Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance

Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Climate journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/uclim

Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance Taedong Lee a,⇑, Martin Painter b a b

Department of Political Science and International Relations, Yonsei University, 309-2 Yonhee Bldg., 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea Department of Public Policy, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Ave., Kowloon, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 18 May 2015 Revised 18 August 2015 Accepted 9 September 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Comprehensive climate change policies Urban climate change governance Expert knowledge NGO participation

a b s t r a c t Given that climate change is a complicated collective action problem, local governments need a comprehensive approach to tackle climate change issues. Comprehensive climate policies concern an integrated approach in planning and implementing of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies. Yet, not all local governments are actively engaged in global climate issues in a comprehensive manner. Why does local government’s commitment on comprehensive climate change policy vary? This study analyzes the influences of urban climate change governance arrangements on the level of comprehensiveness in city-level climate change policies, using case studies of four cities. Urban climate change governance arrangement that includes researchers, NGO (Nongovernmental Organization) s along with public officials is a necessary factor for a city government to develop comprehensive climate policy. The case studies illustrate that cities with well-developed climate change governing organizations (Seattle and Seoul) present comprehensive climate change policy. Urban climate governance arrangements set the climate action agenda and promote implementation schemes. However, Anaheim and Busan have neither well developed urban governance arrangements nor comprehensive climate policies. Ó 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The politics and the science surrounding climate change mitigation and adaptation are complex and highly contested. The policy issues arising from the potential impacts are multi-sectoral, including environmental degradation (air pollution, waste, sea level rise, temperature change and extreme events) and disruption to economic activities (production, consumption and energy use). There is no single policy solution or single sector that can be the one best way to deal with climate change. To succeed, we may need a variety of integrated mitigation and adaptation policies and a comprehensive approach. Cities vary in planning and implementing mitigation procedure, integration of relevant sector policies into mitigation, and adaptation policies. Why does commitment to comprehensive climate change policy vary from one city government to another? How do structures of urban governance influence city-level policy? In order to address these questions, we analyze the influences of differing city governance arrangements on climate change policy, using the case studies of Seattle, Anaheim, Seoul, and Busan. The central argument is that local governments are most likely to develop comprehensive climate policies when cities have in place of climate governance arrangements which consist of high level city government officers, relevant city departments, research institutes and environmental NGOs. ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Lee). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003 2212-0955/Ó 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003

2

T. Lee, M. Painter / Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

The article starts with an overview of comprehensive climate change policy at the city level as a dependent variable. We classify local climate change policies based on the level of comprehensiveness. Comprehensive climate policies are those that adopt an integrated approach in planning and implementing of climate change strategies and mechanisms. The second section presents a theoretical discussion of the drivers of comprehensive climate change policy, reviewing the role of local governance. In the third section, we discuss our case study methodology and present the cases of Seattle, Anaheim, Seoul, and Busan to compare local climate change policies and governance arrangements. Finally we conclude and identify the larger implications of this study.

2. Theory 2.1. Analytic framework: comprehensive climate change policy at the city level Climate change policy can be broadly categorized into (1) adaptation and (2) mitigation. While the aim of mitigation is to reduce the current and future GHG emissions, the aim of adaptation seeks to adjust social and built environment such as buildings, houses and harbors to minimize unavoidable climate change outcomes. The study of urban climate change policies have looked at adaptation (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011; Hallegatte, 2009; McGranahan et al., 2007) and mitigation policies (Gustavsson et al., 2009; Jonas et al., 2011) separately. Yet the complexity of the climate change issue requires concrete and integrated policies across related policy arenas, such as energy, transport, building, and urban planning/development, considering trade-off and synergy (Swart and Raes, 2007). A piece-meal approach, such as redressing existing air pollution policies in a new climate policy context, is not enough to tackle the multifaceted climate change problem. While the term ‘climate policy integration’ seeks to ‘‘the incorporation of climate objectives into all stage of policy making in no-climate policy sector (Adelle and Russel, 2013) [p. 4],” which components consist of climate policy integration is not clear. In a similar vein, climate ‘mainstreaming’ studies mainly focus on putting the priority of climate change policies, particularly adaptation and resilience policies, on development agendas (Friend et al., 2014). Another body of literature emphasizes the ‘co-benefits’ of integration between climate adaptation, mitigation and existing environmental policies (Lee and van de Meene, 2013). Despite scholarly efforts to consider both urban mitigation and adaptation policy (Adelle and Russel, 2013; Hamin and Gurran, 2009), studies on the conceptualization and analytic framework of comprehensive urban climate policies has been scant. The complexity of climate change response in principle requires comprehensive policy integration which aims to synthesize environmental and other relevant policies with ‘win–win’ solutions through active participation of all social entities and institutional arrangements. We define a comprehensive urban climate change policy as a city planning and implementing (1) procedural mitigation steps, (2) sectoral comprehensiveness in mitigation and (3) preparedness for adaptation. First, procedural comprehensiveness for mitigation refers to whether a city government has (1) a GHG (Greenhouse gas) inventory system, (2) a master plan and GHG reduction target, (3) integrated action plans, (4) implementation of policy plans, and (5) the ability to monitor and disclose performance. Sectoral comprehensiveness includes a variety of climate policy related sectors such as transportation, energy supply and demand, public health, building, waste and water (Krause, 2012). Preparedness for adaptation is concerned with whether a city government has climate adaptation plans and the means to implement them (Hallegatte, 2009). Among procedural climate change mitigation policies, drawing up a GHG emission inventory is a first step. Without a GHG inventory, it is impossible for local governments to set the reduction target, to consider possible scenarios, and to create an implementation scheme (Carney and Schakley, 2009). The existence of a city master plan for climate actions indicates whether the local entity approaches climate change issues in a systematic way or not. It is a sign that information, strategies and actions need to be integrated. A system of monitoring and disclosure of performance in meeting goals and targets is an integral part of such a plan and associated policies. These mechanisms are critical to measure progress; to prevent adoption by implementation agencies and actors of ‘green wash’ measures; to share learning with communities; and to update existing plans and policies. Adaptation measures at the local level can be broadly categorized under three interrelated headings: disaster management (water, coast, fire); public health; and urban planning (Baker et al., 2012). Under the first heading, densely developed settlements in coastal and river area are especially vulnerable to climate change risks. Two-thirds of urban areas around the world with more than 5 million population fall into the category of ‘low lying coastal zone’ (McGranahan et al., 2007). Incorporating existing disaster management strategies into climate change adaptation measures is critical to reduce the risks of frequent and severe flooding and sea-level rising. Under the second heading, public health effects would arise, for example, from hotter and longer summers due to climate change, in particular for vulnerable communities such as the old, the young and the poor. Public health measures must anticipate and prepare for such conditions as heat stress, vector-borne diseases and food poisoning. Under the final heading – urban planning – comprehensive adaptation policy entails such elements as population growth projection in climate-vulnerable areas, management of private and public buildings, energy and water management (Füssel, 2007). This categorization resonates to the mainstream approach of municipal climate adaptation. Uittenbroek et al. (2014) explain that municipal governments take the mainstreaming approach when institutional entrepreneurs utilize indirect political commitment, by integrating existing policy domains, actors, and resources with climate adaptation ones. Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003

