This article was downloaded by: [University of Calgary]On: 25 September 2013, At: 20:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Local Environment: The InternationalJournal of Justice and SustainabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Adapting to Climate Change at theLocal Level: The Spatial PlanningResponseElizabeth Wilson aa Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UKPublished online: 23 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Elizabeth Wilson (2006) Adapting to Climate Change at the Local Level:The Spatial Planning Response, Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice andSustainability, 11:6, 609-625, DOI: 10.1080/13549830600853635

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830600853635

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ARTICLE

Adapting to Climate Change at theLocal Level: The Spatial Planning

Response

ELIZABETH WILSON

Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

ABSTRACT Climate change is a major issue for all levels of government, global, nationaland local. Local authorities’ responses to climate change have tended to concentrate ontheir role in reducing greenhouse gases. However, the scientific consensus is that we alsoneed to adapt to unavoidable climate change. Spatial planning at a local level has acritical anticipatory role to play in promoting robust adaptation. This paper reviewsthe shift in local authorities’ planning policies for climate change adaptation in the UKsince 2000, and provides evidence of underlying attitudes amongst planningprofessionals to climate change. It shows that, while the issue of climate change isbecoming recognized with respect to flood risk, the wider implications (for instance,for biodiversity and water resources) are not yet integrated into plans. The reasons forthis lie in lack of political support and lack of engagement of the planning professionwith climate change networks. But the paper also argues there are difficulties inacknowledging the need for adaptation at the local level, with the short-term horizonsof local plans at odds with perceptions of the long-term implications of climate change.

Introduction

Climate change is a serious issue facing the international, national and localcommunities. The issue has gained a high political salience amongst poli-ticians and scientists, such as at the G8 summit in 2005. Public awareness

Local EnvironmentVol. 11, No. 6, 609–625, December 2006

Correspondence Address: Elizabeth Wilson, Department of Planning, School of Built Environ-ment, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK. Email: ebwilson@brookes.ac.uk

1354-9839 Print=1469-6711 Online=06=060609-17 # 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080=13549830600853635

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

is also high: a Eurobarometer study (Commission of European Communities[CEC], 2005) found that people regarded climate change as one of the fourenvironmental problems about which they were most worried.

Action to deal with climate change involves all levels of governance.National governments, as signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, have legallybinding commitments to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gases, andaccordingly much of the public sector response has been to focus on measuresto reduce these emissions. Local authorities, in their roles as local communityleaders, decision-makers, employers, and providers or procurers of servicesand goods, have a critical role to play in emissions reduction. Actionsinclude the adoption of energy efficiency in their own buildings and services,the promotion of spatial and transport planning policies to reduce the need totravel, and planning policies for energy-efficient development and morerenewable energy sources (Agyeman et al., 1998).

However, a number of studies have shown the limitations and barriers experi-enced by local governments in implementing these actions, despite their partici-pation in transnational and national networks such as the International Councilfor Local Environmental Initiatives’ (ICLEI’s) Cities for Climate ProtectionCampaign. These barriers include lack of professional, technical or politicalsupport (Allman et al., 2004; Davies, 2005); lack of powers or other resources;the dominance of other conventional policy objectives (Bulkeley & Betsill,2003; 2005); or, more fundamentally, the misframing of the problem as onethat can be ‘solved’ at local level (Lindseth, 2004).

But while action to reduce the causes of climate change is important, the evi-dence indicates that climate change is already happening (European Environ-ment Agency [EEA], 2004; Department of the Environment, Transport andthe Regions [DETR], 2000; UK Climate Impacts Programme [UKCIP],2003). Because of lags in the system, even if effective programmes to reducethe causes of climate change are implemented, globally and locally, thereare likely to be significant unavoidable changes up to the middle of thiscentury. This paper briefly describes the likely impacts of climate change inthe UK, and their implications for the land uses, activities and policy areasover which land use and spatial planning intervenes. It highlights the potentialrole of planning authorities in responding to climate change, and reviews theevidence for any changing response in development plans across the UK overthe period 2000–2005. It also draws on the findings of a survey of the atti-tudes of planning professionals (Arkell et al., 2004). The paper then considersthe extent to which some of the barriers identified in the literature for emis-sions reduction may also apply to adaptive measures at the local level.

Impacts of Climate Change in the UK

The UK government’s Climate Change Programme (UKCCP) argues thatthe climate is already changing (with average global temperatures rising by0.68C over the 20th century). There have been increasingly frequent summerheatwaves, fewer frosts, wetter winters, and rises in sea level (DETR, 2000).The UK government has taken this evidence seriously, and in 1997 had

610 E. Wilson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

already set up the UK Climate Impacts Programme to coordinate an assessmentof how climate change will affect the UK, and to assist organizations in devel-oping adaptation strategies. UKCIP has published estimates of likely futurechanges based on scenarios developed by the Hadley Centre for a range of emis-sions levels for the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s. The latest scenarios show that theUK will become warmer: annual average temperatures across the UK may riseby between 28C and 3.58C. The expected impacts of climate change on the UKinclude more frequent warm summers, wetter winters (but with less snowfall inScotland), drier summers everywhere, and continuing sea-level rises, particu-larly in southeast England (Hulme et al., 2002).

