A systematic analysis of more than 53,000 scientific publications on climate change in urban environments (2012–2022) reveals exponential growth in global knowledge in this field. However, marked geographic and thematic inequalities persist. More than 19,700 case studies with a specific spatial focus and more than 33,000 general studies were identified. Despite these advances, regions such as Central America—especially small and rapidly growing cities—remain underrepresented, severely limiting the formulation of evidence-based public policies in territories highly vulnerable to climate impacts.
Central America and the Dominican Republic face growing threats: increased extreme events, biodiversity loss, water stress, food insecurity, and human displacement. However, a recent analysis of 166 urban climate actions in seven countries in the region reflects an unbalanced and worrying institutional response. Most actions focus on emissions mitigation, while adaptation strategies—key to reducing vulnerability—remain marginal, dispersed, and of low priority.
According to the study, 41% of the actions correspond to mitigation initiatives, and another 41% to monitoring or impact assessment actions. Only 7.2% are adaptation actions—those aimed at reducing exposure, sensitivity, and vulnerability to climate change—and only 10.8% have a cross-cutting approach that integrates multiple sectors, actors, or levels of governance.
Main cities
National capitals account for almost half of all the identified actions. San José (Costa Rica) leads with 25, followed by Panama City (21), San Salvador (18), and Santo Domingo (12), accounting for 46% of regional interventions. Although this can be interpreted as a reflection of institutional capacity, it also exposes a worrying centralization that excludes intermediate cities and rural areas from climate action.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica presents an illustrative case. San José combines mitigation (11), impact (10), and cross-cutting (4) initiatives, but does not record any specific adaptation actions. Cartago, another key city in the country, reports only three actions, all of them cross-cutting. This demonstrates that, despite regulatory advances, the decentralization of climate planning remains in its infancy.
In Panama, the predominant focus is mitigation. The capital concentrates 17 actions, while other cities, such as David (8 actions) and Colón (almost no records), show an uneven territorial distribution. In El Salvador, the pattern is more balanced: San Salvador combines all four categories, while Santa Ana and San Miguel also reflect some activity. However, adaptation remains a minority.
Guatemala presents actions in eight cities, although those focused on mitigation and impact predominate, with no cross-cutting approaches. A similar pattern is observed in Honduras and Nicaragua, where Tegucigalpa and Managua have some adaptation actions, but most are limited to monitoring. In the Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo leads with 12 actions, while Mao, Baní, San Cristóbal, and La Vega have a marginal share.
This low proportion of adaptive actions is alarming. Despite being one of the most vulnerable regions on the planet, efforts to reduce risks associated with flooding, drought, coastal erosion, and crop loss are minimal. Cities are improving their carbon footprint, but not their capacity to withstand and recover from increasingly frequent and intense extreme events. Adaptation cannot remain an accessory component. It is an urgent and strategic necessity.
Furthermore, only 18 of the 166 actions analyzed include cross-cutting approaches such as inter-institutional coordination, social inclusion, gender equity, or integration between key sectors (health, water, agriculture, transportation, energy). Planning remains fragmented and technocratic, which weakens its effectiveness. Many actions lack anchoring in solid regulatory frameworks or existing municipal plans. There is a worrying disconnect between local initiatives, national climate change policies, and international commitments, such as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans, or the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Given this scenario, the priorities are clear:
Decentralize climate action: Provide technical and financial support to local governments, especially in intermediate cities and rural areas.
Strengthen adaptation: Develop specific actions to reduce vulnerabilities in key sectors: water, health, infrastructure, agriculture, and human settlements.
Promote cross-cutting approaches: Integrate climate action with approaches to equity, inclusion, and sustainable territorial development.
Improve monitoring and evaluation: Incorporate impact and results indicators, beyond simple operational compliance.
Coordinate climate governance: Align efforts between the national, municipal, and civil society levels, including the private sector.
The disconnect between urban climate urgency and scientific production is critical. Closing this gap requires a decisive investment in science applied to urban adaptation, as an essential condition for protecting human lives, infrastructure, and the sustainability of urban development in the region.
– Advertisement –
Source link
TCRN STAFF
