EN中文

Regional Sustainability >

2024 , Vol. 5 >Issue 3: 100155

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100155

Full Length Article

Climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process in Tanzania

  • Issa NYASHILU , a, * ,
  • Robert KIUNSI b ,
  • Alphonce KYESSI c
Expand
  • aVice President’s Office, Government City, Dodoma, 2502, Tanzania
  • bDepartment of Environmental Engineering and Technology, Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, 35176, Tanzania
  • cInstitute of Human Settlements Studies, Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, 35176, Tanzania
* E-mail address: (Issa NYASHILU).

Received date: 2023-04-11

  Revised date: 2023-09-22

  Accepted date: 2024-08-19

  Online published: 2025-08-14

Fold

Abstract

Climate change vulnerability assessment is an essential tool for identifying regions that are most susceptible to the impacts of climate change and designing effective adaptation actions that can reduce vulnerability and enhance long-term resilience of these regions. This study explored a framework for climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process in Jangwani Ward, Tanzania. Specifically, taking flood as an example, this study highlighted the steps and methods for climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process. In the study area, 95 households were selected and interviewed through purposeful sampling. Additionally, 10 respondents (4 females and 6 males) were interviewed for Focus Group Discussion (FGD), and 3 respondents (1 female and 2 males) were selected for Key Informant Interviews (KII) at the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development. This study indicated that climate change vulnerability assessment framework involves the assessment of climatic hazards, risk elements, and adaptive capacity, and the determination of vulnerability levels. The average hazard risk rating of flood was 2.3. Socioeconomic and livelihood activities and physical infrastructures both had the average risk element rating of 3.0, and ecosystems had the average risk element rating of 2.9. Adaptive capacity ratings of knowledge, technology, economy or finance, and institution were 1.6, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.2, respectively. The vulnerability levels of socioeconomic and livelihood activities and physical infrastructure were very high (4.0). Ecosystems had a high vulnerability level (3.8) to flood. The very high vulnerability level of socioeconomic and livelihood activities was driven by high exposure and sensitivity to risk elements and low adaptive capacity. The study recommends adoption of the new urban planning process including preparation, planning, implementation, and monitoring-evaluation-review phases that integrates climate change vulnerability assessment in all phases.

Key words： Climate change; Vulnerability level; Climatic hazard; Risk elements; Adaptive capacity; New urban planning process

Cite this article

Issa NYASHILU , Robert KIUNSI , Alphonce KYESSI . Climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process in Tanzania[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2024 , 5(3) : 100155 . DOI: 10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100155

1. Introduction

Climate change has been affecting human beings in the world (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021). Cities situated on coast areas are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, notably extreme weather events such as intensive heat waves, flood, sea level rise, and tropical storms. Climate change leads to the loss and damage of socioeconomic and livelihood activities, infrastructures, and ecosystems in cities (Živković, 2019; Tu and Yu, 2023). In urban areas, climate change leads to the escalation of energy consumption for cooling (Stephen et al., 2015; Gombe et al., 2017; Nyashilu et al., 2023a). The impacts of climate change on urban informal settlements are accelerated due to inadequate social services such as water, health and sanitation, stormwater drainage systems, transport infrastructure, dilapidated housing, and urban poverty (Pandey et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2019; Giri et al., 2021). The vulnerability assessment of climate change is an imperative tool for the identification of regions most susceptible to the impacts of climate change and can help design effective adaptation actions to reduce vulnerability and enhance long-term resilience to climate change in cities of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (Younus and Kabir, 2018; Schneiderbauer et al., 2020).
Climate change is mainly caused by socioeconomic factors such as industrialization, product use, transportation, agriculture, forestry, and other land uses. Other causes involve natural factors: earthquakes, landslides, and volcanic eruptions. The socioeconomic and natural factors release greenhouse gases, especially CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) (IPCC, 2014). These greenhouse gases absorb sunlight, thus causing climate change. Climate change affects the production sectors such as agriculture, livestock, water, human settlement, and land use (IPCC, 2021). Projections show that 68.0% of the world’s population will live in cities by 2050 due to seeking better jobs and better life (IPCC, 2021). Urban planning is the design and development of urban areas to serve the needs of people and communities such as health, environment, energy, water, infrastructure, ecosystems, engineering, and architecture (Rysz and Mazurek, 2015). Lupala (2015) thought that urban planning includes urban strategic planning, zoning of land use or land use planning or detailed planning, master planning, urban renewal, socio-economic development, environmental planning and management, and infrastructure planning. The conventional urban planning process involves 4 phases: preparatory planning, planning, implementation, and monitoring and review. The preparatory planning phase focuses on stakeholders’ analysis, problem formulation, setting of goals, and putting together an inventory of data for planning and analysis. These data were gathered using scientific methods such as the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) (Kasala, 2015). The planning phase emphasizes the organization of plan and forecasting future events including population growth, economic activities, and social services (water, sanitary, wastes, energy, health, land use characteristics, etc.). The implementation phase develops the implementation plan, including actions, resources, schedules, and responsible institutions. The monitoring and review phase tracks the implementation of actions in terms of successes and challenges to recommend appropriate actions for the review of urban planning (Kasala, 2015). The conventional urban planning process does not consider climate change. The development of urban planning policies, plans, programmes, and guidelines should consider the impacts of climate change and integrate climate change vulnerability assessment in the planning process, which can enhance long-term resilience to climate change.
Across the Global South countries, urban planning policies, plans, strategies, and programmes are unclear on the integration of climate change impacts, vulnerability assessment, and adaptation (Pandey et al., 2018; Cobbinah et al., 2019; Giri et al., 2021). Although multiple climate change vulnerability assessment frameworks exist, there is little knowledge about the importance of integrating it in urban planning in SSA, including Tanzania. The existing frameworks consider adaptation to climate change from different aspects including agriculture, water, forestry, fisheries, and health, rather than urban planning (Barsley et al., 2013; Schneiderbauer et al., 2020). This accelerates the vulnerability of cities regarding the impacts of climate change.
This study explores a framework for climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process of Jangwani Ward, Tanzania. Specifically, this research determines the steps and methods for conducting climate change vulnerability assessment and recommends a new urban planning process that takes climate change vulnerability assessment into account. This study can promote the transformation from a conventional urban planning process to a new urban planning process, and establish an inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable urban areas.