The consequences include risks of flooding (fluvial, coastal andintra-urban); erosion and subsidence; water shortages and reduced soilmoisture; changes in species and habitat distribution; exacerbation of theurban heat island effect; deterioration in air quality; and an increase inheat-related deaths and other health impacts (UKCIP, 2003). UKCIP has com-missioned or been involved in a number of studies on particular sectoral andpublic policy aspects, such as biodiversity (Hossell et al., 2000), health (ExpertGroup on Climate Change and Health in the UK, 2001), water (Downinget al., 2003), gardening (Bisgrove & Hadley, 2002) and buildings, infrastruc-ture, urban areas and the historic environment (Graves & Phillipson, 2000;Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EPSRC], 2003). Otherorganizations have published studies on the rural economy (Country Landand Business Association [CLA], 2001), the construction industry (Vivianet al., 2005), insurance (Crichton, 2001) and internal thermal comfort(Hacker et al., 2005; Roaf et al., 2004). This extensive array of reportscovers aspects of society which critically affect, or are affected by, the activitiesand land uses that are the subject of local authorities’ spatial planning policies.

Adaptation: The Role of Spatial Planning

A number of government reports have therefore identified the planning systemas a key public policy area to anticipate and prevent adverse impacts, and totake advantage of any opportunities it might bring. Building climate changeconsiderations into planning processes and systems allows early action,which should be more cost-effective than responding to changes as theyhappen or retrospectively. A key study concluded that there is a need tomake such planning explicit, and to raise awareness in strategic and local plan-ning decision-making (Environmental Resources Management [ERM], 2000).

The report recognized that there would be some direct and indirect costs ofincorporating climate assessment into planning, with possible impacts onland and property prices, or increased construction, development and insur-ance costs. But it argued that these costs would be considerably less than the‘do nothing’ option.

The UKCCP accordingly identified land use and strategic sectoral planningas one of the main ways for minimizing the impacts of climate change, andmade clear that local government was one of the key players in developingadaptation responses. One of the commitments in the Programme was to

Adapting to Climate Change at Local Level 611

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

issue a best practice advice guide to planning authorities and others involvedin land use planning on how to respond to climate change (DETR, 2000). Thegovernment and the Devolved Administrations commissioned a study in2000 to research the awareness of planning and to draft advice to plannersat all levels. For a variety of reasons (discussed in Wilson, 2006), this wasnot published until the autumn of 2004 (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister[ODPM], 2004). Part of the research for that study consisted of a survey in2000 of 14 local development plans across the UK, and interviews with plan-ning officers from those planning authorities. As the issue of climate changehas been very much in the public domain since then, and a variety of otherguidance has been made available to local planning authorities, this paperexamines the changes in the treatment of the adaptation issue in developmentplans as they have been revised and replaced over the period.

Adaptation in Development Plan Policy 2000–2005

The development plans were selected to reflect a number of criteria: thediverse local government structures in the UK, including the DevolvedAdministrations (Scotland and Wales), the nine different regions ofEngland, and the range of development plan types (local and strategic);and geographical characteristics and locations (such as coastal or inland;metropolitan, urban or more rural). Table 1 indicates the type of localauthority, and their membership of climate change policy networks.Table 2 shows the initial sample of 14 plans, and the status of any current(2005) replacement. Many of the plans reviewed in 2000 had been draftedand prepared over a fairly lengthy period, but had been able to respond tochanging national planning policy guidance for Scotland, England andWales (increasingly over the late 1990s separate national guidance wasbeing issued for the Devolved Administrations [Tewdwr-Jones, 2002]).Policy guidance had promoted changes such as the reuse of brownfieldsites, sequential tests for housing and retail land use allocations, andchanges in transport objectives such as the commitment to reducing theneed to travel. It might therefore be expected that the plan revisions or replace-ments some five years later would show a similar response to the higherprofile and greater urgency of the need to adapt to climate change, asshown in the commitments of the UK Climate Change Programme and thepublications and support of the UKCIP.

The key criteria employed for the review cover topics typically foundwithin local development plans in the UK (Rydin, 2003): many commencewith an overview of the context for the plan, and include policies onhousing, employment and transport, with consideration of implementationand monitoring. Plans provide ‘supportive argument’ for their strategicpolicies or local land use proposals. They include sections on the naturalenvironment, including flood risk, water resources, biodiversity and thewider landscape; energy issues tend to fall within natural resources or thebuilt environment.

