Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning in the Kumasi Metropolis: Implications and Hints for Climate Change Interventions in Ghana’S Urban Areas

Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning in the Kumasi Metropolis: Implications and Hints for Climate Change Interventions in Ghana’s Urban Areas

A dissertation submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in Regional Development Planning

in the School of Planning

of the College of Design, Architecture, Arts, and Planning

Stephen Kofi Diko

Master of Community Planning

Bachelor of Science in Development Planning, Ghana

July 2019

Committee: Danilo Palazzo, PhD (Chair) Leah Hollstein, PhD Xinhao Wang, PhD

ABSTRACT

Globally, climate change impacts threaten the sustainability of human and natural systems. Urban areas, and regions rapidly urbanizing such as Africa, will experience climate change impacts the most. Subsequently, there have been calls to increase capacities to tackle climate change impacts, with a view of promoting sustainability. One such call draws attention to a need for increasing the availability of urban greenspaces. To heed this call demands an understanding of the factors inhibiting effective urban greenspace planning and how they can be planned as climate change interventions (CCIs) to address climate change impacts. This research provides some insights. It was undertaken in the Kumasi Metropolis of Ghana, underpinned by three arguments: (1)

Institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning contribute to a low emphasis on urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis; (2) The socio-cultural factors surrounding the use and demand for urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis place a low emphasis on urban greenspaces; and (3) The institutional and socio-cultural barriers to urban greenspace planning provide hints of the challenges of planning for CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis. Findings reveal a low integration of climate change issues in urban development plans in the Metropolis.

Consequently, urban greenspace strategies such as tree planting and provision of community parks outlined in urban development plans for the Metropolis have not been framed as CCIs. Although urban greenspace strategies can serve as CCIs in the Metropolis, they are constrained by institutional barriers such as a lack of innovation in visions for urban greenspaces, political interference, inadequate funding, and disharmony in land management. Also, socio-cultural barriers such as residents’ low priority for and dwindling use of, and poor maintenance of urban greenspaces limit residents’ demand for this amenity, its availability, and the planning of new ones, thereby serving as barriers to using urban greenspaces as CCIs in the Metropolis. Furthermore,

urban development professionals in the Metropolis and evidence from the broader literature suggest that residents are unaware of urban greenspace benefits and functions— a reason some scholars ascribe to their destruction or vandalism through encroachment and building on lands reserved for urban greenspaces. Findings from this research reveal otherwise; residents of the

Metropolis were conscious of urban greenspace benefits and functions. Residents were also willing to support urban greenspace initiatives voluntarily and financially. From these two contrasting perspectives, one conclusion can be drawn: the actions of residents in relation to urban greenspace destruction has been misunderstood. This research concludes that residents’ destructive behaviors in relation to urban greenspaces reflect an indirect demand on urban authorities to pay attention to their development needs including spaces for housing and economic activities. This also has implications for planning urban greenspaces as CCIs in the Metropolis; that is, the goals of CCIs must satisfy the development needs of residents. Without such an approach, CCIs will receive low attention in urban development plans and a low priority among residents, as in the case of urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis.

iii

DEDICATION To my loving wife and son.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The journey so far has not been easy, but at last, it has come to an end. With joy and gratitude in my heart, it is only appropriate that I give thanks to Jehovah God, who has guided me through this journey. I find joy in Psalm 9:1 that reads: “I will praise you, O Jehovah, with all my heart; I will tell about all your wonderful works” (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, NWT). Yes indeed, Jehovah has done a lot for me.

To my wife, Emelia-Claudia Dedei Diko— I am forever thankful. The burden of this journey has not been easy on you; the sacrifices that you made to support me, only Jehovah God knows. I recognize and appreciate you very much for your patience and support. My words pale to your contribution to this journey. Truly, “Who can find a capable wife? Her value is far more than that of corals” (Proverbs 31:10, NWT).

To Dr. Danilo Palazzo, my mentor, advisor, and chair of my dissertation committee, I am grateful for the immense support, guidance, and believe in my potential and abilities. You opened doors that paved the way for me to complete my studies. Since 2012, when I started working with you, your mentorship and insight into academia and the research world have provided me with the needed foundation to move further in the next stage of my journey. To my dissertation committee members, Dr. Xinhao Wang and Dr. Leah Hollstein, you have both given me feedback that has continually shaped this dissertation. Without your insights, comments, suggestions and overall support, this project would not have come to a fruitful end. Dr. Leah Hollstein, you deserve special mention for your mentorship and timely response to my several requests for support in relation to my research, scholarship applications, and recommendation letters. To all of you, I say thank you very much. I look forward to collaborating with you all on future projects.

Special thanks also go to Dr. Elleh Nnamdi, formerly of the School of Architecture and

Interior Design, who helped me with my transition into the University of Cincinnati as a new

student. And to all other faculty of the University of Cincinnati School of Planning, particularly

Dr. David J. Edelman and Dr. Johanna Looye (my master’s thesis supervisors), I am very much grateful for your training and guidance.

To my family— my parents: George and Mary Diko, my siblings: Catherine and Harold, my in-laws: Joseph and Hanna Anum, Elvis Anum, Freeman Anum, and Mathias Anum. I am really indebted to you all. Thank you for your patience, encouragement, and support throughout this journey. I am also grateful to Seth and Florence Addo-Koranteng who supported in many ways. To my “adopted” family in Cincinnati, Mike and Esther Otu and Comfort Otu (A.k.a.

Grandma Sisi), may Jehovah richly bless you for all the words of encouragement, sacrifices, and support you have given.

Special thanks also go to my friends in Cincinnati. You helped me become a better person both physically and spiritually. Mark and Rachel Dennis, Vondell and Shekinah Caldwell, Fred and Carol West, and Emmanuel Kordieh, you have a special place in my heart. Akwasi and Ruth

Sarpong, Seth and Esther Adjei, Mike and Margaret Acheampong, Cornelius Agyei-Poku, and the entire congregation of the Tylersville Road Twi Congregation (West Chester Township, OH), words cannot express how grateful I am to you all throughout my journey. May Jehovah continue to bless you for your kindness, encouragement, and support to me and my family.

Ameen Nsiah Kyirapim, you have been a brother; Augustine Ansah Akrofi, we have been through thick and thin since our undergraduate days and you warmly welcomed me into your house when I was conducting my data collection; Boatema Fiscian, my research assistant, you guided me through the Kumasi Metropolis and made my data collection efficient and effective; Dr.

Kwame Owusu-Daaku (and wife, Ama Owusu-Daaku), worked on different projects and responded to my numerous requests for recommendation letters despite your busy schedules; Dr.

Seth Asare Okyere, supported my research with your generosity and worked on different projects since our undergraduate days; Abena Owusu Yamoah (now Mrs. Donkor) and Felix Twum

Barimah, you have supported me through various transitions between Ghana and USA; Mrs. Dina

Adei; Dr. Patrick Cobbinah and Dr. Ransford A. Acheampong, provided me with maps on Kumasi

Metropolis. I appreciate you all and glad to have you in my life. I am also thankful to all the staff of the University of Cincinnati Institute for Policy Research: Dr. Eric Rademacher, Dr. Kimberly

Downing, Dr. Robin Lindquist-Grantz, Dr. Leah Dean, Elizabeth Nurre, Karole Moore, Melissa

Smith, and Megan Meier. Unfortunately, time and space do not allow me to mention everyone’s name so please forgive me, if I fail to mention yours, as I cherish the support from all my friends.

Additionally, I express my gratitude to the University of Cincinnati Research Council for their Summer Graduate Research Fellowship and the Graduate School for their Graduate Student

Fellowship. I am also grateful to the School of Planning for their Scholarships, Assistantships, and

Dissertation Research Grant. All these supported different aspects of my studies and enabled me to complete this dissertation.