2. Theoretical framework

This study is based on the theories relating to climate change and modern urban planning (Füssel and Klein, 2006; Leary et al., 2013; Rysz and Mazurek, 2015; Nyashilu et al., 2023a). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines climate change as a phenomenon directly or indirectly attributing to human activities that alter the composition of global atmosphere (UN, 1992; Feyissa et al., 2018). The IPCC and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) define climate change as a change in the state of climate that can be identified (e.g., using statistical tests) by the mean and/or the variability of its properties, which persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer (Li et al., 2015; Schneiderbauer et al., 2020; IPCC, 2021). There is no standard definition of vulnerability, but some scholars have defined it as the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected (Watson 2000; Adger et al., 2004; de León and Carlos, 2006; Feyissa et al., 2018). Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts and elements such as the sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and the lack of capacity to cope and adapt (IPCC, 2014). The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) relates the vulnerability with hazards, exposures, and risks. The impacts of climate change result from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including hazardous events and trends). Climate change vulnerability assessment is the evaluation of the impacts of climate change in the past, present, and future including the impacts of temperature and precipitation on socioeconomic processes and ecosystems (Füssel and Klein, 2006). Nevertheless, de León and Carlos (2006) claimed that vulnerability is the most elusive component of the hazard-vulnerability-coping capacity-risk (losses)-recovery cycle, and it can be defined as ‘vulnerability of what’ and ‘what scale’. Further, Timberlake and Schultz (2019) and Schneiderbauer et al. (2020) stated that vulnerability assessment is the process of identifying and ranking vulnerabilities in terms of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to the impacts of climate change. Vulnerability assessment components cover climatic hazards, risk elements, sensitivity, potential impacts, and adaptive capacity. Climatic hazard is an event with the potential to cause harm to human health, property, and the environment (Nyashilu et al., 2023b). Exposure to climatic hazards refers to the location of the risk elements relative to the occurrence of it (Li et al., 2015; Nyashilu et al., 2023b). Risk elements involve people and their surroundings such as population, informal settlements, socioeconomic and livelihood activities, and ecosystems affected by climatic hazards (Nyashilu et al., 2023b). The proximity of risk elements to the location of climatic hazards determines its low, moderate, and high exposure levels (Reay et al., 2007; Rodríguez and Santos, 2018). The potential impact of risk elements to climatic hazard is the summation of exposure and sensitivity (Tapia et al., 2017; Schneiderbauer et al., 2020). Sensitivity is human or environmental responses to the impacts of climatic hazards (Feyissa et al., 2018). Adaptive capacity is the ability often measured by the time it takes for a system notably urban areas to change its structure to support basic system functions in response to perturbation; and its resilience, which is the rate at which a system recovers structure and function, following a perturbation (Adger, 2003; Feyissa et al., 2018; Nyashilu et al., 2023a).
Different frameworks for conducting climate change vulnerability assessment are available but few on urban planning (Younus and Kabir, 2018; Schneiderbauer et al., 2020). This study conceptualized climate change vulnerability assessment in the context of climatic hazards, risk elements, and adaptive capacity to assess the vulnerability of Jangwani ward to climate change induced flood. Climate change vulnerability assessment involved the following four steps: assessment of climatic hazards, risk elements, adaptive capacity, and determination of vulnerability levels (IPCC, 2014; Feyissa et al., 2018; Pandey et al., 2018; Schneiderbauer et al., 2020; Giri et al., 2021).