612 E. Wilson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 1. Sample of local authorities, and membership of climate change policy networks

Local authority

DevolvedAdministration or

region TypeaMembership of climatechange policy network

Council climatechange strategy or

policy

East, North and South AyrshireCouncils

Scotland Unitaryauthorities

Stirling Council Scotland Unitary authorityNewport City Council Wales Unitary authorityNewcastle City Council North East Unitary authority Nottingham Declaration Energy strategySouth Lakeland District

CouncilNorth West District

City of York Council Yorkshire andHumber

Unitary authority Nottingham Declaration

Warwickshire County Council West Midlands Shire county CCPb; NottinghamDeclaration

Peak District National ParkAuthority

East Midlands National Parkauthority

City of Leicester Council East Midlands Unitary authority CCP Energy strategyKing’s Lynn and West Norfolk

Borough CouncilEast of England District

West Sussex County Council South East Shire countySouthampton City Council South East Unitary authority CCP; Nottingham

DeclarationClimate change

policyLondon Borough of Greenwich London London boroughSwindon Borough Council South West Unitary authority Nottingham Declaration

a In the UK, unitary authorities have both strategic and local planning powers; shire counties have strategic planning functions (including for minerals and waste); and

districts have local planning functions.b Cities for Climate Protection.

Adap

ting

toC

limate

Chan

geat

Local

Level

613

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 2. Sample of UK development plans 2000–2005

Local authority Plan status at 2000 Plan period Plan status at 2005 Plan period

East, North and South AyrshireCouncils

Joint Approved Structure Plan1999

10–20 years Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan 2025Consultation Draft June 2004

To 2025

Stirling Council Adopted Local Plan 1999 To 2006 Local Plan 1st Alteration Stirling and theRural Villages 2003, and 2ndAlteration Stirling’s Major GrowthArea 2004

To 2017

Newport City Council Deposit Unitary DevelopmentPlan (UDP) 1999

1996–2011 Proposed Changes to the Deposit Plan2001, 2002 and 2004

1996–2011

Newcastle City Council Adopted UDP 1998 To 2006 Planning Newcastle Local DevelopmentFramework (LDF) Consultation 2004

n/a

South Lakeland DistrictCouncil

Local Plan 2006 Adopted(1997) and DepositAlteration 1 (2000)

1996–2006 Preparing LDF scheme under the newPlanning & Compensation Act 2004

n/a

City of York Council Deposit Draft Local Plan 1998 To 2006 City of York Local Plan IncorporatingFourth Set of Changes—DevelopmentControl Local Plan 2005

Untiladoptionof newLDF

Warwickshire County Council Deposit Draft Structure Plan(1998) and Modifications(2000)

1996–2011 No alteration from 2000; effective until2007, when Structure Plans arereplaced by sub-regional strategiesunder Planning & Compensation Act2004

2007

614

E.

Wilso

n

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Peak District National ParkAuthority

Provisionally Adopted LocalPlan 2000

c. 10 years Local Plan Adopted March 2001 c. 10 years

Peak District National ParkManagement Plan Strategy 2000–2005 adopted 2001

5 years

City of Leicester Council Adopted Local Plan 2011 Proposed Modifications to the ProposedReplacement Local Plan 2005

2016

King’s Lynn and West NorfolkBorough Council

Adopted Local Plan 1993–2006 Kings Lynn and West Norfolk LocalDevelopment Framework Issues andOptions Paper Core Strategy June2005

n/a

West Sussex County Council Draft Structure Plan 3rdReview 1998

To 2011 Structure Plan 2001–2016 Adopted2004 (published February 2005)

2016

Southampton City Council Adopted Local Plan (1995) andChoices (2000)

1991–2001 Proposed Modifications to the RevisedDeposit Local Plan Review 2005

2011

London Borough of Greenwich Adopted UDP 1994 To 2001 Second Deposit Draft UDP 2004 2016Swindon Borough Council Adopted Local Plan 1999 1991–2001 Swindon Borough Local Plan

2011Revised Deposit Draft 20032011

Note: The plans selected are illustrative rather than representative of the wide array of planning circumstances in the UK.

Adap

ting

toC

limate

Chan

geat

Local

Level

615

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Climate Change: General Recognition

The plans were reviewed to see how far they acknowledge climate change asan important factor affecting the context for the plan. Only half the plansreviewed in 2005 acknowledge climate change as a factor which needs tobe considered in all their policies and proposals. These were all plans of stra-tegic or unitary authorities. In Ayrshire, for instance, the 2004 plan refers toclimate change as an impending threat, but recognizes that there is still adegree of uncertainty over specific events. In 2000, few expressly anticipatedthe impacts of climate change at the local level, such as the increased risk offlooding or rising sea levels, but all the plans reviewed in 2000 and 2005incorporated statements or policies for energy efficiency. Five plans proposedto monitor indicators specifically related to climate change (for instance, tomonitor tree-planting as an absorber of CO2). One coastal plan recognizedthe uncertainties of future climate change: it proposed to monitor changesin relation to relative levels of sea and land, and warned that developmentplan policies might need urgent revision.