Finally, I want to express my gratitude to all individuals in the Kumasi Metropolis and institutions that avail themselves for this study and provided me with the needed data. It is my hope that this research helps inform urban policies that will bring transformative changes in the

Kumasi Metropolis.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... i

DEDICATION...... iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... viii

LIST OF TABLES ...... xvi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xxi

CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1

1.2 Problem Statement...... 7

1.3 Research Gap ...... 10

1.4. Research Arguments and Questions ...... 12

1.5 Structure of the Document ...... 13

CHAPTER TWO

THE GLOBAL CHALLENGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 15

2.1 Introduction ...... 15

2.2 Defining Climate Change ...... 16

viii

2.3 Nature of Climate Change Impacts ...... 18

2.4 Climate Governance ...... 24

2.4.1 Planning and Climate Change Impacts ...... 28

2.4.2 Categories of Climate Change Interventions ...... 31

2.4.2.1 Mitigation ...... 32

2.4.2.2 Adaptation ...... 33

2.4.2.3 Resilience ...... 35

2.4.2.4 Climate Co-Benefits...... 38

2.5 Barriers to Planning for Climate Change Interventions ...... 40

2.5.1 Institutional Barriers ...... 46

2.5.2 Socio-Cultural Barriers ...... 52

2.6 Conclusion ...... 57

CHAPTER THREE

CLIMATE CHANGE IN AFRICA ...... 58

3.1 Introduction ...... 58

3.2 Climate Change and Planning in Africa ...... 60

3.3 Barriers to Planning for Climate Change Interventions in Africa...... 63

3.4 Conclusion ...... 66

CHAPTER FOUR

A GLOBAL VIEW OF URBAN GREENSPACES AND GREENSPACE PLANNING ..... 67

4.1 Introduction ...... 67

4.2 Defining Urban Greenspaces ...... 68

4.3 Importance of urban greenspaces ...... 69

4.3.1 Environmental Benefits ...... 70

4.3.2 Social Benefits ...... 71

4.3.3 Economic Benefits ...... 72

4.3.4 Cultural Benefits ...... 74

4.4 Urban Greenspace Planning ...... 75

4.5 Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning ...... 82

4.5.1 Institutional Barriers ...... 83

4.5.2 Socio-Cultural Barriers to Greenspace Planning ...... 88

4.5.3 Barriers to Planning for Urban Greenspaces as Climate Change Interventions ...... 90

4.6 Tackling the Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning ...... 93

4.7 Conclusion ...... 96

CHAPTER FIVE

URBANIZATION AND URBAN GREENSPACES IN GHANA ...... 97

5.1 Introduction ...... 97

5.2 The State of Urban Greenspaces in Africa ...... 102

5.3 Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning in Africa ...... 105

5.4 Urban Planning in Ghana ...... 107

5.4.1 Urban Planning and Urban Greenspaces in Ghana ...... 109

5.4.2 Greenspace Depletion in the Kumasi Metropolis ...... 114

5.5 Conclusion ...... 121

CHAPTER SIX

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 122

6.1 Introduction ...... 122

6.2 Scope of Research ...... 122

6.3 Research Approach ...... 124

6.3.1 Research Design...... 124

6.3.2 Types of Data ...... 131

6.3.2.1 Secondary Data ...... 131

6.3.2.2 Primary Data Collection ...... 136

6.3.3 Sample Size Determination...... 142

6.3.4 Sampling Process and Respondent Selection ...... 143

6.3.5 Data Coding ...... 147

6.3.6 Data Analysis ...... 152

6.3.6.1 Quantitative Data Analysis ...... 152

6.3.6.2 Qualitative Analysis ...... 155

6.4 Triangulation ...... 161

6.5 Research Validity and Reliability ...... 162

6.6 Institutional Review Board Process ...... 165

6.7 Threats and Limitation of the Study ...... 165

CHAPTER SEVEN

CLIMATE CHANGE INTERVENTIONS IN THE KUMASI METROPOLIS ...... 166

7.1 Introduction ...... 166

7.2 Climate Change Issues in National Development Policy Frameworks ...... 168

7.3 Urban CCI in National Development Policy Frameworks ...... 171

7.4 Climate Change and the Guidelines for the Preparation of MTDPs ...... 174

7.5 Climate Change and Urban Planning in the Kumasi Metropolis ...... 177

7.5.1 Climate Change Framing and Intergration in Urban Development Plans for the

Kumasi Metropolis...... 178

7.5.2 CCIs in Urban Development Plans ...... 181

7.5.3 Climate Finance in the 2014-2017 MTDP of the Kumasi Metropolis...... 183

7.6 Discussion...... 188

7.6.1 Framing and Integration of Climate Change in Urban Development Plans ...... 188

7.6.2 Institutional Capacity for Confronting Climate Change Impacts ...... 190

7.6.3 Path Dependency in Planning for Climate Change Interventions ...... 192

7.6.4 Missed Opportunities for Urban Climate Finance ...... 193

7.6.5 Missed Opportunities for National Action on Climate Finance ...... 195

7.7 Conclusion ...... 195

xii

CHAPTER EIGHT

INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO PLANNING FOR URBAN GREENSPACES IN THE

KUMASI METROPOLIS ...... 198

8.1 Introduction ...... 198

8.2 Problematization of and Attention to Urban Greenspaces in Urban Development

Plans ...... 199

8.2.1 Planning for Urban Greenspaces ...... 201

8.2.2 Initiatives on Urban Greenspace Planning ...... 203

8.3 Challenges of Urban Planners in Urban Greenspace Planning...... 205

8.3.1 Urban Visions for the Kumasi Metropolis ...... 205

8.3.2 Capacity Issues of the Urban Planning Departments ...... 206

8.3.3 Disharmony in Land Management between Chiefs and Urban Planners ...... 208

8.3.4 Political Interference in Urban Greenspace Planning ...... 209

8.4 Discussion...... 212

8.5 Conclusion ...... 217

CHAPTER NINE

SOCIO-CULTURAL BARRIERS TO URBAN GREENSPACE PLANNING ...... 219

9.1 Introduction ...... 219

9.2 Statistical Measures and Significance of Research Variables...... 220

9.3 Characteristics of Respondents ...... 221

xiii

9.4 Awareness of Greenspace Benefits and Functions ...... 230

9.5 Residents Support for Urban Greenspace Planning in the Kumasi Metropolis ...... 234

9.6 Prioritization of Greenspace ...... 236

9.7 Awareness of Climate Change Issues ...... 241

9.8 Discussion of Results ...... 248

9.8.1 Use of Greenspaces ...... 248

9.8.2 Awareness of Greenspace Benefits and Functions ...... 251

9.8.3 Residents’ Support for and Prioritization of Urban Greenspace Planning ...... 253

9.8.4 Awareness of Climate Change Issues ...... 254

9.9 Conclusion ...... 258

CHAPTER TEN

HINTS FOR PLANNING URBAN GREENSPACES AS CLIMATE CHANGE

INTERVENTIONS ...... 260

10.1 Introduction ...... 260

10.2 Summary of Findings ...... 260

10.2.1 Institutional Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning ...... 260

10.2.2 Socio-Cultural Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning and Planning for CCIs ..... 263

10.3 Hints for Urban Greenspace Planning ...... 267

10.3.1 Building the Capacity of Urban Planners in the Kumasi Metropolis ...... 267

10.3.2 Providing effective guidelines to integrate climate change issues and CCIs...... 268

10.3.3 Increasing Collaboration in Urban Greenspace Planning ...... 269

xiv

10.3.4 Integrating Co-Benefits in Urban Greenspace Planning ...... 270

10.3.5 Government of Ghana needs to take lead in Climate Finance ...... 271

10.4 Contribution to Theory ...... 275

10.5 Areas of Further Research ...... 277

10.6 Conclusion ...... 279

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 280

APPENDICES ...... 343

A1. List of News Publications about Ratteray Park ...... 343

A2. Institutional Review Board Approval Letter...... 344

A3. Consent Forms...... 346

A4. Research Instruments ...... 356

A5. List of International Development Organizations and their Roles ...... 365

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Extreme Weather and Climate Events: Global-scale Assessment of Recent observed

