Content uploaded by Tony Matthews
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tony Matthews on Mar 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
RESPONDING TO CLIMATE CHANGE AS A TRANSFORMATIVE STRESSOR
THROUGH METRO-REGIONAL PLANNING
TONY MATTHEWS
Property and Planning Discipline,
School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment,
Queensland University of Technology,
2 George Street,
GPO Box 2434,
Brisbane, Queensland 4001,
Australia
Phone: +61 (7) 3138 1188
Fax: +61 (7) 3138 1170
Email: tony.matthews@qut.edu.au
Abstract: This paper characterises climate change as a ‘transformative
stressor.’ It argues that institutional change will become increasingly
necessary as institutions seek to reorientate governance frameworks to
better manage the transformative stresses created by climate change in
urban environments. Urban and metropolitan planning regimes are
identified as central institutions in addressing this challenge. The
operationalisation of climate adaptation is identified as a central tenet of a
comprehensive urban response to the transformative stresses that climate
change is predicted to create. Operationalisation refers to climate
adaptation becoming incorporated, codified and implemented as a central
tenet of urban planning governance. This paper has three purposes. First, it
examines conceptual perspectives on the role of transformative stressors in
compelling institutional change. Second, it establishes a conceptual
approach that characterises climate change as a transformative stressor
requiring institutional change within planning frameworks. Third, it reports
emergent results and analysis from an empirical inquiry which examines
how the metro-regional planning regime of Southeast Queensland (SEQ) has
responded to climate change as a transformative stressor via institutional
change and the operationalisation of climate adaptation.
Keywords: transformative stressors; climate change; institutional change;
metro-regional planning
Introduction
Climate change represents a real and immediate threat and will create increasing
levels of stress in urbanised areas over the course of this century (Garnaut 2008,
IPCC 2007). Extensive efforts towards mitigation remain a critical response, but
climate change adaptation must now also be understood as an urban imperative
(IPCC 2007, Stern 2006, Wilson and Piper 2010). The spatial character of
urbanisation means that urban systems contribute significantly to climate change
through form and structure, land-use patterns, energy demand and car
2
dependence. As well as contributing to climate change, urban areas are also
vulnerable to its impacts as people; commerce and infrastructure all co-exist
intricately in cities, meaning that even minor climate change impacts have
potential to become immensely problematic in an urban context (Condon, Cavens
and Miller 2008, Gleeson 2008, Matthews 2011a). Efforts to manage climate
change impacts in urban areas will require institutional change as institutions
charged with the management of urban environments reorientate in order to
deliver new rules of governance, which are better designed to respond to the
climate adaptation imperative. Climate adaptation must become operationalised
as a central tenet of urban and metropolitan governance. Operationalisation in
this instance refers to climate adaptation becoming incorporated, codified and
implemented as central tenet of urban governance. Planning regimes are key
urban institutions and play an important role in coordinating, structuring and
managing urban and metropolitan areas. Accordingly, the operationalisation of
climate adaptation is represents a key planning challenge.
This paper has three purposes. First, it examines social scientific
perspectives on institutional change processes and how change is prompted by
trigger events and their associated stresses. It argues that existing scholarly
understandings of institutional change underestimate the fact that particular
stressors have the capacity to compel institutional change, irrespective of the
influence of institutional actors and institutional capacity. A new typology of
stressors is presented, referred to as ‘transformative stressors.’ It is argued that
when transformative stressors occur, they can compel institutional change by
virtue of the severity of their impacts. In this regard, the transformative stressors
typology offers a new conceptual model for understanding institutional change in
specific contexts. Second, this paper establishes a conceptual perspective that
understands climate change as a transformative stressor requiring institutional
change within the planning frameworks governing cities and metropolitan regions.
An examination of the role of planning regimes in responding to climate change as
a transformative stressor through climate adaptation in urban environments
follows. Planning regimes are characterised as social institutions that seek to
direct development in specific ways through the imposition of rules of governance
which are expressed through planning policies and regulations. Third, it reports
early findings from an on-going enquiry examining how the statutory metro-
regional planning regime of Southeast Queensland (SEQ), Australia, has responded
to climate change as a transformative stressor in a metropolitan context.
Specifically, it investigates how the SEQ metro-regional planning regime
responded to climate change as a transformative stressor in period from 2004 to
2010 through the operationalisation of climate adaptation as a central tenet of
planning governance.
How transformative stressors can compel institutional change
The role of institutions in guiding and managing social engagement has prompted
a great deal of social scientific inquiry. Scholarship demonstrates a wide spectrum
of thinking and critique focused on definitively characterising institutions as social
scientific objects. Institutions are broadly understood as providing the
‘generalised regulatory framework for socially acceptable behaviour’ (Connor and
3
Dovers 2002, p. 7). In other words, they are social entities that structure and co-
ordinate social interaction across a variety of settings (Alexander 2005, Connor
and Dovers 2004, March and Olsen 1989, North 1990, Peters 2005). Institutions
shape human behaviour and social interaction by creating and imposing rules of
governance, which may be may be formal or informal or a combination of both
(Connor and Dovers 2002, 2004, North 1990, Young 2010). Formal rules include
constitutions, law, rules and regulatory provisions; informal rules include social
conventions and commonly recognised behavioural norms. In addition to
imposing rules of governance, institutions have enforcement functions designed to
ensure compliance with their established rules (March and Olsen 1989, North
1990, Young 2010). Institutions therefore have two key and inter-related
functions: the imposition of rules and the pursuit of compliance. Institutional rules
of governance can be expressed as a single rule or as a hierarchy, where
compliance is required at each stage of social engagement in order to advance to
subsequent stages. Institutions exist in many forms and co-ordinate social
interaction and behaviour in a multiplicity of settings. Their functions can range
from the relatively straight-forward, such as ensuring that drivers are licensed and
tested, to more complex pursuits, such as guiding and managing urban and
metropolitan environments through planning governance.