3. Study area and methods

3.1. Study area

Jangwani Ward is among the wards in Dar es Salaam City that has a population of 5,383,728 persons (2,600,018 males and 2,783,710 females) (URT, 2022). Jangwani Ward (06°48′59.76′′S, 39°16′27.48′′E) is located in Ilala District of Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania. The study area has a population of 13,793 persons (7326 males and 6467 females) (URT, 2022). Ilala District is characterized by humid temperature that varies from 26.0°C in August to 35.0°C in December and January. The long rainy season lasts from March to May, with an average monthly precipitation between 150 and 300 mm. The short rainy season begins in October and ends in December, with an average monthly precipitation ranging from 75 to 100 mm. Due to the impacts of climate change, there is normally an increase in temperature and a shift in rainy season (URT, 2019). Jangwani Ward has hotels, bars, restaurants, and transportation and construction services, which employ about 45.0% of the total population in Ilala District (URT, 2019).
On the other hand, Tanzania has well-defined climatological seasons. From December to March of the next year, when the northeast monsoon blows, it is hot and comparatively dry. The heavy precipitation falls in April and May. These are associated with the hot and humid coastal belt, which has the warmest temperatures, with an average annual temperature of 27.0°C-30.0°C and an average annual precipitation of 750-1250 mm. There will be an obvious increased maximum temperature trend over the entire country during 2011-2100 under two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) (RCP8.5 and RCP4.5) (Luhunga et al., 2018). However, Tanzania will experience a lower increase in the maximum temperature varying from 2.5°C to 3.0°C and 1.4°C to 1.6°C during the end of the century (2071-2100) under RCP8.5 and RCP4.5, respectively (Luhunga et al., 2018).
The precipitation in most regions of Tanzania is likely to increase in the range of 0.15-0.45 mm/d during the present century (2011-2040) relative to the baseline period (1971-2000) under both RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 (Luhunga et al., 2018; Borhara et al., 2020). The most regions of this country will experience an increase of precipitation in the range of 0.00-2.50 mm/d during the mid-century (2041-2070) relative to the baseline period (1971-2000) under both RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 (Luhunga et al., 2018; Osima et al., 2018). However, the coastal regions are projected to experience an increase of precipitation in the range of 0.25-0.50 mm/d under RCP4.5 (Luhunga et al., 2018). Osima et al. (2016) and Luhunga et al. (2018) indicated that precipitation will increase in most regions of Tanzania during the end of the century (2071-2100) relative to the baseline period (1971-2000) under RCP8.5 and RCP4.5. For example, the coastal regions are projected to receive more precipitation in the range of 0.50-1.00 and 0.25-0.50 mm/d during 2071-2100 under RCP8.5 and RCP4.5, respectively (Luhunga et al., 2018; URT, 2021).

3.2. Research methods

This study used a case study strategy (Yin, 2014) and adopted both non-probability and probability sampling procedures (Kothari, 2004). A total of 95 households were purposively selected for this study. The sample was considered adequate despite some limitations including inadequate knowledge by respondents on the climate change vulnerability assessment (Cobbinah et al., 2019; Nyashilu et al., 2023b), which were addressed by creating awareness to respondents in this study (Cobinnah et al., 2019). The selection criterion was respondents’ responses to flood. This hazard was selected due to its prevalence in the study area (Stephen et al., 2015; Kikwasi and Mbuya, 2019; Nyashilu et al., 2023b). This study also used Focus Group Discussion (FGD) to interview 10 persons (4 females and 6 males) at the community level. Moreover, Key Informant Interview (KII) was conducted at the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development (1 female and 2 males): 1 female in Dar es Salaam Regional Commissioner’s Office, 1 male in Dar es Salaam City Council, and 1 male in Ilala District Council. This study collected both primary and secondary data. Primary data were collected through household interviews (HHI), FGD, and KII, whereas secondary data were collected through documentary review. The primary data were very important in gathering respondents’ responses compared with the available knowledge from the existing studies. Qualitative data were analysed by content analysis in terms of classification, description, and transcription. Quantitative data were analysed using the SPSS software (International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk City, the United States).

3.3. Research process

Climate change vulnerability assessment involved four steps: assessment of climatic hazards, risk elements, and adaptive capacity, and determination of vulnerability levels.
The assessment of climatic hazards means to identify and evaluate the climatic hazards prevalent in the study area based on respondents’ responses obtained through HHI and FGD. In this study, flood hazard assessment included five parameters: frequency of occurrence, extent of the affected area, extent of the affected population, likelihood of occurrence, and duration of occurrence (IPCC, 2014). These parameters were used to determine the severity of flood in the study area (European Commission, 2004; Aslam, 2018; Younus and Kabir, 2018).
The impact severity criteria of climatic hazards was categorized as ‘low’ meaning small little loss of lives and property in the community); ‘moderate’ (indicating a modest loss of lives and property in the community); and ‘very serious’ (signifying significant loss of lives and property in the community) (Fritzsche, 2014; Schneiderbauer et al., 2020). The assessment of climatic hazards involved three sub-steps. The first sub-step was to obtain respondents’ responses from HHI and FGD. The second sub-step was to divide respondents’ responses into 3 classes as follows: low (0.0%-33.0%) with a class value of 1, moderate (34.0%-67.0%) with a class value of 2, and high (68.0%-100.0%) with a class value of 3 based on respondents’ responses. Respondents’ responses for each parameter were normalized. The class value was the number assigned to respondent’ responses for the purpose of ranking the vulnerability of risk elements to flood (Ordóñez and Duinker, 2014; Schneiderbauer et al., 2020). The third sub-step was the nondimensionalized of respondents’ responses. The assessment of risk elements involved identification and analysis of respondents’ responses through HHI and FGD. Risk is the probability of occurrence of harmful consequences that lead to casualties, damage to property, loss of livelihood, and socioeconomic and environmental destruction (European Commission, 2004; IPCC, 2007). Previous studies stated that risk is a function of exposure, sensitivity, potential impact, and vulnerability (de León and Carlos, 2006; IPCC, 2007; Bles et al., 2016). The potential impact refers to the combination of exposure and sensitivity (Fritzsche, 2014). However, European Commission (2004) thought that risk is a function of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. In this study, the assessment criteria of risk elements involved exposure and sensitivity, which used similar sub-steps as the assessment of climatic hazards.
The assessment of adaptive capacity was conducted through HHI and KII. KII was conducted at the ministry, regional, city, and district levels to explore respondents’ responses of reducing vulnerability of climate change and enhancing long-term resilience to climate change. It involved the identification and assessment of the available opportunities to support urban planning authorities to adapt to climate change. The assessment of adaptive capacity used parameters involving knowledge, technology, economy or finance, and institutions (Kiunsi, 2013; Fritzsche, 2014; Atanga et al., 2017; Feyissa et al., 2018; Schneiderbauer et al., 2020). Determination of vulnerability levels to climatic hazards was the last step. It was calculated following the equation from Villagrán (2006), which was modified to fit the context of this study.
LV = HRR × ERR ACR
where LV is the vulnerability level; HRR is the hazard risk rating; ERR is the risk element rating; and ACR is the adaptive capacity rating.