Changes, Human Contribution to the Changes, and Projected Further Changes for the Early

(2016–2035) and Late (2081–2100) 21st Century ...... 19

Table 2.2: Projected Impacts of Changes in Weather and Climate Events on Urban Areas ...... 22

Table 2.3: Elements of Climate-Resilient Pathways ...... 37

Table 2.4: Barriers to Mitigation and Adaptation and their Potential Impacts ...... 42

Table 2.5: Selection of Literature on the Institutional Barriers to Efforts to Tackle Climate

Change Impacts ...... 43

Table 2.6: Selection of Literature on the Socio-Cultural Barriers to Efforts to Tackle Climate

Change Impacts ...... 54

Table 5.1: Percentage of Population at Mid-Year Residing in Urban Areas by Region, 1950-2050

...... 100

Table 5.2: Average Annual Rate of Change (percent) of the Urban Population by Region, 1950-

2050...... 100

Table 5.3: Condition of Urban Greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis ...... 120

Table 6.1: Changes to Research Arguments and Questions ...... 129

Table 6.2: Number of Institutions Contacted for the Study ...... 139

Table 6.3: Structure of the Questionnaire for the Survey ...... 141

Table 6.4: Sample Size Determination ...... 143

Table 6.5: Sample Size Determination for the Surveys in the Sub-Metropolitan Areas ...... 145

Table 6.6: Total Number of Questionnaires Administered during the Field Survey ...... 146

Table 6.7: Changes to Codes for Closed-Ended Questions in the Survey Questionnaire ...... 148

xvi

Table 7.1: CCIs in National Development Policy Frameworks ...... 172

Table 7.2: List of Strategic Focus Areas of Ghana’s NCCP...... 174

Table 7.3: Potential CCIs and their funding sources in the KMA’s MTDP, 2014 - 2017 ...... 186

Table 7.4: Revenue Flow for the Kumasi Metropolis between 2014-2017 (in Gh¢ millions). .. 188

Table 9.1: Statistical Measures and the Significance of the relationship between variables...... 220

Table 9.2: Summary of Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents ...... 222

Table 9.3: Visit to any Greenspace during the Past year in the Kumasi Metropolis ...... 224

Table 9.4: Type of Greenspace often Utilized by Respondents ...... 225

Table 9.5: Physical Condition of Urban Greenspaces Visited ...... 226

Table 9.6: Value Household Receives from Greenspaces ...... 227

Table 9.7: Changes in Greenspace Usage ...... 229

Table 9.8: Residents’ Awareness of the Social Benefits of Greenspaces ...... 230

Table 9.9: Residents’ Awareness of the Economic Benefits of Greenspaces (Support Economic

Activities such as jobs and business creation) ...... 232

Table 9.10: Residents’ Awareness of the Cultural Benefits of Greenspaces ...... 233

Table 9.11: Residents’ Awareness of the Environmental Benefits of Greenspaces ...... 233

Table 9.12: Residents’ Awareness of the Functions of greenspaces ...... 234

Table 9.13: Residents’ Support for Urban Greenspace Initiative...... 235

Table 9.14: Development Needs of Respondents in the Short to Long Term ...... 237

Table 9.15: Overall Satisfaction with Urban Greenspace Planning and Management ...... 238

Table 9.16: Prioritization of Urban Greenspaces and Recreation facilities ...... 239

Table 9.17: Prioritization of UGS in relation to Residents Support and Satisfaction with UGS

Management ...... 240

xvii

Table 9.18: Residents’ Awareness of Changes in Climate in the past years ...... 242

Table 9.19: Residents’ Awareness of the term “Climate Change.” ...... 243

Table 9.20: Reasons for Changes in Rainfall, Temperature, and Flooding ...... 244

Table 9.21: What do you know about Climate Change? ...... 245

Table 9.22: General Understanding of Climate Change Issues ...... 246

Table 9.23: Personal Importance and Ability to Control or Manage Climate Change ...... 247

Table 10.1: List of Institutional and Socio-cultural Barriers and their Sources in the Kumasu

Metropolis ...... 266

Table 10.2: Recommendations for Overcoming Urban Greenspace Planning Barriers in the

Kumasi Metropolis...... 273

xviii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Map of the Kumasi Metropolis, the Study Area of this Study Project...... 2

Figure 1.2: Decline of Urban Greenspaces between 1986 and 2014 ...... 8

Figure 2.1: The Solution Space for tackling Climate Change Impacts ...... 31

Figure 4.1: Factors that Shape Urban Greenspace Planning...... 87

Figure 4.2: Capacity of Greenspaces for Climate Adaptation...... 92

Figure 4.3: Capacity of Green Infrastructure for Climate Adaptation...... 93

Figure 5.1: Structure of Governance and Development Planning in Ghana ...... 109

Figure 5.2: Population Distribution by Locality in Ghana for 2018 ...... 111

Figure 5.3: Proportion of Urban Population in Ghana, 1950 - 2050...... 111

Figure 5.4: Population of Kumasi in 2000 and 2010 ...... 112

Figure 6.1: Map of the Kumasi Metropolis, the Study Area of this Study Project...... 123

Figure 6.2: Conceptual Focus of Dissertation Research ...... 125

Figure 6.3: The Coding Process for the Open-Ended Questions of the survey ...... 149

Figure 6.4: The Coding Process for Indepth Interviews and Documents Analysis ...... 151

Figure 7.1: Progression of Climate Change Integration in NDPFs in Ghana ...... 170

Figure 8.1: Greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis as of 2013...... 202

Figure 8.2: Planning Scheme for Kumasi Metropolis, 1963 ...... 202

Figure 8.3: Land Use Map of Kumasi Metropolis, 1985 ...... 203

Figure 8.4: Planned Greenspaces in the GKSR, 2013-2028 ...... 204

Figure 8.5: Destruction of Greenspaces along roads by Pedestrians and Commercial Activities

...... 211

Figure 8.6: Institutional Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning in the Kumasi Metropolis ..... 216

xix

Figure 9.1: Department of Parks and Gardens Office...... 227

Figure 9.2: Greenspaces at the Kumasi Cultural Center ...... 228

Figure 9.3: (a) Bompso School Park (b) Oforikrom School Park...... 228

Figure 9.4: Condition of Amakom Children’s Park in the Kumasi Metropolis ...... 229

Figure 9.5: Artisans working under Trees in the Kumasi Metropolis ...... 232

Figure 9.6: Socio-cultural factors and Urban Greenspace Planning in the Kumasi Metropolis . 257

