Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-6 (section)

=== 6.4.2 Institutional Change to Deliver Adaptation in Cities, Settlements and Infrastructure ===

<div id="h2-20-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The main barriers to urban climate adaptation, and strategies to address them, relate to institutional change ( ''high confidence'' ) (see Table 6.7). Institutions include legislative and policy frameworks and guidelines intended to direct the action of government, civil society and private sector organisations and extend into informal and customary practices that shape individual behaviour. Many of the barriers that inhibit institutions acting in ways that can support action for inclusive and sustainable adaptation have historical roots, grounded in complex political and social relations and can be reinforcing (Table 6.7). Overcoming these barriers requires coordinating the activities of multiple actors who can facilitate institutional and political change (Eisenack et al., 2014).

'''Table 6.7 |''' Barriers to climate adaptation

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Examples of barriers to climate adaptation

! Institutional changes to overcome those barriers

! Examples

! Evidence

|-
| Lack of financial resources

| Strategic combination of municipal, regional and national level funds

Access to multiple financing mechanisms

| In European countries, large cities tend to fund their own adaptation, while smaller settlements depend on regional or national funding

| [[#Aguiar--2018|Aguiar et al. (2018)]] ;

[[#Moser--2019|Moser et al. (2019)]]

|-
| Lack of human resources and capacities

| Development of formal and informal partnerships, cooperative agreements and inter-agency arrangements

| International cooperation programmes for adaptation in urban areas in the Global South are most likely to succeed if they can align their objectives with local priorities and capacities

| [[#UN-Habitat--2016b|UN-Habitat (2016b)]]

|-
| Political commitment and willingness to act

| Use of policy windows and extreme events to generate interest and create lasting responses

| In Germany, responses to flooding were strongly shaped by public perceptions of safety during the electoral cycle, leading to inadequate responses

| [[#Gawel--2018|Gawel et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Di%20Giulio--2018|Di Giulio et al. (2018)]]

|-
| Uncertainty about future impacts and dynamic interactions

| Develop institutional arrangements that acknowledge and reduce uncertainty

Facilitate the development of bottom-up initiatives that relate directly to the context of action

| Power plant operators and the federal state of Baden-Württemberg negotiated the minimum power plant concept (‘Mindestkraftwerkskonzept’, MPP), a contract to establish more predictable and workable procedures for curtailment in the event of severe heatwaves

| [[#Eisenack--2016|Eisenack (2016)]] ;

[[#Thaler--2019|Thaler et al. (2019)]]

|-
| Institutional fragmentation and unclear responsibilities

| Evaluation of existing institutions to diagnose miscoordination

Creation of policy networks that address emerging interdependences

| In settlements in Languedoc, France, decentralisation adds complexity to the ongoing challenges of population growth and climate change

| [[#Therville--2019|Therville et al. (2019)]]

|-
| Legal issues and regulations

| Address the legal hurdles to create frameworks that allow for experimental action

| Policymakers in the San Francisco Bay Area, USA, reported that minor changes could have a definitive influence in delivering regulatory changes to support adaptation action

In the Netherlands, a lack of climate change adaptation policy for cultural heritage hamper adaptation of cultural heritage to current and projected climate risks

| Ekstrom and Moser (2014);

[[#Fatorić--2020|Fatorić and Biesbroek (2020)]]

|-
| Competition of adaptation with other policy agendas and polarisation

| Prioritisation and development of synergies across sectors

Mainstreaming adaptation into other sectors

| In European cities, for example, urban planning is strongly correlated with water management strategies

| [[#Aguiar--2018|Aguiar et al. (2018)]] ;

Sieber, Biesbroek and de Block (2018)

|-
| Lack of data, knowledge generation capacity and knowledge exchange

| Mobilise multiple strategies for the use of climate information in local decision making

Involve a wide range of stakeholders, with different values and knowledge, in decision making

| In Scotland, Hungary and Portugal, local decision makers use high-end climate change (HECC) scenarios, but most often as background data

