UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Local responses to climate change : an exploration of the relationship between capacity and action Burch, Sarah L. 2009

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2009_fall_burch_sarah.pdf [ 1.24MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0067519.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0067519-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0067519-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0067519-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0067519-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0067519-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0067519-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0067519-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0067519.ris

Full Text

LOCAL RESPONSES TO CLIMATE CHANGE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAPACITY AND ACTION  by  SARAH L. BURCH  B.Sc., University of Calgary, 2004 B.A., University of Calgary, 2004  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Resource Management and Environmental Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  JULY, 2009  © Sarah L. Burch, 2009  Abstract Although the development and implementation of a global greenhouse gas reduction regime has dominated policy debates since before the advent of the Kyoto Protocol (and remains a critical element of effective mitigation), communities have both direct control of critical sources of emissions (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, Betsill, 2001) and are the scale at which the potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change will play out (Wilbanks et al., 2007, Wilbanks et al., 2003). As this dissertation will show, communities face a unique set of challenges as they navigate through the uncertain future presented by climate change. Even so, communities bring to the task of climate change adaptation and mitigation a unique set of tools and proficiencies that are often absent at the national and international scales. It is the ultimate aim of the research presented here to enhance this toolkit so that communities might effectively employ the various forms of capacity they possess to rise to the challenge presented by climate change. Using three municipalities in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada, this dissertation explores: the various forms of capacity that are utilized in response to climate change, the roots of capacity in the underlying development path, the factors that might inhibit the effective translation of capacity into action at the local level, and strategies that might be used to transform barriers into enablers of action. The evidence presented in this dissertation indicates that barriers are deeply interwoven phenomena, which may reinforce one another and create substantial inertia behind unsustainable patterns of municipal operations. Addressing a lack of technical, financial, or human resources appears to be less a matter of creating more capacity than of facilitating the effective use of existing resources. This facilitation depends most fundamentally on re-working the path dependent institutional structures, organizational culture and policy-making procedures that have characterized the unsuccessful patterns of climate change policy development in the past. It is hoped that this work will help to elucidate the means by which the challenge of carbon neutrality and resiliency can be met by communities, and to stimulate the transformation of barriers into enablers of action.  ii  Table of Contents Abstract……. .....................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents .............................................................................................................iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures..................................................................................................................vii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................viii Co-Authorship Statement ............................................................................................... ix Chapter 1. 1.1. 1.2.  1.3. 1.4. 1.5.  1.6. 1.7. Chapter 2. 2.1. 2.2.  2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. Chapter 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3.  Introduction............................................................................................... 1 Framing the problem................................................................................ 1 Literature review...................................................................................... 3 1.2.1. Capacity to respond to climate change ....................................... 3 1.2.2. Exploring development paths: institutions and collective behaviour..................................................................................... 4 1.2.3. Transforming development paths: socio-technical change and transition management ................................................................ 5 Objectives and hypotheses....................................................................... 7 Application of theory to research design ................................................. 9 Methods.................................................................................................. 10 1.5.1. Multi-case comparison design: rationale behind selection of method....................................................................................... 11 1.5.2. Case selection............................................................................ 11 1.5.3. Data collection and analysis...................................................... 13 Roadmap to the dissertation................................................................... 16 References.............................................................................................. 18 A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change ......................................................... 24 Introduction............................................................................................ 24 Capacity and the climate change problem ............................................. 25 2.2.1. Adaptive and mitigative capacity.............................................. 25 2.2.2. Response capacity..................................................................... 29 Translating capacity into action ............................................................. 33 Example: Risk perception and varying responses to climate change .... 36 Conclusions and future directions.......................................................... 40 References.............................................................................................. 42 Development paths: Investigating the context of responses to climate change....................................................................................................... 46 Introduction............................................................................................ 46 Capacity and the components of development paths............................. 47 Development paths and global environmental change .......................... 49 3.3.1. Technological trajectories......................................................... 51 3.3.2. Institutional theory and global environmental change.............. 53 3.3.3. Cultural and behavioural trajectories ........................................ 58  iii  3.4. 3.5. 3.6. Chapter 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5.  4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 4.9. Chapter 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5.  5.6.  5.7. 5.8. Chapter 6.  6.1.  Implications of a ‘development path’ literature for climate change and sustainable development research.......................................................... 61 Conclusions............................................................................................ 64 References.............................................................................................. 66 Local policy responses to climate change: An examination of capacity and action in three municipalities in British Columbia, Canada ....... 72 Introduction............................................................................................ 72 Capacity and action in response to climate change ............................... 73 Methods.................................................................................................. 77 Local case studies in British Columbia, Canada.................................... 79 Characterizing capacity in three cities ................................................... 82 4.5.1. Response capacity..................................................................... 82 4.5.2. Adaptive and mitigative capacities ........................................... 85 Action on climate change....................................................................... 90 Exploring the translation of capacity into action ................................... 93 Conclusions and future research directions ........................................... 96 References.............................................................................................. 98 In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: An examination of barriers to action in three Canadian cities ......................................... 102 Introduction.......................................................................................... 102 Capacity, action, and barriers at the local level ................................... 103 A typology of barriers to climate change action.................................. 104 Methods and cases ............................................................................... 107 Evidence from three cases: Local barriers to action on climate change111 5.5.1. Budgetary inefficiency and party rivalries: Structural/operational barriers to action.................................. 111 5.5.2. Out-dated seminal policies and inter-jurisdictional conflicts: Regulatory/legislative barriers ................................................ 114 5.5.3. Leadership and combative organizational relationships: Cultural/behavioural barriers .................................................. 116 5.5.4. Climatic calamities and competing priorities: Contextual barriers .................................................................................... 119 Exploring the dynamics of barriers to action at the local level............ 120 5.6.1. Dynamic interactions among barriers ..................................... 121 5.6.2. The link between barriers and enablers .................................. 122 5.6.3. Locating barriers within the process of translating capacity into action....................................................................................... 123 Conclusions and directions for future research.................................... 125 References............................................................................................ 127 Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: Insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada ................................................................................................... 133 Introduction.......................................................................................... 133  iv  6.2. 6.3.  6.7. 6.8.  Background: Capacity and action in three cities.................................. 135 Theories exploring the stimulation of local climate change action and development path transformations ....................................................... 140 Methods................................................................................................ 143 Results: Strategies for overcoming barriers to action .......................... 145 6.5.1. Organizational culture and effective leadership ..................... 147 6.5.2. Inter-jurisdictional context...................................................... 149 6.5.3. Institutionalization of long-term action .................................. 150 Transforming the development path to produce a robust program of local climate change action.................................................................. 152 Conclusions and future directions........................................................ 155 References............................................................................................ 157  Chapter 7. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5.  Synthesis and Conclusions ................................................................... 162 Synthesis of key findings ..................................................................... 163 Implications and significance .............................................................. 170 Strengths and weaknesses of the research ........................................... 173 Future directions and unanswered questions ....................................... 175 References............................................................................................ 179  6.4. 6.5.  6.6.  Appendix A: Semi-structured interview script .......................................................... 183 Appendix B: Document analysis.................................................................................. 185 Appendix C: UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board Certificate of Approval .. 188  v  List of Tables Table 4.1 General community profile for the three case study communities of Delta, the District of North Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver................................................. 80 Table 4.2. General indicators of response capacity for the Corporation of Delta, the District of North Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver................................................. 83 Table 4.3. Examples of adaptive capacity in each case, gathered through interviews and document analysis............................................................................................................. 86 Table 4.4. Examples of mitigative capacity provided through interviews and document analysis in each municipality. ........................................................................................... 88 Table 4.5 Measureable steps towards greenhouse gas reduction and adaptation in the Corporation of Delta, the District of North Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver........ 91 Table 5.1 Structural/operational barriers to climate change policy action raised by interviewees in the three case study cities of the Corporation of Delta, the City of Vancouver, and the District of North Vancouver ........................................................... 111 Table 5.2 Regulatory and legislative barriers to climate change action raised by interviewees in the three case study municipalities. ....................................................... 114 Table 5.3 Cultural and behavioural inhibitors of climate change action suggested by interviewees in the case study cities of Delta, the City of Vancouver, and the District of North Vancouver............................................................................................................. 116 Table 5.4 Contextual barriers mentioned by interviewees in the Corporation of Delta, the City of Vancouver, and the District of North Vancouver............................................... 119 Table 6.1 Summary of the range of strategies that were suggested by interviewees as potential means to overcome barriers to action on climate change, categorized according to the type of barrier they are intended to address. ......................................................... 145  vi  List of Figures Figure 2.1 The process of transformation of response capacity, which is a generalized set of resources rooted in the development path, into mitigative and adaptive capacity, and finally into action (mitigation and adaptation).................................................................. 33 Figure 4.1 Response capacity is first utilized to create adaptive and mitigative capacity, which is then employed in pursuit of goals such as greenhouse gas and vulnerability reduction. .......................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 4.2 Case study areas in the Metro Vancouver Region of British Columbia, Canada............................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 5.1. Case study areas in the Metro Vancouver Region of British Columbia, Canada............................................................................................................................. 109 Figure 5.2 A theoretical situation (constructed using the barriers revealed by interviewees in the three case study cities).. ................................................................... 122 Figure 5.3 Schematic illustrating the translation of response capacity into mitigative and adaptive capacity, and finally into goal attainment.) ...................................................... 125 Figure 6.1. Case study areas in the Metro Vancouver Region of British Columbia, Canada............................................................................................................................. 136  vii  Acknowledgements This research is the product of dynamic and challenging collegial relationships, unflagging friendships, and endless patience on the part of a very special group of individuals. First and foremost I would like to thank my doctoral supervisor, Dr. John Robinson, for his intellectual mentorship and emotional guidance throughout this process. I am especially grateful to Dr. Robinson for offering me the opportunity to participate in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the frequent invitations to write and think together, and the generous provision of the accumulated wisdom of a father of five. I would also like to thank my committee: Drs. James Tansey and Stephen Sheppard, as well as Dr. Terre Satterfield (a special advisor) for their critical eyes and helpful comments. Dr. Sheppard’s generous offer to include me in the Local Climate Change Visioning Project is particularly appreciated, as it allowed me to work with the excellent team at the Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning and gain a deeper knowledge of climate change in communities. Great friends and colleagues who fed me a steady diet of optimism, encouragement, and motivation include the lovely and passionate Dr. Alison Shaw, Austin Stewart-Shaw, my endlessly loyal and supportive friend Kim Olowa, Aleara Mansour-Quanchan, Christina Cook, Sonia Talwar, Negar Elmieh, Kristina Campbell, Kevin VanHullebush, Caroline Ramsay, and many others. To my father, Mark Burch, I owe the inspiration to tackle grand problems, react to injustice, and cultivate stillness. I thank my mother, Mary Kay Laing, for her pride and faith in the work that I hope to do, and her curiosity about the new and unexplored. I would like to express the depth of my love and gratitude for the constant friendship and inspiration given to me by Dwayne Bryshun. He has made every day a series of ridiculous and beautiful discoveries, and his generosity of spirit has transformed this experience into an unexpectedly lovely chapter in my life. Together with our coconspirator, Stew, we may rule the world (or at least a small part of 6th Avenue, Vancouver). I gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the University of British Columbia’s University Graduate Fellowship, without which this research would have been much more challenging to execute.  viii  Co-Authorship Statement Chapter 2 of this dissertation was co-authored by Prof. John Robinson of the University of British Columbia’s Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability. My role in the production of this manuscript included outlining the scope of the article, gathering and synthesizing literature in support of the hypotheses, drafting the majority of the text, and completing final revisions. Prof. John Robinson participated in the development of the theoretical contributions of this paper, assisted with portions of the manuscript preparation, and provided a final review of the article. Prof. John Robinson has approved the inclusion of this article in the doctoral dissertation of Sarah Burch.  ix  Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. Framing the problem The implications of unsustainable patterns of development are nowhere as evident as in the challenges presented by global climate change.  The potential impacts cross  generational and geographical divides to permeate ecological and human systems alike, while the causes cut to the core of our economies and shake the foundations of politics at all levels. The scale and nature of the transformation that may be required to adequately respond to this challenge appears to have defied comprehension, but climate change has risen to dominate policy agendas and drive innovation at unprecedented rates (Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006, Reiner et al., 2006). Early debates surrounding climate change were characterized by heated discussions regarding the accuracy and relevance of temperature and impacts models (Shackley et al., 1998), which even periodically called into question the most fundamental assumptions of climate scientists (Lindzen, 1994). More recently, the public and policymakers alike have shifted their focus towards the design and implementation of policies that will address the problem, driving a wide array of actions to be taken around the globe (see for example: Gupta et al., 2007), and an even more extensive host of propositions for policies that have foundered (Böhringer and Vogt, 2004, Buchner et al., 2002).  This increase in awareness among the public and policymakers has been paralleled by a dramatic shift within the scholarly climate change discourse.  First, perhaps partly  because of the difficulty of regulating climate change at the global level, some scholars are beginning to consider the implications of climate change at ever smaller scales (Bai, 2007, Adger et al., 2005). This has been accompanied by a growing demand for action at the local level and the growth of sub-national climate change response initiatives (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, Betsill, 2001). Second, novel efforts are being made to link previously disparate categories of climate change responses, such as adaptation and mitigation, within a framework of sustainable development (cf. Klein et al., 2007, Wilbanks et al., 2007, Robinson et al., 2006, Smit et al., 2001). This new approach will assist in the development of local-level climate response strategies that consider  1  inevitable trade-offs, and potentially attractive synergies, between responses that may influence the ability of a group to follow a sustainable development path. Finally, increasing attention is being given to the underlying characteristics of a community or society that either help or hinder responses to climate change. Among social scientists, the concept of capacity (Adger et al., 2004, Tompkins and Adger, 2003, Yohe, 2001), and its influence on action in response to climate change, is especially important to these discussions.  Although the adaptive and mitigative capacity literature does not claim that building capacity will necessarily lead to improved responses to the climate change risk, little work has been done to explicate the wide variation in responses to climate change among nations and groups with similar levels of capacity. Analysis of the complex relationship between capacity and action in response to global climate change represents a significant gap in the climate change literature, and influences the ability of climate policies to build effective mitigation and adaptation strategies. From the multitude of intervening factors (ranging from the quality of political and technical leadership on the issues to the structure of the organization that has been tasked with addressing it) that can immediately be identified as influencing this relationship, it is clear that the issue of climate change, the analysis of which has grown from scientific and quantitative roots, would benefit from a more interdisciplinary approach. This dissertation builds on a rich tradition of integrated approaches to planning and decision-making as they relate to climate change, which has arisen, in part, out of the University of British Columbia (see especially: Curry, 1995 and Moore, 1994). In doing so, this work helps to identify and explicate the factors that may affect the translation of capacity into action, using literature from a variety of disciplines.  Taken together and applied to the problem of global climate change, these disparate literatures of institutional, technological, and behavioural change may be regarded as a ‘development path’ literature. Defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as “a complex array of technological, economic, social, institutional, cultural and biophysical characteristics that determines the interactions between human and natural  2  systems, including consumption and production patterns in all countries, over time at a particular scale” (Sathaye et al., 2007), development paths are comprised of multiple trajectories that shape the way capacity is translated into action in practice. Focusing on the underlying trajectories that evolve over time and fundamentally shape responses to risk, gathering together a development path literature provides unique insights into the relationship between capacity and action in response to climate change. This broad realm brings an extensive set of tools to bear on the nascent investigations into capacity, including a rich array of theory regarding the manner in which institutional structures and socio-technical systems both inhibit and enable human action. 1.2. Literature review Although the multi-disciplinary set of literatures upon which this dissertation is built is explored to a varying extent in each of the articles that follow this introductory chapter, I will summarize here the three main bodies of theory that played the most integral roles in the design and implementation of this research program. 1.2.1. Capacity to respond to climate change In the literature on both adaptive and mitigative responses to climate change, capacity has emerged as a critical precursor to action (cf. Adger et al., 2004, cf. Yohe and Tol, 2002, Yohe, 2001). Defined as “a country’s ability to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions or enhance natural sinks” (Winkler et al., 2007), mitigative capacity is viewed as the ‘mirror image’ of adaptive capacity, or “the ability or potential of a system to respond successfully to climate vulnerability and change,” (Adger et al., 2007). For instance, Yohe (2001) argued that both adaptive and mitigative capacity are comprised of resources such as financial, human, and social capital, risk-spreading mechanisms such as insurance, decision-making capacity, and availability of technological options. Nevertheless, evidence has shown that the lack of progress on climate change policy at the international level is not due to a lack of technological options nor prohibitive costs (Munasinghe and Swart, 2005, Pacala and Socolow, 2004). Instead, it appears that institutional and cultural barriers play more integral roles than previously imagined, and may present far greater challenges than the refinement of climate models or the  3  development of efficient technologies. Recent work suggests that psychological factors, such as perceived adaptive capacity (Grothmann and Patt, 2005), and the normative or motivational context of responses (Haddad, 2005) are more important than resource constraints. Rather than focusing on superficial policies and technologies, it has been argued that we must look to the deeper underlying path dependent development trajectories to reveal the true sources of barriers to action (Burch and Robinson, 2007, Robinson et al., 2006).  Institutions, organizational structures, and the cultures that  characterize them, are crucial elements of a society’s development path which clearly influence the success with which we respond to climate change. 1.2.2. Exploring development paths: institutions and collective behaviour Explorations of social behaviour and values are extremely valuable to an understanding of the human universe within which climate change policies evolve. New institutional theory1 is especially relevant in that it injects a deep appreciation of the normative elements that pervade collective behaviour into discussions of institutional genesis and change.  This field represents a strong break from highly rational and structuralist  explanations of human behaviour through the acknowledgement that, in the collective context, humans often operate on the basis of routines and standard operating procedures, according to a ‘logic of appropriateness’ (Olsen and March, 1989). This is in direct contrast to a calculus of costs and benefits, or a ‘logic of consequentiality’ (Olsen and March, 1989). In the context of municipal action on climate change, this finding forces a shift in attention from making a logical, scientific case for the avoided costs yielded by climate change action, to the need for embedding new norms and values associated with climate change action throughout the familiar and established practices, institutional and social habits (as explored through Bourdieu's concept of 'habitus': Bourdieu, 1990, and the concept of 'structuration' introduced by Giddens, 1984)  and political cultures  (Jasanoff, 2005, O'Riordan et al., 1998) within an institution.  Indeed, affective  dimensions of action are intricately interwoven with cognitive elements (Slovic et al., 1  Early work in the field of new institutionalism theory (Olsen and March, 1989) was later applied to organizational analysis (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991), and took on comparative historical (Thelen, 2003), economic (Paavola and Adger, 2005), sociological (González and Healey, 2005, Fischer, 2003) flavours. Excellent reviews of the field have been carried out by Peters (2005), Hall and Taylor (1996), and Immergut (1998).  4  2007, Peters and Slovic, 1996, Powell and DiMaggio, 1991), since individuals are more often guided by values than by formal rules or rational choices (Peters, 1999). This affective element of decision-making is said to ‘lubricate reason’ (Slovic et al., 2007, see especially: Epstein, 1994). In other words, affective responses may act as either barriers or enablers of action, but will invariably influence decisions that might be presumed to be based solely on a rational analysis of available information. At the individual level, values, beliefs, and social context are also critical antecedents or determinants of behaviour (see for example: Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002, Stern, 2000, Kaiser and Wolfing, 1999, Stern, 1992), and thus may either facilitate or inhibit climate change responses. 1.2.3. Transforming development paths: socio-technical change and transition management Some in the climate change field have begun to suggest that best way to deal with the complex problem of climate change is either to widen (include other related issues/institutions) and deepen (develop new policies, mechanisms, follow-ups) the climate agenda; links between issues can help explore co-benefits and no-regrets options (Van Asselt et al., 2005). This indicates the need for a shift in thinking that considers the system as a whole, and the complexities and uncertainties therein. This mode of thinking is what lies behind the development of sociotechnical system theory.  The ‘deep structure’ of socio-technical systems is provided by socio-technical regimes: semi-coherent sets of rules or a linked patchwork of other rule regimes (such as the purely technical rule regime, the user and market regime, and the policy regime), whose rules are aligned in some way with each other (Geels, 2004, Berkhout, 2002, Rip and Kemp, 1998). Systems of regimes, due to the vast web of interconnectedness that characterizes them, are slow to change and must evolve in an incremental and cumulative fashion, or through a gradual and smooth reorientation of the system (Berkhout, 2002). Put another way, it is very unlikely that a socio-technical regime will suffer a shock so great that the entire system is re-oriented towards an entirely different path of institution/actor/technology relations. The source of change in these systems is often  5  induced through policy instruments or changes in cost distributions (Grubb et al., 2002, Grubler, 2000), such as a climate change action plan or a carbon tax, and is more likely to occur at the ‘niche’ level (Seyfang and Smith, 2007). Niches are protected spaces in which a radical novelty can develop, unhindered by the market forces and socio-cultural rules that typically provide relative stability in the broader socio-technical system (Geels, 2004). Rules in these niches are less certain, providing an opportunity for intentional deviation from the underlying path (Garud and Karnøe, 2003).  Finally, regimes  themselves exist within the broader context of socio-technical landscapes, and consist of macro economic, political, and cultural trajectories (Geels and Schot, 2007). Landscapes are the exogenous context of socio-technical regimes, and are beyond the direct control of actors (Geels, 2004).  This ‘multi-level perspective’ suggests that socio-technical  development path transitions occur as the result of alignments between changes in each of these three levels, shifting pressures on the regimes, and adaptation to these pressures (Geels and Schot, 2007, Smith et al., 2005)  This ‘techno-economic’ paradigm forges links between theories of technological evolution and theories of path dependency and structural and institutional change (Andersen, 1998) through the acknowledgement that because interwoven systems of rules surround clusters of technologies that are deeply embedded in culture, history becomes important (Arthur, 1989). In other words, the institutional and cultural contexts within which innovation occurs are of equal importance as the technologies themselves and represent path dependent trajectories which are not easily re-oriented (see Chapter 3). Challenges to re-orientation may be due to inter-relatedness (such as individual technologies that depend on the existence of a host of other technologies to function effectively), learning effects, economies of scale, and quasi-irreversibility (Berkhout, 2002).  Together, these literatures provide a broad range of tools that can be utilized to explore the factors that influence the translation of capacity into action at the local level, and the various ways in which this translation can be facilitated. The research program described below builds on these theoretical foundations to explore human responses to climate  6  change in the context of the web of institutional, cultural, behavioural and technological forces that shape them. 1.3. Objectives and hypotheses In this section, I will begin by identifying the over-arching questions that have driven this research program, and the more specific questions that derive from these broader themes. Next, I identify propositions, derived from the associated bodies of literature, which are each linked to a specific research question. Following this is a statement of the objectives of this thesis in terms of tasks that I have accomplished through the completion of this dissertation.  The following are the over-arching questions that transcend the cases under study, and framed the research program:  1. What is the nature of the relationship between capacity and action in response to climate change? 2. What are the potential means by which municipalities might facilitate the transformation of capacity into action, thereby effectively stimulating responses to climate change?  Specific questions have also been identified as a result of an extensive and multidisciplinary literature review (summarized throughout the dissertation). Each question is linked to a preliminary proposition that helped to frame the analysis of the data collected in each of the case studies. 1. What role does the concept of capacity play in understanding the nature of, and precursors to, action in response to climate change? a. Proposition: Capacity is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for action, and can be divided into three categories: response capacity, adaptive capacity, and mitigative capacity. Capacity provides the raw resources needed to respond to climate change, but still required are 1) underlying development trajectories that are amenable to course-  7  correction (ie. absence of inefficient institutional and technological path dependencies), 2) institutional structures that encourage crossagency communication on issues of an inter-disciplinary nature, and 3) opportunities for the development and expression of social capital. 2. What aspects of institutions act as barriers to the translation of capacity into action? a. Proposition: New institutionalism directs our attention towards the importance of historical and cultural contexts (or development paths) in the genesis, evolution, and effects of institutions, as well as the role of norms and routines in determining behaviour.  Institutional  isomorphism (or the tendency of institutions to become homogeneous in both process and structure over time) and path dependence may be especially significant barriers to the translation of capacity into action. 3. What aspects of collective human behaviour may function as barriers to the translation of capacity into action? a. Proposition: Barriers might include (but are not limited to): societal transitions/structures that mediate the influence of individual and collective agency; and the absence of social capital, which deeply influences the formation of human, cultural, and financial capital (which in turn are components of capacity, a necessary precursor to action); and processes of identity formation and cultural conflict that may occur within institutions. 4. How might barriers to effective action be overcome? a. Proposition: The integration of adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development provides an opportunity to develop holistic, equitable, and effective development policies that deal simultaneously with environmental, social, and economic concerns. The consideration of sustainable development brought about by this integration may help to reveal barriers presented by the underlying development paths, and yield insights into how these barriers might best be overcome.  8  Based on these research questions, the following objectives were identified for this research program: 1. Develop a theoretical framework that effectively demonstrates the relationships between capacity and action. 2. Identify the barriers that prevent or influence the translation of capacity into action (or behaviour change in response to climate change risks), at multiple links in the causal chain. 3. Qualitatively assess the influence of each link on the above and identify the most influential barriers for the case study communities. 4. Articulate the possible foundations of these important barriers in the underlying development path and explore the influence of path dependency. 5. Suggest means by which these barriers can be transformed into enablers in order to more effectively engender action in the face of climate change risks. 1.4. Application of theory to research design The theory described above was utilized heavily throughout this research program. Specifically, theory regarding the framing of climate change as a problem for social science, the integration of adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development, technological, institutional and cultural components of development paths, as well as individual and collective behaviour change was tied to the research design in the following ways:  1. Development of a conceptual framework to explicate the relationship between capacity and action in response to climate change. Especially important to this process was a revision of the concept of capacity based on the previous articulation of this concept in the climate change community, and the utilization of the development path concept to consider ways in which both capacity and responses may be rooted in path dependent technological, institutional, and cultural constructs (see especially Chapter 2).  9  2. Design and administration of interviews with municipal technical experts such as planners and engineers, as well as local decision-makers. An interview protocol was constructed upon the barriers to the translation of capacity into action gathered from the literatures identified above and was administered in each of the three case studies. Questions were developed regarding: the path dependency of technological systems or regimes, challenges inherent in fit, interplay, and scale of institutions addressing environmental problems such as climate change, and the context and reinforcing factors that are required to enable behaviour based on attitudes, values, and norms.  3. Cross-case comparison and the identification of means by which barriers can be overcome at the municipal scale. The final step of the study was to draw out lessons regarding the barriers that are at play in the three cases under study. This required the utilization of theories of institutions, individual and collective behaviour change, path dependency, organizations, socio-technical systems, sustainability, and climate change policy in combination with empirical evidence to explore both the relative importance of various barriers in each case and the strategies that could most effectively stimulate action. 1.5. Methods A cross-disciplinary integrated assessment of climate change responses was carried out at the municipal scale for this dissertation, in which I consider the translation of capacity into local action in response to climate change. Using elements of discourse analysis and comparative policy analysis, I investigated the ways in which climate change has been addressed at the municipal level in three municipalities within Metro Vancouver. Although the case selection, data collection, and data analysis methodologies followed in this research are presented in detail below, portions are repeated (or elaborated upon) in Chapters 4, 5, and 6.  10  1.5.1. Multi-case comparison design: rationale behind selection of method The issue of the relationship between capacity and action at the municipal level is exceptionally well-suited to exploration using a multi-case study comparison method for a variety of reasons. The subject of study is a “contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” and “the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2003).  Histories and experimental designs are insufficient  methodological options because, respectively, the processes and outcomes of interest are both contemporary and outside of my control. Interviews are added to document analysis (as discussed in further detail below) as sources of evidence.  The common criticism of case studies – that they rarely provide sufficient basis for scientific generalization – is addressed in this study by explicit acknowledgement of the goal of analytic generalization rather than statistical generalization. Furthermore, rather than pursuing causal specification, this study seeks to “describe the sequence and coincidence of events, inter-related and contextually bound” (Stake, 2006). 1.5.2. Case selection The case study selection in this study follows a replication (rather than sampling) logic. In other words, the cases that have been selected for study are expected to have contrasting results from one another based on the theoretical framework outlined above, but in predictable ways (Yin, 2003). These cases have been chosen for the following reasons: •  The selection of three cases that are contained within a common regional district greatly reduces the variability among the cases in terms of socio-cultural, technological, and even institutional development paths. These municipalities are all subject to the Canadian parliamentary system based on the Westminster model, the vagaries of federalism, and majoritarian (single-member district with plurality) constitutional design. Furthermore, these municipalities are subject to  11  the same regional regulatory framework, the same provincial policies, and similar climates. •  These three municipalities display similar levels of economic development, which helps to control for variation in technological capacity, human capital, and financial capital.  •  Although cultural variation existed within and among the cases, the selection of three cases that are located within the regional district, province, and country, reduced much of the potential for dramatically different socio-cultural development paths and resulting influence on behaviour.  The municipalities within the Greater Vancouver Regional District that have been chosen for study, despite being virtually indistinguishable from one another if placed within a global context, are nevertheless quite different. The first selection criterion that was used was based on varying levels of achievement within the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ (FCM) Partners for Climate Protection ‘milestone’ system.  These  milestones represent important steps on the way to measurable climate change mitigation, and are described as such:  1. Creating a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast; 2. Setting an emissions reductions plan; 3. Developing a local action plan; 4. Implementing a local action plan or a set of activities; 5. Monitoring progress and reporting results (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2007)  Although many municipalities may have made steps toward climate change mitigation that do not fall within this typology (thus inaccurately casting the municipality as a ‘poor performer’), the FCM provided a simple and transparent tool for preliminary case selection (within the context of the Metro Vancouver region). Each case has been selected to vary on a scale of apparent success in initializing a program of climate change mitigation. At the time of the design of this research, the City of Vancouver had reached  12  three milestones in its corporate operations and three in its community operations, while both the Corporation Delta and the District of North Vancouver had reached one corporate and one community milestone. Preliminary investigations in each of the three cities revealed that Delta had made considerable progress towards developing action plans and implementing a small set of mitigation and adaptation strategies. As such, the City of Vancouver was utilized as an example of a community that had been relatively successful at creating climate change policy, Delta was viewed as being moderately successful, and the District of North Vancouver was used as a less successful case study. Two of these cases, the Corporation of Delta and the District of North Vancouver, were also selected in part on the basis of convenience: the Local Climate Change Visioning Project, of which I was a part while simultaneously carrying out this doctoral research, was operating in both of these communities. This allowed me further opportunities to understand the dynamics of climate change policymaking in these communities, and provided a more thorough grasp of the climate change impacts and response options that were available.  Although the three communities varied widely in geographic  characteristics (ranging from a low-lying flood prone community to a mountainous residential suburb and a densely populated urban core), this was not a criterion on the basis of which case selection decisions were made. 1.5.3.  Data collection and analysis  The first phase of analysis in this study consisted of an in-depth assessment of the success of mitigation and adaptation efforts in each city, bringing to light potential variations in the ability of each city to translate considerable financial and institutional capacity into action. This phase of the research program began with document analysis to trace the design and implementation of policies specifically aimed at responding to climate change. Although it is clearly true that many policies exist which are not explicitly targeted at climate change but nevertheless contribute to greenhouse gas reductions and adaptation (such as policies directed at urban density and mixed-use planning), this study considered only those policies that articulate climate change-related goals. The reason for this lies with the need to isolate the effects of global climate change policy signals, and examine more closely the relationship between capacity and action specifically  13  within the climate change realm.  Meeting transcripts, Council reports, internal  memoranda, official government documents, and media reports were gathered. In all cases, documents were not retrieved for years preceding 1990, since this was found to be the approximate time during which climate change and sustainable development began to be substantially addressed in the Lower Mainland. Policy documents were analyzed with the goal of determining: the temporal scale, the spatial scale, the central adaptive or mitigative issues of interest, the responsible parties, and the level of detail or likelihood of implementation. A series of semi-structured elite interviews2 (between 1 and 2.5 hours in length) were carried out in each of the three case study areas. Participants were invited on the basis of three criteria: employment with one of the municipalities under study, involvement in the creation or implementation of climate change (or sustainability) policy in the city, and the occupation of a position in the organizational structure that pertains directly to aspects of climate change mitigation or adaptation (even if not involved directly in climate change policy development). Local incumbent politicians, heads of municipal departments (such as Engineering and Planning), and climate change working group team members were interviewed. To cover a range of policymaking and decision support positions (both elected and appointed), participants were contacted by email using a standardized letter of invitation. They were told about the full nature of the study, the other cases involved, and why they were selected for participation. Approximately 95% of the individuals who were contacted for interviews participated in the study. Interviewees were told that their responses would remain confidential, and their colleagues would not be aware of their participation in the study. In addition, un-structured interviews took place with these and other individuals throughout the study period as the result of parallel research taking place in two of the three case studies (cf. Sheppard et al., 2008). The result was an extended network of planners, engineers, and politicians who were approached in order to  2  Sample size of semi-structured interviews: in Delta (total n=12) 3 politicians; 3 planners; 2 engineers; 4 environmental services/operations staff; in the District of North Vancouver (total n=13): 4 politicians; 3 planners; 2 engineers; 1 administrator; 3 environmental services/operations staff; in the City of Vancouver (total n=15): 3 politicians, 1 planner; 2 engineers; 4 Sustainability Group staff; 1 administrator; Metro Vancouver: 3 engineers, 2 planners. Total n for study = 41.  14  gather together insights into the design and implementation of climate change policy in the cases under study.  The interviews followed a basic script, which contained questions pertaining to capacity, past or planned climate change action, the success/failure these actions, organizational culture, structure, broader inter-jurisdictional context, and barriers to action.  The  interview protocol was divided into three broad areas: 1) Awareness/Perception of the climate change problem (including attribution of blame, perceptions of the amount of change already experienced, and the degree of change, whether superficial or transformative, that is required to deal with the problem), linked to literature pertaining to risk perception and beliefs, attitudes, and socio-cultural norms; 2) Addressing climate change (including past and current protocols for policy innovation, past linkages between agencies, perceptions of the success or failure of past/current climate change policies, intra- and inter-agency dynamics and institutional culture); linked to social movement and institutional theory; 3) Barriers to responses (including the perceived influence of technological and institutional path dependency; the presence or absence of trust and social networks; means for overcoming barriers to change); linked to social capital, socio-technical regimes, institutional, and behaviour change theories (see Chapters 4 through 6). Notes were taken during and following each interview, and interviews were recorded with the permission of the participant. Interviews were coded and analyzed (using the qualitative analysis software ATLAS TI) according to a scheme which identified various aspects of capacity (including financial, human, and technical capacity), internal institutional issues (such as organizational structure and organizational culture), external institutional issues (such as jurisdictional issues, legislation and regulation, and external policy context), leadership (both political and technical), and issues related to the values, attitudes, and knowledge of each city’s public. The literature presented above helped to frame the questions that were asked of interviewees, and informed the coding structure that was later used to analyze the responses. Nevertheless, this coding structure evolved as analysis progressed, in order to reflect the new information provided by participants.  