Public participation, civic capacity, and climate change adaptation in cities

Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Public participation, civic capacity, and climate change adaptation in cities Andrea Sarzynski School of Public Policy & Administration, University of Delaware, 188A Graham Hall, Newark, DE 19716, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 18 December 2014 Revised 7 August 2015 Accepted 17 August 2015

Keywords: Public participation Governance Civic capacity Climate change Adaptation Cities

a b s t r a c t Cities are increasingly involved in planning for climate change adaptation, although the extent and role of public participation in such efforts remains poorly theorized and understudied. This paper employs a case survey methodology to systematically review the recent literature on urban climate change adaptation with respect to public participation, stakeholder engagement, and civic capacity. Six forms of participation in urban adaptation are identified from the literature and the distinguishing characteristics and use of each type are examined across the cases. Few cases illustrate robust and sustained civic capacity in the governance of urban climate adaptation, although several cases reveal budding capacity that could emerge with further efforts to engage businesses and citizens in articulating priorities and strategies for future adaptation efforts. Ó 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Climate change poses myriad challenges for urban areas, ranging from localized flooding during severe weather events to increased temperatures and worsening air and water quality (Seto and Satterthwaite, 2010). Localities have experimented with approaches to adapt to such challenges and reduce their vulnerabilities to climate hazards (Birkmann et al., 2010; Castan Broto and Bulkeley, 2013). Nevertheless, the ability of localities to implement effective climate change adaptation is uncertain especially in rapidly urbanizing parts of the developing world that also face persistent poverty and underdeveloped infrastructure (Satterthwaite et al., 2007; Tanner et al., 2009). Even wealthy cities in the developed world have been slow to act proactively on climate change adaptation given competing priorities, limited resources, and uncertain effects (Carmin et al., 2012b; National Research Council, 2011). Given the urgency of climate change and the vulnerability of millions of urban residents worldwide, it is critical that we gain a better understanding of the conditions that facilitate the development and implementation of adaptive climate change responses in urban areas (Tanner et al., 2009). Governance is one factor among many thought to influence the effectiveness of climate adaptation (Mazmanian et al., 2013; Sanchez-Rodriguez et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2009). Governance is the act of solving public problems across multiple sectors, including government, business, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and interested citizens known collectively as ‘‘civil society” (Pierre, 1999). Traditionally, governance was viewed as ‘‘what government does” to address societal problems. More recently, the concept of governance expanded beyond government to recognize important or potential contributions made by the private and non-profit sectors to the management of public problems (Bell and Hindmoor, 2009; Elander, 2002; Rosenau, 1995; Stoker, 1998). These multi-sectoral responses to public problems arise, in part, because the nature of public problems and the resources to address them extend beyond clear jurisdictional and sectoral boundaries.

E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.08.002 2212-0955/Ó 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

53

Indeed, globalization and the restructuring of capital pushed governments toward new governance arrangements with a larger role for non-governmental actors in decision-making and public service provision (Harvey, 1989; Jessop, 1997; Ward, 2000). An extensive literature on these ‘‘new public governance” arrangements has emerged (e.g., Heritier and Rhodes, 2011; Pestoff et al., 2013), with conceptual distinctions sometimes drawn between ‘‘organizational forms” such as partnerships and traditional ‘‘modes of governing” such as networks, markets, or hierarchies (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998). Thus, ‘‘governance capacity” to address public problems may spread well beyond government into the private and nonprofit sectors, and into civil society. Correspondingly, ‘‘civic capacity” is defined as ‘‘the extent to which different sectors of the community—business, parents, educators, state and local officeholders, nonprofits, and others—act in concert around a matter of community-wide import” (Stone, 2001, p. 595). Originally conceived with respect to urban education, the concept of ‘‘civic capacity” has broad application and connects to literatures about social capital and ‘‘megacommunities” (Berry et al., 1993; Briggs, 2008; Gerencser et al., 2009; Putnam, 1993). Briggs (2008, p. 13) argues that civic capacity moves beyond the presence of social capital, providing the following two-pronged definition: ‘‘the extent to which the sectors that make up a community are (1) capable of collective action on public problems (the resource dimension) . . ., and (2) choose to apply such capabilities (the dimension of effort, will and choice, or ‘‘agency”)” [emphasis in original]. The multi-sectoral aspect of civil capacity resembles Putnam’s ‘‘bridging capital” concept (1993) and connects to the literature on ‘‘polycentric governance” (Alford, 2013; Ostrom, 2010; Ostrom et al., 1961). Stone (2001) warns that civic capacity remains specific to a particular policy domain and is not necessarily translatable from one topical area (education) into another (environment). Fig. 1 provides a simple depiction of the overlapping public, private, and non-profit sector spheres of influence that generate three corresponding forms of governance capacity: institutional (public sector) capacity, private capacity, and nonprofit (community) capacity. The space in the center of these spheres represents civic capacity. Theoretically, at least, civic capacity need not be led or fostered entirely by the public sector but may emerge from efforts out of the other two sectors, such as in places with a weak or disengaged government. We should not presume that governance capacity is absent when government is absent; both the private and non-profit sectors have vast resources that might be brought to bear to address collective problems such as urban climate adaptation. Nevertheless, some involvement of the public sector in establishing institutions for civic participation and coordination (Baiocchi, 2003) is presumed before civic capacity can fully emerge. The majority of research on the governance of climate change adaptation has so far focused on building institutional capacity to address climate hazards, with government as the primary actor (Mees and Driessen, 2011; e.g., Heinrichs et al., 2013). This literature often provides a rationale for government action and a slate of policy and planning actions that could be undertaken to address climate change across multiple sectors (i.e., transport, energy, and land use). A frequently unstated presumption is that limited capacity is the primary barrier to effective response. Yet, capacity by itself does not assure ‘‘appropriate adaptation” to climate change (Satterthwaite, 2007, p. 10). Hammer et al. (2011, p. 87) argue: ‘‘[a]n appropriate response to climate change needs to transcend a government-policy based approach to embrace governance mechanisms that harness the creativity and advice of civil society, from business and academia to community leaders.” To what extent, then, does urban climate governance embrace mechanisms that engage the public? Some form of public participation is expected at the national and international levels under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the foremost international coordinating body for climate change response (Few et al., 2007). As one response, nations have allowed non-governmental representatives on climate delegations in order to improve the legitimacy of the process despite not having any formal legal authority to make decisions (Andonova et al., 2009; Böhmelt et al., 2014). In addition, public participation forms a critical component of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) guidelines for Climate Change ‘‘Adaptation Policy Frameworks” (Lim and Spanger-Siegfried, 2004) and the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) required by least-developed nations under the UNFCCC. Public participation is also a core element of the ‘‘Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters” of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, signed by European member nations in Aarhus, Denmark in 1998. At the local level, and particularly for cities, participation is theoretically a part of ‘‘good urban governance for climate change adaptation,” characterized by ‘‘(1) decentralisation and autonomy, (2) accountability and transparency, (3) responsiveness and flexibility, (4) participation and inclusion and (5) experience and support” (Tanner et al., 2009, p. 9). In principle, participation may be more easily obtained at local levels than at higher levels given the fewer people that may need to coordinate for collective action (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009; Olson, 1971). In principle, participation will result in more effective adaptation plans (Holstein, 2010). Additionally, ‘‘[b]y involving local stakeholders and experts in the development of a national adaptation strategy the gap between the top-down and bottom-up approaches to adaptation can be bridged” (de Bruin et al., 2009, p. 25). While generally desired, not all forms of participation in climate governance are equal. Questions have been raised over the substance of participation and the practicalities of managing it (Few et al., 2007; Tompkins et al., 2008). Likewise, concerns have been raised over the representativeness of the participants involved and the possible cooptation and manipulation of the governance process by special interests (Ayers, 2011; Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Few et al., 2007; Stringer et al., 2006). For instance, governance processes that involve well-resourced and well-connected private sector participants such as heads of local businesses may bring important knowledge and skills to the table, building governance capacity, but also serve to perpetuate existing power structures favoring business over private citizens or the few over the many (Few et al., 2007; Lampis and Fraser, 2012; Raco, 2000). Additionally, ‘‘[p]articipatory spaces are not neutral: they are created spaces, that provide opportunities for agency and inclusion but also exclusion” (Ayers, 2011, p. 66). Importantly, the presence of

54

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

Institutional (public sector) capacity

Civic capacity Private sector capacity

Non-profit sector capacity

Fig. 1. Spheres of influence over governance and the emergence of civic capacity.