4. Results

4.1. Assessment of climatic hazards

The results showed that 100.0% of respondents were aware of flood in Jangwani Ward, while 82.6% of respondents reported that flood had very serious impacts on their livelihoods. It was found that flood was the most prevalent hazard in the ward, resulting in the serious damage of property and loss of lives. Respondents testified that flood was the most prevalent hazard with very serious impacts in Jangwani Ward.
The parameters of flood hazard assessment included: frequency of occurrence, extent of the affected area, extent of the affected population, likelihood of occurrence, and duration of occurrence. We classified the impact severity of flood into 3 levels: not significant (0.0-1.0), moderately significant (1.0-2.0), and highly significant (2.0-3.0) based on the hazard risk rating.
Table 1 shows that 100.0% of respondents reported that flood occurred every year. About 66.6% of respondents reported that the whole ward was affected by flood, 24.4% of respondents opined that a large part of the ward was affected, while 9.0% of respondents said that only a small part of the ward was affected. Regarding extent of the affected population in the ward, 55.5% of respondents thought that the whole community was affected by flood, 13.7% of respondents reported that a small part of the community was affected, and 30.8% of respondents said that a large part of the community was affected. Moreover, 83.2% of respondents revealed that flood was very likely to occur, 5.2% of respondents said that flood was likely to occur, and 11.6% of respondents claimed that flood occasionally occurs. Furthermore, 86.3% of respondents reported that flood lasted for days, 10.5% of respondents said that it lasted for weeks, while 3.2% of respondents reported that it lasted for hours. The result showed that the average hazard risk rating of flood was 2.3, which fell under highly significant level. This implied that the impact severity of flood is significant and will be used for the determination of vulnerability levels in Jangwani Ward.
Table 1 Respondents’ responses for parameters of flood hazard assessment.
Parameter Category Respondents’ response (%) Class value Hazard risk rating
Frequency of occurrence Every year 100.0 3 3.0
Every 2 a 0.0 1
After 5 a 0.0 1
Extent of the affected area A small part of the ward 9.0 1 1.6
A large part of the ward 24.4 1
The whole ward 66.6 2
Extent of the affected population A small part of the community in the ward 13.7 1 1.5
A large part of the community in the ward 30.8 1
The whole community in the ward 55.5 2
Likelihood of occurrence Occasional 11.6 1 2.7
Likely 5.2 1
Very likely 83.2 3
Duration of occurrence Hours 3.2 1 2.7
Days 86.3 1
Weeks 10.5 3
Average hazard risk rating 2.3

4.2. Assessment of risk elements

The risk elements of climatic hazards, which were identified by HHI and FGD, included socioeconomic and livelihood activities (population, buildings or housing, urban farming, informal businesses and settlements, and construction), physical infrastructures (roads, bridges, car parks, storm water drainage systems, electric power lines, and bus rapid transit (BRT) main station), and ecosystems (Msimbazi Valley in Jangwani Ward). In this study, parameters used in the assessment of risk elements were exposure and sensitivity.
From Table 2 we can see that risk elements including socioeconomic and livelihood activities, physical infrastructures, and ecosystems had high exposure and sensitivity (≥90.0%). The risk element ratings for exposure and sensitivity were both 3.0 for socioeconomic and livelihood activities and physical infrastructures. The average risk element ratings for exposure and sensitivity of socioeconomic and livelihood activities, physical infrastructures, and ecosystems were 3.0, 3.0, and 2.9, respectively.
Table 2 Respondents’ responses of risk elements.
Risk element Exposure Sensitivity
Respondents’ response (%) Risk element rating Respondents’ response (%) Risk element rating
Minimum exposure Middle exposure High exposure Not sensitive Sensitive High sensitive
Socioeconomic and livelihood activities 0.0 5.0 95.0 3.0 0.0 1.1 98.9 3.0
Physical infrastructures 0.0 1.6 98.4 3.0 0.0 1.0 99.0 3.0
Ecosystems 4.0 3.1 92.9 3.0 0.0 9.1 90.0 2.8

