Working together? Inter-organisational cooperation on...
Transcript of Working together? Inter-organisational cooperation on...
Working together? Inter-organisational
cooperation on climate change adaptation
Aleksandra Kazmierczak
2012
2
EcoCities is a joint initiative between the School of Environment and
Development, at The University of Manchester, and commercial property
company Bruntwood. The project looks at the impacts of climate change and at
how we can adapt our cities and urban areas to the challenges and potential
opportunities that a changing climate presents.
© University of Manchester. 2012.
School of Environment and Development
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester
M13 9PL
This report should be referenced as:
Kazmierczak, A. 2012. Working together? Inter-organisational cooperation on
climate change adaptation. EcoCities project, The University of Manchester,
Manchester, UK.
Please note that EcoCities working papers have not been subject to a full
external peer review. The author(s) are solely responsible for the accuracy of the
work reported in this paper and the conclusions that are drawn.
3
Contents
Summary 5
1 Introduction 7
2 Methods 11
2.1 Stakeholders in Greater Manchester 11
2.2 Social Network Analysis (SNA) 11
3 Results 14
3.1 The density of the communication and collaboration networks 14
3.2 Characteristics of individual organisations in the network 16
4 Discussion 24
4.1 Research limitations and further research 27
5 References 29
6 Appendix 1: Organisations included in social network analysis 31
7 Appendix 2: Additional organisations indicated by the respondents as entities
they have collaborated or communicated with on climate change adaptation 33
4
List of Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of the number of connections to other organisations
(communication) 17
Figure 2. Distribution of the number of connections to other organisations
(collaboration) 17
Figure 3. Social network in communication 18
Figure 4. Social network in collaboration 18
List of Tables
Table 1. Stakeholders in climate change adaptation in GM considered in the
study 11
Table 2. Density (%) of communication between stakeholders at different spatial
levels. 14
Table 3. Density (%) of collaboration between stakeholders at different spatial
levels. 15
Table 4. Density (%) of communication between different types of stakeholders 15
Table 5. Density (%) of collaboration between different types of stakeholders 16
Table 6. Top five organisations in terms of degree, betweenness and closeness scores (all organisations) 20
Table 7. The mean values of the social network measures for different spatial
levels of stakeholders 21
Table 8. The mean values of the social network measures for different types of stakeholders 22
Table 9. Partnerships facilitating communication and collaboration in the region.
23
5
Summary
Adaptive actions are necessary in order to maintain the liveability of cities, which
face higher temperatures and increased frequency and magnitude of extreme
weather events. Due to the complexity of urban systems, effective planning and
implementation of adaptation to climate change impacts in urban areas requires
a collaborative approach between different types of organisations.
This paper investigates the extent of inter-organisational cooperation on climate
change adaptation in the context of Greater Manchester (GM). Social network
analysis was carried out in order to explore the levels of communication and
collaboration on climate change adaptation among 93 public, private and third
sector stakeholders at spatial scales ranging from local to national.
The results emphasise the importance of regional public bodies as climate
change adaptation knowledge brokers and stress the role of the third-sector
organisations in facilitating collaboration on climate change adaptation. The
findings also indicate strong position of organisations at local and GM levels in
both the communication and collaboration networks. The abolition of the
regional tier of government and the threat of removal or restructuring of certain
non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) may have a negative impact on the
density and functioning of the network of organisations involved in climate
change adaptation in the context of GM.
6
7
1 Introduction
Climate change in the Greater Manchester (GM) context is becoming a reality
(Cavan 2011). Extreme weather events – heavy rainfall leading to floods,
heatwaves, or wind storms – have already had an impact on the built and
natural environment, infrastructure and people in GM (Carter and Lawson 2011).
Future climate projections indicate that temperatures and extreme rainfall
events may increase in frequency and magnitude (Cavan 2011). Therefore, the
weather and climate will affect GM even more in the future than they have in the
past (Carter and Lawson 2011). The need for considered adaptation to climate
change is paramount in order to maintain and enhance the liveability and
prosperity of the conurbation.
Urban systems are complex and the impacts of climate change cut across
sectors and scales, meaning that developing adaptation action plans and
implementing adaptive measures requires a collaborative approach;
incorporating expertise from a variety of fields, ranging from construction to
public health (Royal Academy of Engineering 2011; Adaptation Sub-Commitee
2011a). Internal, cross-departmental working within local government can partly
achieve this. Further, new institutional models for local adaptation have been
forged through the cooperation of local government with private and third sector
organisations to bring additional expertise and resources. Collaboration with a
variety of stakeholders has been identified as a crucial aspect of successful
adaptation to climate change in a variety of urban regions, including
municipalities in England (CAG 2009); urban regions in the US, Canada and the
UK (CAP 2007); South Asian cities (Tanner et al 2009); and cities in the global
south (Bulkeley et al 2009).
Municipalities have first-hand knowledge of local conditions. They can build on
this to develop tailored responses to the impacts of climate change. However,
local authorities may be limited in what they can actually do in terms of climate
change adaptation by a number of institutional, political or economic issues
(Corfee-Morlot et al 2011). Cities may not have the mandate to address climate
issues: short-term electoral cycles preclude long-term planning and investment;
climate change adaptation is rarely the priority for local authorities and may be
underfunded; decision makers and planners may lack the capacity to understand
the climate projections and analyse the risks (Corfee-Morlot et al 2011).