local participation – and particularly voluntary participation – does not, by itself, guarantee outcomes such as democracy, sustainability, or social justice (Purcell, 2006; Raco, 2000; Rowe and Frewer, 2000). This paper evaluates the extent of participation in urban climate governance, and in particular, investigates the extent to which participation evidences the building of civic capacity for climate change adaptation (CCA). The paper responds to a call for further research ‘‘to identify the scope of governance arrangements for adaptation in which public and private actors share responsibilities” (Mees and Driessen, 2011, p. 280) and ‘‘for greater reflection on case study research in order to further refine participatory processes within adaptive management” (Stringer et al., 2006, p. 38). The following sections review the literature on participation in governance and various types of participation. The paper next reviews the empirical approach employed to evaluate participation in common forms of urban governance for CCA. The paper recognizes that potential (or latent) capacity is different from realized (or effective, manifest) capacity (Mees and Driessen, 2011) and thus focuses on reported instances of participation in urban climate governance (Briggs, 2008). The paper concludes with a discussion of the evidence of civic capacity in the identified cases and an exposition of next steps for the research. 2. Participation in governance Participation has been alternatively termed ‘‘public participation,” ‘‘citizen participation,” ‘‘stakeholder engagement,” ‘‘stakeholder involvement,” ‘‘new public involvement,” ‘‘community engagement,” or ‘‘civic engagement.” As such, the concept is not consistently conceived or defined (Adler and Goggin, 2005; Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Dietz and Stern, 2008; Ekman and Amnå, 2012). Nevertheless, the concept involves at least five distinctive elements that characterize how participation is structured: who participates, when participation happens, what happens, how much participation, and why the actors participate (Burton and Mustelin, 2013; Dietz and Stern, 2008; Rosener, 1978). In the representative democracy of the United States, ‘‘who participates” in governance processes could be anyone aside from the decision-makers invested with legal authority to make public decisions and who may have an interest in the decision-making process (Dietz and Stern, 2008). Thus, these individuals might be corporate or non-profit sector employees (or their agents), private citizens (or their agents), or public-sector employees (or their agents) without a direct role in decision-making. In some cases, participants may also include non-citizens (or their agents) that seek a voice in the decision-making process. Often, participants are intended as ‘‘ordinary citizens, not political elites or civil servants” (Ekman and Amnå, 2012, p. 286). Ultimately, who participates may be evaluated by the ‘‘breadth” of participation, ranging from narrow (decision-makers only; decision-makers plus expert advisors) to moderate (including the directly-affected public) to broad (including any interested parties) (Dietz and Stern, 2008). Ideally, participation will be sufficiently broad to incorporate representatives of the affected public (Rowe and Frewer, 2000). The second element of participation indicates when stakeholders participate in the governance process. The possible stages of involvement follow a traditional decision-making model of pre-decision, decision, post-decision, and feedback. When participation happens might be characterized by the ‘‘openness” of the process (Dietz and Stern, 2008), with more weight given to early engagement in determining the design and purpose of participation and to sustained engagement across multiple stages in the decision cycle (Rowe and Frewer, 2000). With climate adaptation, when stakeholders participate might occur during a pre-planning phase (when initial information is being collected and decisions are made about who will plan); a planning phase (when actors are developing medium- to long-term climate adaptation plans); an action

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

55

development phase (when actors are selecting which specific adaptation actions will be taken in the near-term); an implementation phase (when adaptation plans and actions have been selected and are being implemented); and an evaluation or feedback phase (when reviewing impacts of previous actions taken). Much attention has so far been placed on the planning and pre-planning phases of the climate adaptation pathway (e.g., Gardner et al., 2009, p. 19) with much less attention paid to the time after which plans are adopted but during which adaptation responses are taken. The third element of participation includes what happens when stakeholders participate. The terms ‘‘participation,” ‘‘engagement,” and ‘‘involvement” are used interchangeably and include a range of formats that vary in intensity and influence throughout the decision-making process (e.g., Dietz and Stern, 2008, Table 5-1; Rowe and Frewer, 2000). Participation may take traditional ‘‘political” forms such as voting and protesting, although frequently the scholarly literature focuses on less traditional participatory processes that institutions may use to assist in decision-making (Dietz and Stern, 2008). For instance, participation might include attendance at a public meeting held by a regulatory agency during which selected individuals speak on narrow, pre-defined topics. In this case, governance remains top-down and dominated by the regulatory agency with participation as one method for deploying and obtaining information. Stakeholders may become moderately involved through formats such as citizen advisory commissions or citizen panels, where selected individuals are chosen to provide feedback or oversight on the implementation of policy but may have little say in the formation of goals or selection of policy alternatives. Alternatively, participation might include intensive collaboration on a blue-ribbon commission tasked to develop policy recommendations over a series of months for a high-level official like the President or a state Governor. Intensive participation may shift governance into the realm of ‘‘collaborative” or ‘‘participatory” governance, with more of a shared role between government and other participants. Thus, intensity is another dimension of participation that is related to influence but captures the number of interactions and time involved in interactions, i.e., how much participation happens (Dietz and Stern, 2008). Some research indicates that the intensity of participation is associated with stakeholder satisfaction in the participatory process and with achievement of goals (Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Lubell and Leach, 2005). Nevertheless, a trade-off may well emerge between the breadth of participation and its intensity; processes involving a narrow range of participants with intensive participation may be particularly troubling for advocates of open and transparent government (Berry et al., 1993; Dietz and Stern, 2008). What happens during participation also depends, in large part, on the purpose of and value placed on participation in the decision-making process (i.e., why participate). In many cases, direct public participation in governmental processes is intrinsically valued as a means of democratic expression and procedural justice (Hartz-Karp and Newman, 2006; Holstein, 2010; Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Smith et al., 2009; Thomas, 1995). Related, participation may serve a developmental purpose in helping citizens understand complex problems and articulate value and policy preferences (Burton and Mustelin, 2013). Advocates of participatory approaches to governance may distrust government and value participation in its own right (Purcell, 2006). For instance, participation is seen as the ‘‘cornerstone of an inclusive/deliberative approach to planning and governance that places stakeholders’ knowledge, opinions and aspirations at the center of decision-making, as opposed to a managerialist (technical–rational) approach in which professional expertise and bureaucratic control shape policy and practice” (Few et al., 2007, p. 48). Such managerialist approaches are often thought to be elitist and poorly serve the needs of the poor (Few et al., 2007). In other cases, participation is valued instrumentally for what it brings to the governance of public problems, such as knowledge, resources, trust, accountability, or public acceptability (Burton and Mustelin, 2013; Meadowcroft, 2009; Mohan, 2001; Rowe and Frewer, 2000). It may be that decision-makers value participation instrumentally while social justice advocates value participation intrinsically (Rosener, 1978). Indeed, a tension appears to exist between the ‘‘logic of empowerment” and the ‘‘logic of efficiency” related to participation (Briggs, 2008, p. 12). As Gaventa (2004, p. 24) explains, ‘‘there is a growing consensus that the way forwards is found in a focus on both a more active and engaged civil society which can express the demands of the citizenry, and a more responsive and effective state which can deliver needed public services” [emphasis in original]. Ultimately, the effectiveness or success of participation should be judged by achievement of its intended goals, which vary depending on the time, location, issue area, and other contextual factors (Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Cohen and Uphoff, 1980; Dietz and Stern, 2008; Fung, 2006; Rosener, 1978; Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Stringer et al., 2006). Indeed, if effectiveness is truly context-dependent, then no single form of participation is inherently better or more appropriate than another for all situations (Rowe and Frewer, 2000). 3. Types of participation An influential conception of ‘‘citizen participation” in U.S. federal housing and poverty programs aligned forms of participation as eight rungs of a ladder (Arnstein, 1969). According to Arnstein, the lowest rungs on the ladder exhibit ‘‘non-par ticipation” modes of interaction including ‘‘manipulation” and ‘‘therapy.” The middle rungs of the ladder show ‘‘token” forms of participation, with little power or influence granted to citizen participants. The highest and most influential rungs on Arnstein’s ladder include ‘‘delegated power” and ‘‘citizen control,” where substantial decision-making authority is granted to private citizens. The presumed goal of citizen participation (i.e., ‘‘why participate?”) here is to acquire higher forms of power and control over public programs, and thus to better express citizen demands of government. Citizen power was an important goal at the time Arnstein was writing, backed by the civil rights movement and efforts to empower

56

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

disadvantaged communities that previously had little say over large and bureaucratic federal program decisions such as on urban renewal. Arnstein’s ladder has been adopted or modified widely for use elsewhere. For instance, the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) developed a five-level spectrum to illustrate increasing impact of ‘‘community engagement,” including: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower.1 Similarly, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) developed a seven-level typology of participation to illustrate the extent to which the public is involved in the local economic development process, including: ‘‘manipulative participation, passive participation, participation by consultation, participation for material resources, functional participation, interactive participation, and self-mobilization” (Bass et al., 1995, p. 32). Further modifications to the IIED typology for participation in national policy-making expanded the options to include: ‘‘participants listening only; participants listening and giving information; participants being consulted; participation in analysis and agenda-setting; participation in reaching consensus on the main strategy elements; participants involved in decision-making on the policy, strategy, or its components” (Bass et al., 1995, p. 50). Both IIED typologies recognize that participation may be narrow or widespread at each level of participation, depending on the breadth of stakeholders involved. Another valuable typology distinguishes public communication (one-way flow of information from government to public), public consultation (solicited one-way flow of information from public to government), and public participation (two-way conversation) (Stringer et al., 2006). Related, community engagement was defined in the Brisbane Declaration as ‘‘a two way process: by which the aspirations, concerns, needs and values of citizens and communities are incorporated at all levels and in all sectors in policy development, planning, decision-making, service delivery and assessment; and by which governments and other business and civil society organisations [sic] involve citizens, clients, communities and other stakeholders in these processes.”2 The two-way nature of the participatory process is also stressed in the ‘‘participation pyramid,” built on a base of information flow from government to stakeholders, then consultation with stakeholders, leading to co-production of adaptation plans, and ultimately civil society dominated and led plans of action (see Fig. 1, Holstein, 2010). At the top of all of these ladders, scales, and pyramids is a situation in which citizens have a defining influence over decisions. Scholars have sought ways to better elucidate gradations of participation across multiple dimensions, which are clearly correlated (Dietz and Stern, 2008). Fung (2006) articulated a ‘‘democracy cube” in which participation varies across three dimensions: (1) participant selection (ranging from exclusive to inclusive); (2) modes of communication (ranging from least intense to most intense); and (3) authority and power (ranging from least authority to most authority over decision-making). Fung’s cube articulates the highly variable quality of participation at a single point in time. For instance, a participatory process in which a few private citizens have very intensive and influential participation over decision-making is qualitatively different from a process in which many more citizens participate, but where each has less intensive or authoritative participation. Dietz and Stern (2008) further elaborated Fung’s democracy cube by identifying five dimensions that characterize the design of the participatory process (outlined above): ‘‘breadth” (who participates), ‘‘openness” (when participation happens), ‘‘intensity” (level of effort), ‘‘influence” (effect on decisions), and goals (why participate). The goals of participation may include one or more of the following: ‘‘incorporating public values into decisions [intrinsic]; improving the substantive quality of decisions [instrumental]; resolving conflict amongst competing interests [instrumental]; building trust in institutions [intrinsic]; educating and informing the public [instrumental]” (Beierle and Cayford, 2002, Fig. 2-2).