T. Lee, M. Painter / Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

3

Table 1 presents a framework for evaluating the comprehensiveness of local-level climate change policy. We consulted multiple sources of relevant academic literature on sustainable cities (Portney, 2003) and local level climate change policies and experiments (Broto and Bulkeley, 2013; Hoffmann, 2011; Lee et al., 2014). Compared to previous studies on climate mitigation policy strategies or participation in transnational municipal network (Lee and van de Meene, 2013), our analytic framework encompasses mitigation processes, strategies and adaptation policies. In a later section, we apply this framework for identifying a comprehensive climate change policy approach to the four cases. 2.2. Urban climate change governance Cities take dramatically different approaches in urban climate policy. In previous research seeking to explain this variation, institutional or process variables have received considerable attention, for example the role of policy entrepreneurship (Rabe, 2004); institutional and policy capacities of local governments (for example, the number of staff and the amount of budget) (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003); and political leadership (Lee and Koski, 2012). ‘Background conditions’ have also been explored as a variable in stimulating policy responses, for example geographic locations vulnerable to climate risk (Zahran et al., 2008). Our thesis is that the key drivers of comprehensive climate policy adoption and implementation are to be found in the form and character of local governance arrangements. The starting point for this argument draws on the analysis of institutional arrangements conducive to solving complex social problems (see also Olsson and Folke (2001) on the importance of ‘local ecological knowledge’). In this analysis, government is not ignored, but it is not privileged: institutional arrangements beyond government are highlighted. The relevance of the governance literature (‘governing without government’ as Rhodes (1996) put it) is that it highlights the importance of non-state actors in both contributing inputs to the policy process and also participating in producing the outputs, or implementing public policies. These actors will include businesses, corporations, universities and research organizations, non-profit organizations and citizens. Drawing on a governance perspective leads us to focus in the first place on non-state components of the arrangements that promote effective, comprehensive climate change policies (Burton and Mustelin, 2013). In this respect, our focus on comprehensive climate change policy should not be confused with a topdown perspective associated with traditional command-and-control, comprehensive government planning. Urban climate change governance is operationalized from this perspective as a set of arrangements which engage key external non-state actors who provide critical resources, such as expert knowledge and implementation resources, in collaboration with local government actors. Table 2 presents primary actors and their role in urban climate governance to enhance comprehensiveness of municipal climate policies. These arrangements bring together representatives from public agencies, civil society, research institutes and business sectors to address climate change issues at the city level. These multi-agent networks usually have cooperative, voluntary, and locally inclusive decision-making processes that complement the centralized command-and-control form of local authority policies (Scholz and Wang, 2006). Our primary hypothesis is that the existence and pertinent activities of such urban climate change governance arrangements is a necessary condition (albeit not sufficient) for comprehensive city-level climate change policy. This is primarily because of the complex nature of urban climate change problem. Handling both climate mitigation and adaptation requires coordination of multiple actors’ expertise and capacity in the politics of urban development (Jonas et al., 2011). A single entity, such as a climate change team in city environment bureau, could hardly assess information, mobilize participation, and implement a comprehensive climate change policy by itself. As well, the effectiveness of political leadership will, in the long run, be contingent on a more sustained set of actions by many collaborating groups and individuals. By coordinating the expertise and commitments to action of a network of participants, urban climate change governance enables city government leaders and managers to generate commitments and actions that are based on sound local knowledge and on citizen engagement. Polycentric climate change governance can help city governments integrate complex climate change adaptation and mitigation to other existing policy domains by providing knowledge and information (Kalafatis et al., in press). Thus, intermediary organization coordinating a mutually defined aim could facilitate transition of low carbon urban activities (Hodson et al., 2011). Urban climate change governance arrangements are a vehicle to incorporate trusted expert knowledge into a comprehensive planning and implementation scheme (Kalafatis et al., in press). Knowledge on complex scientific facts is crucial in the field of environmental policy. Better still if this knowledge originates in the local area since one-size-fits-all approach in mitigation strategies and particularly adaptation policies may not work effectively (Ostrom, 2010). Each city has its own socio-economic and physical attributes and conditions that should be reflected in scientific analysis and climate policy formation. Hence, cooperation and interaction between a community of local experts and policymakers in local policy networks enhances the understanding of challenges they face and the solutions for overcoming them. For instance, experts’ knowledge on the causes and effects of heat island in a specific city allow policymakers to prepare climate adaptation policy in an effective way. Thus, the inclusion of local research communities in urban climate change governance is a basic condition for comprehensive climate policies. Urban climate change governance arrangements include the participation of citizens, in particular environmental Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) and the business sector. NGOs have developed various participatory techniques to promote the involvement of stakeholders. NGO involvement in urban climate change governance arrangements engages Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003

4

T. Lee, M. Painter / Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Comprehensive climate change policy at the city-level. Comprehensive policy Mitigation procedure Inventory/target

Master plan/implementation Monitoring/disclosing Sectoral comprehensiveness Energy supply and use

Transport

Buildings

Forestry Waste Adaptation policy Disaster management Public health Urban planning/development