Moreover, the scale of intervention poses inevitable limitations at the local level.
For example, waterways and flood plains rarely follow municipal borders, and
8
flood-related adaptation measures typically need to be planned and implemented
at a regional scale.
Cities are embedded in a legal and institutional context set by national
governments, the EU and global developments. While urban planning, service
delivery and infrastructure development are provided by local authorities, other
issues lie outside the direct remit of city governments. Therefore, even though
intense interest over climate change adaptation exists at the local level, it does
not always lead to successful planning and implementation of adaptation actions.
To effect change, collaboration between the local, regional and national levels is
necessary.
Despite the recent emphasis on governance through non-hierarchical networks,
national governments retain an important role. National institutional structures
may even be the most important element in determining how best to integrate
adaptation as a policy aim (Keskitalo 2010). National adaptation strategies have
become a key instrument in guiding adaptation efforts in many European
countries. The intention of national adaptation strategies is to create the
framework for adaptation at local level (for example, by providing national
standards and guidelines). Obligations to use assessment instruments and to
include adaptation goals in sectoral and spatial planning laws are powerful, yet
flexible, means of integrating adaptation policies into local and regional practice
(Swart et al 2009). The national government can also empower local authorities
by providing funding, removing institutional barriers and supporting inter-
municipal collaboration (Swart et al 2009; Corfee-Morlot et al 2009). On the
other hand, there can be benefits in policy learning when national governments
support local adaptation, and use them as testing grounds for policy (Corfee-
Morlot et al 2009).
Examples from other European countries show that the regional scale is
emerging as the fundamental level in adaptation strategy development. Regional
policies can combine a focus on particular conditions of the local scale and the
strategic approach characteristics by the national scale. However, in a review of
regional adaptation strategies in Europe, Ribeiro et al (2009) conclude that more
attention needs to be accorded to implementation, rather than formulating
adaptation strategies, such as the selection of policy instruments, assigning
responsibilities and dealing with costs.
9
This emphasis on the regional level in climate change adaptation planning runs
contrary to recent changes to England’s planning system. Until 2011, the
planning system in England consisted of three tiers. The national policy tier set
guidelines through a series of planning policy statements and guidance
documents. The regional tier delivered the spatial, housing and economic
Strategies. Local authorities were responsible for the production of a Local
Development Framework for its administrative area. At national level, the
performance of the local authorities was assessed using the National
Performance Framework and a set of national indicators (NI), including NI 188:
adapting to climate change.
Recent changes to planning have dispensed with the National Performance
Framework and distilled detailed planning policy guidance into overall principles
of sustainable development. In particular, The Localism Act, passed in November
2011, transfers powers from central government down to local level and formally
abolishes Regional Spatial Strategies and the regional tier of planning. As a
consequence, Regional Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies
(RDAs), non-departmental public bodies funded by central government to deliver
its objectives at regional level, will cease to exist in 2012. Defra considered the
RDAs to be effective in coordinating data and expertise in a strategic manner
across traditional spatial planning boundaries and particularly successful in
engaging with local businesses (House of Commons 2010: 175). Therefore, the
absence of the regional tier may have significant impacts on the flow of
information between different organisations engaged in climate change
adaptation. Changes to the spatial planning system will give local authorities
greater freedom and flexibility in forming their plans. On the other hand, local
authorities are responsible for delivering sustainable development when they are
simultaneously implementing significant budget cuts.
However, in GM, the ten individual local authorities have been working
voluntarily with each other and with the private sector as the Association of
Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) to drive new investment forward and to
co-ordinate planning. This was given statutory approval in 2011 through the
establishment of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), which will
co-ordinate key economic development, regeneration and transport policies.
GMCA does not replace the ten local authorities, but formalises their
collaborations. This may provide the basis for greater collaboration on climate
change adaptation issues among the local authorities, GMCA and other
organisations at the GM level.
10
Another aspect possibly affecting the inter-organisational collaboration on
climate change adaptation, both in the GM context, and beyond, is the ‘bonfire
of the quangos’ (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations), or the
non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), announced by the government in
October 2010. NDPBs in this paper are a collective term for bodies funded by
Whitehall departments but independent of them, including non-departmental
public bodies, public bodies, and executive agencies carrying out public services.
In addition, the list of NDPBs included those to be ‘substantially reformed’; the
need to streamline the bodies may also mean that their focus may shift away
from climate change adaptation. Therefore, a number of bodies currently
cooperating over climate change adaptation in GM may cease to exist or no
longer be involved.
To summarise, effective adaptation requires collaboration with external parties,
including horizontal and vertical cooperation with governments at other levels
(Bulkeley et al 2009). This paper investigates, to what extent the principle of
collaboration on climate change adaptation has been followed in GM in the UK.
The paper puts the findings into the context of the changing landscape of the
spatial planning policy, national government austerity measures and the
abolition of many key NDPBs.
11
2 Methods
2.1 Stakeholders in Greater Manchester
The public sector organisations with a stake in climate change adaptation in GM
were identified based on the stakeholder mapping exercise (Carter 2009). In
addition, the non-governmental organisations, private sector companies and
research institutions interested in environmental issues in GM were taken into
consideration. In total, 93 organisations were identified (see Appendix 1 for the
full list). In addition, the respondents had the opportunity to indicate other
entities that their organisation exchanged information or worked closely with.