As such, the typology of barriers that was  summarized earlier in this paper, and the specific strategies for overcoming these barriers  15  that are discussed below, were created through a blend of inductive and deductive methods. This ensured that the interviews were guided by the state of the art in the literature, while accounting for novel insights and contextual idiosyncrasies that emerged as data was gathered and processed.  Overall, this exercise built upon existing literature by binding together theories of institutional change, societal movements, and individual behaviour change, all within a context of integrated socio-cultural and technological development paths, to provide insights into the ways in which mitigation and adaptation efforts might be more effectively designed and implemented.  Document analysis and interviews provided  empirical data that illustrated the functioning of municipal governance in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation, and yielded insights into how barriers to effective climate change action might be transformed into enablers of it. 1.6. Roadmap to the dissertation The body of this dissertation is presented in five parts, located in Chapters 2 through 6. Generally speaking, Chapter 2 provides a framework for the dissertation by posing the question of the complex relationship between capacity and action in response to climate change, and introducing the concept of response capacity (along with revised definitions of adaptive and mitigative capacities) as a tool that may help to answer this question. Chapter 3 presents the bulk of the literature used as the foundation for this dissertation, synthesizing it to trace the boundaries of what may be termed a ‘development path’ literature. Chapter 4 is the first chapter to present data gathered in the three municipal cases under study, and develops an empirical case for the speculative observation that intervening variables influence the success with which capacity is translated into action in response to climate change. Chapter 5 examines these intervening variables in more depth in the context of the three case studies in order to explain variation in action amongst them.  Chapter 6, the final empirical component, identifies the potentially  powerful levers by which barriers to climate change action might be overcome at the local level, in order to facilitate the effective translation of capacity into action. Finally,  16  the dissertation concludes with Chapter 7, which synthesizes the findings gathered throughout this research program and explores their theoretical and practical significance.  17  1.7. References Adger, N. W., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S. & Eriksen, S. (2004) New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Technical Report 7. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Resource. Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B. & Takahashi, K. 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. IN Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Van Der Linden, P. J. & Hanson, C. E. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. & Tompkins, E. 2005. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environment Change Part A 15: 77-86. Andersen, B. 1998. The evolution of technological trajectories 1890-1990. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 9: 5-34. Arthur, W. B. 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal 99: 116-131. Bai, Z. 2007. Integrating global concerns into urban management: the scale and readiness arguements. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11: 15-29. Berkhout, F. 2002. Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment. Global Environment Change 12: 1-4. Betsill, M. 2001. Mitigating climate change in US cities: opportunities and obstacles. Local Environment 6: 393-406. Böhringer, C. & Vogt, C. 2004. The dismantling of a breakthrough: the Kyoto Protocol as symbolic policy. European Journal of Political Economy 20: 597-617. Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Polity Press: Cambridge. Buchner, B. K., Carraro, C., Cersosimo, I. & Marchiori, C. (2002) Back to Kyoto? US Participation and the Linkage Between R&D and Climate Cooperation. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 3299. Centre for Economic Policy Research. Bulkeley, H. & Betsill, M. 2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: Multi-level governance and the 'urban' politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 14: 42-63.  18  Burch, S. & Robinson, J. 2007. A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change. Climate Policy 7: 304-316. Curry, J. 1995. Institutional barriers to sustainability: A case study of transportation planning in Vancouver, British Columbia. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia. Epstein, S. 1994. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist 49: 70-724. Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2007). "Partners for Climate Protection." Retrieved March 15, 2007, from http://sustainablecommunities.fcm.ca/Capacity_Building/Energy/PCP/default.asp. Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Garud, R. & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: distrbuted and embedded agency in technological entrepreneurship. Research Policy 32: 277-300. Geels, F. W. & Schot, J. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36: 399-417. Geels, G. W. 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy 33: 897-920. Giddens, A. 1984. Constitution of Society. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK. González, S. & Healey, P. 2005. A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity. Urban Studies 42: 2055-2069. Grothmann, T. & Patt, A. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environment Change 15: 199213. Grubb, M., Kohler, J. & Anderson, D. 2002. Induced technological change in energy and environmental modelling: Analytic approaches and policy implications. Annual Review of Energy & the Environment 21: 271-308. Grubler, A. 2000. Technology and Global Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Gupta, S., Tirpak, D. A., Burger, N., Gupta, J., Höhne, N., Boncheva, A. I., Kanoan, G. M., Kolstad, C., Kruger, J. A., Michaelowa, A., Murase, S., Pershing, J., Saijo, T. & Sari, A. 2007. Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements. IN B.  19  Metz, O. R. D., P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (Ed.) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Haddad, B. 2005. Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when sociopolitical goals are explicit. Global Environmental Change 15: 165-176.  Hall, P. & Taylor, R. 1996. Political science and the three institutionalisms. Political Studies 44: 936-957. Immergut, E. 1998. The theoretical core of the new institutionalism. Politics and Society 26: 5-34. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on Nature. Princeton University Press: Princeton. Kaiser, F. G. & Wolfing, S. 1999. Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 1-19. Klein, R. J. T., Huq, S., Denton, F., Downing, T. E., Richels, R. G., Robinson, J. B. & Toth, F. L. 2007. Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. IN Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Van Der Linden, P. J. & Hanson, C. E. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, M. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally, and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research 3: 239-260. Lindzen, R. 1994. On the scientific basis for global warming scenarios. Environmental Pollution 83: 125-134. Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N. 2006. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change 77: 73-95. Moore, J. 1994. What’s stopping sustainability? Examining the barriers to implementation of Clouds of Change. Master of Arts thesis, University of British Columbia. Munasinghe, M. & Swart, R. 2005. Primer on Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Facts, Policy Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; New York.  20  O'Riordan, T., Cooper, C. L., Jordan, A., Rayner, S., Richard, K. R., Runci, P. & Yoffe, S. 1998. Institutional Frameworks for Political Action. IN Rayner, S. & Malone, E. (Eds.) Human Choice and Climate Change Vol. 1: The Societal Framework. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press Ltd. Olsen, J. P. & March, J. G. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. The Free Press: New York. Paavola, J. & Adger, W. N. 2005. Institutional ecological economics. Ecological Economics 53: 353. Pacala, S. & Socolow, R. 2004. Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305: 968-972. Peters, B. G. 1999. Institutional theory in political science: the new institutionalism. Pinter: London, New York. Peters, B. G. 2005. Institutional theory in political science: the new institutionalism. Continuum International Publishing Group: London, New York. Peters, E. & Slovic, P. 1996. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Sociology 26: 1427-1453. Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Reiner, D. M., Curry, T. E., de Figueiredo, M. A., Herzog, H. J., Ansolabehere, S. D., Itaoka, K., Johnsson, F. & Odenberger, M. 2006. American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes towards energy policy and global warming. Environmental Science and Technology 40: 2093-2098. Rip, A. & Kemp, R. 1998. Technological Change. IN Rayner, S. & Malone, E. (Eds.) Human Choice and Climate Change. Columbus, Ohio: Batelle Press. Robinson, J., Bradley, M., Busby, P., Connor, D., Murray, A., Sampson, B. & Soper, W. 2006. Climate change and sustainable development: Realizing the opportunity. Ambio 35: 2-8. Seyfang, G. & Smith, A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research agenda. Environmental Politics 16: 584-603. Shackley, S., Young, P., Parkinson, S. & Wynne, B. 1998. Uncertainty, complexity and concepts of good science in climate change modelling: Are GCMs the best tools? Climatic Change 38: 159-205.  21  Sheppard, S. R. J., Shaw, A., Flanders, D. & Burch, S. (2008) Can visualization save the world? Lessons for landscape architects from visualizing local climate change. Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008; 9th International Conference on IT in Landscape Architecture. Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Dessau/Bernburg, Germany. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D. G. 2007. The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research 177: 1333-1352. Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., Burton, I., Challenger, B., Huq, S., Klein, R. & Yohe, G. 2001. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity. IN Mccarthy, J., Canziani, O., Leary, N., Dokken, D. & White, K. (Eds.) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, A., Stirling, A. & Berkhout, F. 2005. The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions. Research Policy 34: 1491-1510. Stake, R. 2006. Multiple Case Study Analysis. Stern, P. C. 1992. Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annual Review of Psychology 43: 269-302. Stern, P. C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 56: 407-424. Thelen, K. 2003. How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. IN Mahoney, J. & Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University PRess. Tompkins, E. & Adger, W. N. (2003) Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 39. Van Asselt, H., Gupta, J. & Biermann, F. 2005. Advancing the climate agenda: Exploiting material and insitutional linkages to develop a menu of policy options. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 14: 255263. Wilbanks, T. J., Leiby, P., Perlack, R., Ensminger, T. J. & Wright, S. B. 2007. Toward an integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: some preliminary findings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 713-725. Winkler, H., Baumert, K., Blanchard, O., Burch, S. & Robinson, J. 2007. What factors influence mitigative capacity? Energy Policy 35: 692-703. Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.  22  Yohe, G. & Tol, R. 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: Moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 12: 25-40. Yohe, G. W. 2001. Mitigative capacity: the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side. Climatic Change 49: 247-262.  23  Chapter 2. A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change3 2.1. Introduction Since the mid 1990’s, the enhanced greenhouse effect and global climate change have become issues around which much public debate has centred. Initially, this debate was characterized by heated discussions regarding the precision and relevance of temperature and impacts models, even periodically calling into question the most fundamental assumptions of climate scientists. More recently, dramatic shifts have occurred within the climate change discourse itself, quite separately from the increased prominence of climate change as a political issue in jurisdictions around the world. First, perhaps partly because of the difficulty of regulating climate change at the global level, many scholars are beginning to consider the implications of climate change at ever smaller scales. Local and regional responses to climate change, such as the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, have become more common in the time since the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Jones et al., 2007, Betsill, 2001, Wilbanks and Kates, 1999).  Second, novel efforts are being made to link previously disparate categories of climate change responses, such as adaptation and mitigation, within a framework of sustainable development (cf. Bizikova et al., 2007).  This new approach will assist in the  development of local-level climate response strategies that consider inevitable trade-offs, and potentially attractive synergies, between responses that may influence the ability of a collective to follow a sustainable development path.  Finally, increasing attention is being given to the underlying characteristics of a society which either help or hinder responses to climate change (Brooks et al., 2005, Haddad, 2005, Tompkins and Adger, 2005, Adger et al., 2003, Sagar, 2000). Especially important  3  A version of this chapter has been published as: Burch, S. and J. Robinson. 2007. A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change. Climate Policy 7(4): 304-316. 1469-3062 (print) 1752-7457 (online). www.climatepolicy.com.  24  to these discussions is the concept of capacity, and its influence on action in response to climate change. It is this issue that this paper will address in detail, with the goal of further elaborating the nature of the complex relationship between capacity and action. To this end, the network of interactions that connect a group’s underlying development path with the resultant mitigation and adaptation will be considered, and important factors that mediate these interactions will be identified. Specifically, theories of risk perception will be drawn upon to provide insights into just one of the many socio-cultural patterns that will influence our ability to address the risks associated with climate change. 2.2. Capacity and the climate change problem A central component of recent discussions regarding the human dimensions of climate change is the concept of capacity. This section will introduce adaptive and mitigative capacity.  The evolution of these concepts within the climate community will be  considered, and a way in which adaptive and mitigative capacity can be more carefully defined to assist in the explication of the links between capacity and action in response to climate change will be proposed. Finally, this section will introduce response capacity as a useful idea through which adaptation and mitigation can be integrated in the context of sustainable development. 2.2.1. Adaptive and mitigative capacity As the science of the climate change risk becomes more established, and greater consensus is reached among climate system experts around the world, attention has shifted to the issue of responding to climate change. Responses are typically grouped into two categories: climate change mitigation, which reduces emissions or increases capture of greenhouse gases in order to reduce the magnitude of the future risk, and adaptation, which consists of adjustments in structures, practices, or processes, to respond to changing climate conditions (IPCC, 2001). Recent literature in the field of climate change response argues that adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change take place within the context of adaptive and mitigative capacity, respectively (Brooks et al., 2005, Tompkins and Adger, 2005, Yohe, 2001). This paper takes as its starting point the definitions proposed by the IPCC Third Assessment Report, which defines adaptive  25  capacity as the ability to adapt to the impacts of climate change. We adopt a more recent definition of mitigative capacity which describes it as the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global climate change (Winkler et al., 2007).  The concept of capacity only emerged with the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, and was a significant development in the path towards a more nuanced explication of responses to climate change. Prior to the Third Assessment Report, most analyses of human responses to climate change were limited to estimations of specific climate change impacts and proposals for mitigation and adaptation responses, rather than investigations into the socio-political and institutional precursors to these responses. This focus was established in the First and Second Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a collaborative effort between the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization. Published in 1991 and 1995, these reports captured the focus of the research on climate change that had taken place during the preceding decade, and dealt heavily with issues of modelling the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change, greenhouse gas reduction through mitigation, and issues of the cost-effectiveness or efficiency of mitigation policies (Banuri et al., 2001).  This reflected the natural science-driven and somewhat  technocratic views of the climate change community at the time (Cohen et al., 1998). The assumption was made that science could be used to fill the knowledge gaps that plagued studies of climate change, and that policy makers could simply rationally apply this knowledge to the development and implementation of effective response strategies (Jasanoff and Wynne, 1998, Irwin and Wynne, 1996, Irwin, 1995). A recognition of the limits of this approach led to an attempt by the IPCC, in the Third and Fourth Assessment reports, to pay significantly more attention to questions about the need for consideration of more human issues, such as the social, cultural, political, or institutional constraints on responses to climate change (Banuri et al., 2001). An example of this new focus was the introduction of the concept of adaptive and mitigative capacity in the Third Assessment Report (Banuri et al., 2001, Smit et al., 2001). Even after this introduction occurred, however, the research response within the climate change community remained limited.  26  As such, the concept of capacity, and its implications for climate change mitigation and adaptation, is only now emerging into prominence.  In arenas other than that of traditionally natural science-dominated climate change research, however, the question of capacity for behaviour change has been investigated extensively. Early framing of the climate change problem, embodied in the first two assessment reports of the IPCC, underestimated the contributions of social sciences such as cultural anthropology, sociology, and social psychology  to “understanding the  processes by which societies recognize new threats to their security or well-being, formulate responses, and act collectively upon them,” (Jasanoff and Wynne, 1998). Some have argued that, in the arena of climate change, the rather unsettled relationship between the natural and social sciences arises out of the very different epistemological roots from which these disciplines grow. The traditional, natural science-based climate change discourse was somewhat reductionist in nature, attempted to mould the climate change problem to suit the requirements of scientific analysis, and mostly ignored the political, social, and cultural dimensions of the problem (Cohen et al., 1998). The human-centred social science discourse, on the other hand, sought to explain the drivers of climate change in a more politically sensitive and geographically appropriate manner, but was often considered analytically vague by more quantitatively-oriented scholars (Cohen et al., 1998). It is out of this more human-centred approach that the concepts of adaptive and mitigative capacity have arisen.  The concept of adaptive capacity was first brought to the climate change community because of its use in the field of ecology (Hawley, 1986). The ability of a system to withstand and adapt to external stresses had long been a subject of study in the scientific community, but the resilience of human communities and economic systems was not initially part of this analysis. Over the last several decades, however, a large literature has developed that investigates adaptive human responses in the realm of ecosystem management (cf. Folke et al., 2002, Yohe, 2001, Berkes et al., 2000a, Berkes et al., 2000b, Holling, 1986, Holling, 1978)  These elements were eventually added to the  consideration of adaptive capacity in the climate change community, and articulated by  27  Yohe (2001). Yohe suggested that adaptive capacity was determined by the following group-level characteristics: •  “the range of available technological options for adaptation,  •  the availability of resources and their distribution across the population,  •  the structure of critical institutions and the derivative allocation of decision-making authority,  •  the stock of human capital, including education and personal security,  •  the stock of social capital including the definition of property rights,  •  the system’s access to risk spreading processes,  •  the ability of decision-makers to manage information, the processes by which these decision-makers determine which information is credible, and the credibility of the decision-makers, themselves,  •  public perception of attribution,” (Yohe, 2001).  In parallel to adaptive capacity, mitigative capacity refers to the ability of a system to undertake climate change mitigation. It is typically human-centred, but is connected to natural systems through the accumulation of carbon in these systems, and is determined by a variety of characteristics of the socio-technical system within which mitigation takes place. The work of Gary Yohe (2001) again assisted in the initial elucidation of these determinants, and posited that essentially the same set of characteristics help to determine the mitigative response to climate change (Yohe, 2001). Yohe adds that acknowledgment of the determinants of both adaptive and mitigative capacity may lead to more effective research and policies to deal with responses to the climate change risk (Yohe, 2001). The wide acceptability of the hypotheses put forward by Yohe is demonstrated by their integration in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and their reiteration and further development by numerous climate change experts (Adger et al., 2004, Moss et al., 2001). A more integrated approach to the  28  analysis of adaptation and mitigation is currently gaining momentum, leading to preliminary policy recommendations (Jones et al., 2007, Winkler et al., 2007). 2.2.2. Response capacity As outlined above, recent research supports the view of Yohe that adaptive capacity and mitigative capacity are essentially driven by the same factors (Tompkins and Adger, 2005).  These factors, or determinants, however, operate at a very high level of  abstraction and seem to apply only to very large groups. Furthermore, these determinants yield little insight into crucial aspects of climate responses; namely: what party is initiating the response action, and how is that action carried out? In other words, more information is required about the institution or agency, and the resultant policies and programs, which are geared towards adaptive and mitigative responses to climate change, if the factors that engender effective and ineffective climate change responses are to be articulated.  For these reasons, it may be fruitful to consider the broad determinants of capacity, as outlined by Yohe and others, to be part of a more general, development-related, pool of resources called response capacity.  A slightly different framing of the term response  capacity has been proposed by Tompkins and Adger (2005), who suggest that response capacity can be thought of as the human ability to manage both the generation of greenhouse gases and the consequences of their production (Tompkins and Adger, 2005). Put differently, response capacity, according to this framing, represents simply the confluence of adaptive and mitigative capacity. This concept may be broadened, however, in order to represent the broad pool of resources that can be utilized to address any risk or challenge faced by a human society. The value of this broadening is that it allows response capacity to be connected to the underlying socio-economic and technological development path of a given society or community and thus provide a new focus for attempt to understand how capacity can effectively be translated into action.  Response capacity, according to this view, is time and context specific, and culturally and regionally specific. It consists of a broad set of resources, many of which have previously  29  been described as the determinants of adaptive and mitigative capacity. For instance, stocks of human and social capital, which are pools of resources that may be used in a multitude of ways, are elements of response capacity. In addition, the presence of technological innovation and economic strength of a nation contribute to its store of response capacity. As a result, response capacity is to some extent an approximation of a nation’s development level, and thus is rooted in a nation’s development path.  On the surface the concept of response capacity may appear to represent a further step towards the analytical vagueness that has plagued the concepts of mitigative and adaptive capacity in the past. Response capacity, however, draws our attention to a very important set of processes and dynamic interactions between various technological, institutional, and cultural trajectories which are fundamentally rooted in the underlying development path. In other words, the resources which contribute to response capacity represent potentially path dependent systems of rules, institutional structures, and habitual practices, which may be the precursors of significant barriers to action. As we shall see, these underlying institutional, socio-technical, and cultural trajectories fundamentally constrain the way that mitigative and adaptive capacity play out in practice. Thus, the concept of response capacity simultaneously allows for the greater specification of mitigative and adaptive capacity, and reveals the importance of deeper socio-cultural trajectories that form the context within which action may occur. The examples of the inter-relationships between response capacity, adaptive capacity, and mitigative capacity that are discussed in this section serve to illustrate this claim.  The generalized pools of resources that constitute response capacity might be utilized to produce an institution or policy that is geared toward mitigation of, or adaptation to, climate change, which represents the formation of adaptive and/or mitigative capacity out of the pool of response capacity resources.  For instance, generalized institutional  capacity, in the form of government budgetary capacity and jurisdiction, might be activated in the creation of an agency or institution that is geared towards carrying out emergency measures in response to severe climate events. Similarly, a Corporate Social Responsibility or environmental division of a large corporation might be formulated out  30  of pre-existing institutional capacity and human capital, which then goes on to design effective policies geared towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In this case, it is unlikely that the embodiment of response capacity in a form of adaptive capacity will do much to build or enhance mitigative capacity. Similarly, the presence of technological innovation that has grown out of a socio-technical system might result in technologies that are applicable only to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but contribute nothing to the adaptation to climate change impacts. This clearly implies that tradeoffs may exist in the way that general response capacities are transformed into more specific mitigative or adaptive capacities. For example, to the extent that climate change policy responses in general have available to them only a finite amount of resources within a given governmental policy framework, then adaptive and mitigative measures may compete for these resources even if they are not substitutes in terms of their effects.  Two important dimensions of the relationship between response capacity and adaptive/mitigative capacities require further elaboration, and speak to the fact that response capacity resources may be manifested in a form of mitigative capacity that has implications for adaptation, or a form of adaptive capacity that influences mitigation goals. First, once response capacity is transformed into either mitigative capacity or adaptive capacity, it may or may not serve the other function. For instance, response capacity in the form of human and financial capital, which may contribute to the development of alternative energy technologies, can be instantiated in the form of an agency and policies geared towards decentralized renewable energy generation. This is more likely to result in cases where fewer technological, economic, and institutional path dependencies exist in the energy system, which arise out of the underlying development path. Although not the driving purpose of such an agency and its policies, this form of mitigative capacity also has important implications for adaptive capacity insofar as it enhances resilience and diminishes the vulnerability associated with centralized power generation. In this way, the instantiation of response capacity in the form of mitigative capacity yields unintended benefits for adaptive capacity as well. Similarly, resources that are part of response capacity may be utilized to produce a municipal agency with the mandate of designing and implementing sustainable urban growth or densification  31  policies.  One aspect of these policies might be the design of urban forms that  simultaneously consume less energy than current forms, reduce storm-water runoff and the resulting need for water treatment, and lead to urban systems that are more adaptable to climate extremes and energy security issues. In this way, response capacity has been transformed into an agency which embodies both adaptive and mitigative capacity.  Tradeoffs may also exist in the translation of response capacity into adaptive and mitigative capacity. For instance, response capacity may be utilized to form a flood protection and dike management agency, geared explicitly towards implementing adaptation measures. This is likely in an area that has accumulated technical expertise to deal with such issues, constructed an institutional framework to support these actions, and entrenched flood protection responses in a system of policies and mandates. Not only does this necessarily take resources away from mitigation-oriented measures, but the construction and management of dikes will likely consume fossil fuels that actually contribute to the climate change problem (and thus the need for mitigation). Again, it is clear that the underlying technological, institutional, and socio-cultural trajectories fundamentally shape the way that response capacity is transformed into mitigative and adaptive capacities, as well as into action. Recent work on the part of climate change scholars has begun to explore a more comprehensive framework for the consideration of interactions between adaptation and mitigation, as well as their respective capacities (Wilbanks et al., 2007, Wilbanks and Sathaye, 2007, Yohe and Strzepek, 2007, Dang et al., 2003, Beg et al., 2002). It is clear that the ways in which response capacity is transformed into adaptive and mitigative capacity are manifold, creating layers of interaction leading to very different climate response outcomes.  The relationships among response capacity, mitigative and adaptive capacities and actual mitigation and adaptation proposed here are illustrated in Figure 2.1. First, the schematic shows that all factors that contribute to human responses to climate change are embedded in the underlying development path. In other words, socio-cultural, technological, and institutional trajectories fundamentally shape the quality and quantity of response capacity resources, which are then available for mitigative and adaptive activities. Next,  32  adaptive and mitigative capacity are shown to arise out of these response capacity resources, in the form of institutions and policies that are geared toward one or both of these responses.  Finally, adaptive and mitigative capacities are utilized to produce  adaptation or mitigation in response to the climate change risk. A – adaptive measures M – mitigative measures AC – adaptive capacity MC – mitigative capacity RC – response capacity  A AC  M MC  Alternative Development Pathways  RC  Figure 2.1 The process of transformation of response capacity, which is a generalized set of resources rooted in the development path, into mitigative and adaptive capacity, and finally into action (mitigation and adaptation).  2.3. Translating capacity into action The discussion above, which provides a proposed clarification of the concepts of response capacity, and adaptive and mitigative capacity, lays the groundwork for addressing the central question, often left unasked, with regard to human responses to climate change: does a group with larger stocks of capacity necessarily respond more effectively that a group with less? More generally, one must ask: what influences the relationship between capacity and action? This section will first consider criticisms of, and additions to, the traditional formulation of the determinants of adaptive and mitigative capacity, which provide the roots of the capacity/action question. Next, the translation of capacity into action will be considered, and one important factor which may shape this relationship will be introduced.  33  Although the determinants of capacity, as laid out by Gary Yohe, have come to be widely accepted in the IPCC and global climate research circles, recent work has suggested that Yohe’s list of determinants is incomplete. Haddad (2005), for instance, suggests that the traditional measures of adaptive capacity do not consider the normative or motivational context of adaptation. Specifically, Haddad examines the effect of national goals and aspirations on adaptation choices. Teleological legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, and norm-based decision rules are three broad categories of goals that Haddad argues might lead nations to make different decisions in response to the climate change risk (Haddad, 2005). Although he deals specifically with adaptation and makes no claims about the effects of national aspirations on mitigative responses to climate change, one might argue that the motivational context behind mitigation is equally important. But from the point of view of the approach taken in this paper, these factors have more to do with the process of turning capacity into action than with expanding the list of determinants of capacity.  Grothmann and Patt (2005) stress the need for an examination of responses to climate change that, instead of considering resource constraints as the most significant determinant of adaptation, separates out the psychological steps that precede action in response to perception of the climate change risk. A large literature pertaining to human decision-making and action, traditionally outside of the climate change realm, suggests that both motivation and perceived abilities are important determinants of action (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002, Stern, 2000, Dietz et al., 1998).  Thus, both risk  perception and perceived adaptive capacity, for instance, may enhance or inhibit adaptive responses to climate change (Grothmann and Patt, 2005).  These criticisms of, and additions to, Yohe’s determinants of adaptive and mitigative capacity point to the need to revise the previously deterministic view of capacity and action, and to consider more carefully the intricacies of human behaviour. They suggest the need to relate adaptive and mitigative capacity to the concrete institutional and sociotechnological contexts in which these capacities are embedded. To the extent that these capacities are part of a trajectory of decisions and behaviours that prioritize or even make  34  conceivable only certain forms of action, then proposals for policy responses that are incompatible with such a trajectory are much less likely to succeed or even be seriously considered.  An example of such path dependence might be policy regimes that subscribe to a strongly market-oriented approach to policy formation. In such regimes, response capacity is much more easily mobilized for forms of adaptive or mitigative responses that reflect such priorities (e.g. market-based instruments) than for forms of response characterized by more traditional command and control policies. In this way, the development pathway may strongly condition the types of responses considered legitimate.  Although the adaptive and mitigative capacity literature does not claim that building capacity will necessarily lead to improved responses to the climate change risk, little work has been done to explicate the widely noted variation in response to climate change among communities and nations with similar capacities.  For instance, Canada and  Sweden are remarkably similar according to a variety of economic, demographic, and geographic indicators. Canada’s GDP per capita is $29,000 (US 2004 dollars), while Sweden’s is $26,000 per capita, Canada and Sweden face similar northern hemisphere climates, and are currently passing through similar stages of their demographic transitions, marked by aging populations and slow growth (CIA, 2004). Canada and Sweden also possess similarly high literacy rates, similar distributions of GDP by sector, and so on. These two nations are exposed to the same internationally-endorsed climate change science, through the IPCC, and have access to essentially the same mitigative and adaptive technologies via open markets and international trade. Such similarities indicate that Canada and Sweden possess very similar levels of response capacity. These two countries, however, have very different levels and types of climate change-related institutions and policies (adaptive and mitigative capacity), and very different success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Canada, despite having ratified the Kyoto Protocol, has experienced a 24.2% increase in emissions since 1990, while Sweden has managed to reduce its emissions by 2.3% (UNFCCC, 2005). This variation in response and the potential influence of varying perceptions of risk reveal that capacity is a necessary, but  35  not sufficient, condition for mitigative action (Winkler et al., 2007). Clearly additional factors are influencing the complex and non-linear relationship between response capacity and behaviour change.  In order to tease out some characteristics of the relationship between capacity and action in climate change one factor, risk perception, will be provided as an example of a context-specific, culturally-variable factor that may play some role in variance in climate change responses among countries. 2.4. Example: Risk perception and varying responses to climate change Studies of the perception of risk offer considerable insight into common patterns of behaviour that the individuals and groups might follow in response to a risk such as climate change. Although most of the work in this area has been carried out to explain technological disasters (such as chemical spills or nuclear disasters) or more strictly natural disasters (such as an earthquake or a tsunami), this literature has much to offer any explanation of nations’ or groups’ policy responses to climate change. Research dealing with the perception and characterization of risk can be grouped into two approaches: psychological or psychometric, and socio-cultural. Each of these will be addressed below.  Although scientific experts have often considered the responses of policymakers and the lay public to risk to be irrational, key scholars in the sub-field of psychological or psychometric studies of risk perception argue otherwise (Lowe et al., 2006, Kempton, 1997, Wynne, 1992). Rather than responding to some “true” level of risk that is inherent in changing climate, this literature posits that the lay public creates perceptions of risk that are based on different criteria and thus may differ from those of experts. These perceptions are still rational, however, and are based on two factors, each of which is made up of a combination of characteristics (Slovic, 1992). In particular, these scholars posit that perceptions of risk are derived essentially from feelings of dread (resulting from a risk that is perceived to be severe, catastrophic, or uncontrollable), and the unknown (often resulting from risks that are perceived to be unfamiliar, unobservable, or  36  new to science) (Slovic, 1992). These perceptions are individual, however, and are therefore strongly affected by the socio-economic standing of the individual perceiving the risk. It has been found, for instance, that economically and socially disadvantaged populations, such as visible minorities and women, are likely to perceive risks to be greater than their more empowered counterparts (Satterfield et al., 2004). These disadvantaged groups possess much less power in their socio-political surroundings, and thus have less reason to believe that they can control or recover from a risk. It has often been noted that less-wealthy and minority communities are less likely to receive protection from harm (Bullard, 1994), and are more likely to be located in environmentally unstable or unsafe locations, such as cliffs or low-lying areas prone to flooding and inundation. Climate change may prove to be a very real risk to these groups, who, as the victims of environmental injustice, are least likely to be well-served by the political and economic services that are at the disposal of others. Thus, the groups that have the highest concerns about risks related to climate change may be least empowered to translate those concerns into policy, leading to a systematic underrepresentation of risk concerns.  Risks related to climate change are especially susceptible to variation in perception, in part because of the scientific controversy discussed previously and in part because of the geographical variation in vulnerability, provision of scientific information, and economic stability. As such, a community (Group A) that is economically resilient, with few marginalized groups, high education and literacy levels, and minimal risk of extreme exposure to the impacts of climate change, might associate low levels of dread and ‘unknowability’ with climate change. This group might perceive the risk of climate change to be relatively minor, thereby carrying out few adaptation or mitigation options. Group B, on the other hand, might be characterized by groups that are economically or socially disadvantaged, privy to conflicting information about the potential risks of climate change, and physically vulnerable.  This group, according to Slovic’s  psychometric factor space, would perceive the risks from climate change to be much greater. If this group possesses considerable response capacity, then it may be more likely to carry out adaptive or mitigative actions. One could easily imagine communities  37  with a mixture of these characteristics as well. For instance, Group C might be highly vulnerable (for instance a low-lying small island state), leading to high estimations of the severity and fatality of climate change, but might also consider climate change to be a familiar and observable risk. Group D, alternatively, experiences low levels of dread in relation to the climate change risk, but regards climate change as a mysterious and unobservable force that is unknown and new to science. The levels of mitigation in these latter, more ambiguous, groups might depend more strongly on other factors such as political structures, political will, and capacity.  The groups described above, however, clearly represent idealized versions of reality. Since most jurisdictions consist of mixtures of these groups, power and representation become the resources that most directly influence the responses of a group to climate change. For instance, the risk perception of the less-empowered majority may not be the risk perception that characterizes the more affluent or empowered minority. As a result, the response of the group as a whole may be far from representative of the majority.  Social theories of risk also lend considerable insight into variation in perceptions of the climate change risk that might lead to different mitigative behaviours. Some scholars in this field argue that perceptions of risk are formed in the context of a range of social, cultural, and political factors. Wynne (1992), for instance, demonstrates that conflict between experts and the lay public may result from competition or clash between their respective cultures.  Wynne shows that because scientists have been socialized to  evaluate phenomena empirically and claim objectivity, they are not receptive to the contributions of local ‘experts’ that may lack traditional academic credentials. Local lay people, in turn, view scientists as agents of those in power, and do not trust their methods. As a result, conflicts arise that appear to be about knowledge, when the catalyst for the conflict is actually threatened identities (Wynne, 1992). As climate change researchers begin to learn the value of local knowledge, similar conflicts may arise between scientists who may be viewed as capitalizing on the recent explosion of interest in the climate change issue, and local individuals who want to preserve (for instance) agriculture in vulnerable areas. Although, as mentioned, weather patterns may not be indicative of  38  broader climate patterns, local and traditional knowledge may provide valuable insights into the nature of varying perceptions of the climate change risk, and varying responses. This knowledge, however, and the concerns of those who possess it, is often devalued by expert-driven cultures and thus under-represented in policy.  Added to this rational or analytical way of interpreting risk is an intuitive or affective layer of response, which has been termed the ‘experiential system’ (Slovic et al., 2004). This more rapid, mostly unconscious evaluation of risk is thought to operate in parallel with our more logical assessments of risk, and the two systems fundamentally guide and inform one another (Slovic et al., 2004). This role of affect in thinking and information processing has gained visibility in the risk community (Kahneman and Frederick, 2002, Slovic et al., 2002), and draws our attention to the ways in which rationality and emotion are inextricably linked. This complicated relationship may shed some light on varying responses to the risk of climate change (of which few of us have experience) and may help explain why, in cases such as this where consequences are new or unexpected, the ‘affect heuristic’ fails to enable us to be rational actors.  Psychological and socio-cultural models of risk perception and response point to the fact that varying responses to climate change might indeed be rational. Incorporating local and lay knowledge, addressing concerns of environmental injustice and social inequity, and formulating programs that account for variation in social hierarchies and group integration might help to resolve part of the controversy that arises from different mitigative behaviour, and help to close the apparent gap between capacity and action in response to climate change.  Risk perception, whether defined through psychological or socio-cultural models, is not incorporated into the current definition of response capacity, but can clearly influence behaviour. A high perception of the risks associated with global climate change, for instance, might provide the foundation of interest in climate change adaptation or mitigation and knowledge of the benefits of adaptation or mitigation that is needed to effect behaviour change. Similarly, a community that perceives a high level of risk might  39  also utilize the social forces that encourage and reinforce adaptive or mitigative behaviour. 2.5. Conclusions and future directions This paper has introduced the concept of response capacity, and traced its links to adaptive and mitigative capacity, and ultimately action or behaviour change in response to climate change. This complex and dynamic set of relationships is deeply embedded within the underlying development path, pointing to the need to consider integrated adaptive and mitigative responses. Risk perception has been presented, for illustrative purposes, as only one of many socio-cultural characteristics that may influence the relationship between capacity and action, and thus shape responses to climate change. It is necessary to further elaborate upon other factors that may also fundamentally alter human responses to this risk, in order to stimulate sufficient greenhouse gas reduction and adaptation strategies. For this one must look to the literatures of institutional genesis and change, socio-technical systems, social movements, and collective behaviour change theory (to name but a few) to shed light on the underlying development paths which influence both capacity and action.  Similarly, from the point of view of policy, and moving more readily from capacity to action, the concept of response capacity and the socio-economic and technological development pathways such capacity is embedded within, suggest the need to consider carefully the socio-technical context within which climate policy responses must be undertaken. Actions inconsistent with development path trajectories are likely to face greater hurdles in implementation and may indeed not be given serious consideration. Whether adaptive and mitigative measures and actions are likely to compete for resources or else reinforce each other likewise will depend in part on the nature of the development path within which they are expressed.  To the extent that climate change policies are increasingly framed in terms of sustainability goals then the arguments presented in this paper suggest that a crucial consideration must be the question of how it may be possible to make a transition from  40  currently dominant development paths to sustainable ones. This in turn not only shifts the focus of concern somewhat from climate policy to sustainability policy (Robinson et al., 2006, Swart et al., 2003) but also suggests the importance of investigating and developing effective means by which perceived barriers can be overcome at the municipal, regional, national, and international scales.  41  2.6. References Adger, N. W., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S. & Eriksen, S. (2004) New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Technical Report 7. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Resource. Adger, W. N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. & Hulme, M. 2003. Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3: 179. Banuri, T., Weyant, J., Akumu, G., Najam, A., Pinguielli Rosa, L., Rayner, S., Sachs, W., Sharma, R. & Yohe, G. 2001. Setting the Stage: Climate Change and Sustainable Development. IN Metz, B., O. Davidson, R. Swart, and J. Pan (Ed.) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Report of Working Group III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beg, N., Morlot, J. C., Davidson, O., Afrane-Okesse, Y., Tyani, L., Denton, F., Sokona, Y., Thomas, J. P., La Rovere, E. L. b., Parikh, J. K., Parikh, K. & Atiq Rahman, A. 2002. Linkages between climate change and sustainable development. Climate Policy 2: 129. Berkes, F., Colding, J. & Folke, C. 2000a. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10: 1251-1262. Berkes, F., Folke, C. & Colding, J. 2000b. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Betsill, M. 2001. Mitigating climate change in US cities: opportunities and obstacles. Local Environment 6: 393-406. Bizikova, L., Robinson, J. & Cohen, S. 2007. Linking climate change and sustainable development at the local level. Climate Policy 7: 271-277. Brooks, N., Adger, W. N. & Kelly, P. M. 