4. Methods This paper seeks to answer the following questions: (1) who, when, what, how much, and why do participants engage in the governance of CCA in cities?; (2) does this participation in governance take on common forms?; and (3) does the participation illustrate the development of ‘‘civic capacity”? To begin answering these questions, a database of participation in the governance of urban climate adaptation was constructed using a case survey methodology, which systematically codes information from qualitative cases for summative and descriptive quantitative analysis (Larsson, 1993). Here, the research explored cases from around the world about the governance of CCA in cities or urban areas with an eye toward characterizing the nature of participation occurring within the cases. Cases were identified initially by searches of academic databases (Academic OneFile, General OneFile, and WorldCat) and grey literature (Google Scholar) using the following keywords and their variants: (1) urban, city or metropolitan; (2) public, stakeholder, citizen, civic, or community; (3) participation, engagement, or involvement; (4) climate or climate change; and (5) adaptation or adaptive. The search results were then evaluated and papers were retained that (6) were available to the author in full-text format; (7) were empirical in nature; (8) reported on single or multiple cases; and (9) contained enough information about the participatory process to be evaluated further. Additional cases were identified using the bibliographies of selected cases and retained where meeting the selection criteria. Each case was assessed according to the breadth, openness, influence, intensity, and goals of participation in the governance process (Dietz and Stern, 2008), corresponding to the who, when, what, how much, and why of participation described 1 2

http://www.iap2.org.au/resources/iap2s-public-participation-spectrum. https://www.qld.gov.au/web/community-engagement/guides-factsheets/documents/brisbane_declaration.pdf.

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

57

above. After each case was assessed and coded, a typology was developed to illustrate common patterns of participation arising in the governance of urban CCA, in response to question 2. This approach has been previously used to assess forms and qualities of participation in environmental governance (Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Newig and Fritsch, 2009), although not specifically for urban CCA. The Dietz and Stern (2008) framework was constructed to assess the extent of public participation in environmental decision-making within the United States. As a representative democracy, the United States has institutionalized participation in public decision-making through laws such as the federal Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, as well as state and local counterparts. Public administrators and planners within the United States have also institutionalized ethical principles of public communication and consultation with affected stakeholders through professional organizations such as the American Society for Public Administration and the American Planning Association. This context of institutionalized participation is common within other developed nations such Canada, Australia, and the European Commission states, but may be less common in developing nations. Even so, the United Nations and international donor agencies such as USAID have institutionalized expectations for participation in environmental decision-making and economic development, encouraging it even within non-democratic nations and outside of formal institutional processes. Thus, in theory, the Dietz & Stern framework could be applied in all situations where participation happens. Here, the focus is on participation in the governance of climate change adaptation, which may occur in or out of government. Thus, individuals may be involved through traditional governmental processes or through community organizations, respectively termed ‘‘political participation” and ‘‘civic participation” (Ekman and Amnå, 2012). Individuals may also become involved through private businesses, especially given recent moves toward ‘‘corporate social responsibility” and ‘‘business volunteerism” (Dahlsrud, 2008; Reese and Rosenfeld, 2002). By examining governance, not just government, this research extends the Dietz & Stern framework to assess participation of any relevant climate adaptation activities within the urban cases. Theoretically, dozens of governance arrangements could emerge from combinations of the five dimensions of participation from the Dietz & Stern framework. Nevertheless, the observed instances of participation in CCA tended to group especially by the stage of involvement (planning vs. implementation) and by the intensity and influence of participation (low vs. high), resulting in six major types of participation in the governance of urban climate adaptation, described below. As described above, civic capacity requires participants ‘‘pulling together” to solve common problems (Shipps, 2003). Cases were here identified as exhibiting ‘‘civic capacity” if they had participants from more than one sector; participation at multiple stages in the adaptation pathway (such as planning and implementation); were involved more centrally in activities (beyond consult on the IAP2 spectrum); and had a moderate intensity of interaction (multiple opportunities for participation). Ideally, cases would also exhibit participation for both instrumental and intrinsic goals, although some instances appeared to exhibit civic capacity even when pursuing only instrumental goals. Cases were identified as ‘‘emerging civic capacity” when they had three of the four characteristics here. The choice to focus on urban-scale climate adaptation was made for empirical reasons. First, urban adaptation responses are presumed to differ in meaningful ways from rural adaptation responses due in large part to the geographic concentration of residents, businesses, and critical infrastructure in and around cities. Imposing an urban lens narrows the field of possible cases to those happening in urban settings at the local scale, although in some cases regional or national governments are referenced where they are specifically involved in the climate governance of cities (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009; Kern and Alber, 2008; Newig and Fritsch, 2009). Second, cities are contested space (Harvey, 1997); what constitutes the ‘‘urban” is socially constructed and under constant assault as problems emerge and as stakeholders seek to exert power and dominance over others. Civic participation plays an important role in constructing the identity of the city and in shaping its collective response to perceived threats such as global climate change (Briggs, 2008; McClay and McAllister, 2014; Sharp, 2012). Related, such participation is particularly important in urban areas extending beyond single municipal boundaries and where fragmented government requires coordination and cooperation amongst multiple actors to solve problems. The dominance of municipal government in urban climate governance is much less certain when problems extend beyond municipal boundaries and when the key actors expected to change their behavior in adaptation to a changing climate are private citizens and businesses.

5. Experience with participation in urban climate governance The literature on urban climate governance is growing rapidly, revealing multiple ways in which the public participates in the governance of urban climate adaptation. Several arrangements recur in the cases, including three variants of planning for climate adaptation (traditional, non-governmental, and inclusive) and three variants of action on climate adaptation (collaborative, non-governmental, and coproduced) (see Table 1). The types are non-exclusive meaning that individual areas may fall in multiple categories or may pass between categories over time. Salient characteristics of the types are highlighted here with examples although readers are directed to the cases for more information.

58

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

Table 1 Salient characteristics of public participation in climate change adaptation in cities. Type

Breadth (who)

Openness (when)

Intensity (how much)

Influence (what)

Goals (why)

Traditional government-led climate planning Non-governmental planning

Narrow to moderate

Low (planning only)

Low

Instrumental

Moderate

Low (planning only)

Inclusive planning

Low (planning only)

Partnerships

Moderate to broad; government-led Moderate

Instrumental & intrinsic Instrumental & some intrinsic Instrumental

Non-governmental provision

Broad

Co-production

Broad

Low to moderate Low to moderate Moderate to high Moderate to high Moderate to high

Inform & consult Inform & consult Inform & consult Consult & collaborate Empower Collaborate & empower

Instrumental & intrinsic

Moderate (decision & implementation) Moderate (decision & implementation) High (planning, decision, implementation)

Instrumental

Notes: adapted from Dietz and Stern (2008); influence categories from IAP2 spectrum (www.iap2.org).

5.1. Traditional government-led climate planning Government-led climate initiatives are a common form of climate adaptation planning and action. For instance, of the 48 U.S. localities acting on climate adaptation identified by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions3: 10 localities have completed climate adaptation plans; 13 localities are of developing climate adaptation plans; 20 localities have recommendations for action in their general plans; and 5 localities are taking action but have no formal plans. Government-led initiatives vary in the extent to which they engage with the public during adaptation planning or policy development, although when participation occurs, it tends to be limited in duration, intensity, and influence, and pursue instrumental goals. Some government-led initiatives may not solicit any participation when developing climate adaptation plans or actions, such as with seven local adaptation plans evaluated from Southeast Queensland, Australia or the climate adaptation strategy developed in Guwahati, India (Archer et al., 2014; Baker et al., 2012). Some government officials in the United Kingdom perceive that the community lacks the knowledge or interest to participate in climate adaptation planning (Allman et al., 2004; Tompkins et al., 2008). Well-connected individuals may participate in the process indirectly by lobbying their political representatives, such as in the development of London’s climate greening plans (Mees and Driessen, 2011); otherwise, the public’s needs are presumed met by the (potential) involvement of their governmental representatives. Some government-led initiatives solicit the help of experts in identifying adaptation options or assessing costs and benefits (i.e., de Bruin et al., 2009) without opening the process up to broader-scale participation. For instance, a government-led climate planning process in Bangladesh for development of its National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA), required by the UNFCCC, identified particularly vulnerable coastal communities (all highly urbanized, including the largest city of Dhaka) and proposed adaptation projects and policy priorities to address the vulnerabilities. The participatory planning process ‘‘included five public consultation workshops, four sub-national and one national” (Ayers, 2011). The regional workshops included local participants including experts and non-elected officials. Ayers (2011, p. 82) identified three characteristics of the participatory process that limited its influence: that ‘‘only a small number were invited to participate, of which some were (non-elected) local government officials”; that ‘‘the regional level workshops came late in the stage of NAPA preparation when the climatic risks had already been defined”; and that ‘‘particular weight was given to ‘expert’ judgment”. Thus, the Bangladeshi planning process served primarily instrumental and technocratic needs (Ayers, 2011). Similarly, in King County, Washington (Seattle), the local government collaborated with university researchers and other governmental bodies in developing hazard and vulnerability assessments and climate response strategies (Saavedra and Budd, 2009). Saavedra and Budd (2009, p. 249) summarize the focus for participation: ‘‘King County authorities have recognized that building community resilience to climate change impacts will require coordination among stakeholders including businesses and the public, but especially the participation of state, regional, and local governments” [emphasis added]. Citizen engagement focused instrumentally on building public support for implementation after desired adaptation responses were identified by government, such as reducing fresh water use by reclaiming water for gardens (Saavedra and Budd, 2009). The local government recognized that the public might have valuable information regarding the effectiveness or practicality of implementing particular response actions, although avenues for sustained citizen involvement in governance were not apparent (Saavedra and Budd, 2009). When broader participation is solicited by government, it is often through only narrow avenues for participation, such as requests for comment on draft plans and proposed rules, as with coastal planning in Portugal, the Gold Coast City Council’s adaptation plan in Australia, and several state and local plans in the United States (Burton and Mustelin, 2013; Cruce, 2009; Schmidt et al., 2013). In these cases, the broader public is not involved during the creation of the draft plan and may be only

3

http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/adaptation.