Examples of policy measures GHG inventory system Link inventory system to reduction target Specific reduction target Comprehensive climate change master plan/ Implementing action plans Periodical monitoring and disclosing GHG reduction and adaptation performance Reduction of fossil fuel use Energy efficiency Renewable energy obligation Bio-fuel/natural gas transportation Enhancing public transportation Investment in non-motorized transport (bicycle) Green building labeling and standard Building retrofit Renewable energy (e.g. solar) for building Urban forestry Waste (landfill) management to reduce GHG emissions Combining disaster management and adaptation policy; Flood management; Water use (shortage) Temperature-related morbidity Vector-borne disease; public health risk assessment Urban planning reflecting climate change (e.g. sea-level-rise)

Table 2 Primary actors and roles of urban climate change governance. Primary actors

Roles in urban climate change governance

Mayor or vice mayor

– – – –

City departments (directors and staff)

– Providing technical expertise – Planning and implementing policies

NGOs and business

– Facilitating citizen participation on climate polices – Raising citizens’ climate awareness

Research community

– Providing scientific research on climate mitigation and adaptation – Consulting governance members for decision making

Chairing urban governance governing body Providing vision on climate change policies Allocating financial and human resource Coordinating municipal department

such stakeholders in local decision making. The business sector also has a capacity to influence climate change relevant activities for both companies and employees. Thus, urban climate change governance creates a bridge between the expertise of NGOs and business partners in civic participation and climate change policy. The involvement of NGOs and research communities in the network of climate change urban governance arrangements can provide timely and important expertise and give legitimacy to the climate change policymaking process (Keiner and Kim, 2007). Civil society organizations are able to lead urban energy and climate transitions through partnership with the local governments, local firms, and citizens (Aylett, 2013). Citizen involvement and business participation can generate cooperation and compliance. A multi-stakeholder unit can take responsibility for developing and validating a comprehensive climate change policy, including its implementation. Thus, we propose a hypothesis, the establishment of urban climate change governance helps to integrate various knowledge and expertise into an institutional form that produces comprehensive climate actions. Fig. 1 presents the summary of the relationship between urban climate change governance and comprehensive climate policies. 3. Method The aim of this study is to explain to which extent climate change policies in some cities are comprehensive. In order to explain this variation, this study selects four cities (Seoul, Busan, Seattle, and Anaheim) from two countries.1 By using mostdifferent systems design, the four cases share similarities and differences in both explanatory variables and dependent variables 1

Both countries are democratic polities. Our findings cannot be generalized to city governments in non-democratic political regimes.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003

T. Lee, M. Painter / Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

5

Fig. 1. The association between urban climate governance and comprehensive climate policy.

(Yin, 2009). Selecting cases that ensure variation in both independent variable and dependent variable is a way to avoid selection bias and to infer influence of the explanatory variables on dependent variables. Regarding the national level context, both the U.S. and South Korea have been reluctant to be proactive on climate change at the central government level. The U.S. federal government did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In the case of Korea, it was not a party of the Annex I countries, which means Korea does not have a mandatory GHG emission reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol. Despite differences in population size, economic strength, and military power, these two countries share similarities in inactive climate policies internationally. While holding this variable constant, selecting two cities from two countries allows us to control potential influences of the central government in other regards on city-level climate change policy (Bulkeley, 2010). Table 3 both provides stylized data on the dependent variable (comprehensive climate change policies) and also indicates the level of development of urban governance arrangements. Control variables aside from national context include population; partisanship of the city government (Lee and Koski, 2012); and the strength of the environmental planning bureaucracy (Rabe, 2004). We choose the two most populous cities in Korea (Seoul and Busan) and two medium-sized American cities (Seattle and Anaheim). Two American cities are similar in potential driving factors for comprehensive climate policies including population, partisanship, active upper level government for climate change policy (Washington and California States), the existence of an independent climate change policy unit in the city bureaucracy; and the resources – in particular, human resources – available to that unit. A difference between Seattle and Anaheim is whether the institutional arrangement of urban climate governance exists. The empirical materials are from multiple sources: semi-structured interviews, documents, and archival records. Semistructured interviews asked questions on the status of climate change policies to twenty-five local officials, researchers, and NGO activists who were responsible for climate change and air pollution management in the four municipalities. The same interview questionnaire regarding the level of local climate change policy comprehensiveness and key drivers was asked to all interviewees. Follow-up or probing questions were asked to give interviewees opportunities to elaborate on their answers. In this way, we attempt to address potential cultural bias in our qualitative interview data. The interviews, conducted in the summer of 2009 and 2010, were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to examine how local officials, scholars, and NGO activists evaluated climate change policies within their own municipalities. Interviewees were identified and selected by reviewing websites of the city government, relevant NGOs and research institutes in Seoul metropolitan government. That is, we followed a procedure of targeted interviewee selection based on the nature of our inquiry and the case study topic (Yin, 2009). In addition, we analyzed relevant documents, including minutes of meetings, administrative documents, webpage content and findings of previous studies. Qualitative content analysis was applied to identify the comprehensiveness of urban mitigation and adaptation policies. To investigate our research questions, we searched for terms including governance, participation, expert, NGO, mayor, comprehensive, integrated, mitigation, adaptation, and sector particularly in publicly accessible minutes, recommendation reports and climate policy document through city websites. This thematic analysis also indentified the existence and the role, if any, of urban climate change governance. 3.1. Seoul Seoul is the capital city of South Korea with a population of approximately 10 million in 605 km2. The Seoul metropolitan government has responded to climate change issues in a comprehensive way. First, a GHG emission inventory is biannually Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003

6

T. Lee, M. Painter / Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Comprehensive climate change policy at the city-level.

Seoul (Korea)

Comprehensive policy

Urban governance

Population (Mill.)