4.3. Assessment of adaptive capacity

The assessment of adaptive capacity of flood aimed at reducing vulnerability and enhancing long-term resilience to climate change in Jangwani Ward. The same steps were used to undertake the assessment, namely, getting respondents’ responses through HHI and KII, ranking respondents’ responses, and normalizing respondents’ responses. We classified adaptive capacity into 3 levels: not significant (0.0-1.0), moderately significant (1.0-2.0), and highly significant (2.0-3.0) based on the adaptive capacity rating.
Table 3 indicates that 52.5% of respondents had no knowledge of adaptive capacity for climate change induced flood, 35.8% of respondents had limited knowledge, and only 11.7% of respondents had available knowledge. About 28.6% of respondents reported that there was unavailable technology, 50.5% of respondents opined that there was limited technology, and 20.9% of respondents admitted that there was available technology. Furthermore, 52.1% of respondents opined that economy or finance was weak, 47.2% of respondents thought that economy or finance was not too strong, and only 0.7% of respondents stated that economy or finance was strong. About 58.5% of respondents thought that institution has limited effective, 25.8% of respondents considered that institution was ineffective, and only 15.7% of respondents stated that institution was effective.
Table 3 Respondents’ responses of adaptive capacity parameters.
Parameter Category Respondents’ response (%) Class value Adaptive capacity rating
Knowledge No knowledge 52.5 1 1.6
Limited knowledge 35.8 2
Available knowledge 11.7 3
Technology Unavailable technology 28.6 1 1.9
Limited technology 50.5 2
Available technology 20.9 3
Economy or finance Weak 52.1 1 1.4
Not too strong 47.2 2
Strong 0.7 3
Institution Ineffective 25.8 1 2.2
Limited effective 58.5 2
Effective 15.7 3
The adaptive capacity ratings of knowledge, technology, economy or finance, and institution were 1.6, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.2, respectively (Table 3). Economy or finance had the lowest adaptive capacity rating and institution had the highest adaptive capacity rating. These results indicated that adaptive capacity falls under moderately significant level in Jangwani Ward.

4.4. Determination of vulnerability level

The hazard risk rating, risk element rating, and adaptive capacity rating obtained from Tables 1-3, respectively, were used to calculate the vulnerability levels of flood in Jangwani Ward. Table 4 shows the vulnerability levels of risk elements to flood in Jangwani Ward. The vulnerability levels of risk elements to flood in Jangwani Ward were classified as low vulnerability (1.0-2.0), moderate vulnerability (2.0-3.0), high vulnerability (3.0-4.0), and very high vulnerability (≥4.0) levels. From Table 4 we can see that socioeconomic and livelihood activities and physical infrastructures both had very high vulnerability level, and ecosystems had high vulnerability level.
Table 4 Vulnerability levels of risk elements.
Risk element Vulnerability level Class
Socioeconomic and livelihood activities 4.0 Very high vulnerability
Physical infrastructures 4.0 Very high vulnerability
Ecosystems 3.8 High vulnerability

