Social capital and incremental transformative change: responding to climate change experts in Metro Manila

Abstract

This research examines climate change responses by experts from government, national agencies, civil society organizations, and private firms in Metro Manila. We found that highly bonding social capital, often forged through more familiar relationships, reduces organizational interactions and the potential for efficient knowledge mobilization. Specifically, results show deficiencies in information delivery (inconsistent lexicon) and support systems (knowledge sharing, partnerships, and resources), situations known to hinder climate change action. Despite ambivalence toward changing the current system, experts expressed (a) undertones of displeasure in how the system operates, and (b) a clear desire for more institutionalized action and mandates at various institutional scales. A predominance of bonding social capital can preclude participation from outside actors resulting in the exclusion of innovations needed to advance climate response. Therefore, we propose incremental shifts to existing social capital as a means to achieve transformations, arguing that a synergy of horizontal and vertical networks could increase efficiencies in information processes, strengthen collaborations, and enhance governance to confront climate change in this context.

Full text

1 23
Climatic Change
An Interdisciplinary, International
Journal Devoted to the Description,
Causes and Implications of Climatic
Change
ISSN 0165-0009
Climatic Change
DOI 10.1007/s10584-018-2360-6
Social capital and incremental
transformative change: responding to
climate change experts in Metro Manila
Katherine E.Laycock & Carrie
L.Mitchell

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Nature B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

Social capital and incremental transformative change:
responding to climate change experts in Metro Manila
Katherine E. Laycock
1
&Carrie L. Mitchell
1
Received: 27 April 2018 /Accepted: 19 December 2018/
#Springer Nature B.V. 2019
Abstract
This research examines climate change responses by experts from government, national
agencies, civil society organizations, and private firms in Metro Manila. We found that highly
bonding social capital, often forged through more familiar relationships, reduces organizational
interactions and the potential for efficient knowledge mobilization. Specifically, results show
deficiencies in information delivery (inconsistent lexicon) and support systems (knowledge
sharing, partnerships, and resources), situations known to hinder climate change action.
Despite ambivalence toward changing the current system, experts expressed (a) undertones
of displeasure in how the system operates, and (b) a clear desire for more institutionalized
action and mandates at various institutional scales. A predominance of bonding social capital
can preclude participation from outside actors resulting in the exclusion of innovations needed
to advance climate response. Therefore, we propose incremental shifts to existing social capital
as a means to achieve transformations, arguing that a synergy of horizontal and vertical
networks could increase efficiencies in information processes, strengthen collaborations, and
enhance governance to confront climate change in this context.
1 Introduction
The 2015 Paris Agreement marked an historic turning point for climate change consensus
worldwide. Equally impressive, vulnerable Small Island Developing States (SIDS) most
affected by climate change pushed to reduce allowable global temperature rise from 2 to
1.5 °C by 2100 (Ourbak and Magnan 2017). Despite this overwhelming nation-accord, climate
action is still largely and often less harmoniously controlled by governments, private and
public sectors, and the public. These actors rely on many variables, and available climate
knowledge, to shape informed decisions. Issues such as the mitigation-adaptation dispute only
Climatic Change
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2360-6
*Katherine E. Laycock
klaycock@uwaterloo.ca
Carrie L. Mitchell
carrie.mitchell@uwaterloo.ca
1
University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Author's personal copy

recently found resolution by realizing that most successful actions need both mitigation and
adaptation strategies (Laukkonen et al. 2009;Aswanietal.2015). Whereas in locations where
climate impacts are already palpable, such as the Global South, disaster recovery is quickly
becoming the response that eclipses mitigation-adaptation deliberations, at least temporarily.
The impacts of climate action or inaction are unevenly felt by millions globally while
responsibility for action remains debated at global, national, or local levels (Betsil
and Buckeley 2006; Bulkeley and Betsill 2005; Corfee-Morlot et al. 2011; Laukkonen et al.
2009). The debate around governance scales is exacerbated by struggles to obtain buy-in for
climate action from community stakeholders (Carmin et al. 2012; Masud et al. 2016)dueinpart
to the complexities or fears associated with climate change (Biesbroek et al. 2009; Nerlich et al.
2010). As well, overwhelming, short-term, and emergency livelihood priorities often outweigh
climate action and impact individual buy-in (Biesbroek et al. 2009; Laukkonen et al. 2009).
Mounting climate change demands constant perseverance and long-term plans (Adger et al.
2005), innovative thinking (Moser 2010,2016), and trust in collective action (Adger 2009;Paul
et al. 2016). These demands often require confidence in the efficacy of organizational directives
for Bmuch of the knowledge on disaster impacts has been generated by practitioners, human-
itarian agencies and donors, and coloured by agency viewpoints^(Pelling and Dill 2010,p.23).
Furthermore, the type of governance needed to set climate action in motion can be problematic
when trust between stakeholders is not evident (Burch 2010; Shaw et al. 2009). Reduced trust
may challenge individuals and organizations desiring collective action, a potentially substantial
necessity for and outcome of climate change response (Adger 2009).
A growing literature now focuses on transformative agendas to address climate change,
since Pelling (2011) spearheaded this discussion. Transformation is often seen as proposing
far-reaching and, at times, swift changes to systems deemed inadequate (Archer and Dodman
2015; Burch et al. 2017;Pelling2011;Sharpe2016; Shi et al. 2016). However, the Interna-
tional Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) AR5 identifies transformation simply as a fundamen-
tal change in basic aspects of natural or human systems (Field et al. 2014). Like many plans,
transformation also requires stakeholder buy-in and connection for long-term implementation
success. Transferring academic postulation on transformation to practice carries potential risks,
as explored by Blythe et al. (2018). Particularly relevant to this research is the misconception
that transformations will be universally beneficial (Blythe et al. 2018).
To circumvent issues surfacing from transformational agendas, Blythe et al. recommend the
Binclusion of multiple framings of transformation^so that the process Bengages with the root
causes of unsustainable practices, social inequality and injustice^(2018, pp. 12–13). Romero-
Lankao et al. (2018) note that risks from uniformed or misinformed action can lead to
increased inequalities and stress understanding the multiple steps required by
transformations. Patterson et al. (2017) discuss transformative adaptation as a means to address
fundamental changes in socio-technical-ecological systems through scaled action. We heed the
advice of these works and acknowledge research conducted by Halpern and Mason (2015)
who emphasize focused evaluation for incremental change to ensure these small steps are on
the right track and actually occurring. We are also cognizant of the concern voiced by Pelling
et al. (2015) that incremental changes can provide short-term solutions without addressing the
root causes of issues.
Therefore, while not contesting the merit of current trends favoring transformation, we do
contend the often assumed speed and severity of measures frequently employed for transfor-
mations to address climate change can be problematic in this context. Our research expands on
transformational agendas through evaluated incremental steps to alter the current networks
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