Flooding

National planning policy and guidance on flood risk have a long pedigree inthe UK: land use plans had for some time been required to take account of theextent of the 1947 floodplain. While there has been criticism of the efficacy ofsuch guidance and of the treatment of flood risk within development plansand development control decisions (White & Howe, 2002; Howe &White, 2004), all the development plans reviewed in 2005 are explicitabout the implications of flooding for the built environment, and includeflood-risk policies. Only five refer to climate change either in their supportingtext or in their flood-risk policies (compared with two of the plans in 2000).This is surprising, given that the UK experienced a number of major floodevents over the period 2000–2005, with considerable coverage in themedia and speculation as to whether these were indicative of climatechange. Moreover, national planning policy guidance on flood risk hadbeen updated in Scotland (Scottish Executive [SE], 2004), Wales (NationalAssembly for Wales [NAW], 2004a) and England (Department for Trans-port, Local Government and the Regions [DTLR], 2001), which makedirect reference to climate change.

Built Environment

Other risks to development from climate change include those from storms,high wind speeds, subsidence, over-heating, and disruption to the construc-tion industry. Only one of the plans in 2000 or 2005 acknowledges theseother impacts on the built environment, and none addresses effects onassets of architectural or historic importance, or on sub-standard housing.

616 E. Wilson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Habitats

Despite the publication of a number of studies about the changes to the landscapeand biodiversity resource of the UK, few of the later plans acknowledge thethreats of climate change to protected habitats and landscapes. Leicester main-tained a policy to encourage riverside development proposals to examine theopportunity to retreat flood defences to increase flood storage, biodiversityand visual connections with the river. Ayrshire also identified the risk of futuredamage to habitats and landscapes, while it was implicit in others’ coastalpolicies, such as Southampton’s, in acknowledging the need for a strategy forcoastal defence and the impact of climate change. A number of the plans hadpolicies for habitat enhancement and management, and recognised the potentialfor protecting wetlands by safeguarding land for flood-water retention. Coastalmanaged retreat or realignment, and the potential to replace any loss of valuedinter-tidal habitats, was not an option considered explicitly by any of the plans.

Water Resources

In the period 2000–2005, there was considerable public discussion about theimplications of climate change for the availability of water, especially insoutheast England (e.g. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee,2004; Commission on Sustainable Development in the South East [CSD],2005), but this is not reflected in the development plans reviewed. As in2000, many of the plans reviewed had policies on water quality, but onlytwo addressed the issue of water supply. One referred to the need for anew reservoir between 2006 and 2011, i.e. beyond the plan period, andanother referred to Environment Agency studies of water resources anddemand management, and pointed out that these may have a criticalimpact on the viability or timing of development beyond the plan period.

Other Issues

Links are not made in the 2005 or 2000 plans between climate impacts andinfrastructure (such as water and sewage treatment plants, energy suppliesand transport infrastructure), air quality, waste, minerals or aggregates forbuilding. None considers secondary impacts, such as the effects of moreextreme weather on people’s use of more sustainable travel modes suchas walking or cycling, or the economic impacts (which may be negative or posi-tive) on tourism, outdoor spaces, recreation, cafe culture and the 24-hour city.

Constructing Adaptation as a Planning Issue

This updating of the earlier study reveals that, even where development planshave not been formally replaced, recent revisions are taking some notice ofthe issue of climate change. But the acknowledgement of the impacts ofclimate change is still restricted largely to issues of flood risk. This lack oftake-up of a key public policy issue needs some explanation.

Adapting to Climate Change at Local Level 617

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

The significant time lags in the formulation and adoption of developmentplans in the UK (illustrated in Table 2) may partly account for the slowdiffusion of a critical current global concern. The Labour government,keen to speed up the process, has made significant changes to the planningsystem in the UK in the Planning and Compensation Act 2004, whichmight explain the lack of innovative policy space to take up a new andnon-mandatory issue. The strongly hierarchical nature of UK planningpolicy might also inhibit local initiative, with central government seeingclimate change as just one amongst a number of environmental hazards forplanning (Rydin et al., 2004). Alternatively, planning professionals or plan-ning committees of elected representatives might perceive no role forspatial planning with respect to climate change adaptation, or regard theissue as one still characterized by uncertainty and lack of need for action.While this paper focuses on adaptation to climate change, rather than mitiga-tion of its causes, much of the support for councils in their climate policywork is intended to address both sets of actions, and so it is useful tocompare the results with the findings of other studies of the role of local auth-orities in responding to climate change. Allman et al. in their study (2004)show that, despite considerable national level commitment, ‘most localauthorities are not making substantial progress’ (p. 271) in taking action toreduce greenhouse gas emissions. They identify three critical factors: accessto the political, professional and technical support necessary to championclimate change activities; working in partnership through sharing best prac-tice; and recognizing the secondary benefits or added value of tackling climatechange, such as potential employment, improved quality of life, andreduction in fuel poverty. This paper first reviews these to examine how farthey account for the apparently slow progress in spatial plans’ adaptationto climate change, and then considers how far there are other political orresource factors specific to spatial planning.