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

59

involved in a one-way exchange of information with government after options were developed, serving instrumental goals (Burton and Mustelin, 2013; Stringer et al., 2006). The intensity of participation in such cases is quite low, involving attendance at a meeting or writing a letter, for instance. Such limited opportunities for participation may be perceived as ‘‘too little, too late” and may result in a loss of legitimacy for governmental policy (Tompkins et al., 2008). In one case, community stakeholders in Madrid actively resisted government-led climate planning over fears that documenting climate risks and vulnerabilities would have detrimental impacts on the tourism industry (Touza and Lopez-Gunn, 2012). Resistance (or the anticipation of such resistance) may be one reason why a recent survey of U.S. local governments and their sustainability policies found nearly half listed climate change as ‘‘not a priority,” whereas almost all local governments prioritized the economy (Svara et al., 2011). 5.2. Non-governmental-led climate planning In some cases, non-governmental organizations led climate adaptation planning efforts with minimal governmental involvement, to pursue a broader scope of participants and intrinsic goals than with traditional government-led planning. For instance, in Quy Nhon, Vietnam, a participatory research process led by a university researcher identified community concerns with the city’s prior ‘‘infrastructure-first” flooding adaptation strategy and developed an alternative land use plan for the city to minimize flooding and infrastructure expenditures (Archer et al., 2014). Similarly, in two cities in Uruguay and two cities in Argentina, an NGO-funded capacity-building project conducted vulnerability assessments and identified planning and adaptation action priorities in consultation with community participants (Almansi and Hardoy, 2013). The researchers found the local governments were only beginning to plan for climate adaptation and that implementation of adaptive actions was uncommon. The researchers found civil society already well organized to participate in only one of the four communities (San Fernando, Argentina) and thus sought to build mechanisms for further civic involvement. Similar non-profit-led participatory research and public visioning initiatives in Silicon Valley, California, and in United Kingdom aimed to improve the information available to government planners and spur governmental action (Carney et al., 2009; Wood, 2012). In two localities in the United Kingdom (Christchurch Bay and Orkney Islands), a scenariobased stakeholder engagement (SBSE) process led by university researchers revealed substantial capacity of the interested public to identify adaptation risks and policy and governance priorities when led through a participatory planning process (Tompkins et al., 2008). This case indicates that the public is capable and may be willing to engage substantively on climate adaptation despite its highly technical nature, and despite the perceptions of local planners that the public does not wish to engage on this topic. A challenge remains in translating the results of participation in non-governmental-led planning efforts into formal governmental processes. Observers of limited public participation especially in developing nation cities like Bogota, Columbia identify ‘‘challenges faced by medium and small cities where the institutional capacity and civil society organization are much less developed” (Lampis and Fraser, 2012, p. 54). Efforts to broaden the participatory base for climate adaptation are underway in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Santiago, Chile, and Uruguay, among others, although the experience of shared governance has been limited (Archer et al., 2014; Barton, 2013; Eckhert and Schinkel, 2009). Yet it is precisely in this situation where non-governmental efforts may succeed in expanding governance capacity and ultimately building civic capacity for CCA (Archer et al., 2014). 5.3. More inclusive climate planning initiatives With all government-led initiatives, a question remains whether participation can be effectively integrated into existing decision-making processes or whether a new participatory mechanism needs to be designed specifically for urban CCA to facilitate broader participation in planning and policy development (Holstein, 2010). In the Scrivia Valley of Italy, for instance, the nine local municipalities and the regional government engaged in a cooperative spatial planning and development effort in 2007 that incorporated climate adaptation concerns (Holstein, 2010). Substantial effort was placed on obtaining public participation in line with Europe’s Aarhus Convention, including soliciting input on nine themes at ten public meetings and overseen by a newly-established ‘‘Local Participation Board – composed of representatives of the Municipalities, stakeholders, residents, and local experts” (Holstein, 2010, p. 24) [emphasis in original]. The focus of the participation effort in the Scrivia Valley was to hear from as many participants as possible, although each participant may only be involved at one meeting. The inclusivity of government-led planning initiatives appears linked to the broader civic culture and expectations for participation in decision-making. In Rotterdam, for instance, government planners actively sought and received citizen input during development of their climate greening plans, in line with the Dutch participatory culture (Mees and Driessen, 2011). Likewise, an intensive public consultation process was used to develop the metropolitan-wide sustainability plan for Perth in Western Australia, where members of the public were involved from the start in envisioning a desired future and specifying steps to achieve that future (Hartz-Karp and Newman, 2006). Their experiences in Perth and elsewhere confirm the importance of participation to improving both the quality and the legitimacy of the resulting government plans (Wiseman et al., 2010). Indeed, Australia has sought to internalize what has been termed a culture of ‘‘deliberative democracy” (Hartz-Karp and Newman, 2006) at all levels of environmental governance. Yet, participatory language in climate adaptation plans in Australia indicate ‘‘greater participation is advocated in the implementation of plans and policies vs. participation in policy

60

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

development” (Burton and Mustelin, 2013, p. 411) [emphasis in original], as we saw with climate planning in King County, Washington. By contrast, the development of a heat action plan in Adelaide illustrates more inclusive (but still selective) involvement at the planning stage than in implementation (Akompab et al., 2012). Severe heat waves in early 2009 threatened public health in Adelaide, drawing attention to an imminent threat posed by climate change in Southern Australia. The resulting climate adaptation response strategy outlined the government’s planned response to severe heat events. The government employed a multi-tiered governance process in which experienced and knowledgeable persons in and out of government served on a steering committee that provided oversight of the policy development process. Working groups of government officials formed the lower tiers of governance covering different issue areas and response activities. Despite strong stakeholder satisfaction (Akompab et al., 2012), Adelaide’s participatory governance process appeared to only selectively engage with non-governmental actors. Members of the public with knowledge and experience of emergency management were solicited to participate in the top-tier steering committee but were limited by interest and availability (Akompab et al., 2012). As Ayers (2011, p. 66) acknowledges, ‘‘[t]his form of ‘invited participation’ often means that those invited are those with access to political assets who are also likely to be among the least vulnerable of any group.” The lower-tier of government officials were tasked to consult with an existing network of emergency responders, which included non-governmental service providers, although the consultation mostly solicited ‘‘feedback” on the government-prepared draft policy as we have seen with other government-led initiatives (Akompab et al., 2012). After the policy was developed, the government sought to educate citizens by publishing and promoting the resulting policy (Akompab et al., 2012). The few non-governmental individuals involved in the steering committee may have engaged in a more meaningful collaboration with government officials, although the collaboration was temporary and power over making decisions about the heat response policy was retained by the South Australian government. Thus, participation in the Adelaide heat-policy case served instrumentally to extend the government’s capacity to formulate an appropriate climate adaptation response by tapping the knowledge and human resources within civil society and to provide some legitimacy to the government-initiated policy, but does not illustrate any sustained public participation or civil society mobilization in the governance of urban climate adaptation. One option for sustaining citizen participation in government-led adaptation involves the creation of citizen advisory committees or tasks forces to oversee ongoing sustainability efforts after plans are developed (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). A recent survey of U.S. local governments found nearly 1 in 4 governments with some citizen oversight arrangement (Svara et al., 2011), although little is known about their openness of participation or impact on policy development. Such arrangements presume citizens are willing to devote substantial time and energy to the effort. 5.4. Partnerships A more collaborative and sustained governance response involves the formation of public–private partnerships (PPPs) to coordinate and implement specific urban climate adaptation actions. Partnership has emerged as a distinct mode of governing and is becoming more prevalent as a local climate response, although more so for mitigation than for adaptation (Bulkeley et al., 2009; Castan Broto and Bulkeley, 2013). For instance, a recent evaluation of 627 urban climate responses in a sample of 100 cities worldwide revealed 10 instances of PPPs for urban climate adaptation (Castan Broto and Bulkeley, 2013). Government led eight of the identified partnerships; NGOs led the other two identified partnerships. Examples of partnerships for urban climate adaptation included the provision of flood control (Hanoi, Vietnam; Lima, Peru; Bela Horizonte, Brazil), disease monitoring (Manila, Philippines), and coastal zone planning and infrastructure improvement (New York, USA) (Castan Broto and Bulkeley, 2013). The partnership form of governance has been praised and criticized nearly in equal measure. On the positive side, PPPs bring resources (financial, managerial, organizational, political) to bear that may be scarce within government itself in an era of tight budgets, thus expanding institutional capacity for governance. Additionally, the presence of a non-governmental partner suggests the potential for more sustained and meaningful participation in governance than might be found in the earlier-mentioned climate planning initiatives, where participation may be short-lived. Indeed, partnership sits higher up Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (1969) than the informing and consulting rungs apparent in the earlier cases. On the negative side, PPPs may result in a loss of public accountability and transparency, especially when persons effectively making decisions about public actions may not be elected or when public officials may be pressured into supporting actions favorable to private-sector participants (Raco, 2000). Additionally, despite the participation of multiple sectors, the degree of private citizen involvement tends to be minimal in these instances and limits the civic capacity that might be realized. For instance, London developed several PPPs to provide urban climate planning and response, initially under the leadership of Mayor Ken Livingstone (Mees and Driessen, 2011). In London, the PPPs implement adaptation responses chosen as part of the (PPP-facilitated) public adaptation planning process, and thus arguably operate on the administrative side of the politics–administration dichotomy (Campbell and Peters, 1988). Yet in London, the interests of the private citizen and civil society were presumed met by the potential participation of their elected officials in development of the climate plans, thus exhibiting a narrow range of participants with little influence over the governance process. In New York City, an extensive ongoing collaboration between the local governments, university researchers, private sector representatives (especially from the insurance industry), and a non-profit foundation funder has helped to identify the