5. Discussion

This study determined the vulnerability levels of risk elements to flood in Jangwani Ward. The results showed that socioeconomic and livelihood activities and physical infrastructures both had the average risk element rating of 3.0, and ecosystems had the average risk element rating of 2.9 (Table 2). The adaptive capacity ratings of knowledge, technology, economy or finance, and institution were 1.6, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.2, respectively (Table 3). Moreover, this study found that socioeconomic and livelihood activities and physical infrastructures had a very high vulnerability level, and ecosystems (Msimbazi Valley in Jangwani Ward) had a high vulnerability level of flood. The vulnerability levels of socioeconomic and livelihood activities, physical infrastructures, and ecosystems depended on the adaptive capacity in terms of knowledge, technology, economy or finance, and institution. The higher the level of adaptive capacity, the lower the vulnerability levels of risk elements to flood, and vice versa. Due to high exposure, high sensitivity, and low adaptive capacity, vulnerability levels of risk elements in urban areas will continue to increase and have more impacts on Jangwani Ward (Gibbs, 2015; Ullah, 2016; IPCC, 2021; Li et al., 2023). The very high vulnerability levels of socioeconomic and livelihood activities to flood are caused by livelihood strategies that are not resilient (Arifah et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023). Araos et al. (2016) found that global cities have inadequate capacity in terms of skills, technology, and institutions, and allocate little or no finance to adapt to climate change, jeopardizing the sustainability of cities and communities in the future. Golubtsov (1996), Gupta (2010), and Atanga et al. (2017) pointed out that the adaptation of climate change should be integrated into policies, plans, and programs.
On the other hand, Kiunsi (2013) found that the lack of adequate infrastructures and services including piped water, sewers, drains, and solid waste collection can increase the vulnerability of urban areas to climate change. Thus, building relevant institution and improving financial capacity are key to enhancing resilience to climate change in urban areas (Kiunsi, 2013). Furthermore, it was observed that inadequate consideration of climate change in urban area masters planning due to inadequate capacity in terms of knowledge, technology, economy or finance, and institution for local authorities. Therefore, strengthening the local capacity such as technology can enhance the resilience of urban areas (Nyashilu et al., 2023b). Climate change vulnerability assessment provides assistance in establishing climate change adaptation strategies (UN-Habitat, 2014, 2019). Moreover, previous study found that urgent policies and actions are needed to build resilience and mitigate the impacts of climate change (UN-Habitat, 2015). Kikwas and Mbuya (2019) recommended the use of quality building materials and the construction of climate-smart physical infrastructures for the adaptation of climate change induced flood in urban areas. Pandey et al. (2018) conducted climate change vulnerability assessment in urban slum communities and found that the marginalized groups’ adaptive capacity depends on households’ resources and decision-making process (Pandey et al., 2018). Climate change vulnerability assessment is an important tool for identifying and mapping vulnerable hotspots and can help make appropriate measures to reduce vulnerability and enhance long term resilience to the impacts of climate change in developing countries (Schneiderbauer et al., 2020).
This study indicated that currently, the conventional urban planning process is not sufficiently adapted to climate change. It should be noted that the consideration of climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process contributes to mainstreaming climate change adaptation into urban development policies, plans, and programmes (Cobbinah et al., 2019). Nevertheless, climate change vulnerability assessment depends on natural hazards, socio-economic-political factors, and ecological factors. However, in informal settlements, vulnerability is exacerbated by already existing challenges, such as inadequate water supply, poor environment, inadequate infrastructure, and inadequate stormwater drainage systems (Stephen et al., 2015; Giri et al., 2021).
Considering all, this study indicated that the new urban planning process covers preparation, planning, implementation, and monitoring-evaluation-review. The preparation phase is the starting point for integrating the climate change vulnerability assessment, in which the evaluation of climatic hazards, risk elements, and adaptive capacity, and determination of vulnerability levels are key issues for consideration in this phase. Planning phase should consider the observed and future risks and impacts of climatic hazards such as extreme temperature, increased precipitation, flood, and sea level rise. The implementation phase requires the completion and prioritization of alternative or adaptation actions and implementation of alternatives or adaptation actions. This is done by identifying adaptation actions, timelines, resources, and responsible actors. Monitoring-evaluation-review phase considers the adjustment of objectives, and adaptation options, and conducts periodic climate change vulnerability assessments. The periodic climate change vulnerability assessment results assist in comparing whether the set adaptation options has reduced the impacts of risk elements to climatic hazards in urban areas. Monitoring and evaluation for climate change adaptation options explores the challenges, progress, and gaps associated with climate change. It is an effective way for monitoring and evaluating the adaptation actions. Firstly, zoning of land uses for the preparation of the new urban planning process should consider risk elements to climatic hazards including population dynamics, informal settlements, livelihoods, infrastructures, buildings or housing, institutions, ecosystems, industries, transport systems, communication systems, and socioeconomic services. Secondly, climatic hazard assessment should be considered in the planning process, notably extreme temperature that results to urban heat island effects, urban flood, droughts, heat waves, sea level rise, coastal erosion, and tropical storms. Moreover, the adaptive capacity assessment parameters including knowledge, technology, economy or finance, and institution need to be considered in the new urban planning process, which support urban areas to adjust to the present and anticipated future risks of climate change by reducing vulnerability and building long term resilience. The preparation phase is the starting point for integrating the climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process, in which assessment of climatic hazards, risk elements, and adaptive capacity, and determination of vulnerability levels are key issues for consideration in preparation phase. Implementation and monitoring, evaluation, and review phases are good entry points for integrating climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

This study found that socioeconomic and livelihood activities and physical infrastructures had a very high vulnerability level and ecosystems had a high vulnerability level, which were due to high exposure and sensitivity to flood of Jangwani Ward and may be caused by low adaptive capacity in knowledge, technology, economy or finance, and institution. The study recommends that climate change vulnerability assessment in the new urban planning process should comprise assessment of climatic hazards, risk elements, and adaptive capacity, and determination of vulnerability levels. Additionally, this study also recommends the adoption of the new urban planning process that integrates climate change vulnerability assessment in preparation, planning, implementation, and monitoring-evaluation-review phases. In preparation phase, we should collect data on assessing climatic hazards, risk elements, adaptive capacity, and determining vulnerability levels. In planning phase, the projection of climate hazards including extreme temperature, increased precipitation, flood, sea level rise, and coastal erosion should be undertaken. In implementation phase, adaptation options should be designed and implemented. Besides, in monitoring-evaluation-review phase, periodic vulnerability assessment should be conducted to track the effectiveness of adaptation actions in reducing the vulnerability to climatic hazards.

Authorship contribution statement

Issa NYASHILU: data curation, formal analysis, methodology, writing - original draft, and writing - review & editing; Robert KIUNSI: writing - review & editing; and Alphonce KYESSI: writing - review & editing. All authors approved the manuscript.

Ethics statement

Ethics approval was obtained from Ethics Committee of the Ardhi University, Tanzania. In addition, the participants gave their informed consent to participate in this study.

