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