Legitimacy of urban climate change adaptation: a case in Helsinki
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Johannes Klein ; Raine Mäntysalo ; Sirkku Juhola
- 关键词：Climate change adaptation ; Planning theory ; Social network analysis ; Legitimacy ; Helsinki
- 刊名：Regional Environmental Change
- 出版年：2016
- 出版时间：March 2016
- 年：2016
- 卷：16
- 期：3
- 页码：815-826
- 全文大小：874 KB
- 参考文献：Adger NW, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Change 15:77–86. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005 CrossRef
Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson DR, Naess LO, Wolf J, Wreford A (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Change 93:335–354. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z CrossRef
Albrechts L (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environ Plan B 31:743–758. doi:10.1068/b3065 CrossRef
Allmendinger P (2009) Planning theory. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke
Bäcklund P, Mäntysalo R (2010) Agonism and institutional ambiguity: ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice-the case of Finland. Plan Theory 9:333–350. doi:10.1177/1473095210373684 CrossRef
Berkhout F (2012) Adaptation to climate change by organizations. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 3:91–106. doi:10.1002/wcc.154 CrossRef
Biesbroek GR, Swart RJ, van der Knaap WGM (2009) The mitigation-adaptation dichotomy and the role of spatial planning. Habitat Int 33:230–237. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.001 CrossRef
Birkmann J, Garschagen M, Kraas F, Quang N (2010) Adaptive urban governance: new challenges for the second generation of urban adaptation strategies to climate change. Sustain Sci 5:185–206. doi:10.1007/s11625-010-0111-3 CrossRef
Brandes U (2001) A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality*. J Math Sociol 25:163–177. doi:10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249 CrossRef
Burton P, Mustelin J (2013) Planning for climate change: Is greater public participation the key to success? Urban Policy Res 31:399–415. doi:10.1080/08111146.2013.778196 CrossRef
Carter JG, Cavan G, Connelly A, Guy S, Handley J, Kazmierczak A (2015) Climate change and the city: building capacity for urban adaptation. Prog Plan 95:1–66CrossRef
Cashmore M, Wejs A (2014) Constructing legitimacy for climate change planning: a study of local government in Denmark. Glob Environ Change 24:203–2012. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.019 CrossRef
Commission European (2009) Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action, COM 2009/147. European Commission, Brussels
Commission European (2013) EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change, COM 2013/216. European Commission, Brussels
Dempwolf CS, Lyles LW (2012) The uses of social network analysis in planning: a review of the literature. J Plan Lit 27:3–21. doi:10.1177/0885412211411092 CrossRef
Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Clim Policy 4:107–128. doi:10.1080/14693062.2004.9685515 CrossRef
Dowd A, Marshall N, Fleming A, Jakku E, Gaillard E, Howden M (2014) The role of networks in transforming Australian agriculture. Nat Clim Change 4:558–563. doi:10.1038/nclimate2275 CrossRef
Felli R, Castree N (2012) Neoliberalising adaptation to environmental change: foresight or foreclosure? Environ Plan A 44:1–4. doi:10.1068/a44680 CrossRef
Forester J (1982) Planning in the face of power. J Am Plan Assoc 48:67–80. doi:10.1080/01944368208976167 CrossRef
Forester J (1993) Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice: toward a critical pragmatism. State University of New York Press, Albany
Gasper D (1996) Analysing policy arguments. In: Apthorpe RJ, Gasper D (eds) Arguing development policy: frames and discourses. Frank Cass, London, pp 36–63
Haapala A, Järvelä E (2014) Helsingin ilmastonmuutokseen sopeutumisen toimenpiteiden priorisointi, 11. Helsingin kaupungin ympäristökeskus, Helsinki
Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action, vol I. Beacon, Boston
Hajer MA (2006) Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. In: van den Brink M, Metze T (eds) Words matter in policy and planning—discourse theory and method in social sciences, Netherlands Geographical, Studies edn. Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, Utrecht, pp 65–74
Harman BP, Taylor BM, Lane MB (2015) Urban partnerships and climate adaptation: challenges and opportunities. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:74–79. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.001 CrossRef
Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. MacMillan Press, LondonCrossRef
Healey P (2006) Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge, New York
Hillier J (2002) Shadows of power: an allegory of prudence in land-use planning. Routledge, London