Declaration of conflict interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all stakeholders from various institutions of Tanzania who involved themselves in this study notably the staff from the Vice President’s Office, Ardhi University, the Ministry of Lands Housing and Human Settlement Development, Dar es Salaam Regional Commissioner’s Office, and Dar es Salaam City Council, and Mtaa leaders in Jangwani Ward for their participation in this study.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Adger N., 2003. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ. Geogr. 79(4), 387-404.

[2]
Adger W.N., Brooks N., Bentham G., et al., 2004. New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. In: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Technical Paper. Norwich, the United Kingdom.

[3]
Araos M., Berrang-Ford L., Ford J.D., et al., 2016. Climate change adaptation planning in large cities: A systematic global assessment. Environ. Sci. Policy. 66, 375-382.

[4]
Arifah, Salman, D., Yassi, A., et al., 2022. Livelihood vulnerability of smallholder farmers to climate change: A comparative analysis based on irrigation access in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Reg. Sustain. 3(3), 244-253.

DOI

[5]
Aslam M., 2018. Flood management current state, challenges and prospects in Pakistan: A review. Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology. 37(2), 297-314.

[6]
Atanga R.A., Inkoom D.K.B., Derbile E.K., 2017. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development planning in Ghana. Ghana Journal of Development Studies. 14(2), 209, doi: 10.4314/gjds.v14i2.11.

[7]
Barsley W., de Young C., Brugere C., 2013. Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies: An Annotated Bibliography for Climate Change and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector. Rome: FAO, 43.

[8]
Bles T., Bessembinder J., Chevreuil M., et al., 2016. Climate change risk assessments and adaptation for roads-results of the ROADAPT project. Transportation Research Procedia. 14, 58-67.

[9]
Borhara K., Pokharel B., Bean B., et al., 2020. On Tanzania’s precipitation climatology, variability, and future projection. Climate. 8(2), 34, doi: 10.3390/cli8020034.

[10]
Cobbinah P.B., Asibey M.O., Opoku-Gyamfi M., et al., 2019. Urban planning and climate change in Ghana. J. Urban. Manag. 8(2), 261-271.

[11]
de León V., Carlos J., 2006. Vulnerability: a conceptual and methodological review. Bonn: United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security, 4.

[12]
European Commission, 2004. Risk, Hazard and People’s Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: A Review of Definitions, Concepts and Data. Strasbourg: European Union, 21410.

[13]
Feyissa G., Zeleke G., Gebremariam E., et al., 2018. GIS based quantification and mapping of climate change vulnerability hotspots in Addis Ababa. Geoenviron. Disasters. 5(1), 14, doi: 10.1186/s40677-018-0106-4.

[14]
Fritzsche K., Schneiderbauer S., Buseck P., et al., 2014. The Vulnerability Sourcebook: Concept and Guidelines for Standardised Vulnerability Assessments. Berlin: Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development GmbH., 171.

[15]
Füssel M., Klein R., 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim. Change. 75(3), 301-329.

[16]
Gibbs M.T., 2015. Guiding principles for infrastructure climate change risk and adaptation studies. Civil Eng. Environ. Sys. 32(3), 206-215.

[17]
Giri M., Bista G., Singh P.K., et al., 2021. Climate change vulnerability assessment of urban informal settlers in Nepal, a least developed country. J. Clean Prod. 307, 127213, doi: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.127213.

[18]
Golubtsov V., 1996. Vulnerability assessment of the water resources of Kazakhstan to anthropogenic climate change and the structure of adaptation measures. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 12(2), 193-208.

[19]
Gombe K., Asanuma I., Park J., 2017. Characterization of Urban Heat Island (UHI) Changes from MODIS Times Series Using Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Case of Dar es Salaam City. In: International Symposium on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (IGARSS). IEEE. Texas, USA, 1554-1557.

[20]
Gupta J., 2010. Mainstreaming climate change:A theoretical exploration. In: Gupta, J., van der Grijp, N., (eds.). Mainstreaming Climate Change in Development Cooperation: Theory, Practice and Implications for the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 67-96.

[21]
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland.

[22]
IPCC, 2014. Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland.

[23]
IPCC, 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. [2023-04-09]. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.

[24]
Kasala S.E., 2015. A return to master planning in Dar es Salaam: A misconception of the theory of paradigm shifts? Global Journal of Human-Social Science. 15(2), 1-7.

[25]
Kikwasi G., Mbuya E., 2019. Vulnerability analysis of building structures to floods: The case of flooding informal settlements in Dar es salaam, Tanzania. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 37(5), 629-656.

[26]
Kiunsi R., 2013. The constraints on climate change adaptation in a city with a large development deficit: The case of Dar es Salaam. Environ. Urban. 25(2), 321-337.

[27]
Leary N., Conde C., Kulkarni J., et al., 2013. Climate Change and Vulnerability. London: Routledge, 1-847.

[28]
Li G.Y., Liu J.H., Shao W., 2023. Urban flood risk assessment under rapid urbanization in Zhengzhou City, China. Reg. Sustain. 4(3), 332-348.

DOI

[29]
Li X.C., Jiang T., Chao Q.C., et al., 2015. The core conclusions and interpretation of working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chin. J. Urban Env. Stud. 3(1), doi: 10.1142/s2345748115500049.

