1
Introduction
Addressing climate change requires an “unprecedented level of cooperation, not only
between countries, but also between different levels of Governments and the private
sector” (De Boer, 2009, p. 1). The city is an increasingly important site for climate
response. While there remains much dispute about the exact contribution that cities
make to GHG emissions (Dodman, 2009), and about who and what is most vulnerable to
the effects of climate change (De Sherbinin et al., 2007), urban centres are now regarded
as a vital part of the global response to climate change (UN-Habitat, 2011; World-Bank,
2010).
While recognition of urban responses to climate change at the international policy
level has been relatively recent, a burgeoning research community has studied the
relationships between cities and climate change. Since the mid-1990s, research has
focused on municipal strategies, policies and measures, and the challenges that municipal
authorities face in terms of policy implementation and effectiveness. This body of
work, mainly developed with case-study methods, has yielded numerous insights including:
the multiple modes of governing through which municipalities seek to govern climate
change; the importance of institutional capacity, including resources, knowledge and
organisational structures; the critical role of individuals, political champions and
policy entrepreneurs; and how multi-level governance structures opportunities and
limits for municipal action (see Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007; Bulkeley, 2010; Schreurs,
2008 for recent reviews). However, this work also has limitations to understand how,
why and with what implications urban responses to climate change are taking place.
The first issue concerns the type of studies and cities studied. Research has mainly
focused on generating rich data about either individual case studies or small sets
of cities. Such approaches, combined with a focus on early city pioneers and members
of specific transnational municipal networks, have created a geographical bias towards
cities in more economically developed countries, predominantly the US, Canada, Europe
and Australia (e.g. Allman et al., 2004; Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003; Bulkeley and
Kern, 2006; Davies, 2005; Kousky and Schneider, 2003; Lindseth, 2004), although there
are now an increasing number of cases in Asia and Latin America (Bai, 2007; Dhakal,
2006; Holgate, 2007; Ranger et al., 2011; Romero Lankao, 2007). Moreover, research
has primarily focused on mitigation, rather than adaptation (see recent exceptions
Hallegatte and Corfee-Morlot, 2011; Hunt and Watkiss, 2011; Romero-Lankao and Dodman,
2011; Romero Lankao, 2007; Satterthwaite et al., 2009). Fewer studies have sought
to undertake systematic comparison between cases, or have employed quantitative methodologies.
Where these exist, analysis has focused on whether particular urban characteristics
explain the emergence of particular kinds of policy response within cities in more
developed economies (e.g. Krause, 2011; Pitt and Randolph, 2009; Zahran et al., 2008).
Overall, our understanding of urban responses to climate change is largely derived
from case-study work, focused on cities in more developed economies and mitigation
responses.
A second limitation has been the predominant concern with understanding the role of
local authorities in shaping urban responses. The literature on global environmental
governance now makes clear that non-state actors (corporations, NGOs, international
foundations, community groups) are increasingly involved in responding to climate
change (Bulkeley and Newell, 2010). Moreover, the boundaries between the public and
private actors are increasingly blurred, as private organisations take on roles traditionally
regarded as the province of the state, while public authorities are engaged in forms
of activity often regarded as a private domain, such as intervening in carbon markets
or promoting the energy economy. These coupled issues – the growing roles of private
actors in responding to climate change and the blurring of the public/private boundary
– mean that it is no longer sufficient to regard urban responses to climate change
as a matter for municipalities alone.
A third limitation to our current understanding of urban responses to climate change
is the analytical focus on the processes of agenda setting and policy-making, the
development of plans and strategies and the selection of specific measures in different
contexts. Less attention has been paid to responses to climate change taking place
outside of formalised policy channels, constraining our knowledge of these interventions.
A fuller understanding of urban responses to climate change will require new forms
of case-study and comparative research that consider a more geographically diverse
range of cities together with the range of urban actors involved in such responses,
and capture initiatives and interventions falling outside of formal processes of planning
and policy. In this paper, we discuss the results from one methodological approach
– a survey of the climate change initiatives or experiments taking place in 100 cities
– designed to further this agenda. Despite the acknowledgement that there remains
a ‘stubborn gap’ between the rhetoric and reality of local climate policy and its
implementation (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007), urban landscapes are littered with examples
of actions being taken under the banner of climate change. Our approach examines these
initiatives, which we term ‘climate change experiments’.