Partisanship

Jurisdictional autonomy

Climate agency

Procedural climate policy

Seoul Energy Council; Green Seoul Citizen Council

10.4

Conservative

High

Independent unit/ well resourced

Under-developed

3.6

Conservative

Medium/high

Existing unit/less resourced

Green Ribbon Commission Seattle Climate Partnership

.6

Liberal

Medium/high

Existing unit/less resourced

No

.4

Non-partisan

Medium/high

Existing unit/less resourced

Sector Policies Adaptation policy Busan (Korea)

Procedural climate policy Sector Policies Adaptation policy

Seattle (US)

Procedural climate policy

Sector Policies Adaptation policy Anaheim (US)

Procedural climate policy Sector Policies Adaptation policy

Inventory

Target Action Plan Implementation Monitoring Comprehensive Public health; disaster management Incomplete inventory Incomplete target Not comprehensive No Inventory

Target Action Plan Implementation Monitory Comprehensive Public health; disaster management No inventory No target Not comprehensive No

updated and linked to the emission reduction target and relevant policy measures. In accordance with the Korean national GHG inventory system and IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Seoul investigated emission sources of six greenhouse gases within the city boundary. A GHG inventory is visualized as part of the Climate and Energy Map. Second, based on the annual GHG emission inventory, Seoul has set targets to reduce the GHG emission by 25%, the baseline level of 1990 (Kim et al., 2009). In 2008, the Seoul City Council formalized its climate change policy by enacting a city ordinance to tackle climate change. The ordinance requires the mayor and city government to formulate a climate change master plan every five years and to report its GHG reduction amount. In 2009, Seoul revealed an ambitious Low-Carbon and Green Growth Master Plan. In this plan, Seoul plans to invest 45 billion USD to reducing GHG emission by 40%, compared to that of 1990 level; create green jobs; and develop climate adaptive capacity.2 The master plan embraces climate adaptation policy to respond to climate related events, such as a heat wave, a water shortage, or the spread of infectious diseases. In order to achieve its ambitious goals, Seoul proposes a comprehensive sectoral plan, emphasizing energy efficiency in the building and transportation sector since these two sectors are identified as primary GHG emission sources. The green building initiative makes it mandatory for all new buildings to acquire green building certificates. Building a retrofit project transforms 10,000 buildings larger than 2000 m2 into green buildings. In addition, increasing the public transportation ridership rate from 62.5% in 2007 to 75% in 2030 and transforming all public vehicles (buses) into green vehicles by 2010 are major measures in related transportation policies. The master plan aims to transform Seoul into a ‘‘Climate Friendly City,” a ‘‘Green Growth City, and an ‘‘Advanced Adaptation City” by implementing twenty-two sub-policy action plans. These action

2

See detailed plan at http://www.c40cities.org/docs/ccap-seoul-131109.pdf.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003

T. Lee, M. Painter / Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

7

plans encompass a combination of waste management and renewable energy, green space expansion, sustainable urban planning, and green technology promotion (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2009). Urban climate change governance in Seoul is a driving factor that facilitates comprehensive climate change policy. Seoul has three climate change related public–private councils on climate change management: the Climate Change Fund Management Council; Seoul Green Growth Council; and the Green Seoul Citizen (GSC) Council. Through activities of these various councils, Seoul’s government is able to reflect the voices from academia, civil society, and business sectors. The GSC Council collectively chaired by the mayor, a NGO representative and a business representative has played an advisory role for sustainable development, the implementation of Local Agenda 21, and environmental education.3 The governance structure of the GSC is notable. Out of 92 members, 86 commissioned members comprise of the members of city council, researchers in Seoul Development Institution and universities, NGOs, business councils and local business members. Six metropolitan government members consists of mayor, the directors of climate and environment, urban safety, water, urban planning and green city departments. Plenary sessions with whole members take place twice a year; steering committee which consists of three chairs, directors of each department, section leaders convenes meetings every month. Agenda for the meetings encompass climate adaption, solar energy plan, mitigation measure and campaign, waste-zero campaign but to name a few. Having this governance structure, the GSC gives a variety of ideas from different perspectives, channeling through the city departments. All the minutes of the committee are publicly available, including policy recommendation. For instance, an interviewee noted that the citizen council discussed and suggested monitoring system for climate change related policy implementation as well as information provision on climate vulnerability to the Clean Environment Department in the Seoul metropolitan government. Committee members discussed and urged to make GHG inventory by energy sources for energy saving and mitigation policy. This effort continued to form a ‘one less nuclear power plant policy’ in Seoul (Lee et al., 2014). The GSC also evaluated the degree of mitigation target accomplishment. Another interview with NGO participants suggested that the GSC council played a major role in setting the comprehensive climate change policy agenda through discussion with multiple actors. For adaptation policy, planting trees cross the Han River banks to prevent flood due to climate and precipitation change, was discussed and suggested to the Clean Environment Department. A series of GSC memoranda tell the GSC gives advice to city governments on both climate change mitigation and adaptation policies. The GSC council played a role as a vehicle to incorporate a variety of ideas and opinion from members. The output of GSC discussion became the baseline for comprehensive urban climate policies. Compared to the GSC council, the Climate Action Partnership of Seoul (CAP), which consists of city officials, city council members, NGO activists, and business persons, emphasizes citizen participation and public relations to reduce GHG emissions at both the individual and firm level. The authors’ interview reveals that the CAP attempts to enhance citizens’ awareness on climate change through musical concerts, blogs, GHG emission reduction idea competition and information provision seminars. Stakeholder participation through urban climate change governance is crucial for the formation and implementation of comprehensive climate change policy. Local knowledge creation and knowledge transfer institutions have played a major part in Seoul’s climate change governance arrangements. Along with a number of universities and research centers, the Seoul Development Institute (SDI) plays a key role as a think tank that provides information to the Seoul metropolitan government on issues of climate change. Through a series of research reports, SDI has provided information on a GHG inventory and proposed appropriate schemes for climate policy in Seoul (Kim et al., 2009). These proposed policies include green industry promotion, building retrofit projects, an urban mining project (recycling components of electric utilities), and bus rapid transit. In particular, an interviewee stated that climate adaptation policies require expert knowledge on urban planning, climatology, and environmental policies. Having interdisciplinary research team allows the SDI to provide locally oriented information through urban governance or direct consultation for Seoul Environment Department. Climate change policy proposals from the SDI became the baseline for comprehensive climate change policy in Seoul.4 Furthermore, climate policy researchers of the SDI joined in the GSC, presenting and discussing climate mitigation and adaptation research outputs to channel their studies into agenda setting and implementation.