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change 15: 151-163. Bullard, R. 1994. Decision Making. Environment 36: 11-20, 39-44. CIA (2004) CIA World Factbook. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/. Cohen, S., Demeritt, D., Robinson, J. & Rothman, D. 1998. Climate change and sustainable development: Towards dialogue. Global Environmental Change 8: 341-371.  42  Dang, H. H., Michaelowa, A. & Tuan, D. D. 2003. Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the context of sustainable development: the case of Vietnam. Climate Policy 3S1: S81-S96. Dietz, T., Stern, P. C. & Guagnano, G. 1998. Social structure and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behaviour 30: 450-471. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. & Walker, B. 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31: 437-440. Grothmann, T. & Patt, A. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environment Change 15: 199213. Haddad, B. 2005. Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when sociopolitical goals are explicit. Global Environmental Change 15: 165-176. Hawley, A. H. 1986. Human Ecology: A Theoretical Essay. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Wiley: New York. Holling, C. S. 1986. The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Local Surprise and Global Change. IN Clark, W. & Munn, R. (Eds.) Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen Science. Routledge: New York, New York. Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. 1996. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Jasanoff, S. & Wynne, B. 1998. Science and Decisionmaking. IN Rayner, S. & Malone, E. (Eds.) Human Choice and Climage Change Vol.1: The Societal Framework. Columbus, Ohio: Batelle Press Ltd. Jones, R. N., Dettmann, P., Park, G., Rogers, M. & White, T. 2007. The relationship between adaptation and mitigation in managing climate risks: A regional response from North Central Victoria, Australia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 685-712.  43  Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgement. IN Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D. (Eds.) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 49-81). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kempton, W. 1997. How the public views climate change. Environment 39: 13-21. Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, M. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally, and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research 3: 239-260. Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de França Doria, M., Haynes, K. & Vincent, K. 2006. Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science 15: 435-457. Moss, R., Brenkert, A. L. & Malone, E. L. (2001) Vulnerabilty to Climate Change: A Quantitative Approach. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Robinson, J., Bradley, M., Busby, P., Connor, D., Murray, A., Sampson, B. & Soper, W. 2006. Climate change and sustainable development: Realizing the opportunity. Ambio 35: 2-8. Sagar, A. D. 2000. Capacity development for the environment: A view for the South, a view for the North. Annual Review of Energy & the Environment 25: 377-439. Satterfield, T., Mertz, C. & Slovic, P. 2004. Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Analysis 24: 115-129. Slovic, P. 1992. Perceptions of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, B. G. & MacGregor, D. G. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24: 311-322. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D. G. 2002. The affect heuristic. IN Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D. (Eds.) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement (pp 397-420). New York: Cambridge University Press. Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., Burton, I., Challenger, B., Huq, S., Klein, R. & Yohe, G. 2001. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity. IN Mccarthy, J., Canziani, O., Leary, N., Dokken, D. & White, K. (Eds.) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  44  Stern, P. C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 56: 407-424. Swart, R., Robinson, J. & Cohen, S. 2003. Climate change and sustainable development: expanding the options. Climate Policy, Special Issue on Climate Change and Sustainable Development 3: S19-S40. Tompkins, E. & Adger, W. N. 2005. Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environmental Sciences and Policy 8: 562-571. UNFCCC (2005) Key GHG Data. UNFCCC. Wilbanks, T. & Kates, R. W. 1999. Global change in local places: how scale matters. Climatic Change 43: 601-628. Wilbanks, T., Leiby, P., Perlack, R. D., Ensminger, J. T. & Wright, S. B. 2007. Toward an integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: some preliminary findings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 713-725. Wilbanks, T. & Sathaye, J. 2007. Integrating mitigation and adaptation as responses to climate change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 957962. Winkler, H., Baumert, K., Blanchard, O., Burch, S. & Robinson, J. 2007. What factors influence mitigative capacity? Energy Policy 35: 692-703. Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1: 281-304. Yohe, G. & Strzepek, K. 2007. Adaptation and mitigation as complementary tools for reducing the risk of climate impacts. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 727-739. Yohe, G. W. 2001. Mitigative capacity: the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side. Climatic Change 49: 247-262.  45  Chapter 3. Development paths: Investigating the context of responses to climate change4 3.1. Introduction Despite the tumultuous history of international climate change policy negotiations, recent progress has been made towards increasing the level of public awareness of the issue (Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006), the design of policies intending to address the causes and impacts of climate change, and scholarly research into all aspects of the problem. This groundswell of support, followed by increasingly pervasive calls for action, however, have revealed glaring inconsistencies in the ways in which climate change is studied in the research community compared to the truly integrated, complex, and highly uncertain nature of the phenomenon.  Indeed, disciplinary distinctions have often prevented  intuitively-linked branches of investigation from communicating with one another and fostering improved understanding.  Despite this historic separation, however, a notable trend is emerging in humanenvironment research wherein increasing attention is being given to the underlying societal characteristics that either help or hinder responses to climate change. These characteristics are crucial for both adaptive and mitigative responses to climate change, as well as the broader transition toward a sustainable development path of which climate change responses are only a part. The concept of capacity has emerged as a critical precursor to action on climate change (Adger et al., 2007, Adger et al., 2004, Yohe and Tol, 2002), but the roots of capacity in the underlying development path have yet to be fully explored. Such an exploration is necessary if stores of capacity are to be effectively utilized and locally-specific barriers to policy design and implementation are to be addressed (Burch and Robinson, 2007). Furthermore, it is important to consider path dependency, whereby alternatives become increasingly less likely over time as learning accumulates, irreversible choices are made, and inter-related elements of a system become deeply intertwined (see for instance: Pierson, 2004, Berkhout, 2002). Path dependency may characterize a number of the institutional processes by which capacity is 4  A version of this chapter has been submitted for publication as: Burch, Sarah. Development paths: investigating the context of response to climate change.  46  built and utilized, as well as the clusters of technologies that are employed in response to a problem like climate change. As such, this phenomenon presents unique challenges to those attempting to create policies that challenge the institutional or technological status quo.  This paper has three core objectives: to contribute a richer definition of the development path concept to the climate change discourse; to begin to identify realms of inquiry which may together be called a ‘development path’ literature; and discuss ways in which this literature sheds light on effective collective action in response to global climate change. I draw from literatures as diverse as socio-technological change theory (cf. Seyfang and Smith, 2007, Geels, 2004, Berkhout, 2002), institutional theory (cf. Peters, 2005, Young, 2002b, Olsen and March, 1989), and social movement theory (cf. Della Porta and Diani, 2006, Escobar, 1998, Laraña et al., 1994).  These literatures often represent multi-  disciplinary approaches in their own right, but looking across them draws out the strengths of each and applies their insights to the question of the influence of development paths on climate change action. This paper will reveal common trends which transcend the host of differences between these realms of inquiry and which represent significant progress toward the goal of policy-relevant analysis of pressing environmental problems. In particular, I refer to the use of spatial and temporal contextualization common to many of the above theorists, which in turn throws into relief a potentially useful ‘development path’ school of thought. 3.2. Capacity and the components of development paths Although adaptation and mitigation have traditionally been addressed in isolation from one another (as in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), recent analyses have revealed a number of important linkages and synergies. Both strategies jointly determine our risks and the costs of decreasing these risks (Kane and Shogren, 2000), they each influence the timing and level required of the other (Munasinghe and Swart, 2005, Nicholls and Lowe, 2004, Wilbanks et al., 2003), and both responses are dependent on social and technological constraints (Tompkins and Adger, 2003). These linkages are further illustrated by the concepts of adaptive and mitigative capacity, which  47  were first given widespread recognition by the climate change community with the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report of 2001. Defined by the IPCC as a nation’s “ability to diminish the intensity of the natural (and other) stresses to which it might be exposed” (Banuri et al., 2001), mitigative capacity is a slightly newer concept than adaptive capacity, or the “potential or ability of a system, region, or community to adapt to the effects or impacts of climate change,” (Smit et al., 2001). In a now highly-referenced paper by Gary Yohe, the determinants of both adaptive and mitigative capacity were posited be very similar, and consisted mainly of development-related resources such as the stocks of technological resources, stocks of human and social capital, the structure of critical institutions, and the nation’s access to risk-spreading procedures (Yohe, 2001). These lists of determinants have been reiterated by other scholars in the climate change community (Adger and Vincent, 2005, Brooks et al., 2005, Adger et al., 2003), some of whom have added socio-cultural determinants such as the normative or motivational aspects of climate change responses (Haddad, 2005), and perceived adaptive capacity (Grothmann and Patt, 2005).  More recently, it has been argued that adaptive and mitigative capacities grow out of a common pool of resources, called response capacity (Burch and Robinson, 2007, Winkler et al., 2007), and provide the foundation upon which responses to climate change may be carried out at a national or community level. Response capacity is not simply the sum of adaptive and mitigative capacity. For the purposes of this work, response capacity is viewed as being comprised of the resources that allow a group to respond to any risk, and a choice must be made to utilize human capital, financial capital, and institutional resources (for instance) to address the climate change risk in particular (either through adaptation or mitigation). Once this response capacity has been transformed into an institution or policy geared specifically towards adaptation or mitigation, success in terms of reduced greenhouse gas emissions or reduced vulnerability to impact is still not inevitable. As such, capacity may be viewed as a necessary but not sufficient precursor to action in response to climate change (Burch and Robinson, 2007). Analysis of this complex relationship between capacity and action represents a significant gap in the climate change literature, and thus limits the ability of climate policies to build effective  48  response strategies. From the multitude of intervening factors (ranging from the varying individual risk perceptions that arise from the nature of the problem itself to the structure of institutions that are charged with addressing the problem) that can immediately be identified as influencing this relationship, it is clear that the issue of climate change would benefit from a more interdisciplinary approach. Among many others, the fields of human geography (including political ecology and historical geography), political science (institutional theory, comparative policy analysis, governance theory, and political history), and technology studies (particularly the examination of socio-technical transitions, innovation, and linkages between governance and technical systems) are particularly relevant to developing a more nuanced view of the forces that influence the translation of capacity into action in response to climate change.  The specific  contributions of a subset of these literatures will be introduced below. 3.3. Development paths and global environmental change The first step in this integrated, interdisciplinary investigation of the nature of human responses to climate change is to locate these responses within the host of forces that fundamentally shape them.  In particular, a complex interweaving of institutional,  technological, and cultural forces form the underlying development path, or context within which human behavioural responses to a risk such as climate change emerge. In the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a development path is defined as “a complex array of technological, economic, social, institutional, cultural and biophysical characteristics that determines the interactions between human and natural systems, including consumption and production patterns in all countries, over time at a particular scale” (Sathaye et al., 2007).  While drawing our attention to the complex of factors that influence patterns of human behaviour, this definition does not provide significant specificity regarding the mechanisms through which these ‘characteristics’ exercise their influence. Furthermore, whether due to the strongly discipline-based origins of the climate change discourse or the technically-oriented approaches to the problem typically used in the political and economic arenas, these key components of development paths have yet to be investigated  49  in unison, and the implications of these trajectories for climate change adaptation and mitigation examined.  New institutional theory and environmental governance literature have revealed the importance of historical and cultural context in the genesis, evolution, and effects of institutions in relation to global environmental change. It offers an appreciation for the complexity of human agency in the face of potentially path dependent structures, and considers the roles of values and norms in shaping behaviour in response to new and challenging problems such as climate change. Recent developments in the argument for the integration of climate policy within a context of sustainable development have shown that the underlying development path may be an even more important determinant of greenhouse gas emissions than explicit climate policy (Swart et al., 2003). An improved understanding of the interactions between institutions and other components of development paths, such as technological and cultural trajectories (Swart et al., 2003, O'Riordan, 2001), is essential to the formulation and implementation of effective policies to manage global risks.  The co-evolving technological, market, and regulatory frameworks which influence innovation have been the subject of investigation in the field of socio-technical transition theory. In particular, theories about socio-technical regimes have helped to integrate institutions, rules, and sociological insights into the study of technology (Geels, 2004). Furthermore, the cumulative, systemic, and dynamic nature of technological evolution (Grubler, 2000) represents a potentially path dependent trajectory which is an integral part of development paths.  Socio-technical transition theory helps to identify the  importance of protected spaces within which innovative technologies or processes can be developed. It places these innovations within the universe of rules that control them, and investigates means by which a transition towards a more sustainable pattern of development can occur (see for example: Geels and Schot, 2007, Smith et al., 2005, Berkhout, 2002).  50  In the context of the objectives of this paper, the socio-cultural components of development paths are best described by ‘new social movement’ theory, which explores characteristics of societies that cause fundamental shifts in the forms and manifestations of agency.  Rooted deeply in human geography and anthropology, these realms of  investigation add the crucial layers of collective identity, power dynamics, and networks of trust and reciprocity that act as both constructive forces on, and mediators of, human behaviour in response to global climate change (see for example: Della Porta et al., 1999, Laraña et al., 1994, Melucci, 1984). New social movement theory addresses the broader collective context within which institutions develop and innovation occurs. Especially relevant is the potential for social movements to facilitate (or inhibit) action in response to a perceived common threat.  The literatures identified here do not represent an exhaustive list of those that pertain to the question of action in response to global climate change. The goal, however, is to use the multi-faceted concept of development paths to weave together disparate but complementary arguments regarding the context of climate change responses. Taken together, these literatures may help to elucidate the nature of barriers to effective transitions toward a more sustainable development path. 3.3.1. Technological trajectories Early studies into technological innovation (cf. Arthur, 1989, Nelson and Winter, 1982) generally focused on the level of the technological artefact, rather than the broader system of policy and culture which surrounds systems of inter-linked artefacts (Berkhout, 2002). Gradually, though, pervasive arguments have been made for a broadening of the unit of analysis to include ‘socio-technical systems,’ or the linkages between a multitude of elements (such as artefacts, knowledge, capital, labour, cultural meaning, etc.), all of which are necessary for society to function (Geels, 2004, Rip and Kemp, 1998, Schot et al., 1994). These systems provide stability within society but are also a potential source of path dependency (Geels, 2004). Furthermore, socio-technical systems do not operate on their own, but through the involvement of human actors and organizations, who, in turn, operate in the context of rules and institutions (Geels, 2004). In other words,  51  technology has been contextualized in recognition of the ways in which seemingly objective quantities, such as natural resource abundance, have been economically, technologically, and socially constructed (Foray and Grubler, 1996). This trend toward contextualization parallels the trends described later in this paper with regard to new institutional theory.  The ‘deep structure’ of socio-technical systems is provided by socio-technical regimes: semi-coherent sets of rules or a linked patchwork of other rule regimes (such as the purely technical rule regime, the user and market regime, and the policy regime), whose rules are aligned in some way with each other (Geels, 2004, Berkhout, 2002, Rip and Kemp, 1998). Systems of regimes, due to the vast web of interconnectedness that characterizes them, are slow to change and must evolve in an incremental and cumulative fashion, or through a gradual and smooth reorientation of the system (Berkhout, 2002). Put another way, it is very unlikely that a socio-technical regime will suffer a shock so great that the entire system is re-oriented towards an entirely different path of institution/actor/technology relations. The source of change in these systems is often induced through policy instruments or changes in cost distributions (Grubb et al., 2002, Grubler, 2000), and is more likely to occur at the ‘niche’ level (Seyfang and Smith, 2007). Niches are protected spaces in which a radical novelty can develop, unhindered by the market forces and socio-cultural rules that typically provide relative stability in the broader socio-technical system (Geels, 2004). Rules in these niches are less certain, providing an opportunity for intentional deviation from the underlying path (Garud and Karnøe, 2003). Finally, regimes exist within the broader context of socio-technical landscapes, and consist of macro economic, political, and cultural trajectories (Geels and Schot, 2007). Landscapes are the exogenous context of socio-technical regimes, and are beyond the direct control of actors (Geels, 2004). This ‘multi-level perspective’ suggests that socio-technical development path transitions occur as the result of alignments between changes in each of these three levels, shifting pressures on the regimes, and adaptation to these pressures (Geels and Schot, 2007, Smith et al., 2005).  52  From this literature surrounding socio-technical systems and transitions, which admittedly is only a very small (but pertinent) slice of the technological change literature, we see an increasing recognition of the co-evolution of technological and institutional systems (see for example: Smith et al., 2005, Lynn et al., 1996, Rosenkopf and Tushman, 1994, Van de Ven and Garud, 1994). This ‘techno-economic’ paradigm forges links between theories of technological evolution and theories of path dependency and structural and institutional change (Andersen, 1998) through the acknowledgement that because interwoven systems of rules surround clusters of technologies that are deeply embedded in culture, history becomes important (Arthur, 1989). In other words, the institutional and cultural contexts within which innovation occurs are of equal importance to the technologies themselves and represent path dependent trajectories which are not easily re-oriented.  For obvious reasons, socio-technical regimes are of great importance to discussions of climate change. Not only are fossil fuel-consuming technologies (and the culture that fosters their use) the roots of the current global emissions profile, but, until recently, responses to climate change were largely framed in terms of devices that might be created to solve the problem. A significant, albeit recent, change to this discussion has been an increasing recognition of the role that the human dimension of institutions, cultures, and perceptions play in determining the type and extent of response option that is chosen by both decision-makers and the public. 3.3.2. Institutional theory and global environmental change The trend towards an increasingly significant role of institutions in the analysis of human-environment interactions has been gaining strength for over a decade (Ostrom, 2008, Adger, 2000, Ostrom et al., 1999). Institutions provide the organizational and socio-cultural context within which human activity is structured, values are expressed, and norms are created. They represent the systems of rules that govern decision-making, and the underlying logic for the organizations which fundamentally shape the design and implementation of policies that help societies respond to risk. Furthermore, patterns of institutional development and interaction are critical to an understanding of the deeper  53  context within which action in response to global climate change occurs, and thus are another important element of development paths. The complexity and interconnectedness of institutions has often obscured the processes by which institutional genesis and change takes place, creating a field abounding with highly divergent theories and competing hypotheses. Nevertheless, a common message has emerged: the roles that institutions play in both creating and mitigating environmental problems is a critical realm of inquiry, requiring the combined efforts of scholars from political science, sociology, resource management, social psychology, and law (among a host of other disciplines).  Although political scientists differ in the extent to which they agree that the ‘new institutionalism’ differs from the old (Peters, 2005, Immergut, 1998, Powell and DiMaggio, 1991), it is clear that in the early 1980s, a shift began to occur which reintroduced institutions into political analysis, where they had long been absent. This shift followed what are now called the behavioural and rational revolutions, which were characterized by three assumptions that are of great relevance to the recent evolution of institutional theory.  The first assumption was that the preferences expressed by  individuals are their real preferences; in other words, preferences are revealed through behaviour.  The second assumption was that individual behaviours can simply be  aggregated into collective phenomena, thus yielding the behaviour of institutions amenable to explanation simply by reference to the preferences (and thus, behaviour) of the individuals that compose that institution. The final assumption was that interests are the subjective assessments of individuals, rather than artefacts of the ways in which decisions were made (Immergut, 1998). The revision of these three assumptions forms part of the theoretical core of the ‘new institutionalism’ that recently emerged in political science.  Led by Johan Olsen and James March, one of the most marked departures from ideas about behaviour that were popular during the middle of the 20th century is now called ‘normative institutionalism.’  Olsen and March (1989) identify two distinct ‘logics’  behind human behaviour. The first, the ‘logic of consequentiality’, implies anticipatory choice on the part of the individual, and clearly mirrors rational choice theories. In  54  contrast, Olsen and March claim that the majority of behaviour is governed instead by the ‘logic of appropriateness.’ This represents behaviour based on feelings of obligation and routine, which embody collective and individual identities (Olsen and March, 1989). This is of special relevance to the concept of development paths because it directs our attention to a logic of climate change policymaking that, rather than being based on a clear assessment of the financial (or other) costs and benefits of response strategies, is deeply rooted in long traditions of practice and habits that are difficult to alter.  Historical institutionalism, which is another important branch of new institutional theory, seeks to address the limits on human rationality and knowledge that can only be provided by giving careful consideration to historical context (Immergut, 1998). The central tenet of this branch of institutionalism holds that decisions made early on in an institution’s development will have continuing effects far into the future (Peters, 2005). In this theory, the role of ideas is given even greater weight than in most other branches of the new institutionalism, and theorists trace how ideas and interests change through time while studying the impacts of institutions on the construction and aggregation of those interests (Immergut, 1998). In other words, preferences are considered endogenous to the system, rather than exogenous, as is often the case in rational choice theory (Thelen, 1999). Recent critics of historical institutionalism have argued that the field does not explicitly consider the role of temporal processes, especially those that lead to path dependency (Pierson, 2004).  In particular, high start-up costs, coordination effects,  learning effects, and adaptive expectations, are identified as likely precursors of path dependency in institutions (Pierson, 2004).  Despite criticisms, however, historical  institutionalism temporally contextualizes institutional design and function, thereby following the meta-trend indentified in many of the literatures associated with development paths.  With regard to the challenge of climate change, historical  institutionalism draws our attention to the weight of inertia inherent in practices, habits, and institutional arrangements. The logic upon which an institution was first created fundamentally shapes its function through time, but may become inconsistent with an ever-evolving international environmental regime, changing climate, or transformed political economy. As such, it becomes important to explore the ways in which a  55  complex of institutions and practices may be guided towards a more sustainable development path.  The community of institutional theorists has, over the past three decades, been confronted by the challenges of global environmental change with increasing urgency. As a result, analyses began which considered the potential need for global institutional responses to these problems (Young, 2004, see for example: Young, 2002a). Around the same time, the international relations literature began to recognize that the actions of nation states are in part constrained by structures at the international level (Peters, 2005). Typically, as long as these constraints are equally applied to their adversaries and friends, states are willing to accept some constraints on their behaviour that may facilitate the pursuit of state interests (Young, 2001). With respect to environmental change, however, we must reconcile the empirical reality that institutional failures have resulted in resource depletion and environmental degradation, with the simultaneous claim that the solutions to these very problems lie with institutions such as property rights, regulatory regimes, and incentives (Young, 2002b). As a result of this question, a burgeoning theoretical field has sought to consider the institutional dimensions of global environmental change.  A branch of this institutional theory, international regime theory considers the dynamics that play out among states at the international level and is especially useful in the analysis of global environmental problems (Helm and Sprinz, 2000). Environmental regimes represent a form of institution that may provide a way to deal with global environmental problems. The ‘new institutionalism’ has effectively incorporated regime theory in the realm of global environmental change because it is pragmatic, often empirical, and aims to “understand the role of institutions as determinants of outcomes in interactive human behaviour,” (Young, 2002b). Institutional theory has also displayed an enhanced focus on the role that actors play in transforming and maintaining institutions (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) through institutional entrepreneurship (DiMaggio, 1988).  In other  words, organized actors with resources may significantly impact the structure and function of institutions by utilizing strategies such as lobbying, leadership (see for example: Maguire et al., 2004, Greenwood et al., 2002). This may be viewed as part of a  56  broader trend towards investigating the intentional, strategic actions of individuals and collectives within institutions, with the ultimate purpose of altering an aspect of the institution to achieve a desired outcome (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006).  The  implications of this for the concept of development paths are manifold: strategies are revealed by which actors may guide the evolution of institutions, which are one important and interwoven part of the overall development path, in the face of new risks related to climate change.  A variety of models have been used to explicate the mechanisms by which institutions affect behaviour and thus collective outcomes. Although we will not delve into the details here, institutional regimes have been variously depicted as: utility modifiers, enhancers of cooperation, bestowers of authority, learning facilitators, role definers, and agents of internal re-alignments (Young, 1999). These mechanisms can usefully be grouped into two overarching models of the behavioural pathways through which institutions affect human-environment interactions. The first, collective action models, draws on institutional economics and public choice and treats actors as decision makers who make choices based on rational calculations of utility maximization (Young, 2001). Referring to the classic work of Olsen and March, described above, Young argues that collective action models describe behaviour that is based on a ‘logic of consequences.’ The second major model of institutional effects on behaviour, social practice models, looks to the roles of culture, norms, and habits as the source of behaviour, thus utilizing a logic of appropriateness to explain behaviour (Young, 2001). These models offer very different answers to questions regarding compliance and the fulfillment of commitments, the consequences of different policy instruments, behavioural consistency, and the durability of international environmental regimes (Young, 2001). Although it appears that a tension exists between the progression towards normative institutionalism, which focuses on the influence of routines and norms, and ‘practice’ approaches, in which actors are intelligent manipulators of institutions, the latter does not assert that autonomous actors can fully realize desired outcomes through strategic action (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006).  Rather, these branches of institutional theory simply place  57  relatively less or more focus on the ways in which intentional action collides with the broader context (or development path), and the results of this collision.  Although necessary selective, this examination of institutional theory has brought to light a number of important contributions of the new institutionalism and international environmental regime theory to the examination and potential solution of global environmental change problems. In particular, this branch of institutional theory directs our attention to the importance of historical and cultural context in the genesis, evolution, and effects of institutions. It offers an appreciation for the complexity of human agency in the face of potentially path dependent structures, and considers the roles of values and norms in shaping behaviour.  Nevertheless, an improved understanding of the interactions between institutions and other components of development paths, such as technological and cultural trajectories (Swart et al., 2003, O'Riordan, 2001), is essential to the formulation and implementation of effective policies to manage global risks. For these reasons, new institutional and environmental regimes theory offer important contributions to the demarcation of a development path literature that may shed considerable light on the mechanisms through which humans respond to global climate change. Not covered here, but clearly of significant relevance to the issues of development paths, is the literature exploring adaptive governance (see for example: Folke et al., 2005, Walker et al., 2004). 3.3.3. Cultural and behavioural trajectories Technological and institutional trajectories, which form part of the underlying development, cannot be divorced from the broader collective social context that defines what is important for a society. As such, collective behavioural phenomena, such as social movements, represent a critical element of development paths and reveal an important way in which action on climate change may be either enabled or inhibited.  The literature surrounding social movements represents the heart of a branch of behaviour change literature that focuses on societal or collective phenomena. Growing  58  out of the recognition that an exclusive focus on the individual ignores the ways in which macro-phenomena arise, attention has shifted to the ways in which social movements are the engines of change (Della Porta and Diani, 2006). Early social movement theories during much of the 20th century were concerned mainly with issues of ideology and were rooted in early Marxist discourse surrounding the economic or class base (Laraña et al., 1994). Labour movements in response to the capitalist enterprise were of this sort, and represented the major appeals for freedom of expression and democratic rights of the time (Giddens, 1990). In the 1960s, however, theories began to shift to structural-functionalist explanations of social movements, which depicted collective action as a crisis behaviour that occurred as a result of the inability of institutions and social control mechanisms to produce social cohesion in the face of apparently over-rapid social transformation (Della Porta and Diani, 2006, Melucci, 1984). Later it was the ability of associations to mobilize resources and carry out planned, rational actions, which garnered much of the analytical effort of the research community (Della Porta and Diani, 2006, Laraña et al., 1994). These theories viewed social movements as rational extensions of traditional political action, and considered the ways in which the capacity for mobilization depended upon material and non-material resources (Della Porta and Diani, 2006).  Characteristics of ‘new social movements’ began to emerge which displayed very different ideological and structural characteristics, and different modes of action. These movements transcended traditional structural roles of participants, such as class, represented a plurality of values and ideas, often pertained to very personal and intimate aspects of participants’ lives, and were often diffuse and decentralized (Laraña et al., 1994). In contrast to the ideologically united labour movements of the past, new social movements, such as those surrounding definitions of gender and sexual orientation, and the relationship between humans and the natural environment, deal fundamentally with issues of identity construction and often arise out of the crisis of credibility that is being experienced by traditional methods of democratic governance (Laraña et al., 1994).  59  Social movements and collective action contain important symbolic dimensions which strongly influence human behaviour. First, through ‘interpretive frame alignment,’ a social movement’s model of reality converges with that of a targeted population, thereby facilitating action. (Della Porta and Diani, 2006). The continual search for identity, a central characteristic of modernity (Laraña et al., 1994, Giddens, 1990), is also a key aspect of social movement formation. The identity of the individual, which is brought to the movement, the identity of the collective that is agreed upon by the group, and the identity of the group that is shaped by the public, are all important dimensions of identity in this realm (Laraña et al., 1994). For movement participants, identities act to both enable and constrain collective action, and influence the persistence or continuity of the social movement (Laraña et al., 1994). Social movements also serve the function of framing agents, and in this way organize experience and guide the actions of both participants (through direct involvement in the movement) and non-participants (through diffusion of the movements ideas) (Della Porta et al., 1999, Snow et al., 1986). In effect, social movements shape the way that reality is imagined and acted upon (Escobar, 1995). In sum, social movements both shape identities and construct frames, thereby redefining social power as constitutive processes that result in changed behaviour. These sociallyconstructed patterns of behaviour form a central thrust in the development path, which in turn provides the context within which action on climate change takes place.  Climate change, however, presents an interesting problem to advocates of social movement theory. Social movements often have difficulty diffusing across socio-cultural contexts, because the adopting group and the diffusing group must share a number of characteristics that facilitate that diffusion (Della Porta et al., 1999). Global problems such as climate change represent challenges to the entire gamut of socio-cultural patterns, economic and political structures, and technical capacities.  Thus, while social  movements that serve to redefine the nature of the human relationship with the physical environment may find some resonance in other cultures, it is unlikely that movements that contain specific prescriptions about what is proper action will find the same success at diffusion. The current climate regime, with specific framings of blame attribution, greenhouse gas emissions targets, and preferred solutions, is one such movement. It is  60  possible, however, that a movement based more around the principles of sustainable development or sustainability, left vaguely defined, might see more success in diffusion than a strictly climate-based social movement. In some countries, the climate change movement has also been vulnerable to counter-claims (such as those made by the conservative movement in the United States; see McCright and Dunlap, 2003) that challenge the definitions of global warming and the acceptability of uncertainty.  A specific subset of relevant literatures has been presented here to demonstrate the ways in which collective behavioural phenomena (as part of a society’s underlying development path) influence the nature of the link between capacity and action in response to climate change. 3.4. Implications of a ‘development path’ literature for climate change and sustainable development research The literatures which contribute to an understanding of development paths draw our attention to three critical lessons for climate change research: the value of fundamentally inter-disciplinary approaches to the study of responses to climate change; the necessity of a deeper understanding of the context of human responses to climate change (in the form of the underlying development path); and the ubiquity of path dependent trajectories.  Disciplinary boundaries have often inhibited the intellectual and practical collaboration that is required to address the true complexity of the climate change problem. These boundaries have become manifest in the divisions of assessment efforts within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the siloed approach to climate change policymaking in many cities and nations in the industrialized world, and the common lack of fundamentally interdisciplinary investigations of the problem in the scholarly realm.  Drawing together a development path literature may be a first step toward  creating a coordinated approach to climate change studies that utilizes the strengths and parallel trends present in a variety of disciplines. By knitting together traditionally distinct approaches, the most critical determinants of responses to climate change become apparent.  For instance, the review presented above revealed the integral role that  temporal, institutional, and cultural context plays in shaping action. At a more pragmatic 61  level, linking adaptation and mitigation helps to expose synergies between the two strategies, and makes important tradeoffs more evident (Swart and Raes, 2007, Wilbanks et al., 2003). This is a critical step in the planning of communities that are both resilient and following low-carbon development paths. Furthermore, this literature sheds light on ways that the IPCC’s definition of development paths (see p. 48) could be revised to more accurately capture the inertia that builds behind particular configurations of these manifold ‘characteristics.’  Concrete manifestations of these path dependent trajectories  at the local level include the processes and criteria by which development applications are approved, the creation, resulting character, and implementation of Official Community Plans, and the budgetary systems which funnel capital in particular ways towards certain projects over others. These manifestations are not simply independent phenomena that can be altered at will, but instead reflect the deeper underlying societal characteristics associated with cultural notions of responsible development, democratic governance, and capitalist economic systems.  The second important lesson, as alluded to above, pertains to the importance of the development context, (broken down here into socio-technical, institutional, and collective behavioural elements) which fundamentally shapes responses to climate change. Discrete technologies are not exogenously imposed on an economy, but are part of a web of rules, institutions, and practices.  This web shapes the likelihood and nature of  innovation and diffusion. The importance of context again emerges through the strong role that norms and values play in both institutional theory and social movement theory, indicating that the socio-cultural context of climate change policies may be as important as the presence of financial resources or technical skills to the success of response efforts. This also suggests that climate change policies which are externally designed and imposed may be met with unexpected challenges in the form of habits, institutional cultures, and values that contradict them. The design of policies must make use of resources that are unique to each institutional and societal context, rather than assuming the uniform presence and distribution of such resources. This challenges the notion that capacity-building exercises will necessary lead to action (Burch and Robinson, 2007),  62  since the utilization of resources such as human and financial capital is subject to institutional and cultural forces that can fundamentally alter the end product.  Although not often referred to as such, path dependency emerged as a trend that characterizes technological, institutional, and cultural processes. Initial investments in a particular path (for instance, an economy centred upon fossil fuel-based technologies) reverberate into the future, making alternative paths increasingly less likely (cf. Pierson, 2004, Berkhout, 2002). This has important implications for the design of climate change policies that fundamentally challenge the existing mode of practice, institutional structure, norms, and values. The most effective climate change policies, therefore, may be the ones that strategically embed new practices in the standard operating procedures of an organization, thereby institutionalizing a new form of action. New institutional theory indicates that norms, or accepted modes of action, are most often referred to when making a decision (rather than rationally evaluating the consequences of one strategy over another).  Finally, the literatures presented above indicated one last characteristic of development paths that is important for the study of capacity and action in response to climate change: development paths clearly give rise to the host of resources required to respond to climate change, such as financial capital, human capital, and strong and legitimate systems of governance. In other words, the underlying development path represents the roots of response capacity. Preliminary glimpses into the institutional, behavioural, and sociotechnical forces at play with a development path, however, point to the potential for significant barriers (many of which may be related to path dependency) to arise that may inhibit the translation of capacity into action. These barriers will be discussed in greater detail in Chapters 5 and 6.  In order to fully form a development path approach to climate change responses, however, further steps must be taken. Although the brief review above suggests that underlying development trajectories deeply influence human behaviour in response to climate change, the linkages among various trajectories are not clear. Furthermore, the  63  specific mechanisms by which responses arise out of capacity have yet to be explored. What is the nature of the barriers to action that exist as a result of the path dependent processes described above? Additional disciplines must also be incorporated, such as organizational theory, investigations of participatory processes and deliberative democracy, analyses of social capital, and social psychology (for instance). 3.5. Conclusions This article seeks to begin a conversation focused on the need to investigate the highly path dependent trajectories that form the context out of which human responses to global climate change arise. The clear lack of success in designing and implementing such policies belies the need for a greater appreciation of the complexity and uncertainty which characterizes a problem of this magnitude and pervasiveness. The first step in this process is to more fully develop the concept of a development path, and to investigate the ways in which socio-technical, institutional, and behavioural trajectories interact to form the context for action in response to climate change.  This paper proposes that  development paths are responsible for the construction of response capacity, and fundamentally shape the ways in which capacity is transformed into action. Preliminary analyses of relevant inter-disciplinary literature indicate that temporal contextualization is a strong theme in the study of both technological and institutional systems, and is mirrored by the propensity of social movements to define norms that become progressively more difficult to change. An added layer of contextualization has emerged as technological systems are recognized to be deeply embedded in institutional and cultural frameworks.  Similarly, new institutional theorists suggest that institutional  structures cannot be divorced from culturally-determined norms and habits of practice, which place an indelible stamp on the human behaviour that results from these structures. The development path literature presented here does not exhaustively describe the plethora of theories which contribute to an understanding of human responses to climate change, but rather begins to draw our attention to the underlying processes which may shape the patterns of response that have begun to emerge. As impacts from climate change continue to be observed and attributions of blame become increasingly acrimonious, it will become critical to utilize all available resources to reveal and address  64  barriers to action. Rooted in the underlying socio-technical, institutional, and sociocultural development paths, these barriers may best be addressed through contextuallyspecific, inter-disciplinary analyses of collective human behaviour.  65  References Adger, N. W. 2000. Institutional adaptation to environmental risk under the transition in Veitnam. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90: 738-758. Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. Q., Conde, C., O’brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B. & Takahashi, K. 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. IN Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Van Der Linden, P. J. & Hanson, C. E. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Adger, W. N., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S. & Eriksen, S. (2004) New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Technical Report 7. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Resource. Adger, W. N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. & Hulme, M. 2003. Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3: 179. Adger, W. N. & Vincent, K. 2005. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337: 399-410. Andersen, B. 1998. The evolution of technological trajectories 1890-1990. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 9: 5-34. Arthur, W. B. 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal 99: 116-131. Banuri, T., Weyant, J., Akumu, G., Najam, A., Pinguielli Rosa, L., Rayner, S., Sachs, W., Sharma, R. & Yohe, G. 2001. Setting the Stage: Climate Change and Sustainable Development. IN Metz, B., O. Davidson, R. Swart, and J. Pan (Ed.) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Report of Working Group III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berkhout, F. 2002. Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment. Global Environment Change 12: 1-4. Brooks, N., Adger, W. N. & Kelly, P. M. 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change 15: 151-163. Burch, S. & Robinson, J. 2007. A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change. Climate Policy 7: 304-316.  66  Della Porta, D. & Diani, M. 2006. Social Movements: An Introduction 2nd Edition. Blackwell Publishers Inc.: Oxford. Della Porta, D., Kriesi, H. & Rucht, D. (Eds.) 1999. Social Movements in a Globalizing World, Macmillan Press Ltd: London. Dimaggio, P. J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. IN Zucker, L. G. (Ed.) Institutional patterns and organizations: culture and environment. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. Escobar, A. 1998. Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of Political Ecology 5: 53-82. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. 2005. Adaptive governance of socialecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441-473.  Foray, D. & Grubler, A. 1996. Technology and the environment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 53: 3-13. Garud, R. & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technological entrepreneurship. Research Policy 32: 277-300. Geels, F. W. & Schot, J. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36: 399-417. Geels, G. W. 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy 33: 897-920. Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press: Stanford. Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal 45: 58-80. Grothmann, T. & Patt, A. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environment Change 15: 199213. Grubb, M., Kohler, J. & Anderson, D. 2002. Induced technological change in energy and environmental modelling: Analytic approaches and policy implications. Annual Review of Energy & the Environment 21: 271-308.  67  Grubler, A. 2000. Technology and Global Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Haddad, B. 2005. Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when sociopolitical goals are explicit. Global Environmental Change 15: 165-176. Helm, C. & Sprinz, D. 2000. Measuring the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44: 630-652. Immergut, E. 1998. The theoretical core of the new institutionalism. Politics and Society 26: 5-34. Kane, S. & Shogren, J. 2000. Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Climatic Change 45: 75-102. Laraña, E., Johnston, H. & Gusfield, J. R. (Eds.) 1994. New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, Temple University Press: Philidelphia. Lawrence, T. B. & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutions and institutional work. IN Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B. & Nord, W. R. (Eds.) Handbook of organization studies. 2nd ed. London: Sage. Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N. F. 2006. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change 77: 73-95. Lynn, L. H., Reddy, N. M. & Aram, J. D. 1996. Linking technology and institutions: the innovation community framework. Research Policy 25: 91-106. Maguire, S., Hardy, C. & Lawrence, T. B. 2004. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal 47: 657-679. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. 2003. Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy. Social Problems 50: 348-373. Melucci, A. 1984. An end to social movements? Social Science Information 23: 819. Munasinghe, M. & Swart, R. 2005. Primer on Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Facts, Policy Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; New York. Nelson, R. R. & Winter, S. G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Bellknap Press: Cambridge, MA.  68  Nicholls, R. & Lowe, J. 2004. Benefits of mitigation of climate change for coastal areas. Global Environmental Change 14: 229-244. O'Riordan, T. (Ed.) 2001. Globalism, Localism, and Identity: Fresh Perpectives on the Transition to Sustainability, Earthscan: London. Olsen, J. P. & March, J. G. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. The Free Press: New York. Ostrom, E. 2008. Frameworks and theories of environmental change. Global Environment Change 18: 249-252. Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C., Norgaard, R. B. & Policansky, D. 1999. Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science 284: 278-282. Peters, B. G. 2005. Institutional theory in political science: the new institutionalism. Continuum International Publishing Group: London, New York. Pierson, P. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. Powell, W. W. & Dimaggio, P. J. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Rip, A. & Kemp, R. 1998. Technological Change. IN Rayner, S. & Malone, E. (Eds.) Human Choice and Climate Change. Columbus, Ohio: Batelle Press. Rosenkopf, L. & Tushman, M. 1994. The coevolution of technology and organization. IN Baum, J. & Singh, J. (Eds.) Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Sathaye, J., Najam, A., Cocklin, C., Heller, T. C., Lecocq, F., Llanes-Regueiro, J., Pan, J., Petschel-Held, G., Rayner, S., Robinson, J., Schaeffer, R., Sokona, Y., Swart, R. & Winkler, H. 2007. Sustainable Development and Mitigation. IN Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R. & Meyer, L. A. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Schot, J., Hoogma, R. & Elzen, B. 1994. Strategies for shifting technological systems: the case of the automobile system. Futures 26: 1060-1076. Seyfang, G. & Smith, A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research agenda. Environmental Politics 16: 584-603.  69  Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., Burton, I., Challenger, B., Huq, S., Klein, R. & Yohe, G. 2001. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity. IN Mccarthy, J., Canziani, O., Leary, N., Dokken, D. & White, K. (Eds.) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, A., Stirling, A. & Berkhout, F. 2005. The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions. Research Policy 34: 1491-1510. Snow, D. A., Burke Rochford Jr., E., Worden, S. K. & Benford, R. D. 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51: 464-481. Swart, R. & Raes, F. 2007. Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work: mainstreaming into sustainable development policies? Climate Policy (Earthscan / James & James) 7: 289. Swart, R., Robinson, J. & Cohen, S. 2003. Climate change and sustainable development: expanding the options. Climate Policy, Special Issue on Climate Change and Sustainable Development 3: S19-S40. Thelen, K. 1999. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science 2: 369-404. Tompkins, E. & Adger, W. N. (2003) Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 39. Van De Ven, A. H. & Garud, R. 1994. The coevolution of technical and institutional events in the development of an innovation. IN Baum, J. A. & Singh, J. V. (Eds.) Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. & Kinzig, A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability, and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9: online. Wilbanks, T. J., Kane, S. M., Leiby, P. N., Perlack, R. D., Settle, C., Shogren, J. F. & Smith, J. B. 2003. Integrating mitigation and adaptation-possible responses to global climate change. Environment 45: 28-38. Winkler, H., Baumert, K., Blanchard, O., Burch, S. & Robinson, J. 2007. What factors influence mitigative capacity? Energy Policy 35: 692-703. Yohe, G. 2001. Mitigative capacity - the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side: An editorial. Climatic Change 49: 247-262.  70  Yohe, G. & Tol, R. 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: Moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 12: 25-40. Young, O. R. 1999. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioural Mechanisms. Massechusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, Mass. Young, O. R. 2001. The behavioural effects of environmental regimes: collective-action vs. social-practice models. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 1: 9-29. Young, O. R. 2002a. Evaluating the success of international environmental regimes: where are we now? Global Environment Change 12: 73-77. Young, O. R. 2002b. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. MIT Press, with IDGEC: Cambridge, Mass. Young, O. R. 2004. Institutions and the growth of knowledge: Evidence from international environmental regimes. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 4: 215-228.  71  Chapter 4. Local policy responses to climate change: An examination of capacity and action in three municipalities in British Columbia, Canada5 4.1. Introduction  In recent years, protracted debate and disputed policies have characterized the climate change discourse at the international level. In lieu of effective international or national strategies, cities have emerged as a powerful locus of action, especially since this is the scale at which critical land use and transportation decisions are made, impacts of adaptation are felt, and individuals most commonly participate directly in decisionmaking processes (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, Betsill, 2001). Furthermore, a sea-change in public opinion (due in part to the awareness-raising activities of former US Vice President Al Gore and the science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has led to accelerating the demand for effective and innovative responses to climate change (Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006).  Closely linked to the question of responses to climate change is the concept of capacity. In other words, what institutional, financial, or technical resources are required to support action on climate change (Adger et al., 2007, Yohe and Tol, 2002, Yohe, 2001)? Two issues are especially significant in this regard. The first relates simply to the quantity and quality of capacity: does the jurisdiction in question possess substantial stores of (for instance) financial capital, institutional capacity, and locally-specific scientific information relevant to climate change responses? The second issue relates to the dynamic patterns of human interaction which characterize the relative success or failure of jurisdictions to mobilize capacity in response to climate change. In other words, despite the presence of capacity, some jurisdictions may still be unaware of, unwilling, or unable to respond to climate change. This complex relationship between capacity and action in response to climate change has yet to be fully explored by the climate change research community (Burch and Robinson, 2007). 5  A version of this chapter has been submitted for publication as: Burch, Sarah. Local policy responses to climate change: An examination of capacity and action in three municipalities in British Columbia, Canada.  72  This article presents the results of a study carried out in three cities in the British Columbia, Canada. One objective6 of this study was to establish an empirical case for the claim that capacity is a necessary but not sufficient condition of action, which was first posited by Burch and Robinson (2007). In this article, this claim is explored through the examination of three municipal case studies in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada. These three cases appear to have demonstrated very different levels of action in response to climate change, but are subject to similar economic, political, and cultural forces.  On the basis of the interviews and document analysis carried out in the three cases, significant progress can be made towards answering three questions. First, what levels of the various types of capacity are at play in these three cases? Second, do the cases show that capacity is mobilized differentially? In other words, if two cities possess essentially the same levels of each form of capacity, can we expect the same results in terms of action in response to climate change? Third, what other factors appear to intervene during the translation of capacity into action? This article will address these three core questions in turn, and provide a glimpse forward into important new directions for climate change research. 4.2. Capacity and action in response to climate change As climate change research has shifted from a focus on modeling the potential causes and impacts of climate change to a strong focus on responses to the problem (evident in the evolution of the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), interest in the concept of capacity has grown (cf. Tol and Yohe, 2007, Klein et al., 2005, cf. Tompkins and Adger, 2005). Beginning with the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the concept of adaptive capacity was linked to vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, and it was noted that the vulnerability of human socio-economic systems depends on both economic circumstances and 6  The other objectives include: determining what factors intervene in the translation of capacity and action, and exploring means by which barriers to action might be overcome. These objectives are addressed elsewhere (Chapters 5 and 6, respectively).  73  institutional infrastructure (IPCC, 1995). In the subsequent Third Assessment Report, the IPCC went on to define adaptive capacity as “the potential, capability, or ability of a system to adapt to climate change stimuli or their effects or impacts” (Smit et al., 2001), and identified a set of determinants of adaptive capacity. The newer concept of mitigative capacity was also introduced during the lead-up to the Third Assessment Report (Yohe, 2001) and has since been defined simply as “a country’s ability to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions or enhance natural sinks” (Winkler et al., 2007).  The  similarities between adaptive and mitigative capacity were first identified by Yohe (2001), who argued that both adaptive and mitigative capacity are comprised of resources such as financial, human, and social capital, risk-spreading mechanisms such as insurance, decision-making capacity, and availability of technological options. Psychological elements were later added to the growing list of capacity indicators, such as perceived capacity to respond (Grothmann and Patt, 2005) and the normative or motivational context of climate change responses (Haddad, 2005). In studies in which this generic list of determinants was more deeply explored through the examination of a local case study, it was revealed that very specific forms of these determinants are required to pursue mitigation and adaptation activities at the local level. For example, institutional linkages between water management and land use planning agencies are necessary if the risk of flooding is to be reduced in the Netherlands (Yohe and Tol, 2002).  Many of the resources that have traditionally been identified as either mitigative or adaptive capacity (such as human capital, social capital, and the ability of decisionmakers to manage information), however, are in fact too general to predict action on climate change. In an effort to more fully understand variation in adaptive and mitigative responses, it has recently been argued that both adaptive and mitigative responses to climate change arise out of a common pool of resources that allow humans to respond to any risk, called response capacity (Burch and Robinson, 2007, Winkler et al., 2007, Tompkins and Adger, 2005). A re-formulation of the critical concept of capacity, in which response capacity is comprised of general resources that are an approximation of the level of development, and mitigative and adaptive capacities are institutions or  74  policies geared specifically towards addressing the causes and impacts of climate change (see Chapters 2 and 3 for further detail on this reformulation).  The ultimate goal of climate change policy is presumably to accomplish either (or both) an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (through mitigation) or a reduction in vulnerability to climate change impacts (through adaptation). The first step toward accomplishing this goal is a decision (or set of decisions) to spend financial capital and devote scarce human resources to the creation of agencies or policies that are specifically geared toward responding to climate change. The next step is the effective application of these policies or agencies to actually achieve the greenhouse gas and vulnerability reductions that are required to address climate change in a meaningful way. Thus, the decision to utilize response capacity to develop adaptive and mitigative capacity is one significant form of action that is relevant to this study, while the second important type of action is the successful application of adaptive and mitigative capacity to achieve greenhouse gas reductions and/or enhanced resiliency7 (see Figure 4.1).  Figure 4.1 Response capacity is first utilized to create adaptive and mitigative capacity, which is then employed in pursuit of goals such as greenhouse gas and vulnerability reduction. 7  Resiliency has been defined as the “degree to which a complex adaptive system is capable of selforganization (versus lack of organization or organization forced by external factors) and the degree to which the system can build capacity for learning and adaptation” (Adger et al., 2005: 1036).  75  The task of identifying the quantity and quality of response capacity, however, is a challenging one.  Which resources or qualities might we consider part of response  capacity, and which are best thought of as external to it (and thus influencing the extent to which response capacity is activated or employed in response to climate change, to become mitigative or adaptive capacity)? To answer this question, it is helpful to specify the scale of analysis. For instance, at the municipal scale, cities possess stores of capacity in the form of financial resources, in-house technical skills and experience, and decisionmaking legitimacy and effectiveness. External to these factors, however, are the policies and practices at higher levels of government (such as at the provincial and federal level in Canada), the level of co-ordination among jurisdictions, the values and attitudes of the constituency, and extra-municipal political leadership. All of these factors may play critical roles in influencing the degree to which response capacity in a municipality is employed to form of mitigative and adaptive capacity, in order to address climate change. Another set of factors come into play, however, in the application of mitigative and adaptive capacity to the problem of climate change. As this stage in the process of translating response capacity into action (see Figure 4.1), the specific institutional structure and culture, the nature of the adaptive and mitigative policies themselves, and the quality of leadership (for instance) may play integral roles in the success with which actual mitigation and adaptation occur (see Chapters 5 and 6 for a further elaboration of these factors).  The sections that follow will present the data gathered from the study of capacity and action in response to climate change in three cities. The focus of this work is primarily on the actions that are required to translate response capacity into adaptive and mitigative capacity (see Figure 4.1), with some attention paid to the likelihood of implementation of climate change response policies, rather than on policy effectiveness and goal attainment per se. The ultimate goal is to provide empirical evidence in support of the hypothesis that capacity is a necessary but not sufficient condition of action, and to explore the intervening factors that might influence the success with which climate change responses are pursued.  76  4.3. Methods Three municipalities in the Lower Mainland (or Metro Vancouver region) of British Columbia were chosen (see Figure 4.2) in order to represent a spectrum of action on climate change, while controlling for significant cultural and development-related characteristics that would undoubtedly vary between cities in different countries, or even provinces. Location on this spectrum was initially determined using the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Partners for Climate Protection milestone system. This system provides a framework within which cities can carry out a greenhouse gas inventory, set emissions reduction targets, develop an action plan, implement the action plan, and monitor results (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2008).  The framework is  focused solely on greenhouse gas mitigation, and no parallel yet exists for adaptation. The first case, the Corporation of Delta, had achieved only the first of these milestones (creating a greenhouse gas inventory). The District of North Vancouver, which was selected as the second case, had also only achieved the first milestone but was pursuing an integrated sustainability planning process under The Natural Step framework8 (which, if applied in a comprehensive manner, should address greenhouse gas emissions). The final case, the City of Vancouver, had reached four of the five milestones, which included developing and implementing a climate change action plan based on a GHG inventory (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2008).  Preliminary policy document analysis was carried out for each city as well as the provincial and federal governments, in order to gain a sense of the context of climate change response efforts.  Meeting transcripts, Council reports, internal memoranda,  official government documents, and media reports were gathered to supplement primary data collection. In all cases, documents were not retrieved for years preceding 1990, since climate change and sustainable development began to be substantially addressed in the Lower Mainland only after that time. Policy documents were analyzed with the goal of determining: the temporal scale, the spatial scale, the central adaptive or mitigative  8  The Natural Step Framework was developed by Swedish scientist Karl-Henrik Robèrt in 1999. It uses a systems approach to sustainability paired with backcasting techniques to devise means by which organizations can pursue sustainability goals (The Natural Step, 2008). (The Natural Step, 2008)  77  issues of interest, the responsible parties, the level of detail, and the likelihood of implementation. A series of semi-structured elite interviews9 were carried out during 2007 and 2008 in each of the three case study areas. Participants were invited on the basis of three criteria: employment with one of the municipalities  under  study,  involvement in the creation or implementation of climate change (or sustainability) policy in the city, and the occupation of a position in the organizational structure that pertains directly to aspects  of  climate  change  mitigation or adaptation (even if not involved directly in climate change Local  policy incumbent  development). politicians,  Figure 4.2 Case study areas in the Metro Vancouver heads of municipal departments Region of British Columbia, Canada. Source: Metro (such as Engineering and Vancouver’s Vital Signs (2009); Inset adapted from Geology.com (2007). Planning), and climate change  working group team members were interviewed. Participants were contacted by email using a standardized letter of invitation. They were told about the full nature of the study, the other cases involved, why they were selected for participation, and that their responses would remain confidential. Approximately 95% of the individuals who were contacted for interviews participated in the study. In addition, un-structured interviews took place throughout the study period as the result of parallel research taking place in  9  Sample size of semi-structured interviews: in Delta (total n=12): 3 politicians; 3 planners; 2 engineers; 4 environmental services/operations staff; in the District of North Vancouver (total n=13): 4 politicians; 3 planners; 2 engineers; 1 administrator; 3 environmental services/operations staff; in the City of Vancouver (total n=15): 3 politicians, 1 planner; 2 engineers; 4 Sustainability Group staff; 1 administrator; Metro Vancouver: 3 engineers, 2 planners. Total n for study = 41.  78  two of the three case studies (cf. Sheppard et al., 2008). The result was an extended network of planners, engineers, and politicians who were approached in order to gather together insights into the design and implementation of climate change policy in the cases under study.  The interviews followed a basic script, which contained questions pertaining to capacity, past or planned climate change action, the success/failure these actions, organizational culture, structure, and the broader inter-jurisdictional context. Notes were taken during and following each interview, and interviews were recorded with the permission of the participant. Interviews were coded and analyzed using the qualitative analysis software ATLAS TI. Responses were coded according to a scheme which identified points made about capacity (including financial, human, and technical capacity), the internal function of civic government (such as organizational structure and organizational culture), extrainstitutional issues (such as jurisdictional issues, legislation and regulation, and external policy context), leadership (both political and technical), and issues related to the values, attitudes, and knowledge of each city’s public. This scheme was constructed on the basis of the literature reviewed and hypotheses formed prior to the interviews, but evolved as a result of the interviewees’ responses. Thus, the coding scheme was produced through a blend of deductive and inductive reasoning, in order to weave the reality of climate change policy making in these cities together with the scholarly state of the art. 4.4. Local case studies in British Columbia, Canada Twenty-one municipalities make up the Metro Vancouver Region in the South-western coastal region of British Columbia, Canada.  The first case study municipality, the  Corporation of Delta, is home to approximately 99,000 people (see Table 4.1). Since much of Delta’s 364 square kilometres reside between zero and two meters above mean sea-level, it is heavily protected by over 60 km of dikes (see Figure 4.2). Rising sea levels paired with a subsiding land base, highly important ecological zones (such as Burns Bog and an internationally renowned Pacific Fly-way), and represent some of the climate-related issues that Delta faces.  79  The District of North Vancouver (DNV) is also part of the Metro Vancouver region of British Columbia, and is home to approximately 86, 000 residents. The DNV has no true urban core, but is comprised of a small number of neighbourhoods focused on commercial centres. The unique geography of the DNV distinguishes it from other municipalities in the Metro Vancouver region: it covers 160 square kilometres, the elevation of which ranges from 0 to over 1400 metres above sea level and is bounded by water on three sides (District of North Vancouver, 2008).  Contained within the  boundaries of the DNV are the Capilano and Seymour watersheds, which provide the majority of drinking water to the whole of Metro Vancouver. Community Profile • • • •  Population Land Area Date of last Official Community Plan revision Median household income  • • •  Delta 99,5081 183 sq. km.2 20053  • • •  DNV 86,0661 160 sq. km.2 19914  • • •  •  $72,5946  •  $77,0326  •  Vancouver 615,4731 115 sq. km.2 1995 (CityPlan); 2005 (Community Visions)5 $47,2996  Table 4.1 General community profile for the three case study communities of Delta, the District of North Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver. Sources: 1 Government of British Columbia (2009); 2 Metro Vancouver (2009b); 3 Corporation of Delta (2005); 4 District of North Vancouver (1991); 5 City of Vancouver (2007b); 6 Metro Vancouver (2006).  With a population of approximately 600,000 people, the City of Vancouver is the urban core of a region whose population exceeds 2,000,000. Like Delta and the DNV, the city is surrounded by water on three sides, and is the most densely populated region in British Columbia. The Port of Vancouver is the largest port in Canada, providing a major gateway for Asia-Pacific trade. Municipal government in Vancouver is unusual for the region, in that three parties (with no official links to the party system at the provincial and federal levels) dominate municipal politics. Furthermore, the City of Vancouver is the only municipality in the region that was granted its own local government Charter by the province, and thus exercises considerably more power than Delta and the District of North Vancouver over issues such as taxation and building codes. The municipalities in the Metro Vancouver Region (called the Greater Vancouver Regional District until 2007) operate within the regulatory context of the Liveable Region  80  Strategic Plan (LRSP) and its successor, the Regional Growth Strategy (currently in draft form). This plan, adopted in January of 1996, is intended to help guide the development of ‘complete communities’, preserve ecologically significant areas and farmland, and encourage compact development in pre-designated growth concentration areas (Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1999). Although the Metro Vancouver region does not possess the power to enforce adherence to the LRSP, each member municipality is asked to prepare a Regional Context Statement through which the municipality demonstrates the ways that its Official Community Plan is consistent with the LRSP. In 2008, a process began by which the regional LRSP is being re-written (now entitled the Regional Growth Strategy) to explicitly address, among other issues, the challenge of climate change. The main authority of the Metro Vancouver region with regard to climate change lies within its authority to regulate air quality through a permit system. Powerful leadership on climate change emerged with the Liberal provincial government in 2007. Although previous efforts had been made to address climate change, such as with Weather, Climate, and the Future: BC’s Plan (Province of British Columbia, 2004), these efforts were not supported by stringent, legislated, targets or strategies. The most recent energy plan, however, began to signal a substantial shift in provincial energy and climate change policy (Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources, 2007). Soon after the release of the Energy Plan, the Province of British Columbia enacted legally binding short- and long-term GHG reduction targets, a comprehensive revenueneutral carbon tax, a cap and trade system for large emitters, vehicle emissions standards, industrial emissions standards, and a new Green Building Code (Province of British Columbia, 2008, Province of British Columbia, 2007). Taken together, these initiatives, which occurred during the time of this study, represent a dramatic shift in provincial context within which BC municipalities are functioning. The following two sections will present synthesized results from interviews and document analysis in each of the three case studies. These results are divided into two categories: the first addresses interviewees’ evaluation of the nature and quantity of capacity in their communities; the second summarizes action taken on climate change in each municipality (in terms of both mitigative/adaptive capacity formation and goal  81  attainment). Following this is a discussion of the implications of these results for climate change policy making and planning in cities. 4.5. Characterizing capacity in three cities The more generic term ‘capacity’ was often used by the staff of the case study municipalities, but in a colloquial manner that does not specify the use to which capacity is put. During the interviews, the term capacity was explained by the interviewer in a casual manner by asking “What do you think capacity is? In other words, what do you think you need to respond to climate change in [interviewee’s city]?” Although responses varied widely, the majority of participants referred to a small set of financial and technical resources that they felt were critical determinants of effective action on climate change. Decision-making resources were often left out of this assessment, including legitimacy of local governance, public participation, and equitable deliberation. The sections that follow interpret the responses given by interviewees using the definitions of capacity provided earlier in this paper. Specifically, response capacity has been defined for the purposes of this research as the general development-related resources that are needed to respond to any risk (including climate change). Adaptive and mitigative capacities, on the other hand, are viewed as the policies, initiatives, and organizational arrangements designed to specifically address climate change adaptation and mitigation. 4.5.1. Response capacity Although no standard measure of response capacity exists, some general indicators were gathered to explore the similarities and differences between the three cases (see Table 4.2). General indicators of institutional health and the legitimacy of decision-making authority do not exist for these communities, but higher-level indicators such as the Human Development Index and the Gender-Related Development Index consistently rank Canada very highly with regard to a composite of development and well-being measures (United Nations Development Program, 2008). Response Capacity • •  Annual municipal taxes per capita % of population post-secondary  •  Delta $8231  •  DNV $7691  •  Vancouver $9861  •  62%2  •  77%2  •  70%2  82  •  degree or diploma % of total population employed by municipality  •  0.6%3  •  0.6%3  •  1.55%4  Table 4.2. General indicators of response capacity for the Corporation of Delta, the District of North Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver. Sources: 1 Metro Vancouver (2008); 2 Metro Vancouver (2009a); 3 CivicInfoBC (2009); 4 Employment: (City of Vancouver, 2009).  Interviewee responses, however, did not reflect the generally high (and similar) levels of response capacity indicated by the measures shown above. In most cases, the first element of response capacity raised by interviewees was financial capital. Delta’s main source of funds, for example, is derived from the property taxes of its inhabitants, which provides a revenue base which is small in both an absolute sense as well as relative to a municipality such as Vancouver (with its very highly valued property). This translates directly into fewer municipal staff, and smaller-scale policies and projects in general. Although financial capital is clearly required to produce mitigative and adaptive capacity, many respondents revealed a complex view of budgetary issues over the course of the interview. For instance, a senior Delta engineer said: “I know you could give an easy pat answer saying we need more resources for materials, we need more money for people. But we have people. You saw them on the way in. But it's what they're directed to do. And they don't have the time to focus on these issues…something else is more important like patching the potholes or digging the new ditch, you know, that kind of thing.” This demonstrates the recognition that financial capital alone is not the only, or even most important, element of response capacity. Rather, it is the political directive from high level politicians that has the power to re-arrange the priorities set before municipal employees, and ultimately translates into the day-to-day directions given to junior staff by managers. Interviewees indicated that clear municipal priorities are critical to shaping the job description and standard operating procedures of municipal employees, and fundamentally shape the uses to which response capacity gets put.  The importance of political leadership was also raised by a junior employee of Vancouver’s Sustainability Group (the branch of the municipal organization in which  83  climate change is housed), who said that “political leadership is fundamentally the most important thing. We have a climate change action plan because people in Council… directed staff to do something about it.” Two senior planners in the District of North Vancouver echoed the importance of political leadership in the municipality, suggesting that a scarcity of financial capital is far less important than a strong commitment by political leaders to over-ride the complaints of conservative community groups in favour of abiding by the climate change and sustainability mandates that had been set as municipal priorities.  The interviews highlighted the deeply interconnected nature of the different components of response capacity. For instance, the obvious relationship between human resources and financial resources was noted. It was revealed that intractable situations have arisen in both Delta and the District of North Vancouver in which funds are required to hire individuals whose sole purpose would be to search out grants and opportunities for additional funds, in order to be able to act on issues such as climate change. This is not an unexpected finding in municipalities with small tax bases, but a conundrum nonetheless in the context of climate change planning.  Another linkage between  elements of response capacity was alluded to above: locally-relevant scientific information is needed to convince politicians that a strong political directive is required, but a political directive on climate change also gives staff the necessary impetus to form linkages with research institutions and ensure that they receive the information that they need.  In sum, some interviewees in the DNV and Delta frequently suggested that these municipalities were lacking in a critical element of response capacity – financial capital. It became clear in both cases, however, that this element of capacity is in fact present in each case, but a lack of clear leadership (supported by adequate resources) is inhibiting its effective translation into adaptive and mitigative capacity. In contrast, senior planners and Sustainability Group staff in the City of Vancouver credited leadership with driving the allocation of financial capital towards climate change policies and actions.  84  4.5.2. Adaptive and mitigative capacities As discussed above, mitigative and adaptive capacities are defined for the purposes of this research as the organizational arrangements, policies, and initiatives that are built through the utilization of response capacity. Although response capacity was generally seen to be similar in each of the case studies (with the exception of financial capital, which was slightly higher in the City of Vancouver), adaptive and mitigative capacity varied widely.  Issues related to the environment and sustainability were considered in Delta’s Official Community Plan and in the regional Liveable Region Strategic Plan, but no well-defined and practical climate change policies, geared towards either corporate or community emissions, had been developed until 2007, when the Corporation of Delta developed a nine-part climate change initiative geared towards their corporate operations.  This  climate change initiative was designed by a small team of individuals housed mainly within the Departments of Engineering, Planning, and Environmental Services, and considered corporate emissions from the municipal fleet, infrastructure, and buildings (see Table 4.3). Management of floods, natural areas, staff training and community education were also addressed in the report, although without a high level of specificity in terms of budget and work plan.  No plans had been designed to address GHG  emissions from community sources (such as residential buildings and transportation), but rather the focus had been exclusively on corporate (or municipal operations) emissions. Reasons offered for this ranged from the belief that the staff of Delta simply doesn’t possess the in-house skills necessary to carry out effective community consultation and education projects, to the very common concern that Delta must ‘get its own house in order’ before presuming to dictate to the public.  So, although most individuals  interviewed in Delta repeatedly drew attention to the policies and initiatives introduced through the climate change strategy, the general consensus appeared to be that climate change responses in Delta are still very much in the planning stages. Nevertheless, new methods of inter-departmental collaboration have been established in order to address the exceedingly complex and uncertain problems associated with GHG reduction and vulnerability to impacts, representing growth in adaptive and mitigative capacity in Delta.  85  Adaptive Capacity Delta • Flood Management Strategy Work Plan approved (2008) • Funding secured for dike upgrades (2008) • Flood risk consequence study begun (2008) • Collaboration with the University of British Columbia’s Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning to assess potential climate change impacts (2006-2009)  •  •  DNV Collaboration with the University of British Columbia’s Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning to assess potential climate change impacts (2006-2009) Multiple slope stability studies undertaken; effects of climate change not incorporated  •  •  Vancouver Creation of “Sustainability Group” (2004) – 12 full-time employees now devoted to sustainability Council approved motion to begin assessment of climate change impacts and adaptation strategies (2007)  Table 4.3. Examples of adaptive capacity in each case, gathered through interviews and document analysis.  In 2004, a short time before the beginning of this study, the District of North Vancouver City Council officially adopted The Natural Step Framework in order to pursue a mandate of sustainability. The framework was developed in Sweden in 1989, and claims to provide a ‘science-based definition of sustainability’ and a ‘practical strategic planning framework’ for achieving sustainability (The Natural Step, 2008). Interviewees indicated that this framework was selected by the DNV mainly because the nearby tourismcentered town of Whistler had recently done the same and received a positive response from the public. Little action was taken following the adoption of TNS until, at a senior staff retreat in 2007, it was decided that the District would commit to being, in the words of a senior DNV planner, “among the world’s most sustainable communities by 2020 through community-driven growth and change.” In the 4 years that followed the 2004 adoption of the framework, the District of North Vancouver has focused on developing a common definition of sustainability that is shared by all divisions and individuals within the municipal organization. This was paired with the pursuit of corporate sustainability strategies, though with very little explicit reference to GHG reduction. It is anticipated that a detailed climate change action plan will not be developed until late 2008 or 2009. The municipality is also intending to revise its Official Community Plan, the touchstone of its corporate policy and procedure, which was last revised in 1991. Finally, a senior planner indicated that the DNV has received funding to create a green building strategy  86  by 2010 and consultants were enlisted in late 2008 to carry out background research and develop a climate change action plan to be completed by 2009 (see Table 4.4).  Interviews and document analysis indicated that the City of Vancouver is one of the most active municipalities in British Columbia on the issue of climate change. Early efforts to respond to climate change took the form of the City of Vancouver Task Force on Atmospheric Change, which produced a report in 1990 entitled Clouds of Change (see Table 4.4). This report set out reduction targets for both carbon dioxide and ozonedepleting substances, subject to “future reports which will clarify the costs and trade-offs involved in achieving the objectives and targets” (City of Vancouver, 1990). This report adopted the goal of a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions below 1988 levels to be achieved by 2005, which was initially proposed by the World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere held in Toronto in 1988. Clouds of Change also encouraged the provincial and federal governments to pursue integrated and ambitious agreements on GHG reduction, and offered a variety of strategies by which these goals could be achieved, ranging from rezoning to support reduced transportation needs to reforestation of urban areas (City of Vancouver, 1990). However, twelve years passed before further Council Reports or external policy documents addressing climate change were produced by the City of Vancouver following the release of this report. Mitigative Capacity Delta • Corporate Climate Change Action Plan (2007) • GHG reduction targets adopted (2007) • Green Fleet Management Plan (2007) • Renewable district energy feasibility study (2008) • Energy efficiency training (2008) • Collaboration with the University of British Columbia’s Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning to identify lowcarbon development options (2006-2009)  • • •  •  •  DNV Adopted “Natural Step” Framework (2004) Transportation Plan (under development) Maplewood Project – Ecoindustrial network designed for sustainable community (2006) Collaboration with the University of British Columbia’s Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning to identify lowcarbon development options (2006-2009) Green building strategy and climate change action plan (planned for 2009)  • •  • • •  • •  Vancouver GHG reduction targeted and bylaw revisions proposed (1990) Creation of “Sustainability Group” (2002) – 12 full-time employees now devoted to sustainability Corporate Climate Change Action Plan (2003) Landfill Gas Recovery implemented (2003) Southeast False Creek sustainable community Official Development Plan adopted (2004) Community Climate Change Action Plan (2005) Motion passed to become carbon neutral (2007)  87  •  GHG reduction targets adopted (2007)  Table 4.4. Examples of mitigative capacity provided through interviews and document analysis in each municipality.  In 2005, the Vancouver City Council utilized its response capacity to approve two action plans on climate change: one addressing the emissions resulting from corporate or municipal activities and the other geared towards broader community-based emissions (City of Vancouver, 2005, City of Vancouver, 2003). Both the corporate and community climate change action plans were formulated based on the advice and participation of the new Cool Vancouver Task Force, an assemblage of corporate leaders, politicians, environmentalists and scientists, designed to provide the City with recommendations regarding GHG reduction (City of Vancouver, 2007a). These plans committed the City of Vancouver to achieving a 20% reduction in civic (or corporate) GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2010, and a 6% reduction in community emissions from 1990 levels by 2012 (in order to help achieve Canada’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol; see Figure 1) (City of Vancouver, 2007a).  In July of 2007, the City of Vancouver began to consider long-range GHG planning and the issue of carbon neutrality, and the Council adopted targets to reduce community GHG emissions by 33% below 2006 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (City of Vancouver, 2007a). In order to achieve these targets, the City of Vancouver has implemented (or is planning to implement) a range of projects that significantly affect long-term emissions trajectories. For example, the City of Vancouver has designated the area of Southeast False Creek, approximately 80 acres of former industrial land near downtown Vancouver and future site of the 2010 Winter Olympic Village, as a model sustainable community. This includes the design of a Neighbourhood Energy Utility and a minimum building standard of LEED Silver (City of Vancouver, 2007a). In 2005, the City of Vancouver approved the Green Building Strategy, the purpose of which was to develop new zoning guidelines and bylaws to enhance the environmental performance of new buildings in Vancouver (City of Vancouver, 2008). In 2008, the city Council  88  unanimously approved the Green Homes Program, which broadened the scope of the Green Building Strategy and applies significant energy efficiency bylaws to one- and two-family dwellings. These changes are accompanied by increased spending on public transit throughout the region, retrofits of existing commercial, residential, and institutional buildings for energy efficiency, and enhanced provision of biodiesel fuel blends throughout the city.  Based on both interviews and document analysis, it became clear that the idea of capacity commonly held by many municipal staff was very different from that which is promulgated in the climate change literature. In particular: •  Financial and technical resources are the most frequently-referenced elements of response capacity;  •  Issues related to the legitimacy of governance and decision-making, which are integral parts of mitigative and adaptive capacity in the climate change literature, were rarely raised by interviewees;  •  Leadership emerged as a factor that determines the availability of both financial and technical resources for climate change initiatives,  •  Municipal employees do not view policies as capacity, but rather as concrete action in response to a challenge or problem; the success of the policy in terms of goal attainment was rarely mentioned and may be less important to staff than the development of the policy itself.  This data makes clear the differences in the quantity and quality of adaptive and mitigative capacities in each municipality.  Delta has created substantial adaptive  capacity in the form of institutional arrangements and policies that tackle flood-related impacts, but has yet to fully integrate climate change into these initiatives.  The  municipality has also taken steps towards building mitigative capacity, but not yet of the type that addresses the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the community. The District of North Vancouver has created very little adaptive or mitigative capacity, in part because it has attempted to design and implement an integrated sustainability framework (but one that currently lacks concrete measures that specifically address  89  climate change). The City of Vancouver has utilized its response capacity to create substantial stores of mitigative capacity, and has in place practices and procedures that are likely to contribute to adaptive capacity as well (once this is fully taken on as a municipal priority). 4.6. Action on climate change For the purposes of this research, action during two distinct phases in the process of translating response capacity into actual greenhouse gas reductions and resiliency improvements is especially important. The first set of actions is those required to utilize response capacity to create adaptive and mitigative capacity. The second set of actions occurs when these forms of capacity are actually implemented or effectively utilized to achieve the desired results.  This section gathers together the insights provided by  interviewees with regard to these two critical types of action.  A number of criteria were offered for policies that would most palatable to Council and implementable by staff, which may therefore result in the creation of adaptive and mitigative capacity.  A Delta City Council member repeatedly noted that proposed  climate change response actions must be backed by clear science, tested in other countries, yield effects that can be predicted with a great degree of certainty, and have concrete measures of success. Senior planners and engineers in Delta stated that it was critical for any proposed policies to fit clearly with the established mandate of Mayor and Council, and to be practical and achievable. This may reflect the different standards to which these individuals are held: it is necessary for politicians to prove to their constituents that they have fulfilled campaign promises, while it is strategically important for staff to convince Council that they are not straying outside of pre-conceived directives.  With regard to the second type of action – implementation of adaptive and mitigative capacity to achieve the desired results - document analysis and interviews in Delta revealed that, although planning for flood management has become de rigueur in the Engineering and Planning Departments, greenhouse gas reduction has yet to be  90  extensively addressed. Delta’s climate change action plan is the first step towards doing so, but only preliminary progress has been made towards implementing this plan. Delta is almost exclusively focused on addressing corporate, rather than community, greenhouse gas emissions. Further steps may be taken to carry out a community-oriented integrated flood management plan that incorporates climate change mitigation, but this is in the early planning stages. Delta’s baseline greenhouse gas inventory and ongoing flood management measures, however, represent initial steps toward measureable results (see Table 4.5). Measurable Results Delta • GHG inventory (baseline) (2006) • Extensive erosion protection and flood protection implemented (1999-2007)  •  DNV No GHG baseline or monitoring taking place  •  •  •  Vancouver GHG inventory (baseline) (2003); historic data and proxies used to model 1990 baseline GHG inventory (2006) – Corporate emissions reduced to 5% below 1990 levels and community emissions increased to 5% above 1990 levels Landfill Gas Recovery reduced annual emissions by 200,000 tonnes (2006)  Table 4.5 Measureable steps towards greenhouse gas reduction and adaptation in the Corporation of Delta, the District of North Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver.  