The concept ‘climate change experiment’ (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2012) is based
on insights from literatures on governance experiments (Hoffman, 2011), the role of
niches and grassroots innovations in socio-technical regimes (Geels et al., 2011),
and the notion of ‘urban laboratories’ (Evans, 2011) that point to the ways in which
experimentation forms part of the governance and contestation of socio-technical systems.
We define urban climate change experiments according to three criteria which build
upon these perspectives: first, an intervention is experimental when it is purposive
and strategic but explicitly seeks to capture new forms of learning or experience;
second, an intervention is a climate change experiment where the purpose is to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases (mitigation) and/or vulnerabilities to climate change
impacts (adaptation); third, a climate change experiment is urban when it is delivered
by or in the name of an existing or imagined urban community. Climate change experiments
are presented here as interventions to try out new ideas and methods in the context
of future uncertainties. They serve to understand how interventions work in practice,
in new contexts where they are thought of as innovative.
The objective of the research was to understand the extent and diversity of climate
change experimentation both in the global north and the global south adopting a comparative
approach to capture the extent and diversity of urban climate change experiments.
The analysis considered: when and where urban climate change experiments emerge; what
types of urban climate change experiments we find and what are their characteristics;
and who leads these experiments and what mechanisms make them possible. Results suggest
that experimentation is a feature of urban responses to climate change across different
world regions and multiple sectors but it does not appear to be related to particular
kinds of urban economic and social condition. Some core features of experimentation
are visible. Experimentation, like other forms of urban climate change response, tends
to focus on energy. Both social and technical forms of experimentation are emerging,
though the latter is most common and dominates the urban infrastructure systems within
which experimentation is most common. Municipalities have a critical role in experimentation,
though analysis also reveals the wide variety of forms of partnership through which
experimentation is taking place and that are arguably opening up new political spaces
for governing climate change in the city.
2
Methodology
The construction of the database involved surveying 100 cities using secondary materials,
and the systematic storage of information to facilitate the analysis. The construction
of the database involved a selection of cities, database design, data collection and
analysis.
2.1
Selection of cities
In academic discourse, ‘global city’ refers to cities that are important nodes within
the global economic system (Sassen, 1991), but colloquially it also refers to cities
that have significance because of their size and concentration of population, or political
significance. The sample in this research was designed to represent a sample of a
heterogeneous group of cities in all parts of the world with clear significance in
terms of contributions to greenhouse gases and concentration of vulnerabilities to
climate change, using six indicators: Total Population and Density indicate the extent
to which exposure to climate vulnerabilities may be concentrated in the urban arena
and the potential total GHG emissions from any one city or urban area. Indicators
of economic activity were used as a proxy to reflect the overall contribution to GHG
emissions, including gross domestic product and a ‘world city’ indicator to characterise
cities that have an established role in international economic networks providing
global service centres and graded for accountancy, advertising, banking/finance and
law (Beaverstock et al., 1999). Two other indicators were introduced, one to select
all cities which actively participate in the C40 Climate Leadership Group, and another
to highlight cities with specific vulnerabilities to climate change, including, port
cities, cities vulnerable to sea level rise (Nicholls et al., 2008; UN-HABITAT, 2008)
and cities vulnerable to glacier changes (Stern et al., 2006). Data was obtained from
the City Mayors website (City Mayors, 2012). Six hundred and fifty cities were ranked
according to the indicators, and all ranks were added to establish a compound measure
for each city. The final sample included the top one hundred cities, which scored
relatively high in all indicators, but with clear variation among the cities for all
indicators (Tables 1 and 2).
2.2
Database design
Each record in the database corresponds to a discrete urban climate change experiment.
Following previous comparative research about municipal responses to climate change
in eight cities (Bulkeley et al., 2009; World-Bank, 2010) the database was divided
in six sheets, one for each of five key sectors of climate change mitigation (urban
infrastructure, built environment, transport, carbon sequestration and urban form)
and one for adaptation experiments (see Table 3).
Analytical categories recorded in each record cover: (1) where and when urban climate
change experiments occur; (2) what are these experiments how are they developed and
(3) who leads initiatives and how they are governed (Table 4).
Indicators of where and when urban climate change experimentation occurs provide a
sense of the context in which these initiatives occur. Each initiative was dated in
relation to the approval of the Kyoto protocol in 1997 and its ratification in 2005.