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AFD - Agence Française de Développement CCI - Climate Change Intervention CSF - Civil Society Fund DACF - District Assembly’s Common Fund DDF - District Development Fund GHG - Greenhouse Gas GKCP - Greater Kumasi Comprehensive Plan GKSR - Greater Kumasi Sub-Region GPRS I - Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy GPRS II - Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy GSGDA - Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda I GSS - Ghana Statistical Service GTM - Grounded Theory Model IGF - Internally Generated Funds IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRB - Institutional Review Board IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature JICA - Japanese International Cooperation Agency KCDS - Kumasi City Development Strategy KMA - Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly MDGs - Millennium Development Goals MESTI - Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology, and Innovation MEST - Ministry of Environment, Science, and Technology MMDAs - Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies MPCU - Metropolitan Planning Coordinating Unit MTDP - Medium-Term Development Plans NCCAS - National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy NCCP - Ghana National Climate Change Policy NCCPAPI - National Climate Change Policy Action Programme for Implementation

xxi

NCCPF - National Climate Change Policy Framework NDPC - National Development Planning Commission NDPFs - National Development Policy Frameworks PPD - Physical Planning Department PPP - Public-Private Partnerships SDG - Sustainable Development Goals TCPD - Town and Country Planning Department UDF - Urban Development Grant UNDP - United Nations Development Program UNEP - United Nations Environmental Program UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund

xxii

CHAPTER ONE BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH

1.1 Introduction

The role urban greenspaces play in confronting climate change impacts is well documented (Su et al., 2014; Kong et al., 2014; Li et al., 2012; van Leeuwen et al., 2010). For instance, Vaz Monteiro et al. (2016) observed that urban greenspaces provide cooling effects of about 0.4 to 1.0 °C, over an area of approximately 30–330m, making urban greenspaces a viable way to mitigate climate change impacts such as rising urban temperatures (Vaz Monteiro et al., 2016; Caprì et al., 2016;

Richter, 2016; IPCC, 2014). In Barcelona, Baró et al. (2014: 472) estimated that “total air purification [from urban greenspaces] is estimated at 305.6t of removed pollutants year−1 with an economic value of 2.38 million USD year−1.” Using different design options, Strohbach et al.

(2012) also estimated that urban greenspaces can reduce CO2 emissions by 40% - 44%. In Seoul,

Korea, Kim et al. (2016: 14) observed that “flooding probabilities could potentially be reduced by more than 50%, depending on the amount of green space area.” Hence, urban greenspaces can also help reduce the likelihood and intensity of flooding (Kim et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2014; Armson et al., 2013). However, ensuring that urban greenspaces are able to tackle climate change impacts on urban areas require effective planning.

In Africa (UN-Habitat, 2010), including Ghana, where urban planning is characterized by weak planning systems and frameworks, planning for urban greenspaces also has challenges.

While there are broad appreciations of the institutional, technical, physical, socio-cultural, legal and regulatory, and financial barriers to the planning and management of urban greenspaces globally (Boulton et al., 2018; Matthews et al., 2015; Byrne and Jinjun, 2009), there is limited indepth and contextual research on these barriers, particularly in tropical regions such as Africa

(See Boulton et al., 2018; Rigolon et al., 2018). These have implications for building the needed capacities to effectively plan urban greenspaces to tackle climate change impacts (Kabisch, 2017;

Matthews et al., 2015; Byrne and Jinjun, 2009). Studies have often discussed barriers to urban greenspaces and climate change separately (See Chapters Two to Five), with little on understanding the specific barriers to using urban greenspaces to tackle climate change impacts.

This evident gap in the literature suggests a need for research in this area to help navigate any potential barriers, and to build the needed capacities to confront climate change impacts using urban greenspaces, especially in Africa where urbanization has led to significant declines in urban greenspaces (Darkwah and Cobbinah, 2014). This research, undertaken in the Kumasi Metropolis of Ghana, studied barriers to urban greenspace planning with the aim of providing insights on using them to tackle climate change impacts (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Map of the Kumasi Metropolis, the study area of this study project. Source: Author’s Construct (2019).

Globally, the need for effective urban greenspace planning is grounded by the rise in attention to tackling the challenges that urban areas face in this century (Cilliers et al., 2013;

Kestemont et al., 2011). From concerns of deprivation and impoverishment to disaster vulnerability, these issues have become germane to the urban development discourse both in the global north and south (Watson, 2014; UN-Habitat, 2012; Roy, 2011; UN-Habitat, 2010; UNFPA,

2007). Ever since the global population became urbanized (UN-Habitat, 2010; UNFPA, 2007), there have been concerns for understanding how to promote development in urban areas. In the process, emphasis has been placed on sustainability, with questions as to whether urban areas have the capacity to ensure their sustainability.

An aspect of the concerns for urban sustainability are issues relating to climate change and its impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) explain climate change to mean “any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity” (IPCC, 2007a: 30). The IPCC identifies this concern as a reality that threatens the survival of humans with urban areas at risk of its harsh consequences. Evidence points its causes to be anthropogenic factors (Dhar and Khirfan, 2017)— such as population increases, economic activities, lifestyles and behaviors, energy consumption, land use and land cover changes, technology, and government policies (IPCC, 2013). Climate change impacts lead to high risks, uncertainties, and changes to human and natural systems that undermine their sustainability (Adger et al., 2005; Robinson, 2004), with dire implications for efforts to promote prosperity and reduce poverty (United Nations General Assembly, 2015; IPCC, 2014). Climate change impacts including rising Earth surface temperature, rising ocean temperatures and acidity, melting ice sheets and glaciers, and flooding along coastal communities and in cities have intensified and become rampant (IPCC, 2013). It also induces prolonged droughts and water scarcity, erratic rainfall

patterns, and increases infectious diseases (McMichael et al., 2008). The impacts of climate change are expected to be severe in regions such as Africa, South America, and Asia due to their low capacities to deal with current and projected impacts and rapid urbanization (Field et al., 2014;

Revi et al., 2014; UN-Habitat, 2010).

There have been calls for different interventions to deal with climate change impacts, including urgent ones in the form of climate action— with intensified concerns for urban areas in the last decade (IPCC, 2014; Hebbert and Jankovic, 2013; Byrne and Jinjun, 2009). These interventions started as local government agencies planning for mitigation to manage greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Damsø et al., 2017; Millard-Ball, 2013). Today, efforts to tackle climate change impacts are much broader and encompass mitigation and adaptation (IPCC, 2014; Boswell et al., 2012). In this report, all efforts to tackle climate change impacts— whether in the short term or long term— are collectively referred to as climate change interventions (CCIs).

Among the various conceptual recommendations for tackling climate change impacts are what are known as nature-based solutions or strategies, which are interventions or “actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems, which address societal challenges (e.g., climate change, food and water security or natural disasters) effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” (Cohen-

Shacham et al., 2016: xii). These strategies enable cities and their residents to both reduce GHG emissions and adapt to climate change impacts as well as build their resiliency with the aim of promoting sustainability (Kabisch, 2017; IPCC, 2014; Naumann et al., 2014; IPCC, 2013). One way to implement nature-based solutions in urban areas is providing and protecting greenspaces

(Kabisch, 2017; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Matthews et al., 2015; Quagraine, 2011; Byrne and

Jinjun, 2009). Different scholars define greenspaces differently, but this research adopts the

definition by Nillson et al. with some modifications: “all vegetated lands in urban areas, including parks, woodland, gardens, cemeteries, orchards, etc… [and are often] … used in terms of publicly owned greenspace” (2013: 701). In addition to publicly-owned urban greenspaces, this research includes private greenspaces in urban areas.

The approach to using urban greenspaces to tackle climate change impacts aligns with calls by the IPCC and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)— an international development agenda by the United Nations member countries to promote prosperity, poverty reduction, and sustainable development. For instance, in Goal 11 of the SDGs that focus on making “cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable,” Target 7 places emphasis on “access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces” (United Nations General Assembly, 2015: 22). Such a call certainly makes the need for greenspaces in urban areas a global issue. However, the crucial point of intervention is understanding how these calls, for increased access to and availability of urban greenspaces, can be translated into interventions that will help urban areas confront climate change impacts and promote their sustainability. Evidently, the responsibility rests with urban authorities and makes the planning for urban greenspaces as CCIs a planning imperative (Byrne and Jinjun, 2009).