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

61

risks and vulnerabilities facing the metropolitan region and options for ‘‘mainstreaming” climate science into mitigation and adaptation-related planning and policy decisions (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011; Rosenzweig et al., 2007). New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg initiated the process in 2008 as part of the broader PlaNYC sustainable city agenda (Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010). The process involves two formally collaborative entities: the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) and the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The NPCC serves as the scientific advisory board to the Task Force, which then coordinates plans and policies for climate adaptation throughout the region. The intensive consultation with university researchers, private businesses, and non-profit organizations in New York City moves this case from strictly a government-led initiative into the realm of collaborative governance, and best illustrates ‘‘civic capacity” for urban climate adaptation among the U.S. cases. 5.5. Non-governmental provision of urban climate adaptation Some non-governmental actors have stepped into provide urban climate adaptation when and where governmental actors have not. For instance, urban adaptation projects led by non-governmental entities were identified in Chicago, Bangkok, Dhaka, and Jakarta to manage flooding or slow coastal erosion in low-lying areas (Castan Broto and Bulkeley, 2013). The privatization of urban climate response in Asia, especially on infrastructure finance, is an emerging trend (Castan Broto and Bulkeley, 2013; Eckhert and Schinkel, 2009). Some non-governmental efforts also bring climate adaptation benefits despite being designed for other purposes, such as with the urban forestry initiatives in Manchester and Merceyside, UK (Holstein, 2010). Private businesses and citizens may themselves provide climate adaptation in a reactive ‘‘self-help” fashion to existing hazards such as heat waves and flooding or in an anticipatory fashion to reduce their vulnerability to future climate hazards (Archer et al., 2014; Eckhert and Schinkel, 2009; Tompkins and Eakin, 2012; Wamsler and Brink, 2014). Researchers found dozens of ways in which private citizens are adapting to climate change without explicit governmental or institutional encouragement in Sweden (Wamsler and Brink, 2014). As one example, ‘‘interviewees from Vellinge and Helsingborg municipalities improved their property drainage by connecting their roof runoff water to the municipal stormwater system via illegal downpipes” (Wamsler and Brink, 2014, p. 76). Likewise, residents in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, have physically raised their homes or entrances above flood levels in ‘‘micro-scale” adaptation (Eckhert and Schinkel, 2009). These non-governmental actions reveal latent private and non-profit sector capacity for urban climate governance that could be better tapped for building civic capacity. Importantly, ‘‘[a] vital civil society, with communities taking the initiative themselves, results in activities which are not always [government] led, but which are often as relevant as formalized initiatives taken by government authorities or private sector led developments, because of their scope and potential to connect individual stakeholders – sometimes in unexpected or even unorthodox ways” (Holstein, 2010, p. 11). These actions by the ‘community taking the initiative themselves’ in effect supply public benefits for climate adaptation even when pursued for private reasons, and thus comprise an important source of adaptive behavior when pursued by multiple individuals or businesses. The research from Sweden finds that adaptive behavior by private citizens is still relatively rare, emerging in just 15% of those households interviewed in high-risk areas (Wamsler and Brink, 2014, p. 70). In some areas, adaptive behavior was discouraged by governmental policies or by a lack of governmental support. More often, in Sweden, individuals were not motivated to act privately when they perceived that government would act for them, resulting in complacency (Wamsler and Brink, 2014). 5.6. Co-production of urban climate adaptation The last form of participation in urban climate governance illustrates characteristics associated with ‘‘co-production,” where ‘‘service users and their communities can – and often should – be part of service planning and delivery” (Bovaird, 2007, p. 846). With urban climate adaptation, co-production indicates that government and community participants are involved intensively in the implementation of adaptation response, not just in planning, and that all actors contribute substantive resources to the effort. The co-production approach differs from the partnership approach due to its explicit involvement of civil society and individual citizens in the provision of urban climate governance. For instance, in the Credit River watershed in southern Ontario – west of Toronto and including the municipalities of Brampton and Mississauga – a range of stakeholders has been involved in responding to freshwater shortages arising from climate change since the late 1990s (Ivey et al., 2004). The response process has been government-led and involves coordination across multiple levels of government, from the smallest localities through the Canadian national government. Both urban and rural stakeholders were invited to participate in development of the regional drought response plan and associated local ordinances to limit water withdrawals. Citizens and non-governmental organizations (i.e., environmental groups such as Trout Unlimited) were actively involved in water and fish monitoring, habitat restoration, and water conservation as key elements of the climate adaptation response. The Credit River basin has thus mobilized public support for a coordinated and sustained watershed management approach to responding to climate-related water stress, expanding the institutional capacity beyond government and into civil society and exhibiting civic capacity for addressing climate-related droughts (Ivey et al., 2004). Nevertheless, observers note that participation in the planning and decision-making processes was

62

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

voluntary (Raco, 2000), raising concern that the process ‘‘only engages the ‘usual suspects;’ that small but vocal group of stakeholders who are already widely engaged in research and policy debates” (Stringer et al., 2006, p. 39). One governance approach explicitly designed to engage civil society beyond the ‘usual suspects’ is community-based adaptation (CBA). CBA, ‘‘often targeted to poor communities, is emerging as a means for promoting public participation in assessments, fostering community self-reliance, and raising awareness of vulnerability vis-a-vis climate impacts in areas such as disaster planning and public health” (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011, p. 172). Community-based risk assessment, community action planning, and scenario-based stakeholder engagement provide similar opportunities to incorporate civic participation into urban climate adaptation planning (Prashar et al., 2013; Tompkins et al., 2008; van Aalst et al., 2008). All of these approaches are designed to narrow the knowledge gap between citizens and public managers to foster more participatory governance. Additional analytic tools are being developed to support stakeholder deliberations over mitigation and adaptation responses at the local and regional scales (Rice et al., 2011; Roy, 2009; Sheppard et al., 2011; Stokes and Webb, 2012). Highly-urbanized Bangladesh has been at the forefront of implementing CBA and associated adaptation projects to reduce the impacts of coastal flooding and sea level rise (Rawlani and Sovacool, 2011). For instance, the country engaged in a 5-year CBA project funded by the national government, the UNDP, and the Global Environment Facility, and building from its earlier government-led climate planning effort described above (Ayers et al., 2014). The CBA project employs afforestation and aquaculture to stabilize and diversify coastal ecosystems in four demonstration areas selected ‘‘on the basis of extreme vulnerability and through public participation” (Rawlani and Sovacool, 2011, p. 857). Past afforestation projects failed due to a lack of community buy-in and subsequent overharvesting. This CBA project ‘‘implicitly recognizes that protection from climate hazards or livelihood benefits from these mangroves will be short-lived without the inclusion of communities, fishers, and farmers” (Rawlani and Sovacool, 2011, p. 857). Indeed, the ‘‘community-based” nature of CBA recognizes the power of seeking change that directly serves the needs of individuals thereby delivering community-wide benefits (Pierson, 2007). Additional CBA projects have been implemented in Bangladesh by NGOs and help to build the capacity and knowledge base for more strategic climate adaptation and development strategies at the national level (Ayers et al., 2014). Dhaka hosted two international conferences on CBA – in 2011 and 2013 – intended to draw lessons from past CBA projects and inform new climate adaptive development efforts in the country and throughout the world (Ayers et al., 2014). Today, the CBA projects are primarily coordinated through the Community Climate Change Programme of the privately funded Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund, although concerns remain about the disconnected and ‘‘projectized” nature of CBA (Ayers et al., 2014). Indeed, thousands of NGOs operate in Bangladesh and efforts have been admittedly disconnected from the national-level policymaking processes on climate change adaptation (Thomalla et al., 2005). Efforts to better align national policy priorities and local CBA initiatives were underway in the mid-2000s under the heading of ‘‘civil society alliances” (Thomalla et al., 2005) and have since been taken up by the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN). ACCCRN, a self-identified network involving cities in six countries – India, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Philippines – plus experts, funders, and NGOs was established in 2008 to support knowledge and capacity building for climate planning as well as supports and invests in local CBA projects in partner cities. The Rockefeller Foundation supplies primary funding for the network’s activities although partner projects draw funding from additional sources. ACCCRN extends the institutional capacity of local governments to assess local hazards, vulnerability, and context-appropriate adaptation actions and provides financial resources for adaptation projects otherwise unaffordable in developing nations (Archer et al., 2014; Eckhert and Schinkel, 2009). Similar efforts to pursue livelihood-enhancing CBA have been employed in Durban, South Africa, coined there as ‘‘community ecosystem-based adaptation” (CEBA) (Roberts, 2010; Roberts et al., 2012). In Durban, the city’s Environmental Management Department initially commissioned a climate vulnerability and impact assessment in 2004 (Carmin et al., 2012a). Subsequently, the city of Durban identified the need to ‘‘mainstream” climate adaptation planning across multiple city departments, resulting in a citywide integrated adaptation strategy in 2006. Severe weather events in 2007 and 2008 further raised public awareness of climate change impacts and highlighted the need for specific adaptation and disaster preparedness actions. As a result, the city began working in 2008 to develop action agendas for each municipal department (for more, see Roberts, 2010). The game changed in 2009 in Durban following a ‘‘public climate summit” with involvement from the private sector and civil society, aimed specifically at building civic capacity on climate adaptation (Carmin et al., 2012a). By 2011, the city developed the Durban Climate Change Partnership to institutionalize external involvement in the government’s response to climate change adaptation and CBA projects. Here, participation fulfilled both instrumental and intrinsic goals, building the capacity to govern and improving trust in government while enabling citizen education and development of civic priorities. Difficulties in sustaining the partnership emerged immediately due to distrust among stakeholders and an uncertain legal basis for the arrangement, resulting in withdrawal of municipal funding and support for the partnership (Archer et al., 2014). Durban retained a research partnership with a local university to improve knowledge of climate hazards, biodiversity impacts, and appropriate adaptive management responses for the region, serving instrumental goals (Roberts et al., 2012). Involved stakeholders explain that ‘‘the desired state is a citywide partnership between citizens and local government in managing common natural resources” (Roberts et al., 2012, p. 182), although their ability to achieve this desired state of shared governance with civil society remains in question. In Quito, Ecuador, government-led climate adaptation planning initially sought to integrate adaptation into existing environmental and sustainability policy efforts (Carmin et al., 2012a). The process began in 2006 with involvement from various

