Evaluating urban climate policies: A comparative case study of Stockholm and Dublin

(1)

STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY

Department of Economic History and International Relations Master's Thesis in International Relations

Spring Term 2020 Student: Jerker Bohman Supervisor: Elisabeth Corell

Evaluating urban climate policies:

A comparative case study of Stockholm and Dublin

(2)

i

Abstract

Climate change is a collective action problem that has been seen as something that needs a global solution. This has resulted in multilateral agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, which can largely be said to have been unsuccessful so far. This has led to an increased awareness of the potential of cities as being part of the solution. Cities are often seen as key sources of climate change, but also as key sites for climate action. The Paris Agreement needs to be implemented on all political levels to be effective. This makes cities an important site for climate policy implementation. Some scholars of urban climate governance have looked at ways to evaluate climate policies in cities as a way to improve these processes. This study means to contribute to that field. The aim of the study is to evaluate climate policies in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin. This has been done by testing an analytical framework which made it possible to shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and the governance structures in the plans. By doing this it was also possible to identify challenges in using the framework and give suggestions on how the framework can be improved. The study takes the form of a comparative case study of the two cities. Document analysis was used as a method to select and analyse the data and the empirical material consisted of the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin. These are policy documents containing general development plans of the cities. It was concluded that both plans contain both strengths and weaknesses. Examples of strengths are that both plans are well-integrated with activities on the regional and national level, that responsibility for implementation is centralised on the local level, that the plans promote innovation and that the plans are connected to long-term goals and visions. Examples of weaknesses are that neither plan makes use of more hard methods such as regulation, that the Dublin City Plan is not integrated with policy on the global level and that the Stockholm City Plan lacks monitoring systems.

Regarding the analytical framework it was concluded that it can be used to analyse city plans rather than metropolitan plans. By testing the framework it was also possible to identify challenges in using the framework and give suggestions on how to improve it, such as by making some of the key attributes of the plan more widely applicable.

Key words: urban climate governance, cities, climate policy, climate mitigation, climate adaptation, analytical framework, document analysis, comparative case study, Stockholm, Dublin

(3)

ii

1. Introduction

Climate change is one of the greatest threats facing humanity and other species. Rising greenhouse gas emissions are therefore of great concern and climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts are often high on the political agenda in many countries. As a result of this, climate governance, being part of the wider research field of global governance, has grown as a research field over the last decade. Climate governance often takes place on multiple political levels, ranging from the global to the local level, and involves many actors.

Climate change has been described as a collective action problem (Ostrom, 2010, p. 2).

The world’s countries have tried to solve this problem through international negotiations and agreements, which largely can be said to have been unsuccessful. Global climate governance has been well-studied by scholars of international relations. The inaction of nation states has created an increased awareness of the potential of cities as a place of change and implementation of climate policy. Cities sometimes even provide more ambitious climate policy than their national governments. This is not only positive as a response to the inaction of nation states, but also in itself since it is important that multilateral agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, is implemented on all levels, including the local level. If the Paris Agreement is not implemented on all levels it risks being a hollow agreement that results in false promises of nation states that do too little, too late.

Van der Heijden (2019, p. 2) has written about the importance of cities in climate governance. Cities are often seen as key sources of climate change (Bulkeley et al., 2013;

Van der Heijden, 2014; Gupta et al., 2015; Washington, 2015; Solecki et al., 2018). They are the source of 70 percent of global resource consumption and 70 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions (UN DESA, 2016). Cities are therefore an important site of climate governance. Those and other findings have led to an increased number of scholars studying urban climate governance. It is important for scholars of international relations to study climate governance at all levels to understand the multicentric approach that climate governance entails today. By studying climate policies in cities this study contributes to this field.

The importance of cities in implementing climate policy also makes them an important target for scrutiny. Nguyen et al. (2018) have created an analytical framework for evaluating climate change policies in metropolitan plans. They suggest that their framework could be improved by being tested on more cases. This could, according to the authors, help sharpen

(5)

2 the themes and attributes which make up the framework (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 949).

Improving this framework is important since it is the only analytical framework available in the literature that focuses on evaluating climate policies in the development plans of cities.

Improving such frameworks could lead to more effective implementation of climate policy in cities which, as has mentioned above, is an important part of implementing multilateral agreements such as the Paris Agreement.

1.1 Aim, scope and research questions

This study explores on themes related to how implementation of climate policy can be more effective on the local level, such as in cities. One important part of making policy implementation more effective is evaluation. Hence the aim of this study is to evaluate climate policies in the city plans of two cities — Stockholm and Dublin. This is done by testing parts of Nguyen et al.’s analytical framework by applying it to these two cases. Doing this makes it possible to shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and the governance structures in the city plans, as well as identify challenges in using the framework and give suggestions on how it can be improved.

The scope of the study includes testing two themes from the analytical framework — governance and climate policies. Testing these selected themes instead of testing the entire framework gives the study a clear focus and makes it feasible. This choice is more thoroughly discussed in section 2.4. Another choice in terms of scope is that the study tests the framework on city plans rather than on metropolitan plans, which it was originally intended for. The reason for this is that it is important to evaluate climate policies in city plans in addition to metropolitan plans. Studying city plans, which have a narrower scope than metropolitan plans, also adds to the feasibility of the study. This choice, and the differences between city plans and metropolitan plans, is discussed more thoroughly in section 3.2.

The research questions (RQ) that will be answered in this study are the following:

» RQ 1: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and the governance structures in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin and how do these differ from each other?

» RQ 2: What are the challenges in using the analytical framework and how can the framework be improved?

(6)

3

1.2 Theory, method and empirical material

This section gives a brief account of the theory, method and empirical material used in this study. The theoretical foundation of this study mainly consists of Nguyen et al.’s (2008) analytical framework. It consists of five themes (governance, climate policies, distribution, democracy and finance) and a total of 21 key attributes divided among them. Only the governance and climate policies themes are used in this study, which results in the use of eleven key attributes. This framework is based on a conceptual framework created by Gleeson et al. (2004), but with additions from key literature from the field of urban climate governance. To situate the study, and add to the theoretical foundation, a theoretical background is presented in section 2.1.

