The Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Through Urban Policy Experiments

Abstract

Climate change is increasingly posing risks to infrastructure and public services in cities across the global South. Building on ideas of policy experimentation at the nexus of institutional and transition theories, this paper assesses six climate change adaptation experiments across the cities of Surat, Indore and Bhubaneswar in India to uncover the politics behind how experiments are conceived of, implemented, and supported in light of local development needs. Through employing both embedded and cross-case comparative methods, I argue that policy experiments are often framed around achieving tangible urban economic benefits and maximizing specific project complementarities, which allow emerging adaptation priorities access to established policy directives and funding streams. However, I conclude that despite being arenas for testing new ideas, quantifying climate and development co-benefits, and engaging private and civil society actors, adaptation policy experiments must be coherent with urban political economic contexts in order for them to affect sustained, equitable and transformative programmatic change.

What affects government planning for climate change adaptation: Evidence from the U.S. states

“…Notably, our findings are consistent with those cross-country studies (Berrang-Ford et al, 2014;Lesnikowski, Ford, Berrang-Ford, Barrera, Berry, et al, 2013;Massey et al, 2014) in suggesting income as a key determinant of government-led adaptation, because higher incomes normally imply stronger capacity to afford costly adaptation. One possible explanation for these mixed findings is that local governments are more often driven by the tangible economic benefits of adaptation (Chu, 2016) and may not invest in adaptation merely because they can afford it. One possible explanation for these mixed findings is that local governments are more often driven by the tangible economic benefits of adaptation (Chu, 2016) and may not invest in adaptation merely because they can afford it.…”

“…These governments draw on scientific projections to assess the risk of changing climatic conditions and identify a set of options to reduce the adverse climate change impacts . A growing body of research has emerged to track the progress of adaptation planning at the local and national scales (Bierbaum et al, 2013;Carmin, Nadkarni, & Rhie, 2012;Chu, 2016;Chu, Anguelovski, & Carmin, 2016;Cruce, 2009;Ford et al, 2011;Herzog et al, 2015;Lesnikowski, Ford, Biesbroek, Berrang-Ford, & Heymann, 2015; Massey, Biesbroek, Huitema, & Jordan, 2014;Shi, Chu, & Debats, 2015;Westerhoff, Keskitalo, & Juhola, 2011); evaluate plan documents and implementation (Baker, Peterson, Brown, & McAlpine, 2012;Preston, Westaway, & Yuen, 2011;Woodruff & Stults, 2016); propose approaches and planning principles (Berke & Lyles, 2013;Fussel, 2007); and examine the barriers to adaptation (Biesbroek, Klostrmann, Termeer, & Kabat, 2013;Measham et al, 2011;Moser & Ekstrom, 2010;Tribbia & Moser, 2008).…”

The Dilemmas of Citizen Inclusion in Urban Planning and Governance to Enable a 1.5 °C Climate Change Scenario

“…For example, Surat, India, is vulnerable to flooding during monsoon seasons (Chu, 2016a). In the early 2010s, Surat built several large-scale infrastructures to reduce flood risks; however, this infrastructure is functional only if coordinated with the upstream dams managing discharge from the larger regional watershed (Bhat, Karanth, Dashora, & Rajasekar, 2013).…”

Urban climate change adaptation as social learning: Exploring the process and politics

“…An extensive literature on the governance of urban adaptation in the global south has emerged over the past decade focusing on governance and political configurations (Bahadur & Tanner, 2014;Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005), the role of planning and innovative approaches (Carmin et al, 2012;Chu, 2016;Fisher, 2014;Hurlimann & March, 2012), and underlying drivers of urban vulnerability, particularly as these are shaped by informality (Satterthwaite & Dodman, 2013). An extensive literature on the governance of urban adaptation in the global south has emerged over the past decade focusing on governance and political configurations (Bahadur & Tanner, 2014;Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005), the role of planning and innovative approaches (Carmin et al, 2012;Chu, 2016;Fisher, 2014;Hurlimann & March, 2012), and underlying drivers of urban vulnerability, particularly as these are shaped by informality (Satterthwaite & Dodman, 2013).…”

“…Towns and cities in the global south will need to face climate change at the same time as managing uncertainty around future economic, demographic, and social pathways. An extensive literature on the governance of urban adaptation in the global south has emerged over the past decade focusing on governance and political configurations (Bahadur & Tanner, 2014;Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005), the role of planning and innovative approaches (Carmin et al, 2012;Chu, 2016;Fisher, 2014;Hurlimann & March, 2012), and underlying drivers of urban vulnerability, particularly as these are shaped by informality (Satterthwaite & Dodman, 2013). There is no single accepted approach to urban adaptation.…”