These are listed in Appendix 2.
2.2 Social Network Analysis (SNA)
A questionnaire was sent to the 93 stakeholder organisations between October
2010 and October 2011. The questionnaire included a list of all of the
organisations, organised into type and spatial level of operation (table 1).
Respondents were asked to identify the organisation that their body has
communicated or collaborated with in relation to climate change adaptation in
the last 2-3 years. Communication was defined as exchanging information with
the organization; collaboration meant that the organisations have worked
together (Corteville and Sun 2009). Collaboration can therefore be seen as a
subset of communication; an assumption was made that those who collaborated
with each other also exchanged information.
Table 1. Stakeholders in climate change adaptation in GM considered in the
study
Stakeholder type
Spatial scale
National North
West of England
Greater Manchester
Local Total (no. responses)
Public sector/NDPB
18 14 12 11 55 (33)
Third sector 3 4 4 3 14 (10)
Research 7 0 0 0 7 (5)
Private 11 4 1 1 17 (9)
Total (no. responses)
39 (21) 22 (14) 17 (10) 15 (12) 93 (57)
12
The questionnaire achieved a 62% response rate. This was considered sufficient
enough to draw conclusions about the flow of information, because only the non-
directional relationships between organisations were investigated, and some of
the gaps in data could be filled by symmetrical responses. Also, the paucity of
information on some of the non-respondents1 was addressed by qualitative
analysis of meeting minutes, reports and consultation exercises publicly
available on internet. The questionnaire also helped to identify the partnerships
of different organisations active in the north west of England, which may play a
crucial role in adaptation to climate change.
The data collected with the questionnaires was analysed as a social network.
Here, organisations are regarded as ‘nodes’. The communication or collaborative
relationships between them are represented as ‘ties’. The information gathered
from the questionnaires and the qualitative review gave the basis for statistical
analysis. This provided measures both at the node and network levels, which can
be demonstrated visually in graphs that depict the relationships in each network.
The following social network measures have been calculated for communication
and collaboration networks:
Density is the percentage of all possible ties that are actually present in
a network graph. Density was also calculated for networks at individual
spatial levels and within types of stakeholders, as well as between
spatial levels and between different stakeholder types;
Degree centrality is the number of ties that every node has. In this
instance, it refers to the number of organisations which each
stakeholder exchanged information or collaborated with;
Betweenness centrality refers to the position of a node in a network.
Nodes with higher values of betweenness are located between important
constituencies. They play a 'broker' role in the network; this is a
powerful role, but also can be a point of failure if this node is removed,
as it removes the connection between otherwise separate groups of
nodes.
Closeness centrality provides a measure of how central each node is
within a network. Stakeholders that are in a good position to monitor
the information flow in the network have the shortest paths to all others
(they are closer). Therefore, they have good visibility over what is
happening in the network. 1 These included: Government Office for the North West; Royal Commission for
Environmental Pollution, and Department for Communities and Local Government.
13
Graph construction and social network analyses were conducted using UCINET
Social Network Analysis Software Version 6 (Borgatti et al 2002) and NetDraw
Network Visualization (Borgatti 2002). The analyses were carried out, firstly, for
the full set of organisations. A second analysis was carried out on the subset of
organisations not affected by the abolition of the regional tier of planning or the
review of NDPBs. This subset is further referred to as ‘remaining organisations’.
14
3 Results
3.1 The density of the communication and collaboration networks
The density of the network representing the inter-organisational communication
on climate change adaptation was 33.7%, whilst the density of the collaboration
network was 19.4%. After the NDPBs and public sector organisations that were
under review (i.e. considered for abolition or restructuring) in 2010 were
removed from the list of the stakeholders, the density of the communication
network was reduced to 29.4% and that of the collaboration network to 10.4%.
When stakeholders at different spatial levels were considered, the highest
density of communication ties was present between organisations at the local
level, regional level, followed by the interactions between GM and local level
(table 2). It is at the regional level, where the density of communication network
is the most affected by the potential removal of organisations; closely followed
by the GM level. As no organisations were planned to be removed at local level,
this network density remains strong and unaffected by the changes at other
scales.
The collaboration network density was the highest at the local level, closely
followed by the interactions between GM and local levels (table 3). Interactions
at the regional level were the third densest. Similarly as in the case of the
communication density, the least developed ties are between the national and
the GM level, followed by ties between national and local levels.
Table 2. Density (%) of communication between stakeholders at different
spatial levels.
Stakeholder level
Group of organisations
National North West of
England Greater
Manchester Local
National All 36.7 30.4 20.3 23.4
Remaining orgs. 32.7 23.2 20.0 23.9
North West of
England
All 52.8 33.5 40.5
Remaining orgs. 33.7 23.0 31.3
Greater Manchester
All 32.6 52.1
Remaining orgs. 27.2 49.3
Local All 64.2
Remaining orgs. 64.2
15
Table 3. Density (%) of collaboration between stakeholders at different spatial
levels.