Sharing knowledge alongside the supply chain favours adaptation for both multinationals and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

| [[#Lourenço--2019|Lourenço et al. (2019)]] ;

[[#Herrmann--2017|Herrmann and Guenther (2017)]] ;

Gotgelf, Roggero and Eisenack (2020);

[[#Wamsler--2017|Wamsler (2017)]]

|}

Institutional change is needed to open new options for inclusive and sustainable adaptation and to integrate adaptation and mitigation ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ) (see also [[#6.3.5|Section 6.3.5]] ).

Institutional change refers to processes that aim to shift existing norms and practices within organisations to deliver more effective action for adaptation. Institutional change at the local level can be achieved with diverse strategies (Patterson, de Voogt and Sapiains, 2019). Table 6.7 illustrates various instruments that enable the institutionalisation of climate adaptation concerns into policy and planning. As Table 6.7 shows, institutional change is often used as synonymous with mainstreaming. Both terms refer to the integration of climate adaptation concerns into other areas of work and as part of practical routines and arguments (Chu, Anguelovski and Carmin, 2016; [[#Storbjörk--2015|Storbjörk and Uggla, 2015]] ; Runhaar et al., 2018; Uittenbroek et al., 2014). Early assessments understood mainstreaming as activities that integrate climate adaptation into long-range and sectoral plans ( [[#Anguelovski--2011|Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011]] ; [[#Aylett--2015|Aylett, 2015]] ). Since then, efforts to mainstream climate adaptation have grown into agendas around the community and economic development (Ayers et al., 2014), climate mitigation (Göpfert, Wamsler and Lang, 2019), spatial and infrastructure planning (Anguelovski, Chu and Carmin, 2014), urban finance (Musah-Surugu et al., 2018; Keenan, Chu and Peterson, 2019), public health (Araos et al., 2015), environmental management ( [[#Wamsler--2015|Wamsler, 2015]] ; Kabisch et al., 2016) and multi-level decision making ( [[#Ojea--2015|Ojea, 2015]] ; [[#Visseren-Hamakers--2015|Visseren-Hamakers, 2015]] ). Such efforts require various degrees of regulatory or programmatic action to integrate adaptation with other concerns ( [[#Wamsler--2016|Wamsler and Pauleit, 2016]] ). However, institutional change has a broader remit than mainstreaming adaptation, as it may include, for example, changing the organisations already dealing with climate adaptation and make them more effective including changes in inputs, procedures and options (Patterson, de Voogt and Sapiains, 2019).

<div id="6.4.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="input-driven-institutional-change"></span>
==== 6.4.2.1 Input-Driven Institutional Change ====

<div id="h3-43-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Input-driven institutional change creates incentives to deliver adaptation action. An input view focuses on the intrinsic capacities of a given organisation. Input indicators are often referred to as political capital ( [[#Rosenzweig--2018|Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2018]] ; [[#Diederichs--2016|Diederichs and Roberts, 2016]] ), existing or endogenous resources (Moloney and [[#Fünfgeld--2015|Fünfgeld, 2015]] ; [[#Wamsler--2014|Wamsler and Brink, 2014]] ), or local drivers for adaptation (Dilling et al., 2017). ReResearch conducted across two municipalities in Western Cape, South Africa, showed the importance of a dedicated environmental champion, access to a knowledge base, the availability of resources, political stability and the presence of dense social networks (Pasquini et al., 2015). Research from São Paulo, Brazil, showed how intrinsic political capacities and contextual factors, such as the political ideology of elected officials, shaped opportunities for embedding adaptation into ongoing urban agendas (Di Giulio et al., 2018).