An important characteristic of institutions is their capacity for change.
Institutional change happens when an institution amends or reorientates its rule
set in order to deliver improved social outcomes by directing social behaviour in
new or different ways (Alexander 2005, Kingston and Caballero 2009). An
institution can undergo change when faced with particular events or phenomena
that are not easily managed through existing rules of governance. When this
happens, the institution is faced with two choices. In the first instance, the
institution can conceptualise the nature, impact and extent of the change dynamic
and respond to it through a process of change and the operationalisation of new or
improved rules. In the second instance, the change dynamic can be resisted or
ignored. A consistent failure to respond can lead to the institution becoming
irrelevant or unfit for purpose (Cortell and Peterson 1999, Young 2010). Upon
reaching this point, the institution is likely to be dissolved or replaced. The
capacity of any institution to undergo a change process is conditioned by the
nature and character of both the institution and the change dynamic, along with
the influence of internal and external institutional actors (Cortell and Peterson
1999, Hogan 2006, Young 1999, 2002). Institutional capacity to react to a change
dynamic varies considerably. Some institutions change quickly and freely, while
others resist change or change slowly. In the latter case, institutions confronted
with demanding change dynamics can be resistant due to institutional inertia, a
condition where institutions become entrenched and unable to adapt to new
imperatives (Dovers and Hezri 2010, Olsen 1982, Young 2010). ).
Institutional change is often prompted by an external crisis or series of
crisis moments (Cortell and Peterson 1999, Hogan 2006, Schmidt 2010, Young
1999, 2002, 2010). These function as triggers by creating and escalating social
stresses, which consequently prompt institutional change as affected institutions
attempt to manage the impacts of the change dynamic and associate stresses.
Responses are implemented through the development of new or amended rules of
4
governance. Examples of crisis events might include significant demographic
change, a resource shock, a public health emergency or an unanticipated fall or rise
in economic activity. Institutions that respond adequately through change
processes leading to new rules of governance can maintain their relevance, whilst
those unwilling or unable to change face becoming irrelevant (Olsen 1982, Young
1999, 2010). Institutional change is broadly divided into two categories: episodic
change, which is rapid and dramatic and incremental change, which is slow and
gradual (Krasner 1984, North 1990, 1993). In certain cases, stresses may initially
be minor, prompting incremental change, before increasing in scope and impact
and ultimately converting incremental change into episodic change (Young 2010).
Trigger events and their associated stresses are not always sufficient to
compel institutional change. Whilst trigger events do create social stress,
institutional responses to change dynamics are also strongly conditioned by two
other factors. These are change-orientated preferences and institutional capacity
(Cortell and Peterson 1999, Hajer 1993, 1995, March and Olsen 1989, North 1990,
Young 2010). Change-orientated preferences refer to the manner in which the
reactions of institutional actors can shape whether institutional change follows a
trigger event. Institutional actors may be internal or external institutional actors,
including appointed or elected state and policy officials, external consultants and
public stakeholders. Responses to a change imperative may be problematic in
situations where actors are presented with change dynamics that require
institutions to confront problems that are substantively different in scale and
character to those previously encountered (David 1985, Low and Astle 2009,
Moser and Ekstrom 2010). Difficulties can arise as actors fail to understand or
ignore the gravity of a change dynamic and consequently hinder or block
institutional change processes. Institutional capacity refers to the manner in
which an actor’s ability to take advantage of an opportunity for change depends on
their institutional position. Accordingly, some actors may recognise a crisis event
and associated window of opportunity and may seek to respond through
institutional change, only to be over-ruled by the preferences of other actors. In
such cases, institutional change is unlikely. Whether this is an appropriate and
suitable outcome depends on the nature and severity of the particular crisis event,
along with the magnitude of the social stresses it brings.
Institutional actors exert strong influence on institutional decision making,
especially when related to institutional change processes (Hajer 1993, 1995,
March and Olsen 1989, North 1990, Young 2010). The ways actors respond to
broader changes imperatives in their domestic and international environments
heavily characterises the nature of institutional change (Cortell and Peterson
1999). As McFaul (1995, p. 216) succinctly argues, institutions “do not change of
their own accord; they are changed.” Actor’s perspectives can potentially be
shaped by a multiplicity of factors, including but not limited to, the influence of
lobby groups (Liebcap 1989); levels of understanding relating to new or emerging
social phenomena (Fünfgeld 2010, Moser and Ekstrom 2010); collective
bargaining (Alston 1996); and political objectives (Ostrom 2005). Storylines may
also be highly influential in institutional contexts (Hajer 1993, 1995). Hajer
characterises storylines as ‘narratives on social reality through which elements
from many different domains are combined and that provide actors with a set of
5
symbolic references that suggest a common understanding’ (1995, p. 62).
Storylines can cluster knowledge, position social actors and lead to the formation
of discourse coalitions, which are a set of beliefs or perspectives subscribed to by
actors who collectively adhere to particular storylines. Hajer (1993, 1995) argues
that dominant storylines shared by institutional actors have significant capacity to
shape decision-making around institutional change. Path dependency may also
influence institutional change. This occurs when institutions resist a process of
institutional change because of an embedded focus on a particular set of issues
(Cortell and Peterson 1999, David 1985, Low and Astle 2009). Path dependency
often leads to situations where “institutions that have grown up around one sort of
problem may be unable to respond adequately when confronted by a quite
different sort of problem” (Low and Astle 2009, p. 48). In such cases, a change
imperative may be valid and real, yet be resisted because it requires institutional
engagement with a set of issues outside of the familiar and institutionally accepted.