Stakeholder
level
Group of
organisations National
North West of
England
Greater
Manchester Local
National All 20.6 18.6 9.3 10.7
Remaining orgs. 17.9 12.9 9.5 10.6
North West of
England
All 33.0 23.0 17.1
Remaining orgs. 15.1 17.6 14.0
Greater
Manchester
All 25.2 37.2
Remaining orgs. 21.1 33.8
Local All 37.3
Remaining orgs. 37.3
The analysis of communication ties within and between stakeholder types (table
4) suggests that within-type density of communication was strongest in the case
of the research and third sector, and weakest for private sector. Similarly, the
density of the collaboration ties within groups was weakest amongst the private
sector group and strongest in the third sector (table 5). Inter-organisational ties
(both for collaboration and communication) for the private sector are weaker
still. On the contrary, both the communication and collaboration between the
public sector/NDPB organisations and third sector organisations was fairly well
developed.
Table 4. Density (%) of communication between different types of stakeholders
Stakeholder type
Group of organisations
Public
sector/ NDPB
Third sector Research Private
Public sector/ NDPB
All 40.8 35.3 27.9 24.2
Remaining orgs.
35.0 29.6 24.2 21.6
Third sector All/ Remaining
orgs. 50.0 25.8 31.7
Research All/ Remaining orgs.
50.0 29.1
Private All/ Remaining orgs.
25.9
16
Table 5. Density (%) of collaboration between different types of stakeholders
Stakeholder type
Group of organisations
Public sector/ NDPB
Third sector Research Private
Public sector/ NDPB
All 23.5 21.0 16.7 12.6
Remaining orgs.
19.2 16.5 14.3 10.8
Third sector All/ Remaining orgs. 31.1 18.0 17.1
Research All/ Remaining orgs. 25.0 19.4
Private All/ Remaining orgs.
13.0
3.2 Characteristics of individual organisations in the network
The degree centrality (the number of connections a given organisation had),
ranged between 3 and 85 (mean=26; SD=17) for the communication network
involving all organisations. For the collaboration network involving all
organisations, the degree centrality ranged between 0 and 64 (mean=15;
SD=12). The relatively low mean values suggest that a small number of
organisations had many connections, while the majority of stakeholders were not
engaged in numerous collaborations or communications. Figures 1a and 2a
confirm this observation: the bars on the graph represent the number of
organisations who have the amount of connections given on the horizontal axis.
On the right hand side, one can see that the higher the number of connections,
the fewer organisations that have that number of connections. Further, some of
the organisations with a high number of connections were on the UK
government’s ‘cull or review’ list. When the ‘remaining organisations’ are
considered, the degree centrality ranged between 3 and 69 for the
communication network (mean=24; SD=16), and between 0 and 43 for the
collaboration network (mean=14; SD=11). The difference from figures 1a and
2a to figures 1b and 2b illustrate the change in the distribution of the number of
ties between all organisations to those not abolished, planned to be abolished or
under review by the Government.
Figures 3 and 4 visualise the communication and collaboration networks for all
organisations and for ‘remaining organisations’. These charts clearly indicate the
reduced density of connections and the reduced number of ties when
organisations abolished in the UK Government review (especially those
connected with the revoked regional spatial planning policies) are not included.
17
Figure 1. Distribution of the number of connections to other organisations
(communication) among (a) all organisations and (b) the remaining
organisations
Figure 2. Distribution of the number of connections to other organisations
(collaboration) among (a) all organisations and (b) the remaining organisations
a
a
b
b
18
Figure 3. Social network in communication: (a) all organisations; (b)
organisations not under governmental review.
The size of the node represents the degree centrality.
National
Greater
Manchester Public/NDPB Research
North West
Local Third sector
Private
a
b
19
Figure 4. Social network in collaboration: a degree centrality.; b al network in
collaboration: a degree central
The size of the node represents the degree centrality.
National
Greater
Manchester Public/NDPB Research
North West Local Third sector
Private
a
b
20
The organisation with the highest degree (number of connections), betweenness
(strategic position in the network) and closeness (proximity to other
organisations) centrality scores (both in the case of communication and
collaboration) is the North West Development Agency (NWDA). NWDA is closely
followed by the Environment Agency for the North West (EA NW), which is the
regional office of the national public agency concerned mainly with rivers,
flooding, and pollution. This means that these two organisations are the most
powerful in terms of being involved in, controlling and monitoring the networks
of communication and collaboration in climate change. These organisations are
represented by the largest green squares in figures 3a and 4a; however, as
either planned to be abolished (NWDA) or having the ‘under review’ status (EA),
they are not present in figures 3b and 4b, leaving considerable gaps in the
network.
Other organisations, which have an extensive network of contacts (high scores
of degree centrality) are the representatives of local authorities in GM and third
sector organisations (table 6). These organisations are not directly threatened
by changes to the regional tier of government and, despite cuts in central
government funding to these organisations; they remain crucial actors also
under the worst-case scenario of abolition or restructuring of the organisations
at the regional level. The private sector (represented by a utility company and
an engineering consultancy) plays a significant role as a broker of information in
the communications network; in the collaboration network, the same utility
company and the national research and advice body concerned with climate
change (UK Climate Impacts Programme) are important connections in the
network.
Table 6. Top five organisations in terms of degree, betweenness and closeness
scores (all organisations)
Rank
Communication Collaboration
Degree (no.)
Betweenness Closeness Degree (no.)