[30]
Luhunga P.M., Kijazi A.L., Chang’a L., et al, 2018. Climate change projections for Tanzania based on high-resolution regional climate models from the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX)-Africa. Front. Environ. Sci. 6, 1-20.

[31]
Lupala J.M., 2015. Urban governance in the changing economic and political landscapes: A comparative analysis of major urban centres of Tanzania. Current Urban Studies. 3(2), 147-160.

[32]
Nyashilu I., Kiunsi R., Kyessi A., 2023a. Heliyon Assessment of exposure, coping and adaptation strategies for elements at risk to climate change-induced flooding in urban areas. The case of Jangwani Ward in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania. Heliyon. 9(4), e15000, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15000.

[33]
Nyashilu I.M., Kiunsi R., Kyessi A.G., 2023b. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation planning in Tanzania’s City’s Master Plans. A critical review. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review. 6(1), 160-176.

[34]
Ordóñez C., Duinker P.N., 2014. Assessing the vulnerability of urban forests to climate change. Environ. Rev. 22(3), 311-321.

[35]
Osima S., Gudoshava M., Misiani H.O., et al., 2018. Projected effects of 1.5°C and 2°C global warming levels on the intra-seasonal rainfall characteristics over the Greater Horn of Africa. Environ. Res. Letters, 15(3), 034037, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b33.

[36]
Pandey R., Alatalo J.M., Thapliyal K., et al., 2018. Climate change vulnerability in urban slum communities: Investigating household adaptation and decision-making capacity in the Indian Himalaya. Ecol. Indic. 90, 379-391.

[37]
Reay D., Sabine C., Smith P., 2007. Climate change 2007: Spring-time for sinks. Nature. 446(7137), 727-728.

[38]
Rodríguez R.A.S., Santos A.E.M., 2018. Vulnerability assessment to climate variability and climate change in Tijuana, Mexico. Sustainability. 10(7), 2351, doi: 10.3390/su10072352.

[39]
Rysz K., Mazurek K., 2015. Contemporary foundations of the theory of urban development - case study smart, slow and compact city theory. Environ. Socio-Econ. Studies. 3(4), 39-46.

[40]
Schneiderbauer S., Baunach D., Pedoth L., et al., 2020. Spatial-explicit climate change vulnerability assessments based on impact chains. Findings from a case study in Burundi. Sustainability. 12(16), doi: 10.3390/su12166354.

[41]
Stephen P., Coly A., Fohlmeister S., et al., 2015. Urban Vulnerability and Climate Change in Africa:A Multidisciplinary Approach. Cham: Springer, 4.

[42]
Tapia C., Abajo B., Feliu E., et al., 2017. Profiling urban vulnerabilities to climate change: An indicator-based vulnerability assessment for European cities. Ecol. Indic. 78, 142-155.

[43]
Timberlake T.J., Schultz C.A., 2019. Climate change vulnerability assessment for forest management: The case of the U.S. Forest Service. Forests. 10(11), 1030, doi: 10.3390/f10111030.

[44]
Tu S., Yu S.Y., 2023. Urban planning for climate change: Comparing climate adaptation plans between Taipei and Boston. Sustainability. 15(2), 934, doi: 10.3390/su15020934.

[45]
Ullah W., 2016. Climate change vulnerability of Pakistan towards natural disasters: A review. International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy. 4(5), 126-132.

[46]
UN United Nations, 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [2023-03-09]. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.

[47]
UN-Habitat, 2014. Planning for Climate Change: Guide—A Strategic, Values-Based Approach for Urban Planners. [2023-03-09]. https://unhabitat.org/planning-for-climate-change-guide-a-strategic-values-based-approach-for-urban-planners.

[48]
UN-Habitat, 2015. Kathmandu Valley, Nepal: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. [2023-03-09]. https://unhabitat.org/kathmandu-valley-nepal-climate-change-vulnerability-assessment.

[49]
UN-Habitat, 2019. Islamabad, Pakistan: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. [2023-03-09]. https://unhabitat.org/islamabad-pakistan-climate-change-vulnerability-assessment.

[50]
URT United Republic of Tanzania, 2019. Ilala Municipal Council Socio-Economic Profile. [2023-03-09]. https://www.ilalamc.go.tz.

[51]
URT, 2021. Vice President’s Office. [2023-03-09]. https://ncd.co.tz/listing/vice-presidents-office/.

[52]
URT, 2022. 2022 Population and Housing Census. Population Distribution by Administrative Areas. [2023-03-09]. https://www.nbs.go.tz.

[53]
Watson R.T., Noble I.R., Bolin B., et al., 2000. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 375.

[54]
Williams D.S., Costa M.M., Sutherland C., et al., 2019. Vulnerability of informal settlements in the context of rapid urbanization and climate change. Environ. Urban. 31(1), 157-176.

DOI

[55]
Yin R.K., 2014. Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th edition). California: SAGE incorporated, 108-110.

[56]
Younus M.A.F., Kabir M.A., 2018. Climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation of Bangladesh: Mechanisms, Notions and Solutions. Sustainability. 10(11), 4286, doi: 10.3390/su10114286.

[57]
Živković J., 2019. Human settlements and climate change. In: Leal FilhoW., AzeiteiroU., AzulA., (eds.). Climate Action. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Cham: Springer, 1-11.

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