Networks, interactions and actor coalitions shape options for institutional change. [[#Aylett--2015|Aylett (2015)]] noted the importance of internal networks between municipal departments, including informal communication channels, cultivating personal contacts and trust between the person or team responsible for climate planning and staff within other local government agencies. Internal networks can facilitate the commitment of local elected officials ( [[#Hughes--2015|Hughes, 2015]] ), support higher municipal expenditures per capita and foster perceptions that climate adaptation is needed (Shi, Chu and Debats, 2015). Collective decision-making can integrate multiple types of information with moral concerns and provide key rationales that enable adaptation action ( [[#Carlson--2015|Carlson and McCormick, 2015]] ). In urban areas in Africa, research on internal networks has also investigated how informal arrangements shape action possibilities (Satterthwaite et al., 2020). For example, in Zimbabwe, informal, traditional and civil society institutions are core arenas for issue discussion because of lower public sector capacities (Mubaya and Mafongoya, 2017). In Durban, South Africa, local governments rely considerably on shadow systems and informal spaces of information and knowledge exchange across their operations to introduce and sustain new ideas ( [[#Leck--2015|Leck and Roberts, 2015]] ). In the metropolitan area of Styria, Austria, informal cooperation has supported the development of rural–urban partnerships for the formulation of common goals (Oedl-Wieser et al., 2020). In Arkansas, USA, informal governance structures support planning to manage wildfires (Miller, Vos and Lindquist, 2017).

Cities can leverage input-driven institutional change even without national support for climate change adaptation or mitigation. For example, where cities have defined policymaking and budget raising powers, city level political leadership can support adaptation action going beyond national policy (Hamin, Gurran and Emlinger, 2014; Shi, Chu and Debats, 2015; [[#Carlson--2015|Carlson and McCormick, 2015]] ). Examples include the Surat Climate Change Trust in Surat, India ( [[#Chu--2016|Chu, 2016]] ) and Initiative for Urban Climate Change and Environment in Semarang, Indonesia ( [[#Taylor--2015|Taylor and Lassa, 2015]] ). In Saint Louis, Senegal, support from national and state-level actors enabled local institutional change (Vedeld et al., 2016). Processual levers may be also mobilised in situations of political instability (which disrupts patterns in champions and networks), clientelism (which can cause environmental projects to be discontinued) (Pasquini et al., 2015) or in contexts where there are high political and socioeconomic inequalities (Harris, Chu and Ziervogel, 2018; Chu, Anguelovski and Carmin, 2016).

<div id="6.4.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="output-driven-institutional-change"></span>
==== 6.4.2.2 Output-Driven Institutional Change ====

<div id="h3-44-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Output-driven institutional change is shaped by organisational products such as strategies, plans, policies and evaluative metrics ( [[#Patterson--2019|Patterson and Huitema, 2019]] ; [[#Bellinson--2019|Bellinson and Chu, 2019]] ) (See Table 6.8). There are numerous examples of institutional change through planning outcomes. For example, Manizales, Colombia has included climate adaptation into long-established environmental policy (Biomanizales) and a local environmental action plan (Bioplan), which follows on from a long coherent trajectory of climate change policy (Hardoy and Velásquez Barrero, 2014). A significant number of North American cities have integrated adaptation into long-range plans, while fewer cities integrate adaptation in sustainable development plans or sectoral plans ( [[#Aylett--2015|Aylett, 2015]] ). Canadian cities are more likely to have a plan specifically focused on adaptation rather than having adaptation integrated into municipal long-range planning ( [[#Aylett--2015|Aylett, 2015]] ). In the European Union, adaptation plans depended on national climate legislation or, in fewer cases, the influence of an international climate network (Reckien et al., 2018b). A comparative report from the Covenant of Mayors, however, suggests that the adaptation pillar needs development to demonstrate the effectiveness of adaptation responses and their integration with mitigation goals (Bertoldi et al., 2020). Municipalities in Sweden have been called ‘pre-reactive’ because adequate strategic guidelines are in place to frame the accessibility, aesthetics and adaptability of waterfront developments ( [[#Storbjörk--2015|Storbjörk and Uggla, 2015]] ). Some Asian cities also report high output effectiveness, where they are more likely to indicate senior local government officials’ performance management contracts, the budgeting procedures of local government agencies and the procedures that local government agencies use for budgeting infrastructure spending ( [[#Aylett--2015|Aylett, 2015]] ). Despite this evidence, there is a gap in understanding the general trends of planning and institutional change in Africa, Asia, East Europe and the Middle East.