The study takes the form of a comparative case study of Stockholm and Dublin and the empirical material consists of the city plans of the two cities. They are general plans for development of the city areas. They are official documents published by the city governments and published on their websites. The comparison is meant to work as a springboard for the analysis and might show things that would risk being overlooked in a single-case study. Document analysis is used as a method to select and analyse the data. The city plans will, with the help of the analytical framework, be gone through systematically to find examples of the key attributes of the framework. This will necessitate several close readings of the documents.

Doing this will make it possible to answer the research questions and to evaluate the climate policies in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin, as well as identify challenges in using the analytical framework and give suggestions on how it can be improved.

1.3 Disposition

This section describes the disposition of the rest of the thesis. Section 2 includes the theoretical foundation of the study, including a theoretical background (section 2.1), definitions of key terms (section 2.2), the analytical framework (section 2.3) and a discussion of the theoretical scope of the study (section 2.4). Section 3 includes the method used in the study, including research design (section 3.1), case selection and empirical material (section 3.2.), document analysis (section 3.3), approach and limitations (section 3.4), epistemological and ontological assumptions (section 3.5) and finally ethical considerations (section 3.6).

Section 4 includes the results and discussion, including the results from the Stockholm City Plan (section 4.1), the results from the Dublin City Plan (section 4.2), the comparative

(7)

4 analysis (section 4.3) and ways to improve the framework (section 4.4). Finally, a summary and the conclusions of the study are presented in section 5.

2. Theory

In the following sections the theoretical foundation of the study is presented. This includes a theoretical background, definition of key terms, a presentation of the analytical framework and a discussion of the theoretical scope of the study.

2.1 Theoretical background

As we have seen, climate change has been described as a collective action problem. This has since the 1980s led to many different governance activities on multiple political levels.

Despite these efforts the political response is often seen as being inadequate (Bäckstrand et al., 2015, p. xvii). The early authors on global governance and climate change thought that the only way to solve global problems, such as climate change, were global solutions. They studied international institutional-building, which they called regimes (Krasner, 1983;

Hasenclever et al., 1997). As Lederer (2015, p. 3) explains, this regime-approach was characterised by a strong state-centrism and a belief that environmental problems, such as climate change, could have an institutional solution. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was set up in 1992 and was expanded by the first climate change treaty called the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. These events validated the perspectives of the regime-scholars. It seemed realistic that these processes could lead to a global deal that would lead to effective climate action (Lederer, 2015, p. 3). The Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, often served as an example of a successful international environmental treaty (Parson, 1993). It was hoped that something similar could be done for climate change. Lederer (2015, p. 3) explains that the climate change regime has failed to do that. Instead of decreasing, global greenhouse gas emissions have increased throughout the years. For example there was a 2.2 per cent yearly increase of global greenhouse gas emissions between the years 2000 to 2010, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014, p. 6). As is well known, the Copenhagen Summit in 2009 was a failure and while the Paris Agreement was seen as a success, it has not yet been effective in decreasing global emissions of greenhouse gases. The failure of the climate change regime led to some scholars arguing that we have to move beyond the idea of global governance as the only solution to climate change. These scholars

(8)

5 put trust in states, local governments, networks and individuals instead (Lederer, 2015, p. 5).

One of the things this led to was the emergence of the research field of urban climate governance.

According to Bulkeley (2010, p. 230), urban climate governance research began around the time of the Kyoto Protocol in the mid-1990s (with authors such as Harvey, 1993;

Lambright et al., 1996; Collier, 1997; DeAngelo & Harvey, 1998). These authors mainly looked at cities in the global North and primarily focused on mitigation of climate change rather than adaptation. Betsill and Bulkeley (2007, p. 448) mention several things that were studied during this period. Some scholars looked at the jurisdictional scope of local governments and their ability to influence greenhouse gas emissions (Collier, 1997;

DeAngelo & Harvey, 1998). Others looked at in which sectors local governments can reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Collier, 1997) or which mitigation actions were taken at the local level (Agyeman et al., 1998; Angel et al., 1998). Others looked at how local governments can monitor their progress towards reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions (Easterling et al., 1998; Kates et al., 1998).

Bestill and Bulkeley (2007, p. 448) explain that during the first decade of the millennium it became clear that the international research community recognized the importance of local climate change policy. After that, a number of scholars continued debating how local authorities faced climate change issues and studied processes, drivers and barriers of climate change mitigation efforts at the local level (see for example Ackerman, 2000; Betsill, 2001;

Allman et al., 2004; Davies, 2005; Wilson, 2006; Bulkeley & Kern, 2006). There were three key findings from this decade: 1) climate governance takes place on multiple political levels;

2) knowledge plays an important role in local climate policy; 3) there exists a gap between policy rhetoric and implementation of local climate policy. It was also around this time that adaptation to climate change was beginning to be seen as a critical issue (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2007, p. 448).

During the second decade of the twenty-first century new important findings were presented. Van der Heijden (2019, p. 3) explains that even though cities were seen as places of potentially effective climate action, there were other policy areas, such as sanitation and waste disposal, that were prioritized over climate change (see Rong, 2010; Johnson et al., 2015; Beermann et al., 2016; Van der Heijden, 2016). This means that the gap between policy rhetoric and implementation of local climate policy is still present (van der Heijden, 2019, p. 3). Another topic that was studied during this time was which factors that enable city governments to implement climate action effectively (van der Heijden, 2019, p. 3). Good

(9)

6 progress was made in this area and many such factors were identified. Examples of these are the following: 1) a supportive regional and national political and legal context (Pierre, 2011);

2) autonomy regarding climate policy implementation (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013); 3) access to funding for climate action (Clarke, 2017; Hughes, 2017); 4) vertical coordination between different levels of government (Kern & Mol, 2013; Johnson et al., 2015); 5) horizontal coordination between city governments, networks and public agencies (Knieling, 2016; Lee, 2018). Some of these factors are part of the theory behind the analytical framework that is used in this study and are discussed more thoroughly in section 2.3.