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

63

representatives from the legislative and executive branches of the local metropolitan government and from municipal corporations (i.e., for water provision). A non-governmental organization (NGO) was tasked with soliciting stakeholder input on a draft adaptation strategy in late 2007 through a series of public workshops, specifically targeting underrepresented populations. The final adaptation strategy was released in early 2008 and later approved by the metropolitan legislature in late 2009. The Quito government also commissioned climate impact and vulnerability assessments from local academics and financed CBA projects by local residents such as rainfall monitoring and soil stabilization practices. The resulting adaptation process in Quito thus showed a moderate breadth of participation where participants were consulted in the planning phase and involved, modestly, in the implementation phase through CBA projects. This sequenced process of planning and action, progressively involving more stakeholders, generally follows the ‘‘framework for building national capacity on climate change adaptation” (Ayers et al., 2014, p. 302), and appears more successful than what happened with Bangladesh’s NAPA development described above. The CBA experience in Quito did not appear to be as intentionally designed to recruit civil society participation as in Durban and could benefit from further efforts to institutionalize civic engagement in climate governance. Scholars and practitioners see potential for a more transformative role for CBA in urban climate adaptation and economic development, simultaneously. For instance, Ayers (2011, p. 85) notes ‘‘CBA, operating through existing local institutional structures, could then become the starting point for adaptation planning, rather than the tail end.” Various challenges remain for implementing CBA in a coordinated and strategic fashion, although the proliferation of projects will no doubt improve our understanding of how to engage effectively in urban climate adaptation (Dodman and Mitlin, 2013).

6. Evidence of civic capacity in urban governance of climate change adaptation The case survey revealed relatively few cases of public participation evidencing civic capacity for urban climate change adaptation but include New York City, the Credit River watershed, and the ACCCRN participant cities. Recall that civic capacity involves the coming together of various stakeholders from the public, private, and third sectors to solve commonly perceived public problems (Briggs, 2008; Stone, 2001). Given the coding of cases here, cases illustrated civic capacity when they have, at a minimum: a moderate breadth of participants, participation at multiple stages in the governance process, multiple opportunities for interaction, and influence resembling involvement or higher on the IAP2 spectrum. Ideally, the cases would also seek to satisfy both instrumental and intrinsic goals, although the more instrumental and pragmatic cases of participation can still build civic capacity for adaptation. Some cases illustrating budding civic capacity include the CBA processes in Durban and Quito, where the ground has been laid but further efforts are needed to institutionalize and sustain civic capacity for urban climate adaptation. We should not be surprised to see limited evidence of civic capacity for urban climate adaptation. To begin, even the original cases used to illustrate the civic capacity concept in the realm of urban education did not reveal strong evidence of robust and sustained civic capacity (Stone, 2001). Scholars have warned that civic participation in associational life is declining throughout the world and especially among disadvantaged groups relative to their advantaged peers, resulting in a perceived decline in social capital at the community-scale (Putnam, 1993; Sander and Putnam, 2010). No issue area seems immune to this trend. Meaningful citizen participation may be difficult to obtain (Ayers, 2011) for urban climate governance, given the technical knowledge needed to understand the complex problems associated with climate change, the uncertainty and risks involved in global environmental systems, and how global changes translate into local hazards. Indeed, some locations find it hard to get citizen participation even where desired, such as with the mitigation-oriented Cities for Climate Protection campaign (Slocum, 2004). Additionally, the government may lead precisely because climate response is seen as the government’s responsibility, as in Vietnam, Uruguay, and Argentina’s climate change planning programs (Archer et al., 2014; Eckhert and Schinkel, 2009). Building a culture of civic engagement may improve the knowledge, resource, and learning capacities for effective climate governance and garner both accountability and legitimacy for the resulting plans and actions (Ivey et al., 2004; Mees and Driessen, 2011; Tompkins et al., 2008). Careful deliberative and participatory processes led by researchers in two localities in the United Kingdom revealed latent capacity of private citizens to engage meaningfully with both climate science and identify preferences for climate change adaptation when given the chance (Tompkins et al., 2008). Advocates propose being much more transparent and deliberate about the design and purposes of participation in governance from the outset, such that the resulting participatory processes best serve the needs of everyone involved (Holstein, 2010). Importantly, the goals of civic participants in CCA may not be to achieve ‘‘citizen power” as Arnstein’s ladder suggests, but rather to build a collaborative relationship that gives participants a voice without necessarily subsuming control (Collins and Ison, 2009). Nevertheless, participants expect to be asked and to be respected (Zenker and Seigis, 2012), and for the participatory process to serve more than purely technocratic goals. Some scholars call for further engagement with the private sector in urban climate governance (e.g., Eckhert and Schinkel, 2009), thus tapping into latent private sector capacity. The private sector can influence the policy agenda at the national level and develop sector-specific operating procedures or technologies that help to achieve climate mitigation and adaptation goals (Auclair and Jackohango, 2009). At the city scale, climate governance may be improved by ‘‘building private sector and civil society capacity to engage the city government” (Auclair and Jackohango, 2009, p. 13) such as in setting goals,

64

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

in the provision of services, or in developing long-term adaptation plans. Corfee-Morlot et al. (2009, p. 77) note ‘‘businesses have only just begun to take an active role to establish partnerships with local governments in the climate planning process,” as we have seen in New York City. Such ‘‘urban governance partnerships” meld the resources and knowledge of the private sector with the authority and legitimacy of the public sector, ultimately improving the effectiveness of urban climate governance (Auclair and Jackohango, 2009). Care must be taken, however, to ensure participation in any new governance model by private citizens and especially vulnerable groups so as to avoid domination by the ‘‘usual suspects” (Stringer et al., 2006). 7. Conclusion and next steps This paper sought to learn from available scholarly literature the ways in which the public participates in the governance of urban climate adaptation. It is a first step in a larger community-based project involving participatory action research on the governance of urban climate adaptation in coastal cities. Using a case survey methodology, this research revealed six primary forms of public participation in the governance of urban climate adaptation, ranging from traditional government-led climate planning efforts to non-governmental provision of climate adaptation actions. Salient characteristics of the six types of participation were illustrated using selected cases from across the globe, spanning both developed and developing contexts (see Table 1). It appears that participation serves multiple purposes and could be used to build civic capacity in all contexts, although some initial institutional capacity to engage the private and third sectors appears warranted before evidence of civic capacity for urban climate adaptation can emerge. This analysis is inherently limited by the cases identified in the literature search, which illustrate scholarly efforts to understand a wide range of topics and that often were not focused on documenting public participation. Indeed, the case survey coding was based exclusively on information available within the identified case documents. A fruitful line of further inquiry would be to interview stakeholders in both scholarly and practitioner communities using a common instrument designed to illicit thoughtful and comparable reflection on the participation experience, perhaps adapted from Gelders et al. (2010) specifically for urban climate adaptation. The instrument could be used to characterize the frequency with which different forms or designs for participation were utilized for urban climate adaptation, and to what ends. The instrument could be used to probe the extent of other forms of participation not observed here, such as contestation of institutional decisions on adaptation (such as occurred on urban redevelopment, as reported by van Bortel and Mullins, 2009). Such efforts would go a long way toward bolstering the findings reported here that are admittedly limited by selecting only from published and easily accessible cases of participation or non-participation. Another fruitful endeavor would be to further compile cases for public scrutiny, inviting submissions on experience with public participation in climate change adaptation that does not fit the mold of the six types found here. The submissions should push beyond reporting of the potentialities of participation for improving governance and into the specifics of how meaningful and sustained participation was achieved in pursuit of urban climate adaptation. A special issue from this journal specifically on participation in urban climate governance could be an appropriate outlet for this endeavor. Last, scholars must begin documenting and analyzing the ways in which social media may be changing the landscape of participation in governance processes (Bennett, 2012; Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012). Relatively little scholarly literature has emerged that examines participation via social or digital media despite widespread commentary on its potential for facilitating problem-solving and expanding democratic governance. References Adler, R.P., Goggin, J., 2005. What do we mean by ‘‘civic engagement”? J. Transform. Educ. 3 (3), 236–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541344605276792. Akompab, D., Bi, P., Williams, S., Saniotis, A., Walker, I., Augoustinos, M., 2012. Engaging stakeholders in an adaptation process: governance and institutional arrangements in heat-health policy development in Adelaide, Australia. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 18, 1001–1018. Alford, J., 2013. The multiple facets of co-production: building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Publ. Manage. Rev. 16 (3), 299–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 14719037.2013.806578. Allman, L., Fleming, P., Wallace, A., 2004. The progress of English and Welsh local authorities in addressing climate change. Local Environ. 9 (3), 271–283. Almansi, H., Hardoy, J., 2013. Advancing on local urban climate change agendas through multi-stakeholder collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Resilient Cities Congress. ICLEI, Bonn, Germany. . Andonova, L.B., Betsill, M.M., Bulkeley, H., 2009. Transnational climate governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 9 (2), 52–73. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1162/glep.2009.9.2.52. Anguelovski, I., Carmin, J., 2011. Something borrowed, everything new: innovation and institutionalization in urban climate governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 3 (3), 169–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.017. Archer, D., Almansi, F., DiGregorio, M., Roberts, D., Sharma, D., Syam, D., 2014. Moving towards inclusive urban adaptation: approaches to integrating community-based adaptation to climate change at city and national scale. Clim. Dev. 6 (4), 345–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.918868. Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 35 (4), 216–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225. Auclair, C., Jackohango, A., 2009. Good Urban Governance: Towards an Effective Private Sector Engagement. UN-HABITAT, . Ayers, J., 2011. Resolving the adaptation paradox: exploring the potential for deliberative adaptation policy-making in Bangladesh. Glob. Environ. Polit. 11 (1), 62–88. Ayers, J., Huq, S., Wright, H., Faisal, A.M., Hussain, S.T., 2014. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development in Bangladesh. Clim. Dev. 6 (4), 293–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.977761. Baiocchi, G., 2003. Emergent public spheres: talking politics in participatory governance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 68 (1), 52–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088902. 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. Landsc. Urban Plan. 107, 127–136.