Despite the adoption of The Natural Step framework, which has the potential to integrate a host of environmental issues (such as climate change, pollution, and biodiversity), senior staff with the District of North Vancouver indicated that the process of using this framework to identify concrete actions has been stalled while trying to agree on a common definition of sustainability. Furthermore, climate change actions have focused almost entirely on the internal activities of the municipal government, rather than on the emissions produced by the broader community. Like Delta, interviewees in the District of North Vancouver indicated that they were very hesitant to “take a harder line with applicants from a development standpoint” before the municipality showed that it was first capable of reducing emissions from civic sources. Planners in the District acknowledge that land use is one of the most critical determinants of GHG emissions  91  under municipal control, and this is strongly influenced by an Official Community Plan that has been described as ‘antiquated.’  Overall, the DNV has taken steps to establish sustainability as a priority for the municipality, but have yet to transform a very broad framework into practical, contextspecific actions. Furthermore, development applications and planning within the district takes place without the help of an up-to-date Official Community Plan.  As such,  municipal staff feel that they have little authority to require developers to meet stringent standards of building efficiency or density. The District of North Vancouver, however, has a long history of addressing natural hazards such as land slides and wind storms. Early steps are being taken to investigate the ways in which these practices should be adapted to account for projected climate change impacts.  In sum, Vancouver stands out in the Lower Mainland as a leader on the issue of climate change mitigation. Although adaptation has only recently emerged as a potential priority for Vancouver, action plans have been developed to address both corporate and community emissions, and a small staff has been tasked with achieving sustainability goals. The actions taken thus far in the City of Vancouver have tackled some of the most significant sources of greenhouse gases, such those from landfill waste and residential properties (see Table 4.5). Adaptation has received less attention in the municipality, but discussions of strategies to reduce vulnerability to impacts began in late 2007. Possibly as a result of Delta’s exposure to flood-related impacts, the municipality has had the most success in utilizing its response capacity to implement adaptation policies.  The  municipality still lacks sufficient data to alter these strategies to account for a changing climate, but appears well equipped to do so if such data became available. Climate change mitigation is also being undertaken in Delta, but is not yet focused on the most significant sources of emissions. In the District of North Vancouver, difficulties were encountered in moving beyond the definition/conceptual stage of The Natural Step, incorporating climate change, and developing practical actions. As such, it has had the least success in utilizing its response capacity to create adaptive and mitigative capacities,  92  and thus has not yet achieved significant results in the form of greenhouse gas reductions or resiliency improvements (see Table 4.5). 4.7. Exploring the translation of capacity into action Interviews and document analysis carried out in Delta, the City of Vancouver, and the District of North Vancouver offer significant insights into the relationship between capacity and action in response to climate change. To explore these insights, we return to the questions posed at the beginning of this article: what types of capacity are at play in these three cases?  Do the cases show that capacity (whether response capacity,  mitigative capacity or adaptive capacity) is mobilized differentially? What other factors appear to intervene during the translation of capacity into action? The final sections of this paper will address these questions, and consider the implications of these findings for climate change policy development and research.  Clearly, if cities in highly industrialized nations in Canada are compared to those in developing countries that may be burdened by public health crises, illegitimate decisionmaking authority, poverty, and significant foreign debt, one may conclude that Canadian cities are richly endowed with response capacity. Even relative to many other cities in the developed world, the three cities chosen for this study possess significant institutional, financial, and technical resources. In other words, the three cases have followed development paths that have led to similar systems of legitimate governance, strong economies, and highly educated populations.  The most significant area of  divergence is with regard to financial resources: because of very highly-valued property, the City of Vancouver possesses slightly greater financial resources per capita than Delta and the District of North Vancouver. Interviewees in all three cities, however, indicated that, almost independent of financial capacity, budgetary resources are simply made available to support action on issues that have been clearly identified as municipal priorities. In other words, the rhetoric used by interviewees in all three cities is one of financial deficiency, but the reality is highly contingent on priority setting and job descriptions.  93  If we focus on mitigative and adaptive capacity, however, the differences between the three municipalities become clearer. Response capacity in Delta has been mobilized through the championing of the issue by the local mayor, resulting in the creation of a climate change action plan. Even so, some Delta staff indicated that the political message has not been sufficiently supported by resources, causing the plan to lack focused strategies that will yield significant results in terms of GHG reductions.  On the  adaptation side, Delta is in possession of significant technical knowledge and skills that address the problem of coastal protection and flooding. This has long been a problem for the municipality, and is anticipated to be an even greater one in a future with climate change. Even so, Delta has not historically had access to extensive information about the specific local implications of climate change; for instance, clear estimates of expected sea-level rise, impacts on agriculture, and emissions trajectories. These knowledge gaps are increasingly being filled through close linkages with research institutes in the area (eg. the University of British Columbia’s Local Climate Change Visioning Project). The District of North Vancouver is in a somewhat unique position given that it has invested substantial resources into developing an integrated long range sustainability framework. Since a sustainable community should also be one that is both low-carbon and resilient to climate change impacts, the development of this framework in the DNV represents the creation of significant mitigative and adaptive capacity, but no concrete actions have yet resulted. The City of Vancouver has made the most substantial strides towards utilizing response capacity to develop a strong base of mitigative and adaptive capacity. The creation of the Sustainability Group, in which individuals are solely focused on addressing climate change in both the corporate and community realms, has been particularly important in this regard. It is clear that a more sustainable development path is being carved out by Vancouver: as skills grow and learning occurs, Vancouver may be more likely to successfully act in the future because it has acted in the past.  As mentioned above, the design of agencies and policies to address climate change (or adaptive/mitigative capacity) still only represents the potential to actually address the causes and impacts of climate change.  Interviewees indicated that the quantity of  emissions the policies address, the mechanisms for learning and adaptive management  94  that have been designed, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility were important determinants of the quality of climate change and sustainability policies. Resources must also be consistently devoted to the successful implementation of even the most skilfully-designed initiatives and agencies. In Delta, for instance, the current climate change action plan predominantly addresses corporate emissions, which are a minute fraction of total emissions for the municipality. A more ambitious, integrated climate change adaptation and mitigation plan must be developed and implemented in order for real reductions in Delta’s emissions and vulnerability to occur. In the District of Vancouver, the Natural Step framework represents an important opportunity to embed climate change concerns within a sustainability-oriented transformation of the municipality but seems unlikely to yield such results without strong leadership and specific action plans. The City of Vancouver alone has implemented policies that tackle important sources of emissions, such as landfill emissions, urban land use patterns, transportation, and single-family residential building codes. Many of these policies have yet to bear fruit (simply because not enough time has passed), but are well-equipped to do so if the political leadership maintains sustainability as a top priority and an effective long-range sustainability plan weaves the actions together into a cohesive whole.  In the cases of the District of North Vancouver and the Corporation of Delta, levels adaptive and mitigative capacity did not correspond to what we might expect to see in municipalities with considerable response capacity. In other words, intervening variables are potentially influencing the relationship between capacity and action. The evidence gathered in this study indicated that leadership is one such critical determining factor. If a strong directive is issued that established climate change action as a municipal priority, the financial resources needed to tackle the climate change problem are allocated. Another such issue is the inter-jurisdictional context within which the municipalities function. It is often the case that policies at the regional, provincial, and federal level are inconsistent with the ongoing climate change efforts in these cities.  Interviewees  indicated that this inconsistency can have two effects: any progress in GHG reductions may be offset by increases resulting from policies imposed by higher levels of government, and staff may feel disempowered by forces beyond their control leading to  95  diminished motivation and creativity. Other such intervening factors must be explored if action on climate change is to be effectively enabled. 4.8. Conclusions and future research directions The distinction between response capacity, adaptive capacity and mitigative capacity proposed in this article was found to be useful in understanding the dynamics of resource allocation and goal attainment with regard to climate change. The concept of response capacity draws our attention to the broad set of resources that are needed to respond to any risk, and reveals the strong links between this form of capacity and the underlying development path.  Mitigative and adaptive capacities represent the utilization of  response capacity to design policies, create institutions, and develop technical skills that are specifically geared towards climate change.  It is important to recognize that  mitigative and adaptive capacities, however, still represent the potential to achieve the ultimate goals of greenhouse gas and vulnerability reduction. Climate change responses are still nascent in these three cities, and as such it is a challenging task to evaluate whether or not the policies that are planned or in place will yield the desired results.  These cases provide powerful evidence for the claim that, even in the presence of significant response capacity, action on climate change may not occur. Document analysis and interviews indicated that although all three municipalities generally possess similar stores of response capacity, they varied widely in mitigative capacity and adaptive capacity (in the form of practical policies and effective organization arrangements geared towards responding to climate change).  The next step is to explore more thoroughly the institutional, political, and behavioural characteristics that intervene during the translation of response capacity into action on climate change. Early evidence suggests that organizational culture and structure play critical roles in the development of effective climate change policies, even in municipalities with similar levels of response capacity. Also important is the broader regulatory and political context, including initiatives at the provincial and federal levels, as well as political and technical (staff) leadership. Finally, it appears that all of these  96  characteristics are the product of path dependent institutional processes, calling attention to the challenges that may be faced by municipalities that attempt to identify and overcome barriers to action. Without a deeper understanding of the triggers of, and barriers to, action on climate change, it is unlikely that precious response capacity will be effectively utilized, adaptive and mitigative capacities developed, and climate change goals attained.  97  4.9. References Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B. & Takahashi, K. 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. IN Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Van Der Linden, P. J. & Hanson, C. E. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R. & Rockstram, J. 2005. SocialEcological Resilience to Coastal Disasters. Science 309: 1036. Betsill, M. 2001. Mitigating climate change in US cities: opportunities and obstacles. Local Environment 6: 393-406. Bulkeley, H. & Betsill, M. 2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the 'urban' politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 14: 42-63. Burch, S. & Robinson, J. 2007. A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change. Climate Policy 7: 304-316. City of Vancouver (1990) Clouds of Change: Final Report of the City of Vancouver Task Force on Atmospheric Change. IN City of Vancouver Department of Planning (Ed.) Vancouver. City of Vancouver (2003) A Corporate Climate Change Action Plan for the City of Vancouver. Vancouver, City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver (2005) Community Climate Change Action Plan: Creating Opportunities. Vancouver, City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver (2007a) City of Vancouver Climate Protection Progress Report. Vancouver, City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver. (2007b). "City Plan and Community Visions." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cityplan/Visions/. City of Vancouver (2008) Policy Report: The Green Homes Program. Vancouver, City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver. (2009). "City of Vancouver: Employment." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://vancouver.ca/humanresources/index.htm. CivicInfoBC. (2009). "Surveys and Statistics." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/81_ver2.asp. 98  Corporation of Delta (2005) The Corporation of Delta Official Community Plan. Corporation of Delta. District of North Vancouver (1991) The District Official Community Plan. The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver. District of North Vancouver. (2008). "District of North Vancouver GIS: Topography." Retrieved 12 June, 2008, from http://www.geoweb.dnv.org/maps/thematic/topo_seymour/topo-seymour.html. Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2008). "Partners for Climate Protection: A milestone framework." Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://www.sustainablecommunities.fcm.ca/Partners-for-Climate-Protection/. Geology.com. (2007). "British Columbia Map - British Columbia Sattelite Image." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from geology.com/canada/british-columbia.shtml. Government of British Columbia (2009) Population estimates. Population Section, BC Stats. Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Labour & Citizens' Services. Greater Vancouver Regional District (1999) Livable Region Strategic Plan. IN Policy and Planning Department (Ed.), Greater Vancouver Regional District. Grothmann, T. & Patt, A. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environment Change 15: 199213. Haddad, B. 2005. Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when sociopolitical goals are explicit. Global Environmental Change 15: 165-176. IPCC 1995. Summary for Policymakers. IN Watson, R. T., Zinyowera, M. C. & Moss, R. H. (Eds.) Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Klein, R. J. T., Schipper, E. L. & Dessai, S. 2005. Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environmental Science & Policy 8: 579-588. Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N. F. 2006. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change 77: 73-95. Metro Vancouver's Vital Signs. (2009). "Our Sense of Place." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from www.vancouverfoundationvitalsigns.ca/?q=node/6.  99  Metro Vancouver. (2006). "Household income - Average income and median income $, 1991-1996-2001-2006 Census." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/KeyFactsAverageHouseholdIncome1991-1996-2001-06.pdf. Metro Vancouver. (2008). "Municipal tax rates. Assessments, Tax Rates, Municipal Taxes and Class Proportions of Taxes and Assessments.” Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/KeyFactsMetroVancouverMunicipalTaxRates.pdf. Metro Vancouver. (2009a). "Education in Metro Vancouver, School Attendance and Levels of Schooling, 2006 Census." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/KeyfactsSchoolAttendance2006cen.pdf. Metro Vancouver. (2009b). "Municipal Assessed Properties Values." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/KeyFactsMunicipalAssessedPropertiesValues.pdf. Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources. (2007). "The BC Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership." Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/. Province of British Columbia. (2004). "Weather, climate, and the future: BC's plan." Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/373154/actions.pdf. Province of British Columbia. (2007). "Speech from the Throne, Third Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament, delivered February 13, 2007." Retrieved, from http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th3rd/4-8-38-3.htm. Province of British Columbia (2008) Climate Change Action Plan. Government of British Columbia. Sheppard, S. R. J., Shaw, A., Flanders, D. & Burch, S. (2008) Can visualization save the world? Lessons for landscape architects from visualizing local climate change. Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008; 9th International Conference on IT in Landscape Architecture. Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Dessau/Bernburg, Germany. Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., Burton, I., Challenger, B., Huq, S., Klein, R. & Yohe, G. 2001. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity. IN Mccarthy, J., Canziani, O., Leary, N., Dokken, D. & White, K. (Eds.)  100  Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Natural Step. (2008). "The Natural Step: About Us." Retrieved July 27, 2008, from http://www.naturalstep.ca/about.html. Tol, R. S. J. & Yohe, G. W. 2007. The weakest link hypothesis for adaptive capacity: An empirical test. Global Environmental Change 17: 218-227. Tompkins, E. & Adger, W. N. 2005. Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environmental Sciences and Policy 8: 562-571. United Nations Development Program. (2008). "Human Development Reports: 2008 Statistical Update - Canada." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://hdrstats.undp.org/2008/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_CAN.html. Winkler, H., Baumert, K., Blanchard, O., Burch, S. & Robinson, J. 2007. What factors influence mitigative capacity? Energy Policy 35: 692-703. Yohe, G. & Tol, R. 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: Moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 12: 25-40. Yohe, G. W. 2001. Mitigative capacity: the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side. Climatic Change 49: 247-262.  101  Chapter 5. In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: An examination of barriers to action in three Canadian cities10 5.1. Introduction In recent years, many cities have attempted to design and implement both climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies that will contribute to the pursuit of sustainability goals. While municipalities were once viewed simply as providers of services such as waste collection and utility provision, a shift has occurred in which the municipalities act as leaders on sustainability issues (Burstrom and Korhonen, 2001, Brugmann, 1996), innovators and early adopters of efficient technologies (Capello et al., 1999), and loci for action on climate change (Betsill, 2001). In other words, local authorities may be moving away from a strictly regulatory or service provision role to one of enabling action on environmental and sustainability-related problems (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005). Although in possession of large stores of financial, human, and technical resources, however, Canadian cities have achieved varying levels of success at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing resiliency (see Chapter 4). This supports the assertion that perhaps factors other than capacity are at play throughout the multi-phase process of designing and implementing effective local climate change response strategies. If this is true, solving the problem of inaction on climate change may be not as simple as allocating additional funds, developing new technologies, or training a more sophisticated workforce. Instead, we must ask: what is the specific nature of the factors that intervene in the translation of existing (or anticipated future) capacity into action?  This article presents some of the findings of a study that examined three municipalities in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada, in order to determine the nature of the socio-cultural and institutional barriers to action on climate change at the local level. The central goals of this paper are: 1) to propose a simple typology of the factors that may inhibit action by gathering insights from an inter-disciplinary set of literatures; 2) to explore the ways that these barriers influence the utilization of various forms of capacity to achieve greenhouse gas reduction and resiliency in three case study communities; and 10  A version of this chapter has been submitted for publication as: Burch, Sarah. In pursuit of resilient, lowcarbon communities: An examination of barriers to action in three Canadian cities.  102  3) to understand the dynamic interactions amongst, and relative importance of, these barriers at the local level. This paper finishes by exploring the directions that future research might take to support effective local action on climate change. 5.2. Capacity, action, and barriers at the local level In the literature on both adaptive and mitigative responses to climate change, capacity has emerged as a critical precursor to action (cf. Adger et al., 2004, cf. Yohe and Tol, 2002, Yohe, 2001). Defined as “a country’s ability to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions or enhance natural sinks” (Winkler et al., 2007), mitigative capacity is viewed as the ‘mirror image’ of adaptive capacity, or “the ability or potential of a system to respond successfully to climate vulnerability and change,” (Adger et al., 2007). For instance, Yohe (2001) argued that both adaptive and mitigative capacity are comprised of resources such as financial, human, and social capital, risk-spreading mechanisms such as insurance, decision-making capacity, and availability of technological options. Nevertheless, evidence has shown that the lack of progress on climate change policy at the international level is not due to a lack of technological options nor prohibitive costs (Munasinghe and Swart, 2005, Pacala and Socolow, 2004). Instead, it appears that institutional and cultural barriers play more integral roles than previously imagined, and may present far greater challenges than the refinement of climate models or the development of efficient technologies. Recent work suggests that psychological factors, such as perceived adaptive capacity (Grothmann and Patt, 2005), and the normative or motivational context of responses (Haddad, 2005) are more important than resource constraints. Rather than focusing on superficial policies and technologies, it has been argued that we must look to the deeper underlying path dependent development trajectories to reveal the true sources of barriers to action (Burch and Robinson, 2007, Robinson et al., 2003).  Institutions, organizational structures, and the cultures that  characterize them, are crucial elements of a society’s development path which clearly influence the success with which we respond to climate change.  These assertions suggest the need to look beyond theories of technological innovation or rational assessments of costs and benefits to analyses of institutions and socio-cultural  103  contexts. Although every municipality is subject to a unique mix of challenges and opportunities with regard to action on climate change, a diverse set of literatures sheds light on the specific nature of potential barriers to action at this level. This section summarizes the relevant findings of these literatures, in order to construct a typology of barriers that will help to frame the data collected in the three cities under study. 5.3. A typology of barriers to climate change action Explorations of social behaviour and values are extremely valuable to an understanding of the human universe within which climate change policies evolve. New institutional theory11 is especially relevant in that it injects a deep appreciation of the normative elements that pervade collective behaviour into discussions of institutional genesis and change.  This field represents a strong break from highly rational and structuralist  explanations of human behaviour through the acknowledgement that, in the collective context, humans often operate on the basis of routines and standard operating procedures, according to a ‘logic of appropriateness’ (Olsen and March, 1989). This is in direct contrast to a calculus of costs and benefits, or a ‘logic of consequentiality’ (Olsen and March, 1989). In the context of municipal action on climate change, this finding forces a shift in attention from making a logical, scientific case for the avoided costs yielded by climate change action, to the need for embedding new norms and values associated with climate change action throughout the familiar and established practices, institutional and social habits (as explored through Bourdieu's concept of 'habitus': Bourdieu, 1990, and the concept of 'structuration' introduced by Giddens, 1984)  and political cultures  (Jasanoff, 2005, O'Riordan et al., 1998) within an institution.  Indeed, affective  dimensions of action are intricately interwoven with cognitive elements (Slovic et al., 2007, Peters and Slovic, 1996, Powell and DiMaggio, 1991), since individuals are more often guided by values than by formal rules or rational choices (Peters, 1999). This affective element of decision-making is said to ‘lubricate reason’ (Slovic et al., 2007, see especially: Epstein, 1994). In other words, affective responses may act as either barriers 11  Early work in the field of new institutionalism theory (Olsen and March, 1989) was later applied to organizational analysis (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991), and took on comparative historical (Thelen, 2003), economic (Paavola and Adger, 2005), and sociological (González and Healey, 2005, Fischer, 2003) flavours. Excellent reviews of the field have been carried out by Peters (2005), Hall and Taylor (1996), and Immergut (1998).  104  or enablers of action, but will invariably influence decisions that might be presumed to be based solely on a rational analysis of available information. At the individual level, values, beliefs, and social context are also critical antecedents or determinants of behaviour (see for example: Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002, Stern, 2000, Kaiser and Wolfing, 1999, Stern, 1992), and thus may either facilitate or inhibit climate change responses. The parallel insights of new institutional theory and psychological theories of behaviour reveal the first category of barriers that may be present in municipal institutions: cultural/behavioural barriers.  As alluded to above, these refer to the  organizational ethos, habitual modes of practice, personalities and values present within municipal institutions, which may deeply influence the success of climate change action. The study of climate change policy design and organizational responses to global environmental change illustrate two additional categories: structural/operational and regulatory/legislative barriers to action.  These fields teach us that, for instance,  institutional funding structures and incentive programs (Schipper and Pelling, 2006), the fit between the institutional arrangement and the problem it is intended to solve (Cash et al., 2006, Young, 2002), various levels of government claiming jurisdiction over a problem (Lee and Perl, 2003), the codified rules and practices (Immergut, 1992) and the antecedent development regulatory decisions (Adger and Vincent, 2005, Kok et al., 2000) may all serve to either constrain or facilitate effective policymaking on climate change. Regulatory/legislative factors at the local level, therefore, include the policy tools that the municipality has at its disposal (such as its Official Community Plan and system of bylaws) as well as interactions between multiple levels of government.  Local  structural/operational barriers, on the other hand, refer to features of the organization’s structures and procedures that influence both the day-to-day activities of municipal staff and the longer-term policy direction of the municipality. Finally, we must consider the reality of municipal governance: these institutions do not operate in isolation, but rather are part of a complex web of human/environment interactions, political and economic trajectories, and public values that deeply shape the suite of available policy responses to climate change and their likely success. Public awareness of climate change (Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006, Kempton, 1997) and  105  perception of the risk (Leiserowitz, 2006, Lorenzoni et al., 2005) influence the willingness of the public to support leadership on the issue, while the social context at any given time may alter both the importance individuals attach to risk responses (Kasperson and Kasperson, 2005, Pidgeon et al., 2003) and their ability to act (Gatersleben et al., 2002, Corraliza and Berrenguer, 2000).  Broader economic and  political structures, furthermore, tightly constrain the set of available collective and individual behaviours (Baber, 2004, Hall and Taylor, 1996, Krasner, 1982). In other words, contextual issues shape the environment within which the municipality functions and influences the values and priorities of the public. Transcending these categories of barriers is a phenomenon in which contingent events based on agency and choice lead to the institutionalization of a path which makes previously likely alternative paths progressively less probable (Pierson, 2004, Mahoney, 2000).  As a result of this process, social and organizational processes tend to be  characterized by sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and inertia (Thelen, 2003). This path-dependence is closely linked to the concept of increasing returns, in which “the probability of further steps along the same path increases with each move down that path,” in part due to the costs (or barriers) associated with path-switching (Pierson, 2000). Municipal institutions deeply influence the context within which responses to climate change are designed and implemented, because they are part of the historically-evolved and path-dependent structures that have been shown to limit the options of actors (Thelen, 2003). For instance, the processes by which development applications are approved in cities is based on Official Community Plans, provincial and municipal building codes, and stated municipal priorities, all of which carry the weight of habit and past precedent.  Indeed, once these processes have been designed and implemented,  alternatives become increasingly remote as time passes, learning accumulates and scarce capital is invested (Thelen, 2003, Berkhout, 2002). Climate change policies must be developed within these highly structured organizational fields, which assist in efforts to deal rationally with uncertainty but also constrain the variety of response options available (Kondra and Hinings, 1998, DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). This is especially important with regard to climate change responses, because a system in which fewer path  106  dependencies exist may be one in which the ever-evolving climate change science may be more effectively integrated into practices and procedures (O'Riordan and Jordan, 1999). In sum, the literature presented above can be utilized to outline a typology of factors that inhibit action towards establishing resilient, low-carbon communities.  Particularly  important are path dependent processes, structures, and routines, which may have yielded unsustainable outcomes in the past. The sections that follow will explore the presence, absence, and dynamics of these barriers (and others that emerged throughout the course of the study) in three cities in British Columbia.  The final sections explore the  implications of these findings for the development and implementation of effective climate change policies in Canadian cities. 5.4. Methods and cases Three municipalities in the Lower Mainland (or Metro Vancouver region) of British Columbia were selected to explore the barriers to climate change action that are most significant at the municipal level. These cases were chosen in order to represent a spectrum of action on climate change, while controlling for significant differences in economic, cultural, and political development paths that would undoubtedly vary between cities in different countries, or even provinces. In other words, these cities were chosen because they possess similar levels of capacity (in the form of technical, financial, and human resources) but widely different levels of action on climate change.  Preliminary policy document analysis was carried out for each city as well as the provincial and federal governments, in order to gain a sense of the context of climate change response efforts.  Meeting transcripts, Council reports, internal memoranda,  official government documents, and media reports were gathered to supplement primary data collection. Policy documents were examined with the goal of determining: the temporal scale, the spatial scale, the central adaptive or mitigative issues of interest, the responsible parties, the level of detail, and the likelihood of implementation.  107  A series of semi-structured elite interviews (between 1 and 2.5 hours in length) were carried out in each of the three case study areas12. Participants were invited on the basis of three criteria: employment with one of the municipalities under study, involvement in the creation or implementation of climate change (or sustainability) policy in the city, and the occupation of a position in the organizational structure that pertains directly to aspects of climate change mitigation or adaptation (even if not involved directly in climate change policy development).  Local incumbent politicians, heads of municipal  departments (such as Engineering and Planning), and climate change working group team members were interviewed. Participants were contacted by email using a standardized letter of invitation. They were told about the full nature of the study, the other cases involved, and why they were selected for participation. Approximately 95% of the individuals who were contacted for interviews participated in the study. Interviewees were told that their responses would remain confidential, and their colleagues would not be aware of their participation in the study. In addition, un-structured interviews took place throughout the study period as the result of parallel research taking place in two of the three case studies (cf. Sheppard et al., 2008). The result was an extended network of planners, engineers, and politicians who were approached in order to gather together insights into the design and implementation of climate change policy in the cases under study.  Notes were taken during and following each interview, and interviews were recorded with the permission of the participant. Interviews were coded and analyzed using the qualitative analysis software ATLAS TI. Responses were coded according to a scheme which identified various aspects of capacity (including financial, human, and technical capacity), internal institutional elements (such as organizational structure and organizational culture), external institutional factors (such as the jurisdiction at play, legislation and regulation, and external policy context), leadership (both political and technical), and issues related to the values, attitudes, and knowledge of each city’s public. 12  Sample size of semi-structured interviews: in Delta 3 politicians; 3 planners; 2 engineers; environmental services staff/operations; in the District of North Vancouver: 4 politicians; 3 planners; engineers; 1 administrator; 3 environmental services/operations staff; in the City of Vancouver: politicians, 1 planner; 2 engineers; 4 Sustainability Group staff; 1 administrator; Metro Vancouver: engineers, 2 planners. Total n = 41.  4 2 3 3  108  This scheme was constructed on the basis of the literature reviewed and hypotheses formed prior to the interviews, but evolved as a result of the interviewees’ responses. Thus, the coding scheme was produced through a blend of deductive and inductive reasoning, in order to weave the reality of climate change policy making in these cities together with the scholarly state of the art.  Of the 21 municipalities that make up the Metro Vancouver Region in the South-western coastal  region  of  British  Columbia, Canada, three were chosen for study. The first case study  municipality,  the  Corporation of Delta (see Figure 5.1), is comprised of a blend of agricultural residential  land,  suburban  development,  industrial operations.  and  Delta is  home to approximately 99,000 people, and since much of Delta’s 183  square  kilometres  reside  between zero and two meters above mean sea-level, it is heavily Figure 5.1. Case study areas in the Metro Vancouver Region of British Columbia, Canada. Source: Metro  protected by over 60 km of dikes. Vancouver’s Vital Signs (2009); Inset adapted from Rising sea levels paired with a Geology.com (2007). subsiding land base, highly important ecological zones (such as Burns Bog and an internationally renowned Pacific Fly-way), and represent some of the climate-related issues that Delta faces. Initial steps toward climate change mitigation were taken by Delta in 2007 (in the form of a climate change action plan aimed at the emissions from city property and activities), but have not yet been extended to community emissions (see Chapter 4).  109  The second community, the District of North Vancouver (DNV), is home to approximately 86,000 residents. The unique geography of the DNV distinguishes it from other municipalities in the Metro Vancouver region (see Figure 5.1): it covers 160 square kilometres, the elevation of which ranges from 0 to over 1400 metres above sea level (the North Shore mountains) and is bounded by water on three sides (District of North Vancouver, 2008). In 2004, a short time before the beginning of this study, the District of North Vancouver City Council officially adopted The Natural Step Framework13 in order to pursue a mandate of sustainability. In the 4 years that followed, the District of North Vancouver has focused on developing a common definition of sustainability that is shared by all divisions and individuals within the municipal organization. This was paired with the pursuit of corporate sustainability strategies, with very little explicit reference to GHG reduction. Plans for the future abound, however: the municipality is intending to revise its Official Community Plan, the touchstone of its corporate policy and procedure, which was last revised in 1991 (District of North Vancouver, 1991), create a green building strategy by 2010, and develop a climate change action plan to be completed by 2009.  The final case, the City of Vancouver (see Figure 5.1), governs a population of approximately 600,000 people, and is the urban core of a region whose population exceeds 2,000,000. Like Delta and the DNV, the 115 square kilometre city is surrounded by water on three sides, and is the most densely populated region in British Columbia. In July of 2007, the City of Vancouver began to consider long-range GHG planning and the issue of carbon neutrality, and the Council adopted targets to reduce community GHG emissions by 33% below 2006 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (City of Vancouver, 2007). In order to achieve these targets, the City of Vancouver has implemented (or is planning to implement) a range of projects that may significantly affect long-term emissions trajectories. These projects, as well as evaluations of both the capacity to respond to climate change and the actions taken by all three case study cities, have been described in greater detail elsewhere (see Chapters 4 and 6). 13  The framework was developed in Sweden in 1989, and claims to provide a ‘science-based definition of sustainability’ and a ‘practical strategic planning framework’ for achieving sustainability (The Natural Step, 2008).  110  5.5. Evidence from three cases: Local barriers to action on climate change The sections that follow will present the range of barriers to action raised by interviewees, in tabular form, and will draw out specific examples within each category that were identified as being of particular importance to successful climate change action in these cities. 5.5.1. Budgetary inefficiency and party rivalries: Structural/operational barriers to action The first category of barriers, as described earlier in this paper, pertains to features of the organization’s structures and procedures that influence both the day-to-day activities of municipal staff and the longer-term policy direction of the municipality. Figure 5.1 below illustrates the range of barriers raised by interviewees that can be attributed to structural or operational facets of the municipalities. Table 5.1 Structural/operational barriers to climate change policy action raised by interviewees in the three case study cities of the Corporation of Delta, the City of Vancouver, and the District of North Vancouver Structural / Definition: Features of the organization’s structures and procedures that influence day-to-day Operational activities and long term policy direction • Excessive transparency hinders the freedom of Councillors to learn about a new issue in a nonthreatening environment; result is quick decisions or continuous deferrals • Term limits imposed on politicians affect Council’s ability to make long term decisions • Absence of a long term strategic sustainability plan impairs the effectiveness of a decentralized organizational model for sustainability in the municipality • Mechanisms for institutional learning are rare, so early work on climate change is not referenced/used • Staff must demonstrate to Council the ways in which new recommendations are consistent with past mandates/policies, thereby entrenching a particular path • There are no incentives built into the budgetary system that stimulate innovation • Long history of community consultations can inhibit efficient decision-making • Budgetary cycle forces planning based on three year terms, rather than long term planning • Party system inhibits macro planning and collaboration among politicians • Ward system perpetuates neighbourhood rather than city-wide planning, which is required for effective climate change responses • Redundancies and inefficiencies are prevalent in the institution’s job descriptions and standard operating procedures • Individual mandates of the departments lead to divergent (or inconsistent) goals • Hierarchical system inhibits flexibility and innovation • Isolating climate change within the organizational structure limits buy-in from all departments • Job descriptions are not crafted to embed climate change in day-to-day activities • Efficacy of decentralized organizational model for sustainability depends on the ability of individuals to see linkages between departments on issues and then including the sustainability resource people • The vast majority of development decisions are routine and follow carved-in-stone guidelines • The size of the institution is not conducive to effective or efficient communication  111  In the context of municipal climate change policy making, interviewees indicated that Structural/Operational barriers arise from the location of climate change and/or sustainability in the organizational hierarchy, the job descriptions that set priorities and performance criteria for individuals, the organizational mechanisms for facilitating interdepartmental collaboration, the presence or absence of a political party system, and the structure of the budgetary system (to name a few). In each municipality, however, specific barriers were shown to play a more significant role in the success of climate change policy. Especially in the District of North Vancouver, interviewees frequently suggested that the municipal organization was a highly inefficient bureaucracy whose structures and procedures do not provide incentives for innovation. The example of the budgetary system was raised by individuals in all three municipalities. Two aspects of this system are particularly important: a) municipal budgets are designed so that operational funds are kept separate from the capital budget and the result is that capital outlays for energy efficient technologies yield savings only to the operational budget and cannot be rolled into further efficient capital projects (and, similarly, the operational side is usually without access to capital); b) money that is not spent by a department during the term of the budget results in a decreased budget for that department the following term, thereby removing the incentive for savings. Taken together, these characteristics of municipalities’ budgetary systems inhibit staff from taking innovative steps to develop efficient, cost-effective climate change response measures.  An especially critical structural feature in the City of Vancouver is the party system employed in politics. While one junior engineer felt the party system stimulated competition amongst politicians who wanted to “out-environment” each other, one senior administrator observed that the party system more often led to politicians strongly advocating for pet projects that are neither well thought out nor part of a cohesive whole. This administrator blamed the party system for the absence of a long range strategic plan (another important barrier that will be presented next) by saying that the city may face:  112  “A real uphill battle because of the political parties: they each have their own sort of mechanisms for formulating policies and priorities and strategies. And I think to some extent, the fact that there hasn't been an organizational strategic plan, is a reflection of the fact that we do have a party system here and only a few municipalities in Canada have one. And as such, getting a macro strategy has been seen to be... pushing up against the political boundary.” Politicians in the City of Vancouver were similarly divided, but more frequently argued that the party system led to viable policies being rejected on purely political bases.  The final significant structural/operational barrier to climate change action is the way in which sustainability and climate change are embedded in the organizational structure. In the City of Vancouver, for instance, a decentralized model has been followed whereby a small core group of professionals provide leadership, support and training to other departments as they pursue their sustainability goals, rather than being the source of all action on sustainability in the municipality. Currently the Sustainability Group is nested within the Department of Engineering, but also reports to an inter-departmental Steering Committee consisting of the general managers of all the major divisions within the city (such as corporate services, finance, planning, and engineering).  While one senior  planner and two individuals within the Sustainability Group felt that this location in the city’s organization structure was conducive to a sufficient amount of influence and support, many other interviewees felt differently. A City of Vancouver politician, for instance, insisted that the Sustainability Group should be directly affiliated with the City Manager’s office in order to demonstrate the strength of City’s political will with regard to climate change and sustainability issues. Another individual in the Sustainability Group felt that placing the core climate change team closer to the Mayor or City Manager would give the issue protection and legitimacy. On the other hand, a senior planner argued that the Sustainability Group’s location in the organizational hierarchy matters less than the individuals in the group, and their skills at ‘bending the ears’ of those in power.  113  5.5.2. Out-dated seminal policies and inter-jurisdictional conflicts: Regulatory/legislative barriers The second category of barriers includes the policy tools that the municipality has at its disposal (such as its Official Community Plan and system of bylaws) as well as interactions between multiple levels of government. Table 2 presents the range of issues deemed to be important by interviewees. Regulatory / Definition: The nature of the policy tools that the municipality has at its disposal and the Legislative interactions between multiple levels of government. • Municipal building bylaws conflict with provincial building code • Lack of local control over the main drivers of emissions • No power resides at the regional level (only local and provincial) so regional planning cannot be imposed (ie. The Liveable Region Strategic Plan/Regional Growth Strategy cannot be enforced) • Standards for industrial emissions are not harmonized for all parts of the region • Support for communities by the province has been promised, but has not materialized • The province may impose policies that contradict the Regional Growth Strategy • Absence of a long term sustainability strategy means that inconsistencies in goals and approaches between different departments (ie engineering and planning) are not revealed • Official Community Plan is ‘stale’ and not based on new information regarding climate change impacts and causes • Without a policy basis upon which to force developers to adopt ‘green’ standards, the outcome depends heavily on the ability of individual staff members to negotiate • Abstract sustainability policy frameworks lack necessary specification for implementation • Lack of a common language/definition of sustainability • Lack of detailed implementation plans paired with monitoring and review mechanisms • Mayor does not have taxing or executive powers in a ‘weak mayor’ as they might in a ‘strong mayor’ system • Ad-hoc climate change or environmental committees stall without formal mandate or Terms of Reference • Action is constrained by the need to work within the context of existing programs Table 5.2 Regulatory and legislative barriers to climate change action raised by interviewees in the three case study municipalities.  Of the barriers presented in Figure 5.2, the quality of policy and regulatory tools that the municipality had at its disposal appeared to be especially significant.  The Official  Community Plan (OCP) and system of zoning bylaws provide the regulatory framework upon which the vast majority of development decisions are made. These tools provide a highly complex and interwoven guide for development planning. Senior planners with the Corporation of Delta indicated that the OCP was out of date, with little concrete reference to climate change or stringent building efficiency guidelines.  While one  planner described negotiations on large new development projects as an “open book” 114  during which city planners have the freedom to argue for efficiency improvements, it is the smaller (but far more frequent) routine decisions that are deeply rooted in an entrenched set of policy documents. The Delta planners that were interviewed indicated that the absence of a more “state of the art” planning framework was one of the most significant barriers to effective community-wide action on climate change in Delta.  Even in the presence of more up-to-date core policies, however, interviewees indicated that in order to pursue a truly effective suite of sustainability policies, a long range strategic sustainability plan was critical. A senior planner, a senior administrator, and multiple members of the City of Vancouver’s Sustainability Group (the small team that acts as a resource on climate change and sustainability issues for the City) raised this as especially important for the City. A senior staff member in the Sustainability Group noted that the absence of a long range sustainability plan hinders the municipality’s efforts to ensure that all departments’ goals are aligned and synergistic. Although other organizational mechanisms have been put in place to stimulate collaboration and ensure this alignment on other issues (such as transportation), sustainability is such a pervasive and complex issue that a different type mechanism may be required.  