For Ghana, this research is timely. As Arku et al. assert, “the plundering of the few existing natural environments is a major concern for the future of public parks and green open spaces [i.e. urban greenspaces] in Accra and elsewhere in Ghana” (2016: 10). For this reason, the Ghana

Statistical Service is right to call for “conscientious conservation plans” to manage existing urban greenspaces and to plan for future ones (GSS, 2014: 2). From this understanding, this research focuses on understanding the barriers to urban greenspace planning to inform how the amenity can be used in tackling climate change impacts in the Kumasi Metropolis.

I chose to conduct my research in the Kumasi Metropolis because of my familiarity with the Metropolis. I earned my bachelor’s degree in Development Planning from the Department of

Planning at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, which is located in the

Kumasi Metropolis. I spent four years in the program and served as a Research and Teaching

Assistant of the Department of Planning for an additional year. I spent an additional year as a development consultant in the area, all of which exposed me to the development challenges in the

Kumasi Metropolis.

So, when I started working with the Chair of my research, Dr. Danilo Palazzo in 2012, on urban visions, utopia, and the ecological planning history of North America, I became interested in understanding the success of the Garden City vision for the Kumasi Metropolis, especially in terms of the planning of greenspaces as a way to connect humans to nature. Through research and reading of the available literature, it was apparent that Kumasi’s Garden City vision had not actualized. As a researcher, I was inspired to understand the reasons for this and contribute to urban planning practice and research in the Kumasi Metropolis, and Ghana in general.

It was imperative that my research did not replicate existing studies but provide findings that add to the existing knowledge of urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis. In my review of the existing research, I became aware of the role urban greenspaces play in tackling climate change impacts. Informed by this, I was determined to understand how the quality and quantity of urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis could be enhanced to tackle climate change impacts— which is a gap identified (and discussed in Section 1.3). I focused on the factors that inhibit effective urban greenspace planning as such insights were critical for future endeavors on urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis. My familiarity of the Metropolis and ability to understand the contextual underpinnings of any data that I gathered in relation to this research,

the challenge of urban greenspace decline, and the need to tackle climate change impacts in the

Metropolis thus motivated me to undertake this research for my PhD dissertation.

1.2 Problem Statement

More than 50% of Ghana’s population lives in urban areas, with the Kumasi Metropolis being

“completely urbanized” (GSS, 2014: 75). The population of the Metropolis grew from 346,336 in

1970 to 1,730,249 by 2010 (GSS, 2014), at an annual rate of about 5.69% (Acheampong et al.,

2016; GSS, 2013). Urban planning responses to this growth have been inadequate resulting in uncontrolled growth and sprawl, traffic congestions, flooding, slums, and poor accessibility to social services (Acheampong et al., 2017; GSS, 2014) as well as a decline in urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis (Acheampong et al., 2017; Nero, 2017; GSS, 2014; Owusu and Asamoah,

2005).

Between 1986 and 2014, Acheampong et al. (2017) estimate that the built-up area of the

Kumasi Metropolis increased from 51.8 km2 to 177.5 km2. By 2014, the proportion of the built-up area had increased from 24.4 % to 83.7%, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. In effect, the natural environment had decreased from 75.6% in 1986 to 16.3% by 2014. Focusing only on greenspaces,

Nero (2017) estimated that urban greenspace in the Kumasi Metropolis declined from 58% to 54% between 1986 and 2001, further declining to 49% in 2009 and 33% in 2014. Thus, between 1986 and 2014, the vegetative cover in the Metropolis declined by 25.6% from 10,378 to 5,796 hectares over a 28-year period.1 The Global Forest Watch also observes that the Kumasi Metropolis lost about 1.02 kha of its tree cover between 2001 and 2017.2 The fast physical development of the

1 Nero (2017) estimates of the urban greenspaces with respect to the total land area of the Kumasi Metropolis were based on the geographical limits of the metropolis as of 2010. 2 The Global Forest Watch has developed an interactive map that present this analysis. This estimates also uses different jurisdictional boundaries for Kumasi. This is available online at: http://bit.ly/2Wow5Tw 7

Metropolis due to rapid urbanization has led to this considerable loss in urban greenspaces (Nero,

2017; Adjei Mensah, 2014a; Adjei Mensah, 2014b; Schmidt, 2005; Tontoh, 2011). This is despite the city being originally planned in 1945 as a Garden City ( Quagraine, 2011; Tontoh, 2011).

Figure 1.2: Decline of Urban Greenspaces between 1986 and 2014 Source: Prepared using Map Data provided by Ranford A. Acheampong. These map data were used in Acheampong et al. (2017).

To promote the sustainability of cities like the Kumasi Metropolis in the global south, there have been calls for increased availability of greenspaces and a need to navigate urban planning challenges (United Nations, 2015; IPCC, 2014). Studies in Ghana suggest poor urban planning, political interference in urban planning, and poor regulatory frameworks for controlling urban growth as crucial institutional challenges (Arku et al. 2016; Sabbi and Adjei Mensah, 2016;

Quagraine, 2011). For instance, it was not until 2012 that Ghana formulated its first national urban policy (Cobbinah et al., 2019). For socio-cultural factors, Arku et al. (2016) studying parks in the city of Accra, Ghana’s capital, suggest that many Ghanaians do not adequately appreciate the role of urban greenspaces; hence, pay little attention to them. For this reason, lands allocated for urban greenspaces are easily encroached on by residents (Nero, 2017; Sabbi and Adjei Mensah, 2016;

Adjei Mensah, 2014a; Tontoh 2011). In Cultural influences and the built environment: an examination of Kumasi, Ghana, Stephen Schmidt adds that urban greenspaces such as designed recreational and community parks are alien to the culture of residents of Kumasi and were only planned to serve a colonial purpose. Consequently, after independence, “colonial ‘space’ has seen a decline (or even abandonment) in use, as such spaces are highly specialized in their design, [and] dismissive of long-standing cultural emphasis on multi-functional spaces” (Schmidt, 2005: 366).

These colonial spaces included greenbelts and recreational parks that were planned and developed by the British such as the Adisam Valley Nature Reserve, Suntreso Park, and Kejetia Park, among others. All were part of the Garden City plan that was envisioned for the Metropolis in 1945.

Furthermore, there are concerns for climate change impacts in the Metropolis. Amos-

Abanyie (2011) shows impacts on housing in the Metropolis in terms of rising in-door temperatures while Mensa-Bonsu and Owusu-Ansah (2011) and Adarkwa and Poku-Boansi

(2011) identify increasing temperature, erratic rainfall, and flooding as evidence of climate change impacts in the Metropolis. However, efforts to confront these challenges are not apparent in research about the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA), the planning and development authority for the Metropolis.

New challenges and forces that shape urban areas such as climate change demand that old planning ways are transformed and new frameworks identified and implemented taking cognizance of contextual and local dynamics (Watson, 2009). Consequently, increasing access to and availability of urban greenspaces as a way to tackle climate change impacts requires an understanding of how to navigate any existing barriers. This is thus the goal of this research.

1.3 Research Gap

Greenspaces in Ghana have been explored in literature from different theoretical perspectives.

Some have investigated them within the context of poor urban planning and their negative outcomes (Dinye et al., 1987; Quagraine, 2011; Tontoh, 2011; Mensah 2014a; Sabbi and Adjei

Mensah, 2016; Arku et al. 2016). On the socio-cultural perspectives, Schmidt (2005) discusses urban greenspaces within the context of colonization. Amoako and Adom-Asamoah (2018) explore the socio-spatial politics of urban greenspace management, with Asibey et al. (2018) and

Arku et al. (2016) focusing on the sustainability of urban parks in Kumasi and accessibility of urban parks in Accra respectively. Nero (2017) also explore the socio-environmental inequity of urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis.

