governance will be better prepared in planning, prioritising and financing the kind of measures that can reduce GHG emissions and improve resilience at scale and pace when considering a view of cascading risks and carbon lock-ins globally, while acting locally to address local limitations and capacities, including the needs and priorities of urban citizens (Colenbrander, Dodman and Mitlin, 2018).

<div id="_idContainer036" class="Box_Header-continued"></div>

Cross-Working Group Box

<div id="frequently-asked-questions" class="h1-container"></div>