Recording specific types of innovation was a means to check that the initiative met
the definition of experiment and provided a ground for comparison, as experiments
reflected attempts to develop technological innovations (designs, technologies, materials),
social innovations (policy tools, financial mechanisms, changes to cultural norms)
or both. The form of innovation was a better indicator than the factors which made
the experiment possible, because while the form of innovation was always reported,
the factors leading to the experiment were not always explicit or were only found
in secondary sources. For each sector the database included specific aspects of the
system of provision in which the experiment intervened (see Table 3) and the specific
service which was met.
The design follows an understanding of governance as a multi-level and multi-actor
process. The database captured the experiment leading actors, but also recorded separately
the partnerships that made the experiment possible. The information regarding funding
mechanisms and costs was very fragmentary. Modes of governance were also recorded.
A mode of governance is a set of tools and technologies deployed through particular
institutional relations through which agents seek to reconfigure the specific social
and technical relations with a specific governing purpose (Bulkeley and Kern, 2006),
in this case, to address climate change. Municipalities can deploy four modes of governance
including: (1) self-governing, intervening in the management of local authority operations
to “lead by example”; (2) provision, greening infrastructure and consumer services
provided by different authorities; (3) regulations, enforcing new laws, planning regulations,
building codes, etc.; and (4) enabling, supporting initiatives led by other actors
through information and resource provision and partnerships (Bulkeley and Kern, 2006).
Given that climate change action requires coordination of mutually dependent actions
beyond public institutions (Bulkeley et al., 2009; Kern and Alber, 2008), this concept
was extended to non-governmental actors leading climate change experiments.
2.3
Data collection methods
Information on experiments was collected through three main means: review of key literature;
consultation with climate change experts; and Internet searches. Interviews with individuals
at the International Institute of Environmental Development, the Building and Social
Housing Foundation (including access to their large database of innovation projects
in housing worldwide) and urban experts at the World Bank provided examples of experimental
initiatives which are considered to be leading worldwide. Internet searches looked
systematically through the websites of local, regional and national governments and
private and civil society organisations, news items and reports for each city in turn.
Additional data was obtained from the Clean Development Mechanism database (UNFCCC,
2012). The search looked beyond recognised examples of best-practice and recorded
as many instances of experimentation as possible in an allotted amount of time. The
archival system included a folder per city with a city-specific summary of the main
climate change activities, a list of experiments recorded in the database and a collection
of data sources backing the information provided in the database records.
The data was compiled from June 2009 to June 2010, with a revision and update of data
in December 2010. The predominant use of Internet data sources had some limitations
because it relied in self-reported data. Self-reported data may focus on making the
experiment rather than its implementation in practice and it is more likely to report
successes than difficulties and failures. Moreover, many interesting experiments may
not be reported on the Internet or may be inaccessible to standard search engines.
Overall, there were practical limitations in terms of the time dedicated to each city
(we dedicated in average 2 days per city but included additional time for cities where
less information was available) and the languages covered (the database included initiatives
reported in Portuguese, Spanish, English, French, Italian and German but crucially,
not those in key languages such as Chinese and Russian). Thus, the database should
not be regarded as comprehensive, but rather, as providing an indicative account of
the emergence of climate change experimentation in these cities.
2.4
Analysis of database results
To facilitate the statistical analysis, we re-coded numeric dates in reference to
the approval and ratification of the Kyoto protocol; the type of innovation to register
whether the experiment included technological innovation, social innovation or both;
the schemes used, focusing on the interventions on energy systems and whether the
experiment was directed at producers (energy generation and transmission measures)
or at consumers (demand side measures); and the type of actors as public, including
local government, regional government, national government, international organisation,
private and civil society organisations, including non-governmental organisations
(or charities) and community-based organisations. Variables for which information
was incomplete or unconfirmed were excluded.
We also used the city-based variables (see Table 2) and a variable registering cities’
membership to the following transnational municipal networks:
•
ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability, an association of over 1200 local governments
working for sustainability which work together since 1990.
•
Cities for Climate Protection, an affiliate programme of ICLEI in which cities commit
to concrete actions for carbon reduction.
•
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40), a network of cities created in 2005 by
the London Mayor and the Clinton Foundation's climate change initiative.
The analysis examined: (1) where and when urban climate change experiments occur;
(2) what are these experiments how are they developed and (3) who leads initiatives
and how they are governed. Variable comparison used either linear regression or correlation
statistics in the case of categorical variables.