which frame individuals within their roles in organizations and at local and national scales,
with consideration to arguments voiced by Blythe et al. (2018), Halpern and Mason (2015),
and Patterson et al. (2017). We believe transformation depends on individual actions as part of
larger power structures (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018; Patterson et al. 2017) and overall
processes since the individual ability to act frequently depends on connections to organiza-
tional networks, which are explored in social capital literature. Through our research into
organizational communication and collaboration, we maintain that working within existing
institutional social capital structures may hold better promise to instigate transformations more
befitting this milieu (Friedkin 1982; Granovetter 1973; Myeong and Seo 2016). Consequently,
we suggest incremental steps to integrate and diversify horizontal and vertical networks should
occur at multi-scalar levels as transformations are non-linear, according to Pelling et al. (2015).
In fact, working within existing organizational networks to affect systems change through a
multi-scalar, less disruptive transformational option may generally provide better outcomes for
climate action.
We begin with an overview of social capital literature with particular focus on relational
structures such as bonding, bridging, and linking. Subsequent paragraphs concentrate predom-
inately on the governance of, and organizational response to, climate change in light of
existing social capital in the Philippines’context. Our research methods and limitations are
outlined next before discussing the findings emerging from this study. Results suggest existing
deficiencies in information processes and an oversaturation of bonding social capital among
study organizations could preclude insights which could enhance climate action. As well, a
clear desire for more institutionalized direction to advance organizational objectives was
expressed during interviews with experts currently driving local climate action. This research
reveals opportunities for incremental changes in social capital and information production
which could result in larger-scale transformations to knowledge mobilization systems in place
for Manila’s climate change experts. This approach could, potentially and over time, soften
negative aspects of organizational corruption, increase information-sharing, drive innovative
approaches to complex climate effects, strengthen collaborations, and promote scalar action
befitting the needs of climate experts.
Therefore, against the context of the Philippines, the world’s second most disaster-prone
country
1
(Cai 2017), we ask: what effects do a prevalence of organizational bonding social
capital have on a transformational approach to existing climate change response; and how is
Metro Manila situated within this discussion? We argue for incremental change befitting expert
information deficiencies and existing bonding social capital as a more effective means to attain
transformations and better address pressing climate change effects.
2 Literature
2.1 Social capital
Several dimensions of social capital are expressed through organizational networks. These
network systems are generally built on working relationships or connections and carry
implications for climate action and resilience research. While this research focuses on
1
The Philippines fluctuates in its regrettable distinction as the second or third most disaster-prone country
depending on year and ranking criteria (Bankoff 2016;Cai2017; Meerow 2017).
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

organizational networks, we acknowledge networks do not exist between organizations but,
rather, between individuals within organizations
2
(Sorenson and Rogan 2014).
Bonding or bridging social capital refers to relationships established on relatively
equal levels of power and are considered horizontal networks (Hawkins and Maurer
2010; Putnam et al. 1993; Woolcock 1998). Bonding connects homogeneous groups of
individuals with similar socioeconomic characteristics, such as family, friends, or co-
workers (Cai 2017). Bridging groups share similar socioeconomic characteristics as well
but connect from different or heterogeneous groups or classes (Aldrich and Meyer 2015;
Cai 2017; Szreter and Woolcock 2004). An example of horizontal bridging networks
would be connections formed between community groups or organizations (Petzold and
Ratter 2015). Lastly, linking social capital displays varied scales of power or economics
aligned in vertical network configurations (Cai 2017; Petzold and Ratter 2015;Putnam
et al. 1993). Vertically linking networks often reflect hierarchical power situations or
economic relationships (Fig. 1).
To appreciate social capital, we should understand trust. Relationships based on trust carry
greater potential for quicker response in post-disaster settings (Aldrich and Meyer 2015), a
vital consideration as climate change impacts increase. Fukuyama (2001,2002)reflectson
trust radii, wherein a small circle of social connections exhibits a high level of trust. The
resulting bonding social capital can be exclusionary and difficult for external entry or re-entry
by those outside the circle (Narayanan et al. 2013). Exclusivity can make it difficult to
incorporate trust into collective action, which may need to draw on actors not connected
through bonding social capital (Bridger and Luloff 2001).
Often associated with trust is power—of which the social theorist, Foucault (1991),
famously declared exists in every relationship. Romero-Lankao et al. (2018) note urban
transformation is often dependent on who has the power to act on issues. Purcell (2009)
emphasizes how our interactions with power should not focus on limiting it—or
neutralizing it—but should rather work within its constructs. For climate action, a shift
in current power dynamics could empower stakeholders to contribute through collective
action thereby (ideally) reducing power constraints which may otherwise restrict con-
tributions. Such dialogs do not constrain power to vertical or hierarchical networks;
they suggest all configurations of social capital carry the potential to form or benefit
power relationships.
One additional framing of social capital is considered: strong and weak ties exist within
vertical and horizontal configurations expressing bonding, bridging, and linking social capital
(Aldrich and Meyer 2015;Friedkin1982; Granovetter 1973; Putnam 1995). Simply put, strong
ties express closer relationships while weak ties suggest more casual interactions (Granovetter
1973). Research on climate action and disaster recovery shows both tied relationships can have
positive or negative consequences. From a positive perspective, strong ties, usually in the form
of bonding social capital, are built around relationships of trust (Fukuyama 2001) and weak
ties can assist innovation and produce more preventative ideas (Rojas et al. 2011). Conversely,
strong ties may exhibit exclusionary tendencies proven to have negative long-term implica-
tions on group reintegration (Narayanan et al. 2013). While weak ties may be less exclusive
and more innovative (Rojas et al. 2011), the information shared may be less substantial
(Friedkin 1982).
2
In this research, these individuals are experts working on climate change through their professional organiza-
tional roles and capacities.
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

One final consideration: social capital can increase climate resilience in communities
(Petzold and Ratter 2015) despite Aldrich and Meyer’s(2015) contention that social capital
usually has fewer metrics agreed upon by literature which restricts its capacity in disaster
planning. Notwithstanding debate, it is agreed that (a) social capital is highly contextual; (b) it
produces situation-specific outcomes; and (c) varying degrees of trust permeate social capital
which may affect capacity to act or resilience in certain situations. As example, research
conducted by Paul et al. (2016) in Ethiopia shows that cooperation and trust have a negative
relationship with independent household actions for climate resilience; however, in more
collective settings, these benchmarks were useful. Myeong and Seo (2016)foundbridging
social capital in South Korea positively correlated with trust in government whereas bonding
social capital expressed a negative association with government trust. Ultimately, according to
Adger (2009), a society’s capacity to adapt to our changing climate is intertwined with its
capability for collective action (evident in various social capital structures), which may or may
not display elements of trust. Next, we consider the situational dimension of social capital with
respect to climate action in the Philippines.
2.2 Power, social capital, and climate action in the Philippines
In this densely populated island nation of over 100 million, disaster risk reduction and climate
change action depend on governance by local, national, and international actors. These
responses also acknowledge social power dynamics and the steady increase in nepotism within
many organizational constructs (Mendoza et al. 2012;Porio2012). Decades of scholarship,
including works by Bankoff (2003,2016), address the Philippines’culture of disaster,
whereby disasters and extreme weather have become the norm for Filipinos and shape their
very concept of normalcy. With approximately 20 typhoons annually (Bankoff 2016;Brower
Fig. 1 How social capital is organized. The interaction between bonding, bridging, and linking social capital
along horizontal and vertical network configurations
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