I argue that whilst these scholarly perspectives on institutional change
correctly identify crisis events as key triggers for prompting institutional change,
they are undermined by the contention that institutional actors matter more in
directing institutional change than the change imperative and its associated social
stresses. I submit that a new conceptualisation of institutional change is needed to
account for this deficiency in scholarship. This is based on my proposition that
certain stressors possess sufficient capacity to compel institutional change, due to
the severity of their social consequences. I argue that in certain circumstances, the
impacts of particular stressors can be severe enough to compel institutional
change, regardless of change-orientated preferences or institutional capacity. In
such cases, I contend that embedded path dependencies and dominant
institutional storylines can also be swept aside by the severity of the change
imperative and its associated social stresses. I refer to these as transformative
stressors. Though uncommon, I submit that a limited number of transformative
stressors currently exist and their impacts are already evident and leading to
escalating social stresses. I contend that when faced with transformative
stressors, institutions will be compelled to either change or become irrelevant and
that actors and their personal preferences will assume less importance when
institutions are faced with certain serious, pervasive and cumulative social
stresses. In short, when they occur, transformative stressors possess the capacity
to make institutional change an institutional and social imperative.
I characterise a transformative stressor as a chronic large-scale
phenomenon which triggers a process of institutional change whereby institutions
seek to reorientate their activities in order to better manage the social, economic
and environmental impacts created by the transformative dynamic. As distinct
from other social scientific conceptualisations of institutional change, the
transformative stressors model is premised upon the argument that certain
stressors have potential to become severe enough to compel institutional change,
leading to large-scale structural modifications in an institutional context. In such
cases, the transformative stressor creates impacts that act as trigger events. It is
the extent, longevity and severity of these impacts that characterise a
transformative stressor and distinguish it from other stressors.
6
A transformative stressor, as distinct from other types of crisis event,
demands institutional response to trigger events because its wider social impacts
are so pervasive and severe. The impacts associated with a transformative
stressor open windows of opportunity for institutional change. Institutions must
either respond with new rules of governance or risk irrelevance when faced with a
transformative stressor. Under this typology, change-orientated preferences or
institutional capacity valid in shaping institutional responses through change
processes, but the capacity of actors to block change is significantly diminished by
the severity of the social stresses created by the transformative stressor. This
paper identifies climate change as a transformative stressor, though I argue that
there are others. These include petroleum depletion, acute demographic change
and severe food and water insecurity. Unlike many other stressors, these
examples possess capacity to create acute, wide-ranging and sustained social
impacts which are likely to seriously undermine many social structures. However,
these examples do not represent the totality of transformative stressors as there
remains a probability that others may also manifest or be identified.
Characterising climate change as a transformative stressor
This paper identifies climate change as one example of a transformative stressor.
It is fundamentally different from almost all other stress events faced by
institutions. Climate science demonstrates clearly that the phenomenon is large-
scale and escalating, with potential to create negative social impacts at national,
regional and local levels (IPCC 2007). Climate science demonstrates clearly that
climate change impacts are likely to negatively affect and stress societies in many
ways. Predicted impacts include social upheaval, extreme weather events, physical
harm to natural and man-made environments, economic costs, biodiversity losses
and resource reductions (Garnaut 2008, IPCC 2007, Stern 2006). Institutional
governance frameworks are and will be required to change and reorientate in
order manage the severe environmental stresses wrought by climate change
(Connor and Dovers 2002, Wilson and Piper, 2010). Many different types of
institutions will be forced to react to increases in the frequency and severity of
climate change impacts by conceptualising the character, impact and extent of the
phenomenon as it applies to their sphere of governance. Negative social
consequences will intensify and escalate in tandem with climate change impacts.
Institutions will have no choice but to respond, or risk becoming obsolete.
Institutional capacity and change-orientated preferences will remain important in
conditioning responses to the change dynamic, though it is likely that institutions
which display inertia will either need to undergo significant levels of reorientation
or risk being replaced by alternative institutional arrangements better equipped to
recognise and respond to climate change and its impacts as a transformative
stressor.
Urban governance frameworks are especially crucial in responding to
climate change as a transformative stressor, especially as the majority of the
world’s population is now urbanised (UN 2009). The impact of climate change on
many urban environments is likely to be severe (IPCC 2007, Gleeson 2008). I
argue that climate change impacts are already emerging as a cumulative change
dynamic in an urban context and institutions charged with developing,
7
implemented and maintaining urban governance frameworks will be compelled to
respond to climate change as a transformative stressor. Institutional change will
be necessary if social institutions are to adequately confront and manage the social
stresses created by climate change impacts in urban environments. Efforts to
advance climate change mitigation may still limit the severity and incidence of
climate change effects, but are unlikely to eliminate all impacts (Garnaut 2008,
Stern 2006). Consequently, I argue that a strong focus on operationalising climate
change adaptation strategies through urban governance frameworks must become
a central tenet of institutional responses to this transformative stressor in urban
environments. A capacity for successful institutional change will therefore be vital
in managing transformative stresses created by climate change.