Institutional change processes are complex, contested and sporadic (Patterson, de Voogt and Sapiains, 2019). Such processes are often inhibited by unclear planning mandates, conflicting development priorities, lack of leadership and resource and capacity shortfalls (Anguelovski et al. 2014). There is no one size fits all approach to institutional change, which works ''in situ'' , and benefits from clearly defined plans and an incremental approach to revising new elements and addressing gaps or failures ( [[#Beunen--2017|Beunen et al., 2017]] ). A longitudinal view of institutional change allows for assessing actors and dynamics involved in integrating adaptation into the sectoral agendas or governance arrangements mentioned above ( [[#Patterson--2019|Patterson and Huitema, 2019]] ).

'''Table 6.8 |''' Examples of institutional and policy instruments to enable adaptation

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Objective

! Type of instrument

! Description

! Examples

! Assessment

|-
| rowspan="4"| Policy

| Information instruments

| A diverse range of activities such as training, research and development, and awareness campaigns to produce and share information

| Urban-LEDS II Capacity Building Workshop for cities in Laos arranged for local government by ICLEI Southeast Asia Secretariat and UN-Habitat (UN-Habitat, 2019)

| Information instruments tend to be low-cost and low-risk options, but their impact is unpredictable and the effects may be uneven ( [[#Henstra--2016|Henstra, 2016]] ). In the example of the workshops in Laos (UN-Habitat, 2019), the result was to map vulnerable sectors and build capacity for mainstreaming

|-
| Voluntary instruments

| Practices such as codes, labelling, management standards or audits, voluntarily, that can provide incentives for adaptation

| Singapore’s National Water Agency’s Voluntary Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (Voluntary WELS) ( [[#Tortajada--2013|Tortajada and Joshi, 2013]] )

| A problem with voluntary instruments is that implementation varies. Uptake is likely to be more common among organisations self-identifying as ‘champions’ and less effective among other actors to bring about far-reaching change (Haug et al., 2010)

|-
| Economic instruments

| Taxes or subsidies can be used to promote adaptive activities

| US Office for Coastal Management NOAA Coastal Resilience Grants Program ( [[#NOOA--2019|NOOA, 2019]] )

| Economic incentives can be effective as they ‘engage local stakeholders and provide price signals that stimulate individual adaptation’ ( [[#Filatova--2014|Filatova, 2014]] ). However, uptake of incentives may be low (Sadink, 2013; [[#Henstra--2016|Henstra, 2016]] ) and resource intensiveness and potential regressive effects (equity impacts) must be considered ( [[#Henstra--2016|Henstra, 2016]] )

|-
| Regulatory instruments

| These include a range of mandatory requirements through controls, bans, quotas, licensing, standards often applied when a specific outcome is required

| Building codes to enhance structural stability for storm resilience in Moore, Oklahoma (US) (Ramseyer, Holliday and Floyd, 2016)

| Regulatory instruments can be effective in changing and institutionalising adaptation behaviours (Nilsson, Gerger Swartling and Eckerberg, 2012; [[#Henstra--2016|Henstra, 2016]] ), but outcomes depend on the strength of implementation (e.g., monitoring, transparency, mechanisms for accountability)

|-
| rowspan="3"| Process

| Visioning

| Events that bring together different stakeholders to produce a city vision

| Rotterdam Resilient City participatory processes to create resilience strategies (Resilient Rotterdam, 2016)

| There may be challenges in translating complex climate science into understandable and meaningful forms (Sheppard et al., 2011) and creating inclusive processes that allow for co-creation of visions, for example, by involving new digital platforms ( [[#Baibarac--2019|Baibarac and Petrescu, 2019]] )

|-
| Baseline studies

| Focus on understanding the current conditions in a neighbourhood or city from an interdisciplinary perspective

| ''Flood Risks, Climate''