The scholarly interest in evaluating the efforts of local governments, including city governments, has developed in parallel to, and more recently as a part of, the field of urban climate governance. In 1992 McLoughlin brought up the issue of Western scholars not evaluating metropolitan plans properly, and according to Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 935) this problem remains today. There have been attempts to solve this problem, but most of these have been ad hoc attempts rather than more comprehensive frameworks (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 938). Gleeson et al.’s (2004) framework is, however, an example of an attempt to create a more comprehensive and more widely applicable framework to evaluate metropolitan plans.

Their framework aimed to evaluate how metropolitan plans of Australian cities responded to challenges of governance and sustainability. Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 348) mean that metropolitan planning strategies are important governance tools for reaching urban sustainability. They can provide vision and guidelines that can help shape policy in cities.

They also mean that it is necessary to evaluate these plans because such evaluation could help us understand how cities respond to existing urban challenges, such as climate change, and what kind of policy tools and urban visions are used in such plans (Gleeson et al., 2004, p.

347). Gleeson et al. were not part of the field of urban climate governance, but rather looked at governance and sustainability issues in a wider sense.

Nguyen et al. anticipate that “metropolitan planning strategies should evolve to become key tools in facilitating the delivery of cities’ climate actions” (2018, p. 935). And if they are key tools, then they should be evaluated. Being a part of the field of urban climate governance, Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 938) therefore note that there has been a lack of a rigorous framework for evaluating metropolitan plans and how they respond to climate change. In the same article they present an analytical framework that is meant to fill this gap.

Their framework is derived from Gleeson et al.’s (2004) framework, but includes important findings from the field of urban climate governance. This framework is used in this study and is discussed more thoroughly in section 2.3.

(10)

7

2.2 Definition of key terms

In this section five key terms that are used in this thesis are defined — climate policy, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, climate action and governance (including some variations).

To define climate policy it is first important to define policy. Policy in this thesis means public policy. This is policy made by governments which affects every citizen within a jurisdiction, be it national or local (Howlett et al., 2014, p. 17). This thesis uses a definition by Jenkins that describes public policy as “a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should, in principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve” (Jenkins, 1978 as cited in Howlett et al., 2014, pp. 18-19). This definition is specific enough to include the content of policy — goals and means — and making sure it is achievable, but still wide enough to include the wide variety of goals and means used in climate policy-making.

Climate policy then is public policy with a goal of either mitigating climate change or adapting to climate change. Climate change mitigation (climate mitigation for short) means hindering climate change, mainly by reducing or preventing greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate change adaptation (climate adaptation for short) means adapting society to the changes that are a result of climate change, such as for example more extreme and frequent weather events, increased risk of flooding and higher sea levels. An adaptation measure could for example be building barriers to adapt to higher sea levels. A broad definition of climate policy is used in this study that includes climate mitigation and adaptation measures, as well as policies that are not branded as climate policies, but indirectly help the city mitigate climate change or adapt to it. Sometimes the term climate action is used in this thesis. This can be seen as a wider term used to describe any action in cities that lead to climate mitigation or adaptation, which includes, but is not limited to, public policy.

Governance is defined by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as follows:

Governance is about the processes by which public policy decisions are made and implemented. It is the result of interactions, relationships and networks between the different sectors (government, public sector, private sector and civil society) and involves decisions, negotiation, and different power relations between stakeholders to determine who gets what, when and how. The relationships between government and different sectors of society

(11)

8 determine how things are done, and how services are provided. Governance is therefore much more than government […]. (UNDP, 2015, p. 5)

This is a useful definition because it is wide enough to include all the different actors that are part of governance processes today, including the local governments of cities. By this definition, governance is something that takes place on all political levels, and not only the global level. From the definition above follows that climate governance is the processes by which climate policy is made and implemented. Finally, urban climate governance means the process of making and implementing climate policy in urban areas, such as cities.

2.3 Analytical framework

This section presents the analytical framework that is used in this study. It is created by Nguyen et al. (2018) and consists of five themes (governance, climate policies, distribution, democracy and finance) with a number of key attributes belonging to each theme, for a total of 21 key attributes (see table 1). The purpose of the framework is to evaluate climate policies in metropolitan plans. The climate policies theme relates directly to these policies while the other themes relate to things that enable the implementation of climate policy, such as governance structure, distribution of the policies, how democratic these processes are and the financial aspects of implementation.

The framework is based on the conceptual framework created by Gleeson et al. (2004), but has been adjusted for the field of urban climate governance. To do this, Nguyen et al. (2018) incorporated the framework into key literature from that field. These conceptual resources are presented in sections 2.3.1–2.3.5. It consists of academic researchers such as for example Kern, Alber and Bulkeley, as well as reports from organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) or the city network called C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) that also conducts research. A few times Nguyen et al.

(2018) are used as a reference when explaining the key attributes. This is the case when it was not possible to access the primary source.

In the following section each theme are presented in turn with emphasis on the first two themes — governance and climate policies — since these are the ones that is used in this study. The other three themes are presented in short to make it clear which parts of the analytical framework that are left out. The theoretical scope of the study is more thoroughly discussed in section 2.4.