Responding to a transformative stressor in urban environments through
planning
Institutions are fundamental to the successful management and co-ordination of
urban environments (Fünfgeld 2010, Ruth and Coelho 2007). Institutions address
their obligations through the imposition of governance frameworks designed to
guide appropriate forms of social behaviour, as well as through the use of various
mechanisms to ensure compliance. Planning regimes are fundamental institutions
in this wider urban context. They function as social institutions that develop and
implement governance frameworks to direct development activities within a set of
rules and expectations across urban scales (Alexander 2005). Planning is
characterised as a “set of governance practices for developing and implementing
strategies, plans, policies and projects, and for regulating the location, timing and
form of development” (Healey et al 1999, p. 31). A key aim of planning governance
in an urban context is therefore the regulation of strategic, spatial and land-use
development and the implementation of regulatory frameworks and compliance
mechanisms to ensure socially acceptable behaviour. Planning regimes also try to
balance the particular needs of individuals and groups with broader social needs,
including environmental management, the provision of infrastructure and
preservation of amenity as part of this remit (Faludi 2000). Institutional change is
required for planning regimes when existing rules of governance become
inadequate in addressing changing circumstances created by social stresses
(Alden, Albrechts and da Rosa Pires 2001, Alexander 2005, Forrester 1989). I
argue that climate change, as a transformative stressor, will require planning
regimes to undergo institutional change if they are to successfully contribute to
wider efforts seeking to develop appropriate urban responses to the phenomenon.
Specifically, I argue that planning regimes must undergo institutional change in
order to deliver an improved operationalisation of climate adaptation as a means
of managing wider social stresses created by climate change impacts. The
operationalisation of climate adaptation refers to adaptation becoming
incorporated, codified and implemented as a central principal of planning
governance.
Operationalising climate adaptation represents a new institutional
challenge for planning regimes. Many scholars argue that the operationalisation of
climate adaptation through planning governance represents one of the most
urgent and serious tasks currently facing the planning profession (Gleeson 2008,
8
Newman, Beatley and Boyer 2009, Smith et al 2010, Wilson and Piper 2010). I
argue that adequately addressing this task will require institutional change. This
need will become more acute as climate change impacts increase in severity and
frequency in urban environments and the phenomenon begins to clearly manifest
as a transformative stressor. Whilst efforts to respond to change dynamics may
initially be resisted by institutional actors, I argue that climate change impacts,
unlike many other stressors, will continue to escalate and will eventually reach a
point where their pervasive and severe social consequences and costs can no
longer be ignored. Planning regimes can respond through institutional change,
where the goal of the change process is to operationalise adaptation and in turn
regulate the location, form and timing of development so that it is more resilient to
climate change effects. In tandem with this, new regulations can be established to
improve the resilience of existing urban environments, infrastructure and built
capital. In both cases, delivering locally appropriate action is fundamental, as
climate adaptation interventions work best when developed and implemented
according to local conditions and needs (Matthews 2011a, Measham et al 2011,
Wilson, 2006). Strategies that planning regimes may utilise in urban contexts
include integrating adaptation strategies with specified implementation and
monitoring strategies directly into development plans, codifying adaptive design
standards for existing and new development, promoting retro-fitting, and
promoting and harnessing community capacity (Matthews 2011b, Wilson and
Piper 2010).
Findings from Southeast Queensland (SEQ), Australia
The remainder of this paper reports emergent findings from an on-going inquiry
that examines how the metro-regional planning regime of Southeast Queensland
(SEQ) has responded to climate change as a transformative stressor through
institutional governance. The SEQ metro-regional planning regime is the principal
institution with responsibility for developing and implementing statutory
governance frameworks to direct planning and development activities throughout
the region. Responding to climate change as a transformative stressor is a
necessary and important element of successful planning governance. Within this
context, I identify the operationalisation of climate adaptation as a key institutional
challenge. I argue that meeting this obligation requires the SEQ metro-regional
planning regime to undergo a process of institutional change in order to deliver an
improved operationalisation of climate adaptation. This can occur through the
enunciation of statutory planning policy and regulation designed to explicitly guide
planning activity in the region so that locally appropriate climate adaptation
interventions can be delivered. In doing so, the regime can improve its capacity for
managing wider social stresses created by climate change impacts in SEQ. The
nature and character of the SEQ metro-regional planning regime’s responses to
this challenge is assessed through a close examination of regional planning policies
and regulations between 2004 and 2010, with a specific focus on the enunciation
of statutory policy and regulation related to managing climate change on a regional
scale.
Southeast Queensland (SEQ) is a sub-tropical, heavily urbanised
metropolitan region on Australia’s east coast. It contains two of Australia’s major
9
cities, Brisbane and Gold Coast City, which are respectively third and sixth largest
nationally. The SEQ metropolitan region forms a long coastal conurbation, running
approximately 200 kilometres from Noosa in the north to Coolangatta in the south.
Another major conurbation runs west from the coast, via Brisbane, to the city of
Toowoomba. SEQ has a current population of approximately 2.7 million people
and is the fastest growing metropolitan region in Australia. Regional population
projections anticipate an increase to around 4.4 million people by 2031 (DIP
2009a, p. 8). Demand for housing, infrastructure, energy, employment and
amenity is increasing steadily, leading to substantial development pressures in the
region. These pressures are likely to be greatly exacerbated by predicted climate
change impacts and so represent significant regional planning challenges (DIP
2009b).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identifies SEQ as
one of the six areas most vulnerable to climate change impacts in Australia
(Hennessy et al 2007, p. 525). Predicted climate change impacts in SEQ during the
current century include inland storm surges; reductions in water availability;
increased coastal and inland inundation; sea level rises of up to 0.79m over current
levels and an increase in the number of days with temperatures in excess of 35C
(DIP 2009b, Hennessy et al 2007). SEQ is already vulnerable to damaging weather
events and natural hazards including bushfires, inland flooding and coastal storm
surges. The region, already challenged by growing development pressures and
existing natural hazards, now also faces nascent and potentially severe climate
change stresses. The region’s planning regime is a central institution in managing
these pressures through metropolitan governance frameworks and associated
policy and regulatory guidance. I argue that in this context, the operationalisation
of climate adaptation represents a crucial institutional challenge for the SEQ
metro-regional planning regime in managing climate change and its impacts as a
transformative stressor.
