Community Resilience to Climate Change: Theory, Research and Practice

114 was the size of the municipality and hence the scaling of the indicator. No universal scaling was found appropriate, since the different units and scales required indicator-specific scaling. Nevertheless, the scaling was seen as an important factor in order to reach the goal of acquiring indicators for municipalities and therefore an interpretable result on this level of administrative organization. The overall discussion about applicability and feasibility was touched on inmany ways fromdifferent angles, most prominently regarding data availability, numbers of indicators and total effort needed. The balancing of the loss of information related to simpler indicators or vice versa with more complex indicators with higher explanatory power but with an infeasibility to be handled by the target group was seen as a key challenge. Therefore, the participants agreed that the indicators should be based solely on existing data, thereby reducing the overall effort and simplifying the calculations and data management. The idea of detailed factsheets describing the data source and calculation of the indicator and helping with the interpretation of the result was raised by participants and received wide support. Factsheets also help to communicate the meaning of an indicator to uninitiated persons, which was also mentioned as a crucial aspect. The total number of indicators to be feasible was seen at around 25. Certain gaps were identified during the workshop due to the fact that specific expertise related to certain action fields was missing in the room, specifically regarding the action fields energy, wastewater and civil protection. Here, single expert interviews were carried out after the workshop to fill in the gaps. 3.3. Indicator Specific Workshop Results Table 5 summarizes the process of indicator development during the three phases of the survey, the workshop and ending in the final set of indicators. The indicators highlighted in grey are those of the initial indicator set that were seen as important by survey respondents and therefore stayed on the list. The indicators highlighted in orange were updated or modified as a result of the survey and/or workshop. The yellow indicators were moved from one action field to another. The indicator degree of soil sealing was inverted to degree of unsealed ground, as sealing is not per se negative, even may even be desirable or unavoidable in urban areas. The cold air parcels was seen as an important factor of resilience but should be updated, adding cold air streams to the indicators. Biodiversity was discussed in contradictory ways, as it was not clear to the participants how it is related to climate hazards. Hence, the workshop resulted in representing urban biodiversity with the indicator wetland and retention areas in order to include flood protection arguments into the indicator of biodiversity. Infrastructure was seen undoubtedly as a key area for achieving urban climate resilience, but also related to secondary data and its inherent complexity most difficult to quantify currently. Accessibility of green spaces was rather seen as an indicator of social justice and less as a settlement structural indicator and hence the second indicator building density, slightly lower ranked in the survey, was included instead. The share of renewable energy indicator focused strongly on climate protection and less on resilience factors, such as robustness and redundancy. These factors were seen to be better covered by the diversity of renewable energy sources. However, it was also argued that even conventional energy should be included in the indicator. This observation was followed by the consideration that no climate resilience can be achieved without climate protection in the long term. Therefore conventional energy sources cannot be regarded as a positive contribution to climate resilience in the long term. The action field of telecommunication was deleted in accordance with the participants’ perception of this as being less important than the other action fields, lacking data and having low to no influence of the municipality. Instead, the action field wastewater treatment was included, as there was agreement on its importance additionally to the supply side. No specific indicator was defined in the workshop due to missing competence in this regard. Transportation was discussed as an important action field for municipalities, but participants agreed that its complexity cannot be covered by one indicator. Therefore, the action field remained as an action field of the framework, reminding of the importance of the topic and urging municipalities to consider and discuss it qualitatively. The discussion around the economic dimension reflected the lower ranking of its indicators in the survey. The dimensions environment and infrastructure were seen to be more naturally linked to resilience than the economic dimension. Nevertheless, discussing the importance of a resilient economy for an urban system generated acceptance for the dimension and its components. This example illustrates one very important lesson of the workshop: the need for explanation and building a common understanding. Innovation was seen to be covered best by the number of employees in research intensive companies not by the innovation index. The tax income from companies was considered an important resource for the financial ability of the municipality to adapt. This indicator was part of the action field municipal budget in the survey and has since been moved to business. Similar to energy, a diverse economy was considered more robust, flexible and redundant when facing uncertainty of climate impacts. It was also discussed whether there might be sectors with crucial or higher relevance than others, but the group agreed that no single sector could be selected. There was a general agreement on the importance and contribution of society to urban climate resilience, but less agreement on how to measure it quantitatively. Literature shows that the experience with extreme events contributes positively to citizens’ resilience. In addition, citizen information about heat, heavy rain and flooding (Table 3) was amongst the top five rated indicators. However, regarding the spatial scale of municipalities, it was argued that information is not only provided by the local authority and therefore the indicator was not further considered. Civil society started an intense discussion on how to measure it and if the proposed indicators were adequate. In contrast to the survey, where the indicator voter turnout ranked higher, the workshop participants disliked this