This approach advances and complements existing studies because it develops a large-n
sample, in contrast to case-study work; it works with a variety of urban contexts,
north and south, unlike previous survey-based analyses focused on one national context;
and it focuses on climate change experiments, rather than plans and policies. The
limitations of the study are in terms of sacrificing breadth for depth, both in understanding
each experiment and exploring richer data that emerge from research in specific locations.
3
Results and discussion
The results concern three main questions: (1) where and when these experiments occur;
(2) what types of interventions are emerging as climate change experiments and the
extent to which we can identify some common trends and characteristics; and (3) who
leads the experiments and what governance mechanisms make them possible.
3.1
Where and when do these experiments emerge?
Most experiments in the database, that is 79% of them (495 experiments) started after
2005, that is, after Kyoto was ratified. Only 5% of initiatives started before its
initial adoption in 1997. This is not necessarily an indication that international
agreements have direct impact in fostering climate change experimentation, but rather,
that international climate change governance efforts correspond with an increasing
interest on climate change in the collective imaginations of urban actors. Climate
change has gained more visibility in the city at the same time as the agreements took
place (Hoffman, 2011).
The observed frequency of experiments in all world regions is a function of the distribution
of cities in the sample (Fig. 1), an observation confirmed by the statistical correlation
test. This suggests that urban climate change experiments are not necessarily confined
to certain world regions, such as, Europe and North America.
We also examined the association between urban climate change experiments in “more
developed”, “less developed” and “least developed” nations (UN, 2010). The distribution
of experiments is similar to the distribution of cities in world regions, with 8 experiments
in cities in least developed regions (2%), 291 (46%) in less developed ones and 328
(52%) in more developed regions. The statistical correlation test confirms that the
distribution of the sample of experiments is a function of the selection of cities,
supporting the conclusion that urban climate change experimentation is not confined
to any regions of the world.
The analysis also looked into what urban characteristics predict the emergence of
experiments. The total number of experiments found in each city was taken as the dependent
variable, and independent variables included those whose data was compiled during
the selection of cities (Total Population, Total GDP, World City Rank and Density
and adding Total Land Area, GDP per capita and Annual Population Growth). We applied
a linear regression model using different combinations of variables, from one up to
seven. The best goodness of fit model was a model that included the seven variables,
but the statistics for the model suggest that the predictive value of the model is
limited. Whether a city is richer, or more populated or denser does not predict accurately
whether we are more likely to find more experiments in such a city.
An alternative hypothesis is that experiments as more likely in cities involved in
transnational municipal networks, an important institutional arrangement through which
climate change is governed (Kern and Bulkeley, 2009). Belonging to a network often
requires taking certain forms of action, from plans to direct commitments, to reduce
emissions or improve adaptation. The test evaluated to what extent the number of experiments
in a city (dependent variable) could be explained by whether or not a city belonged
to any of these networks. An independent variable was defined by whether or not a
city belonged to transnational municipal networks. When we considered this variable
together with the seven variables described above it improved the goodness of fit
of the overall model, suggesting that this influences whether urban climate change
experimentation is likely to occur and/or be more visible (although this comment should
be taken with caution, considering that the model only explains 63% of observed values).
The analysis of correlation between variables shows that the variable of whether or
not the city belongs to a city network has a stronger association with the number
of experiments in each city than any of the other variables described above. The importance
of transnational municipal networks confirms the findings of case studies of urban
climate governance. For example, London's prominent role as a site of experimentation
(Hodson and Marvin, 2007; Bulkeley et al., 2012) has been supported by its active
role in the C40 network. Yet, urban climate change experimentation goes beyond international
policy initiatives, size and concentration of resources or population. Understanding
the drivers and nature of urban climate change experimentation requires a more fine
grained analysis, including looking into the kind of experimentation that occurs and
how it is governed, the two issues that are analysed in turn in the following two
sections.
3.2
What types of climate change experiments can we find and what are their characteristics?
Most experiments are in the sectors urban infrastructure (31.1%), built environment
(24.7%), and transport (18.8%). Adaptation experiments only account for 12.1% of the
initiatives (Fig. 2).