Political Support and Policy Guidance

While local government has a key role in spatial planning policies in the UK,the system is quite strongly centralized through national policy guidance(Tewdwr-Jones, 2002). Development plans have to be prepared within thecontext of, and conform with, national planning policy guidance. In 2000,although the issue of climate change was on the agenda of national policy-makers, there was little precise policy guidance (apart from the issue offlooding) on the impacts of climate change of relevance for planning, andhence little on adaptation measures. Interviews undertaken in 2000–2001had shown that most planning respondents saw clear national policy statusas essential to give firm policy direction and to raise the profile of theclimate change issue to planners and elected members. Opinions were moredivided on whether guidance on climate change should be a stand-alonetopic, or ‘marbled’ in other guidance, such as that on housing or biodiversity.

However, by 2005, clearer national planning policy statementshad emerged, to some extent in response to the studies listed at p. 611.

618 E. Wilson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

In Scotland, the National Spatial Planning Framework states that climatechange ‘brings new challenges in the way that we plan to protect ournatural and built environments from climate extremes and it is essentialthat the implications of climate change are factored into the decision-making process’ (Scottish Executive Development Department [SEDD],2004, para. 55). Similarly, the Spatial Plan for Wales refers to ‘the potentiallyenormous impacts of climate change’ (NAW, 2004b, p. 3), and goes on toidentify the implications for flooding, water supply, social and economicsystems, landscape and wildlife, and the potential opportunities for renew-ables and energy efficiency. In England, the draft national planning policyhad made only a cursory mention of climate change, but this was strength-ened in the final version: ‘Regional planning bodies and local planning auth-orities should ensure that development plans contribute to globalsustainability by addressing the causes and potential impacts of climatechange . . . and take climate change impacts into account in the locationand design of development’ (ODPM, 2005, para. 13).

It is therefore clear that, apart from the flooding issue, the nationalplanning policy context for a wider consideration of the need to adapt toclimate change in development plans has progressed, but only towards theend of the period. However, this focus on the lack of hierarchical,top-down policy support for adaptive policies in development plans mightimply that local authorities are not independent agents, able to identify alocal issue and create policy space for local action. But formal policy docu-ments and processes are only one of the ways in which issues can be cascadeddown through a multi-level system such as planning. Professional and techni-cal support can also be provided by other sources and networks.

Policy Networks and Partnerships

A number of studies have shown that one of the critical influences on thetake-up of a response to climate change is the existence of networks—national, local and international—which can provide the information, theunderstanding and the shared experience to both professional and politiciansat the local level to push the issue within their authority (Bulkeley & Betsill,2005; Davies, 2005). Bulkeley and Betsill show that, for urban local auth-orities, such networks at different levels of governance, and comprisingstate and non-state actors, can aid the incorporation of climate protectiongoals into policy, but of course can also strengthen other discourse coalitionswith other (possibly opposing or undermining) visions of appropriate plan-ning or transport policies.

There are two significant climate change networks in the UK for local auth-orities, but they have a limited membership, and focus primarily on emissionsreduction. Twenty-four councils took part in the pilots under the Cities forClimate Protection, part of ICLEI’s campaign (Lindseth, 2004), of whichthree are local authorities whose plans were reviewed in this study. TheNottingham Declaration on Climate Change, launched in 2000, had 86signatories by the end of 2004, including four in this study. The Declaration

Adapting to Climate Change at Local Level 619

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

committed councils to reduce their own emissions, and to act as a catalyst toother organizations in their area to promote awareness of climate change. Itwas re-launched in late 2005 with a new emphasis on adapting to climatechange. These networks have been reinforced by guidance directly issued tolocal authorities (such as Department of the Environment, Food and RuralAffairs [DEFRA], 2001; UKCIP, 2003).

As a result, a number of local authorities have adopted, or are workingon, climate change strategies including mitigation and adaptation (Allmanet al., 2004). None of the development plans reviewed for this paper includesreference to a specific adaptation strategy, even when, as in Leicester(Leicester Partnership & Leicester Environment Partnership, 2003) andSouthampton City Council (SCC, 2004), their council had such a strategy;but Southampton’s final adopted plan (SCC, 2006) now does so.