3.2. Busan Busan, the second largest city of Korea, is located on the southwest tip of the Korean peninsula. Approximately 3.6 million residents live in the area of 765 km2 (Busan City, 2009). The Busan city government, with the support of a research team at Kyoungsung University, estimated a GHG emission inventory. The amount of GHG emission in Busan was approximately 23.7 million metric tons in 2005. Fifty percent of the emissions were from transportation sector, specifically cars (7.4 million metric tons) and ships (3.7 million metric tons). Despite Busan having a GHG emission inventory estimation, the inventory is neither based on a national guideline nor annually reported. Busan set a target to reduce by 2015 the GHG emission level to 10% (2.3 million metric tons) below 2005 (MoE, 2009). Setting a GHG emission reduction target in this way is problematic as an interviewee revealed that the reduction target is arbitrarily set, rather than by a reduction estimate from a suite of actual 3 4

Author’s interview. Author interviews with Seoul city government officials and senior researchers in the SDI.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003

8

T. Lee, M. Painter / Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

policy measures. Busan did not have a climate change master plan. Comprehensive climate change policy is not yet formalized as a city ordinance. Climate policies by sector focus on the expanding public transportation system, resource recycling, constructing a green space and planting trees (Yang, 2005). Without a comprehensive master plan and a linkage between a GHG emission inventory and specific policy measures, these action plans are piecemeal and leave gaps. For instance, while GHG emissions from ports and ships account for 15% of total emissions (3.7 million metric tons), there is only one (somewhat modes) energysaving and GHG reduction measure related to port facilities. By converting diesel-operated cranes to electricity operated cranes, Busan expects to reduce 26 hundred metric tons of CO2. A report from the Korea Institute for Sustainable Society (KISS) evaluated the climate change policy of Busan as ‘very passive’ (KISS, 2009).5 Busan is ranked 7th of eight large Korean cities, having an average-level climate change response in the building and urban planning arena, passive responses in transport and inventory sectors, and very passive responses in ecological environment, urban regeneration and governance. Local experts agree that, despite the acknowledgment that Busan is vulnerable to natural disasters due to frequent typhoons, and there is awareness of the potential effects of sea level rise, this knowledge has not been incorporated into a comprehensive strategy for climate change adaptation: ‘There is little information and interest in adaptation policy’.6 Urban climate change governance arrangements in Busan have not been fully developed. Busan city government recently formulated a governing body on environmental issues, the Green Busan 21 Forum. However, Green Busan 21 is led by the city government with a top-down approach. Compared to climate change oriented activities of Seoul urban governance, the main activities of Green Busan 21 have focused on environmental education, bird watching at the Nakdong River and spreading the local 21 agenda (Green Busan 21, 2009). A master plan for climate change policy is not incorporated under the activities of Green Busan 21. Lack of urban governance activities to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation may impede comprehensive climate policy development in Busan. However, this situation may change. An interview with researchers identify that the climate change master plan for Busan is currently under development by the Busan Develop Institute (BDI). The research capacity of the BDI and other research centers in Busan presents a potential for tackling the climate change issue at the city level in the future, but to date their engagement has not been a key feature of climate change policy development. 3.3. Seattle Seattle is a Northwestern coastal city of the Washington State with approximately 600,000 population in 370 km2) Efforts by the Seattle city government and Seattle communities to address climate change have spanned decades, showing comprehensive climate change policies. The Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment reports a GHG inventory every three years as part of the city’s commitment to gauge the progress of reducing pollution. The total amount of GHG emissions in 1990, 2005, and 2008 respectively are 7.2 million, 6.7 million and 6.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2). While Seattle has been on track to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goal, 7% below the level of 1990 by 2012, GHG emissions from the transportation sector remain the biggest challenge for Seattle (Seattle City, 2009). Seattle is an exemplary case of a city with a comprehensive city-level climate change policy. Based on a periodically reported GHG emissions inventory, GHG emissions reduction targets, climate change action plans, adaptation plans, and reporting on progress are comprehensively incorporated in the form of resolutions. Resolution 30,359 outlines Seattle City Light, the public utility that provides electricity in the region strategy for meeting the zero-net greenhouse gas emissions goal and establishing specific the greenhouse gas mitigation targets and timelines. Resolution 30,316 sets a GHG reduction target for 7% below 1990 level, achievable by 2012. In September 2006, Mayor Nickels announced the Seattle Climate Action plan. This master plan included detailed policy measures for the transportation, building, and energy sectors. Furthermore, it proposed initiatives in urban climate change adaptation policies (Seattle City, 2006). There are three urban climate change governing bodies in Seattle: the Green Ribbon Commission (GRC), which produced detailed recommendations for the master plan), the Seattle Climate Partnership and the Seattle Climate Action NOW. An interview with a city officer identifies the critical role of the GRC in setting climate action agenda and strategies through advising the Mayor and city council. The Commission, which consists of local business leaders (such as Starbucks and REI), scholars (Deans of University of Washington, Union of Concerned Scientists), NGOs (Sierra Club), directors of climate change related department s (Office of Sustainability, public health, transportation, planning and development, Seattle City Light) in the city government and public utility leaders, regularly discuss the priority of climate actions and recommend the Mayor to implement action plan. Outcomes of the Commission have been published as a guideline for comprehensive climate policies including ‘‘Seattle, A climate of change: meeting the Kyoto Challenge.” In the document of Seattle Climate Action Plan, ‘‘Mayor Nickels appointed the GRC on Climate Protection in February 2005, and gave them a challenging task: develop recommendations for meeting or beating the Kyoto Protocol target for reducing global warming here in Seattle. The Commission, a diverse group of civic and business leaders, worked for a year poring over data and sorting through ideas. This Seattle Climate Action Plan is based in large part on the report and recommendations they [members of Green Ribbon 5 The KISS investigates seven categories of climate change policies (transportation, building, ecological environment, urban planning, governance, urban regeneration, and inventory) with 46 indicators in eight largest cities (Seoul, Busan, Incheon, GwangJoo, Daegu, Daejeon, Ulsan, and Kyoung-gi province). 6 Author interviews with University researchers.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003

