How cities prepare for climate change: Comparing Hamburg and Rotterdam
Introduction
Future climate projections predict an increase in extreme weather events, such as heat waves or heavy precipitation, as well as continuing rise of global mean sea level (Pachauri, Mayer, & Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2015). The most vulnerable societies are in coastal and river floodplains, and those whose economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources, especially where rapid urbanization is occurring. Currently more than half of the world's population lives in coastal areas, and 75% of all large cities are located on the coast. IPCC projections indicate that Europe will be subject to increased storm frequency; and sea level rise will cause increased risk of tidal and storm floods with greater erosion. Many European and East Asian cities have defences against flooding and erosion in coastal areas, particularly in cities where climate change impacts are likely to be costly, for example Tokyo, Shanghai, Hamburg, Rotterdam and London (Field & Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012). However, in many cities there is little action compared to the level of threat (Aylett, 2013). Implementing climate change policy, such as mitigation and adaptation, requires well designed institutional frameworks (Adger, 2000, Bakker, 1999, John Heinz and Center for Science, Economics, and the Environ, Næss et al., 2005, Tol, 2005). In this paper we explore the institutional frameworks that two cities, Hamburg and Rotterdam, use to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
The following section briefly reviews relevant literature. The theoretical framework section discusses the theoretical foundations used in the paper. The methodology section describes the methodology; and the results and discussion section provides an overview of the results with detailed discussions comparing the two case studies in the context of the Porter hypothesis and eco-innovation. In the conclusion we discuss the significance and implications of the case studies in terms of the research question: how are institutional frameworks designed to transform climate change from a challenge to an opportunity in Hamburg and Rotterdam? To answer this question we examine policy instruments used in Hamburg and Rotterdam to efficiently implement climate change policy; and compare the role of strict regulation and formal enforcements versus eco-innovation in influencing performance and competitiveness.
Section snippets
Literature review
Much of the existing climate change governance literature focuses on the global level. For example, regime theory scholars discuss how international climate instruments, such as the United Nations Framework on Climate Change Convention, could affect the behaviour and commitment of states. Less attention has been paid to regional, national and sub-national levels (Doelle, Henschel, Smith, Tollefson, & Wellstead, 2012). Importance of the participation of local authorities in climate change has
Theoretical framework
A theoretical framework based on institutional economics is used in this research (North, 1990), with the Porter hypothesis and eco-innovation concept used in the analysis (Ambec et al., 2013, Porter, 1990, Porter, 1991, Porter and Van der Linde, 1995). Institutions are as defined by North (1990, p. 360): “the humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction”. The institutional matrix that provides the incentive structure for human society consists of formal rules, informal
Methods
We analyse two project-based climate change strategies, using the cities of Hamburg and Rotterdam as case studies. The justifications for choosing Hamburg and Rotterdam are: (1) The case studies should have an institutional framework, including formal and informal arrangements with enforcement characteristics; (2) the cities should have accomplished both structural and non-structural adaptation measures; (3) the cities should have global recognition of their climate change efforts; and (4)
Climate change projects in Hamburg and Rotterdam
Hamburg's HafenCity project has invested 10.9 billion Euro during the period 1997–2013 (with around 8.5 billion Euro from the private sector)2 and Rotterdam plans to invest 13 billion Euro on the climate proofing project by 2025.3 A comparison of
Conclusion
Both Hamburg and Rotterdam have developed effective pathways. However, there are also concerns. For example, over emphasis on strict formal rules for land development provides less opportunity for citizens to participate, and therefore the local residents express concerns about low stakeholder engagement and gentrification. On the other hand, relying heavily on a market-oriented pathway could also lead to higher housing and land use prices. Less initial stakeholder engagement might later
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor as well as Prof. Dr. Christopher Dent for their great contribution to the organisation of the special issue. We would like to sincerely thank three anonymous reviewers and Dr. Hinrich Voss for their very useful and valuable comments which have improved our paper. We also would like to thank Dr. Frans H.J.M. Coenen for his advice and Dr. Juergen Weichselgartner for his assistance in the initial phase of this paper as well as all the interviewees and
References (50)
The politics of hydropower: Developing the Mekong
Political Geography
(1999)- et al.
Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the UK: Government policies and firm motivations
Ecological Economics
(2011) Urban sustainability and economic development in the United Kingdom: Exploring the contradictions
Cities
(1997)- et al.
From government to governance in forest planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest initiative
Forest Policy and Economics
(2009) - et al.
On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the UK
Research Policy
(2012) - et al.
Understanding the notion of resilience in spatial planning: A case study of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Cities
(2013) - et al.
Institutional adaptation to climate change: Flood responses at the municipal level in Norway
Global Environmental Change
(2005) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change
Global Environmental Change
(2010)Redefining innovation—Eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics
Ecological Economics
(2000)Adaptation and mitigation: Trade-offs in substance and methods
Environmental Science & Policy
(2005)