Adaptation initiatives may be less represented in the database because they have less
visibility as experiments than those concerned with mitigation. Adaptation initiatives
focus on taking anticipatory action to deal with future climate risks. Different areas
of intervention for climate change adaption include protection (e.g. vulnerability
assessment, capacity building and risk reduction measures); pre-disaster damage limitation
(e.g. early-warning systems and community-based disaster preparedness and response
plans); immediate post-disaster responses (rapid infrastructure restoration); and
rebuilding (Moser and Satterthwaite, 2008). However, adaptation is often regarded
as a transversal issue to be considered in most operations and not always differentiated
from on-going development efforts or disaster management programmes (Satterthwaite
et al., 2009). Because many adaptation initiatives are not necessarily taken purposively
in the name of climate change, they are therefore missing from our definition of climate
change experiments.
Urban climate change experiments concentrate in urban infrastructure despite the difficulties
inherent to manage infrastructures at the local level. Built environment and transport
experiments are frequent in cities in the South were rapid population growth in peri-urban
areas has led to raising demands for housing and transport (Allen, 2003). Less frequent
are urban form and carbon sequestration experiments. In the case of urban form, one
possible explanation is that there are still few practical examples of how to address
mitigation through planning (but see Davoudi et al., 2009). The absence of carbon
sequestration experiments highlights that either cities lack land resources to implement
large carbon sequestration programmes or urban greening programmes are developed with
independence of concerns with climate change mitigation.
Fig. 3 provides an overview of the relative frequency of experiments in each sector
in the different world regions considered above. The graph shows that although experiments
in all sectors were found in every region, certain sectors appear to predominate in
some areas. For example, in Asia, the data suggest that urban infrastructure experiments
are more frequent. Transport projects are more popular in Central and South America,
reflecting the regional impact of flagship transport experiences in Curitiba (Brazil)
and Bogotá (Colombia) (Arup, 2011).
Table 5 presents demonstrates the association between sectors, time periods and regions.
As experiments concentrate in the last period since the ratification of the Kyoto
protocol, the subsequent hypothesis is whether this is reflected in the growth of
experimentation across sectors. The statistical test of independence suggests that
there is no association between the sector and the time of occurrence.
The second half of the table shows the total number of experiments in each sector
in either less or more developed regions, to explore the association between the sector
of urban climate change experimentation and different levels of development. Because
of the distribution of the data, least developed and less developed regions were grouped
together (least developed regions are defined as a subset of less developed ones,
see UN, 2010). The test shows a weak association between the sectors and the regional
distribution of experiments. Tests of association between specific regions and specific
sectors suggest that while in most regions experiments are likely to emerge in any
sector, in Asia, particularly, there is a predominance of urban infrastructure experiments.
While it may be tentatively argued that the rapid processes of urbanization taking
place in this region provide some degree of explanation for these findings, further
research is needed to understand the broader drive in Asia towards this sector, and
in particular, examining the flows of capital invested in large scale low carbon infrastructure.
Urban climate change experiments are socio-technical because they purposively attempt
to change the material arrangements and the cultures, norms and conventions that determine
collective GHGs emissions and climate-related vulnerabilities in the city (Bulkeley
et al., 2011). For example, a survey of climate change plans in 30 cities worldwide
identified the most common mitigation measures in transport (Wagner, 2009) including
examples of experiments such as the congestion charge in London or the experimentation
with new ideas about the provision of transport in the city or the use of alternative
fuels in other European cities (see e.g. Bertaud et al., 2009; Leape, 2006; Prud’homme
and Bocarejo, 2005).
Experiments challenge the technical basis of GHGs emissions, the social practices
that produce them or both. Technical forms of innovation were more prevalent in the
database, in 76% of all experiments (Table 6). Technical innovation was frequent in
all sectors, especially in urban infrastructure, where 88% of interventions had a
technical innovation component, but less frequent in carbon sequestration (40% of
initiatives) and adaptation (60%). Social innovation was present in half of all the
initiatives (50%). It was most frequent in carbon sequestration (60%) and urban form
(64%) and most rare in urban infrastructure (39%). Is the type of innovation independent
of the sector of intervention?
The test of independence between variables suggests that although social and technical
innovations emerge in all sectors, technical innovation is more likely in urban infrastructure
experiments, while social innovation is more likely in adaptation, carbon sequestration
and urban form experiments. Built environment experiments favour interventions that
combine both social and technical innovation. In transport experiments neither type
is more prevalent.