T. Lee, M. Painter / Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

9

Commission] delivered to the Mayor in March 2006 (GRC, 2006)”. Document analysis of GRC recommendations reveals that this urban climate governance arrangement was convened to advise the Seattle mayor and City Council and mayor on the development of plan-wide recommendations and sector recommendations. Among plan-wide recommendations,7 the GRC emphasized ‘use systems thinking to design solution.’ Under this principle, Seattle Climate Action Plan seeks to effective and innovative solution by taking an integrated approach across multiple disciples and problem. This principle is reflected in sector recommendations including transportation and land-use (49 recommendations), building energy (34 recommendations) as well as adaptation (42 recommendations). In addition to mitigation policies of transportation, land use, green building, the GRC recommended comprehensive adaptation strategies including a city wide assessment of the climate impact such as temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise, connecting urban creeks to increase storm water storage capacity, assessment the public health impacts of climate change (GRC, 2012). One of the key recommendations of the Commission was the formation of Seattle Climate Partnership (SAP) and Seattle Climate Action NOW. Seattle Climate Partnership is a voluntary program among Seattle area employers to take action for reducing GHG emissions, while at the same time cutting costs and improving the work environment. The partnership provides its members with tools for assessing and reducing their carbon footprint, reflecting specific characteristics of the sectors. Document analysis of partnership agreements between the SAP and business shows that comprehensive mitigation and adaptation policies at the business level encompass GHG inventory, energy conservation training for employees and green product purchase (SAP, 2009). As of 2009, 110 local business and institutions, such as Microsoft and University of Washington, participated in the partnership (Seattle Climate Partnership, 2009). Climate Action NOW is a grassroots campaign for individual residents. This campaign provides a web-based calculator for an individual’s carbon footprint, idea exchange events, and climate change education. While the Commission plays a brainstorming role for comprehensive climate change policy initiatives, the Climate Partnership and Climate Action NOW implement policies with business and citizens respectively. In Seattle, local research communities are also actively involved in urban climate change governance. A professor from the Water Center at the University of Washington is one of eighteen members of Seattle’s Green Ribbon Commission (Seattle Climate Partnership, 2009). To build up and update comprehensive climate change action plan, the GRC worked with Seattle Climate Action Plan Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs). TAGs consist of locally-based scientists and practitioners in transportation, land use, building energy and waste sector. Transportation TAG group, for instance, recommended strategies that can help mobility, accessibility and safety while reducing GHG emissions. To this end, the TAG suggested hierarchy prioritizing walking and cycling followed by freight movement, high occupancy vehicles, and single occupancy vehicles (TAG, 2012). This suggestion was reflected in the GRC recommendation and Seattle Climate Action Plan, building separated bicycle lanes in the city center (GRC, 2012). In this way, the GRC prioritized recommendations and implementation plan by discussing technical suggestions from experts (the TAG) to build up comprehensive climate policies. Under the ‘create a great place to live by taking climate action, the GRC clearly stated; A comprehensive look at the benefits of climate action in building energy, transportation, waste and climate preparedness show that the community benefits can be much greater that the number of metric tons of carbon dioxide reduced, and in fact also can provide economic opportunity, promote social equity, and create great neighborhoods. [(GRC, 2012. Italic emphasized by authors.)]

3.4. Anaheim Anaheim is located in Orange Country, California, with a population (2010) of 350,000 in an area of 131,600 km2 (50,811 square miles). California is one of the leading states in planning and implementing progressive climate change policies, in part through legally binding measures such as AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. But the Anaheim city government has not presented comprehensive climate change policies. First, its emission inventory does not cover tier 1 (government’s own facilities) nor tier 2 (community or city jurisdiction) boundary. Only a few reports examine projectbased greenhouse gas emissions from Public Utilities such as the water recycling operation or pump station. Among city departments, only Anaheim Public Utilities has joined the California Climate Action Registry which helps the Public Utilities to voluntarily measure and report greenhouse gas emissions. An interview with a city officer reveals that a major obstacle to establish a community level greenhouse gas inventory is the difficulty of calculating emissions from transportation, since Anaheim has a large amount of pass-through traffic. Without a detailed GHG inventory, reduction targets and a concrete action plan are hardly achievable. An internal document titled ‘Current Sustainable Strategies’ exists, which outlines all of the strategies already in place.8 However, the document has not been endorsed by city council nor disclosed to the general public through the city government website. In addition, the city of Anaheim has not declared a greenhouse gas reduction target nor promulgated a fully developed climate action plan yet. 7 Other plan-wide recommendations include; take bold action, create a great place to live by taking climate action, embedded equity in every solution, build support for climate action, prioritizing implementation of the climate action plan and related plans, secure funding for implementation, and put a price on climate pollution. 8 Evidence gathered during author’s interviews.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003