Betweenness Closeness
1 NWDA (85) NWDA NWDA NWDA (64) NWDA NWDA
2 EA NW (73)
EA NW EA NW EA NW (52)
EA NW EA NW
3 Stockport MBC (69)
Stockport MBC
Stockport MBC
Manchester CC (43)
Manchester CC
Manchester CC
4 Red Rose
Forest (59) Arup,
Manchester Community Forests NW
Red Rose Forest (43)
United Utilities
Red Rose Forest
5 Community
Forests NW(59)
United Utilities
Red Rose Forest
Community Forests NW
(41) UKCIP
Community Forests NW
21
When different spatial levels are considered, organisations at the local and GM
scales had the highest average betweenness centrality scores in both
collaboration and communication (table 7). This means that they are central to
the exchange of information and working together on climate change adaptation.
For both communication and collaboration, the number of ties was highest for
the public sector and lowest for the private sector (table 8). The public sector
also scored the highest on betweenness in communications; meaning that they
are important disseminators of climate change adaptation distributing
information amongst different groups of stakeholders. However, the third sector
scored higher on betweenness in relation to collaboration; meaning that third
sector organisations are important facilitators of collaboration amongst different
types of stakeholders.
Table 7. The mean values of the social network measures for different spatial
levels of stakeholders
National North
West of England
Greater
Manchester Local
Communication degree
All 22.62 29.64 33.47 33.47
Remaining orgs.
21.69 21.81 23.80 33.47
Communication betweenness
All 17.15 63.29 46.53 46.53
Remaining orgs.
17.41 23.96 19.39 46.53
Collaboration degree
All 12.36 17.64 18.40 18.40
Remaining orgs.
11.62 12.50 15.33 18.40
Collaboration betweenness
All 27.99 82.00 52.22 52.22
Remaining orgs.
28.31 35.41 37.23 52.22
22
Table 8. The mean values of the social network measures for different types of
stakeholders
Public sector/ NDPB
(remaining)
Third sector
Research Private
Communication degree
28.15 (24.90)
28.86 24.00 19.65
Communication
betweenness
38.59
(23.93) 31.90 22.10 21.82
Collaboration degree
16.25 (13.83)
17.36 14.71 10.53
Collaboration betweenness
47.64 (27.91)
60.98 45.65 30.86
Differences in the value of mean centrality degree and betweenness concerning
all organisations and ‘remaining organisations’ indicates that the NDPBs, which
have been under the governmental review, had a significant role to play in
climate change adaptation (table 8). However, when the differences between all
organisations and the subset of ‘remaining organisations’ are broken down for
different spatial levels, the biggest impact is seen at the GM and regional level,
whilst the impact at the national level is less significant (table 7). This may be
associated with the role of the abolished organisations not being central to
climate change adaptation at the national level; however, it could also be an
influence of the low response rate among the abolished bodies at the national
level (see table 1).
Some of the collaboration and communication on climate change adaptation has
been facilitated by partnerships, or voluntarily existing groups, in the region
(table 4). The bodies involved in these partnerships were mainly North West in
scope and public or third sector in character. For example, the North West
Climate Change Adaptation Group was amongst the most active; involved in
communication with 5 national organisations, 10 from the North West, 3 in
Greater Manchester and 5 more local organisations. Participants involved the
public sector (11), the third sector (7), a research institute and the private
sector (4).
23
Table 9. Partnerships facilitating communication and collaboration in the
region.
Partnership Organisations in communication
Organisations collaborating
NW Climate Change Adaptation Group
23 14
NW Climate Change Partnership
19 12
NW Climate Change Unit 13 9
NW Green Infrastructure Think Tank
15 9
NW Green Infrastructure Unit
15 9
24
4 Discussion
The overall density of the communication and collaboration ties in the entire
network was not very high; respectively one-third and one-fifth of the possible
ties were realised. This could lead to an initial assumption that there is
insufficient communication and collaboration on climate change adaptation
issues among the investigated organisations. However, what needs to be
emphasised is that the list of stakeholders included organisations with wide
ranging interests. Therefore, the collaboration and communication networks on
climate change adaptation cannot be expected to achieve 100% density.
The density of connections between stakeholders was highest at the local level,
followed by GM and NW spatial levels (table 2). This could be considered as
positive since the location-specific character of climate change impacts means
that the local level is seen as the optimal scale to formulate adaptation
strategies (Alber and Kern 2008). On the other hand, the lower density of
communication and collaboration between the local and the national-level
stakeholders, particularly in the case of the public sector, may mean that local
authorities lack guidance and support from central government on the
implementation of relevant national climate change adaptation policies. This may
significantly impede their progress in adapting to climate change (Bulkeley et al
2009). The cooperation between the national and the local level is a two-way
process; the scarcity of ties means that there is little opportunity for central
government to learn from the experiences of the local authorities implementing
climate change adaptation policies (Corfee-Morlot et al 2009).
The low density of ties within the private sector (table 3) can be explained by a
competition for clients and resources. Interestingly, the third sector
organisations and the research institutions seemed to have denser
communication and collaboration networks than the public sector bodies (table
3). This could suggest that the third sector and research institutions in the north
west of England are leaders in both climate change adaptation per se, and in the
recognition of the need to collaborate. This is confirmed by the third sector
organisations having the highest mean score of betweenness in relation to
collaboration networks. This means that third sector organisations may be the
more important than the public sector as the ‘brokers’ and links in the network,
successfully bringing different organisations together and mediating between
them. Nonetheless, the public sector scored highest on betweenness in
communications. As above, they perform a crucial role in disseminating
25
information on climate change adaptation that can link different organisations
together and provide the foundation for collaborations.
