Transcript kazmierczak_adaptgov_2012

Social networks, institutional relations and
climate change adaptation in Greater
Manchester, UK
Aleksandra Kazmierczak and Hannah Knox
University 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
L.S. Lowry “Industrial Scene”
• Post-industrial,
polycentric conurbation
• Local authority – Greater Manchester – NW
region - England
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
Organisations
Stakeholders in climate change adaptation in GM
considered in the study: all organisations
Spatial scale
Stakeholder
North
Greater
type
National West of
Manchester
England
Public
18
14
12
sector/NDPB
Third sector
3
4
4
Research
7
0
0
Private
11
4
1
Total
39
22
17
Local
Total
11
55
3
0
1
15
14
7
17
93
Organisations
Stakeholders in climate change adaptation in GM
considered in the study: remaining organisations
Spatial scale
Stakeholder
North
Greater
type
National West of
Manchester
England
Public
11
8
10
sector/NDPB
Third sector
3
4
4
Research
7
0
0
Private
11
4
1
Total
32
16
15
Local
Total
11
40
3
0
1
15
14
7
17
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
• Contact
[email protected]
• www.manchester.ac.uk/ecocities
Kazmierczak, A. 2012. Working together? Interorganisational cooperation on climate change
adaptation. EcoCities project, The University of
Manchester, Manchester, UK.