10

T. Lee, M. Painter / Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

In terms of sectoral climate policies, Anaheim Public Utilities has provided 190,000 compact fluorescent lamps to save 17 million kW h a year and reduce CO2 emission by 29 million pounds. The Utilities has also installed 87 solar energy panels, generating energy supply to 148 homes for one year. Despite these somewhat piecemeal efforts of the Public Utilities and officials in the environment department, the city government lacks a comprehensive approach to climate change which covers transportation, health, and pollution reduction. Furthermore, a climate adaptation plan has not been established. We [City of Anaheim] probably haven’t looked at [climate change] adaptation policy. I know we have a couple of the things we are going to, needs to be looking at such as water, the availability of water, particularly in southern California and food supply. But I believe that there are a lot of people feel like we will adapt as we need to adapt, so we will take care of it. I think the time horizon [of climate change adaptation], you know, 50–100 years are just beyond the scope of lots of elected officials can and want to address.9 Anaheim city government has not developed advisory or participatory relations with locally based universities or research centers. Most research of the public utility projects has been done by private consulting companies, based on contracts. In addition, NGO participation in the policy process on climate change has not been fully appreciated or developed. While the Anaheim Public Utilities has a variety of measures to enhance energy efficiency or water conservation, this single department’s top-down approach has to date not sufficed for comprehensive climate change policy. 4. Discussion Our case study analysis demonstrates that active building of local climate change urban governance arrangements is a key success factor in generating support and commitment for a comprehensive city-level climate change strategy. While multi-level governance influences, such as guidelines from central government, may be important, two cities under the same jurisdiction in two countries present different degrees of comprehensiveness in local climate change policies. Evidence drawn from interviews in Seattle and Anaheim strongly indicated that they were not directly influenced by the national government’s climate change policies, although both cities were aware of and under the potential influence of progressive climate policies from Washington state and California state governments. However, Seattle has agreed with and implemented such policies, while Anaheim has not. Population size may not be a decisive factor since Busan has more population than Seattle but shows less comprehensive climate change policies. Partisanship seems not to be a critical factor judging by the case of Seoul, where the mayor was affiliated with a conservative party (Grand National Party). In addition, the strength of the environmental department may only partly explain the level of comprehensiveness in climate change policies. Only Seoul has an independent climate change unit with approximately 35 staff, while existing environmental bureaus manage climate change issue with four to six staff members in Busan, Seattle, and Anaheim. Seattle’s comprehensive climate change policy draws on wider resources of knowledge, expertise and implementation agents in the community, of the kind that a well-developed set of urban governance arrangements provides. Furthermore, memberships in transnational city networks such as C40 and ICLEI may influence the degree of comprehensiveness in climate policy. In case of C40, Seoul and Seattle are the members. However, Seattle, Seoul and Busan are ICLEI members. Further studies could look at varying impacts of different transnational city networks on climate change policies. As seen in the theory and case study parts, comprehensive climate policy requires active engagement not only from a variety of city government’s departments but also from NGO, expert groups, business and the public. Urban climate change policies contain multifaceted components, thus a single department or simple public participation may not ensure a comprehensive approach. As Burton and Mustelin (2013) argued, greater public participation per se may not guarantee successful climate policies. Instead, coordinating with non-government actors in urban climate governance arrangements facilitates the formation and implementation of climate policy in a comprehensive manner (Pitt and Bassett, 2014). These horizontal (among city government departments or other cities) and vertical (among city government, stakeholders, NGOs, researchers) institutional arrangements become a key strategy to integrate climate mitigation, adaptation and existing policies (Hughes, in press). Particularly, the Seoul and Seattle cases provide examples showing how different types of urban climate governance could play important and diverse roles. Green Seoul Citizen Council and Seattle Green Ribbon Commission set comprehensive climate policy agenda, utilizing expertise of NGOs, local scientists, and planning departments. Another type of urban climate governance arrangement, Climate Action Partnership of Seoul and Seattle Climate Partnership, encouraged participation of public, NGOs and business to implement planned policies. Mitigation procedures, sectoral comprehensiveness and adaption polices all require comprehensive agenda setting and implementation schemes facilitated by multiple government and nongovernment actors through well-developed urban climate governance arrangements. Regular meetings through multistakeholder governance with city leadership, relevant city department directors, researchers and NGOs offer chances to incorporate ideas, concerns and advice from different sectors and expertise. In this way, governance bodies become channels for comprehensive climate policy (Krause, 2012).

9

Author’s interview.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003

T. Lee, M. Painter / Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

11

5. Conclusion This study contributes to offer the concept and analytic framework of comprehensive urban climate policies. Compared to existing concepts such as climate policy integration, climate policy mainstreaming and climate co-benefit, comprehensive urban climate policy integrates mitigation process, sectoral mitigation and adaptation policy. The main empirical contribution of the foregoing analysis is to demonstrate the importance of urban climate change governance arrangements through regular discussion with city leadership, city officers, researchers and civil society members for enhancing comprehensive climate change policy at the city level. Cities that have well-developed urban climate change governance arrangements – the involvement of environmental NGOs, business and local research communities in the climate change policy sector through networks of collaboration – are likely to plan and implement a comprehensive climate change policy. It is mainly because a variety of ideas, interests and concerns in the governance arrangements have a channel to get attention for agenda setting and implementation. Our case study methodology has its limitations for generalizing. Case selection enabled us to explore cases that varied on both dependent and independent variables, enabling us to provide a clear-cut demonstration that, in these four cities, comprehensive climate change policies were associated with well-developed urban governance arrangements. Other institutional factors, introduced as control variables, did not provide additional explanatory power. However, alternative case selection methods allowing for systematic variation on these variables might produce more conclusive results. We have not explored in detail the importance of leadership from the mayor’s office (Lee and Koski, 2012). Our two most active cities – Seoul and Seattle – clearly enjoyed strong leadership and proactive governments in the climate change policy sector at key points in their history. However, we argue that at a system-wide level, leadership must be supplemented by and followed up with a set of institutional arrangements that we identify by the label urban climate change governance’. While mayoral leadership may drive both urban climate governance and comprehensive climate change policy, an individual mayor or his/her mayoral team may not be able to come up with and implement complex agenda of procedural and sectoral mitigation as well as climate adaptation without advisory inputs from various expertise of civil society organizations, research groups, and business sector. Another avenue of inquiry suggested by our findings is to explore the role of interest groups in stimulating the development of the kinds of urban governance arrangements we describe (Sharp et al., 2011). Further empirical analysis should focus on the specific governance arrangements that contribute to similar outcomes in more case studies as well as process-tracing across time within a case, and large N quantitative methods. Our main theoretical contribution is to highlight the kinds of governance arrangements within urban settings that might contribute to effective governance of complex environmental systems through the adoption of comprehensive city level climate change policies and implementation strategies. These include continuing engagement by local experts who produce trusted knowledge that both identifies emerging problems and monitors outcomes; and engagement by political leaders and public officials with local stakeholders such as business groups and citizen advocacy groups, through varying forms of deliberative forums and partnerships. In sum, we argue that a key ingredient in the emergence and sustainability of effective, comprehensive local climate change policy is dependent not only on government initiative and resources but also on networks and associations of community actors, who become engaged in urban governance arrangements set up to deal collectively with climate change mitigation and adaptation. References Adelle, C., Russel, D., 2013. Climate policy integration: a case of Déjà Vu? Environ. Policy Gov. 23, 1–12. Aylett, A., 2013. Networked urban climate governance: neighborhood-scale residential solar energy systems and the example of Solarize Portland. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 31, 858–875. Baker, I., Peterson, A., Brown, G., McAlpine, C., 2012. Local government response to the impacts of climate change: an evaluation of local climate adaptation plans. Landscape Urban Plan. 107, 127–136. Broto, V.C., Bulkeley, H., 2013. A survey of urban climate change experiment in 100 cities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 92–102. Bulkeley, H., 2010. Cities and the governing of climate change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35, 229–253. Bulkeley, H., Betsill, M., 2003. Cities and Climate Change: Urban Sustainability and Global Environmental Governance. Routledge, London and New York. Burton, P., Mustelin, J., 2013. Planning for climate change: is greater public participation the key to success? Urban Policy Res. 31, 399–415. Busan City, 2009. Introduction to Busan. Busan Metropolitan Government, Busan. Carney, S., Schakley, S., 2009. The greenhouse Gas Regional Inventory Project (GRIP): designing and employing a regional greenhouse gas measurement tool for stakeholder use. Energy Policy 37, 4293–4302. Corfee-Morlot, J., Cochran, I., Hallegatte, S., Teasdale, P.-J., 2011. Multilevel risk governance and urban adaptation policy. Clim. Change 104, 169–197. Friend, R., Jarvie, J., Reed, S.O., Sutarto, R., Thinphanga, P., Toan, V.C., 2014. Mainstreaming urban climate resilience into policy and planning; reflections from Asia. Urban Clim. 7, 6–9. Füssel, H., 2007. Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustain. Sci. 2, 265–275. GRC, 2012. Green Ribbon Commision Recommendation. Seattle City Government, Seattle. Green Busan 21, 2009. Local Agenda 21 for Busan [WWW Document]. . Gustavsson, E., Elander, I., Lundmark, M., 2009. Multilevel governance, network cities, and the geography of climate-change mitigation: two Swedish examples. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 27, 59–74. Hallegatte, S., 2009. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, 240–247. Hamin, E.M., Gurran, N., 2009. Urban form and climate change: balancing adaptation and mitigation in the U.S. and Australia. Habitat Int. 33, 238–245. Hodson, M., Marvin, S., Bulkeley, H., 2011. The intermediary organisation of low carbon cities: a comparative analysis of transitions in greater London and greater manchester. Urban Stud. 50, 1403–1422. Hoffmann, M.J., 2011. Climate Governance at the Crossroads. Oxford University Press, New York. Hughes, S., in press. A Meta-Analysis of Urban Climate Change Adaptation Planning in the U.S. Urban Climate. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06. 003.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003