(12)

9 TABLE 1: Analytical framework for evaluating climate policies in cities

Governance Climate policies Distribution Democracy Finance Key

attributes

Power dimensions

Temporal scale and continuity

Action scales Participation scale

Financial measures

Vertical integration

Tools:

 Planning and management tools

 Monitoring systems and standardised databases

 Risk assessment

Distribution:

equitable access to services and green technologies

Responsibility Formulation and implementation costs

Coordination Levers Impact frame Budgetary

processes

Governance modes

Innovation Accountability

Governance scale

Analytic framework Reflexivity

Regional diffusion

Source: Adapted from Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 941)

2.3.1 Governance

The governance theme relates to the governance structure of the metropolitan plan. There are six key attributes under this theme: power dimensions, vertical integration, coordination, governance modes, governance scale and regional diffusion. These are explained below.

- Power dimensions

This key attribute refers to the power dimensions of the city which affects the power dimensions of the metropolitan plan (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 941). According to C40 (2015, p. 16) power dimensions are the degree of control and influence over assets and functions a city government has. According to the organization these components are important for climate action in cities. There are four power dimensions: own or operate; set or enforce policy/regulations; control budget; and set vision (C40, 2015, p. 16). C40 explains these briefly in their report (C40, 2015, p. 16-17). The first one relates to how big part of the city’s assets the city owns. For example land, property or infrastructure. The second one relates to the city’s capacity to set or enforce policy or regulations, such as climate policy or an

(13)

10 environmental regulation. This is contrasted to situations where cities cannot do that themselves and are dependent on local, regional or national governments to set or enforce policy or regulations in the city. The third one relates to the capacity of the city to control the budget. Some cities have full control over their own budget, some can influence the budget, but does not control it and some have no control or influence over the budget. The fourth and final power dimension relates to the capacity of the city to set the vision for effective climate action in the city. A clear vision leads to clear goals and makes it easier for cities to acquire commitments from other parties, which in turn leads to more successful climate action (C40, 2015, p. 17)

- Vertical integration

This key attribute refers to whether the metropolitan plan is integrated with activities on other government scales (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). In their report on cities and green growth, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) mentions the importance of vertical coordination between local, regional and national levels of government to ensure effective policy implementation (Hammer et al., 2011, p. 92-93). This ensures that policy on the national level is implemented on the local level and shows meaningful results (Hammer et al., p. 93). This is the same thing as what Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 359) call vertical integration. They mean that vertical integration is important since without it there is a risk of inconsistency between plans on different levels and confusion regarding responsibilities which might lead to a less effective implementation of policy.

- Coordination

This key attribute informs whether the metropolitan plan promotes coordination between the city government and other actors (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). Similarly to vertical integration there is also a need for horizontal coordination. This could be internally between the city and public agencies or externally between the city and networks or other policy relationships. According to Bulkeley and Moser (2007, p. 7) such coordinated efforts can be more cost-effective than uncoordinated efforts since there are fewer transaction costs and more time efficiencies. It also increases public investment opportunities and reduces risk of gaps and contradictions between policy objectives of different actors (Allain-Dupré, 2011, p.

27).

- Governance modes

This key attribute refers to what governance mode the city uses according to the metropolitan plan (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). A number of scholars have identified different governance

(14)

11 modes within cities (Kern & Alber, 2009; Broto & Bulkeley, 2013). Four governance modes are discussed here: self-governing, governing by provision, governing by regulation and governing through enabling.

The four governance modes are explained by Kern and Alber (2009, p. 5). Self-governing is when city governments govern themselves to “lead by example” (Broto & Bulkeley, 2013, p. 95). In relation to climate policy this could for example be improving energy efficiency in buildings owned by the city. Tools used in this governance mode are reorganization of the city government, institutional innovation and public investments. Governing through enabling means coordinating partnerships with voluntary private actors and supporting initiatives by other actors, as well as active community engagement. Persuasion of other actors and the use of incentives and support are important tools for this governance mode (Broto & Bulkeley, 2013, p. 95). Governing by provision means the city being the main provider of public services and resources. Tools available for this governance mode are for example investments in infrastructure. Governing by regulation is a more traditional approach and means the use of regulation and sanctions to integrate climate change policy into other sectors such as energy, transport and land use (Kern & Alber, 2009, p. 5). Nguyen et al. (2018) do not clarify if any of these governance modes are preferable over others. They seem to see these as different ways of governing without an opinion of which is better. They probably mean it is best to make use of several of these governance modes.

Kern and Alber (2009, p. 24) discuss this however. They mean that a majority of municipalities prefer to use self-governing and governing by enabling, rather than governing by regulation. One possible reason for this, according to the authors (Kern & Alber, 2009, p.

24) is that there could be problems of coordination within local governments, or that they could suffer from a lack of political support, which in turn can make local authorities reluctant to use more authoritative powers to implement climate policy. They say that this is a negative trend and that cities should use all options to implement climate policy, including making better use of more authoritative measures, such as governing by regulation (Kern &

Alber, 2009, p. 26).

- Governance scale

Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 942) explain that “governance scale refers to the scale at which the metropolitan plan governs”, which means if the climate policies presented in the plan are meant to be implemented on a metropolitan or city level (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 944). This key attribute also refers to whether the responsibility for implementation of the metropolitan

(15)

12 plan lies at one political level or is shared between different levels (Gleeson et al., 2004, p.

359). An example of when the latter could be the case is when a regional authority has created the plan, but public agencies on both regional and local level are responsible for implementation. Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 359) mean that when the responsibility for implementation is shared between different levels there is a risk of confusion and inconsistencies which might hinder implementation. It is therefore preferred to have one or more authorities on the same level being responsible for implementation.

- Regional diffusion

This key attribute refers to whether the metropolitan plan promotes regional diffusion (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). According to Bassett and Shandas (2010, p. 436) policy innovation can be described as something that happens in clusters on a regional scale. An example of this could be local governments entering a coalition or forming a network to set up transport networks across municipal or county boundaries. Regional diffusion is useful since it can decrease costs and improve overall efficiency (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942).

2.3.2 Climate policies

The governance theme relates to the climate policies in the metropolitan plan. There are five key attributes under this theme: temporal scale and continuity, tools, levers, innovation and analytic framework. These are explained below.