et al. 2014) and internationally headlined extreme weather in recent history (Brower et al.
2014;Meerow2017), Filipinos are not surprised by climate change impacts.
Entrenched government nepotism or familialism (Mendoza et al. 2012) positions the
National Capital Region (NCR) as the center of power in the nation (Porio 2012). Familial
power embodies extreme bonding social capital. These networks are studied extensively by
Mendoza et al. (2012) who postulate on their continued growth and caution disaster for the
nation’s future growth if nepotistic government tendencies do not change. Influential relation-
ships established through lingering elitism and familialism affects many organizational inter-
actions and influences funding supporting some organizations. Such features potentially
exclude large segments of the population from bonding social capital due to limited opportunities
within trust radii (Fukuyama 2001,2002). Consequently, large portions of excluded populations
are less likely to trust individuals within bonding social capital and, potentially, not work with
them in the future (Narayanan et al. 2013). Initiating more drastic transformations to incorporate
more bridging or linking social capital may be ineffective because of this reduced trust.
Locally, disaster and climate change governance in Metro Manila are undertaken by civil
society organizations (CSOs), local government units (LGUs), and non-governmental organi-
zations (NGOs).
3
The Philippines possesses some of the highest numbers of CSO/NGOs in
Southeast Asia; exact numbers are elusive due to the abundance of unregistered groups
(Brower et al. 2014). CSOs returned fervently with the end of Marcos’dictatorship in 1986
which heralded in decentralization and the Local Government Code (CODE-NGO) of 1991,
an act encouraging the growth of civil societies nationally (Brower et al. 2014;Porio2012;
Shatkin 2002). While decentralized government gives more power to local-level governance,
this additional layer of responsibility can be challenging. Guevara (2004) stresses the negative
Bcompartmentalized^(p. 2) manner in which decentralization occurred and Sheng (2010)
explores its fallout on local governments, which often lack authority to mobilize resources and
undertake devolved tasks. LGUs have authority to manage their respective districts; however,
many issues are not constrained by these boundaries. Singru and Lindfield (2014) found less
affluent LGUs struggle with issues traversing LGU borders, such as river management, for
trans-boundary issues necessitate LGU sharing of goals, authority, and finances to accomplish
join initiatives. Our findings in this and previous research (Mitchell and Laycock 2017)
support these observations.
The NCR, comprised of 16 cities and one municipality, is divided into 17 LGUs (Morley
2018) where government experts provide local-level governance on many issues, including
climate action. Each LGU controls its own decentralized portion of the metropolis, facing
distinct concerns individually and mostly collaborating out of necessity or proximity.
4
LGU
districts are dense areas rife with struggles, such as boundary-ignoring climate change, for
which experts may not be prepared or fully able to address amid other livelihood responsibil-
ities (Mitchell and Laycock 2017;Sheng2010). This is a familiar situation for planning
experts worldwide (Tribbia and Moser 2008). More recently, the combination of decentrali-
zation and hyperurbanization has allowed private planning to flourish in the NCR with
relatively few restrictions (Clarke 2012; Porio 2011; Shatkin 2005–2006,2008). The privat-
ization of Metro Manila is well documented by Shatkin (2008) and Porio and Crisol (2004),
noting this profit-driven group dictates much of the growth that does or does not occur here.
3
The terms CSOs and NGOs are used interchangeably in this research.
4
Issues involving roadways, waterways, or population straddling LGU boundaries may necessitate collaboration
by multiple LGUs. Resolutions largely depend on LGU directives as collaboration is mostly not mandated (Porio
2012).
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

Local governance is assisted by national frameworks, policies, and databases. Some
pertaining to climate action are National Climate Change Action Plan 2009 (NCCAP),
National Framework Strategy on Climate Change 2010–2022 (NFSCC), National Disaster
Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), The Philippines Atmospheric, Geo-
physical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), Nationwide Operational
Assessment of Hazards (Project NOAH), Metro Manila Flood Improvement Project, and
various resettlement projects. International actors supplement local and national-scale
initiatives throughout Metro Manila. In this research, large global organizations are
included as CSO stakeholders; they play a substantial role in funding climate change
and disaster recovery projects.
2.3 Research contributions
Social capital is highly contextual in nature and application; this research contributes to the
complex understanding of social capital as it pertains to climate change organizational efficacy
in Metro Manila. To our knowledge, this contribution serves to fill a gap in the literature that
has not been adequately explored. To study how the Philippines is situated within issues of
social capital and climate action, we looked at experts currently working on climate change
plans in Metro Manila. An integral component of this study is to expose expert perceptions of
professional communication within their fields.
3 Methods
Our approach drew on mixed methods involving professional planning documents and
personal interviews. A comprehensive span of 120 organizations conducting climate
change planning in Metro Manila were approached to share documents connected to
current climate action. A total of 75 CSO/NGOs,
5
22 national agencies, 17 LGUs, and six
private planning firms were contacted. While not technically systematic as traditional
database studies (Lacy et al. 2015), documents were not intended for database categori-
zation; therefore, this acquisition method was acceptable. Forty organizations provided
102 documents developed or used by experts in climate change roles. Documents
included briefs, case studies, factsheets, guidelines, land use plans, local development/
action plans, reports, and technical papers. This document sample was methodologically
sound as they represented information currently available and openly shared by all
experts. Documents were sorted by recurring identifiers they contained and manifest-
coded according to purpose and organizational collaborations, processes which ensured
no researcher speculation tainted data.
A total of 33 semi-structured, open-ended interviews with 39
6
voluntary private
planning, national agency, government planning, and CSO/NGOs experts occurred over
a 4-month period in 2017. This interview sample represented almost one third of total
organizations approached. Stakeholders shared their expertise on climate action in the
NCR during interviews ranging from 1–3 h with a primary researcher to maintain research
5
Current and accurate directories for CSOs and NGOs do not exist (Clarke 2012). Participants were located by
scrutiny of previous records, lists, and direct query of experts working in related fields.
6
Four LGUs requested group rather than individual interviews.
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

integrity. Interview questions focused on: imagery information (not presented here); social
capital/communication (verbal and visual); initiatives and collaborations; organizational
structures and power dynamics; and perceived ideal situations for climate action within
Metro Manila. Collected data were analyzed using Atlas.ti (Table 1).
Limitations This research represents a snapshot of information that may be accessible for
researching climate change in Metro Manila. Therefore, it should not be viewed as
representative of or replicable to all climate change information, experts, or social
networks existing in Metro Manila. Moreover, limited sociopolitical interview discus-
sions underscore the mutable reality of current urban research. Sensitively conducted
during 2016–2017 as a war on drugs and extrajudicial killings were carried out, specific
questions on government action or political atmospheres affecting climate action were
tactfully broached.
4 Results and discussion
Key findings reveal two overarching themes. First, a lack of information communicated
and shared by stakeholders is evident in horizontal network relationships, information
sharing processes, and political perceptions. Second, experts articulate a desire for
institutionalized and mandated action. In the sections below, we draw connections from
document analysis and interviews to relevant literature and discuss how these findings
interact in the urban space of Metro Manila through existing social capital and climate
action. We postulate that incremental steps toward transformations of social capital in this
setting would assist climate action.
4.1 Insufficient information
Organizational information and communication exchanges, while nascent, remain limited
with respect to NCR climate action. The most prevalent reasons appear to be a prolifer-
ation of bonding social capital exclusion, inconsistencies in information delivery and
support, and an unstable political atmosphere. These associations are derived from
participant responses on networks, communication, and sociopolitical influences. Similar
concerns to those raised in our findings occur globally and their contribution to the gap in
effective knowledge exchange is well researched by numerous fields including commu-
nication sciences, sociology, health, and governance (Moser 2016;Saetal.2011).
However, issues we discuss pertain exclusively to climate action experts and could
benefit from well-evaluated, incremental shifts to diversify vertical and horizontal net-
works and assist knowledge mobilization in the NCR.
Bonding social capital exclusion The manifestation of bonding social capital in Manila is not
noteworthy in itself, although the rate at which nepotism (extreme bonding) is growing in the
Philippines (Mendoza et al. 2012) is important to this research. As noted by participant 34:
BHere in the Philippines, we have [the] saying . . . you have to find a connection to hire.^
Experts generally feel that hiring, communication, and collaboration go hand-in-hand within
their professional networks. An example is the case of LGUs only working with approved
NGOs/CSOs under CODE-NGO 1991 (Asian Development Bank 2013). A situation noted in
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