Because of the strong links between energy use and GHGs emissions, urban climate change
action has mostly focused in measures to optimise energy production, distribution
and consumption. A study for the World Bank of climate change action in eight cities
found that energy efficiency issues dominate the local agenda in climate change mitigation
(Bulkeley et al., 2009). Improving the efficiency of appliances and designs is often
coupled with behavioural measures to reduce energy demand (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007).
The extent to which initiatives in these sectors focus on reconfiguring energy systems
is reflected in Table 7. The majority of interventions in the built environment and
urban infrastructure systems were explicitly concerned with intervening in the energy
system (74.8% of initiatives in the built environment and 77.6% of initiatives in
urban infrastructure). Energy related initiatives were less frequent in urban form
interventions (only 9 initiatives). This confirms a common observation among local
policy-makers (for example those involved in the well-known Climate Change Action
Plan in Mexico City), about the lack of means to put into practice low carbon planning
principles to address issues of density and urban form and the resulting emphasis
on punctual projects in infrastructure and the built environment (Castán Broto, 2011).
Analyses of energy systems often tend to focus in the consumption or demand side,
looking at energy end uses, and a production or supply side, looking at the generation
and distribution of energy (RaEng, 2010). Table 7, an analysis of a sub-set of 281
experiments whose major objective is to intervene in energy systems, shows that most
experiments in the database seek to intervene in energy consumption processes, although
there is a trend towards new systems of energy production and generation in urban
infrastructure, confirmed by the independence test. Since perceived size of investment
and restructuring needed to develop a systemic change is a barrier to production-oriented
interventions (RaEng, 2010), the emphasis on demand-side interventions may reflect
greater possibilities to intervene in a distributed manner.
Overall, experiments constitute strategies to open up new forms of intervention in
different urban spaces. Who has capacity and authority to intervene leading and participating
in urban climate change experiments is the broader question of governance to which
the following section turns.
3.3
Who leads these experiments and what mechanisms made them possible?
The analysis explored three aspects of urban climate change governance: the actors
who lead action; the increased relevance of partnerships as a form of governance;
the deployment of specific governance mechanisms, or modes of governance; and the
extent to which environmental justice was a facet of experiments.
Fig. 4 shows that, in line with previously gathered evidence through case-study research,
local governments have a prominent role in leading 66% of urban climate change experiments.
However, the data also reveal that, alongside city governments, other actors may be
playing a key role in climate change experimentation such as private and civil society
actors.
Table 8 shows that actors are not confined to certain regions and there is variation
in how actors operate. Using independence tests for each pair of values we established
that, while in most cases the presence of an actor leading the experiment is independent
from the region of operation, the tests of independence support the observation than
private actors predominate in Asia, while other actors, especially civil society actors,
lead fewer experiments than expected in that region. The predominance of private actors
in Asia may be related to the rapid growth that has made capital available for climate
change experiments, especially in infrastructure (see above). Private actors emerge
as more likely to operate in capital-intensive sectors such as urban infrastructure
while other actors do not have strong associations with any specific sector.
Partnerships are important for local governments because they extend the operation
of the state through facilitating further action by other actors (Kern and Bulkeley,
2009). Beyond the local government, partnerships are generally considered a key tool
for capacity building (Eakin and Lemos, 2006) and building consensus (Newman et al.,
2009). In the database, 296 experiments (47%) involved some form of formally recognised
partnership between actors at different governance levels, whether this is in terms
of vertical governance (e.g. partnerships between local, regional and national governments)
or horizontal (e.g. partnerships between governments, civil society organisations
and private actors). When considering participation, rather than leadership, multiple
actors gain prominence (Fig. 5).
Table 9 shows that the most common forms of partnership are those in which the local
government leads with either private actors (112 experiments) or civil society actors
(44 experiments). Local governments operate outside partnership more often than expected
(in 239 experiments) whereas for other actors the frequency of operating in partnership
is higher than expected. Civil society organisations often lead initiatives enrolling
local governments as partners. This highlights that government support may be important
in achieving projects led by civil society organisations, both in terms of providing
resources and institutional support. Another significant trend is that private actors
are able to draw partnerships with other private actors, for example, in partnerships
between service delivery and financial organisations to make low carbon infrastructure
projects possible.