- Temporal scale and continuity

Temporal scale refers to the time frame of the metropolitan plan. This can be short-, medium- or long-term (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). According to Tewdwr-Jones a long-term plan is important since it can reduce the risk of short-term decisions being prioritized over long-term needs (as cited in Hutt, 2016, p. 1). Continuity on the other hand refers to whether the current plan is consistent with former metropolitan processes (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942).

Continuity could be had by applying feedback mechanisms and consulting those who created and worked with former plans (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 944). The authors are not clear on why this is important, but one possible reason could be that continuity is important to make use of existing knowledge and to make sure earlier progress is not lost.

- Tools

This key attribute informs which kind of tools the metropolitan plan promotes (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). McCarney et al. (2011, p. 258) point out the importance of planning and management tools when addressing greenhouse gas emissions in cities. Examples of such

(16)

13 tools are “official plans, development guidelines, development permits, densifications plans [and] transit planning” (McCarney et al., 2011, p. 258). Other important tools are monitoring systems and standardised databases. Monitoring systems can be used to measure a city’s contribution to, as well as its vulnerability to, climate change. Storing such information in standardised databases can help create benchmarks so that cities can measure their performance (McCarney et al., 2011, p. 262-263). A fifth and final type of tool is risk assessment which can be used to assess risks, such as extreme weather events or rising sea levels (McCarney et al., 2011, p. 255). These are all tools that can be used to facilitate climate actions in cities and help them deliver appropriate climate change policies.

- Levers

This key attribute refers to which levers are included in the metropolitan plan (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). According to C40 (2015, p. 36) cities can use four types of instruments to deliver change, which they call levers. These are: projects and programmes; policies or regulations; incentives or disincentives; and procurement. Neither C40 nor Nguyen et al.

define these levers. Even though they might be self-explanatory I will gives some examples to clarify them. Projects and programmes are used to change human behaviour by promoting something that is positive for the city. This could for example be a project to enhance the city’s public transport network and a programme to make more citizens use public transport to decrease traffic in the city. Policies or regulations could for example be a policy to increase the amount of energy coming from renewable sources in a city, while an example of a regulation could be a regulation of a certain type of fuel to decrease the city’s dependence on fossil fuels. Examples of incentives are lowered taxes on certain fuels or electric vehicles, while an example of disincentives are congestions taxes to make it more expensive to use cars in certain areas, which in turn reduces traffic. Procurement is when the public sector invests in goods and services which often amounts to a big part of the economy and therefore can be a powerful tool to promote sustainability by choosing sustainable products. All of these tools are ways for the city to deliver climate action.

- Innovation

The key attribute innovation refers to whether the metropolitan plan promotes the use of innovative technologies that can be applied to strengthen sustainable development in the city (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). These could be any kind of green technologies, but two examples are renewable energy and electric vehicles.

(17)

14 - Analytic framework

This key attribute informs which type of analytic framework the metropolitan is based on (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). There are two kinds of analytic frameworks, according to Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 355). The first is based on the assumption that past trends (economic, social or ecological), and the drivers behind them, are relatively static. This results in a more static approach to planning where past trends are projected when planning for the future. The second is based on the assumption that trends are unstable and develop in a non-linear fashion. This results in a more dynamic approach where the planning is predictive of the future, but where the goals are adaptable to changes (Gleeson et al., 2004, p. 349). According to Duit et al. (2010, p. 303) the second assumption about trends is true for climate change and therefore Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 945) mean that it is preferable that a metropolitan plan is based on such assumptions.

2.3.3 Distribution

- Action scales

This key attribute refers to on what scale the metropolitan plan is implemented (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). C40 (2015, p. 59) uses four different measurements for the scale of implementation of climate policy in cities. The first one is transformative, which means that the policy is implemented on a city-wide scale. The second one is significant, which means that the policy is implemented across most of the city. The third one is pilot, which means a climate policy is being tested. And the fourth and final one is proposed, which means the policy is awaiting final authorisation before being tested or implemented.

- Distribution

According to Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 943) this key attribute relates to whether the metropolitan plan promotes equitable access to services and goods, such as public transportation or green technologies. They exemplify green technologies as energy-saving appliances and electric vehicles.

2.3.4 Democracy

- Participation scale

This key attribute refers to if plan promotes community involvement (Nguyen et al., 2018, p.

943). McCarney et al. (2011, p. 266) write that one important way to make climate action in cities more democratic is to promote inclusiveness. Important groups to include in these processes are citizens, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and private sectors. Engaging

(18)

15 these groups could be done in a number of ways, such as consultations, public hearings and meetings. McCarney et al. (2011, p. 266) explain that this, not only increases loyalty to the city, but also helps them create a sense of ownership of the policy that is being implemented.

This can increase support of climate policy in the city.

- Responsibility

This key attribute refers to whether responsibility for implementation of the metropolitan plan is centralised with one certain authority or shared by several public agencies (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 943). According to Olum (2014, p. 26) it is important to have clear responsibilities for policy implementation. Responsibilities may be centralised with a local government or decentralised among several public agencies. Olum (2014, p. 23) points out that decentralisation can be a problem in some countries where certain pre-conditions are not met, but also that decentralisation is way to deepen democracy at the local level (p. 37).

This key attribute seemingly overlaps slightly with the governance scale key attribute under the governance theme, as seen above. Both key attributes refers to the responsibility for implementation of the plan. The governance scale is more about where on the political scale (e.g. locally or regionally) the responsibility lie, whereas the responsibility key attribute is more about if there are one or more authorities, such as public agencies, that are responsible for implementation.

- Impact frame

The impact frame key attribute refers to whether the metropolitan plan includes the costs and benefits of its climate policies (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 943). Kelly (2012, p. 124) explains that giving citizens a clearer idea of the costs and benefits associated with policy implementation can lead to improved policy design. It helps citizens understand what they can expect from democratic decisions. This in turn can also help deepen democracy.

