Social networks, institutional relations and climate change adaptation in Greater

Manchester, UK

Aleksandra Kazmierczak and Hannah KnoxUniversity of Manchester, UK

23rd March 2012

Overview

• Introduction – EcoCities – Greater Manchester – The changing governance landscape

• Social network analysis: investigating the extent of cooperation on climate change adaptation

• Some observations from ethnographic research

EcoCities (June 2008 - May 2012)

• Adaptation to climate change in Greater Manchester

• Aim: To develop an adaptation resource for the policy makers in Greater Manchester– Future scenarios (climate, development, land use)– Climate impacts (flooding, high temperatures)– Vulnerabilities (people, infrastructure)– Adaptation responses (including policy and governance

frameworks)

• Multi-scale study– Building – Neighbourhood– Greater Manchester

Greater Manchester

• Post-industrial, polycentric conurbation• Local authority – Greater Manchester – NW

region - England

L.S. Lowry “Industrial Scene”

Recent planning and governance changes

• Coalition Government elected in May 2010• Localism Bill (November 2011)

– Abolishment of the regional tier of government and planning

– Transfer of power to the local level and neighbourhoods

• Announcement of abolition of non-departmental public bodies (October 2010)– 901 organisations reviewed– 192 organisations to be abolished/restructured

Investigating cooperation on adaptation

• Social network analysis– Communication: exchanging information– Collaboration: working together

– Supplemented by review of consultation documents, meeting minutes etc

– Analysis • Full list of organisations• The organisations not affected by the changes in the governance

and planning frameworks

Investigating cooperation on adaptation

• Network characteristics– Density - proportion of realised connections– Degree centrality - number of ties of individual organisations– Betwenness centrality - brokerage and a weak point– Closeness centrality – monitoring information flow (shortest

path)

• Ethnographic research and interviews with major stakeholders

OrganisationsStakeholders in climate change adaptation in GM

considered in the study: all organisations

Stakeholder type

Spatial scale

National North

West of England

Greater Manchester Local Total

Public sector/NDPB 18 14 12 11 55

Third sector 3 4 4 3 14 Research 7 0 0 0 7

Private 11 4 1 1 17 Total 39 22 17 15 93

OrganisationsStakeholders in climate change adaptation in GM considered in the study: remaining organisations

Stakeholder type

Spatial scale

National North

West of England

Greater Manchester Local Total

Public sector/NDPB 11 8 10 11 40

Third sector 3 4 4 3 14 Research 7 0 0 0 7

Private 11 4 1 1 17 Total 32 16 15 15 78

The network density

• All organisations– Communication: 33.7%; Collaboration: 19.4%

• Remaining organisations– Communication: 29.4%; Collaboration: 10.4%

• Diverse areas of operation and scales – 100% desnity not expected

Communication: all organisations

Communication: remaining organisations

Collaboration: all organisations

Collaboration: remaining organisations

Network density by spatial level

• Communication– Highest: Local (64%); Regional (53-> 34%); GM-local

(52->49%); – Lowest: National-GM (20%); national-local (23%)

• Collaboration– Highest: Local (37%); GM-local (37->34%); regional

(33-> 15%)– Lowest: National-GM (9%); National-local (11%)

Network density by stakeholder type

• Communication– Highest: 3rd sector and research (both 50%); public

(41-> 35%)– Lowest: public-private (24->21%); private (26%)– Good connections public - 3rd sector (35->30%)

• Collaboration– Highest: 3rd sector (31%); research (25%);

public (24-> 19%)– Lowest: public-private (13->11%); private (13%)– Good connections public-3rd sector (24->19%)

Major players in the network

• By spatial level– Local and GM – crucial for communication and

collaboration

• By stakeholder type– Public sector – the most important in communication

• Dissemination of data and information

– 3rd sector – the most important in collaboration• Facilitation of cooperation

Major links in the network

• Individual organisations– North West Development Agency– The Environment Agency– Local authorities– Community forests – Water supplier– Environmental consultancy

Discussion• High density of links at local/sub-regional level

+ Local context of adaptation and localism- Few links with the national level (support, resources,

upward flow of knowledge) • Effects of planning/governance changes

– Decimation of the regional level– Less collaboration– The fate of the Regional Climate Change Partnership?

• Involvement of third sector+ Sharing of knowledge+ Supporting the public sector- Reliance on funding

Discussion cont.

• Increasing role of private sector

• Collaborations are project-based– Funding streams require participation of different

sectors– Continuity of work?

• Who is working together: organisations, roles or individuals?

• How important is adaptation in these relations?

• Thank you

• ContactAleksandra.kazmierczak@manchester.ac.uk

• www.manchester.ac.uk/ecocitiesKazmierczak, A. 2012. Working together? Inter-

organisational cooperation on climate change adaptation. EcoCities project, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.