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

65

Barton, J.R., 2013. Climate change adaptive capacity in Santiago de Chile: creating a governance regime for sustainability planning. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 37 (6), 1916–1933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12033. Bass, S., Dalal-Clayton, B., Pretty, J., 1995. Participation in Strategies for Sustainable Development (No. 7). International Institute for Environment and Development, London, p. 118 . Beierle, T.C., Cayford, J., 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. Bell, S., Hindmoor, A., 2009. Rethinking Governance: The Centrality of the State in Modern Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Bennett, W.L., 2012. The personalization of politics: political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 644 (1), 20–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428. Berry, J.B., Portney, K.E., Thomson, K., 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC. Birkmann, J., Garschagen, M., Kraas, F., Quang, N., 2010. Adaptive urban governance: new challenges for the second generation of urban adaptation strategies to climate change. Sustain. Sci. 5 (2), 185–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0111-3. Böhmelt, T., Koubi, V., Bernauer, T., 2014. Civil society participation in global governance: insights from climate politics. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 53 (1), 18–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12016. Bovaird, T., 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Publ. Admin. Rev. 67 (5), 846–860. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x. Briggs, X. de S., 2008. Democracy as Problem Solving: Civic Capacity in Communities across the Globe. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Bulkeley, H., Schroed, H., Janda, K., Zhao, Z., Armstrong, A., Chu, S.Y., Ghosh, S., 2009. Cities and Climate Change: The Role of Institutions, Governance and Urban Planning. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, . Burton, P., Mustelin, J., 2013. Planning for climate change: is greater public participation the key to success? Urban Policy Res. 31 (4), 399–415. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/08111146.2013.778196. Campbell, C., Peters, B.G., 1988. The politics/administration dichotomy: death or merely change? Governance 1 (1), 79–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14680491.1988.tb00060.x. Carmin, J., Anguelovski, I., Roberts, D., 2012a. Urban climate adaptation in the global south: planning in an emerging policy domain. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 32 (1), 18–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X11430951. Carmin, J., Nadkarni, N., Rhie, C., 2012b. Progress and Challenges in Urban Climate Adaptation Planning: Results of a Global Survey. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Carney, S., Whitmarsh, L., Nicholson-Cole, S.A., Shackley, S., 2009. A Dynamic Typology of Stakeholder Engagement within Climate Change Research (Tyndall Working Paper No. 128). Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, UK, . Castan Broto, V., Bulkeley, H., 2013. A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 92–102. Cohen, J.M., Uphoff, N.T., 1980. Participation’s place in rural development: seeking clarity through specificity. World Dev. 8 (3), 213–235. Collins, K., Ison, R., 2009. Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environ. Policy Govern. 19 (6), 358–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eet.523. Cooke, B., Kothari, U., 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books, London. Corfee-Morlot, J., Cochran, I., Hallegatte, S., Teasdale, P.-J., 2011. Multilevel risk governance and urban adaptation policy. Clim. Change 104, 169–197. Corfee-Morlot, J., Kamal-Chaoui, L., Donovan, M.G., Cochran, I., Robert, A., Teasdale, P.-J., 2009. Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance (OECD Environmental Working Paper No. 14). OECD Publishing, . Cruce, T.L., 2009. Adaptation Planning – What U.S. States and Localities are Doing. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, DC, . Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 15 (1), 1–13. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.132. De Bruin, K., Dellink, R.B., Ruijs, A., Bolwidt, L., van Buuren, A., Graveland, J., et al, 2009. Adapting to climate change in The Netherlands: an inventory of climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Clim. Change 95 (1–2), 23–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9576-4. Dietz, T., Stern, P.C. (Eds.), 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, . Dodman, D., Mitlin, D., 2013. Challenges for community-based adaptation: discovering the potential for transformation. J. Int. Dev. 25 (5), 640–659. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.1772. Eckhert, R., Schinkel, U., 2009. Liveable city TP. Ho Chi Minh – adaptation as response to impacts of climate change. In: Schrenk, M., Popovich, V.V., Engelke, D., Elisei, P. (Eds.), Presented at the REAL CORP 2009, Tagungsband, pp. 313–323. . Ekman, J., Amnå, E., 2012. Political participation and civic engagement: towards a new typology. Hum. Aff. 22 (3), 283–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/ s13374-012-0024-1. Elander, I., 2002. Partnerships and urban governance. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 54 (172), 191–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00371. Few, R., Brown, K., Tompkins, E.L., 2007. Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim. Policy 7 (1), 46–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637. Fung, A., 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Publ. Admin. Rev. 66 (December), 66–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4096571. Gardner, J., Dowd, A.-M., Mason, C., Ashworth, P., 2009. A Framework for Stakeholder Engagement on Climate Adaptation (No. CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship Working Paper #3). Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, South Victoria, Australia, . Gaventa, J., 2004. Towards participatory governance: assessing the transformative possibilities. In: Hickey, S., Mohan, G. (Eds.), Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? Zed Books, London, pp. 25–41. Gelders, D., Brans, M., Maesschalck, J., Colsoul, N., 2010. Systematic evaluation of public participation projects: analytical framework and application based on two Belgian neighborhood watch projects. Govern. Inform. Quart. 27 (2), 134–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.10.003. Gerencser, M., Lee, R.V., Napolitano, F., Kelly, C., Isaacson, W., 2009. Megacommunities: How Leaders of Government, Business and Non-profits can Tackle Today’s Global Challenges Together. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., Valenzuela, S., 2012. Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 17 (3), 319–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x. Hammer, S., Kamal-Chaoui, L., Robert, A., Plouin, M., 2011. Cities and Green Growth: A Conceptual Framework (OECD Regional Development Working Paper No. 2011/08). OECD, Paris, . Hartz-Karp, J., Newman, P., 2006. The participative route to sustainability. In: Paulin, S. (Ed.), Community Voices: Creating Sustainable Spaces. University of Western Australia Press, Crawley, Western Australia, pp. 28–42. Harvey, D., 1989. From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B: Hum. Geogr. 71 (1), 3–17. Harvey, D., 1997. Contested cities: social process and spatial form. In: Jewson, N., MacGregor, S. (Eds.), Transforming Cities: Contested Governance and New Spatial Divisions. Routledge, London. Heinrichs, D., Krellenberg, K., Fragkias, M., 2013. Urban responses to climate change: theories and governance practice in cities of the Global South. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12031. Heritier, A., Rhodes, M., 2011. New Modes of Governance in Europe: Governing in the Shadow of Hierarchy. Palgrave Macmillan, . Holstein, A.N., 2010. Participation in Climate Change Adaptation (No. GRaBS Expert Paper 2). Town and Country Planning Association, London, .