Analysis of modes of governance throws further light in terms of how the governance
of climate change is being performed. This theory was originally developed with reference
to municipal organisations (Bulkeley and Kern, 2006; Bulkeley et al., 2009). So far,
our results suggest that the realm of authority is being blurred both because of the
prominence of partnerships and the increasing importance of non-governmental actors
in areas traditionally considered as governed by governmental actors (Table 10). Tests
of independence show strong association of the modes of governance with the leading
actors and the emergence of partnerships. Partnership makes enabling initiatives more
likely and regulation initiatives less likely (Table 10). Thus, enabling may be a
tool for different actors to built explicit forms of support from other actors as
a means for establishing authority beyond their own realm.
As the social and economic costs of climate change increase, attention is turned towards
the equity implications of collective responses to climate change (Giddens, 2009).
Climate justice debates are often framed in terms of nation-wide inequalities, and
the responsibilities of industrialised countries in producing climate change. However,
when examining the fabric of the city, it appears that the distribution of climate
change responsibilities and vulnerabilities is often parallel to existing patterns
of urban inequality (Satterthwaite, 2008). This raises questions about to what extent
urban climate change experiments are concerned with justice and equity implications.
Environmental justice concerns were found in 154 climate change experiments (24.6%)
and they were more common in urban form, built environment and adaptation.
A second concern is whether certain actors play a key role in advancing justice-related
arguments. The contingency table (Table 11) shows that while both private actors and
civil society organisations considered justice explicitly in their experiments, public
actors were less likely to do so, which is confirmed by the strong association between
the two variables. One explanation for the absence of justice claims in publicly led
experiments is that government actors already operate under the belief of having the
mandate to govern, which includes considerations of legitimacy and social justice,
whereas private and civil society actors may make explicit environmental justice claims
to justify their operations. Broader explanations pointing at the dominance of elites
or the utilitarian approaches embedded in planning cultures should be tested within
specific urban contexts.
4
Conclusion
This paper tracks the rise of urban climate change experimentation as a new means
through which climate governance is conducted. The survey shows that experimentation
has been a growing trend after the Kyoto ratification in 2005 and it is not confined
to specific regions. Its emergence cannot simply be predicted by the general characteristics
of the city (whether this is size, density or wealth) or the city's commitments to
climate change action. Among all the factors considered, the internationalisation
of urban environmental governance through city networks will need closer attention
in further research.
Experimentation involves multiple forms of technical and social innovation. Despite
the diversity of experiments, these do not always challenge established ideas about
the management of resources in the city. For example, in the case of interventions
on energy system there is still a separation between interventions seeking to reconfigure
consumption patterns, mostly in the built environment, and interventions seeking to
transform the systems of energy production. Experiments in energy decentralisation
and in energy production within the household question this divide, but the survey
data suggest that such radical experiments – capable to foster systemic change – coexist
with forms of experimentation that do not fundamentally challenge mainstream ideas
about the production and consumption of energy in the city. Further research is needed
to examine the potential to move from incremental interventions (like the majority
included in this survey) to interventions leading towards systemic change.
While local governments lead the majority of experiments, many other actors intervene
either leading experiments or in partnerships. Partnership emerges as a key feature
in climate change governance. Linked to enabling modes of governance it emphasises
the extension of local forms of authority through the support of initiatives conducted
by non-state actors. Another interesting feature is the inclusion of justice claims
in climate change experiments, especially among private and civil society actors (rather
than local governments), who may need to construct explicitly justifications for their
attempts to govern climate change.
Finally, the analysis throws interesting questions regarding the emergence of a characteristic
form of urban climate change experimentation in Asia. In particular, the analysis
suggests that experiments where private actors intervene in urban infrastructure predominate
in Asia, in contrast to other regions where neither a particular sector nor particular
actors appear to predominate. This new trend of purposive experimentation in climate
change governance in cities in Asia, could be associated with new private-led forms
of urbanism in emerging economies or with different cultural approaches to managing
climate change.
This methodology has allowed, for the first time, a systematic comparison of urban
climate change experiments across 100 cities. The long-term effectiveness of experiments
and their interaction across scales are issues beyond the scope of this analysis to
be addressed with further research. However, alongside case-study based research,
this methodology provides a fruitful avenue to understand urban climate change experimentation
in context. Revealing the underlying drivers in climate change experimentation, factors
hindering action, effectiveness on the ground and impact could be further developed
through additional survey work, focused on specific regions or metropolitan areas.
Overall, the methodology reveals the heterogeneity and ubiquity of climate change
experimentation and traces the opening up of new spaces for climate change governance
in the city.