The analysis presented in this paper presents emergent findings on the
nature and adequacy of the SEQ metro-regional planning regime’s responses to
climate change as a transformative stressor. It focuses on the period from 2004 to
2010. I argue that climate change became a transformative stressor for the SEQ
planning regime from 2005 onwards. This date was established following an
extensive and detailed examination of documents from 1990 to 2010. These
included planning policy documents; government position papers; policy briefs
and information statements; over 80 separate sets of minutes from official
meetings held by various regional planning committees; and a detailed review of
Queensland government parliamentary records covering 20 years. Data generated
by this process was then used to identify and characterise major the institutional
storylines (Hajer 1993, 1995) that influenced regional planning policy and
regulation in respect of climate change. These storylines and the ways they shaped
institutional thinking and action were subsequently tested through interview with
past and present institutional actors in the SEQ metro-regional planning regime.
Following this research process, it became clear that climate change established as
a transformative stressor for planning in SEQ from 2005 onwards. Several factors
contributed to this. The most significant was the severe drought that affected the
region from 2001-2009. That event raised wide-spread awareness of nature of
10
potential future scenarios in a sub-tropical region where climate change could lead
to acute water shortages and consequent impacts across society, economy and the
environment. Other contributing factors included the vivid illustration of how an
extreme weather event like Hurricane Katrina in 2005 can devastate an entire city;
the widespread awareness-raising of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth
documentary, along with the publication of the Stern Review in 2006, the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 and the Garnaut Review in 2008. These
collectively created a significant level of institutional and public awareness of
climate change impacts as an issue for SEQ and created significant social stress,
which in turn added to this emerging awareness of the need to address and
manage climate change impacts in the region.
The timeframe examined in this paper corresponds to the establishment
and evolution of statutory regional planning in SEQ. This began with the
development of the Southeast Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026 (SEQRP 2005).
The SEQRP 2005 was the first to have statutory force and was the result of over 15
years of policy development designed to manage regional pressures through
statutory regional planning. All planning activities, regulations, strategies and
interventions implemented by the 11 local councils in SEQ since 2005 must
correspond with the spatial objectives expressed in the current SEQ Regional Plan
(DIP 2009a, DlGPSR 2005). This gives the SEQ metro-regional planning regime
significant institutional importance and establishes its responsibility for providing
governance frameworks to “manage regional growth and change in the most
sustainable way to protect and enhance quality of life in the region” (DIP, 2009a, p.
4). The current and past SEQ regional plans detail the institutional preferences of
the SEQ metro-regional planning regime towards major planning issues since
2005, including managing climate change impacts through climate adaptation.
Policies and objectives in the Southeast Queensland Regional Plan 2005-
2026 demonstrated some institutional acknowledgement of climate change. Part
F08 of the plan focused on urban development. Policies in that section did not
directly nominate climate change as a planning issue but the focus of some policies
did indicate a degree of institutional awareness of climate change. However,
institutional responses were directed towards climate change mitigation rather
than adaptation. Policies 8.2.1, 8.2.3, 8.2.4, 8.2.5, 8.7.3, 8.7.4 and 8.7.6
demonstrated institutional preferences for densification, urban consolidation,
transit orientated development and the promotion of regional activity centres in
order to decentralise employment, and in turn minimise car dependence and
energy demand (DLGPSR 2005, pp. 65-75). Policy 8.2.1 emphasised that all new
development should incorporate sub-tropical design principles to reduce energy
consumption (DLGPSR 2005, p. 67). Overall, Part F08 demonstrated that climate
change mitigation was an institutional concern for the SEQ metro-regional
planning regime in the mid 2000s, but that climate adaptation was not. Research
findings show that this is explained by the fact that the Southeast Queensland
Regional Plan 2005-2026 was prepared during 2003/4, at a time when climate
change had not yet manifested as a transformative stressor in SEQ. The severe
drought in SEQ that lasted until 2009 was still at an early stage and major flood
events did not frequently occur until later in the decade. As such, trigger events
were limited when the SEQRP 2005 was being drafted. My research also shows
11
that because climate change had not yet established itself as a transformative
stressor, the implementation of rules of governance designed to operationalise
climate change adaptation through planning appeared unnecessary to institutional
actors at that time.
The Southeast Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026 was replaced in 2009
with the current regional plan, the Southeast Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031
(SEQRP 2009). The SEQRP 2009 is accompanied by the Draft Southeast
Queensland Climate Change Management Plan 2009 (DSEQCCMP 2009). Both plans
demonstrate some institutional recognition of climate change as a transformative
stressor. This indicates that both wider and region-specific trigger events were
institutionally recognised during the lifetime of the SEQRP 2005 and that
institutional actors considered some degree of response necessary when preparing
the SEQRP 2009 and DSEQCCMP 2009. The growing institutional awareness of the
emerging transformative effects of climate change is explicitly demonstrated in the
minutes of the Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) meetings in the late 2000s
. The RCC is the principal group responsible for directing and reviewing regional
planning priorities in SEQ and as such, strongly influences institutional direction.
For example, meeting 60 of the RCC in 2007noted that climate change impacts
needed urgent attention through planning in SEQ (Regional Coordination
Committee 2007a). These views were endorsed by various RCC members,
including the then Queensland Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and
Innovation, the Honourable Andrew McNamara MP. Meeting 61 of the RCC also
demonstrated nascent institutional awareness, with the RCC resolving to include
climate change as an urgent area for review in respect of developing new regional
plans. The RCC also endorsed terms of reference for developing improved climate
change strategies through regional planning in SEQ at Meeting 61 (Regional
Coordination Committee 2007b).
