Elsevier

Cities

Volume 54, May 2016, Pages 36-44
Cities

How cities prepare for climate change: Comparing Hamburg and Rotterdam

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.001Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper compares the different ways in which the cities of Hamburg and Rotterdam are taking preemptive action to adapt to climate change. Literature, interviews, secondary data, official statistics, project reports and policy briefs were used to identify institutional arrangements used by the city governments to encourage innovations in climate adaptation strategies and involve the private sector in climate change policy implementation. We focus on cases that create positive opportunities; exploring how innovations are facilitated within the theoretical frameworks of the Porter hypothesis and eco-innovation. We examine two possible pathways of climate change governance, firstly strict regulation and formal enforcement, and secondly institutional eco-innovation and voluntary measures. We found that different emphasis is placed on the preferred pathway in each of the case studies. Hamburg focuses on formal enforcements while the Rotterdam city government encourages institutional eco-innovation by acting as a platform and also providing incentives. Our findings suggest that a well-designed institutional framework can enhance innovation and increase environmental and business performance. The framework could vary in instruments and patterns, using both formal constraints and incentives to increase voluntary actions to shape policy. The formal rules could be stringent or incentivising to shape the climate change measures. The research aims to contribute to both practice and science by providing examples that might motivate and inspire other cities to design appropriate institutions for climate change policy implementation.

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)

  • W.N. Adger

    Institutional adaptation to environmental risk under the transition in Vietnam

    Annals of the Association of American Geographers

    (2000)
  • E. Alpay et al.

    Productivity growth and environmental regulation in Mexican and US food manufacturing

    American Journal of Agricultural Economics

    (2002)
  • S. Ambec et al.

    The Porter hypothesis at 20: Can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness?

    Review of Environmental Economics and Policy

    (2013)
  • A. Aylett

    The socio-institutional dynamics of urban climate governance: A comparative analysis of innovation and change in Durban (KZN, South Africa) and Portland (OR, USA)

    Urban Studies

    (2013)
  • E. Berman et al.

    Environmental regulation and productivity: Evidence from oil refineries

    Review of Economics and Statistics

    (2001)
  • F. Biermann et al.

    Earth system governance: A research framework

    International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics

    (2010)
  • R. Brännlund et al.

    Environmental policy without costs? A review of the Porter hypothesis

    International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics

    (2009)
  • H. Bulkeley et al.

    Governing climate change

  • City of Rotterdam

    Rotterdam Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

  • P. Dircke et al.

    Connecting delta cities

    (2010)
  • M. Doelle et al.

    New governance arrangements at the intersection of climate change and forest policy: Institutional, political and regulatory dimensions

    Public Administration

    (2012)
  • J. Fehrenbache

    Inhabitat interview, Koen Olthuis of WaterStudio.nl, talks about design for a water world

  • G. Rotterdam

    Rotterdam Climate Proof: The Rotterdam challenge on water and climate adaptation

    (2009)
  • G. Rotterdam

    2010

    (2010)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text