The role of partnerships may also be important, an approach adopted byUKCIP to promote good practice and support amongst stakeholders. Muchof the initial work by UKCIP was at a sub-national scale, supporting workon regional scoping studies of the effect of climate change, and opportunitiesfor adaptation, and this might explain why such climate change adaptationpartnerships or coalitions have tended to be associated with the regionaltier (West & Gawith, 2005). Nevertheless, knowledge of these networksand partnerships is becoming more widespread. These attitudes wereconfirmed in the study of planners’ attitudes to climate change: it foundthat the planning respondents were knowledgeable about the issue ofclimate change, but, while half were familiar with the UKCIP scenarios,the existence of UKCIP and the South East Climate Change Partnership(SECCP), almost a third were not familiar with either (Arkell et al., 2004).Even where there is knowledge of networks, the members or officers directlyinvolved may not be those engaged with the preparation of the developmentplan or inter-departmental consultation processes. Formal links betweenclimate change strategies and spatial or land use plans were not strong: anumber of the planning respondents who were aware of action at theirlocal authority level thought that responsibility for any adaptive responselay with the council’s environmental coordinator or climate change policyofficer, rather than being a key function for development planning.

But the reasons for lack of engagement may lie in more fundamentalattitudes amongst the planning profession, which this paper now considers.

Planning Horizons and Objectives

The interviews with planners in 2000 showed that, while they were aware ofthe climate change issue, there was a considerable emphasis on the uncertain-ties associated with it, and a belief that it was, if not wholly a long-term issue,a strategic issue that would be best addressed at the strategic or regional level.The survey in 2003–2004 (Arkell et al., 2004) confirmed this attitude: whileover half of the planning respondents considered that climate change wouldaffect the ability of their sector to meet its objectives, there were significantnumbers who did not.

620 E. Wilson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

This mismatch between the perceived impacts of climate change and otherplanning objectives raises important issues about planning horizons. As canbe seen from Table 2, a number of the statutory plans as at 2000 werecoming to the end of their plan period and were due for revision. Most ofthe plans were revised by 2005, with consequent extensions to the periodfor which the plan would apply. Nevertheless, it is clear that the planninghorizons of these plans did not match any of the climate change scenarios,which are expressed for the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s. While Scottish strategicplans such as Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan are comparable with the planninghorizons of the new English regional spatial strategies, the more local plansare working to shorter time-scales. This is a statutory requirement formany of these plans, and in itself is not necessarily a criticism: but it suggeststhere are few pressures to take a horizon-scanning approach, or a longer-termview of future changes likely to affect social, economic and environmentalsystems. This is despite the fact that many of the developments built as aresult of planning decisions taken now will have a life-time of perhaps60–100 years, and are therefore likely to experience a significantlychanged climate by the middle of the century.

This relative short-sightedness of the planning profession is confirmed inthe South East Climate Threats and Opportunities Study (SECTORS)(Figure 1), which showed that well over half the planning respondentsconsidered that their sector focused on a time horizon of 2–5 years (Arkellet al., 2004). The reasons given were the dominance of the local politicaland electoral cycle, with the need to respond to current political agendasand objectives. Planners did not seem able to identify opportunities to meetthese current political imperatives—very often for housing and employ-ment—as well as climate change adaptation objectives. This is consistentwith Allman et al.’s findings (2004) that the ability to make connections

Figure 1. Planning horizons. Source: Arkell et al., 2004

Adapting to Climate Change at Local Level 621

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

between policy areas was an important distinguishing factor between thoselocal authorities such as Leicester which had made progress on the morecomplex activities in addressing climate change, and those which had not.It is also consistent with Bulkeley and Betsill’s (2003) conclusions thatlocal economic and social policy objectives are conventionally and narrowlydefined and not linked to wider sustainability issues.

Much of the advice on adaptation focuses on just this ability to make con-nections and find no-regrets solutions to adaptation. This means, forinstance, justifying actions on the grounds that they will meet other of thelocal authority’s objectives or commitments, such as economic opportunitiesfor new products or services, reduction of fuel poverty, improving quality oflife, reducing exposure to shortage of resources such as water, and reducinginequity (for instance, the inequalities in exposure to flood risk or access toinsurance [Fielding & Burningham, 2005]). More broadly, this is consistentwith the duty on local authorities in the UK to promote the environmental,economic and social well-being of their areas, and would help the planningsystem play its part in applying this new power. For instance, planning poli-cies to allocate land for flood storage may also deliver multi-functionalbenefits in meeting other green-space, recreational, social inclusion andhealth objectives, as well as build in flexibility or resilience to a changingclimate. This is also the approach being promoted in the UK governmentpublication The Planning Response to Climate Change (ODPM, 2004).

It may well be therefore that one of the prompts for more responsive actionin development plans will be to reinforce these connections between the shortterm and long term. A further opportunity to reinforce this is presented bystrategic environmental assessment (SEA), which has only been mandatorysince the coming into force of the EU Directive in July 2004. Guidance hasbeen issued by UKCIP (Levett-Therivel et al., 2004) on the treatment ofclimate change within the SEA process, including both mitigation andadaptation responses.