Additionally, other studies have examined the ecological functionalities of urban greenspaces in terms of the diversity of tree species, soil characteristics of urban greenspaces as well as their capacity for carbon storage in the Kumasi Metropolis (Nero, 2019; Nero et al., 2018;

Nero and Anning, 2018; Nero et al., 2017a; Nero et al., 2017b). Some studies also examine the role of urban greenspaces in reducing carbon sequestration (Nero et al., 2017a; Nero et al., 2017b).

There is no research on urban greenspaces as CCIs in urban development plans. While some studies indicate some socio-cultural factors underpinning urban greenspaces in the Metropolis, residents’ perceptions of benefits, prioritization, and demand for urban greenspaces are not captured.

On climate change in Ghana, research reveal impacts in the form of changes in rainfall patterns in different parts of the country, rising temperatures and heatwaves, longer droughts, increased storms, sea-level rise and coastal erosion (Campion and Venzke, 2013; Adarkwa and

Poku-Boansi, 2011). Most studies concentrate on rural areas and climate change impacts on

agriculture (Cobbinah and Anane, 2016; Dumenu and Obeng, 2016; Issahaku et al., 2016; Yaro,

2013; Dasgupta and Baschieri, 2010; Tekpetey et al., 2009) and only a few on urban areas (Poku-

Boansi and Cobinnah, 2018a; Adu-Boateng, 2015; Tanner et al., 2014; Codjoe et al., 2014). Codjoe et al.’s (2014) study focused on residents’ perception and indigenous knowledge about climate change and adaptation strategies in Accra. Adu-Boateng (2015) investigated how climate change policies are adopted and implemented in the Tamale Metropolis of Ghana. In the Kumasi

Metropolis, Campion and Venzke (2013) observe changes in rainfall patterns and its effects on flooding in selected areas of the Metropolis. Other studies explored the role of urban planning in tackling climate change issues in the Kumasi Metropolis (Darkwah et al., 2018) and Ghana as a whole (Cobbinah and N-yanbini, 2019; Poku-Boansi and Cobbinah, 2018a). The predominant discussions on climate change issues in urban Ghana, including Kumasi, have focused on flooding

(Korah and Cobbinah, 2019; Amoateng et al., 2018a; Amoateng et al., 2018b; Ahadzie et al., 2016;

Owusu-Ansah, 2016; Campion et al., 2013). Evidently, this research is needed to fill a gap in understanding the barriers to planning for urban greenspaces as CCIs in Ghana.

In researching the above “gap”, this investigation considers the missing perspectives of urban greenspace studies in Ghana such as whether urban development plans pay attention to urban greenspaces both as an urban amenity and particularly as a CCIs, resident’s perception of urban greenspace benefits and functions, demand and prioritization of urban greenspaces as well as climate change issues. The aim is to contextualize urban greenspace as CCIs that requires effective planning, which studies on urban Ghana have not adequately captured.

1.4. Research Arguments and Questions

The overall goal of this research is to examine the barriers to urban greenspace planning in the

Kumasi Metropolis with a view of providing suggestions for planning CCIs in Ghana. The research makes three arguments underpinned by specific research questions as outlined below:

1. Institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning contribute to a low emphasis on urban

greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis.

Research questions:

i. What attention has been given to urban greenspaces in urban development plans

for the Kumasi Metropolis?

ii. What challenges do urban planners encounter in urban greenspace planning in the

Kumasi Metropolis?

iii. What factors should urban authorities consider in urban greenspace planning in

the Kumasi Metropolis?

2. The socio-cultural factors surrounding the use of and demand for urban greenspaces in

the Kumasi Metropolis place a low emphasis on urban greenspaces.

Research questions:

i. What types of urban greenspaces do residents use in the Kumasi Metropolis?

ii. How do residents perceive the importance and role of urban greenspaces?

iii. How do urban residents prioritize the need for urban greenspaces within the

Kumasi Metropolis?

iv. What contentions arise in the planning of urban greenspaces in the Kumasi

Metropolis?

3. The institutional and socio-cultural barriers to urban greenspace planning provide hints of

the challenges in planning for CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis.

Research questions:

i. What are the forms of CCIs in urban development plans for the Kumasi

Metropolis?

ii. To what extent do urban CCIs converge or diverge from national CCIs?

iii. How do climate change framings affect the financing of CCIs, particularly urban

greenspaces?

iv. To what extent do institutional and socio-cultural barriers of urban greenspace

planning affect effective planning of CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis?

1.5 Structure of the Document

There are eleven chapters in this document. The first chapter provides a background to the research. It introduces the issues of climate change impacts and urban greenspace planning and the opportunity they provide for tackling climate change impacts. This chapter also contains the problem statement and the research arguments and questions.

Chapters Two to Five comprise the literature review. For both climate change and urban greenspaces, the literature review is presented from global to local perspectives. Chapter Six provides a detailed discussion of the research methodology including an overview of the study location, the research design, types of data used and their sources, data analytical techniques, issues of triangulation, validity, and reliability as well as threats to the research and how they were navigated.

Chapter Seven begins the presentation of results from the data analysis, with chapters

Seven and Eight examining CCIs in Ghana and the Kumasi Metropolis. Results on Ghana provides contexts for discussions about CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis and helped to determine divergence or convergence in CCIs. Results also covered whether urban greenspaces are framed as CCIs as well as their financing. Chapter Nine presents results and findings on the institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis. This chapter addresses the first research argument that asserts that the institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning contribute to a low emphasis on urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis. Chapter Ten presents results from the analysis of questionnaires administered to 400 adult residents in the Kumasi Metropolis and focuses on the second research argument: the socio-cultural factors surrounding the use and demand for urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis place a low emphasis on urban greenspaces.

Chapter Eleven is the last chapter. It concludes this research by discussing how institutional and socio-cultural barriers of urban greenspace planning affect the effective planning of CCIs. The chapter ends with suggestions for using urban greenspaces as CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis, with lessons for Ghana in general and the contribution it makes to theory.

CHAPTER TWO THE GLOBAL CHALLENGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

2.1 Introduction

In this urban century, there is a consensus that climate change impacts are real; causing hazards globally and increasing the risks and vulnerabilities of people and communities. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the IPCC provided a clear indication that climate change impacts were imminent and will increase extreme weather events; with huge costs across sectors, countries, continents, and the world, as a whole (IPCC, 2001).

From 2005 onwards, climate change took a significant turn as a global agenda. Even though the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997, it was not until February

16, 2005, that implementation of climate change initiatives was formalized by United Nations member countries party to the agreement (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change [UNFCCC], 2008a). Subsequently, climate change issues manifested as goals and targets in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)—a global agenda for poverty reduction and human development from 2000 to 2015. Nonetheless, climate change was not explicitly framed in the MDGs, with respect to terminology, but there were concerns for protecting environmental resources and controlling GHG emissions. MDG 7 aimed at ensuring “environmental sustainability” through protecting forests, marine water resources, biodiversity loss; and reducing

3 CO2 emissions and the consumption of ozone-depleting substances (United Nations, 2002).

3 The Road map towards the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration and Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration reports, from 2002 to 2006, make explicit reference to climate change and the need to ensure that climate change issues are mainstreamed in MDG interventions at the national and local levels. The reports are available online at: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/reports.shtml 15

Notably, the United Nations (2005: 23) argues that “the goal pledged in the Millennium

Declaration of ensuring the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change was finally realized in February 2005 following its ratification by the Russian Federation, thus ensuring the continuity of mitigation efforts into the next decade.” In 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC gave further impetus for climate change issues in development as the report asserted that climate change impacts were

“unequivocal” (IPCC, 2007a: 30). This mid-2000s turning point in the climate change discourse is confirmed by Pizarro et al. (2006) and Dhar and Luna Khirfan (2017).