Research undertaken in respect of this paper confirms that climate change
was beginning to be understood as a transformative stressor in SEQ from 2005
onwards. This, in turn, prompted incremental institutional change within the SEQ
metro-regional planning regime, specifically in respect of establishing climate
adaptation as a planning policy issue. Subsequent institutional responses were
enunciated through policies in both the Southeast Queensland Regional Plan 2009-
2031 (SEQRP 2009) and the Draft Southeast Queensland Climate Change
Management Plan 2009-2031 (DSEQCCMP 2009). The general climate change
policies in the SEQRP 2009 and the DSEQCCMP 2009 did not significantly advance
those seen in the SEQRP 2005, suggesting that institutional preferences remained
primarily focused on climate change mitigation. However, the SEQRP 2009 and
DSEQCCMP 2009 both departed from the earlier regional plan by addressing
climate adaptation.
The institutional elaboration of climate adaptation through policies and
objectives in the SEQRP 2009 and DSEQCCMP 2009 was narrow, but nonetheless
present, during the timeframe examined in this paper. For example, the SEQRP
2009 stated that planning processes in SEQ can reduce risks from projected
climate change effects by avoiding development in hazardous areas, improving the
design of developments and infrastructure and improving community
preparedness. Policies 1.4.1 – 1.4.3 also expressed these broad aims and called for
12
the adaptation strategies to minimise vulnerability to riverine flooding, sea level
rise, storm surges, heatwaves and other severe weather events wrought by climate
change (DIP 2009a, p. 44). The DSEQCCMP 2009 also outlined the necessity of
climate adaptation in SEQ and proposed thirteen draft actions to increase adaptive
capacity across the region (DIP 2009b, p. 14, 30-35). Four were acknowledged by
the plan as being underway in 2009. These included preparing a new coastal plan
(Draft Action 20); implementing the policies of the coastal plan across the region
(Draft Action 22); acquiring digital elevation data for coastal areas (Draft Action
23) and developing a regional summary of projected climate change impacts for
SEQ (Draft Action 27). Applied to the transformative stressors framework, these
developments suggest that incremental institutional change did occur within the
SEQ metro-regional planning regime, resulting in the operationalisation of climate
adaptation becoming part of urban and regional planning governance. However,
the question remains as to whether this incremental change is sufficient to
respond to climate change as a transformative stressor by operationalising climate
adaptation as a central principle of metro-regional planning governance in a region
identified as highly vulnerable to climate change impacts I argue that the evidence
suggests that the level of institutional change was not extensive enough. Despite
the advances made by its inclusion in the relevant plans, the institutional
elaboration of climate adaptation as a central issue for planning and thus urban
governance in SEQ was limited. This is demonstrated by the lack of operational
regional planning guidance, despite an expanded policy framework resulting from
changes to institutional dialogue and storylines.
Whilst the climate change adaptation policies and regulations espoused by
the SEQ metro-regional planning regime up to 2010 were limited, they at least
acknowledged an institutional recognition of the need for climate adaptation to be
part of governance structures in SEQ to 2010 and beyond. The fact that climate
adaptation now features in the regional planning framework indicates that
incremental institutional change took place in the SEQ metro-regional planning
regime since climate change became a transformative stressor in 2005. This fact
was confirmed by research, most notably during extensive interviews undertaken
with key institutional actors. I make the following observations when applying
these developments to the transformative stressors model. First, trigger events,
which occurred during the lifetime of the Southeast Queensland Regional Plan
2005-2026, seem to have focused institutional attention on climate change and its
impacts as a transformative stressor. Second, these triggers opened windows of
opportunity for institutional change and incremental change followed. This
suggests that institutional actors must have expressed preferences for change at
the time. Third, institutional capacity was sufficient to allow change but the extent
of institutional change with respect to the operationalisation of climate adaptation
was incremental rather than episodic. Finally, irrespective of institutional change
having occurred up to 2010, there remains a lack of specific operational guidance
addressing how local councils in SEQ can deliver climate adaptation through
planning processes. The policies and objectives related to climate adaptation in
the regional planning framework were, and indeed remain, insufficiently
prescriptive and so lack the capacity to properly orientate local planning activities
towards climate adaptation. This is because climate adaptation was just one
13
institutional concern amongst many from 2004 to 2010. While climate change
began to exert influence as a transformative stressor from 2005 and generated
some institutional responses, they were not sufficiently operationalised to ensure
that climate adaptation became a central tenet of planning governance in SEQ.
The Southeast Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 continues to function as
the primary planning document in SEQ. Its policies and objectives in respect of
climate change and climate adaptation, along with the Draft Southeast Queensland
Climate Change Response Plan 2009-2031, remain in place at the present time
(2012). Institutional responses to climate change as a transformative stressor in
SEQ consequently remain the same as those discussed in this paper. In spite of the
limited institutional expression of climate adaptation as part of a comprehensive
response to climate change as a transformative stressor, there remains scope for
improved responses through planning governance in SEQ. The consequences of
the major flooding in SEQ in early 2011 may yet come to represent a set of triggers
strong enough to prompt more substantial institutional change within the SEQ
metro-regional planning regime. That could ultimately compel a fuller
operationalisation of climate adaptation as a central tenet of metro-regional
planning governance. The SEQ planning regime has demonstrated a capacity for
incremental change in respect of climate adaptation, but I argue that episodic
change is needed if climate adaptation is to be fully operationalised through
planning governance. Increased incidences and severity of flooding are part of the
predicted impacts of climate change in SEQ. In this regard, the floods of 2011 offer
a vivid example of one type of transformative stress that climate change may bring
to bear on SEQ through similar events over the coming decades. Loss of life,
livelihoods and assets were experienced across the region in 2011. Impacts were
especially heavy in urban areas, most notably in Brisbane and Toowoomba. These
may yet prove to be the triggers that will compel episodic institutional change
within the SEQ metro-regional planning regime. I submit that the social stresses
created by the 2011 floods and other future events have the capacity to ensure that
institutional actors will find it difficult to resist significant institutional change
over time. Additionally, the impacts of the 2011 SEQ floods forced politicians and
officials to publicly confront the devastating impacts of extreme weather events.