Conclusion

This new guidance, and the recognition of multiple benefits from takingaction, might aid the planning system to respond more fully to the impactsof unavoidable climate change. The policy space for action had beenconstrained by the absence (until 2004/2005) of clear and firm governmentguidance in the form of national spatial plans (in Scotland and Wales) orstatements of policy principles (in England). A policy process tightlyconstrained by precedent, hierarchical plans, and considerable centralgovernment centralization had left the possibility of legal challenges topolicies and decisions, and probably had discouraged planning authoritiesfrom demanding more on topics (such as climate change) that go beyondland use as it was traditionally understood. While the new generation ofplans is meant to take a broader, more spatial and integrated view, workon the new plans, certainly in England, has inevitably been focused onprocedural matters and statutory provisions. Coupled with a strong

622 E. Wilson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

awareness of the political horizons of elected members, whose term of officeis conventionally five years, the direction of planning professionals may havebeen inward rather than outward to wider agendas and prevented a widerhorizon-scanning activity at the local level.

The relative isolation of planning from other local authority andenvironmental group networks is also a factor. The review of the sample ofdevelopment plans shows that those which engaged most fully with climatechange adaptation were more strategic authorities, or those where theauthority as a whole was signed up to climate change networks, such asthe Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC) or the NottinghamDeclaration (even though this latter needed re-launching to promote adap-tation actions). But engagement with a network or supporting partnershipis not a sufficient condition.

A more fundamental explanation may lie in the conception of adaptationitself. Acceptance of the inevitability of climate change may challenge thoseother elements of the climate change policy agenda that argue that we needto act now to limit or reduce such change. Local planners’ perceptions of theuncertainty surrounding climate change may be reinforced by lack of knowl-edge of precise impacts at the local scale, and an expectation that such issuesare better, or more appropriately, resolved at the more strategic or regionallevel. This may be a reason for delay, if not for inaction. The framing of theissue is therefore likely to be important for achieving a local response.Whereas some might argue that mitigation requires a global response, andtherefore local action may be thought of as a misframing of the problem (Lind-seth, 2004), adaptation is essential at local as well as other levels, and localspatial planning has a role to play. The breadth of studies and informationnow available to planning professionals and elected decision-makers may beeffective in raising awareness, but awareness does not necessarily lead toaction. Mandatory codes (for instance for water efficiency) may be needed forsome actions, but more generally needed is a sense of agency amongst localauthorities, that they can make meaningful and beneficial responses. Thismay be achieved by moving from their role as enablers to a more proactiverole as agents of change. Emphasis on the life-span of the physical developmentsand natural environments that are the focus of local spatial planning shouldcounter the short-term horizons of many local development plans. It shouldprovide incentives for action now in formulating plans, and reinforce the oppor-tunities for adopting climate-adaptive planning policies that are consistent withother local authority objectives for the quality of life of local communities.

Acknowledgements

This paper draws on two pieces of research. The first, The Planning Responseto Climate Change, was commissioned by DETR in 2000 (DETR ContractCPO923), and undertaken by CAG Consultants and Oxford BrookesUniversity. The second was commissioned by SEEDA (South East EnglandDevelopment Agency) on behalf of the South East Climate Change Partner-ship in 2003–2004, and carried out by Atkins, Oxford Brookes University,

Adapting to Climate Change at Local Level 623

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

and Sari Kovats. Entitled SECTORS, it surveyed eight sectors: planning,agriculture and forestry, biodiversity, business and economy, emergencyplanning, health, tourism, and utilities and infrastructure.

The author is grateful to the suggestions of the anonymous referees for thispaper; the views expressed are those of the author.

References

Agyeman, J., Evans, B. & Kates, R. (1998) Greenhouse gases special: thinking locally in science, practice

and policy, Local Environment, 3(3), pp. 245–246.

Allman, L., Fleming, P. & Wallace, A. (2004) The progress of English and Welsh local authorities in

addressing climate change, Local Environment, 9(3), pp. 271–283.

Arkell, B., Darch, G., Wilson, E. & Piper, J. (2004) South East Climate Threats and Opportunities

Research Study (SECTORS) Technical Report (Guildford, England, SEEDA).

Bisgrove, R. & Hadley, P. (2002) Gardening in the Global Greenhouse: The Impacts of Climate Change

on Gardens in the UK. Technical Report (Oxford, UKCIP).

Bulkeley, H. & Betsill, M. (2003) Cities and Climate Change: Urban Sustainability and Global Environ-

mental Governance (London, Routledge).

Bulkeley, H. & Betsill, M. (2005) Rethinking sustainable cities: multi-level governance and the ‘urban’

politics of climate change, Environmental Politics, 14(1), pp. 42–63.

CEC (2005) Special Eurobarometer 217: the attitudes of European citizens towards environment,

<http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_217_en.pdf>.

CLA (2001) Climate Change and the Rural Economy (London).