Table 1 Methods for coding interview questions
Coding method Interview categories Sample of interview questions Value or vivo
coding
Attribute Coding Demographic Information Gender; age Viv o
Descriptive Coding Organization Information LGU location (pre-interview); Type of organization; role; time in role;
involvement with climate change
Viv o
Imagery Information* How would you describe this image? What is it about this image that
makes you believe that?
Viv o
What does this image represent to you in terms of climate change action (CCA) plans? Vivo
Would you use a different image for Philippines’CCA? Why? Vivo
Initiatives & Collaboration What CCA programs/initiatives are occurring in your city? Which do you
consider most successful? Why?
Viv o
Recalling the images presented earlier, could/should any of them be connected
to these successful initiatives? Why?
Viv o
For successful programs/initiatives, who was involved in plans or implementation?
Who outside the org. was involved?
Viv o
Is that standard/typical collaboration for programs/ initiatives or different? Why? Vivo
If collaboration occurred, how did you engage others in this program/initiative? Vivo
What communication (text, oral, imagery) is most useful in collaboration,
planning, and implementation?
Viv o
Does communication differ at stages of planning? Vivo
Emotion Coding Imagery Information* What elements of the image represent different meanings? Why? Value
Would others (public/experts) agree with you? Why? Value
What other interpretations of this image might exist? Why? Value
Process Coding Social Capital/ Communication Do you mostly work alone? If with others, are they mostly individuals
in your department, organization, or networks?
Viv o
How do you most effectively communicate with those individuals
(written, oral, visual images: text, email, phone)
Viv o
Narrative Coding Ideal Situations What would you change with respect to how CCA is created or implemented? Value
Org. Structures; Power Dynamics What modification (action, change, awareness, etc.) is most important
to get to ideal CCA planning?
Valu e
Do you think this modification would fit in your current organizational structure? Why? Value
How would you change the structure if needed? Value
Who is responsible for CCA decisions in your organization? Is anyone else involved? Value
Is this the best system? Should more/less be involved? Value
What degree of influence do you have over CCA plans? And would
you change that? If so, how?
Valu e
Imagery Information* All questions for images Value
*Due to participants’perspectives, elements of imagery information overlap multiple coding methods
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

all 16 LGU interviews, participants perceive this stipulation as safeguarding LGUs against
scams. However, it may also constrain increased network connections since NGOs must be
approved every 3 years to be listed for future project collaborations.
7
Reference to this potentially exclusionary system did surface in almost all LGU interviews
where participants alluded that specific NGOs are engaged based on their bonding associations
with certain LGUs. While this research did not have the capacity to confirm such conjectures,
they do mirror concerns from social capital literature: too much reliance on one form of social
capital can be detrimental to future collaborations (Narayanan et al. 2013; Woolcock and
Narayan 2000). This is particularly true for those excluded from, or attempting to enter, group
membership. According to findings by Narayanan et al. (2013), the ability of barred individ-
uals to rejoin a group is greatly reduced, as is their satisfaction or participation levels even if
they manage to gain group acceptance
This is problematic for mitigation, adaptation, and recovery when organizations and
individuals possessing skills to complement plans are not integrated into current processes.
While bonding social capital may assist recovery work (Aldrich and Meyer 2015), it risks
excluding innovations or collaborations (Pérez-Luño et al. 2011). Alternatively, weaker ties,
found more predominately in bridging or linking social capital, may promote more innovation
and assist preventative action (Rojas et al. 2011). Noted during interviews and supported by
Mendoza et al.’(2012) research, the current bonding or familial-based system has a negative,
exclusionary perception by those outside these social capital structures. We feel bonding NCR
social capital could potentially benefit from incrementally induced integration of diverse social
capital to augment current climate action. Ideally, the Philippines could experience similar
results as found in South Korea by Myeong and Seo (2016), where bridging social capital
more positively correlates with trust in government than bonding social capital (Section 2.1).
Inconsistent information delivery and support Few participants mentioned NCR or nation-
specific projects (Fig. 2) and the language experts used to communicate general projects
involving mitigation, adaptation, green infrastructure, informal settlement relocation, flooding
projects, and others was not consistently conveyed. We expect some responses would be
organization or project dependent and while commonalities in organizational communication
and terminology did exist, these did not appear regularly enough in the data to draw formal
connections. For instance, 80 different codes were needed to categorize basic office commu-
nication processes such as email, phone, in-person meetings, and memos. Surprisingly, only
participant 22 expressed frustration over the profuse terms used to articulate the same issue,
noting variations in watershed labeling as one example of many which confuse experts and
community members alike. Communication literature notes the prevalence of inconsistencies
in terminology (Sager 2009). Climate change, as an interdisciplinary field, is well versed in
such complexities. In fact, one international, research-driven organization, Project Drawdown,
purposefully strives to reduce climate jargon at the onset in its mandate (Hawken 2017). Often,
the lexicon used by climate experts is channeled through boundary organizations to reduce
ambiguity and strengthen knowledge exchange (Gustafsson and Lidskog 2018;McGreavy
et al. 2013). These organizations may operate within horizontal or vertical networks to connect
actors beyond science and policy and help reduce inconsistencies such as those this research
exposes. Beyond using boundary organizations, climate change communicators embrace
7
These lists were referenced by LGU participants. A physical list was never provided to, or obtainable by, the
researcher.
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

multiple outlets for information dissemination (Moser 2010,2016) and strive for targeted,
Breflexive engagement^(Nerlich et al. 2010, p. 100) of information. We consider all of these
examples of incremental steps which can ease transformations to improve information delivery
in the NCR.
Upon document analysis, further trends emerge. There is a lack of support to substantiate
documents: 68 of 102 documents were unreferenced, although the remaining 34 documents
did incorporate multiple sources. Most documents were reports (n= 39) and of these, almost
50% (n= 18) were unsubstantiated. While perhaps the legacy of development practices, 30
documents that did cite resources gave equal weight to international and national resources yet
had gaps in assimilating local information, defined by Corburn (2003) as first-hand experience.
Only two documents referenced traditional or Indigenous Filipino knowledge and 16 cited
community knowledge,
8
a disadvantaging situation when so much literature validates how
essential reflexive communication with communities are and reference traditional knowledge
as contributing to lasting climate solutions. Adhikari and Taylor (2012) address the role
cultural knowledge can play in future climate actions, while Archer and Dodman (2015)
focus more specifically on the dynamics of power and justice which exist within local civil
societies and governments. Hiwasaki et al. (2015) discuss local and Indigenous knowledge
can increase community resilience, whereas Bahadur et al. (2013) find climate change
work often favors Bscientific^information over locally generated information, which can
be problematic.
Most documents had no intended audience (n= 75). This contradicts some aims of infor-
mation sharing (Ballantyne 2016) and magnifies the potential for confusion and information
sorting overload referenced in climate change literature (Mitchell and Laycock 2017;Moser
2010). Certainly, decentralized government power and the nation’s archipelagic makeup can
CGO/N GO LGU
(Government)
Adaptaon
Teaching
Microgrids
Baseline
mapping
Research
Rang
system
1
1
1
1
6
3
Early warning
advisories
1
11
1
GHG
inventory
Waterway
reselement
Mangrove
rehabilitaon
Inform
communies
Green building
compliance
Community
engagement
Recycling
LED
conversions
Vulnerable
land use
Foodga tes
CLUP
Pumping
stao ns
Naonal
Agencies Private Planners
Resilience
guidelines
Project
NOAH
4
4
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
5
1
1
21
Fig. 2 Stakeholder references to successful climate initiatives in NCR. Initiatives experts from each organization
interpreted as most successful at the time of this research. Some initiatives were referenced multiple times by
stakeholders; this is noted by the number displayed on the linking lines. Participants were not restricted to the
number of successful initiatives they discussed during interviews
8
Community knowledge concerns suggestions or input from community members, regardless of affiliations.
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