66

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

Ivey, J.L., Smithers, J., de Loë, R.C., Kreutzwiser, R.D., 2004. Community capacity for adaptation to climate-induced water shortages: linking institutional complexity and local actors. Environ. Manage. 33 (1), 36–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0014-5. Jessop, B., 1997. The entrepreneurial city: re-imaging localities, redesigning economic governance, or restructuring capital? In: Transforming Cities: Contested Governance and New Spatial Divisions. Routledge, London, pp. 28–41, . Kern, K., Alber, G., 2008. Governing climate change in cities: modes of urban climate governance in multi-level systems. In: Vinorth, K. (Ed.), Competitive Cities and Climate Change. OECD, Milan, Italy, pp. 171–196, . Lampis, A., Fraser, A., 2012. The Impact of Climate Change on Urban Settlements in Colombia. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi. Larsson, R., 1993. Case survey methodology: quantitative analysis of patterns across case studies. Acad. Manage. J. 36 (6), 1515–1546. Lim, B., Spanger-Siegfried, E. (Eds.), 2004. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, . Lowndes, V., Skelcher, C., 1998. The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance. Publ. Admin. 76 (2), 313– 333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00103. Lubell, M., Leach, W.D., 2005. Watershed partnerships: evaluating a collaborative form of public participation. Paper prepared for the National Research Council Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, February 3–4, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. . Mazmanian, D.A., Jurewitz, J., Nelson, H.T., 2013. A governing framework for climate change adaptation in the built environment. Ecol. Soc. 18 (4). http://dx. doi.org/10.5751/ES-05976-180456. McClay, W.M., McAllister, T.V. (Eds.), 2014. Why Place Matters: Geography, Identity, and Civic Life in Modern America. New Atlantic Books, New York. Meadowcroft, J., 2009. Climate Change Governance (No. WPS4941). World Bank, . Mees, H.-L.P., Driessen, P.P.J., 2011. Adaptation to climate change in urban areas: climate-greening London, Rotterdam, and Toronto. Clim. Law 2, 251–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/CL-2011-036. Mohan, G., 2001. Participatory development. In: Desai, V., Potter, R. (Eds.), The Arnold Companion to Development Studies. Hodder, London, pp. 49–54. National Research Council, 2011. America’s Climate Choices. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Newig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level – and effective? Environ. Policy Govern. 19 (3), 197–214. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/eet.509. Olson, M., 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Ostrom, E., 2010. Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 100 (3), 641–672. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C.M., Warren, R., 1961. The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry. American Political Science Review, LV, pp. 831–842. Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T., Verschuere, B. (Eds.), 2013. New Public Governance, the Third Sector, and Co-production. Routledge, New York. Pierre, J., 1999. Models of urban governance: the institutional dimension of urban politics. Urban Aff. Rev. 34 (3), 372–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 10780879922183988. Pierson, J., 2007. Going Local: Working in Communities and Neighborhoods. Routledge, New York. Prashar, S., Shaw, R., Takeuchi, Y., 2013. Community action planning in East Delhi: a participatory approach to build urban disaster resilience. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 18, 429–448. Purcell, M., 2006. Urban democracy and the local trap. Urban Stud. 43 (11), 1921–1941. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420980600897826. Putnam, R.D., 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Raco, M., 2000. Assessing community participation in local economic development—lessons for the new urban policy. Polit. Geogr. 19 (5), 573–599. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(00)00004-4. Rawlani, A., Sovacool, B., 2011. Building responsiveness to climate change through community based adaptation in Bangladesh. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 16, 845–863. Reese, L.A., Rosenfeld, R.A., 2002. Reconsidering private sector power: business input and local development policy. Urban Aff. Rev. 37 (5), 642–674. Rice, J.S., Moss, R.H., Anderson, K.L., Malone, E.L., 2011. Incorporating stakeholder decision support needs into an integrated regional Earth system model. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 17, 805–819. Roberts, D., 2010. Prioritizing climate change adaptation and local level resilience in Durban, South Africa. Environ. Urban. 22 (2), 397–413. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0956247810379948. Roberts, D., Boon, R., Diederichs, N., Douwes, E., Govender, N., Mcinnes, A., et al, 2012. Exploring ecosystem-based adaptation in Durban, South Africa: ‘‘learning-by-doing” at the local government coal face. Environ. Urban. 24 (1), 167–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956247811431412. Rosenau, J.N., 1995. Governance in the twenty-first century. Glob. Govern. 1 (1), 13–43. Rosener, J.B., 1978. Citizen participation: can we measure its effectiveness? Publ. Admin. Rev. 38 (5), 457–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/975505. Rosenzweig, C., Major, D.C., Demong, K., Stanton, C., Horton, R., Stults, M., 2007. Managing climate change risks in New York City’s water system: assessment and adaptation planning. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 12 (8), 1391–1409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-9070-5. Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., 2010. Introduction to climate change adaptation in New York City: building a risk management response. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1196 (1), 13–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05306.x. Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 25 (1), 3–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 016224390002500101. Roy, M., 2009. Planning for sustainable urbanisation in fast growing cities: mitigation and adaptation issues addressed in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Clim. Change Hum. Settle. 33 (3), 276–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.022. Saavedra, C., Budd, W.W., 2009. Climate change and environmental planning: working to build community resilience and adaptive capacity in Washington State, USA. Clim. Change Hum. Settle. 33 (3), 246–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.004. Sanchez-Rodriguez, R., Fragkias, M., Solecki, W., 2008. Urban Responses to Climate Change; a Focus on the Americas, June. (retrieved 02.10.14). Sander, T.H., Putnam, R.D., 2010. Still bowling alone?: The post-9/11 split. J. Democr. 21 (1), 9–16. Satterthwaite, D., 2007. Climate Change and Urbanization: Effects and Implications for Urban Governance (No. UN/POP/EGM-URB/2008/16). United Nations, New York, . Satterthwaite, D., Huq, S., Pelling, M., Reid, H., Romero-Lankao, P., 2007. Adapting to Climate Change in Urban Areas: The Possibilities and Constraints in Low- and Middle-income Nations. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, . Schmidt, L., Prista, P., Saraiva, T., O’Riordan, T., Gomes, C., 2013. Adapting governance for coastal change in Portugal. Themed Issue 1 – Guest Editor Romy Greiner, Themed Issue 2 – Guest Editor Davide Viaggi, 31(0), 314–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.07.012. Seto, K.C., Satterthwaite, D., 2010. Interactions between urbanization and global environmental change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2, 127–128. Sharp, E.B., 2012. Does Local Government Matter? How Urban Policies Shape Civic Engagement. University of Minnesota Press, . Sheppard, S.R.J., Shaw, A., Flanders, D., Burch, S., Wiek, A., Carmichael, J., et al, 2011. Future visioning of local climate change: a framework for community engagement and planning with scenarios and visualisation. Futures 43 (4), 400–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.01.009. Shipps, D., 2003. Pulling together: civic capacity and urban school reform. Am. Educ. Res. J. 40 (4), 841–878. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312040004841. Slocum, R., 2004. Consumer citizens and the cities for climate protection campaign. Environ. Plan. A 36 (5), 763–782. Smith, J.B., Vogel, J.M., Cromwell, J.E., 2009. An architecture for government action on adaptation to climate change. An editorial comment. Clim. Change 95 (1–2), 53–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9623-1.

A. Sarzynski / Urban Climate 14 (2015) 52–67

67

Stoker, G., 1998. Governance as theory: five propositions. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 50 (155), 17–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00106. Stokes, C.J., Webb, N.P., 2012. Climate change scenarios to facilitate stakeholder engagement in agricultural adaptation. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 17, 957–973. Stone, C.N., 2001. Civic capacity and urban education. Urban Aff. Rev. 36 (5), 595–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10780870122185019. Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., Reed, M.S., 2006. Unpacking ‘‘participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol. Soc. 11 (2), . Svara, J.H., Read, A., Moulder, E., 2011. Breaking New Ground: Promoting Environmental and Energy Programs in Local Government. IBM Center for the Business of Government, Washington, DC, . Tanner, T., Mitchell, T., Polack, E., Guenther, B., 2009. Urban governance for adaptation: assessing climate change resilience in ten Asian cities. IDS Work. Pap. 2009 (315), 1–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2009.00315_2.x. Thomalla, F., Cannon, T., Huq, S., Klein, R.J.T., Schaerer, C., 2005. Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in coastal Bangladesh by building civil society alliances. In: Wallendorf, L., Ewing, L., Rogers, S., Jones, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2005. American Society of Civil Engineers, Charleston, SC, USA, pp. 668–684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40774(176)67. Thomas, J.C., 1995. Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Tompkins, E.L., Eakin, H., 2012. Managing private and public adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 22 (1), 3–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.gloenvcha.2011.09.010. Tompkins, E.L., Few, R., Brown, K., 2008. Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change. J. Environ. Manage. 88 (4), 1580–1592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.07.025. Touza, L.L., Lopez-Gunn, E., 2012. Climate change policies – mitigation and adaptation at the local level: the case of the city of Madrid (Spain). In: Tortora, M. (Ed.), Sustainable Systems and Energy Management at the Regional Level: Comparative Approaches. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, USA, pp. 261–287, http:// dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61350-344-7. Van Aalst, M.K., Cannon, T., Burton, I., 2008. Community level adaptation to climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Glob. Environ. Change 18 (1), 165–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.06.002. Van Bortel, G., Mullins, D., 2009. Critical perspectives on network governance in urban regeneration, community involvement and integration. J. Housing Built Environ. 24, 203–219. Wamsler, C., Brink, E., 2014. Interfacing citizens’ and institutions’ practice and responsibilities for climate change adaptation. Urban Clim. 7, 64–91. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.10.009. Ward, K.G., 2000. A critique in search of a corpus: re-visiting governance and re-interpreting urban politics. Trans. Inst. Brit. Geogr. 25 (2), 169–185. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2000.00169.x. Wiseman, J., Williamson, L., Fritze, J., 2010. Community engagement and climate change: learning from recent Australian experience. Int. J. Clim. Change Strat. Manage. 2 (2), 134–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17568691011040399. Wood, E., 2012. Lessons in building a better community, one voice at a time. Found. Rev. 4 (4), 71–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.4087/FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D12-00008.1. Zenker, S., Seigis, A., 2012. Respect and the city: the mediating role of respect in citizen participation. J. Place Manage. Dev. 5 (1), 20–34. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/17538331211209022.