London scoping - ukcip

Final Report
119
BBQs facilities are provided, at which individuals bring their own food to cook on payment of a
small fee.
One indirect effect of more outdoors living could be greater noise pollution, exacerbated by
open windows. This could result in disagreement and conflict between neighbours as an
individual or household or community perceives itself to be adversely impacted by the noise of
the other. It is not unreasonable to suppose that people would adjust to any adverse social
repercussions of more outdoor lifestyles and find ways of coping; this does, after all, happen in
many other countries in hotter climates (Spanish, Italian and French cities for example, though
none are strictly comparable with London).
Benefits
Warmer winters should reduce winter fuel bills, which will save householders money. Warmer
winters will also mean fewer cold-related deaths which, at the national scale, is a larger effect
than increases in deaths from heat stress.
6.8.4 Socio-Economic Scenario Differences
Flood Risk and Water Resources
An important finding of research on the impacts of flooding is that much of the increased costs
associated with flood events in the USA are accounted for by the increased exposure of
households due to: a) development in floodplains and flood risk areas; b) greater affluence
meaning greater damage costs (Pielke 1999, 2000). Put simply, the exposure risk is higher and
people now own more possessions which are liable to be damaged when flooding happens.
Hence, evidence of the increased costs of flood events over time cannot be used to argue that
there has been an increase in serious flood events per se. A similar argument can be applied to
the UK, where most households have accumulated more expensive electronic and electrical
goods, furniture and furnishings, etc.
Under the GM scenario this trend towards more goods is likely to continue, whilst under RS it is
more likely that there is a slow down in the accumulation of material goods, hence the costs of
flooding would increase more slowly. Under GM, building in flood risk areas is perhaps more
likely than under RS. High-quality development in GM would be likely to be associated with
high levels of flood resistance and mitigation measures and associated reduced insurance
premiums. For instance, private developers along the Thames would include suitable private
flood risk measures (as occurs along stretches of the US coastline). Low-quality development,
however, would presumably not be so well designed or protected through private-sector
schemes, and hence it would suffer from insurance-led property blight if flooding were to occur.
As for water resources, under GM there would be a continued upward trend in the per capita
water consumption arising from greater ownership of water using appliances and continued
move towards single occupancy. Under RS, the per capita consumption would reduce due to a
reversal in the trend towards lower household numbers and an emphasis on water use efficiency
and conservation. Hence, pressures upon water supplies will be exacerbated under GM with
high climate change, though the supply-demand balance would depend on what increases in
water supply are planned-for.