12

T. Lee, M. Painter / Urban Climate xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Jonas, A., Gibbs, D., While, A., 2011. The new urban politics as a politics of carbon control. Urban Stud. 48, 2537–2554. Kalafatis, S.E., Grace, A., Gibbons, E., in press. Making Climate Science Accessible in Toledo: The Linked Boundary Chain Approach. Climate Risk Management. Keiner, M., Kim, A., 2007. Transnational city networks for sustainability. Euro. Plan. Stud. 15, 1369–1395. Kim, W., Shin, S., Kim, W., 2009. A Preliminary Study on Seoul’s Vision for Climate Protection Initiative in 2030. Seoul Development Institute, Seoul. KISS, 2009. A Report on Evaluation of Climate Change Policy in Eight Large Cities. KISS, Seoul. Krause, R.M., 2012. An assessment of the impact that participation in local climate networks has on cities’ implementation of climate, energy, and transportation policies. Rev. Policy Res. 29, 585–603. Lee, T., Koski, C., 2012. Building green: local political leadership addressing climate change. Rev. Policy Res. 29, 605–624. Lee, T., Lee, T., Lee, Y., 2014. An experiment for urban energy autonomy in Seoul: the one less nuclear power plant policy. Energy Policy 74, 311–318. Lee, T., van de Meene, S., 2013. Comparative studies of urban co-benefits in Asian cities. J. Clean. Prod. 58, 15–24. McGranahan, G., Balk, D., Anderson, B., 2007. The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zone. Environ. Urban. 19, 17–37. MoE, 2009. Report on Exemplary City for Tackling Climate Change. Ministry of Environment, Korea, Seoul. Olsson, P., Folke, C., 2001. Local Ecological Knowledge and institutional Dynamics for Ecosystem Management: A Study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden. Ecosyst. 4. Ostrom, E., 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environ. Change 20, 550–557. Pitt, D., Bassett, E., 2014. Innovation and the role of collaborative planning in local clean energy policy. Environ. Policy Gov. 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ eet. Portney, K.E., 2003. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously. The MIT Press, Cambridge. Rabe, B.G., 2004. Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy. Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C.. Rhodes, R., 1996. The new governance: governing without government. Polit. Stud. 44, 138–151. SAP, 2009. Seattle Climate Partnership: Seattle Area Employers Working Together to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Quality of LifePartnership Agreement. Seattle City Government, Seattle. Scholz, J., Wang, C.-L., 2006. Cooptation or transformation? Local policy networks and federal regulatory enforcement. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 50, 81–97. Seattle City, 2009. Seattle Climate Protection Initiative Progress Report [WWW Document]. . Seattle City, 2006. Seattle, A Climate of Change: Meeting the Kyoto Challenge: Climate Action Plan [WWW Document]. . Seattle Climate Partnership, 2009. Seattle Climate Partnership Partners [WWW Document]. . Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2009. Climate and Energy Map. Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul. Sharp, E.B., Daley, D.M., Lynch, M.S., 2011. Understanding local adoption and implementation of climate change mitigation policy. Urban Aff. Rev. 47, 433– 457. Swart, R., Raes, F., 2007. Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work: mainstreaming into sustainable development policies? Climate Policy 7, 288–303. TAG, 2012. Technical Advisory Group Recommendations for the Seattle Climate Action Pland Update: Transportation and Land Use Sectors. City of Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment, Seattle. Uittenbroek, C.J., Janssen-Jansen, L.B., Spit, T.J.M., Salet, W.G.M., Runhaar, H.A.C., 2014. Political commitment in organising municipal responses to climate adaptation: the dedicated approach versus the mainstreaming approach. Environ. Polit. 23, 1043–1063. Yang, J., 2005. Busan’s Policy Response to Kyoto Protocol. Busan Development Institute, Busan. Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, New York. Zahran, S., Brody, S.D., Vedlitz, A., Grover, H., Miller, C., 2008. Vulnerability and capacity: explaining local commitment to climate change policy. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2, 544–562.

Please cite this article in press as: Lee, T., Painter, M. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003