The analysis of communication and collaboration ties between different
stakeholder groups has indicated that cooperation between the public and third
sector is more intensive than for other combinations of stakeholder groups. This
may be considered as a factor supporting the inter-organisational knowledge
flow; working with non-governmental organisations may help the public sector
utilise different sources of knowledge and resources related to climate change
adaptation. However, over-reliance on the third sector and research institutions
in terms of knowledge-sharing and partnership-building may mean that climate
change adaptation networks are sensitive to fluctuations in funding and other
issues.
The importance of cooperation on climate change has been emphasised by a
presence of a number of partnerships relating to climate or other environmental
issues (such as green infrastructure) in the region. Crucial organisations in the
were involved in these partnerships including the work to develop the document
Rising to the challenge: a climate change action plan for England’s Northwest
(NWDA, GONW, NWRA, EA 2006), which significantly progressed the adaptation
agenda in the region by engaging different agencies and local authorities in the
delivery of the actions. Encouraging collaboration has worked in the region and
is conducive to moving the climate change adaptation agenda forward even
more.
The network was characterised by an uneven distribution of the number of ties
between different organisations (figures 1 and 2); a small number of actors held
a high proportion of the connections in the network. This threatens the
sustainability of the communication and collaboration network. If even one of
these actors is removed, the density and connectivity of the entire network is
weakened. This is certainly the case for the two organisations with the highest
number of connections in the network and the most influential position in the
network: NWDA and the EA NW (table 6). The NWDA will officially cease to exist
in April 2012. Coupling this with the likely restructuring of the second biggest
player, the EA NW, poses a significant threat to the flows of information and
collaboration between organisations in the overall network.2
2 As a result of the governmental review, the Environment Agency has been retained as an NDPB. Moreover, it has received additional funding to take on a new, additional role
as the Government’s delivery body in England for advice on climate adaptation (Defra,
26
Due to the removal of the regional tier of planning and potential restructuring of
other public or publicly-funded organisations at the regional level, the north west
of England is likely to experience a drop in communications on climate change.
Both the regional and conurbation (GM) levels may also be affected in terms of
the number of ties and the connectivity between different groups of
stakeholders. In general, planned changes to the number and structure of
organisations seriously weaken the network; the density of the collaboration
network drops by 50% when the organisations threatened by abolition or
restructuring are removed. However, what needs to be remembered is that this
paper describes the worst case scenario, where all of the organisations planned
to be abolished or under review ceased to function or ceased to work on climate
change adaptation. At the moment, this is not the case, as indicated by the EA
example. Only few of more than 900 planned to be abolished or reviewed NDPBs
have been removed so far; and among the 31 bodies to undergo review in 2012,
none are directly concerned with climate change adaptation (Maude 2011).
Thus, the network can function in a similar shape (minus the regional tier of
planning) for some more time.
The shift of focus from regional to local planning may offer new opportunities for
local authority activity on climate change adaptation. The analysis has shown
that the local authorities in GM are very active in the collaboration and
communication networks; the local and GM level were characterised by the
highest mean betweeenness scores, thus making them potentially important
brokers of communication and collaboration in the network. Also, the local level
is not directly affected by the abolition or review of organisations (tables 2, 3
and 7). Nevertheless, local authorities face significant budget cuts, thus may
lack the personnel needed to translate climate change projections, or implement
and monitor the adaptation measures. Further, since the abolition of the national
indicators, adaptation is likely to be pushed again to the bottom of their
priorities list (Scott 2011).
The Localism Act has elevated the importance of the neighbourhood scale to
spatial planning. Here, communities can set out specific policies and land use
designations for their local area. These neighbourhood plans will be adopted as
part of the official local development plan (subject to compliance with its overall
vision) which may give them significant weight over approving planning
applications (Adaptation Sub-Committee 2011b). While these changes are
expected to give more freedom to local authorities and engage local citizens,
2011). Thus, it is likely to gain significance as an actor in the climate change adaptation
network.
27
there are concerns about the consistency of such bottom-up planning between
different areas due to different priorities of those involved in the development of
the plans. This, combined with the absence of direction from higher tiers, may
jeopardise the strategic objectives and large-scale solutions. Moreover, climate
change adaptation planning requires considerable expertise, which may not exist
within the local communities (Scott 2011).
The uncertain future for the local authorities, the weak or non-existent regional
tier and low levels of cooperation between local and national levels may indicate
the need for activation of the private sector and research institutes to support
the third sector and public sector organisations in development and
implementation of climate change adaptation. Some private sector
organisations, namely Arup and United Utilities, are already active in the field
and has been indicated to have an important role in the network. New
governance solutions to working with stakeholders such as Local Economic
Partnerships (LEPs) could use the strong position of private sector in the climate
change adaptation network. However, LEPs have virtually no environmental
capabilities (Carter and Connelly 2012). Thus, another route to involve private
sector in environmental issues is the creation of Local Nature Partnerships
(LNPs). The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities has been one of the
22 successful recipients in the first round of LNP funding (Defra 2011b). This can
be seen as the first step in promoting different modes of governance on climate
change adaptation, but the results are yet to be seen.
4.1 Research limitations and further research
One of the limitations of this research lies in the response rate achieved; whilst
62% for a questionnaire survey is considered very good, for the purposes of
social network analysis, the higher the response rate the more credible the
results. Furthermore, the group of organisations targeted included stakeholders
from various sectors and with various expertise, as the aim of the research was
to capture general trends in inter-organisational cooperation on climate change
adaptation, and also to highlight the potential impacts of the changes in the
spatial planning system and the abolition of NDPBs.
