Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
ClimateKG
Search
Search
English
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-6
(section)
IPCC
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==== 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>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-6
(section)
Add languages
Add topic