Hillier J (2003) Agon’izing over consensus: why habermasian ideals cannot beReal’. Plan Theory 2:37–59. doi:10.1177/1473095203002001005 CrossRef
HSY - Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority (2012) Pääkaupunkiseudun ilmastonmuutokseen sopeutumisen strategia. HSY, Helsinki
Hunt A, Watkiss P (2011) Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review of the literature. Clim Change 104:13–49. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9975-6 CrossRef
Hurlimann AC, March AP (2012) The role of spatial planning in adapting to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 3:477–488. doi:10.1002/wcc.183 CrossRef
Hytönen J (2014) The problematic relationship of communicative planning theory and the Finnish legal culture. Plan Theory. doi:10.1177/1473095214549618
Innes JE, Booher DE (2010) Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge, New York
Juhola S (2013) Adaptation to climate change in the private and the third sector: case study of governance of the Helsinki Metropolitan region. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 31:911–925. doi:10.1068/c11326 CrossRef
Keskitalo ECH, Juhola S, Westerhoff L (2012) Climate change as governmentality: technologies of government for adaptation in three European countries. J Environ Plan Manage 55:435–452. doi:10.1080/09640568.2011.607994 CrossRef
Lehmann P, Brenck M, Gebhardt O, Schaller S, Süßbauer E (2013) Barriers and opportunities for urban adaptation planning: analytical framework and evidence from cities in Latin America and Germany. Mitig Adapt Strateg Global Change 20:75–97. doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9480-0 CrossRef
Lehtonen S, Luoma S (2006) Incorporating sea level rise scenarios in Helsinki City planning. Spec Pap Geol Surv Finl 41:83–94
Lindblom CE (1959) The science of” muddling through”. Public Adm Rev. doi:10.2307/973677
Lindblom CE (1965) The intelligence of democracy: decision making through mutual adjustment. Free Press, New York
Lonkila K (2012) Aspects of strategic climate work in Nordic municipalities: NordLead Project Final Report. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen
Lund DH, Sehested K, Hellesen T, Nellemann V (2012) Climate change adaptation in Denmark: enhancement through collaboration and meta-governance? Local Environ 17:613–628. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.678318 CrossRef
Mäntysalo R, Saglie I (2010) Private influence preceding public involvement: strategies for legitimizing preliminary partnership arrangements in urban housing planning in Norway and Finland. Plan Theory Pract 11:317–338. doi:10.1080/14649357.2010.500123 CrossRef
Mäntysalo R, Saglie I, Cars G (2011) Between input legitimacy and output efficiency: defensive routines and agonistic reflectivity in Nordic land-use planning. Eur Plan Stud 19:2109–2126. doi:10.1080/09654313.2011.632906 CrossRef
Manuel-Navarrete D, Pelling M, Redclift M (2011) Critical adaptation to hurricanes in the Mexican Caribbean: development visions, governance structures, and coping strategies. Glob Environ Change 21:249–258. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.009 CrossRef
Marttila V, Granholm H, Laanikari J, Yrjölä T, Aalto A, Heikinheimo P, Honkatuki J, Järvinen H, Liski J, Merivirta R, Paunio M (2005) Finland’s national strategy for adaptation to climate change. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki
Matthews T (2013) Institutional perspectives on operationalising climate adaptation through planning. Plan Theory Pract 14:198–210. doi:10.1080/14649357.2013.781208 CrossRef
McAllister RR, McCrea R, Lubell MN (2013) Policy networks, stakeholder interactions and climate adaptation in the region of South East Queensland, Australia. Reg Environ Change. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0489-4
Mees HL, Driessen PP, Runhaar HA (2012) Exploring the scope of public and private responsibilities for climate adaptation. J Environ Policy Plan 14:305–330. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2012.707407 CrossRef
Mees HL, Driessen PP, Runhaar HA (2014) Legitimate adaptive flood risk governance beyond the dikes: the cases of Hamburg, Helsinki and Rotterdam. Reg Environ Change 14:671–682. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0527-2 CrossRef
Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:22026–22031. doi:10.1073/pnas.1007887107 CrossRef
Mouffe C (2000) The democratic paradox. Verso, London
Naess LO, Bang G, Eriksen S, Vevatne J (2005) Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Glob Environ Change 15:125–138. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.10.003 CrossRef
Nyman K, Mäntysalo R (2014) Patologisia piirteitä maankäyttö—ja rakennuslain sovelluksissa: tapaus Savonlinnan Kasinonsaari. Kunnallistieteellinen aikakauskirja 42:324–329
Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (2007) Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Pløger J (2004) Strife: urban planning and agonism. Plan Theory 3:71–92. doi:10.1177/1473095204042318 CrossRef
Rauken T, Mydske PK, Winsvold M (2014) Mainstreaming climate change adaptation at the local level. Local Environ. doi:10.1080/13549839.2014.880412
Rein M (1983) Value-Critical Policy Analysis. In: Callahan D, Jennings B (eds) Ethics, the social sciences and policy analysis. Plenum, New York, pp 83–112CrossRef
Sager TØ (2012) Reviving critical planning theory: dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in communicative planning. Routledge, London
Scharpf FW (1999) Governing in Europe: effective and democratic?. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Simon HA (1979) Päätöksenteko ja hallinto (Administrative Behaviour), trans. Pirkko Rajala. Weilin+Göös, Espoo
Storbjörk S (2010) ‘It takes more to get a ship to change course’: barriers for organizational learning and local climate adaptation in Sweden. J Environ Policy Plan 12:235–254. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2010.505414 CrossRef
Taylor N (1998) Urban planning theory since 1945. Sage Publications Limited, London
Tennekes J, Driessen PP, van Rijswick HF, van Bree L (2013) Out of the comfort zone: institutional context and the scope for legitimate climate adaptation policy. J Environ Policy Plan 16:241–259. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2013.836961 CrossRef
Toikka A (2010) Exploring the composition of communication networks of governance—a case study on local environmental policy in Helsinki, Finland. Environ Policy Gov 20:135–145. doi:10.1002/eet.532 CrossRef
van Buuren A, Driessen P, Teisman G, van Rijswick M (2014) Toward legitimate governance strategies for climate adaptation in the Netherlands: combining insights from a legal, planning, and network perspective. Reg Environ Change 14:1021–1033. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0448-0
Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis in the social and behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Wejs A, Harvold K, Larsen SV, Saglie I (2013) Legitimacy building in weak institutional settings: climate change adaptation at local level in Denmark and Norway. Environ Polit 23:490–508. doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.854967 CrossRef
Wilson E (2006) Adapting to climate change at the local level: the spatial planning response. Local Environ 11:609–625. doi:10.1080/13549830600853635 CrossRef
Yrjölä T, Viinanen J (2012) Keinoja ilmastonmuutokseen sopeutumiseksi Helsingin kaupungissa, 2/2012. Helsingin kaupunki Ympäristökeskus, Helsinki - 作者单位：Johannes Klein (1)
Raine Mäntysalo (1)
Sirkku Juhola (1) (2)
1. Land Use Planning and Urban Studies Group, Department of Real Estate, Planning and Geoinformatics, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
2. Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland - 刊物类别：Earth and Environmental Science
- 刊物主题：Environment
Geoecology and Natural Processes
Geology
Oceanography
Geography
Nature Conservation
Regional Science - 出版者：Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
- ISSN：1436-378X
文摘
While there is general agreement on the necessity for local adaptation, there is a wide range of different understandings of what type of adaptation is seen as legitimate. It is often contested who should actively steer and take part in local adaptation, for which reasons and based on what kind of mandate, and with which methods. Planning theory can serve as a helpful reference point for examining the sources of legitimacy for adaptation in an urban context. From a planning perspective, adaptation is concerned with climate change as one out of many issues planning has to respond to. The layered co-existence of planning paradigms in practice suggests diverse, sometimes contradictory sources of legitimacy for urban planning and—as we claim here—also for climate change adaptation. This study examines the legitimacy of adaptation from a planning theoretical perspective in Helsinki, drawing on semi-structured interviews and social network analysis to show how adaptation is commonly understood from a rationalist perspective as an apolitical activity with local authorities’ experts designing and implementing adaptation. Nevertheless, some of the central actors understand adaptation as a communicative activity and a common deliberation of solutions. The co-occurrence of disparate paradigms results in ambiguous legitimacy that can impede the successful implementation of local climate change adaptation. Keywords Climate change adaptation Planning theory Social network analysis Legitimacy Helsinki