- Accountability

This key attribute refers to whether the metropolitan plan includes mechanisms for identifying and sanctioning public agencies that are not following the metropolitan plan (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 943). Waldron (2014, p. 31) says that it is important to be able to hold political officials accountable through transparency and sanctioning.

(19)

16 - Reflexivity

This key attribute refers to whether the metropolitan plan identifies its limitations and if there are mechanisms and monitoring in place to evaluate how implementation of the plan is affected by these limitations (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 943).

2.3.5 Finance

- Financial measures

Merk et al. (2012, p. 7) write about cities’ ability to promote green and sustainable cities by investing in infrastructure and using financial instrument such as congestion charges, toll lanes or betterment levies. The financial measures key attribute informs whether the plan uses such instruments to fund the implementation of climate policy (Nguyen et al., 2018, p.

943).

- Formulation and implementation costs

According to Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 943) this key attribute refers to the capacity of the city government and public agencies to fund policy implementation themselves.

- Budgetary processes

Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 349) explain that budgetary processes refers to “what extent the plan is linked to government budgeting (including taxing and spending) processes”. This is a bit unclear and is not thoroughly explained in the article. My interpretation is that he means whether the metropolitan plan clearly states if and how it is connected to the city government’s budget. This could be if a portion of the budget is set aside especially for implementing the plan or if certain policies in the plan are funded by taxing or spending schemes that are in the budget. Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 361) say that weak links between metropolitan plans and budgetary processes can impede implementation of the plans.

2.4 Theoretical scope

For the purposes of this study two themes from the analytical framework is used: governance and climate policies. The reason for only using two of the five themes of the framework is to stay within the scope and get a clear focus of the study. The themes that are left out are the following: distribution, democracy and finance. This means that only climate policies in the city plans, and the governance structure behind them, can be studied in this study. It cannot evaluate the distributional, democratic or financial aspects of the climate policies of the cities.

This also means that the entire analytical framework is not tested, but rather parts of it.

(20)

17 The choice of including the climate policies theme is obvious, but the choice of choosing the governance theme over the other three themes should be explained. This choice is not based on previous research, but rather personal opinion of which themes are the most important ones. The governance theme is of greater importance than the other three because the governance structure of a city creates a necessary basis and acts as a springboard for policy implementation. Without a governance structure, it is not possible to implement policy. Distribution, including on what scale climate policy is implemented and equitable access to its effects; democracy, including public participation, responsibility and accountability; and finance, including financial measures, costs and budgetary processes, are all important aspects. They are however, in my opinion, secondary to the governance structure. This is the reasoning behind the choice of the themes which are part of the analysis in this study.

3. Method

In the following sections the study’s research design and method for selection and analysis of data are presented. This study consists of a comparative case study including two cases. A qualitative text analysis in the form of document analysis is used as a method to select and analyse the empirical material. The empirical material consists of the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin.

3.1 Research design

This study takes the form of a comparative case study. The units of analysis are Stockholm and Dublin, and in more detail, the city plans of these cities. Since there is more than one case it can be described as a multiple-case study (Bryman, 2015, p. 67). The comparative design means studying two or more contrasting cases. It makes use of the logic of comparison and implies “that we can understand social phenomena better when they are compared in relation to two or more meaningfully contrasting cases” (Bryman, 2015, p. 65). This is relevant in this study, since applying the analytical framework to two cases in comparative manner instead of one might lead to interesting findings that would otherwise be overlooked.

The comparison can act as a springboard for the analysis.

Since this is a form of case study the results are not generalizable. It is only possible to say something about these two particular cases. The study does, however, have a high replicability. The reason for this is that the analytical framework and the empirical

(21)

18 material are available for anyone to access. Therefore anyone who wished could replicate this study. With that said, it is important to note that due to its qualitative nature there is an unavoidable interpretive nature to the analysis, which increases the risk of a replicated version of this study showing differences in the results. To decrease this risk it is important to be careful and transparent in the presentation of the data and the analysis of it.

3.2 Case selection and empirical material

As was mentioned in the introduction, the analytical framework is tested on the city plans of the cities, rather than their metropolitan plans. The reason for this is that it is important to test the analytical framework on city plans to see if that works as well. If it does, it means that the analytical framework has a broader use than intended by Nguyen et al., which would strengthen its overall applicability. My opinion is that it is important to evaluate both city plans and metropolitan plans to get the full picture of how cities implement climate policy. If only metropolitan plans are studied one can miss measures that are only for the city and its suburbs, but not relevant for the whole metropolitan area. City plans are also narrower in scope than metropolitan plans which add to the feasibility of the study by giving it a clear focus.

So what is the difference between a city plan and a metropolitan plan? The answer is not simple since both city plans and metropolitan plans can take many forms and look very different between cities and countries. Logically, however, metropolitan plans are always broader in scope, since they are including the whole metropolitan area of a city. As an example this would in Stockholm be what is called Greater Stockholm (Storstockholm), which includes 26 municipalities. Stockholm’s metropolitan plan would include all these municipalities and would therefore have a much wider scope than a city plan. Naturally, this might also lead to such a plan being less detailed than a city plan. Both types of plans seem to often deal with the same things, but on a different geographical scale and different political levels — the city plan being on a city-wide and local level, whereas a metropolitan plan is on a metropolitan and regional level. To keep a clear focus of the study and to make sure it is feasible, the city plans of the cities are studied. A limitation of this approach is that the study is using an analytical framework which is made to study metropolitan plans rather than city plans. There is a risk of the framework not being fully applicable if there are differences between the two types of plans that I am not aware of. This is, on the other hand, what is being tested and there is always a risk of theories or analytical frameworks not being fully applicable when being tested.