Further research could focus on stakeholders related to a particular sector, or a
particular climate-change related problem. For example, the risk-response case
studies done within EcoCities, focusing on the risk of high temperatures to
people (Kazmierczak 2012) and the risk of flooding to built environment
28
(Kazmierczak and Connelly 2012) could be complemented by social network
analyses concerning only the organisations with the stake in heat wave
management and public health, or built environment and flooding, respectively.
Another interesting avenue for future research is to apply the social network
analysis to a more local level, for example to the scale of individual flood risk
intervention. This would indicate who are the crucial players involved in the
implementation of particular climate change adaptation initiatives. In addition,
supplementing the quantitative social network analysis, in-depth qualitative
interviews with stakeholders could be carried out to further elucidate the
challenges and barriers to cooperation on climate change adaptation.
In addition, the analyses of intra-organisational networks are commonly applied
in business studies (Tsai 2000; Brass et al 2004); they help to indicate crucial
individuals who deal with a given issue. Network analysis could be carried out at
a local authority level, showing which departments and individuals are the most
involved. This could present an interesting picture particularly if it considers the
impacts of public spending cuts.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the help of the EcoCities team at the University of
Manchester and Andrew Hoolachan, currently University of Cambridge, in
collecting the data. The helpful comments of Dr Angela Connelly are greatly
appreciated.
29
5 References
Adaptaton Sub-Committee. 2011a. Adapting to climate change in the UK –
measuring progress. Committee on Climate Change, London.
Adaptation Sub-Committee. 2011b. Analysis of How Land Use Planning Decisions
Affect Vulnerability to Climate Risks. Committee on Climate Change, London.
Alber, G., Kern, K. 2008. Governing Climate Change in Cities: Modes of Urban
Governance in Multi-Level Systems. OECD International Conference, Competitive
Cities and Climate Change. 2nd Annual Meeting of the OECD Roundtable Strategy
for Urban Development, Milan.
Borgatti, S.P. 2002. Netdraw Network Visualisation. Analytic Technologies, Harvard
(MA).
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software
for Social Network Analysis Analytic Technologies, Harvard (MA).
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve H. R., Tsai W. 2004. Taking Stock of Networks
and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective. The Academy of Management
Journal, 47(6), 795 – 817.
Bulkeley, H., Schroeder, H., Janda, K., Zhao, J., Armstrong, A., Yi Chu, S., Ghosh, S.
2009. Cities and Climate Change: The role of institutions, governance and urban
planning. Report prepared for the World Bank Urban Symposium on Climate
Change.
Maude, F. 2011. Public bodies reform. 15 December [written ministerial statement].
CAG consultants. Adapting to climate change: Local areas’ action. CAG consultants,
London.
CAP. 2007. Cities preparing for Climate Change: A study of six urban regions. The
Clean Air Partnership, Toronto.
Carter, J. 2009. Stakeholder mapping for climate change adaptation, Manchester,
EcoCities project, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Carter, J. G. and Lawson, N. 2011. Looking back and projecting forwards: GM’s
weather and climate. EcoCities project, The University of Manchester,
Manchester, UK.
Cavan, G. 2011. Climate change projections for GM. EcoCities project, The
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Corfee Morlot J., Kamal-Chaoui, L., Donovan, M., Cochran, I. Teasdale, P-J. 2009.
Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance. OECD Environmental Working
Papers, 14, OECD publishing.
30
Corfee-Morlot, J., Cochran I., Hallegatte, S., Teasdale, P-J. 2011. Multilevel risk
governance and urban adaptation policy. Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-
010-9980.
Corteville, L., Sun, M. 2009. An interorganisational social network analysis of the
Michigan Diabetes Outreach Networks. Michigan Department of Community
Health, Michigan.
Defra. 2011a. Environment Agency to provide practical advice to help England
adapt to climate change. http://www.Defra.gov.uk/news/2011/03/22/ea-
climate-change-adaptation/
Defra. 2011b. Successful applicants to the first round of the Local nature
partnerships capacity-building fund. Defra, London.
House of Commons. 2010. Adapting to Climate Change. The Environmental Audit
Committee, Sixth report of the session 2009 – 10. HC 113. The Stationary
Office, London.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenvaud/113/1
13.pdf
Keskitalo, C. 2010. Developing adaptation policy and practice in Europe: multi-level
governance of climate change. Springer Verlag, The Netherlands.
Ribeiro, M. , Losenno, C., Dworak, T., Massey, E., Swart, R., Benzie, M., Laaser, C.
2009. Design of guidelines for the elaboration of Regional Climate Change
Adaptations Strategies. Study for European Commission – DG Environment -
Tender DG ENV. G.1/ETU/2008/0093r. Ecologic Institute, Vienna.
Scott, F. 2011. Is localism delivering for climate change? Emerging responses from
local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and neighbourhood plans. Green
Alliance, London.
Swart, R, Biesbroek, R, Binnerup, S, Carter, T.R, Cowan, C, Henrichs, T, Loquen, S,
Mela, H, Morecroft, M, Reese, M., Rey, D. 2009. Europe adapts to climate
change: comparing National Adaptation Strategies. Partnership for European
Environmental Research (PEER) reports, 1, PEER, Helsinki.