Political management and strategy making in respect of this event remains under
significant media and public scrutiny in SEQ, suggesting that the political sphere
would be unwise ignore these issues in the future.
As a final consideration, it must be acknowledged that institutional change,
especially episodic change, is often conditioned and influenced by the preferences
of external political and government actors. Whether politicians and government
officials in SEQ recognise climate change as a transformative stressor and
understand the necessity of operationalising climate adaptation through planning
governance frameworks remains an unresolved question. I argue that the existing
focus on climate adaptation in the SEQRP 2009 and DSEQCCMP 2009 offers some
hope for more significant institutional expression in the future. Another positive
indication is the on-going work of the Southeast Queensland Climate Adaptation
Research Initiative (SEQ-CARI). The SEQ-CARI project, which is funded by state
and local government and led by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation (CSIRO), is designed to examine vulnerabilities in the
14
region and develop a suite of adaptation strategies for different sectors, including
through planning. Its final report is due in late 2012. Evidence of more extensive
institutional change may be observed if SEQ-CARI recommendations are
implemented through statutory planning policies. However, the project was
initiated by a Labor state government who lost office in March 2012 and it remains
to be seen whether the new Liberal-National government chooses to implement
the project’s recommendations.
Conclusion
Social science characterises institutions as social entities that structure and co-
ordinate social interactions across a number of settings. This is achieved through
the imposition of rules of governance, which can take the form of policies,
regulations, laws and conventions, amongst others. Institutions can undergo
institutional change when faced with trigger events and associated stressors that
require new rules of governance to better manage their impact. This paper offered
a new conceptual framework that proposed a typology of stressors referred to as
‘transformative stressors.’ These are characterised by their capacity to compel
institutional change even in situations where resistance from institutional actors is
present, or where institutional capacity may be limited. Climate change was
identified as one example of a transformative stressor. This paper has argued that
the improved operationalisation of climate adaptation should be a central tenet of
a comprehensive planning response to the transformative stresses of climate
change and its effects. The role of planning regimes as social institutions
responsible for establishing and maintaining governance frameworks was
examined in this context, along with the capacity of planning regimes to respond to
climate change as a transformative stressor.
This paper argued that climate change began to assert itself as a
transformative stressor in Southeast Queensland (SEQ) from 2005 onwards. The
SEQ metro-regional planning regime is a key institution charged with
implementing governance frameworks to guide development activities across the
metropolitan region. As such, this paper argued that responding to climate change
as a transformative stressor, particularly through the operationalisation of climate
adaptation, is a vital institutional challenge. This paper argued that the current
and past SEQ regional plans and institutional processes document the institutional
preferences of the SEQ metro-regional planning regime towards many planning
issues from 2004-2010, including climate change and climate adaptation. It was
argued that operationalising climate adaptation through institutional change is
central in responding to climate change as a transformative stressor in SEQ. The
analysis of SEQ statutory regional plans shows that the SEQ metro-regional
planning regime underwent incremental, though not episodic, institutional change
in response to transformative stresses related to climate change between 2004
and 2010. It was argued that the inclusion of policies and objectives relating to
climate change adaptation in the Southeast Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031
and Draft Southeast Queensland Climate Change Management 2009-2031 showed
increasing institutional awareness of climate change as a transformative stressor
and represented incremental institutional change. It was also argued that episodic
institutional change in response to climate change as a transformative stressor
15
might occur in the future, particularly in respect of the social stresses like those
created by the 2011 floods in SEQ. The widespread, costly and damaging impacts
of these events could yet prove to be triggers for episodic institutional change
within the SEQ metro-regional planning regime. Episodic change in this context
would ably demonstrate the nature and character of climate change as a
transformative stressor that demands institutional responses through planning
governance focused on climate adaptation in SEQ. In this regard, the experiences
of the SEQ metro-regional planning regime can provide valuable insights for
scholars and practitioners seeking to better understand institutional responses to
climate change as a transformative stressor.
References
Alden, J. Albrechts, L. and da Rosa Pires, A. 2001. In Search of New Approaches for
Planning. In: Albrechts, L., Alden, J. and da Rosa Pires, A., eds. The Changing
Institutional Landscape of Planning. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 1-7.
Alexander, E. R. 2005. Institutional Transformation and Planning: From
Institutionalization Theory to Institutional Design. Planning Theory, Vol. 4, No.
3: 209-222.
Alston, L. 1996. Empirical Work in Institutional Economics: An Overview. In:
Alston, L., Eggertsson, T. and North, D., eds. Empirical Studies in Institutional
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25-30.
Condon, P. M., Cavens, D. and Miller, N. (2009) Urban Planning Tools for Climate
Change. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Connor, R. D. and Dovers, S. R. 2002. Institutional Change and Learning for
Sustainable Development – Working Paper 2002/1. Canberra: Centre for
Resource and Environmental Studies, ANU.
Connor, R. D. and Dovers, S. R. 2004. Institutional Change for Sustainable
Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cortell, A. P. And Peterson, S. 1999. Altered States: Explaining Domestic
Institutional Change. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 29, pp. 177-203.