''Change Impacts''

''and Adaptation Benefits''

''in Mumbai,'' an OECD assessment study (Hallegatte, Ranger and Bhattacharya, 2010)

| Baseline studies can be mobilised to track the progress of adaptation actions in multiple sectors over time. In the example of the study in Mumbai (Hallegatte, Ranger and Bhattacharya, 2010), the analysis includes different climate scenarios and quantification of how adaptation could reduce economic loss

|-
| Development priorities

| Specific methods to ensure an open definition of multiple priorities and contrasting values that will inform the planning process

| Participatory housing upgrading through the Baan Mankong Program in Bangkok (Thailand) (Berquist, Daniere and Drummond, 2015)

| Participatory planning can help navigate which action to take to build resilience and, at the same time address prioritised social concerns (Cloutier et al., 2015). As with all participatory processes, issues of recognition, access/inclusion and potential capture of the process by actors in power must be considered

|-
| rowspan="4"| Planning

| Profiles

| Develop a common understanding of how different sectors interact with adaptation and the governance capacity

| New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019 Report (Nycpcc, 2019)

| As with baseline studies, the development of profiles can inform plans for adaptation action, which considers social priorities and synergies across various sectors. Multiple forms of knowledge should be considered in the development of profiles (Codjoe, Owusu and Burkett, 2014)

|-
| Risk assessment

| This includes a range of instruments to evaluate the impact of risk

| Climate risk assessment for Buenos Aires, conducted by the World Bank (Mehrota et al., 2009)

| Risk assessments can be a useful starting point for adaptation. However, assessments do not directly prescribe adaptation options but must be seen as the basis for debate (Yuen, Jovicich and Preston, 2013). A common challenge is a lack of data at the city level (Maragno, Dalla Fontana and Musco, 2020; Cloutier et al., 2015)

|-
| Impact assessment tools

| Tools such as strategic impact assessments or sustainability assessments provide a means to assess the impact of specific policies and programmes concerning adaptive capacity

| Economic Impact Assessment

of Climate Change in Key

Sectors in Nepal ( [[#Government%20of%20Nepal--2014|Government of Nepal, 2014]] )

| Embedding climate risks into impact assessment tools (either mandatory or voluntary) builds resilience by integrating climate objectives into plans and specific projects ( [[#Richardson--2012|Richardson and Otero, 2012]] ), and they are seen as a legitimate tool in many contexts ( [[#Runhaar--2016|Runhaar, 2016]] )

|-
| Monitoring systems and indicators

| Systems to take measurements at regular intervals to specify progress against objectives and revise the planning process

| Climate Change Adaptation Indicators for London ( [[#London%20climate%20change%20partnership--2018|London climate change partnership, 2018]] )

| Monitoring systems are essential to make sure that formal objectives are met. However, many urban climate adaptations do not have monitoring and evaluation components ( [[#Woodruff--2016|Woodruff and Stults, 2016]] ) and there is no standard set of indicators to monitor adaptation or resilience (Brown, Shaker and Das, 2018; [[#Ford--2016|Ford and Berrang-Ford, 2016]] )

|-
| Management

| Budgets and audits

| Methods for the periodic revision of adaptation plans and policies

| Helsinki metropolitan area climate change adaptation monitoring strategy ( [[#HSY--2018|HSY, 2018]] )

| As with monitoring, budgets and audits can be incorporated into the adaptation planning process to ensure reflexivity and accountability. Low levels of implementation and monitoring of adaptation plans suggest that the uptake may be low (although the evidence is limited)

|}

<div id="6.4.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="solution-spaces-to-address-the-policy-action-gap"></span>