Tanner, T., Mitchell, T., Polack, E., Guenther, B. 2009. Urban Governance for
adaptation: assessing climate change resilience in ten Asian cities. Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE). 2011. Engineering the Future. Infrastructure,
engineering and climate change adaptation – ensuring services in an uncertain
future. The Royal Academy of Engineering, London.
Tsai, W. 2000. Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation. Strategic
Management, 21, 925–939
31
6 Appendix 1: Organisations included in social network
analysis
Organisations marked with an asterix were considered for abolition or were listed as
under review in October 2010.
4NW* AGMA ARUP Association of British Insurers Bolton MBC BRE NW British Atmospheric Data Centre British Waterways* Bruntwood Bury MBC Cabinet Office Campaign for the Protection of Rural England Capita Symonds Centre for Construction Innovation NW Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment*
Committee for Climate Change Community Forests NW Countryside Properties Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Drivers Jonas Electricity NW Envirolink NW Environment Agency* Environment Agency GM* Environment Agency NW* Environment Network Manchester Enworks FHRC Forestry Commission* Forestry Commission NW* Friends of the Earth Friends of the Earth Manchester GM Ambulance Service GM Ecology Unit
GM Fire and Rescue Service GM Health Protection Agency* GM Integrated Transport Authority GM Police Authority GM Waste Disposal Authority GM Chamber of Commerce GMPTE (TfGM) Government Office for the North West*
GM Resilience Forum Groundwork Local Groundwork Groundwork NW Highways Agency Home Builders Federation Homes and Communities Agency* Improvement and Development Agency JBA Consulting Local and Regional Adaptation Partnership Board Local Governments Association Manchester CC Manchester Metropolitan University Mersey Forest Met Office Met Office NW
MIDAS National Trust Natural England* Natural England NW* NHS NW North West Development Agency* NW Ambulance Service NW Public Health Observatory NW Regional Housing Board Oldham MBC Peak District NPA Peel Holdings Pennine Edge Forest Piccadilly Partnership Places Matter Red Rose Forest Rochdale MBC Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution* Royal Town and Planning Institute Royal Meteorological Society RTPI NW
Salford CC Scott Wilson Stockport MBC Tameside MBC TEP Town and Country Planning Association Trafford MBC Tyndall Centre
32
UK Climate Impacts Programme United Utilities University of Manchester
University of Salford Wigan MBC
33
7 Appendix 2: Additional organisations indicated by the
respondents as entities they have collaborated or
communicated with on climate change adaptation
Communication Collaboration
Action for Sustainable Living 0 3
AECOM 0 1
Association of National Park Authorities 0 1
Audit Commission 2 1
BRE 1 0
BTCV 1 0
Business In the Community Mayday 1 1
CAG Consultants 0 2
Campaign to Protect Rural England NW 9 0
Carbon Trust 0 0
CBI (Confederation of British Industry) 1 0
CIRIA 1 0 CIWEM (Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management) 1 0
CLASP 1 1
Climate UK 1 0
Cooperative Group 1 0
Creative Concern 0 1
Department for Transport 2 0
Department of Health 4 2
Design for Homes 1 0
Development Education Project Manchester 0 0
Emerge 3R 0 1
Energy Saving Trust 1 2
Environmental Law Foundation 0 1
GM Public Health Network 0 1
GM Public Protection Partnership 0 1
Halcrow 1 0
Health Protection Agency 12 6
HM Treasury Infrastructure 1 0
HR Walligrod 0 2 IEMA (Institute of Environmental management and Assessment) 1 0
IGLOO 0 1
Imperial College of London 0 1
Lancashire Wildlife Trust 0 2
Leeds Metropolitan University 0 1
London School of Economics 0 1
London School Of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine 0 1
MEAS NW 1 0
National Flood Forum 0 1
34
National Grid 1 0
National Housing Federation 0 1
National Oceanographic Centre 1 0
NHS GM (established May 2011) 5 11
Nottingham Trent University 0 1
NW British Transport Police 0 1
NW Business Leadership Team 0 0
NW Climate Change and Transport Group 0 1
NW Coastal Group 0 1
NW Environment Link 0 1
NW Health Protection Agency 1 0
NW Highways Agency 0 1
NW Improvement and Efficiency Partnership 2 0
NW Rural Affairs Forum 4 0
OFWAT 1 0
Oxfam Manchester 1 0
Planning Inspectorate 0 1
PriceWaterhouseCoopers 1 0
RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) 0 1
Royal Aeronautical Society 1 0
RSA 1 0
RSPB (The Royal Society for the protection of Birds) 0 1
Scott Hughes Design 0 1
SHA (Strategic Health Authority) 1 0
Sustainable Development Commission 1 0
Tesco 0 1
Turley Associates 0 1
UK Green Building Council 0 1
UK Parliament: Energy and Climate Change Committee 1 0
UK Parliament: Environmental Audit Committee 1 0
UK Water Industry 0 2
University College London 0 1
University of Birmingham 0 1
University of Bolton 1 0
University of East Anglia 1 0
University of Lancaster 0 1
University of Liverpool 0 1
University of Oxford 1 0
University of Surrey 0 1
University of West England 0 1
Urban Vision 0 1
URBED 0 1
Water Research Foundation 0 1
Woodland Trust 1 0