Difference between revisions of "No regrets"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
ChristineLN (talk | contribs) |
ChristineLN (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <div style="overflow: hidden;"> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <div style="float: right; padding-left: 20px; padding-bottom: 10px;"> | ||
| + | <pdf width="400" height="550">File:MECP Draft-LID-Stormwater-Management-Guidance-Manual-2022 no regrets.pdf</pdf> | ||
| + | </div> | ||
No-regrets approaches, often described as proactive adaptive management, rely on risk-based design standards that account for climate uncertainty and promote actions—such as reducing impervious cover—that enhance watershed resilience under any scenario (Huron River Watershed Council, 2013)<ref name = "HRWC"> Huron River Watershed Council. (2013). Climate Resilient Communities. Retrieved from https://www.hrwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Water Infastructure.pdf</ref>. Evidence also shows that redevelopment strategies like increasing density and decreasing impervious cover function as effective no-regrets adaptations, reducing pollutant loads in stormwater runoff while addressing broader climate adaptation goals (Pyke et al., 2011)<ref name ="Pyke">Pyke, C., Warren, M. P., Johnson, T., LaGro, J., Scharfenberg, J., Groth, P.,...Main, E. (2011). Assessment of low impact development for managing stormwater with changing precipitation due to climate change. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103(2), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.07.006 </ref>. However, climate change adaptation in infrastructure planning remains complex due to the scale, interconnectedness, and uncertainty of the problem, requiring integrated solutions rather than single strategies (Blanco et al., 2009)<ref>Hilda Blanco, Marina Alberti, Ann Forsyth, Kevin J. Krizek, Daniel A. Rodríguez, Emily Talen, Cliff Ellis; Hot, congested, crowded and diverse: Emerging research agendas in planning, Progress in Planning, May 2009 Volume, 71(4) p.153-205</ref>. Green infrastructure plays a key role in this risk-based framework by functioning as a buffer against uncertain climate impacts. Rather than offering only direct, measurable benefits, it reduces the risks of extreme weather events such as flooding, heat waves, and storms, helping communities avoid negative outcomes while also providing wider social and environmental benefits (Matthews et al., 2015)<ref>Matthews, T., Lo, A. Y., & Byrne, J. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.010 </ref>. Together, these perspectives underscore why LID should be widely implemented: it supports current stormwater management needs while simultaneously preparing communities for uncertain future climate conditions. | No-regrets approaches, often described as proactive adaptive management, rely on risk-based design standards that account for climate uncertainty and promote actions—such as reducing impervious cover—that enhance watershed resilience under any scenario (Huron River Watershed Council, 2013)<ref name = "HRWC"> Huron River Watershed Council. (2013). Climate Resilient Communities. Retrieved from https://www.hrwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Water Infastructure.pdf</ref>. Evidence also shows that redevelopment strategies like increasing density and decreasing impervious cover function as effective no-regrets adaptations, reducing pollutant loads in stormwater runoff while addressing broader climate adaptation goals (Pyke et al., 2011)<ref name ="Pyke">Pyke, C., Warren, M. P., Johnson, T., LaGro, J., Scharfenberg, J., Groth, P.,...Main, E. (2011). Assessment of low impact development for managing stormwater with changing precipitation due to climate change. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103(2), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.07.006 </ref>. However, climate change adaptation in infrastructure planning remains complex due to the scale, interconnectedness, and uncertainty of the problem, requiring integrated solutions rather than single strategies (Blanco et al., 2009)<ref>Hilda Blanco, Marina Alberti, Ann Forsyth, Kevin J. Krizek, Daniel A. Rodríguez, Emily Talen, Cliff Ellis; Hot, congested, crowded and diverse: Emerging research agendas in planning, Progress in Planning, May 2009 Volume, 71(4) p.153-205</ref>. Green infrastructure plays a key role in this risk-based framework by functioning as a buffer against uncertain climate impacts. Rather than offering only direct, measurable benefits, it reduces the risks of extreme weather events such as flooding, heat waves, and storms, helping communities avoid negative outcomes while also providing wider social and environmental benefits (Matthews et al., 2015)<ref>Matthews, T., Lo, A. Y., & Byrne, J. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.010 </ref>. Together, these perspectives underscore why LID should be widely implemented: it supports current stormwater management needs while simultaneously preparing communities for uncertain future climate conditions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | MECP's Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Guidance Manual Draft (2022) presents several adaptation options, including "no regrets": | ||
| + | * Win-win options – cost-effective adaptation measures that minimize climate risks or exploit potential opportunities but also have other social, environmental or economic benefits. | ||
| + | * No-regrets options – cost-effective adaptation measures that are worthwhile whatever the extent of future climate change. | ||
| + | * Low-regrets (or limited-regrets) Options – adaptation measures where the associated costs are relatively low and where the benefits, although mainly met under projected future climate, may be relatively large. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Scroll through the PDF on the right to learn more. | ||
===References=== | ===References=== | ||
Revision as of 19:08, 4 September 2025
No regrets: implementing measures that deliver benefits today and in the future, regardless of how the climate may change (Blum, 2020)[1].
Low Impact Development (LID) practices are highlighted across several studies as effective strategies for stormwater management that remain beneficial under both current and future climate conditions. Given that climate change projections are highly uncertain, particularly at local scales, LID represents a “no-regrets” option—actions that improve resilience to climate impacts while providing immediate environmental, social, and economic benefits (Heltberg et al., 2009; Huron River Watershed Council, 2013)[2][3]. Planning for climate change requires consideration of uncertainty in both the rate and magnitude of projected impacts. To address this, researchers have emphasized three guiding principles (Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts, 2011; Huron River Watershed Council, 2013)[4][3]:
- Triage: Focusing resources where they have the greatest impact.
- Precautionary principle: Acting even without certainty when risks are high.
- No-regrets strategies: Implementing actions that provide benefits under any climate scenario.
"Faced with uncertainty about future climate change, and given constraints on available resources, communities may choose to pursue no-regrets strategies – actions that are beneficial in addressing current stormwater management needs regardless of whether or how climate may change in the future" (Means, 2010)[5]