International audienceSocieties have to both reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and undertake adaptation measures to limit the negative impacts of global warming on the population, the economy and the environment. Examining how best to adapt cities is especially challenging as urban areas will evolve as the climate changes. Thus, examining adaptation strategies for cities requires a strong interdisciplinary approach involving urban planners, architects, meteorologists, building engineers, economists, and social scientists. Here we introduce a systemic modelling approach to the problem.Our four-step methodology consists of: first, defining interdisciplinary scenarios; second, simulating the long-term evolution of cities on the basis of socio-economic and land-use models; third, calculating impacts with physical models (such as TEB), and; finally, calculating the indicators that quantify the effect of different adaptation policies. In the examples presented here, urban planning strategies are shown to have unexpected influence on city expansion in the long term. Moreover, the Urban Heat Island should be taken into account in operational estimations of building energy demands. Citizens’ practices seem to be an efficient lever for reducing energy consumption in buildings.Interdisciplinary systemic modelling appears well suited to the evaluation of several adaptation strategies for a very broad range of topics

No abstract

Introduction: The general objective of this research project was to explore the feasibility and acceptability of an original method intended to systematically identify urban planning projects whose potential impacts on health and social inequalities in health (SIH) would be most damaging. An approach based on a short meeting and a tool would help to discuss whether or not to engage in a more comprehensive health impact assessment. Methods: A tool was developed by the research team based on various tools reported in the literature and modified with urban planners. Meetings were organized for each development project with the volunteer planners, who were working on the projects selected. Reviews of six projects at different stages of design made it possible to assess the acceptability and feasibility of this approach to identify public health and social equity issues in health. Results: The process and the use of the tool were found to be feasible. The tool was easily understandable, adapted to the practices of planners and usable without real training other than a quick introduction to tool usage. It was also found to be acceptable. Despite an interest in the inclusion of SIH, the integration of the relationship between SIH and urban development was not easy for most of the urban planners. Conclusion: This exploratory work suggests that a systematic approach to assessing the impact of urban projects on health and SIH is feasible and acceptable. Dealing with SIH was not found to be easy by the urban planners.

No abstract