Multilevel Governance and Innovations in the Financing of Urban Climate Change Strategies

Peterson, Jacqueline

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65003-6_14

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Approaches that emphasise financial dimensions, the focus of this paper, are those of fiscal federalism, which underline that MLG arrangements should account for heterogeneous local preferences, and enable participation and local accountability in order to enable efficient and effective public good provisioning (Kuhlmann and Wayenberg, 2016). At its core, the fiscal federalism literature provides three principles around which to organise multilevel governance performance (Peterson, 2018). First, Oates' (1972) 'decentralisation principle' states that because of heterogeneous local preferences and a central government's difficulty in ascertaining these, public good provisioning should be devolved to the lowest level possible.…”

Section: Multilevel Governance Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This a challenge for governments because CFRR measures generally have high up-front investments costs that produce benefits for the public budget only over the medium to long-term when damages from expected flooding are avoided. Governments can avail of various fiscal instruments to fund such measures, including taxation (Peterson, 2018), public debt instruments, e.g. 'green bonds' (Keenan, 2018), as well as cost sharing arrangements with the private sector Pauw et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multilevel governance of coastal flood risk reduction: A public finance perspective

Bisaro

Bel

Hinkel

et al. 2020

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal flood risk reduction (CFRR) presents a significant public funding challenge, due to its high upfront costs and long-term benefits, and this challenge will increase with future sea-level rise. The funding challenge necessarily involves multiple levels of government, due to the regional nature of CFRR public goods involved. Yet there has been little research comparing such multilevel arrangements across countries, and in particular exploring the performance of public funding arrangements for providing coastal flood risk reduction. We address this gap, applying fiscal federalism to develop a multilevel governance analysis of public decision-making and fiscal authorities for CFRR in the Netherlands, Germany, the UK and Australia. For each country, we locate key decision-making and fiscal authorities in multilevel governance arrangements, and analyse their alignment with the benefits of CFRR measures (spillovers). We find diverse coastal flood risk governance arrangements ranging from highly centralised (NL), mixed arrangements, involving regional centralisation (Germany) or partial devolvement (UK), to full decentralisation (AUS). Further, we find that in accordance with fiscal federalism, multilevel coastal flood risk governance arrangements are generally reflective of the distribution of the benefits across different levels of government, with some exceptions (Germany and UK). Finally, exploring the outlook of current arrangements under sea-level rise, we find that major fiscal redistributions may be put under pressure by rising costs likely under SLR and future coastal development. This is particularly the case for those systems which operate under hazard-based, as opposed to risk-based, coastal protection policies. Further, we find that both fully and moderately decentralised arrangements may require greater central support for alternative measures, such as retreat, in light of growing financial burdens on local governments.

show abstract

Section: Multilevel Governance Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilevel governance of coastal flood risk reduction: A public finance perspective

Bisaro

Bel

Hinkel

et al. 2020

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Private finance flowing into climate action has been notoriously difficult to measure (Cities Climate Finance Leadership Alliance, 2021; Carty et al, 2020), particularly if one includes private finance mobilised by individuals and households (Cities Climate Finance Leadership Alliance, 2021). Furthermore, tracking finance for climate action at the city‐scale remains complicated: multiple actors and institutions provide finance for climate action in cities, including private market actors (Bisaro & Hinkel, 2018; White & Wahba, 2019), multilateral climate funds and development banks (Ayers, 2009; Brugmann, 2012; Causevic & Selvakkumaran, 2018; Colenbrander et al, 2018a; El‐Batran & Aboulnaga, 2015; Keenan et al, 2019; Lafitte & Le Denmat, 2017; Li, 2011), philanthropies (Chu, 2018; Leitner, 2018), national, regional, and local governments (Hadfield & Cook, 2019; Peterson, 2018; Sullivan et al, 2013), as well as community groups and individuals (Slum Dwellers International, 2018). Many climate initiatives are overlooked because they do not mobilise sources of financial instruments that are labelled as “green” or climate‐friendly, and because they serve multiple goals at the same time, without necessarily self‐defining as climate‐focused (Robin & Castán Broto 2020).…”

Section: Mobilising Finance For Urban Climate Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking the geographies of finance for urban climate action

Robin

2021

Trans Inst British Geog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely accepted that reducing carbon emissions and adapting to climate change necessitate the transformation of our economies and infrastructure such as transport, housing, water, waste, sanitation, and energy. This requires significant investments, particularly in cities (Floater et al., 2017). For instance, the Cities Climate Finance Leadership Alliance (2015) estimates that US$4.5-5.4 trillion per annum are needed to decarbonise and enhance the resilience of urban infrastructure. In recent years, geography and urban studies scholars have explored the relationship between finance and urban climate action. Research has shown how climate agendas enable private capital to flow into climate-focused projects (Long & Rice, 2019), for instance through resilience initiatives promoted by international organisations (Bigger & Webber, 2020) and philanthropies (Webber et al., 2020). Studies have focused on the creation of new financial instruments, such as municipal green bonds and carbon credits, to finance climate-resilient and low-carbon infrastructure

show abstract

“…First, funding is likely to be a significant barrier, and new financial arrangements and tools are likely to be needed to support energy efficiency retrofits (Jermyn & Richman, ; Peterson, ). Energy efficiency retrofits generally require large up‐front investments before any cost savings are realized.…”

Section: Cities and Climate Change Policy: Energy Efficiency Retrofitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Pilot Projects in Urban Climate Change Policy Innovation

Hughes¹,

Yordi²,

Besco³

2018

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cities are taking a leadership role in addressing global climate change and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but policy innovations are needed to help cities move from goals to outcomes. Pilot projects are one means by which cities are experimenting with new ways of governing and financing climate change mitigation. In this paper, we develop a framework for understanding the role of pilot projects in urban policy innovation: their emergence and rationale, and the means by which they ultimately scale up and out to reduce GHG emissions. We use this framework to evaluate a pilot project for retrofitting social housing buildings in Toronto. We find the initial pilot project helped address the challenges of pursuing deep retrofits of social housing. Scaling these lessons up to the city level required overcoming challenges to financing and coordinating a larger project; scaling out to the provincial level revealed institutional and political obstacles to pursuing the co-benefits of deep building retrofits in social housing. Bridging agents play an important role in both scaling processes. The analysis reveals the additive nature of urban policy innovation and the dynamic interplay of change agents and institutional and political context in innovation processes.

show abstract

Multilevel Governance and Innovations in the Financing of Urban Climate Change Strategies

Cited by 7 publications

References 24 publications

Multilevel governance of coastal flood risk reduction: A public finance perspective

Multilevel governance of coastal flood risk reduction: A public finance perspective

Rethinking the geographies of finance for urban climate action

The Role of Pilot Projects in Urban Climate Change Policy Innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About