Also critical is the regional and provincial legislative or regulatory environment within which the municipality operates. Political leaders in both Delta and the District of North Vancouver seemed to feel that the local level is the most effective scale at which to pursue effective action on climate change, because local politicians “live, breathe, and know [the community] way better than anyone else” (in the words of one senior Delta politician). The local level becomes especially important in the absence of action at the provincial and federal levels. Delta politicians and planners expressed deep frustration that at the provincial level, transportation infrastructure initiatives have been designed that will effectively undo any progress that Delta may make in the future toward greenhouse gas emissions reductions. These initiatives are intended to facilitate both commuting and goods transportation in the region through bridge expansion and highway construction (Government of British Columbia, 2007), but have stimulated vocal opposition in many of the communities that will be affected (see for example: City of  115  Vancouver, 2006).  Many interviewees in Delta indicated, as a result, that it is a more  efficient use of their time to pursue corporate GHG reduction strategies rather than tackling the immensely more complex issue of community emissions. The inconsistency between policies at the provincial, regional, and local levels was repeatedly raised as an inhibitor of mitigation strategies. 5.5.3. Leadership and combative organizational relationships: Cultural/behavioural barriers  As described earlier in this paper, literatures abound which demonstrate the importance of culture, personality, values, and beliefs to the development of and implementation of policy.  Table 5.3 below illustrates the variety of cultural and behavioural barriers  perceived by interviewees in the three municipalities under study. Cultural / Behavioural • • • • • • • • • • • •  Definition: The relationships between individuals in various critical positions within the municipality, their personalities, and the collective ethos and customs at play within the organization. Combative relationships between municipalities and the regional transit authority yield gaps in transportation planning Formalized approach to introducing new policies and procedures exacerbates educational and cultural differences that exist between groups within the municipality Silos exist between planning and operations, which sustain cultural difference and often generate animosity Operations staff are sceptical of new initiatives from the City Hall (ie Planning) because there is the fear that these will only consist of onerous tasks that are not supported by adequate funds Short term desire to be re-elected inhibits long-term or deeply transformative decision-making by politicians Absence of leadership at the provincial or federal level Consensus-oriented Council inhibits change that is inconsistent with the status quo Mayor and Council ‘beholden’ to special interests Combative relationship between the planning department and the Council Operations staff are often in a physically separate location than planning/City Hall, and so are less connected to the decisions that are made there Strong organizational culture of risk aversion: new initiatives must already have been proven elsewhere Penalizing managers for violating new bylaws through ticketing has created deep resentment  Table 5.3 Cultural and behavioural inhibitors of climate change action suggested by interviewees in the case study cities of Delta, the City of Vancouver, and the District of North Vancouver  Interviewees at all levels of seniority indicated that leadership is an especially critical determinant of the success of local climate change action. Although the political leaders  116  in Delta have committed to tackling the problem of climate change, it is not apparent that this priority is backed by sufficient financial or human resources. One interviewee indicated that this was, in part, a problem of conflicting priorities. The incumbent politicians have committed to not raising property taxes (the municipality’s main source of income) during their tenure as political leaders, but, in the words of one senior planner, the politicians are “maybe not realizing that some things are not getting done or some things are suffering.” This planner indicated that their departmental budget had not been increased in over two years, and yet climate change had been added on to their list of major priorities. Other participants echoed this concern. In other words, a number of Delta staff questioned the authenticity of the commitment to climate change, given that few resources had been devoted to supporting the mandate.  Like the Corporation of Delta, leadership was consistently raised by interviewees in the District of North Vancouver as a significant barrier to action, but in a slightly different way.  Both middle and senior management in the departments of Engineering and  Planning indicated frustration with the leadership abilities and personalities of the city Council members.  Although participants noted that these individuals worked well  together, no participant felt that Council was prepared to take a strong stance on climate change issues and over-ride the complaints of special interest groups. In the words of one senior planner:  “It is recognized…that if you are going to push forward the sustainability agenda, you need to lead. And I think you've got to have a council who is able to coalesce and speak with one voice and make those tough decisions… And you might have the five [people] who didn't like it show up in chambers and threaten: we will never vote for you again. And [the politicians] cave. I'm thinking: you're not looking at the numbers, people! You are just looking at those who are peddling us back fast as they can backwards!”  117  Another District of North Vancouver interviewee expressed frustration with the inability of staff to advise Council and garner dependable results by noting an expression within the municipality that “the last one to the microphone wins” during the weekly meetings of the city Council. The planner noted the Council members would “look at which way the political windsock is blowing that night” and make their decisions on this basis. The District of North Vancouver Council has been described by interviewees as populist, and unable to make difficult decisions. The result of this has been the faltering of significant policies to enhance the community’s public transportation system, and control pesticide and herbicide use in the District. Politicians in both Delta and the District of North Vancouver, however, reported that their efforts to lead on climate change issues had often been stymied by either a lack of knowledge about the issues on the part of community groups and citizens or outright opposition to policies (especially those, such as planned increases in density, that might change the character and aesthetic of the community). One Delta politician challenged the commonly-held perception that the role of politicians is to lead, and instead argued that politicians are tightly constrained by public attitudes and awareness. Politicians interviewed in Vancouver, in contrast, indicated that the role of politicians was to push the public to understand what is required to secure the long term well-being of their community.  In addition to leadership, clashes between the culture of the municipal hall (dominated by planners and engineers whose job it is to think at a higher, more policyoriented, level) and the culture of operations (which employs individuals who are mainly engaged in service provision, maintenance, and physical labour) arose as a characteristic of municipal institutions that may inhibit climate change action. In the District of North Vancouver, both individuals from operations and from planning indicated that many operations staff were sceptical of the Natural Step initiative, and assumed that it would only make their work more onerous.  Two DNV planners indicated that conscious  attempts were made by the individuals who led the DNV’s Natural Step program to include the operations teams from the initial phases of the project and onward. The collaboration faltered, however, when operations employees could not determine whether  118  or not adequate additional resources would be provided to them in support of the added work that pursuing the Natural Step entailed. 5.5.4. Climatic calamities and competing priorities: Contextual barriers Contextual issues may either facilitate or inhibit action on climate change, since they shape the environment within which the municipality functions and influence the values and priorities of the public. Although interviews focused on climate change specifically, and thus may have discouraged interviewees to explore priorities that might force climate change action off of the municipal agenda, Table 5.4 summarizes the contextual factors that may nevertheless inhibit action. Contextual • • • • •  Definition: The environment within which the municipality functions and the values and priorities of the public. Severe climate change impacts may force adaptation instead of mitigation, and a focus on short-term planning Older, built-up communities don’t leave many opportunities for transforming the urban landscape Competing priorities (such as lower taxes) inhibit commitment to climate change action Community can be resistant to change, and thus does not provide the required constituency for politicians to take substantial action on climate change Demonstrable impacts from climate change (or obvious problems generated by current development patterns, such as extreme traffic congestion) are required to give politicians impetus to act  Table 5.4 Contextual barriers mentioned by interviewees in the Corporation of Delta, the City of Vancouver, and the District of North Vancouver.  A senior engineer in the City of Vancouver commented that, unlike Delta or the District of North Vancouver (which, during the three years preceding this study, had suffered considerable property damage and even loss of life from mudslides and flooding), most Vancouver citizens do not feel that they have experienced severe climate change impacts. This Vancouver engineer interpreted this as a possible reason why the City has not been pushed by the public to pursue proactive adaptation strategies. In other words, climatic events have the potential to drive demand for municipal responses to climate change.  As mentioned previously, the values and awareness level of the public were cited as significant barriers to political leadership on climate change. In the DNV, for instance, three interviewees claimed that vocal community groups paired with an aging population  119  and values described as ‘conservative’ combined to produce a powerful hindrance to density-oriented mitigation policies.  The data presented here shows that while some barriers to action appear to be common to all three case studies, significant difference exist. For example, the issue of a combative organizational was raised repeatedly in the District of North Vancouver, only rarely in Delta, and not at all in Vancouver. In fact, senior staff in Vancouver indicated that intentional steps had been taken to nurture a culture of collaboration that facilitated effective action on climate change. Similarly, interviewees in both Delta and the District of North Vancouver citied a resistant or unaware public as a core barrier to political leadership and action on climate change, while politicians and planners in Vancouver suggested that it was the role of leaders to overcome public resistance and make decisions that are in the common good. The final critical difference between the municipalities appeared to be the location of climate change and/or sustainability in the organizational structure. While the City of Vancouver had built a team that acted as a resource on climate change sustainability for the municipality, Delta and the District of North Vancouver had tasked very few individuals (who were also responsible for a host of other activities), often located in the planning or engineering departments, with pursuing climate change objectives.  This appears to have prevented the accumulation of  significant institutional learning, thereby inhibiting the implementation of mitigative and adaptive actions. 5.6. Exploring the dynamics of barriers to action at the local level The interview data presented above helps to elaborate the typology that was developed in earlier sections of this paper based on an inter-disciplinary set of literatures. Specifically, the empirical component of this study suggests the need adapt the typology in order to: 1) explore the dynamic interactions that occur amongst each category of barriers and reveal the path dependency that permeates many aspects of municipal institutions; 2) understand the dual nature of these factors, as having the potential to be either barriers or enablers of action; and 3) suggest the specific phases of the process by which capacity is translated into action during which each category of barrier is especially important. These findings  120  will be discussed in turn, before speculating about their implications for the future of local climate change policy making. 5.6.1. Dynamic interactions among barriers The data presented above makes it clear that multiple barriers to action on climate change are at play at any given time in a municipality. These barriers are part of the institutional, organizational, and cultural systems that make up a municipality and thus are deeply interwoven. Figure 5.2 depicts a theoretical set of circumstances illustrating the interrelationships among multiple barriers. This figure tells the story of the influence of institutional and sociocultural barriers on climate change action in eight parts. 1) A lack of public awareness of climate change, or pressing priorities that take precedence over climate change action (such as an economic crisis of the type that begun in late 2008) allow the provincial government to pass policies that lead to rising emissions or contradict climate change goals. 2) This same lack of awareness translates into a perceived lack of demand for climate change leadership among politicians, leading to mandates that fail to challenge the municipal status quo. 3) Provincial policies that contradict climate change goals inhibit local leadership on the issue and create a sense of disempowerment among local politicians. 4) Local leadership is further weakened by a political system based on rigid adherence to party affiliations, which stimulates competition rather than collaboration. 5) Political leadership that seeks to maintain the status quo reproduces organizational silos through mandates and job descriptions that fail to institutionalize collaboration among departments and individuals.  6) Political  leadership sets the tone for an organizational culture that exacerbates the disciplinary and educational differences which in turn 7) sustains the organizational silos.  8) Core  policies that perpetuate planning principles based on the traditional role (mainly focused on utility provision) of the municipality are deemed acceptable, rather than policies which integrate adaptation and mitigation concerns throughout the municipality’s functionality.  9) Organizational silos reinforce the principles behind out-dated core  policies, building inertia behind this mode of practice.  121  Figure 5.2 A theoretical situation (constructed using the barriers revealed by interviewees in the three case study cities) illustrating the dynamic interactions that occur amongst contextual, regulatory/legislative, structural/operational, and cultural/behavioural barriers. The relationships marked 1 through 8 are addressed in the text that precedes the figure.  This theoretical set of circumstances is intended to show one set of pathways through which a cluster of barriers (spanning the categories outline above) can evolve, interact, and become mutually reinforcing. Significant resources have been invested to create the system as it currently stands, and climate change strategies that do not effectively work within this system may be doomed to failure. The irony, of course, is that the current way of designing and managing our cities has produced a deeply unsustainable pattern of development.  Taking the integrative view described above, however, allows us to  glimpse the unexpected repercussions of an intervention, which may resonate throughout the system. Just as inertia builds behind the pathways shown here, leading to suboptimal outcomes on climate change, so too can innovation, collaboration, and awareness gather force as the various facets of the municipality interact. 5.6.2. The link between barriers and enablers The scenario described above begs the question: can the socio-cultural and institutional characteristics that at times inhibit action also facilitate it? Indeed, the literatures used to  122  formulate the typology of barriers also consider the ways in which organizational structure, organizational culture, and leadership (for instance) can serve to stimulate and sustain effective policymaking. For instance, socio-cultural characteristics such as identity formation and institutional issues such as the extra-jurisdictional policy context can act to inhibit the formulation and implementation of climate change policies if identities clash (cf. Wynne, 1992) or provincial policies conflict directly with municipal climate change goals. In contrast, however, the development of norms and identities that support forward-looking policy action (including traditions of fruitful collaboration among scientists, policy-makers, and the lay public) (see for example: Burgess et al., 2005, Baber, 2004, Kok et al., 2000), complemented by policy consistency at multiple levels of government, may lead to highly effective climate change policy-making. This suggests that the same characteristic of the municipal system can be either a barrier to action or enable it, depending on decisions made by political and technical leaders, and the other barriers at play in the system  It has been suggested that the complex problem  of climate change can be addressed in part by broadening responses and linking them with related institutions or issues (Weiner, 2002). One element of this broadening might consist of integrating climate policy into the daily practice and organizational culture (Kok et al., 2000) of the municipality. Policy cultures that are anticipatory rather than reactive, and consensus-based rather than impositional (O'Riordan et al., 1998) may facilitate this integration. Deeper understanding of the mechanisms by which the barriers discussed above can be transformed into enablers will be of great use to climate change policymakers and scholars alike, but requires further exploration (see Chapter 6) 5.6.3. Locating barriers within the process of translating capacity into action This paper began by exploring the observation that the levels of climate change action that we see in many Western cities is not what we’d expect based on the wealth of capacity that they possess (see Chapter 4). The data presented here confirms that the process by which capacity is translated into action is indeed a complex one. As such, the question then becomes: are there phases of this transition during which particular types of barriers are especially important?  123  Figure 5.3 illustrates the utilization of capacity in its more general forms to create the agencies and policies that make up adaptive and mitigative capacity, and the translation of this more specific capacity into the actions that are required to address climate change. The barriers that were raised by interviewees can be located throughout this schematic, and most influence the translation of capacity at multiple points. For instance, political leadership is a critical element in the decision to use scarce financial and human resources (which could be directed towards any one of the municipality’s many priorities) to produce adaptive and mitigative capacity. The decision to do so appears to depend on politicians’ perception of public demand for action on climate change, the culture of leadership that characterizes the municipality (ie the expectation that political leaders will drive public opinion and make decisions for the long-term welfare of the community, rather than following the public mood and being motivated most powerfully by short term payoffs and re-election). During the later stages of the climate change policy progression, technical rather than political leadership become increasingly important, as municipal staff look for guidance on the specific steps that can be taken to achieve climate change goals. It may be that contextual variables and political leadership are more critical in the early stages of response capacity utilization, while the organizational culture and technical leadership take precedence as specific adaptation and mitigation policies are designed and implemented. These phases of capacity translation highlight interesting questions about the tools that can be used at various points along this process to trigger action.  124  Figure 5.3 This schematic illustrates the translation of response capacity into mitigative and adaptive capacity, and finally into goal attainment. Examples are given of barriers/enablers that come into play at various phases in this process (adapted from Chapter 4)  5.7. Conclusions and directions for future research While an international framework for climate change responses remains a critical ingredient of co-ordinated and effective action, communities are the scale at which the behaviour of individuals is most directly influenced (cf. Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, cf. Burstrom and Korhonen, 2001). Municipalities in Canada have the potential to create sustainable communities through the critical functions of land use planning, utility provision, transportation infrastructure development, and waste management.  The  current municipal structure and function, however, has embedded in it a host of barriers to action that have influenced the success with which climate change action has been pursued. A broad range of socio-cultural and institutional literatures bring to light four critical  types  of  these  barriers:  structural/operational,  regulatory/legislative,  cultural/behavioural, and contextual factors.  125  Through the study of three municipalities in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada, the presence or absence of these barriers has been explored. In the Corporation of Delta, interviewees often mentioned the conflict between provincial policies that are likely to dramatically increase emissions and the local climate change action plan that is aimed at reducing corporate emissions.  Many District of North Vancouver staff  expressed frustration over the perceived lack of political leadership on climate change, while politicians in that community suggested that the conservative values of the community prevented the implementation of policies that could dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Vancouver appeared to be the most successful case study with regard to climate change policy, but interviewees often suggested that the lack of a long range strategic plan on sustainability inhibited the effectiveness of the city’s decentralized organizational model of sustainability and climate change decision-making. These challenges, however, are not unique to the three cities under study. Municipalities throughout Canada are likely to be struggling with the rapid pace of social change and the ever-evolving advice on climate change provided to them by the scientific community, making a richer understanding of barriers to action a valuable element of future climate change policy design and implementation.  The evidence presented in this paper indicates that these barriers are deeply interwoven phenomena, and may reinforce one another, creating substantial inertia behind unsustainable patterns of municipal operations. It appears that certain barriers are more important during the translation of response capacity into adaptive and mitigative capacity (such as political leadership), while others more deeply influence the success with which adaptive and mitigative capacities are transformed into actual greenhouse gas reductions and resilience improvements (such as organizational culture and technical leadership). Nevertheless, the same factors that can inhibit action on climate change (such as an organizational culture of combativeness or mutual disrespect) can also facilitate it (a culture of collaboration or innovation). If these insights are to be usefully applied in support of local decision-making on climate change, future research must examine the means by which these path dependent processes can be overcome to transform barriers to action into enablers of it.  126  5.8. References Adger, N. W., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S. & Eriksen, S. (2004) New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Technical Report 7. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Resource. Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B. & Takahashi, K. 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. IN Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Van Der Linden, P. J. & Hanson, C. E. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Adger, W. N. & Vincent, K. 2005. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337: 399-410. Baber, W. F. 2004. Ecology and democratic governance: toward a deliberative model of environmental politics. The Social Science Journal 41: 331-346. Berkhout, F. 2002. Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment. Global Environment Change 12: 1-4. Betsill, M. 2001. Mitigating climate change in US cities: opportunities and obstacles. Local Environment 6: 393-406. Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Polity Press: Cambridge. Brugmann, J. 1996. Planning for sustainability at the local government level. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16: 363-379. Bulkeley, H. & Betsill, M. 2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: Multi-level governance and the 'urban' politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 14: 42-63. Burch, S. & Robinson, J. 2007. A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change. Climate Policy 7: 304-316. Burgess, J., Clark, J. & Chilvers, J. 2005. Going ‘upstream': issues arising with UK experiments in participatory science and technology assessment. Socilogia e Politiche Sociali 8: 107-136. Burstrom, F. & Korhonen, J. 2001. Municipalities and industrial ecology: Reconsidering municipal environmental management. Sustainable Development 9: 36-46. Capello, R., Nijkamp, P. & Pepping, G. 1999. Sustainable cities and energy policies. Springer: Berlin, New York.  127  Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L. & Young, O. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a mutlilevel world. Ecology and Society 11: 8 (online). City of Vancouver. (2006). "Report to Council: Standing Committe of Council on Transportation and Traffic." Retrieved March 13, 2009, from http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20060606/documents/ttmin.pdf. City of Vancouver (2007) City of Vancouver Climate Protection Progress Report. Vancouver, City of Vancouver. Corraliza, J. A. & Berrenguer, J. 2000. Environmental values, beliefs and actions: A situational approach. Environment and Behaviour 32: 832-848. DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomporphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147-160. District of North Vancouver (1991) The District Official Community Plan. The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver. District of North Vancouver. (2008). "District of North Vancouver GIS: Topography." Retrieved 12 June, 2008, from http://www.geoweb.dnv.org/maps/thematic/topo_seymour/topo-seymour.html. Epstein, S. 1994. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist 49: 70-724. Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Gatersleben, B., Steg, L. & Vlek, C. 2002. Measurements and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behaviour. Environment and Behaviour 34: 335-362. Geology.com. (2007). "British Columbia Map - British Columbia Sattelite Image." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from geology.com/canada/british-columbia.shtml. Giddens, A. 1984. Constitution of Society. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK. González, S. & Healey, P. 2005. A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity. Urban Studies 42: 2055-2069. Government of British Columbia. (2007). "Gateway program." Retrieved March 13, 2009, from http://www.gatewayprogram.bc.ca/.  128  Grothmann, T. & Patt, A. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environment Change 15: 199213. Haddad, B. 2005. Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when sociopolitical goals are explicit. Global Environmental Change 15: 165-176. Hall, P. & Taylor, R. 1996. Political science and the three institutionalisms. Political Studies 44: 936-957. Immergut, E. 1992. Health politics: Interests and institutions in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom. Immergut, E. 1998. The theoretical core of the new institutionalism. Politics and Society 26: 5-34. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on Nature. Princeton University Press: Princeton. Kaiser, F. G. & Wolfing, S. 1999. Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 1-19. Kasperson, J. X. & Kasperson, R. E. 2005. The social contours of risk–volume 1: Publics, risk communication and the social amplification of risk. Earthscan: London, UK. Kempton, W. 1997. How the public views climate change. Environment 39: 13-21. Kok, M., Vermeulen, W., Faaij, A. & de Jager, D. (Eds.) 2000. Global Warming and Social Innovation: The Challenge of a Climate-Neutral Society, Earthscan: United Kingdom. Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, M. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally, and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research 3: 239-260. Kondra, A. & Hinings, C. R. 1998. Organizational diversity and change in institutional theory. Organization Studies 19: 743-767. Krasner, S. D. 1982. Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. International Organization 36: 185-205. Lee, E. & Perl, A. (Eds.) 2003. The Integrity Gap: Canada's Environmental Policy and Institutions, UBC Press: Vancouver, Canada. Leiserowitz, A. 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77: 45-72.  129  Lorenzoni, I., Lowe, J. A. & Pidgeon, N. F. (2005) A strategic assessment of scientific and behavioural perspectives on 'dangerous' climate change. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Technical Report No. 28. Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N. 2006. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change 77: 73-95. Mahoney, J. 2000. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society 29: 50748. Metro Vancouver's Vital Signs. (2009). "Our Sense of Place." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from www.vancouverfoundationvitalsigns.ca/?q=node/6. Munasinghe, M. & Swart, R. 2005. Primer on Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Facts, Policy Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; New York. O'Riordan, T., Cooper, C. L., Jordan, A., Rayner, S., Richard, K. R., Runci, P. & Yoffe, S. 1998. Institutional Frameworks for Political Action. IN Rayner, S. & Malone, E. (Eds.) Human Choice and Climate Change Vol. 1: The Societal Framework. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press Ltd. O'Riordan, T. & Jordan, A. 1999. Institutions, climate change, and cultural theory: Toward a common analytical framework. Global Environment Change 9: 81-93. Olsen, J. P. & March, J. G. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. The Free Press: New York. Paavola, J. & Adger, W. N. 2005. Institutional ecological economics. Ecological Economics 53: 353. Pacala, S. & Socolow, R. 2004. Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305: 968-972. Peters, B. G. 1999. Institutional theory in political science: the new institutionalism. Pinter: London, New York. Peters, B. G. 2005. Institutional theory in political science: the new institutionalism. Continuum International Publishing Group: London, New York. Peters, E. & Slovic, P. 1996. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Sociology 26: 1427-1453. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E. & Slovic, P. 2003. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.  130  Pierson, P. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review 94: 251-267. Pierson, P. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Robinson, J., Bradley, M., Busby, P., Connor, D., Murray, A. & Sampson, B. (2003) Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Realizing the Opportunity. World Climate Change Conference. Moscow. Schipper, L. & Pelling, M. 2006. Disaster risk, climate change and international development: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters 30: 19-38. Sheppard, S. R. J., Shaw, A., Flanders, D. & Burch, S. (2008) Can visualization save the world? Lessons for landscape architects from visualizing local climate change. Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008; 9th International Conference on IT in Landscape Architecture. Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Dessau/Bernburg, Germany. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D. G. 2007. The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research 177: 1333-1352. Stern, P. C. 1992. Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annual Review of Psychology 43: 269-302. Stern, P. C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 56: 407-424. The Natural Step. (2008). "The Natural Step: About Us." Retrieved July 27, 2008, from http://www.naturalstep.ca/about.html. Thelen, K. 2003. How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. IN Mahoney, J. & Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University PRess. Weiner, J. B. 2002. Designing global climate regulation. IN Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A. & Niles, J. O. (Eds.) Climate Policy: A Survey. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Winkler, H., Baumert, K., Blanchard, O., Burch, S. & Robinson, J. 2007. What factors influence mitigative capacity? Energy Policy 35: 692-703.  131  Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1: 281-304. Yohe, G. & Tol, R. 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: Moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 12: 25-40. Yohe, G. W. 2001. Mitigative capacity: the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side. Climatic Change 49: 247-262. Young, O. R. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. MIT Press, with IDGEC: Cambridge, Mass.  132  Chapter 6. Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: Insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada14 6.1. Introduction The story of climate change mitigation and adaptation in Canada is one of innumerable false starts, often piecemeal policies, and great potential. At the national level, the Canadian government is carefully choosing its steps through the ‘post-Kyoto’ implementation period, while attempting to predict the implications of the Obama administration’s climate change policy for Canadian policy. Increasingly, the attention of policymakers and scholars is being focused on delivering measurable results, thereby revealing the need to explore the challenges inherent in implementing effective climate change response measures. This carries with it a shift in focus to the local level: the scale at which responses will be put into action (cf. Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, Burstrom and Korhonen, 2001). The ingredients of, and barriers to, action on climate change at the local level, however, are poorly understood phenomena that deeply influence the likelihood of successful mitigation and adaptation strategies.  One critical set of ingredients to climate change action that has garnered significant attention in recent years is that of capacity.  In particular, adaptive and mitigative  capacities have been argued to consist of resources such as the technological options available, financial resources, human capital, and the structure of critical institutions (for instance) (cf. Klein et al., 2007, Adger et al., 2004, Yohe, 2001). Mitigative and adaptive capacities, however, still represent only the potential to achieve the ultimate goals of greenhouse gas and vulnerability reduction. In many highly developed cities, climate change responses are nascent, and it remains a challenging task to transform capacity into policies that will yield the desired results. The current definition of mitigative and adaptive capacity15 in the climate change literature, it would seem, does not provide a 14  A version of this chapter has been submitted for publication as: Burch, Sarah. Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: Insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. 15 Adaptive capacity is commonly defined as the potential or capability of a system to adapt to climatic stimuli and their impacts (Smit et al., 2001). Mitigative capacity is defined as the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or enhance sinks (Winkler et al., 2007, based on: Yohe, 2001). These capacities  133  clear picture of the reality of climate change policy development and implementation in cities, and it has been argued that the presence of capacity is a necessary but not sufficient determinant of action (see Chapter 4). Missing from these common definitions are, for instance, discussions of the effects of leadership, organizational cultures, the need for locally-specific and relevant information, and the inter-jurisdictional context that may fundamentally affect the success with which capacity is utilized. The ultimate goal, however, is to identify ways in which these barriers may be overcome, or even transformed into enablers of action.  It has been suggested that the conventional approach to identifying and overcoming barriers is weak because it doesn’t consider whether or not barriers are inter-related or rooted in the social organization of society (Markandya and Halsnaes, 2002) This points to the recent assertion made by sustainability scholars, who have argued that the underlying development path may matter more to the successful realization of climate change goals than was previously thought (cf. Robinson et al., 2006, Cohen et al., 1998). In particular, “transforming systems of production and consumption poses challenges: innovation studies identify mutually reinforcing processes that tend to channel development along trajectories” (Seyfang and Smith, 2007, referring to: Russell and Williams, 2002, Dosi, 1982, Nelson and Winter, 1982). These trajectories are deeply imbued with inertia, and have clearly yielded unsustainable patterns of development (cf. United Nations, 2008, IPCC, 2007).  Municipalities in Canada have the potential to create sustainable communities through the critical functions of land use planning, utility provision, transportation infrastructure development, and waste management, but are fundamentally characterized by the path dependency alluded to above. The current municipal structure and function has embedded in it a host of barriers to action that have influenced the successful pursuit of climate change action. Structural, operational, cultural, and contextual factors (for instance) can  are said to be determined by: the range of technological options available, the structure of critical institutions, the stocks of human and social capital, the system’s access to risk-spreading procedures, the ability of decision-makers to manage information and their credibility, and the public’s perception of the causes of the change and its likely impacts (Yohe and Tol, 2002).  134  serve to enable or inhibit the translation of capacity into action (see Chapter 5). Many of these factors are not independent phenomena, but rather are the interwoven products of the underlying development path. Transforming barriers into enablers requires us to: 1) identify locally-specific sources of path dependency (whereby alternatives become increasingly less likely as learning accumulates and irreversible choices are made); 2) strategically challenge aspects of the city's development path; and 3) institutionalize sustainable patterns of action.  Through a blend of theory and empirical data collected in three case studies, this paper seeks to accomplish three goals. First, I will tell the story of the translation of capacity into action in these three cities, summarizing the key barriers to this process (see also Chapter 4 and 5). Second, I will identify potentially powerful levers by which barriers to action may be transformed into enablers of it, thereby triggering and sustaining action at the local level. Third, I will suggest a five-step generalizable process that may be used to address path dependency and shift development paths in cities, with the goal of more successfully stimulating action.  This process reveals the specific actions that are  necessary for producing effective local climate change responses, as we learn lessons that may be applied to cities around the world. Although the methodology that was followed during the process of interview administration and document analysis will be presented in full later in this paper, the sections that follow will summarize the story of climate change capacity and action in the communities of Delta, the District of North Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver (explored in greater detail in Chapter 4). 6.2. Background: Capacity and action in three cities Canadian cities are richly endowed with the resources required to respond effectively to climate change, especially if compared to those in developing countries, which may be burdened by public health crises, illegitimate decision-making authority, poverty, and significant foreign debt. Even relative to many other cities in the developed world, the three cities chosen for this study (see Figure 6.1) possess significant institutional, financial, and technical resources. The three cases all share similar systems of legitimate governance, strong economies, and highly educated populations – all of which are  135  determinants of adaptive and mitigative capacities, according to the most prevalent definitions of these concepts (see above). In terms of emissions profiles, residents of the City of Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver have very similar per capita mobile emissions (approximately 1.75 tonnes per person per year) while Delta residents emit approximately 3.75 tonnes of mobile greenhouse gas emissions per person per year (Sheltair, 2005). Despite this similarity between Vancouver and the DNV, these cities have followed very different paths with regard to climate change, leading to dramatically different levels of action on mitigation and adaptation. The sections that follow will address levels of capacity and action in Delta first, followed by the District of North Vancouver and the City of Vancouver.  Delta, a low-lying community of 99,000 people surrounded on three sides by water, is comprised of a mix of agricultural, suburban-style residential development, and industrial operations. Generally speaking, Delta has access to the same range of technical options available to other municipalities in the region, and decision-making authority  is  also  structured  similarly (based on the British Columbia Local Government Act). The  only  divergence, capacity,  significant with pertains  area  regard to  of to  financial  resources: because of very highlyvalued  property,  the  City  of  Vancouver and the District North Vancouver possess slightly greater financial resources per capita than As shown in Chapters 4 Figure 6.1. Case study areas in the Metro Vancouver Delta. Region of British Columbia, Canada. Source: Metro and 5, and discussed in greater Vancouver’s Vital Signs (2009); Inset adapted from Geology.com (2007) detail later in this paper, however, budgetary resources appear to be less important than the clear articulation of climate  136  change as a municipal priority. In other words, the superficial rhetoric is one of financial deficiency, but the reality is highly contingent on priority setting and job descriptions.  Despite similarities in capacity, however, climate change mitigation (and to a lesser extent, adaptation) remain relatively new additions to Delta’s policy repertoire. Matters related to the environment and sustainability were considered in Delta’s Official Community Plan and in the regional Liveable Region Strategic Plan, but no well-defined and practical climate change policies, geared towards either corporate or community emissions, had been developed until 2007, when the Corporation of Delta developed a nine-part climate change initiative geared towards their corporate operations. Management of floods, natural areas, staff training and community education were also addressed in the report, although without a high level of specificity in terms of budget and work plan. No plans had been designed to address GHG emissions from community sources (such as residential buildings and transportation), but rather the focus had been exclusively on corporate (or municipal operations) emissions.  So, although most  individuals interviewed in Delta repeatedly drew attention to the policies and initiatives introduced through the climate change strategy, the general consensus appeared to be that climate change responses in Delta are still very much in the planning stages. Nevertheless, new methods of inter-departmental collaboration have been established in order to address the exceedingly complex and uncertain problems associated with GHG reduction and vulnerability to impacts (see Chapter 5).  The District of North Vancouver is home to approximately 86,000 residents, in addition to the Capilano and Seymour reservoirs, and covers a vast 160 square kilometres ranging from 0 to 1400 metres above sea-level (District of North Vancouver, 2008). In 2004, a short time before the beginning of this study, the District of North Vancouver City Council officially adopted The Natural Step Framework16 in order to pursue a mandate of sustainability. In the 4 years that followed, the District of North Vancouver has focused on developing a common definition of sustainability that is shared by all divisions and 16  The framework was developed in Sweden in 1989, and claims to provide a ‘science-based definition of sustainability’ and a ‘practical strategic planning framework’ for achieving sustainability (The Natural Step, 2008).  137  individuals within the municipal organization.  This was paired with the pursuit of  corporate sustainability strategies, with very little explicit reference to GHG reduction. Plans for the future abound, however: the municipality is intending to revise its Official Community Plan, the touchstone of its corporate policy and procedure, which was last revised in 1991 (District of North Vancouver, 1991), create a green building strategy by 2010, and develop a climate change action plan to be completed by 2009. Despite these promising steps, climate change actions have focused almost entirely on the internal activities of the municipal government, rather than on the emissions produced by the broader community. With a population of approximately 615,000 people, the City of Vancouver is the urban core of a region whose population exceeds 2,000,000. Like Delta and the DNV, the city is surrounded by water on three sides, and is the most densely populated region in British Columbia. Municipal government in Vancouver is unusual for the region, in that three parties (with no official links to the party system at the provincial and federal levels) dominate municipal politics.  Furthermore, the City of Vancouver is the only  municipality in the region that was granted its own local government Charter by the province, and thus exercises considerably more power than Delta and the District of North Vancouver over issues such as taxation and building codes (Province of British Columbia, 2009). In July of 2007, the City of Vancouver began to consider long-range GHG planning and the issue of carbon neutrality, and the Council adopted targets to reduce community GHG emissions by 33% below 2006 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (City of Vancouver, 2007). In order to achieve these targets, the City of Vancouver has implemented (or is planning to implement) a range of projects that may significantly affect long-term emissions trajectories. These initiatives are focused on facilitating the creation of environmentally sustainable density in the city, and are accompanied by increased spending on public transit throughout the region, retrofits of existing commercial, residential, and institutional buildings for energy efficiency, and enhanced provision of biodiesel fuel blends throughout the city. Integrating climate change goals  138  into a long-range strategic vision for sustainability is a critical next step that the City of Vancouver has yet to take. Climate change action at higher levels of government has provided a highly influential stimulus for municipal action on climate change in British Columbia. Although previous efforts had been made to address climate change, such as with Weather, Climate, and the Future: BC’s Plan (Province of British Columbia, 2004), these efforts were not supported by stringent, legislated, targets or strategies. The most recent energy plan, however, began to signal a substantial shift in provincial energy and climate change policy (Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources, 2007).  Soon after the release of  the Energy Plan, the Province of British Columbia enacted legally binding short- and long-term GHG reduction targets, a comprehensive revenue-neutral carbon tax, a cap and trade system for large emitters, vehicle emissions standards, industrial emissions standards, and a new Green Building Code (Province of British Columbia, 2008, Province of British Columbia, 2007). Taken together, these initiatives, which occurred during the time of this study, represent a dramatic shift in provincial context within which BC municipalities are functioning (Dusyk et al., Forthcoming). At the regional level, a process began in 2008 by which the regional Livable Region Sustainability Plan is being re-written (now entitled the Regional Growth Strategy) to explicitly address, among other issues, the challenge of climate change. This brief summary shows that these three cities, despite having relatively similar levels of the resources needed to respond to climate change, have nevertheless followed very different paths with regard to climate change action. The section that follows will draw upon recent scholarly advances to explore the means by which these paths can be intentionally shifted, and barriers transformed into enablers of the translation of capacity into action.  139  6.3. Theories exploring the stimulation of local climate change action and development path transformations  Effective and efficient action in response to climate change at the local level has faced many obstacles in Canada, despite increasing levels of awareness of the causes and potential impacts of this complex and uncertain phenomenon (Burch et al., Forthcoming, Sheppard et al., 2008). Many of these obstacles are institutional in origin, and include regulatory, structural, behavioural, cultural, and contextual factors (see Chapter 5). The section that follows will introduce the central factors that may inhibit action (first introduced in Chapter 5), and build on this to draw together the literatures that illuminate strategies that can be used to overcome these barriers and stimulate action..  