From agenda‐setting to implementation: The role of multisectoral partnerships in addressing urban climate risks

Abstract

Multisectoral partnerships (MSPs) form an increasingly popular and important part of the global climate and disaster risk governance landscape, but the literature offers little critical investigation of this phenomenon. In particular it remains unclear how MSPs can support the transition from agenda setting to implementation in response to multiple current and future pressures threatening the resilience of cities. Through the lens of the London Climate Change Partnership (LCCP) and drawing from other MSP examples, this paper investigates the scope for MSPs to enhance climate adaptation in an urban context. Our paper has two main aims: to expand understanding of the role of MSPs in the adaptation decision process in the context of the wider governance literature, and to shed some light on the complexities of transitioning through that process. To clarify the role of a MSP we propose a distinction between "first generation" and "second generation" MSPs, illustrating the progression from agenda-setting to implementation: "first generation" MSPs are focused on agenda setting and knowledge sharing in order to support decision makers, while "second generation" MSPs are aimed at implementing solutions. We consider this distinction from the perspective of the individual members and their perceptions, motivations, and expectations. We find that the dynamic nature of urban adaptation with a shifting focus from initial agenda setting toward the implementation of actions presents challenges for existing MSPs, particularly such long-established ones like the LCCP. Our investigation shows that "first generation" MSPs can play important roles in agenda setting, but finds little evidence of "second generation" MSPs achieving implementation.

The agenda-setting government resilience framework

“…The notion of resilience has increasingly become useful across a wide range of fields, predominantly within physical and ecological systems (Bodin and Wiman 2004, Holling 1973, Walker et al 2004, Gunderson 2000, Tilman and Downing 1994etc., as in Bhamra et al 2011, climate change and disaster management (Surminski and Leck 2017, Leal Filho et al 2016, Aoki 2016, Aoki 2015, McEvoy et al 2013), psychology (e.g. Zautra et al 2010 as in Capano andWoo 2017, Luthans et al 2006 as in Vickers and Kouzmin 2001) especially children psychology (e.g.…”

How normative interpretations of climate risk assessment affect local decision-making: an exploratory study at the city scale in Cork, Ireland

“…The risk assessment stage is typically held out as a focal point across the entire decisionmaking cycle. It is taken as the objective point of departure for normative decision-making, and introduces key information, often in the form of a menu of scenarios and adaptation measures [2]. Yet the assessment itself is framed by subjective decisions and a host of underlying assumptions, albeit often introduced by outside experts who may be perceived as objective by the decisionmakers [12].…”

“…Urban decision-makers face the challenge of deciding how to respond to this risk among all the other pressures that urban areas face: cities are subject to a complex interplay of economic growth, population trends, land-use and social processes, which all influence and are influenced by climate risk. Addressing this requires collaborative management across spatial, political and organizational boundaries involving a broad range of stakeholders, who take decisions that determine current and future risks-for example, where to locate new housing developments, how to design new flood barriers, what materials to use for new roads and how to ensure functioning water and power supply [2].…”

“…In this paper, we investigate the process of translating climate risk data into action for the city level. We apply a commonly used decision-framework from Willows et al [18] (as applied in [2], and illustrated in figure 2) as our backdrop and explore where in this process climate risk assessment and normative political judgements intersect. We use the case of the city of Cork in Ireland to investigate the challenges arising from normative decision points: in Cork, flooding is already a big issue, and now following detailed local risk assessment, informed and guided by new climate risk data, there are plans to implement a major flood relief scheme (at an estimated cost of e140 m euro, and 10 year construction period), but this is proving controversial locally [19].…”

“…Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit (SEMRU), Whitaker Institute, National University of Ireland -Galway, Galway, Ireland 2 Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK TKJM, 0000-0002-1418-2197; SS, 0000-0003-1270-5545…”