Crichton, D. (2001) The Implications of Climate Change for the Insurance Industry (Watford, England,

BRE).

CSD (2005) The Commission on Sustainable Development in the South East: Final Report (London,

IPPR).

Davies, A. (2005) Local action for climate change: trans-national networks and the Irish experience, Local

Environment, 10(1), pp. 21–40.

DEFRA (2001) Community Leadership and Climate Change: Guidance for Chief Executives (London,

DEFRA, I&DEA, SOLACE and LGA).

DETR (2000) Climate Change: The UK Programme (London, Stationery Office).

Downing, T.E., Butterfield, R.E., Edmonds, B., Knox, J.W., Moss, S., Piper, B.S. & Weatherhead, E.K.

(2003) Climate Change and Demand for Water (Oxford, Stockholm Environment Institute).

DTLR (2001) Planning Policy Guidance 25: Development and Flood-Risk (London, Stationery Office).

EEA (2004) Impacts of Europe’s Changing Climate: An Indicator-Based Assessment (Copenhagen).

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2004) Climate Change, Water Security and Flooding,

16th Report of Session 2003–04, HC558 (London, Stationery Office).

EPSRC (2003) Building Knowledge for a Changing Climate: The Impacts of Climate Change on the Built

Environment. A Research Agenda (Swindon, England).

ERM (2000) Potential UK Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change (London, DETR).

Expert Group on Climate Change and Health in the UK (2001) Health Effects of Climate Change in the

UK (London, Department of Health).

Fielding, J. & Burningham, K. (2005) Environmental inequality and flood hazard, Local Environment,

10(4), pp. 379–395.

Graves, H. & Phillipson, M. (2000) Potential Implications of Climate Change in the Built Environment

(Watford, England, CRC).

Hacker, J., Holmes, M., Belcher, S. & Davies, G. (2005) Climate Change and the Indoor Environment:

Impacts and Adaptation (London, Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers).

Hossell, J., Briggs, B. & Hepburn, I. (2000) Climate Change and UK Nature Conservation: A Review of

the Impact of Climate Change on UK Species and Habitat Conservation Policy (London, DETR).

624 E. Wilson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Howe, J. & White, I. (2004) Like a fish out of water: the relationship between planning and flood risk

management in the UK, Planning Practice and Research, 19(4), pp. 415–425.

Hulme, M., Turnpenny, J. & Jenkins, G. (2002) Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The

UKCIP02 Briefing Report (Norwich, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research).

Leicester Partnership & Leicester Environment Partnership (2003) City of Leicester Climate Change Stra-

tegy (Leicester, Leicester City Council).

Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants, Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency, English

Nature, UKCIP, CAG Consultants & Environmental Change Institute (2004) SEA and Climate

Change: Guidance for Practitioners (Oxford, UKCIP).

Lindseth, G. (2004) The Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC) and the framing of local climate

policy, Local Environment, 9(4), pp. 325–336.

NAW (2004a) Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (Cardiff).

NAW (2004b) People, Places, Futures: the Wales Spatial Plan (Cardiff).

ODPM (2004) The Planning Response to Climate Change: Advice on Better Practice (London).

ODPM (2005) PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (London).

Roaf, S., Crichton, D. & Nicol, F. (2004) Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate Change: A 21st

Century Survival Guide (Oxford, Architectural Press).

Rydin, Y. (2003) Urban and Environmental Planning in the UK, 2nd edn (Basingstoke, England, Palgrave

Macmillan).

Rydin, Y., Livesey, H. & Purvis, B. (2004) Planning, sustainability and environmental risks. LSE & ERM

New Horizons Project for ODPM, Final Report, <http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pub/474/D002Plan-

ning SustainabilityandEnvironmentalRisksfinalreport_id1161474.pdf>.

SCC (2004) Climate Change and Air Quality Strategy (Southampton).

SCC (2006) City of Southampton Local Plan Review Adopted Version (Southampton).

SE (2004) National Spatial Planning Framework for Scotland (Edinburgh).

SEDD (2004) SPP7: Planning and Flooding (Edinburgh).

Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2002) The Planning Polity: Planning, Government and the Policy Process (London,

Routledge).

UKCIP (2003) Climate Change and Local Communities: How Prepared Are You? An Adaptation Guide

for Local Authorities in the UK (Oxford).

Vivian, S., Williams, N. & Rogers, W. (2005) Climate Change Risks in Building: An Introduction

(London, CIRIA).

West, C. & Gawith, M. (Eds) (2005) Measuring Progress: Preparing for Climate Change through the

UKCIP (Oxford, UKCIP).

White, I. & Howe, J. (2002) Flooding and the role of planning in England and Wales: a critical review,

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 45(5), pp. 735–745.

Wilson, E. (2006) Developing UK spatial planning policy to respond to climate change, Journal of

Environmental Policy and Planning, 8(1), pp. 9–25.

Adapting to Climate Change at Local Level 625

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 2

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13