Regulatory barriers include the policy tools that the municipality has at its disposal (such as its Official Community Plan and system of bylaws) as well as interactions between multiple levels of government. Schipper and Pelling (2006) suggest that a supportive institutional and policy environment at the state and international level can enable local adaptation. This may be even more the case with mitigation, where, in Canada, vehicle efficiency standards and building codes are determined at the provincial and federal levels. As a result, municipalities are often not empowered to implement critical climate change mitigation strategies, and must instead wait for key pieces of legislation to pass at higher levels of government. Regulatory programs should employ cost effective tools, foster creativity in achieving solutions, match the scale of the ecosystem and spillover effects they are meant to govern, and must have comprehensive, adaptive, and incentivebased regulatory design (Schneider et al., 2000). Structural or operational barriers, on the other hand, arise from, for instance, the location of climate change and/or sustainability in the organizational hierarchy, the job descriptions that set priorities and performance criteria for individuals, and the organizational mechanisms for facilitating interdepartmental collaboration (see Chapter 5). Climate change policy scholars have argued that adaptation is likely to be implemented only if it is consistent with programs designed to cope with non-climatic stresses (Yohe, 2001) and this claim has been echoed on the mitigation side (O'Riordan et al., 1998). Behavioural barriers are especially  140  critical to local action; they generally incorporate both the personalities and leadership capabilities of individuals in critical positions within the municipality, and the institutional cultures of various groups within the institution and municipal departments. Contemporary changes in policy and behaviour of societal sectors are often induced by coercion, voluntary agreements, societal pressure, financial stimuli, and market stimuli (Kok et al., 2000) but although these forces have been found to stimulate changes, it is not clear that, without facilitation, the altered behaviour will be sustained or become the dominant mode of action. The remaining category of barriers to local action include the context within which the municipality is functioning (such as the values and priorities of the public, the strength and resiliency of the economic system, national and global security, and even the frequency and severity of climatic events), and the capacity that the community possesses to respond to climate change impacts and causes (including human, financial, and technical capital).  Some in the climate change field have begun to suggest that best way to deal with the complex problem of climate change is to explore links between it and other issues, helping to reveal co-benefits and no-regrets options (Van Asselt et al., 2005). This indicates the need for a shift in thinking that considers the system (or development path) as a whole, and the complexities and uncertainties therein. This mode of thinking is what lies behind the development of sociotechnical system theory.  Growing out of the study of technological innovation and diffusion, sociotechnical system theory seeks to place technologies within the universe of rules and forces that influence both their use and evolution (see for example: Geels and Schot, 2007, Smith et al., 2005, Berkhout, 2002). This ‘universe’ is a system that (as we shall see) may be deeply resistant to change, and yet fundamentally shapes the emissions trajectories that drive climate change.  The ‘deep structure’ of socio-technical systems is provided by socio-technical regimes: semi-coherent sets of rules or a linked patchwork of other rule regimes (such as the purely technical rule regime, the user and market regime, and the policy regime), whose  141  rules are aligned in some way with each other (Geels, 2004, Berkhout, 2002, Rip and Kemp, 1998). Systems of regimes are slow to change and must evolve in an incremental and cumulative fashion, or through a gradual and smooth reorientation of the system (Berkhout, 2002). That ‘slowness to change’ includes the fact that it is often very unlikely that a socio-technical regime will suffer a shock so great that the entire system is re-oriented towards an entirely different path of institution/actor/technology relations. The source of change in these systems is often instead induced through policy instruments or changes in cost distributions (Grubb et al., 2002, Grubler, 2000), and is more likely to occur at the ‘niche’ level (Seyfang and Smith, 2007). Niches are protected spaces in which a radical novelty can develop, unhindered by the market forces and socio-cultural rules that typically provide relative stability in the broader socio-technical system (Geels, 2004). Rules in these niches are less certain, providing an opportunity for intentional deviation from the underlying path (Garud and Karnøe, 2003).  Finally,  regimes exist within the broader context of socio-technical landscapes, and consist of macro economic, political, and cultural trajectories (Geels and Schot, 2007). Landscapes are the exogenous context of socio-technical regimes, and are beyond the direct control of actors (Geels, 2004).  This ‘multi-level perspective’ suggests that socio-technical  development path transitions occur as the result of alignments between changes in each of these three levels (niches, regime, and landscapes), shifting pressures on the regimes, and adaptation to these pressures (Geels and Schot, 2007, Smith et al., 2005)  This ‘techno-economic’ paradigm forges links between theories of technological evolution and theories of path dependency and structural and institutional change (Andersen, 1998). This, more hybrid, theory acknowledges the fact that interwoven systems of rules surround clusters of technologies that are themselves deeply embedded in institutional cultures, so the history of that embedding culture becomes extremely important (Arthur, 1989). In other words, the institutional and cultural contexts within which innovation occurs are of equal importance to the technologies themselves and represent path dependent trajectories which are not easily re-oriented (see Chapter 3). Challenges to re-orientation may be due to inter-relatedness (such as individual  142  technologies that depend on the existence of a host of other technologies to function effectively), as well as learning effects and economies of scale (Berkhout, 2002). The causes of path dependency, and thus the ability to overcome the challenges of inertia, reveal the importance of providing opportunities for iterative, collaborative partnerships between municipal practitioners and climate change response experts. For change to occur that addresses a highly complex and pervasive issue like climate change, it “must be recognized as necessary, feasible, and advantageous to a broader range of actors and institutions” than are involved in traditional decision-making (Berkhout, 2002). Participatory processes are an important means by which these claims of feasibility and advantageousness may be established, with the goal of overcoming or adapting to path dependent social and institutional processes. This discussion of barriers, the strategies that can be employed to overcome them, and the power of path dependency, sets the stage for the case studies that follow. With these interdisciplinary insights in mind, I will present the empirical findings, pertaining specifically to overcoming barriers to action, gathered from the study of climate change action in three British Columbia cities. 6.4. Methods Preliminary policy document analysis was carried out for each city, in order to gain a sense of the context of climate change response efforts. Meeting transcripts, Council reports, internal memoranda, official government documents, and media reports were gathered to supplement interview data. In all cases, documents were not retrieved for years preceding 1990, since this was found to be the approximate time during which climate change and sustainable development began to be substantially addressed in the Lower Mainland. Climate change and sustainability policy documents were analyzed with the goal of determining: the temporal scale, the spatial scale, the central adaptive or mitigative issues of interest, the responsible parties, and the level of detail or likelihood of implementation.  143  A series of semi-structured elite interviews17 (between 1 and 2.5 hours in length) were carried out in each of the three case study areas. Participants were invited on the basis of three criteria: employment with one of the municipalities under study, involvement in the creation or implementation of climate change (or sustainability) policy in the city, and the occupation of a position in the organizational structure that pertains directly to aspects of climate change mitigation or adaptation (even if not involved directly in climate change policy development). Local incumbent politicians, heads of municipal departments (such as Engineering and Planning), and climate change working group team members were interviewed.  Participants were contacted by email using a standardized letter of  invitation. They were told about the full nature of the study, the other cases involved, and why they were selected for participation. Approximately 95% of the individuals who were contacted for interviews participated in the study. Interviewees were told that their responses would remain confidential, and their colleagues would not be aware of their participation in the study. In addition, un-structured interviews took place throughout the study period as the result of parallel research taking place in two of the three case studies (cf. Sheppard et al., 2008). The result was an extended network of planners, engineers, and politicians who were approached in order to gather together insights into the design and implementation of climate change policy in the cases under study.  The interviews followed a basic script, which contained questions pertaining to capacity, past or planned climate change action, the success/failure these actions, organizational culture, structure, and the broader inter-jurisdictional context (including both explicit and implicit questions the addressed strategies for overcoming barriers). Notes were taken during and following each interview, and interviews were recorded with the permission of the participant. Interviews were coded and analyzed (using the qualitative analysis software ATLAS TI) according to a scheme which identified points made about capacity (including financial, human, and technical capacity), the internal function of civic government (such as organizational structure and organizational culture), extra17  Sample size of semi-structured interviews: in Delta (total n=12): 3 politicians; 3 planners; 2 engineers; 4 environmental services/operations staff; in the District of North Vancouver (total n-13): 4 politicians; 3 planners; 2 engineers; 1 administrator; 3 environmental services/operations staff; in the City of Vancouver (total n=15): 3 politicians, 1 planner; 2 engineers; 4 Sustainability Group staff; 1 administrator; Metro Vancouver: 3 engineers, 2 planners. Total n for study = 41.  144  institutional issues (such as jurisdictional issues, legislation and regulation, and external policy context), leadership (both political and technical), and issues related to the values, attitudes, and knowledge of each city’s public. The literature presented above helped to frame the questions that were asked of interviewees, and informed the coding structure that was later used to analyze the responses. Nevertheless, this coding structure evolved as analysis progressed, in order to reflect the new information provided by participants. As such, the typology of barriers that was summarized earlier in this paper, and the specific strategies for overcoming these barriers that are discussed below, were created through a blend of inductive and deductive methods. This ensured that the interviews were guided by the state of the art in the literature, while accounting for novel insights and contextual idiosyncrasies that emerged as data was gathered and processed. 6.5. Results: Strategies for overcoming barriers to action  The breadth and variety of strategies that may stimulate action in response to climate change, gathered through semi-structured interviews in the three case studies communities, are presented in Table 6.1. The sections that follow will discuss those strategies that interviewees indicated were the most important, or the most frequently mentioned in each city. Following this is an exploration of the ways that these findings can be utilized to formulate integrated, long-term strategies that may serve to fundamentally shift unsustainable development paths in these, and other, communities. Table 6.1 Summary of the range of strategies that were suggested by interviewees as potential means to overcome barriers to action on climate change, categorized according to the type of barrier they are intended to address. Structural / Definition: Features of the organization’s structures and procedures that influence day-to-day Operational activities and long term policy direction • Locating climate change in the Mayor’s office (rather than a less powerful branch of the organizational hierarchy) lends the issue legitimacy and gravitas • Party system can stimulate healthy competition and innovation among politicians • In some cases, absence of political parties may allow for fruitful non-partisan decision-making • Staff may do work ‘under the radar’ so as to continue it over the long term and not be susceptible to politics and public perceptions • Municipal politicians have a closer link to technical staff (when compared to provincial politicians), who know the community intimately and can provide advice on this basis • Hierarchical system means that leadership from Council has strong influence on action • Integrating climate change throughout the organizational hierarchy generates buy-in • Need a devoted liaison in operations who can work directly with the City Hall/planning department  145  • •  Must map out all individuals’ roles and address redundancies and synergies Spirit of collaboration among departments and individuals must be reinforced through the organizational structure Regulatory / Definition: The nature of the policy tools that the municipality has at its disposal and the Legislative interactions between multiple levels of government. • Province can impose higher standards for building bylaws, which municipalities must match • Province must abide by the Regional Growth Strategy in order to support effective regional planning • The Union of British Columbia Municipalities can pass a resolution allowing additional in camera meetings so that Councillors may learn about a new issue in a non-threatening environment • Greenhouse gas reduction targets are both symbolically and pragmatically important tools for municipalities • Regional planning should match density with transportation needs, rather than piecemeal local planning • Utilize existing tools in the provincial Community Charter and the Local Government Act (such as development permit areas and development cost charges) to force an increase in green building • Province can give a substantial port of the provincial Carbon Tax to municipalities to support local action • Provincial and Federal government must set standards for industrial emissions so that these are harmonized for the region • Higher levels of government take on the expensive role of commissioning new research • Strong role for federal government to remove market barriers to green technologies • A long range strategic plan for sustainability helps to ensure that goals between planners and engineers are consistent • The Official Community Plan is the single most important expression of the community, so this must be changed if evolution is to occur • Need mix of mandatory and voluntary climate change response measures • Need policy basis upon which to force developers to comply with green standards • Bringing the operations staff in at the ground-level of a policy innovation isn’t enough – they must be supported by clear instructions and sufficient budget • Vancouver Charter (different from the Charter followed by all other municipalities in British Columbia) gives greater power to the mayor and the municipality • The single most powerful regulatory instrument at any level of government, with regard to climate change, is land use zoning • Inventory of climate change/sustainability actions helps to identify which groups are succeeding, which aren’t, and what is the best strategy for moving forward • Large new development projects are important opportunities to negotiate for higher efficiency standards • New policies must follow a phased approach during which, in the early phases, there are ‘easy wins’ that buoy confidence and enthusiasm • A comprehensive sustainability framework is an intentional attempt to overcome the silos between operations and the City Hall/planning department in order to have everyone understanding sustainability similarly and working towards the same goals Cultural / Definition: The relationships between individuals in various critical positions within the Behavioural municipality, their personalities, and the collective ethos and customs at play within the organization. • Enthusiasm for climate change action at the provincial level pushes, rather than constrains, climate change action at the local level • Competition between municipalities can stimulate action • Careful incremental approach to teaching a new way of doing things within a municipality builds buyin • Need very casual workshop approach so that educational/cultural differences between operations and planning/Hall staff aren’t exacerbated • Opportunity for change as the current demographic shift continues • The skills personality of a climate change policy champion matter more than the location of climate  146  changes/sustainability in the organizational hierarchy Local leadership is especially important because of the direct link between local politicians and preferences/daily lives of constituents • Shift in attitudes from focus on short term benefits and costs to a longer-term perspective • Strong leadership from the Chief Administrative Officer (or equivalent) is critical because of the direct link to the staff; must be willing to address inefficiencies and redundancies within the organization • Need a strong mayor who is willing to overcome special interests • Political leaders must be willing to weight the educated voice differently from the uneducated voice in public debate over issues • Spirit of collaboration among departments and individuals must be produced through intentional hiring practices • New hires are not yet ‘institutionalized’ and so may be more innovative • The Chief Administrative Officer (or equivalent) can institute collaboration among departments, which eventually becomes habit • Formalized systems of decision-making are not nearly as important as individuals, their personalities, and the timing of new measures/initiatives • Must hire, stimulate, and support champion personalities • Respect for the skills and contributions of other departments/individuals fosters collaboration Contextual Definition: The environment within which the municipality functions and the values and priorities of the public. • Extreme events and climate change impacts trigger awareness and action • Pressure from the public stimulates/permits leadership on climate change • The desires of special interests can be utilized to advance additional goals (as in the case of a powerful real estate lobby in Vancouver pushing for greater density, which was then ‘greened’ by the city and called ‘eco-density’) Capacity Definition: The resources (financial, technical, and human) required to address both the causes and impacts of climate change. • Technical education for politicians will help to overcome self-doubt and facilitate action • Use skills learned through leadership on other issues (ie natural hazards) to address new, but related, issues (ie climate change adaptation) •  The sections that follow interpret the data presented above in order to propose strategies that address the roots of barriers, in order that action might instead be successfully enabled. 6.5.1. Organizational culture and effective leadership  Two of the most frequently-mentioned barriers to climate change action included conflicting cultures between the ‘operations’ (or outside workers – such as those municipal employees who are responsible for maintenance of streets, waste removal, and water distribution) staff and those who are housed at the City Hall (including planners, engineers, and human resources and finance staff, for instance), and the absence of strong leadership, both technical and political. Conversely, in cases where action was successful (such with certain programs in the City of Vancouver), a culture of collaboration and 147  mutual respect, as well as strong and informed leadership were cited as two of the most critical facilitating factors. Organizational culture and leadership are thus elements of the behavioural ethos of municipal institutions that may act as either barriers or enablers of action, and are deeply intertwined. Some have argued, for instance, that the relationship between leadership and culture is as follows: a leader must impose their own values and assumptions upon the organization, leading to a culture (if successful) that defines for future generations both the types of leadership and core values that are deemed acceptable (Schein, 2004). In other words, leadership can stimulate a path shift, but the emerging dominant form of organizational culture will remain dominant until it becomes ill-adapted to changing external conditions.  New realities with regard to resource  scarcity, climate change, and the fragile global economy are just a few of the external conditions that have rendered the previous models of municipal leadership and organizational culture incongruous with the scale of change required to follow a sustainable development path.  This relationship between leadership and culture is demonstrated in the case of the City of Vancouver, in which a culture of innovation and collaboration has been intentionally nurtured within the planning department. According to the values of a persuasive leader within the planning department, new staff were hired who felt similarly about the importance of inter-departmental collaboration (such as between planners and engineers) and modern planning principles (including a ‘city-building’ approach rather than neighbourhood focus, and the desirability of environmentally sustainable density). Interviewees indicated that these newly-hired planners represented a sea-change in the culture of the planning department, and led directly to initiatives geared towards emissions reduction, resiliency, and energy efficiency. This effectively caused development proposals to be viewed through a sustainability ‘lens’ while, simultaneously, new policies are created and vetted by utilizing the expertise of an interdisciplinary team of municipal staff. In the long run, strong leadership (on the part of a senior planner, in this case) may have contributed to a new ‘path’ in the City of Vancouver: one that is highly responsive to the challenges of a changing climate. In the District of Vancouver, in contrast, the Natural Step framework represents an important  148  opportunity to embed climate change concerns within a sustainability-oriented transformation of the municipality but is unlikely to yield such results without strong leadership and specific action plans.  A further role that leadership plays in determining the success of climate change responses is through the power of explicit policy directives that articulate climate change mitigation and adaptation as a municipal priority. Interviewees in all three municipalities raised this as an integral component of their perceived ‘permission’ to be innovative with regard to climate change.  In both Delta and the District of North Vancouver,  interviewees expressed fear that the current enthusiastic rhetoric of the politicians for climate change action was simply a politically savvy response to the public mood, and thus subject to a sudden shift in that mood. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, some staff were note convinced that political statements in support of climate change action were backed by the willingness to make the difficult decisions that are required to make real progress towards climate change goals. This created hesitancy and scepticism within the municipalities, which may have hindered the development and implementation of climate change response plans. 6.5.2. Inter-jurisdictional context A common refrain during the interviews in all three cities was that of frustration with the inconsistencies between municipal, regional, provincial, and federal approaches (or lack thereof) to climate change. For instance, in Delta, a climate change mitigation plan was developed in 2007 to tackle the relatively insignificant corporate emissions, while the province of British Columbia was simultaneously proposing a major infrastructure plan that would very likely cause transportation-related emissions to increase dramatically. Interviewees communicated a strong sense of disillusionment with regard to this inconsistency, since it was the leadership of the province that had driven many municipalities to commit to carbon neutrality (in their own operations) and the creation of climate change action plans. Some interviewees go so far as to suggest that facilitating improved collaboration between municipalities and the province in the future would require binding agreements that require the province to avoid the implementation of  149  policies that directly contradict previously-stated climate change goals.  Although  initiatives such as the revenue-neutral carbon tax, implemented in 2008, are steps towards ensuring that the province is providing firm leadership that stimulates responses in British Columbian municipalities, many more must be taken before emissions are successfully brought under control.  Planning for climate change at the regional level is one way in which many of the barriers related to inter-jurisdictional context may be transformed into enablers of action. After all, the Metro Vancouver region is a highly interconnected web of urban cores and suburban peripheries, linked with industrial and agricultural land. Although, in the words of one senior administrator in the City of Vancouver “the single most powerful regulatory instrument at any level of government is land use zoning,” the effectiveness of this tool is severely hampered by a lack of coordination amongst the interdependent municipalities of the Metro Vancouver region. The region, originally formed to ensure the adequate provision of utilities and services, is not imbued with any formal powers akin to a municipality (such as taxation), but the emissions trajectories of the Metro Vancouver municipalities are nevertheless more likely to be fundamentally shifted if the region is following a cohesive climate change plan. Metro Vancouver has recently developed an Air Quality Management Plan (Metro Vancouver, 2005) that begins to address these concerns, and is currently undertaking a revision of the Liveable Region Strategic Plan. It remains to be seen, however, whether or not these plans will succeed in addressing climate change more holistically – by addressing vulnerabilities to impacts as well as the development paths that have given rise to current emissions levels. 6.5.3. Institutionalization of long-term action Evidence from the literature suggests that adaptation is likely to be implemented only if it is consistent with programs designed to cope with non-climatic stresses (Yohe, 2001) and that effective mitigation actions are very likely to be those that are most fully integrated into more general policy strategies (O'Riordan et al., 1998). In other words, isolating climate change responses in an organizational or policy sense (for instance, by leaving the entirety of climate action to a small group of specialists without the buy-in throughout  150  the range of municipal departments) is unlikely to yield the depth or scale of transformation required to produce truly resilient, carbon neutral communities. This integration, however, is not just a matter of encouraging the emergence of champions throughout the organization (which is necessary during the initial stages of local climate change action).  Instead, climate change action must eventually become more  independent of the vagaries of personality and political will that may render it fragile in the long run. The interviewee responses summarized above indicate that few municipal employees have the time or inclination to add additional complex tasks to already overburdened staff, making ingenuity and innovation rare (but invaluable) exceptions to the daily reality of administering cities. Climate change mitigation and adaptation must thus become part of the job descriptions and standard operating procedures of municipal employees, rather than ‘extras’ that are pursued if time and budget allow. The District of North Vancouver has taken the first steps towards institutionalizing climate change action in daily procedures, through the creation of a ‘sustainability filter.’ This filter is intended to subject new capital expenditure proposals to an additional set of criteria related to environmental sustainability.  The use of this tool has yet to be  incorporated throughout the District’s operations, however, and remains in the early stages of implementation. In Vancouver, the ‘ecodensity’ program was developed to stimulate environmentally sustainable density is various locations throughout the city. The first two actions related to this program that were implemented by the City of Vancouver were: to require that applications for re-zoning include plans for buildings that meet a minimum LEEDTM Silver standard of green building (which includes standards for energy performance, water efficiency, and storm water use); to require rezonings on sites larger than two acres to meet an additional set of sustainability measures (City of Vancouver, 2009). These actions clearly target routines surrounding the approval of development plans in a way that institutionalizes sustainability and gears the city toward a development pathway that consumes and wastes less energy. Delta’s approach to climate change remains targeted at specific initiatives (such as ‘greening’ the fleet) rather than transforming operations towards a fundamentally lower emissions pathway.  151  6.6. Transforming the development path to produce a robust program of local climate change action  As revealed above and discussed elsewhere (see Chapter 5), neither the most critical barriers, nor the frequently-cited strategies for overcoming them, are related to a dearth of capacity (in the traditional sense, of resources required to respond to a risk). Instead, the core issue appears to be facilitating the translation of existing capacity into action. The data presented here paired with the literatures focused on institutional and socio-technical path dependency suggest that this facilitation depends most fundamentally on re-working the path dependent institutional structures, organizational culture and policy-making procedures that have characterized the unsuccessful patterns (or absence) of climate change policy development in the past. Harnessing the insights gathered from theories of path dependency, institutional theory, and sociotechnical change, the ultimate task is to expose the roots of the most significant barriers to effective action, shift the underlying development path, and formulate a coherent program for local climate change responses. The data gathered by this research, combined with recent advances in thinking about policy design and climate change, allows us to speculate about steps that could be followed in order to accomplish these tasks.  Step 1: Evaluate the system The cases presented here show that financial capital and human resources are of far less significance to action on climate change than the path dependent institutional practices and complex cultures that characterize municipal governments. Thus, the first step towards challenging an unsustainable development path is to identify critical sources of path dependency that create barriers to action. Particularly important places to look include organizational structure (ie absence or presence of formal structures that encourage the cooperation of multiple departments to develop and vet climate change response policies), culture (such as combativeness between the City Hall and operations), and leadership (weak efforts to choose long term goals over special interests and to stimulate a culture of innovation and collaboration amongst municipal staff). In essence this is a process of developing a baseline against which future progress can be measured  152  – an integral component of which is also assessing the sources and quantities of greenhouse gas emissions as well as current vulnerabilities to impacts.  Step 2: Identify goals Without clearly-articulated priorities and an encompassing vision, the municipal staff functions without the permission (and inspiration) to act effectively on climate change. These goals should be derived by exploring a vision of the future that shares the values and desires of political leadership, technical staff, and (ideally) the municipality’s public. Innovative methods (such as backcasting or visioning; see for example: Sheppard, 2005, Robinson, 2003) can be used to determine what the desired endpoint is and participatory and deliberative methods should be employed to develop buy-in and to enhance quality of product. This is a critical phase for political leadership, during which new priorities may be raised for debate and (as described above) future generations of leadership may be defined.  Step 3: Strategically tackle sources of path dependency Organizational cultures, and the individuals within them, tend to rebel against the imposition of sweeping changes to the routines and practices that have become entrenched behavioural pathways.18 As such, small but strategically important steps towards addressing climate change goals must be embedded in policy-making procedures and job descriptions throughout the organization. Experimental procedures and practices (such as the ‘sustainability filter’ created in the District of North Vancouver, which applies sustainability criteria to all new decisions and expenditures) may need to be nurtured in protected spaces so that innovation can flourish. Key individuals within the organization (such as the Chief Administrative Officer, providing high level technical leadership, and trusted champions within each department) must be enlisted to institutionalize/implement collaboration and knit together potentially combative groups to build policies that are anchored in the municipality’s organization reality. 18  An analogy to this is provided by socio-technical theory, in which it is argued that change most often occurs at the niche level, in protected spaces where innovation is encouraged (Geels, 2004). The larger system, which consists of inter-woven sets of rules, technologies, and practices, is more amenable to gradual (and often unintentional) readjustment (Geels and Schot, 2007, Seyfang and Smith, 2007).  153  Step 4: Evaluate progress Initial problem definition and priority setting phases must not be permitted to continue indefinitely (although – as discussed below – opportunities must be created to revise priorities based on new information). Progress in terms of greenhouse gas emissions reductions, resiliency improvements, and sustainability goals must be fed back into the organization (at both the political and technical/staff levels) in order to stimulate further action and realistically assess progress. The tools that are needed in order to complete this step, however, are still in their infancy, and may require considerable refinement as their application becomes more widespread.  Step 5: Adaptively manage Finally, frequent opportunities for institutional learning must be created in order to build upon past experiences and most efficiently achieve results.  The implementation of  organizational mechanisms for adaptive management (such as multi-departmental steering committees that share emerging issues and plan future initiatives) helps to institutionalize a process of adaptive management that is integral to absorbing the everevolving landscape of climate change data and response options.  This five step process is not radically different from the common methods of policy development and organizational change in municipalities, but it brings to light three critical issues that pertain specifically to the challenges inherent in addressing climate change and sustainability. First, if our goal is, over the long run, to shift the development path that has given rise to climate change, both the priorities that we set and the way in which we evaluate challenges to those priorities are very different than if we assume that one-off initiatives, unencumbered by path dependency, will be sufficient. Considering the underlying development path reveals the importance of exploiting ‘niche’ opportunities to shift the organizational culture and embed (rather than isolate) sustainability throughout the policy-making process.  Second, digging deeper than  emissions to the underlying patterns of development that give rise to climate change (and other sustainability problems) highlights the wisdom of integrating adaptation and  154  mitigation in planning. After all, truly sustainable systems are both fundamentally low emissions as well as resilient to a changing climate. Adaptation strategies may imply tradeoffs for mitigation, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions may (if planned poorly) lead to enhanced vulnerability (Klein et al., 2007, Wilbanks et al., 2007). Alternatively, despite differences19, adaptation and mitigation can synergistically combine to produce mutually beneficial outcomes, which may only be realized if intentionally sought. Finally, the barriers and opportunities presented by path dependency focus our attention on the critical importance of institutional learning. Since momentum clearly builds behind both sustainable and unsustainable patterns of development, and our understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change is continually evolving, we must find opportunities to actively feed new information into policy-making processes. 6.7. Conclusions and future directions  The three municipalities examined in this study offer insights into the potential for overcoming barriers to the translation of capacity into action by addressing the myriad sources of path dependency in municipal governance. Interviews and document analysis in these cities suggests that neither the most critical barriers, nor the frequently-cited strategies for overcoming them, are related to a dearth of capacity (with the possible exception of locally-specific climate change impacts data). Indeed, even addressing a lack of technical, financial, or human resources is less a matter of creating more capacity (such as municipalities requiring additional funding from the provincial government – although this would certainly be welcomed) than facilitating the effective use of existing resources.  This facilitation depends most fundamentally on re-working the path  dependent institutional structures, organizational culture and policy-making procedures  19  Adaptation is generally considered to be a private or club good (Dang et al., 2003), the effects of which are likely to be realized by the groups undertaking the activity. As such, successfully adaptation depends in part on local financial, technical and human resources (Ruth, 2005). Mitigation, in contrast, is a global public good, often subject to excessive free riding (Dang et al., 2003, Kane and Shogren, 2000). The benefits of mitigation are most likely to be realized rather far in the future (Nicholls and Lowe, 2004), and so, some scholars argue, successful mitigation depends more on international cooperation (Ruth, 2005).  155  that have characterized the unsuccessful patterns of climate change policy development in the past.  Most critical to progress towards achieving climate change goals in Delta is a more ambitious, integrated climate change adaptation and mitigation plan that addresses both corporate and community emissions.  This must be supported by institutionalized  processes, eventually becoming routine, which nurture inter-departmental collaboration and innovation.  In the District of North Vancouver, interviewees suggested that  leadership (especially at the political level) was the most significant missing ingredient. In the past, special interests have often been catered to in the interests of consensusbuilding, but this has often led to sub-optimal sustainability and climate change outcomes. Stronger leadership may both drive innovation and assure technical staff that climate change priorities will not suddenly evaporate in the face of other pressing concerns. The City of Vancouver has made substantial progress towards its climate change goals, but continues to function without a cohesive long-range sustainability plan. Such a plan might help to strategically unite the activities of all departments under a banner of sustainability and embed common goals in the day-to-day activities of municipal staff.  Although the specific strategies used to tackle path dependency in any municipality will be driven by the local sustainability priorities and climate change goals, a process by which barriers to action are identified, sources of path dependency are targeted, and learning occurs, may be useful to all. Additional work must be done to explore the extent to which the findings presented here are unique to the three cities under study (or even wealthy industrialized Western cities), and to put a finer point on the policy tools and other actions that may drive a shift in development paths. A related study could apply to the principles presented here to explore the barriers faced by non-institutional actors. This work will undoubtedly bring to the fore a continuous stream of unanswered questions as Canada navigates the uncertain path towards its climate change goals.  156  6.8. References Adger, N. W., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S. & Eriksen, S. (2004) New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Technical Report 7. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Resource. Andersen, B. 1998. The evolution of technological trajectories 1890-1990. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 9: 5-34. Arthur, W. B. 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal 99: 116-131. Berkhout, F. 2002. Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment. Global Environment Change 12: 1-4. Bulkeley, H. & Betsill, M. 2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: Multi-level governance and the 'urban' politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 14: 42-63. Burch, S., Sheppard, S., Shaw, A. & Flanders, D. Forthcoming. Planning for climate change in a flood-prone community: Municipal barriers to policy action and the use of visualizations as decision-support tools. Submitted to the Journal of Flood Risk Management. Burstrom, F. & Korhonen, J. 2001. Municipalities and industrial ecology: Reconsidering municipal environmental management. Sustainable Development 9: 36-46. City of Vancouver (2007) City of Vancouver Climate Protection Progress Report. Vancouver, City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver. (2009). "Council approves Ecodensity charter and actions." Retrieved, from http://www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca/content.php?id=48. Cohen, S., Demeritt, D., Robinson, J. & Rothman, D. 1998. Climate change and sustainable development: Towards dialogue. Global Environmental Change 8: 341-371. Dang, H. H., Michaelowa, A. & Tuan, D. D. 2003. Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the context of sustainable development: the case of Vietnam. Climate Policy 3S1: S81-S96. District of North Vancouver (1991) The District Official Community Plan. The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver. District of North Vancouver. (2008). "District of North Vancouver GIS: Topography." Retrieved 12 June, 2008, from http://www.geoweb.dnv.org/maps/thematic/topo_seymour/topo-seymour.html. 157  Dosi, G. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy 11: 147-162. Dusyk, N., Berkhout, T., Burch, S., Coleman, S. & Robinson, J. Forthcoming. Transformative energy efficiency and conservation: A sustainable development path approach in British Columbia, Canada. Energy Efficiency. Garud, R. & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: distrbuted and embedded agency in technological entrepreneurship. Research Policy 32: 277-300. Geels, F. W. & Schot, J. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36: 399-417. Geels, G. W. 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy 33: 897-920. Geology.com. (2007). "British Columbia Map - British Columbia Sattelite Image." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from geology.com/canada/british-columbia.shtml. Grubb, M., Kohler, J. & Anderson, D. 2002. Induced technological change in energy and environmental modelling: Analytic approaches and policy implications. Annual Review of Energy & the Environment 21: 271-308. Grubler, A. 2000. Technology and Global Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. IPCC 2007. Summary for Policymakers. IN Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Van Der Linden, P. J. & Hanson, C. E. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kane, S. & Shogren, J. 2000. Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Climatic Change 45: 75-102. Klein, R. J. T., Huq, S., Denton, F., Downing, T. E., Richels, R. G., Robinson, J. B. & Toth, F. L. 2007. Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. IN Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Van Der Linden, P. J. & Hanson, C. E. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  158  Kok, M., Vermeulen, W., Faaij, A. & de Jager, D. (Eds.) 2000. Global Warming and Social Innovation: The Challenge of a Climate-Neutral Society, Earthscan: United Kingdom. Markandya, A. & Halsnaes, K. (Eds.) 2002. Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Prospects for Developing Countries, Earthscan Publications: London. Metro Vancouver's Vital Signs. (2009). "Our Sense of Place." Retrieved April 20, 2009, from www.vancouverfoundationvitalsigns.ca/?q=node/6. Metro Vancouver. (2005). "Air Quality Management Plan for Greater Vancouver." Retrieved March 18, 2009, from http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/AQMPSeptembe r2005.pdf. Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources. (2007). "The BC Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership." Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/. Nelson, R. R. & Winter, S. G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Bellknap Press: Cambridge, MA. Nicholls, R. & Lowe, J. 2004. Benefits of mitigation of climate change for coastal areas. Global Environmental Change 14: 229-244. O'Riordan, T., Cooper, C. L., Jordan, A., Rayner, S., Richard, K. R., Runci, P. & Yoffe, S. 1998. Institutional Frameworks for Political Action. IN Rayner, S. & Malone, E. (Eds.) Human Choice and Climate Change Vol. 1: The Societal Framework. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press Ltd. Province of British Columbia. (2004). "Weather, climate, and the future: BC's plan." Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/373154/actions.pdf. Province of British Columbia. (2007). "Speech from the Throne, Third Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament, delivered February 13, 2007." Retrieved, from http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th3rd/4-8-38-3.htm. Province of British Columbia (2008) Climate Change Action Plan. Government of British Columbia. Province of British Columbia (2009) Vancouver Charter [SBC 1953] Chapter 55. Victoria, British Columbia.  159  Rip, A. & Kemp, R. 1998. Technological Change. IN Rayner, S. & Malone, E. (Eds.) Human Choice and Climate Change. Columbus, Ohio: Batelle Press. Robinson, J. 2003. Future Subjunctive: Backcasting as Social Learning. Futures 35: 839856. Robinson, J., Bradley, M., Busby, P., Connor, D., Murray, A., Sampson, B. & Soper, W. 2006. Climate change and sustainable development: Realizing the opportunity. Ambio 35: 2-8. Russell, S. & Williams, R. 2002. Social shaping of technology: frameworks, findings and implications for policy with glossary of social shaping concepts. IN Sorensen, K. H. & Williams, R. (Eds.) Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Ruth, M. 2005. Future socioeconomic and political challenges of global climate change. IN Pirages, D. & Cousins, K. (Eds.) From Resource Scarcity to Ecological Security: Exploring New Limits to Growth. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Schein, E. H. 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership 3rd Edition. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Schipper, L. & Pelling, M. 2006. Disaster risk, climate change and international development: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters 30: 19-38. Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A. & Niles, J. O. (Eds.) 2000. Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Island Press. Seyfang, G. & Smith, A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research agenda. Environmental Politics 16: 584-603. Sheltair, 2005. City of North Vancouver greenhouse gas local action plan. Retrieved March 3, 2009 from http://www.sustainablecommunities.fcm.ca/files/pdf/final_cnv_lap_rev_050304.p df. Sheppard, S. R. J. 2005. Landscape visualization and climate change: the potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environmental Science & Policy 8: 637654. Sheppard, S. R. J., Shaw, A., Flanders, D. & Burch, S. (2008) Can visualization save the world? Lessons for landscape architects from visualizing local climate change. Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008; 9th International Conference on IT in Landscape Architecture. Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Dessau/Bernburg, Germany.  160  Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., Burton, I., Challenger, B., Huq, S., Klein, R. & Yohe, G. 2001. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity. IN Mccarthy, J., Canziani, O., Leary, N., Dokken, D. & White, K. (Eds.) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, A., Stirling, A. & Berkhout, F. 2005. The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions. Research Policy 34: 1491-1510. The Natural Step. (2008). "The Natural Step: About Us." Retrieved July 27, 2008, from http://www.naturalstep.ca/about.html. United Nations (2008) Millennium Development Goals Report. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Van Asselt, H., Gupta, J. & Biermann, F. 2005. Advancing the climate agenda: Exploiting material and insitutional linkages to develop a menu of policy options. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 14: 255263. Wilbanks, T. J., Leiby, P., Perlack, R., Ensminger, T. J. & Wright, S. B. 2007. Toward an integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: some preliminary findings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 713-725. Winkler, H., Baumert, K., Blanchard, O., Burch, S. & Robinson, J. 2007. What factors influence mitigative capacity? Energy Policy 35: 692-703. Yohe, G. & Tol, R. 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: Moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 12: 25-40. Yohe, G. W. 2001. Mitigative capacity: the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side. Climatic Change 49: 247-262.  161  Chapter 7. Synthesis and Conclusions The 21st century has ushered in a period of dramatic socio-political transformation, accompanied by environmental changes of a scale and complexity that challenge our most basic conceptions of development, governance, and security. In the two decades preceding this century, global climate change emerged to demonstrate incontrovertibly the implications of unsustainable patterns of resource use. These implications reach across space and time to confound our comfortable categories: human, environment; safe, vulnerable; present, future. The ever-evolving science of climate change paired with response polices that (some would argue) are fundamentally flawed (McKibben and Wilcoxen, 2002) and thus fail to substantially alter humanity’s voracious appetite for fossil fuels, illustrate with sobering clarity that we have failed to grasp the magnitude of these implications.  Nevertheless, momentum is undeniably building behind innovative mitigative and adaptive strategies that hold great promise. One significant element of this momentum is the growing role of communities in responding to climate change.  Although the  development and implementation of a global greenhouse gas reduction regime has dominated policy debates since before the advent of the Kyoto Protocol (and remains a critical element of effective mitigation), communities have both direct control of critical sources of emissions (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, Betsill, 2001) and are the scale at which the potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change will play out (Wilbanks et al., 2007, Wilbanks et al., 2003). Indeed, communities around the globe are already experiencing, for instance, rising sea levels, increasing severity and frequency of storms, heat stress, and altered water availability (cf. IPCC, 2007). As the following sections will show, communities face a unique set of challenges as they navigate through the uncertain future presented by climate change. Even so, communities bring to the task of climate change adaptation and mitigation a unique set of tools and proficiencies that are often absent at the national and international scales. It is the ultimate aim of the research presented here to enhance this toolkit so that communities might effectively employ the  162  various forms of capacity they possess to rise to the challenge presented by climate change.  