complicate information sharing or extend projects beyond LGU or regional abilities (Mitchell
and Laycock 2017). This could be evident in that only one third of documents targeted
country-wide projects; even fewer involved specific regions (n= 16 for Luzon); and 22
documents did not even specify a project location.
Sixty organizational partners were mentioned in documents, but only six recurring partners
appeared in more than five documents. Curiously, more partners were not affiliated directly
with information produced by similar stakeholder groups in the same city although the
literature points to prolific bonding social capital among these experts (Mendoza et al. 2012;
Porio 2012). This exclusionary situation could reflect Pelling’s(1998) views that access to
information is shaped by several factors including social networks and suggests restricted
network access can lead to multiple outcomes including social isolation. The fact that few
recurring partnerships were noted in professional documents could speak to Leck and Simon’s
(2013) findings in South Africa where gaps in Binformation sharing, communication, and
reciprocal learning^between similar actors can negatively impact the potential for climate
adaptation (p. 1235). Regardless, the observable differences in NCR partner collaborations are
striking bearing in mind government mandate (CODE-NGO 1991) requiring LGU collabora-
tion with CSO/NGO partners on projects.
Finally, Ostrom et al.’(1993) argument that information holds a central role in power
relationships is explored through document findings with respect to CSOs. NCR civil society
may hold the balance of power in climate-related network relationships as this group over-
whelmingly appears more engaged in information processes beyond those mandated by
CODE-NGO 1991. For instance, the highest numbers of referenced documents were produced
by CSOs, not government or for-profit organizations. CSOs also make more use of resources
than other expert groups: 112 total resources referenced for all documents they produced
compared to LGUs which cited only six resources.
9
Since networks have the potential to be
exclusionary, an imbalance of power may make it difficult to incorporate the trust necessary for
collective action, in this case partnerships or collaborations to address climate change (Bridger
and Luloff 2001). Collaboration in the NCR is potentially bound to and constrained by these
social capital realities and ramifications. As extreme bonding social capital, in the form of
nepotism, escalates in the Philippines (Mendoza et al. 2012), Bthe cost of exclusion from a
network increases faster than do the benefits of inclusion from those same networks^(Castells
2011, p. 774). This is, perhaps, a cautionary tale with respect to essential Filipino climate
action. It is also one that incrementally approached transformation could address by improving
information processes, reducing exclusionary situations, and leveling out imbalances in
network power dynamics.
Unstable political atmosphere Participant 18 remarked it was not a lack of resources
preventing action; it was an Bunpredictable political landscape.^Similar sentiments surfaced
in other interviews and during communication with experts outside the participants’circle
while conducting this research.
10
As a populist, the current President gained significant
country-wide support by championing a war on drugs and suggesting conversion to a national,
federalist system while removing select risk management programs like Project NOAH.
11
The
9
Results may not reflect all information sharing processes since the document sample was random.
10
The political landscape within which study organizations operate was cautiously observed since it was too
soon and, potentially, risky for participants to fully critique at the time this research occurred.
11
Project NOAH has since been re-homed by the University of the Philippines, Diliman, where its moniker is
now UP-NOAH.
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

literature notes that, globally, political structures overwhelmingly dictate what type of climate
action occurs (Bulkeley and Betsill 2005). Experts interviewed realize adapting to fluctuating
political terms or ambitions will not produce longer-term results needed to offset climate
change but, pragmatically, understand it is an entrenched component of existing governance.
As yet, adequate solutions to this stalemate are elusive. Participant 20 commented: BIt’sabit
hard because . . . there’s a political issue about political allies and political non-allies . . . trying
to appease everybody.^While the majority of participants tactfully remained noncommittal
about politics, participant 6 did voice frustration with systemic country-wide corruption.
The Philippines is not alone operating amid an unstable political atmosphere rife with
corruption; however, it does face more compounding risks from climate impacts given its
higher disaster rating (Cai 2017;Bankoff2016). This nation has no time to wait for the right
political allies or to rely solely on local leaders whose actions are green,asrationalizedby
participant 15. Discussions over local-scale versus national-scale climate action appear
throughout the literature without resolution. Yet, in this decentralized country, there are few
options: actions need to be incorporated locally but, as stated during numerous interviews, also
must be supported at the national level regardless of political agenda. As declared by Pelling
(1998), herein Blies the paradox of leadership; to be representative and accountable leadership
must be deeply rooted in the local community, however to gain resources to pursue a
community’s wishes leadership must have substantial linkages with external institutions^(p.
473). The Philippines has made noteworthy steps to prioritize climate change through the
establishment of the Climate Change Commission (CCC) and national initiatives discussed in
Section 2.2 such as the NFSCC, NDRRMC, PAGASA, and Project NOAH. However, only
Project NOAH was quoted by study participants as a successful national climate change
initiative (Fig. 2). The NCCAP, which was found to lack incentive for specific action
(Mitchell and Laycock 2017), and two local endeavors, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
(CLUP) and the Local Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP), were seen as successful
projects by interviewees. Curiously, the Metro Manila Flood Improvement Project was not
linked specifically to any climate action discussion by NCR experts.
12
5Summary
At an individual or local level, incrementally introduced transformative agendas to alleviate
some of the negative impacts of these findings could possibly be achieved through better
oversight over information processes. We suggest promoting more local content in documents,
ensuring documents are produced and distributed to intended audiences, and establishing a
more consistent climate change lexicon for inter- and intra-organizational use. We feel these
are achievable goals which lend themselves to being phased in gradually with less disruption
to processes currently in place. Climate change experts in Metro Manila may also benefit from
engaging more diverse social capital, in the form of bridging and linking, to assist stronger
information dissemination and innovation (Pérez-Luño et al. 2011). Perhaps incremental steps
to integrate mixed vertical and horizontal networks may be the most effective means to do this
rather than undertaking a quick transformative upheaval which could have unintended
12
This project was not noted by name but the generic term, floodgates, was offered as a successful project
(Fig. 2). While this could reflect issues with terminology discussed earlier, such speculation is not possible.
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