This chapter pays attention to climate change from a global perspective. After the introduction, the chapter is structured into five main parts. The first section examines the meaning of climate change. This is followed by a review of the literature on the nature of climate change impacts. The third section discusses climate change as a governance issue. The chapter also discusses ways to tackle climate change impacts.

2.2 Defining Climate Change

The definition of climate change has evolved over time. In 1992, the UNFCCC defined climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (United Nations, 1992: 7). In 2007, the IPCC

(2007a: 30) defined climate change to mean “any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.” In either case, anthropogenic factors were identified to contribute to climate change; it is now a widely accepted consensus (Dhar and

Khirfan, 2017).

Reports by the IPCC notes that anthropogenic factors have resulted in increased concentrations of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere over the past eight centuries. These gases are collectively known as GHG. It is estimated that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 40% compared to pre-industrial periods— affecting human and natural systems across the globe and with projections of further impacts (IPCC, 2014;

IPCC, 2013). Population increases, economic activities, lifestyles and behaviors, energy consumption, land use and land cover changes, technology, and government policies are all reasons why anthropogenic GHG emissions have surged in the last eight centuries. At this rate, studies reveal that climate change presents high risks, uncertainties, and complexities to human and natural systems, and threatens the sustainability of human life on earth (Adger et al., 2005;

Robinson, 2004). At the same time, it threatens to reduce the achievements in poverty reduction and human development as it worsens systemic vulnerabilities.

It is thus not surprising that climate change has received attention at the global, national, and local levels with calls for immediate and radical action to truncate GHG emissions and build human and natural systems to adapt to and be resilient to climate change impacts with the goal of ensuring sustainability (Roberts and O’Donoghu, 2013).4 The 17 goals under the United Nations’

SDGs directly or indirectly embody climate change framed issues, goals, and targets that United

Nations member countries are expected to attain by 2030. Essentially, climate change is one of the lenses by which sustainable development is understood and forms the basis for action to reduce poverty, achieve prosperity, and promote human development (United Nations General Assembly,

2015). For instance, Goal 13 specifically entreat United Nations member countries to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” (United Nations General Assembly, 2015: 14).

4 These strategies are discussed in later sections of the chapter.

This urgency points to the fact that climate change impacts are real and already affecting people and communities around the world. The chapter subsequently turns attention to climate change impacts.

2.3 Nature of Climate Change Impacts

One of the main impacts of climate change is its effect on the global climate system. The IPCC

(2014) observes that since the 1950s, there have been significant changes in the atmosphere, oceans, amounts of snow and ice, and sea level rises. In the past 30 years, Earth’s surface temperature has increased, with an expected change in the global surface temperature of more than

1.5°C by the end of the twenty-first century (IPCC, 2013). The world’s oceans are also warming up and becoming more acidic due to increases in GHG emissions in the atmosphere (IPCC, 2013).

Ice sheets and glaciers in Greenland, the Antarctic, the Arctic sea, as well as Northern Hemisphere spring snow, are shrinking rapidly causing sea level rise and flooding along with coastal communities and cities globally (IPCC, 2013). Other impacts are heatwaves and extreme events such as flooding, prolonged droughts and water scarcity, erratic rainfall patterns, increase in infectious diseases, and disruptions to food productions (McMichael et al., 2008). Table 2.1 provides a summary of climate change impacts.

Table 2.1: Extreme Weather and Climate Events: Global-scale Assessment of Recent Observed Changes, Human Contribution to the Changes, and Projected Further Changes for the Early (2016–2035) and Late (2081–2100) 21st Century Phenomenon and Assessment that changes Assessment of a human Likelihood of further changes direction of trend occurred (typically since 1950 contribution to Early 21st Late 21st century unless otherwise indicated) observed changes century Warmer and/or fewer Very likely Very likely Likely Virtually certain cold days and nights Very likely Likely Virtually certain over most land areas Very likely Likely Virtually certain Warmer and/or more Very likely Very likely Likely Virtually certain frequent hot days and Very likely Likely Virtually certain nights over most land Very likely Likely (nights only) Virtually certain areas Warm spells/heatwaves. Medium confidence on a global Likely Not formally Very likely Frequency and/or scale (Likely in large parts of Not formally assessed assessed Very likely duration increases over Europe, Asia, and Australia) More likely than not Very likely most land areas Medium confidence in many (but not all) regions Likely Heavy precipitation Likely more land areas with Medium confidence Likely over many Very likely over most of the events. Increase in the increases than decreases Medium confidence land areas mid-latitude land masses and frequency, intensity, over wet tropical regions Likely more land areas with More likely than not and/or amount increases than decreases Likely over many areas of heavy precipitation Likely over most land areas Very likely over most land areas

Source: IPCC. 2013. Climate Change (2013: 7)

Table 2.1: Extreme weather and climate events: Global-scale assessment of recent observed changes, human contribution to the changes, and projected further changes for the early (2016–2035) and late (2081–2100) 21st century (Continued)

Phenomenon and Assessment that changes Assessment of a human Likelihood of further changes direction of trend occurred (typically since 1950 contribution to Early 21st Late 21st century unless otherwise indicated) observed changes century Increases in intensity Low confidence on a global Low confidence Low confidence Likely (medium confidence) and/or duration of scale Medium confidence on a regional to global scale drought Likely changes in some regions More likely than not Medium confidence in some Medium confidence in some regions regions Likely Likely in many regions, since 1970 Increases in intense Low confidence in long-term Low confidence Low confidence More likely than not in the tropical cyclone activity (centennial) changes (Virtually Low confidence Western North Pacific and certain in North Atlantic since North Atlantic More likely than not 1970) More likely than not in some Low confidence basins Likely in some regions, since Likely 1970 Increased incidence Likely (since 1970) Likely Likely Very likely and/or Likely (late 20th century) Likely Very likely magnitude of extreme Likely More likely than not Likely high sea level

Source: IPCC. 2013. Climate Change (2013: 7)

Climate change impacts traverse mere changes in climate. Studies reveal that impacts are trans-geographical, trans and cross-sectoral, and occurs across different scales. In terms of geography, urban areas are at high risks of climate change impacts. Its impacts have been observed and are expected in relation to socio-economic changes, changes in land use and land cover patterns and environmental issues (IPCC, 2014). Indeed, climate change has the potential “to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger” (IPCC, 2014: 16).

For the most part, climate change impacts would be evident in regions such as Africa,

South America, and Asia where there is rapid urbanization. Cities in these regions are characterized by high poverty, informal settlements, vulnerable and inadequate infrastructure, poor quality housing, and residents living in areas with high climate-related risks and vulnerabilities such as floodplains (Field et al., 2014; Revi et al., 2014; UN-Habitat, 2011). In addition, many of these cities do not have adequate access to insurance, health care and emergency services, thus deepening their exposures and vulnerabilities to climate-related risks and hazards, as well as have limited institutional and financial capacities to deal with these challenges (Revi et al., 2014; UN-

Habitat, 2014; UN-Habitat, 2012; UN-Habitat, 2011). Due to the rapid urbanization in these regions, land cover changes are rampant and accompanied by a rapid decline in urban greenspaces and ecosystems (Seto et al., 2011; UN-Habitat, 2011). These factors put together creates what some scholars call a “perfect storm” of climate change impacts (Roberts and O’Donoghue, 2013;

Population Institute, 2010). Table 2.2 summarizes the projected impacts of climate change in urban areas.

