Climate change and cities: problem structuring methods and critical perspectives on low-carbon districts

Abstract

Cities around the world have set climate change mitigation targets, yet actions to implement these targets have so far proved inadequate. Better methodology is needed to support this impetus for action.Problem structuring methods (PSMs) enable improvements to be made in wicked problem situations; they appear to have potential to improve climate change mitigation actions but they are difficult to carry out in highly pluralist problem contexts. A case study (STEEP) that applied a PSM to support lowcarbon urban energy master planning in three cities is presented. The STEEP methodology was effective in reducing the wickedness of the problem but issues of a lack of clarity on problem ownership and lack of interessement were seen. A reflective boundary critique study found that there was a mismatch between power and interest amongst key stakeholders towards the low-carbon vision. Three key issues identified in the case study were discussed through the lens of critical systems thinking: (i) the need for new competencies, (ii) dealing with wickedness, and (iii) behavioural complexity and discordant reference systems. The paper suggests how these issues might be improved through the application of non-PSM theories which can support the use of PSMs in improving city-level climate change mitigation.Key Words: Problem structuring methods; problematisation; Boundary Critique; climate change mitigation; critical systems thinking IntroductionRecent decades have seen slow and insufficient progress on climate change mitigation -the reduction of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions to below a "safe" level, as recommended by climate science (Edenhofer et al. 2014). Climate change mitigation has been described as a "wicked" problem (Rittel 2There is much potential for cities to play an active role in climate change mitigation. A 40% reduction in carbon emissions from UK cities could be possible by 2020 just from investing in cost-effective lowcarbon technologies (Sullivan et al. 2013). City governments often control some of the key factors related to carbon emissions such as land use planning, building regulations, public transport, and waste management (Kousky & Schneider 2003). Across the world, cities are joining together to support each other in the goal of transitioning to a low-carbon future (for example, the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (www.c40.org) and Local Governments for Sustainability (www.iclei.org)). In reality, however, low-carbon cities are difficult to achieve. A study of eight new-build eco-cities found that the idea of building smart, sustainable cities is still relatively new and unproven, with projects being To guide the reader through the rest of this paper, a brief description of the main sections follows:• Section 2, Background -Perspectives on Urban Climate Change Mitigation: A review of the literature on the nature of the problem of climate change mitigation at the city level, including barriers to mitigation, ideological perspectives from social science, and governance mechanisms that ha...

Superimposition: How Indian city bureaucracies are responding to climate change

“…problems that are hard to define, are uncertain and ever-changing, and are complex in terms of their interconnections with social, political, and environmental systems (Frame, 2008;Head and Alford, 2015;Hulme, 2009Hulme, , 2010Rittel and Webber, 1973). In the spirit of addressing wickedlike problems, many normative planning frameworks and policy recommendations aim to assist city decision-makers to engage multiple actors, integrate across multiple sectors, and address multiple objectives (Andrews et al, 2017;Bai et al, 2016;Basu et al, 2019;Bhardwaj et al, 2019;Frame, 2008;Freeman and Yearworth, 2017;Head and Alford, 2015;Jabareen, 2013).…”

A Strategy-Based Model for Low Carbon Cities

“…Performance measurement has become fundamental to evidence-based decisions. It has enabled policy makers to measure city performance, and to compare and benchmark cities [22]. Likewise, multivariate data analysis and multi-dimensional decision analysis were reformed and applied by Akgun to evaluate sustainable development [23].…”

A Combined Value Focused Thinking-Soft Systems Methodology Approach to Structure Decision Support for Energy Performance Assessment of School Buildings

“…The Value Focused Thinking (VFT) approach is then used to refine these aspects as objectives to be included in a Multi-Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) model, which is aimed at classifying the energy performance of school buildings taking also into consideration further non-energy effects. Similar approaches were followed in the context of sustainable urban energy planning [9], analysis of energy efficiency measures [10], energy behaviour modelling [11] and also within the European Union-funded project "Systems Thinking for Energy Efficient Planning (STEEP)" for developing energy master plans for districts in three European cities [12,13]. A taxonomy of the endogenous and exogenous variables of MCDA tools was formulated with the aim of selecting the appropriate method for evaluating design proposals of a new office building in Rome [14].…”