consequences (Weick and Quinn 1999), particularly in this context, as we explore next. In this
research, a quick transformative upheaval would require all climate change experts (from
LGUs, CSOs, national agencies, and private firms) to work collaboratively to promote
innovative ideas and actions, whereas incremental transformations would take a more mea-
sured step toward integrating a few new collaborations to increase innovative solutions. These
steps would undergo thorough initial and repeated evaluations to isolate deficiencies in
partnered action before expanding collaborations further. Infusing existing social capital at
this more gradual and tested pace could ideally be done at local- and national-scales to create
more evenly distributed transformational change to network systems with the least disruption.
5.1 Need for institutionalized action
The overwhelming need echoing throughout interviews was that action requires insti-
tutionalization. Yet, institutionalized climate action is present in the Philippines. Par-
ticipants’desires seem incongruous given the existence of expert networks dealing with
climate change, comprehensive documents like the NCCAP, and national guidance from
the CCC. What experts were expressing, however, is a desire for detailed policy and
supporting governance. These would acknowledge and provide more comprehensive
top–down direction, support, and funding from the national-level to ensure requisite
local-level action occurs.
A general belief that action only transpires if mandated was clearly articulated during
interviews (7, 9, 13, 23, 26, 30, 32). Moreover, national orders were seen to overrule
local governance, which could repress efforts: BI appreciate once instructions are
coming from the national because the bosses have. . . no choice but to comply^
(interview 13; similar sentiment interview 26). However, simply mandating action
through policy change would be insufficient in this setting due to gaps in information
sharing (Section 4.1) and reduced local-level capacity. As participant 36 pointed out,
Bclimate change law has to be revised or appealed because there’s no point person [at]
the local level reporting to National Climate Change Commission regarding the climate
change initiatives of every city.^Literature tells us actions can be ineffectual if
mandated without full capacity or clear communication (Tyler and Moench 2012).
Moreover, deficiencies in capacity can be compounded by political uncertainty. These
situations were clearly evident in our findings. Therefore, recommending capacity
building, as done for many contexts, is inadequate and may need to be combined with
policy changes to ensure action is mandated and effective.
Concerns over the short lifespan of forced action are well established in climate
change and social capital literature (Biesbroek et al. 2009). This body of scholarship
shows individuals require a vested interest to ensure actions endure (Archer and
Dodman 2015;Shawetal.2009). Furthermore, Adger (2009) expresses the significant
potential bottom–up social capital possesses to shape climate change as a local concern
instead of a global issue. Yet, specific contextual challenges to increase local focus
exist in the NCR. Many local government experts face more pressing livelihood issues
daily (Mitchell and Laycock 2017;Porio2011). Other stakeholders may operate with
competing interests to climate action, primarily profit, which could reduce overall
accomplishments. Consequently, it is understandable that many participants would
consider mandated policy and the institutionalization of climate change as valid means
to ensure local action occurs. Conversely, others expressed doubt; explaining past
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

attempts at stronger institutionalization resulted in redundancies and wasted time.
Participant 32 declared mandates, such as the CLUP and the LCCAP, were actually
ineffective since some LGUs simply copied applicable information.
Leck and Simon (2013) speak to our findings on some experts’desires for greater
institutionalization through their work into cooperative governance networks. They found
networks integrating greater cooperation from local to national (and even regional)
governance constitute a necessary shift in current governance structures. Innes et al.
(2010) even suggest that network governance may be the best method to address global
concerns such as climate change. In line with Assens and Lemeur (2016), we see network
governance as collaboration, independent of economic or strict social structures. In this
context, it would be the intermingling of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital
which may reduce current power hierarchies. Notwithstanding the benefits of such a mega-
structural approach, Leck and Simon (2013) caution: Bas evidenced throughout history, co-
operative governance confronts significant operational challenges including communica-
tion barriers, conflicting priorities and agendas, and competing policies^(p.1221).This
structure may also run the risk of group think thereby losing critical challenges incited by
conflicting voices (Cox 2012). Of course, debate over institutionalization of more inclu-
sive network governance must also consider the economy of mandated action on such
mega-structures. Feiock (2013) explored costs related to collaborative relationships in
general and found mandated government policy, with respect to collaborations, resulted in
higher costs than similar relationships reached through voluntary agreement.
Social capital factors greatly into institutionalization since a prevalence of highly
bonding social capital could limit or sway changes for particular gain (Porio 2012).
Incremental steps which would require bonding, bridging, and linking social capital to
coexist within prevailing horizontal and vertical networks may circumvent this. Heeding
Feiock’s(2013) observations, initially encouraging voluntary diversification of social
capital could reduce the economic burden of this transformation. More pragmatically,
however, institutionalizing broader network cooperation could be accomplished by
updating CODE-NGO 1991 whereby appropriate amendments could ensure more diverse
network collaborations are introduced into climate change processes. Minor shifts such as
these could offset sufficient change to existing interorganizational relationships to dem-
onstrate relationships are not solely founded on the political dynamics of current regimes
or prevalent bonding.
Finally, most experts wanted to fix problems with minor alterations, not a complete
overhaul of the system as advocated by more drastic transformative agendas. Six experts
felt the system worked; many pointed to inherent flaws; still, others suggested working
within the system was best. Many were just hopeful change would occur (interviews 26;
27; 29; 32; 34; 36). Such attitudes reflect social capital literature which cautions how
action may be hindered under non-responsive networks while also reflecting on the
potential for social capital to evolve under the right conditions (Narayanan et al. 2013).
Given ominous warnings regarding nepotistic tendencies (Mendoza et al. 2012), we
postulate that incremental action to enhance the way climate action networks are perceived
and operate in the NCR is possible. Redefined synergies of collaborations, communica-
tion, and action may be one way to assist this city’s ability to confront climate change
challenges. Slight but conscientious attempts to (1) diversify social capital within existing
organizational networks and (2) provide more mandated governance of climate action may
be a feasible alternate means to produce immediate and lasting transformations.
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

6 Synthesis and conclusions
In response to the questions broached at the onset of this paper, a prevalence of organizational
bonding social capital may not respond favorably to a drastic transformational approach to
existing climate change response; our exploration of expert climate action in Metro Manila
serves to affirm this. Nonetheless, we maintain an incrementally approached multi-scalar
framing of transformative agendas remains viable for this context and rationalize this apparent
dichotomy below.
Findings from discussions with climate change experts and analysis of professional docu-
ments used by these experts suggest deficiencies in current climate change response in Metro
Manila. While responding to climate change is high on the national agenda and supported by
comprehensive direction from policy, frameworks, projects, and databases, climate change
response at local scale could benefit from transformations in certain key areas provided action
is undertaken appropriately for this context.
This research found expert action was hindered by highly bonding social capital, inconsis-
tencies in information delivery and support, and a politically unstable national atmosphere.
While generally content with how local climate action functions, experts did share concerns.
Primarily, they expressed a desire for top–down policy change through greater institutionali-
zation of local-level climate action. Despite decades of decentralized national governance,
directives from higher levels of government still hold greater promise to elicit change.
Therefore, incremental changes which more suitably address information deficiencies, political
uncertainties, the bonding social capital of climate change organizations, and a reliance on top–
down governance might be a more appropriate way to achieve the transformations necessary to
improve local-scale climate change response.
Porio (2012) asserts the NCR monopolizes political sway over the nation largely due to
government familialism, a form of extreme bonding social capital. While potentially promot-
ing greater trust among members (Fukuyama 2001,2002), this type of networking often
prioritizes and reduces the potential capacity of individuals in organizations dealing with
climate action (Narayanan et al. 2013). Some research participants implied such connections
excluded projects and partnerships from certain climate change groups or experts. We also
found a dearth of expert references to the numerous, large national and local projects underway
in the Philippines. This could be another reflection of exclusion. Findings further highlighted
shortcomings in information delivery (lexicon issues) and support systems (knowledge shar-
ing, partnerships, resources), which have been shown to negatively impact capacity for climate
adaptation (Leck and Simon 2013). Moreover, network power imbalances where CSOs appear
to drive a disproportionate amount of knowledge and, hence, appear to possess more power
among bonding social capital organizations (Ostrom et al. 1993), were suggested upon
document analysis. CSOs do lead a great deal of community action; however, many of their
initiatives discussed in this research appear to be based on post-disaster recovery work. Issues
noted throughout our discourse on bonding social capital may restrict CSOs from adequately
sharing their information with all stakeholders to promote a higher degree of action based on
their existing knowledge.
A predominance of bonding social capital can preclude participation from outside actors to
the exclusion of potential insights and innovations which are frequently necessary to advance
climate response. Therefore, a paradigm shift in the NCR’s approach to social capital may be
necessary if the complexities of climate effects are to be better managed by local experts. This
direction stems from the hope expressed by participants for changes to the system to eventually
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