The sections that follow will synthesize the findings gathered during an empirical study of climate change policymaking in three cities in British Columbia, Canada. These findings will be presented in light of the current research on mitigative and adaptive responses to climate change, institutional genesis and change, and collective behaviour change. The strengths and weaknesses of this research will be explored, along with the implications and (both theoretical and applied) significance of this work. Finally, this chapter will look forward to the future directions that this field may take, and posit additional questions that must be answered if the goal of carbon neutral, resilient communities is to be reached. 7.1. Synthesis of key findings The hypotheses and findings presented in this dissertation, taken together, tell the story of the struggles that communities face as they grapple with the causes and far-reaching implications of climate change. This research began with the examination of the concept of capacity, as it is expressed in the climate change adaptation and mitigation literature (cf. Adger et al., 2004, cf. Tompkins and Adger, 2003, Banuri et al., 2001, Yohe, 2001). The emergence of the related concepts of adaptive and mitigative capacities20 mirrored the increasing focus on the human dimensions of global environmental change that had gradually been occurring since the inception of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see the evolution of the IPCC assessment process in Banuri et al., 2001). In other words, as our understanding of the climatic repercussions of increasing GHG concentrations becomes more sophisticated, our attention is shifting to the challenging task of anticipating and guiding human responses to the problem. Even when armed with the insights provided by adaptive and mitigative capacity, however, it is challenging to predict when, and how effectively, communities will respond to climate change. This begs the question: what is the nature of the relationship between capacity and action in response to climate change? More specifically: would a revision of the concepts of 20  See Chapters 2 and 4 for complete discussions of the determinants of adaptive capacity, mitigative capacity, and response capacity.  163  adaptive and mitigative capacity aid in the prediction of whether or not climate change policy will be designed and implemented in cities? Furthermore, are there factors that intervene to inhibit the translation of adaptive and mitigative capacity (as we currently understand it) into action? This research found that the answer to both of these questions is: yes. The task then became to refine the concept of capacity so that it wields greater explanatory power, and to explore the factors that might still influence the success with which it is utilized.  The first step towards re-working the concept of capacity was to introduce response capacity, which according to the framework introduced in Chapter 2 (co-authored by John Robinson), is time- and context-specific, and culturally and regionally specific. This is not simply the sum of adaptive and mitigative capacity, as it has been framed by other scholars (Tompkins and Adger, 2003), but rather consists of a broad set of resources, many of which have previously been described as the determinants of adaptive and mitigative capacity. In other words, response capacity represents the roots adaptive and mitigative capacity, and is tied closely to the underlying path dependent development trajectories.  For instance, stocks of human and social capital, the presence of  technological innovation, and the economic strength of a nation are pools of resources that may be used in a multitude of ways, are elements of response capacity. As a result, response capacity is to some extent an approximation of a nation’s development level, and thus is rooted in a nation’s development path (Burch and Robinson, 2007). We then theorized adaptive and mitigative capacity to be more specific sets of institutional and policy-related resources (such as a municipal agency geared towards reducing transportation-related emissions) that contribute directly to either (or both) greenhouse gas reduction or adaptation.  The second task, which was to explore the factors that might still intervene in the progression from capacity to action on climate change, begins with the observation that human responses to risks are not independent phenomena, but instead grow out of deeply interwoven economic, socio-cultural, and technological trajectories (see Chapter 3). These factors inhibit both the translation of response capacity into adaptive and  164  mitigative capacity and adaptive and mitigative capacity into goal attainment.  An  example includes socio-political development patterns giving rise to political leadership that seeks to maintain the status quo, thereby resisting the decision to devote financial and human resources (response capacity) to the creation of an agency geared towards energy efficiency, (mitigative capacity). This observation is supported by the argument that collective behaviour is rarely motivated by rational assessments of costs and benefits, but rather by patterns of norms and routines (Olsen and March, 1989) that tell us what sort of behaviour is socially acceptable (Holland, 1998, and see especially: Bourdieu, 1990). This behaviour takes place in the context of rules, which constrain the set of options available to both individuals and collectives (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991, Bourdieu, 1990), and evolve over time to make alternate systems of rules increasingly less likely (Thelen, 2003, Berkhout, 2002).  Thus, barriers to action may best be  addressed through contextually-specific, inter-disciplinary analyses of collective human behaviour.  The empirical component of this research was designed to anchor the theoretical contributions described above in the local reality of municipal climate change policy making. Three municipalities (the Corporation of Delta, the District of North Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver) in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada, were chosen (according to the case selection methods described in Chapters 4 through 6) in order to provide an opportunity for cross-case comparison, and a greater potential for generalization. Five core questions structured the data collection and analysis in these cases: 1) What was the history and current state of climate change policy in each city (see Chapter 4)? 2) How could the three types of capacity (response, mitigative, and adaptive capacity) be characterized in each city (see Chapter 4)? 3) Is the level of action documented in each city what we might expect to see based on the various forms of capacity that are present (see Chapter 4)? 4) What barriers might be influencing the success with which capacity in translated into action (see Chapter 5)? 5) How might these barriers be transformed into enablers, in order to facilitate more effective climate change policy-making at the local level (see chapter 6)?  165  This study found that the three cases chosen for study posses similar (although not identical) store of response capacity, mainly because they have followed development paths that have led to similar systems of legitimate governance, strong economies, and highly educated populations. The only significant area of divergence is with regard to financial resources: because of very highly-valued property, the City of Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver possess slightly greater financial resources per capita than Delta. If we focus on mitigative and adaptive capacity, however, the differences between the three municipalities become clearer. Delta has mobilized response capacity to create the beginnings of mitigative capacity: a climate change action plan focusing on corporate emissions.  This plan however, only addresses a minute fraction of the  community’s emissions (those produced by municipally-owned buildings and operations) and thus does not serve to push Delta down the path toward carbon neutrality in a significant way, beyond capturing the symbolic ‘high ground’ of addressing the municipality’s own corporate emissions before requiring reductions from the community. On the adaptation side, Delta is in possession of significant technical knowledge and skills that address the problem of coastal protection and flooding but does not have technical expertise with regard to the specific local implications of climate change; for instance, clear estimates of expected sea-level rise, impacts on agriculture, and emissions trajectories. Steps are being taken to remedy this (Sheppard et al., 2008), however, thus building Delta’s adaptive capacity.  The District of North Vancouver is in a somewhat unique position given that it has invested substantial resources into developing an integrated long range sustainability framework. Since a sustainable community is also one that is both low-carbon and resilient to climate change impacts, the development of this framework in the DNV represents the creation of significant mitigative and adaptive capacity, but no concrete actions have yet resulted. While integrated sustainability plans have the potential to help communities achieve their climate change goals in tandem with broader development priorities, the experience of the District of North Vancouver illustrates the need for these plans to be rooted in concrete actions and reflective of the contextual realities of the community.  166  The City of Vancouver has made the most substantial strides towards utilizing response capacity to develop a strong base of mitigative capacity, and from this capacity has taken steps towards attaining goals of significant greenhouse gas reductions (City of Vancouver, 2007). The creation of the Sustainability Group, in which individuals are solely focused on addressing climate change in both the corporate and community realms, has been particularly important in this regard. It is clear that a more sustainable development path is being carved out by Vancouver: as skills grow and learning occurs, Vancouver will be more likely to successfully act in the futures because it has acted in the past. Adaptation remains markedly absent from Vancouver’s policy agenda, although there are tentative plans to change this. Thus, Vancouver may be viewed as having made significant progress towards the translation of response capacity into mitigative capacity (but not adaptive capacity), and mitigative capacity into a measure of real greenhouse gas reductions.  In the cases of the District of North Vancouver and the Corporation of Delta, levels of adaptive and mitigative capacity did not correspond to what we might expect to see in municipalities with considerable response capacity (see Chapter 4). This demonstrates that an empirical case has been made in support of the speculative observation that drove this research (introduced in Chapter 1 and discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2). In other words, intervening variables are potentially influencing the relationship between capacity and action.  The interdisciplinary set of literatures that form the foundation of this dissertation suggests a variety of factors that influence collective behaviour, the functioning of institutions, and the effective management of environmental problems. Many of these findings can be applied to the context of local climate change policymaking, which has rarely been the subject of scrutiny by these domains. Constructing a typology of the factors elucidated by these literatures helps to frame the data collected through interviews and data analysis in order to draw out the significance of the institutional and sociocultural realities of each municipality. A synthesis of new institutional theory (cf.  167  Peters, 2005, Thelen, 2003, Olsen and March, 1989), the analysis of adaptation and mitigation policy (cf. Wilbanks et al., 2007, Adger et al., 2005, Tompkins and Adger, 2003, Schneider et al., 2000), understandings of individual and collective behaviour (growing mainly out of psychology, sociology and anthropology) (Della Porta and Diani, 2006, Leiserowitz, 2006, Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002, Stern, 2000), and sociotechnical change theory (Geels and Schot, 2007, Unruh and Carrillo-Hermosilla, 2006, Berkhout et al., 2004) shows that four categories of factors influence the success with which  capacity  is  translated  into  action:  structural/operational  factors,  legislative/regulatory elements, cultural/behavioural components, and contextual characteristics. As shown in Chapter 5, these factors may serve to either enable or inhibit action on climate change, and are deeply entwined with one another.  Applying this typology to the municipalities under study reveal the specific barriers that were at play in each case. Commonalities were discovered which may help to explain why Canadian climate change policy tends to lag behind that found in some parts of Europe (such as the Emissions Trading Scheme, environmental sanction charges, and strong investment in climate change research found in Sweden), while differences help us to understand the varying levels of action in three cities that possess very similar levels of response capacity (see Chapter 5).  In the Corporation of Delta, interviewees often  mentioned the conflict between provincial policies that are likely to dramatically increase emissions and the local climate change action plan that is aimed at reducing corporate emissions.  Many District of North Vancouver staff expressed frustration over the  perceived lack of political leadership on climate change, while politicians in that community suggested that the conservative values of the community prevented the implementation of policies that could dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Vancouver, although generally the most successful case study with regard to climate change policy, interviewees often suggested that the lack of a long range strategic plan on sustainability inhibited the effectiveness of the city’s decentralized organizational model of sustainability and climate change decision-making. These challenges, however, are not unique to the three cities under study. Municipalities throughout Canada are likely to be struggling with the rapid pace of social change and the ever-evolving advice on  168  climate change provided to them by the scientific community, making a richer understanding of barriers to action a valuable element of future climate change policy design and implementation.  Most important, however, are three findings that have significant implications for the types of intervention we design in order to stimulate climate change action (discussed in greater detail below): 1) multiple barriers to action on climate change are at play at any given time in a municipality, are deeply interwoven, and often exacerbate one another; 2) the same factor that can act as a barrier to action (such as a culture of combativeness) can also facilitate it (as with a culture of collaboration or innovation); and 3) different types of barriers are relatively more or less important during different stages of the translation of capacity into action.  The dynamic relationship exists not only amongst specific  barriers, but also between these barriers and response capacity. Ironically many barriers both grow out of response capacity (such as organizational silos arising out of educational practices that exacerbate disciplinary differences) and also inhibit the effective translation of response capacity into organizational arrangements and policies that address adaptation and mitigation. These findings represent a divergence from the literature because multiple factors (which are often addressed by different disciplines) are considered simultaneously, and are examined in the context of the regulatory and institutional frameworks within which they operate. Furthermore, these findings advance our understanding of municipal climate change responses by highlighting the critical interplay between factors such as leadership and organizational culture, the universe of forces at play in determining the effectiveness of political mandates, and the inertia that pervades municipal climate change policy-making processes. The importance of locallyspecific, policy-relevant scientific information (especially related to local climate change impacts and response options) is a further finding of this work that helps to further illuminate the necessary ingredients for effective action on climate in municipalities.  The final set of findings gathered by this research pertains to the strategies that can be used to overcome barriers to action (or transform them into enablers). Chapter 5 shows that addressing a lack of technical, financial, or human resources is less a matter of  169  creating more capacity (such as municipalities requiring additional funding from the provincial government – although this would certainly be welcomed) than of facilitating the effective use of existing resources. This facilitation depends most fundamentally on re-working the path dependent institutional structures, organizational culture and policymaking procedures that have characterized the unsuccessful patterns of climate change policy development in the past.  The municipal case studies showed that the most critical strategies for facilitating action vary depending on the particular mix of constraints and goals present in each community. Most critical to progress towards achieving climate change goals in Delta is a more ambitious, integrated climate change adaptation and mitigation plan that addresses both corporate and community emissions (as has been created for the City of Vancouver). This must be supported by institutionalized processes, eventually becoming routine, which nurture inter-departmental collaboration and innovation. In the District of North Vancouver, interviewees suggested that leadership (especially at the political level) was the most significant missing ingredient. In the past, special interests have often been catered to in the interests of consensus-building, but this has often led to sub-optimal sustainability and climate change outcomes.  Stronger leadership may both drive  innovation and assure technical staff that climate change priorities will not suddenly evaporate in the face of other pressing concerns. The City of Vancouver has made substantial progress towards its climate change goals, but continues to function without a cohesive long-range sustainability plan. Such a plan might help to strategically unite the activities of all departments under a banner of sustainability and embed common goals in the day-to-day activities of municipal staff. 7.2. Implications and significance The preceding chapters offer contributions to both the theory and practice of climate change policymaking at the local level. This section will draw out the implications and significance of this research with regard to these two realms, before speculating about the future direction this work, and the field of the human dimensions of climate change more broadly, may take.  170  Global environmental change (and climate change, more specifically) forces us to reach across disciplinary divides to bring diverse tools to bear on problems characterized by deep uncertainty and complexity. Fundamentally interdisciplinary research, however, remains relatively rare, and addresses only a small subset of the dynamics that are critical to fully understanding these problems. This research pushes forward the interdisciplinary analysis of the human dimensions of global environmental change by synthesizing disparate literatures to explore the critical question of the relationship between capacity and action in response to climate change. In doing so, it reveals that many phenomena (such as path dependency) transcend theoretical boundaries to apply to technical, cultural, organizational and regulatory systems (see Chapters 5 and 6). Drawing together a development path literature may be a first step toward creating a coordinated approach to climate change studies that utilizes the strengths and parallel trends present in a variety of disciplines.  By knitting together traditionally distinct approaches, the most critical  determinants of responses to climate change become apparent. For instance, the review presented in Chapter 3 revealed the integral role that temporal, institutional, and cultural context plays in shaping action.  To the specific study of climate change responses, this research contributes a revision of the concept of capacity, which helps to explore the pathways connecting capacity to action at the municipal level. The concept of response capacity (Burch and Robinson, 2007) draws our attention to the importance of the underlying development path, while the new definition of adaptive and mitigative capacities as consisting of specific agencies and policies geared towards responding to climate change may help us to predict more effectively whether or not greenhouse gases and/or vulnerability will be reduced in a community. The concept of a development path, which is fleshed out in Chapter 3 and I return to in Chapters 4 and 5, is a powerful new tool in the study of climate change responses.  It has been theorized to consist of technological, socio-cultural, and  institutional pathways, which are deeply intertwined with one another and characterized by path dependency. This shows that the institutional or cultural barriers to effective  171  climate change responses must be examined in context, rather than analyzed as independent (and thus more easily influenced) phenomena.  In the past, many studies of mitigative responses to climate change have been national in scale, presumably as a result, in part, of recent global negotiations surrounding the Kyoto Protocol.  This international agreement has provided a strong signal to national  governments regarding the state of the international community with respect to the need to address climate change, but has provided little in the way of specification of effective greenhouse gas reduction policies that are can be implemented throughout the ratifying country. This research adds to the trend of climate change research at the local level (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, Kousky and Schneider, 2003) and demonstrates the value of exploring climate change at this scale. Although international frameworks on climate change may drive national response policies and influence public opinion on the need for action, even mitigation and adaptation that are mandated by higher levels of government must be implemented at the local level. Thus, the barriers uncovered by this dissertation will inevitably come into play and fundamentally shape the success of efforts led by any other scale of government.  In addition to making contributions to the theory of human responses to climate change, this research is of practical significance to communities that are attempting to design and implement climate change response strategies. We have learned that, instead of focusing on building financial or technical capacity, a greater focus should be placed on facilitating the use of existing capacity. This suggests very different goals for climate change interventions at the local level, and demands the use of different tools focused on barriers to action.  The dual nature of the factors that influence action (such as  organizational culture, political leadership, and many others, which can act as either enablers or inhibitors) points to the potential for transforming an organizational environment that is hostile to climate change into one that facilitates action (for instance). The delicate balance of collaboration and mutual respect that is required to facilitate action indicates that one must develop climate change strategies from within the organizational structure and with the culture in mind rather than imposing ‘solutions’  172  from without. Furthermore, this work gives us a deeper understanding of the specific sources of path dependency in municipal institutions, and thus a better appreciation of the forces that must be overcome in order to develop and implement mitigation and adaptation strategies. At a more pragmatic level, linking adaptation and mitigation helps to expose synergies between the two strategies, and makes important tradeoffs more evident (Swart and Raes, 2007, Wilbanks et al., 2003). This is a critical step in the planning of communities that are both resilient and following low-carbon development paths. 7.3. Strengths and weaknesses of the research After the completion of this research and reflection on the findings that it provided, it is now possible to identify its many strengths and weaknesses. These pertain to both the theoretical framework and the methodological approach that were employed. Ironically, as will be discussed below, the same quality that may be viewed as a strength, may, in some circumstances, act as a weakness.  The central theoretical strength of this research pertains to its fundamentally interdisciplinary approach.  By gathering together the most pertinent insights from  analyses of institutions, organizations, socio-technical systems, social movements, individual and collective behaviour change, sustainability and climate change policy, this research offers an appreciation of the complexity and variety of forces that are at play in the context of local climate change policymaking.  This strength, however, has the  potential to become a weakness, as any interdisciplinary research runs the risk of reaching too far and overlooking important contributions provided by a literature that has been only superficially utilized. This research attempts to overcome this flaw by seeking out specific sub-fields that are speaking of the same phenomena using different languages, or that naturally fit together to paint a picture that more closely resembles reality.  The second major strength of this work is that it addresses an emerging problem of critical importance, in a way that is relevant and useful to the individuals and  173  organizations tasked with solving it. The result is a set of findings that, with further refinement, may be re-worked into a toolkit that can be used to support decision-making at the local level. This, however, exposes the second parallel weakness: by studying a phenomenon that is rapidly evolving and policy responses that are in their infancy, it is difficult to predict both the effectiveness of the various adaptation and mitigation strategies that were employed and the socio-political landscape within which these municipalities will be functioning in the coming years. The results gathered by this research are highly dependent on a shifting context, and thus are vulnerable to becoming irrelevant or obsolete.  Methodologically, this research benefitted from the use of cross-case comparisons (and case selection based on similarities in capacity but variation along a spectrum of action). This method highlights the different pathways that municipalities have followed towards their climate change goals, but also reveals similarities (of which there are many), thus enhancing the likelihood that the findings of this research can be generalized to apply to other cities in the developed world. The challenges inherent in this approach pertain to the complexity of human systems: despite the similarities between these three communities, they have not followed identical developments nor do they have identical levels of capacity. This makes it challenging to isolate the effects of particular barriers or predict (with certainty) the likely success of response measures.  A methodological gap in this research is the absence of rigourous tests revealing the relative influence of each of the barriers, relying instead on the interpretations and perceptions of interviewees. Politicians, for instance, appeared especially unwilling to cast their city in a negative light, with the occasional exception of Vancouver politicians (who follow a party system and thus can gain from highlighting the faults of colleagues from different parties). Although care was taken to validate the statements made by interviewees using probing questions, document analysis and comparisons amongst different interviewees’ responses, a longitudinal analysis modelled after this study might help to make clear which policy or measure yielded the desired result, and which barriers had to be overcome in order for this to occur. The influence of the private sector in  174  autonomously designing and implementing adaptation or mitigation strategies (as well as the private sectors role as a constituency for political leadership on climate change), the dynamics of barriers in capacity-poor cities, and the effects of uncertainty on climate change decision-making are just a few of the additional gaps that this research neglected to fill.  Nevertheless, this research provides empirical evidence that helps us to  understand the highly variable levels of action on climate change that have occurred in industrialized cities, and explores this evidence using a highly effective set of interdisciplinary theoretical tools. As such, it contributes both to theory and practice, and points to a rich array of opportunities for future inquiry. 7.4. Future directions and unanswered questions This dissertation brings to light many questions that remain to be answered by the diverse field of climate change governance and collective behaviour change. Based on the sections above and the preceding chapters, this section will draw out five especially critical new trends that are gaining momentum in this field, but have yet to be fully explored.  The first direction pertains to the increasing focus on the human dimensions of climate change rather than the overwhelming preoccupation with the biophysical aspects that characterized the initial stages of inquiry into this problem. Almost exclusively cast as a problem for science, climate change was originally the domain of atmospheric chemists, physicists, and other physical scientists. This focus was reflected in the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a collaborative effort between the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization. Published in 1991, the IPCC First Assessment Report captured the focus of the research on climate change that had taken place during the preceding decade, and dealt heavily with issues of modelling the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change, greenhouse gas reduction through mitigation, and issues of the cost-effectiveness or efficiency of mitigation policies (Banuri et al., 2001). This contrasts sharply with the most recent assessment report of the IPCC, published in 2007, which clearly highlighted the need to investigate the human dimensions of global climate change, the challenges to  175  response policies provided by the embeddedness of climate policy within highly complex socio-cultural, political, and institutional contexts, and the need to consider the implications of climate change for broader development goals (see for example: Klein et al., 2007). This shift has been reinforced by the finding that, as demonstrated in this dissertation, the true challenge of responding to climate change pertains not to a lack of technological or financial resources, but to the highly complex and often unpredictable behaviour of humans. The research presented in the preceding chapters reflects the value of this transition, but demonstrates the fact that many analyses of climate change policy, which frequently focus on the international or national scales, remain distant from the contextual realities and challenges that are present at the local level (the scale at which action on climate change must inevitably occur, whatever the scale of the policy or framework). Also important is the growing appetite for interdisciplinary approaches to the analysis of global environmental change problems with the realm of social science. Governance theories blended with political ecology (Adger et al., 2001), risk perception united with policy analysis (Leiserowitz, 2006), and institutional theory applied to ecological economics (Paavola and Adger, 2005) provide striking new insights into the complexity of the human dimensions of global environmental change, and promising directions for future research.  The second trend taking place within the climate change community, which is of direct relevance to this dissertation, is the increasing extent to which the linkages between climate change responses (adaptation and mitigation) are considered (Wilbanks et al., 2007, Wilbanks et al., 2003), and the growing persuasiveness of the view that responding to climate change is just one part of the transition toward sustainability (Robinson et al., 2003). Recent consideration of adaptation and mitigation in tandem has revealed that responses of one type may lead to synergies or tradeoffs for responses of the other type (Dang et al., 2003, Dessai, 2003, Tompkins and Adger, 2003, Kane and Shogren, 2000). It has furthermore been argued that adaptive and mitigative actions are not carried out in isolation from one another, and in fact can represent either opportunities for, or constraints on, more effective and efficient climate change responses. Addressing the traditional fragmentation of climate policy brings to light patterns of responses in which  176  adaptation and mitigation are either complements or substitutes, and allows for more socially and economically efficient policy designs. The capacity to integrate these two responses, however, is strongly constrained by knowledge limitations and informational infrastructure, and thus it has been argued that the development of more decentralized climate response initiatives would help to overcome some of these difficulties, in the absence of a cohesive, consistent international framework (Wilbanks et al., 2003).  The third direction of new research pertains to the synthesis of individual and collective behaviour change theories. This study shows that a web of factors influence the success of climate change policy development and implementation at the local level. These factors pertain both to the individual and the collective, ranging from perceptions of the risk to organizational structure and political leadership. The bodies of literature that explore the dynamics of collective versus individual behaviour change have grown out of disciplines that have traditional remained separate. Nevertheless, both domains of the theory acknowledge that explanatory and predictive power is severely limited by significant portions of the social fabric which have yet to be sufficiently incorporated into the conceptual framework of each approach. For theories centred on the individual, scholars are noting that increased consideration must be given to issues of social situation, context, and structural constraints (Stern, 2000, Stern, 1999). Theories that utilize societal explanations of behaviour change tend to focus on broader cultural shifts, frames, and collective identity (cf. Della Porta and Diani, 2006, Holland, 1998, Laraña et al., 1994), to the exclusion of valuable insights into attitudinal predispositions offered by the psychological community.  If the purpose is not to stay within disciplinary  boundaries, but to reveal the true nature of human behaviour, deeply embedded in the empirical reality of social context, one must ask: can these two camps be usefully united under a conceptual framework which utilizes the strengths of both?  This sort of  integration is necessary if the challenge of global climate change is to be addressed in a meaningful way, but has yet to gain significant momentum.  The fourth promising new domain of research pertains to the concept of development paths: despite attempts made in Chapter 3 to identify a literature that helps us to explore  177  the idea of ‘development paths,’ this dissertation shows that better understanding of this concept is critical to improving climate change policymaking and implementation. It is clear that many of the barriers faced by communities are part of path dependent institutional, cultural, or political trajectories (see Chapter 6). Although the specific strategies used to tackle path dependency in any municipality will be driven by the local sustainability priorities and climate change goals, a process by which barriers to action are identified, sources of path dependency are targeted, and learning occurs, may be useful to all. Additional work must be done to explore the extent to which the findings presented here are unique to the three cities under study (or even wealth industrialized Western cities), and to put a finer point on the policy tools that may drive a shift in development paths. This work will undoubtedly bring to the fore a continuous stream of unanswered questions as Canada navigates the uncertain path towards its climate change goals.  The fifth and final new direction in climate change research has only recently taken root is the study of local climate change policy development and implementation. At the local level, there is still much that is not known about how to simultaneously facilitate interdepartmental collaboration, design climate change response strategies that tackle the most significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions and vulnerability (rather than focusing on policies that are politically feasible but environmentally insignificant), and build a constituency for change both within the organization and amongst the public. Climate change strategies that are abstract, onerous, untested, or perceived as being imposed by individuals who lack a deep understanding of the day-to-day realities of working within a municipality, may meet (as in the case of the District of North Vancouver) considerable resistance and even hostility. Even so, this study demonstrates the value of climate change policy research in communities, and offers an exciting step towards uncovering the determinants of effective climate action. It is hoped that this work will help to elucidate the means by which the challenge of carbon neutrality and resiliency can be met, and to stimulate the transformation of barriers into enablers of action.  178  7.5. References Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. & Tompkins, E. 2005. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environment Change Part A 15: 77-86. Adger, W. N., Benjaminsen, T. A., Brown, K. & Svarstad, H. 2001. Advancing a Political Ecology of Global Environmental Discourses. Development & Change 32. Adger, W. N., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S. & Eriksen, S. (2004) New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Technical Report 7. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Resource. Banuri, T., Weyant, J., Akumu, G., Najam, A., Pinguielli Rosa, L., Rayner, S., Sachs, W., Sharma, R. & Yohe, G. 2001. Setting the Stage: Climate Change and Sustainable Development. IN Metz, B., O. Davidson, R. Swart, and J. Pan (Ed.) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Report of Working Group III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berkhout, F. 2002. Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment. Global Environment Change 12: 1-4. Berkhout, F., Smith, A. & Stirling, A. 2004. Socio-technical regimes and transition contexts. IN Elzen, B., Geels, F. W. & Green, K. (Eds.) System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence, and Policy. Camberley: Edward Elgar. Betsill, M. 2001. Mitigating climate change in US cities: opportunities and obstacles. Local Environment 6: 393-406. Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Polity Press: Cambridge. Bulkeley, H. & Betsill, M. 2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: Multi-level governance and the 'urban' politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 14: 42-63. Burch, S. & Robinson, J. 2007. A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change. Climate Policy 7: 304-316. City of Vancouver (2007) Climate protection progress report - 2007. Vancouver, City of Vancouver. Dang, H. H., Michaelowa, A. & Tuan, D. D. 2003. Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the context of sustainable development: the case of Vietnam. Climate Policy 3S1: S81-S96.  179  Della Porta, D. & Diani, M. 2006. Social Movements: An Introduction 2nd Edition. Blackwell Publishers Inc.: Oxford. Dessai, S. 2003. The special climate change fund: origins and prioritization assessment. Climate Policy 3: 295-302. Geels, F. W. & Schot, J. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36: 399-417. Holland, D. 1998. Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass. IPCC 2007. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Kane, S. & Shogren, J. 2000. Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Climatic Change 45: 75-102. Klein, R. J. T., Huq, S., Denton, F., Downing, T. E., Richels, R. G., Robinson, J. B. & Toth, F. L. 2007. Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. IN Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Van Der Linden, P. J. & Hanson, C. E. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, M. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally, and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research 3: 239-260. Kousky, C. & Schneider, S. H. 2003. Global climate policy: Will cities lead the way. Climate Policy 3: 359-372. Laraña, E., Johnston, H. & Gusfield, J. R. (Eds.) 1994. New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, Temple University Press: Philidelphia. Leiserowitz, A. 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77: 45-72. McKibben, W. J. & Wilcoxen, P. J. 2002. The role of economics in climate change policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16: 107-129. Olsen, J. P. & March, J. G. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. The Free Press: New York.  180  Paavola, J. & Adger, W. N. 2005. Institutional ecological economics. Ecological Economics 53: 353. Peters, B. G. 2005. Institutional theory in political science: the new institutionalism. Continuum International Publishing Group: London, New York. Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Robinson, J., Bradley, M., Busby, P., Connor, D., Murray, A. & Sampson, B. (2003) Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Realizing the Opportunity. World Climate Change Conference. Moscow. Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A. & Niles, J. O. (Eds.) 2000. Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Island Press. Sheppard, S. R. J., Shaw, A., Flanders, D. & Burch, S. (2008) Can visualization save the world? Lessons for landscape architects from visualizing local climate change. Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008; 9th International Conference on IT in Landscape Architecture. Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Dessau/Bernburg, Germany. Stern, P. C. 1999. Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Policy 22: 461-478. Stern, P. C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 56: 407-424. Swart, R. & Raes, F. 2007. Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work: mainstreaming into sustainable development policies? Climate Policy 7: 289. Thelen, K. 2003. How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. IN Mahoney, J. & Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University PRess. Tompkins, E. & Adger, W. N. (2003) Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 39. Unruh, G. & Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. 2006. Globalizing carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 34: 1185-1197. Wilbanks, T. J., Kane, S. M., Leiby, P. N., Perlack, R. D., Settle, C., Shogren, J. F. & Smith, J. B. 2003. Integrating mitigation and adaptation-possible responses to global climate change. Environment 45: 28-38.  181  Wilbanks, T. J., Leiby, P., Perlack, R., Ensminger, T. J. & Wright, S. B. 2007. Toward an integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: some preliminary findings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 713-725. Yohe, G. W. 2001. Mitigative capacity: the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side. Climatic Change 49: 247-262.  182  Appendix A: Semi-structured interview script 1. Collective Awareness and Perception of the Climate Change Issue (Context)  1.1  How is the issue of climate change perceived by your agency? a. How aware is it of global impacts, local impacts, local adaptation and mitigation strategies? b. How is climate change cast in terms of the change that in the system of municipal governance system that is required to address it? - Is climate change cast as an issue that will require fundamental, systemic change, or rather superficial change? - An issue for the local/provincial/federal government to solve versus private sector versus individuals? - Range from a new system altogether (such as proportional representation); new department; new position; can be addressed using current setup c. Can you give me an example of a new risk that you’ve faced, other than climate change, and tell me how you dealt with it? - For instance, other jurisdictions have had West Nile virus scares, SARS, earthquake risks, etc - Can you think of examples where responses could have improved?  1.2  What factors do you think represent capacity to respond to climate change (give simple definition of capacity if required)? - How would you rank your municipality in terms of this capacity, compared to other municipalities in the Metro Vancouver? Canada? Other developed countries (ie Sweden, UK…)  1.3 How would you characterize your agency in terms of: institutional culture (ie risk averse, hierarchical, flexible, rooted in history); control over corporate and community GHGs/adaptation; trust and communication within and among agencies?  2. Addressing the Problem: Actions and Barriers 183  2.1 What have been the most and least effective efforts to address climate change within your agency/division/level of government? a. When did these actions occur? Whose idea was it? Who implemented it (or would have, if it had succeeded)?  2.2 When a proposed adaptation or mitigation policy is put before you, what is the single most important aspect of it that you think would predict whether or not it is acceptable? -  cost effectiveness, public acceptability, amount of GHGs it will reduce/reduction in vulnerability  2.3 Have any major adaptation or mitigation actions been taking place that have been led primarily by the private sector, that you know of? By Metro Vancouver-wide or provincial initiatives?  2.4 How would you describe the majority of the decisions within your agency? Would you say that most decisions are based on habit/past precedent, or are they based on calculations of cost/benefit? Some mix? Explain. (ie how likely would it be that a totally novel policy would be introduced even if costs are relatively low) 2.5 What technologies do you feel are required by your agency to address climate change? Who designs and controls them and regulates their use? 2.6 Can you identify the top three barriers that you feel prevent municipal governance/decision-makers from addressing climate change?  3. Overcoming Barriers to Action 3.1 If culture, communication, autonomy, information, leadership, capacity, costs etc. were mentioned as barriers – how do you think that these barriers are best overcome? 3.2 Have there been examples in the past of perceived/anticipated barriers being overcome? Tell me about this. 3.3 Are there other municipalities that you think represent good or bad models of change? Why do you feel this way?  184  Appendix B: Document analysis Corporation of Delta 1. Delta Council Report: Delta’s Climate Change Initiative Annual Report 2008 and 2009 Action Plans; February 9 2009 2. Delta 2008 Draft Financial Plan 3. Delta Council Report: Innovative Environmental Policies; January 18 2008 4. Delta Climate Change initiative; 2007 5. Delta Council Report: Green Fleet Mgmt Plan; May 31, 2007 6. Delta Council Report: Green Fleet Management Plan attachment; May 31 2007 7. Delta Council Report: Delta’s Climate Change initiative; June 14 2007 8. Delta Council Report: Climate Change Initiative; July 10 2007 9. Delta Council Report: Attachment July 18 06; memo dated April 10 2006 10. Delta Council Report: Review of Proposed Gateway Program; July 04 2006 11. Delta Council Report: Review of the Gateway Program; July 18 2006 12. Delta Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 1995; Oct 30 2006 13. Delta Council Report SFPR Environmental Assessment Nov 23 2006Official Community Plan Draft; August 30 2005 14. South Fraser Perimeter Road Environmental Assessment; Summary of Staff Comments; November 23 2006 15. Delta Liveable Region Strategic Plan Regional Context Statement; 2005 16. Delta Chamber of Commerce Proposal for a sustainable community economic strategy; June 2003 District of North Vancouver 1. District of North Vancouver Official Community Plan; November 1991 2. District of North Vancouver Council Report: Update on key sustainability initiatives; September 17 2007 3. District of North Vancouver Powerpoint presentation: Natural Steps Along our Sustainability Path; 2007 4. Maplewood Community Eco-Industrial Partnership Project Final Report 5. District of North Vancouver Sustainability Baseline Analysis Using “The Natural Step” Framework; Draft; November 28 2007 6. District of North Vancouver – Planning for a Sustainable Future; July 2007 City of Vancouver 1. Green Building Passive Design Toolkits 2. Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law to Remove Barriers to Green Building Administrative Report (October 14, 2008) and Memorandum (October 27, 2008) 3. Enabling Plug-in Electric Vehicles in Vancouver; September 10, 2008 4. Part 3 Division B Green Building Strategy Update; July 22, 2008  185  5. The Green Homes Program - Building By-law Amendments for New One Family Dwellings, One Family Dwellings with Secondary Suites, and Two Family Dwellings; June 26, 2008 6. Employee Mobility Program; June 9, 2008 7. Promotion of LiveSmartBC and ecoENERGY Retrofit Incentive; June 10, 2008 8. Climate Change Adaptation Report; May 27, 2008 9. 2009-2011 Capital Plan Administrative Report; May 20, 2008 10. Corporate Car Sharing Administrative Report; May 12, 2008 11. Vancouver Council Report: Neighbourhood Energy Utility Heat Source; April 13 2007 12. Vancouver Council Report: Active and Safe School Trips; May 2006 13. Vancouver Council Report: Vancouver Transportation Plan Progress Report; May 2006 14. Vancouver Council Report: Emissions and Noise Abatement bylaw; July 2006 15. Vancouver Council Report: Social Development Plan for City of Vancouver; Sept 2006 16. Vancouver Council Report: Ecodensity; October 2006 17. Vancouver Council Report: Neighbourhood Energy Utility Evaluation of Options; November 2006 18. Vancouver Community Climate Change Plan; 2005 19. Vancouver Council Report: Sustainability Indicators, Targets, Stewardship and Monitoring for South East False Creek; January 17 2005 20. Vancouver Council Report: Definition of Social Sustainability; May 2005 21. Vancouver Corporate Action Plan 2004 22. Vancouver Corporate Action Plan Annual Report; 2004 23. Vancouver Council Report: Energy Efficiency Purchasing Policy; September 2004 24. Vancouver News Release: City’s Cool Vancouver Task Force Receives Federal Funding; September 2004 25. Vancouver Council Report: Ethical and Sustainable Purchasing Policy; December 2004 26. Vancouver Council Report: Kyoto Protocol –Implications to the City of Vancouver and Partners for Climate Protection; March 2003 27. Council Report Cool Vancouver Discussion Paper GHG Reduction Planning; June 2003 28. Vancouver Council Report: Creating a Sustainable City; November 2003 29. Vancouver Council Report Action Plan on a Sustainable Food System; December 2003 30. Vancouver Regular Council; Sustainable City and Corporate Plan; December 2 2003 31. Vancouver Council Report: Sustainable City; April 2002 32. Vancouver Regional Context Statement pertaining to the Liveable Region Strategic Plan; Official Development Plan; December 1999 33. Clouds of Change, Volumes 1 and 2; 1990 Provincial and Regional Documents 1. British Columbia Climate Change Action Plan; 2008  186  2. Metro Vancouver Board of Directors Report: Regional Greenhouse Gas Strategy Objectives; February 29, 2008 3. The British Columbia Climate Action Charter; October 2008 4. Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework; 2008 5. Union of British Columbia Municipalities Resolutions Related to Climate Change; 2007 6. The British Columbia Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership; February 2007 7. Union of British Columbia Municipalities Policy Paper: Legislation to Support Climate Change Action Plans and Building Green Communities; September 5 2007 8. Metro Vancouver Board Meeting: Metro Vancouver Climate Change Adaptation Initiatives; September 21, 2007 9. Metro Vancouver Board Meeting Report: BC Climate Action Charter; November 23 2007 10. Metro Vancouver Sustainable Region Initiative: Climate Change as a ‘Driver’ for the Regional Growth Strategy; November 2007 11. Metro Vancouver: Choosing a Sustainable Future for Metro Vancouver; Options for Metro Vancouver’s Growth Management Strategy; November 2007 12. Metro Vancouver Sustainable Region Initiative: 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory Forecast and Backcast; December 2007 13. Livable Region Strategic Plan 2005 Annual Report; 2005 14. Indicators of Climate Change for British Columbia 2002; British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; 2002  187  Appendix C: UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board Certificate of Approval  188  189  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0067519/manifest

Comment

Related Items