(22)

19 As cases, Stockholm and Dublin were chosen because of their comparable size in terms of population (see table 2) and because both are capitals of their respective countries. Both Sweden and Ireland are also members of the European Union (EU). Furthermore, both cities have a proper city plan that could be used for analysis. These cases have been selected because of their similarities rather than their differences (Bryman, 2015, p. 69). This means that the differences that are found between the cities’ plans are more likely to be due to factors related to how the city functions internally rather than differences that were there from the outset. If one of the cases was a member of the EU, but the other one was not, a difference could be due to this rather than something internal. If the cases differed in terms of being a capital city or not, and if there were a wider population gap between the cities, this could also be factors that would not be beneficial to include in this study. Choosing cases with these similarities decreases the risk that outside factors affect the differences between the cases.

The two city plans make up the empirical material in this study. The city plans are general plans for development of the city areas of the two cities. They are official documents published by the local governments and they are available on the websites of the two cities. It was therefore easy to access the documents. It might have been preferable to study more than two cases, but due to time constraints that is not possible. It is better to focus on two cases and make a thorough study of them. If the study included more than two cases there would be a risk of not having time to go through all the data which would be a problem for the study.

The name of Stockholm’s plan is Stockholm City Plan (City of Stockholm, 2018), and Dublin’s plan is called Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 (Dublin City Council, 2016b) (but will be called Dublin City Plan henceforth). The Stockholm City Plan is 172 pages long and the Dublin City Plan is 408 pages long. This shows that city plans can vary in terms of length. The Stockholm City Plan is published in both Swedish and English. The English version was used in this study.

TABLE 2: Basic information on the cities and their city plans

Name of city Population size Name of city plan Length of plan

Dublin 554,554 (CSO, 2016)

Dublin City Development Plan

2016–2022

408 pages

Stockholm 962,154 (SCB, 2019) Stockholm City Plan 172 pages

(23)

20

3.3 Document analysis

Document analysis is used as a method in this study. It is a form of qualitative text analysis that uses a systematic procedure to analyse documents (Gross, 2018, p. 544). It requires the data to be reviewed, examined and interpreted repeatedly. Such procedures can give empirical knowledge about the unit of analysis. Document analysis are often used as part of a mixed-methods approach, but can also be used as a stand-alone method. Gross (2018, p. 544) explains that when document analysis is used as a stand-alone method, it can, among other things, answer questions about policy. Bowen (2009, p. 31) points out that document analysis is a good method for analysing policy documents which are the main source of data in this study. It also adds to the feasibility of the study since document analysis is generally an efficient method. There is no data collection involved, but instead a selection of data that already exists (Bowen, 2009, p. 31). All these traits make document analysis relevant for this study and a prime candidate to be used as a method. Its application makes it possible to select the data needed for the analysis. This does in turn make it possible to use the analytical framework to identify strengths and weaknesses within the city plans.

Scott (as cited in Bryman, 2015, p. 546) suggests the use of four criteria that can be used to assess the quality of documents: authenticity, credibility, representativeness and meaning.

Authenticity means if the document is genuine and of known origin. Credibility means if the document is free from error and gives a true account of what is presented. Representativeness means if the document is a typical example of its kind. Meaning means if the document is clear and comprehensible. If used to assess the plans in this study one can say that they have a high authenticity since they are from known and genuine sources — the local governments of Stockholm and Dublin. The credibility of the documents are not as easy to assess, but since there are many public officials involved in writing these documents and they most likely go through several checks before being published, most errors are probably corrected. There is also little reason for the city governments to distort the facts in the plans. Therefore the credibility of the plans can be seen as quite high. The representativeness of the plans is also high. Even though city plans can take a variety of forms, the plans in this study are typical examples of general development plans of cities. In terms of the meaning of the plan, they are clear, readable and easy to understand. This is probably helped by the plans being accessible to the public, and that they are not only written for public officials and politicians. By doing this assessment it is made clear that the city plans have high quality and are good choices for analysis.

(24)

21

3.4 Approach and limitations

The analytical framework was used to identify strengths and weaknesses in the city plans.

This was done by doing close readings of the city plans while searching for pieces of text that can be seen as an example of one of the key attributes. The analytical framework was used systematically to go through all key attributes under each theme (the governance and climate policies themes) one by one. The material was then coded by first marking relevant sentences and paragraphs in the document. Relevant sentences and paragraphs were then copied and pasted into separate documents. Separate documents were used for each theme and separate headings were used for the different key attributes. By doing that it was possible to code the empirical material. This helped in breaking down the text and provided a basis for analysis.

As seen above, a broad definition of climate policy is used in this study. Climate policy was therefore operationalised as climate policy relating to both climate mitigation and climate adaptation. Policies that are not explicitly described as climate policy in the plans, but that indirectly help the city mitigate climate change, or adapt to it, were also included.

Instead of doing close readings of the text, another possible approach would have been to search the documents for specific words or terms to find examples of the key attributes. This was not done due to the risk of missing important things. There would especially be a high risk of missing the policies that indirectly lead to climate mitigation or adaptation, but are not themselves described as such. A close reading of the text instead of searching for specific words or terms also increases the possibility of being able to read between the lines and find things that are implied, but not explicitly stated in the text. Close readings of the text were therefore necessary for this study. The unavoidable interpretive nature of this approach demands transparency and carefulness when the findings are reported. This is discussed more thoroughly in the beginning of section 4.

It is important to note what can be said with this type of study. One good explanation is the one used by Davidson et al. (2019) to describe their study of resilience as a component of sustainability in metropolitan plans. Their study is also a comparative study using document analysis. They say that: “The limitations of this sort of study are that a forensic examination of the words and frames used does not necessarily expose outcomes in the field. However, it does allow the examination of intent […]” (Davidson et al., 2019, p. 4). This also applies to this study. This study can only say something about the intent of the cities as they are presented in the city plans and not what is actually implemented or how successful certain

(25)

22 policies are. The intent and planning of policy-making is, however, an important part of the process and therefore worthwhile to study.