happen. We propose incremental multi-scaled transformations to bonding social capital
through opportunities to engage diversities present in bridging and linking social capital. This
synergy of more diverse horizontal and vertical networks could improve information delivery
and sharing, increase collaborations, and develop critical governance. These steps are needed
to confront climate change more effectively and draw on greater innovation provided by fresh
perspectives on issues. While an influx of diversity may potentially change the dynamics of
trust and power inherent in the current bonding system, it is hoped new expressions of these
dynamics will reduce occasions of exclusions which do not benefit the goal of improved
information delivery and collaborative action.
While challenging systemic bonding, political instability, or mandated policy is complex
and time consuming, increasing information sharing by improving intra- and interorganiza-
tional communication and ensuring current governance structures are most effectively used is
possible as an initial step toward transformations to existing socio-technical-ecological sys-
tems. We recommend it may be more expedient to remain flexible and take a scalar approach
to transformative agendas through the assistance of more innovation-driven, diverse social
capital. We cited a possible minor alteration to CODE-NGO 1991 as one example which could
be effectively undertaken to ensure diverse social capital grows within the current system.
Employing incremental, actionable steps to assimilate diversity into existing social capital may
encourage innovation and more uniform, supportive, and responsive expert action. More
representative networks may promote more efficient collaborations and information exchanges
by local expert stakeholders and gradually dilute nepotism stemming from systemic organi-
zational norms.
Acknowledgements This research was generously funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council Doctoral Fellowship and an International Development Research Centre Doctoral Research Award.
Gratitude is extended to many individuals at De La Salle University, Manila, especially Dr. Francisco Magno for
network insights and in-roads while undertaking this research. We thank Dr. Sarah Burch, Dr. Jennifer Dean, Dr.
Pierre Filion, and Xing Su for their recommendations throughout the research and writing processes. In addition,
we gratefully acknowledge and thank the three anonymous reviewers who provided invaluable and detailed
suggestions and comments to guide and enhance this final paper.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
References
Adger WN (2009) Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ Geogr 79(4):387–404
Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob
Environ Chang 15(2):77–86
Adhikari B, Taylor K (2012) Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change: a review of local actions and
national policy response. Climate and Development 4(February 2015):54–65
Aldrich DP, Meyer MA (2015) Social capital and community resilience. Am Behav Sci 59(2):254–269
Archer D, Dodman D (2015) Making capacity building critical: power and justice in building urban climate
resilience in Indonesia and Thailand. Urban Climate 14(1):68–78
Asian Development Bank. (2013). Civil society briefs: Philippines, Publication Stock No. ARM124416
Assens, C., & Lemeur, A. C. (2016). Network governance: the theory. Networks governance, partnership
management and coalitions federation. Governance and Public Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Aswani S, Vaccaro I, Abernethy K, Albert S, de Pablo JFL (2015) Can perceptions of environmental and climate
change in island communities assist in adaptation planning locally? Environ Manag 4
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

Bahadur A, Ibrahim M, Tanner T (2013) Characterising resilience: unpacking the concept for tackling climate
change and development. Clim Develop 5(1):55–65
Ballantyne AG (2016) Climate change communication: what can we learn from communication theory? Wiley
Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 7(3):329–344
Bankoff G (2003) Constructing vulnerability: the historical, natural and social generation of flooding in
metropolitan Manila. Disasters 27(3):224–238
Bankoff G (2016) Hazardousness of place: a new comparative approach to the Filipino past. Philipp Stud 64(3–
4):335–357
Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2006) Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Glob Gov 12(2):
141–159
Biesbroek GR, Swart RJ, van der Knaap WGM (2009) The mitigation–adaptation dichotomy and the role of
spatial planning. Habitat Int 33(3):230–237
Blythe J, Silver J, Evans L, Armitage D, Bennett NJ, Moore ML et al (2018) The dark side of transformation:
latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode 50(5):1–18
Bridger J, Luloff A (2001) Building the sustainable community: is social capital the answer? Sociol Inq 71(4):458–472
Brower RS, Magno FA, Dilling J (2014) Evolving and implementing a new disaster management paradigm: the
case of the Philippines. In: Kapucu N, LiouKT (eds) Disaster and development: examining global issues and
cases. Springer, New York, pp 289–313
Bulkeley H, Betsill M (2005) Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and the ‘urban’politics of
climate change. Environmental Politics 14(1):42–63
Burch S (2010) In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: an examination of barriers to action in three
Canadian cities. Energy Policy 38(12):7575–7585
Burch S, Mitchell C, Berbes-Blazquez M, Wandel J (2017) Tipping toward transformation: progress, patterns and
potential for climate change adaptation in the Global South. Journal of Extreme Events 4(1):1750003
Cai Y (2017) Bonding, bridging, and linking: photovoice for resilience through social capital. Nat Hazards 88(2):
1169–11 95
Carmin J, Anguelovski I, Roberts D (2012) Urban climate adaptation in the Global South: planning in an
emerging policy domain. JPER 32(1):18–32
Castells M (2011) A network theory of power. Int J Commun 5:773–787
Clarke, G. (2012). Civil society in the Philippines: theoretical, methodological and policy debates. London: Routledge
Corburn J (2003) Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making. J Plan Educ Res 22:420–433
Corfee-Morlot J, Cochran I, Hallegatte S, Teasdale PJ (2011) Multilevel risk governance and urban adaptation
policy. Clim Chang 104(1):169–197
Cox LAT (2012) Community resilience and decision: theory challenges for catastrophic events. Risk Anal
32(11):1919–1934
Feiock RC (2013) The institutional collective action framework. Policy Stud J 41(3):397–425
Field.C.B.,Barros,V.R.,Dokken,D.J.,Mach,K.J.,Mastrandrea,M.D.,Bilir,T.E.,...White,L.L.(Eds.).
(2014). Summary for policymakers. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability (pp. 1–32).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality, (87–104). G. Burchell, C.
Gordon, & P. Miller. (Eds.). U.K.: Harvester/Wheatsheaf
Friedkin NE (1982) Information flow through strong and weak ties in intraorganizational social networks*. Soc
Networks 3:273–285
Fukuyama F (2001) Social capital, civil society and development. Third World Q 22(1):7–20
Fukuyama F (2002) Social capital and development: the coming agenda. SAIS Rev 22(1):23–37
Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380
Guevara, M. M. (2004). The fiscal decentralization process in the Philippines: lessons from experience. Paper presented
at the International Symposium on Fiscal Decentralization in Asia Revisited,20–21 February 2004, Tokyo
Gustafsson KM, Lidskog R (2018) Boundary organizations and environmental governance: performance,
institutional design, and conceptual development. Climate Risk Management 19:1–11
Halpern D, Mason D (2015) Radical incrementalism. Evaluation 21(2):143–149
Hawken, P. (Ed.). (2017). Drawdown: the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming.
Penguin Books
Hawkins R, Maurer K (2010) Bonding, bridging and linking: how social capital operated in New Orleans
following Hurricane Katrina. Br J Soc Work 40(6):1777–1793
Hiwasaki L, Luna E, Syamsidik S, Marçal JA (2015) Local and indigenous knowledge on climate-related
hazards of coastal and small island communities in Southeast Asia. Clim Chang 128(1–2):35–56
Innes JE, Booher DE, Di Vittorio S (2010) Strategies for megaregion governance. J Am Plan Assoc 77(1):55–67
Lacy S, Watson BR, Riffe D, Lovejoy J (2015) Issues and best practices in content analysis. J Mass Commun Q
92(4):791–811
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