David, P. 1985. Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review,
Vol. 75, pp. 332-337.
[DLGPSR] Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation. 2005.
South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026. Brisbane: Queensland
Government.
[DIP] Department of Infrastructure and Planning. 2009a. South East Queensland
Regional Plan 2009-2031. Brisbane: Queensland Government.
[DIP] Department of Infrastructure and Planning. 2009b. Draft South East
Queensland Climate Change Management Plan 2009-2031. Brisbane: Queensland
Government.
Dovers, S. and Hezri, A. 2010. Institutions and policy processes: the means to the
ends of adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Vol. 1, pp.
212-231.
Faludi, A. 2000. The Performance of Spatial Planning. Planning Practice and
Research, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 299-318.
Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. California: University of California
Press.
16
Fünfgeld, H. 2010. Institutional Challenges to Climate Risk Management in Cities.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol 2: 156-160.
Garnaut, R. 2008. Garnaut Climate Change Review: Report to the Commonwealth,
State and Territory Governments of Australia. Port Melbourne: Cambridge
University Press.
Gleeson, B. 2008. Waking from the Dream: An Australian Perspective on Urban
Resilience. Urban Studies, Vol. 45, pp. 2653-2668.
Hajer, M. 1993 Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalisation of Practice: The
Case of Acid Rain in Great Britain. In: Fischer, F. and Forester, J. eds. The
Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: Routledge.
Hajer, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse, Environmental
Modernisation and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Healey, P. et al 1999. European Developments in Strategic Spatial Planning.
European Planning Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 339-355.
Hennessy, K., et al. 2007. Australia and New Zealand. In: Parry et al., eds.
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: University Press.
Hogan, J. 2006. Remoulding the Critical Junctures Approach. Canadian Journal of
Political Science, Vol. 39, pp. 657-679.
IPCC 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Parry, M.L., et al, eds. Climate Change
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kingston, C. and Caballero, G. 2009. Comparing theories of institutional change.
Journal of Institutional Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 151-180.
Krasner, S. D. 1984 Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions of Historical
Dynamics. Comparative Politics, Vol. 16, pp. 223-244.
Liebcap, G.D. 1989. Contracting for Property Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
[LNP] Liberal National Party. 2010. Direct Action Plan on the Environment and
Climate Change. Barton: Liberal National Party. Available from:
http://liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/
The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy.ashx
Accessed September 10
th
, 2011.
Low, N. and Astle, R. 2009. Path Dependence in Urban Transport: An Institutional
Analysis of Urban Passenger Transport in Melbourne, Australia, 1956-2006.
Transport Policy, Vol. 16, pp. 47-58
Major Cities Unit. 2010. State of Australian Cities 2010. Canberra: Major Cities Unit,
Infrastructure Australia.
March, J. and Olsen, J. 1994. Institutional Perspectives on Political Institutions.
Governance, Vol. 9, pp. 247-264.
Matthews, T. 2011a. Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Systems: Strategies for
Planning Regimes. Brisbane: Urban Research Program, Griffith University.
Matthews, T. 2011b. Operationalising Climate Adaptation through Institutional
Change: Conceptual an Empirical Insights. Proceedings of the 3
rd
World Planning
Schools Congress, Perth, 4-8 July 2011.
17
McFaul, M. 1995. State Power, Institutional Change and the Politics of Privatisation
in Russia. Word Politics, Vol. 47, pp. 210-243.
Measham, T. G., Preston, B. L., Smith, T. F., Brooke, C., Goddard, R. Withycombe, G.
and Morrison, C. 2011. Adapting to Climate Change through Municipal Planning:
Barriers and Challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,
Vol. 14 (3), pp. 251-283.
Moser, S. C. and Ekstrom, J. A. 2010. A Framework to Diagnose Barriers to Climate
Change Adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 107(51), pp. 22026-22031.
Newman, P., T. Beatley, Boyer, H. 2009. Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and
Climate Change. London: Island Press.
North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
North, D. C. 1993. Five Propositions about Institutional Change. In: Knight, J. and
Sened, I. eds. Explaining Social Institutions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Olson, M. 1982. The Rise and Decline of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Peters, G. 2005. Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism.
New York: London and Pinter.
Regional Coordination Committee. 2007a. Minutes of RCC Meeting 60. Brisbane:
Regional Coordination Committee.
Regional Coordination Committee. 2007b. Minutes of RCC Meeting 61. Brisbane:
Regional Coordination Committee.
Ruth, M. and Coelho, D. 2007. Understanding and Managing the Complexity of
Urban Systems under Climate Change. Climate Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 317-336.
Schmidt, V.A. 2010. Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change
through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism’.
European Political Science Review, Vol. 2(1), pp. 1-25.
Smith, I., Dodson, J., Gleeson, B. and Burton, P. 2010. Growing Adaptively:
Responding to climate change through regional spatial planning in England and
Australia. Brisbane: Urban Research Program, Griffith University.
Stern, N. 2006. Stern Review on The Economics of Climate Change. London: HM
Treasury.
[UN] United Nations. 2009. State of the World Population 2009. New York: UNFPA.
Wilson, E. 2006. Adapting to Climate Change at the Local Level: The Spatial
Planning Response. Local Environment, Vol. 11(6), pp. 609-625.
Wilson, E. and Piper, J. 2010. Spatial Planning and Climate Change. London:
Routledge.
Young, O. R. 1999. Governance in World Affairs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Young, O. R. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit,
Interplay and Scale. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Young, O. R. 2010. Institutional Dynamics: Resilience, Vulnerability and Adaptation
in Environmental and Resource Regimes. Global Environmental Change, Vol. 20,
pp. 378-385.