Another thing that is important to remember is that this study only looks at city plans without taking other plans into consideration. Both Stockholm and Dublin, as will be seen, have several other minor plans, such as climate action plans and other more detailed plans for specific areas. A thorough study evaluating a city’s climate policy could be done by studying both the city plan and all other relevant documents. This would yield a much more detailed insight into the climate policies of the city. This would, however, be very time consuming and a much larger project than what is feasible for this study. This study therefore probably yielded less detailed and complete results than a more thorough study, but it was still possible to shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies in the two cities as presented in the city plans. Since the city plans work as central steering documents for the city, they are also important to evaluate in their own right. Such central documents need to include details regarding climate action in the city. Therefore, if a prioritisation has to be made regarding what to study, the city plans should be the first choice, rather than more specified plans such as climate action plans.

3.5 Epistemology and ontology

The epistemological foundation of this study is interpretivism (Bryman, 2015, p. 26). This makes it possible to understand human behaviour and organisation, as organised through politics to face the common threat of climate change. My role, as the researcher, in this process is to interpret the official documents and to do an analysis of the findings to shed light on the strength and weaknesses of the climate policies in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin. I therefore need to interpret what the documents say explicitly, but also understand the meaning behind the documents.

The ontological assumption of the study is based on constructionism (Bryman, 2015, p.

29). It is the “ontological position [...] that asserts that social phenomenon and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors” (Bryman, 2015, p. 29). When applied to the cases in this study it means that the social reality of local political organisation in Stockholm and Dublin is viewed as something being formed and reformed by the officials, politicians and others who are part of that reality. That kind of organisation is a social construction and must be analysed as such.

(26)

23

3.6 Ethical considerations

There are few, if any, potential ethical dilemmas connected to this study. Document analysis is a method that could have ethical dilemmas connected to it when dealing with documents containing personal or otherwise sensitive information, but that is not a problem in this study.

The documents used are official documents published by local authorities and do not contain any personal or sensitive information. As seen above, they were also easy to get access to, which means that there was no risk of stepping over any ethical boundaries in the process of getting access to the documents.

4. Results and discussion

As seen in the introduction, the aim of this study is to evaluate the climate policies in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin. This has been done by testing parts of the analytical framework on these two cases by using the governance and climate policies themes of the framework to analyse the plans. The research questions that will be answered are: 1) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and the governance structures in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin and how do these differ from each other? 2) What are the challenges in using the analytical framework and how could the framework be improved?

In the following sections the results from the analysis of the city plans are presented and discussed. In section 4.1 and 4.2, the results from plans are presented. This was done by quoting important sentences and paragraphs from the city plans and then commenting on why they are examples of key attributes from the themes that are studied. Direct quotations instead of paraphrasing were used as a way to increase transparency. This is important since the analysis inevitably is of an interpretive nature. I interpret something from a city plan as being an example of a key attribute from the analytical framework. Increasing transparency in this way makes it easier for other researchers to critically examine my analysis.

After the results are presented, the comparative analysis and the critical discussion are presented in section 4.3. In section 4.4, challenges in using the framework and suggestions on how it can be improved are discussed.

4.1 Results from the Stockholm City Plan

In this section the results from the analysis of the Stockholm City Plan are presented. It is divided into two sub-sections that consider the two themes — governance and climate

(27)

24 policies — in turn. The results relating to each key attribute are presented one by one under separate headings.

4.1.1 Governance

- Power dimensions

As discussed earlier, information on power dimensions is something that is not always present in the plans. Nguyen et al. sourced their information from the C40 website. Regarding the power dimensions of the Stockholm City Plan, one thing is mentioned that is an example of that. The plan says that “The municipal planning monopoly gives a municipality the exclusive right to decide on detailed development plans” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 43), which can be said to be an example of the second and fourth power dimension “set or enforce policy/regulations” and “set vision”. Since the City of Stockholm is also Stockholm Municipality it gives them the right to decide on detailed development plans which is an example of setting policy and setting vision. The former since there are several policies presented in the Stockholm City Plan (some of which are discussed below) and the latter since the plan also presents visions for future effective climate action in the city. The plan mentions that “The Stockholm City Plan takes as its starting point the city’s vision for a city that is cohesive, climate-smart and sustainable” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 28). Stockholm also has an ambitious goal of being fossil fuel free by 2040 — which is even more ambitious than the national target of being climate neutral by 2045 (Fossil Free Sweden, n.d., para. 1).

This, in combination with the Stockholm’s vision of being climate-smart and sustainable, makes it clear that the city sets its own vision and that the vision includes effective climate action.

Information regarding the other two power dimensions — own and operate and set budget

— is not available in the Stockholm City Plan. Since Stockholm is a C40 member it is however available on the C40 website under the Stockholm city profile (C40 Climate Leadership Group, n.d.). According to that information, Stockholm has strong or partial powers in most areas (public buildings, energy supply, finance and economy, city roads, urban land use, waste and water) regarding owning and operating, and budgetary and revenue control (as well as the two power dimensions mentioned above). The only area with limited powers is public transport, which is reasonable since it is Region Stockholm that have the responsibility for public transport and not the City of Stockholm.

Evaluating urban climate policies: A comparative case study of Stockholm and Dublin

Evaluating urban climate policies:

A comparative case study of Stockholm and Dublin

Abstract

Table of contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Aim, scope and research questions

1.2 Theory, method and empirical material

1.3 Disposition

2. Theory

2.1 Theoretical background

2.2 Definition of key terms

2.3 Analytical framework

2.3.1 Governance

2.3.2 Climate policies

2.3.3 Distribution

2.3.4 Democracy

2.3.5 Finance

2.4 Theoretical scope

3. Method

3.1 Research design

3.2 Case selection and empirical material

3.3 Document analysis

3.4 Approach and limitations

3.5 Epistemology and ontology

3.6 Ethical considerations

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Results from the Stockholm City Plan

4.1.1 Governance