Laukkonen J, Blanco PK, Lenhart J, Keiner M, Cavric B, Kinuthia-Njenga C (2009) Combining climate change
adaptation and mitigation measures at the local level. Habitat Int 33(3):287–292
Leck H, Simon D (2013) Fostering multiscalarcollaboration and co-operation for effective governance of climate
change adaptation. Urban Stud 50(6):1221–1238
Masud MM, Al-Amin AQ, Junsheng H, Ahmed F, Yahaya SR, Akhtar R, Banna H (2016) Climate change issue
and theory of planned behaviour: relationship by empirical evidence. J Clean Prod 113:613–623
McGreavy B, Hutchins K, Smith H, Lindenfeld L, Silka L (2013) Addressing the complexities of boundary work
in sustainability science through communication. Sustainability 5(10):4195–4221
Meerow, S. (2017). Double exposure, infrastructure planning, and urban climate resilience in coastal megacities:
a case study of Manila. Environment and Planning A, 0308518X1772363
Mendoza R, Beja E Jr, Venida V, Yap D (2012) Inequality in democracy: insights from an empirical analysis of
political dynasties in the 15th Philippine Congress. Philippine Political Science Journal 33(2):132–145
Mitchell, C. L., & Laycock, K. E. (2017). Planning for adaptation to climate change: exploring the climate
science-to-practice disconnect. Climate and Development
Morley I (2018) City profile: Manila. Cities 72:17–33
Moser SC (2010) Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. WIRES:
Clim Change 1:31–53
Moser SC (2016) Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the seconddecade of the
21st century: what more is there to say? WIRES: Clim Change 7(3):345–369
Myeong S, Seo H (2016) Which type of social capital matters for building trust in government? Looking for a
new type of social capital in the governance era. Sustainability 8(4):322
Narayanan J, Tai K, Kinias Z (2013) Powermotivates interpersonal connection following social exclusion. Organ
Behav Hum Decis Process 122(2):257–265
Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B (2010) Theory and language of climate change communication. WIREs Clim
Change 1(1):97–110
Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., & Wynne, S. (1993). Institutional incentives and sustainable development: infrastruc-
ture policies in perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
Ourbak T, Magnan AK (2017) The Paris Agreement and climate change negotiations: small islands, big players.
Reg Environ Chang:1–7
Patterson J, Schulz K, Vervoort J, van der Hel S, Widerberg O, Adler C et al (2017) Exploring the governance
and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ Innov Soc Trans 24:1–16
Paul CJ, Weinthal ES, Bellemare MF, Jeuland MA (2016) Social capital, trust, and adaptation to climate change:
evidence from rural Ethiopia. Glob Environ Chang 36:124–138
Pelling M (1998) Participation, social capital and vulnerability to urban flooding in Guyana. J Int Dev
10:1469–1486
Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation. New York: Routledge
Pelling M, Dill K (2010) Disaster politics: tipping points for change in the adaptation of sociopolitical regimes.
Prog Hum Geogr 34(1):21–37
Pelling M, O’Brien K, Matyas D (2015) Adaptation and transformation. Clim Chang 133(1):113–127
Pérez-Luño A, Medina CC, Lavado AC, Rodríguez GC (2011) How social capital and knowledge affect
innovation. J Bus Res 64(12):1369–1376
Petzold J, Ratter BMW (2015) Climate change adaptation under a social capital approach—an analytical
framework for small islands. Ocean Coast Manag 112:36–43
Porio E (2011) Vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience to floods and climate change-related risks among
marginal, riverine communities in Metro Manila. Asian Journal of Social Science 39(4):425–445
Porio E (2012) Decentralisation, power and networked governance practices in Metro Manila. Space Policy
16(1):7–27
Porio E, Crisol C (2004) Property rights, security of tenure and theurban poor in Metro Manila. Habitat Int 28(2):
203–219
Purcell M (2009). Resisting Neoliberalization: Communicative Planning or Counter-Hegemonic Movements?
Planning Theory 8(2):140–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209102232
Putnam R (1995) Bowling alone: America’sdeclining social capital: an interview with Robert Putnam. J Democr
6(1):65–78
Putnam RD, Leonardi R, Nanetti R (1993) Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press
Rojas H, Shah DV, Friedland LA (2011) A communicative approach to social capital. J Commun 61(4):689–712
Romero-Lankao P, Bulkeley H, Pelling M, Burch S, Gordon DJ, Gupta J et al (2018) Urban transformative
potential in a changing climate. Nat Clim Chang 8(9):754–756
Sa CM, Li SX, Faubert B (2011) Faculties of education and institutional strategies for knowledge mobilization:
an exploratory study. High Educ 61(5):501–512
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy

Sager T (2009) Responsibilities of theorists: the case of communicative planning theory. Prog Plan 72:1–51
Sharpe J (2016) Understanding and unlocking transformative learning as a method for enabling behaviour
change for adaptation and resilience to disaster threats. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 17:213–219
Shatkin G (2002) Working with the community: dilemmas in radical planning in Metro Manila, the Philippines.
Planning Theory & Practice 3(3):301–317
Shatkin G (2005-2006) Colonial capital, modernist capital, global capital: the changing political symbolism of
urban space in Metro Manila, the Philippines. Pac Aff 78(4):577–600
Shatkin G (2008) The city and the bottom line: urban megaprojects and the privatization of planning in Southeast
Asia. Environ Plan A 40(2):383–401
Shaw A, Sheppard S, Burch S, Flanders D, Wiek A, Carmichael J et al (2009) Making local futures tangible—
synthesizing, downscaling, and visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building.
Glob Environ Chang 19(4):447–463
Sheng YK (2010) Good urban governance in Southeast Asia. Environ Urban ASIA 1(2):131–147
Shi L, Chu E, Anguelovski I, Aylett A, Debats J, Goh K et al (2016) Roadmap towards justice in urban climate
adaptation research. Nat Clim Chang 6(2):131–137
Singru, R. N., & Lindfield, M. (2014). Republic of the Philippines national urban assessment. Asian
Development Bank, Publication Stock No. RPT146356. Retrieved from https://www.adb.
org/sites/default/files/publication/42817/philippines-national-urban-assessment.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2018.
Sorenson O, Rogan M (2014) (When) do organizations have social capital? Annu Rev Sociol 40(1):261–280
Szreter S, Woolcock M (2004) Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of
public health. Int J Epidemiol 33:650–667
Tribbia J, Moser SC (2008) More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change.
Environ Sci Pol 11:315–328
Tyler S, Moench M (2012) A framework for urban climate resilience. Climate and Development 4(4):311–326
Weick KE, Quinn RE (1999) Organizational change and development. Annu Rev Psychol 50:361–386
Woolcock M (1998) Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy
framework. Theory Soc 27(2):151–208
Woolcock M, Narayan D (2000) Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy. World
Bank Res Obs 15(2):225–249
Climatic Change
Author's personal copy