Table 2.2: Projected Impacts of Changes in Weather and Climate Events on Urban Areas Climate Event Likelihood Major projected impacts Fewer cold days and Virtually certain • Reduced energy demand for heating nights Warmer and more Virtually certain • Increased demand for cooling frequent hot days and nights over most land areas Warmer Virtually certain • Reduced disruption to transport due to snow, and ice effects temperatures on winter tourism • Changes in permafrost, damage to buildings and infrastructures Warm spells/heat Very likely • Reduction in quality of life for people in warm areas waves: frequency without air conditioning; impacts upon elderly, very young increases over most and poor, including significant loss of human life land areas • Increases in energy usage for air conditioning Heavy precipitation Very likely • Disruption of settlements, commerce, transport and events: frequency societies due to flooding increases over most • Significant loss of human life, injuries; loss of, and damage areas to, property and infrastructure • Potential for use of rainwater in hydropower generation increased in many areas Areas affected by Likely • Water shortages for households, industries, and services drought increase • Reduced hydropower generation potentials • Potential for population migration Intense tropical Likely • Disruption of settlements by flood and high winds cyclone activity Disruption of public water supply increases • Withdrawal of risk coverage in vulnerable areas by private insurers (at least in developed countries) • Significant loss of human life, injuries; loss of, and damage to, property • Potential for population migration Increased incidence Likely • Costs of coastal protection and costs of land-use relocation of extreme high sea increase level (excludes • Decreased freshwater availability due to saltwater intrusion tsunamis) • Significant loss of human life, injuries; loss of, and damage to, property and infrastructure • Potential for movement of population

Source: UN-Habitat (2011: 66)

Beyond these climate-related risks and impacts, climate change is expected to impact physical infrastructure such as roads, railways, bridges (Kirshen et al., 2006), residential and commercial buildings (Awuor et al., 2008; Kirshen et al., 2006; Hall et al., 2005; Choi and Fisher,

2003; Klein et al., 2003; Camilleri et al., 2001); and water and sanitation systems (UN-Habitat,

2011). It is expected to cause a surge in energy demand (Hunt and Watkiss, 2011; Harrison and

Whittington, 2002; Sailor, 2001), energy generation, and distribution capacity challenges (IPCC,

2007a; Harrison and Whittington, 2002); increase demand and pressures on water (Tanner et al.,

2009; Wilbanks et al., 2007a; Vergara, 2005) and sanitation systems (Rosenzweig et al., 2011;

Wilbanks et al., 2007a); destroy and disrupt economic activities and assets, increase cost of operations (Wilbanks et al., 2007a; Kirshen et al., 2006, Petterson et al., 2006; Lewsey et al., 2004;

Ruth et al., 2004); and disrupt and destruct people’s livelihoods (IPCC, 2007b; Uyarra et al., 2005).

These impacts also affect social aspects of cities such as intensifying poverty and vulnerability conditions (Bartlett, 2008; Neumayer and Plümper, 2007; UNDP, 2007). Furthermore, climate change impacts induce public health concerns such as heat stresses and related mortality, disease outbreaks and resistance to medications (Ahern et al., 2005; Holloway et al., 2005; Tanser et al.,

2003), increase disaster-related injuries and mortality (UN-Habitat, 2011) as well as lead to displacement and forced migration in urban areas (UN-Habitat, 2011; UNDP, 2009). Furthermore, environmental degradation from climate change impacts is expected to lead to a reduction in the quantity and quality of ecosystem services (Grimm et al., 2008; Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment, 2005).

Owing to the above, cities play an enormous role in climate change as they are not only areas at risk of severe impacts but also offer opportunities to confront climate change impacts. It

is thus not surprising that climate change issues in urban areas have garnered momentum (UN-

Habitat, 2011).

2.4 Climate Governance

In the last two decades, if not more, there have been emerging discussions on the approach to development. Scholars have highlighted the government-governance dichotomy. This has also been discussed in relation to climate change and the management of its impacts. Bulkeley and

Kern (2006: 2238) distinguish between government and governance by explaining that

“government” represents the “administrative and directly elected elements of the state, [that] has traditionally been seen as the locus of governing—defining and orchestrating collective goals and actions—within society.” These administrative elements perform roles and functions pertaining to health care provision, education, economic development, infrastructure development and management, transportation, water and sanitation management, and land use planning and regulations. In contrast, “governance” refers to the processes and mechanisms employed by these administrative elements to fulfill their roles and functions and “do not rest [necessarily] on recourse to the authority and sanctions of government” (Bulkeley and Kern, 2006; Wilson, 2003:

318).

In the climate change literature, more emphasis is given to governance than governments.

This is because it is within governance arrangements— whether at the local or national level— that climate change goals, objectives, and interventions are planned and implemented (Lee and

Painter, 2015). It is also within these governance arrangements that governments exist and function— making governance an encompassing concept or framework for confronting climate change impacts. Two main types of governance arrangements are often discussed in the

literature—the horizontal and vertical governance arrangements. Hughes (2015) argues that horizontal governance arrangements deal with development decisions and processes that exist among departments of urban or city authorities and with authorities of other urban jurisdictions.

In contrast, vertical arrangements deal with higher development and planning governments, stakeholders, non-governmental organizations, and researchers who operate at larger spatial scales than a city or urban jurisdictions. Governance is characterized by a hierarchy in decision making and action at different levels from local to the national (and even international), requires building partnerships and ensuring effective coordination and cooperation among different actors

(Kooiman, 2003). This, therefore, makes governance a critical concept in climate change discourse

(Hughes, 2015; Lee and Painter, 2015).

Bulkeley and Kern (2006: 2242) in their study of governance arrangements for climate change in the United Kingdom and Germany identified three main types of local governance systems. The first they characterized as “self-governing” to refer to “the capacity of local government to govern its own activities.” The second type they document as “governing by authority” where local governments rely on “traditional forms of authority such as regulation and direction” from higher government authorities such as the state or national government. The third is “governing through enabling” which “refers to the role of local government in facilitating, coordinating and encouraging action through the partnership with private- and voluntary-sector agencies, and to various forms of community engagement.” Local governance structures are seemingly characterized predominantly by one of these, but all three are often employed within the same governance arrangement.

Bulkeley and Kern (2006) thus reveal the complexities that characterize climate change decisions. Any action taken to address climate change impacts therefore need to consider different

geographical jurisdictions, multi-layered governance arrangements, engage with departments and different stakeholders, take cognizance of the nature of growth and development including those who are poor and vulnerable to climate change impacts and develop innovative pathways to traverse governance rigidities and inertia (Anguelovski et al., 2014). These concerns are critical to garner support for CCIs and to attract strong political and leadership interest, ensure their institutionalization, and help reduce residents’ vulnerability to climate change impacts

(Anguelovski et al., 2014; Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Rosenzweig et al., 2011; Aylett, 2010;

Kithiia and Dowling, 2010).

Different pathways have emerged within climate governance arrangements to confront climate change impacts in many cities in both the global north and south. All these approaches call attention to the needs and priorities of communities and residents as well as the immense role of local governments. This is important as local governments are the development bearers who make the hard and crucial policy decisions to attain social, economic, and environmental goals (Eakin and Patt, 2011; Pielke, 2007; Sarewitz et al., 2003) and will need to overcome the conundrum of conflicting community goals and climate change priorities (Dodman and Mitlin, 2013). The conundrum of conflicting priorities also exists between and among local government departments as traditional departments of local governments are fragmented—with each having their own planning tools and limited collaborative and coordination capacities (McCarney, 2013).

In local climate governance, synergies are needed across different urban sectors and their departments to overcome uncertainties in collective actions such as risks and impacts of decisions, inadequate capacities, and information (Pacheco et al., 2014; Bruneniece and Klavins, 2013;

Knieling and Filho, 2013; Ieva Schröder and Walk, 2013). Managing these conundrums in priorities will help promote accountability and effectiveness in local governance, ensure

community-specific governance decisions. This will thus help to effectively negotiate the dissonance between socio-economic development and climate change priorities— both in the short term and in the long term (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Rosenzweig et al., 2011; Aylett, 2010;

Kithiia and Dowling, 2010; van Aalst et al., 2008; Shackley and Deanwood, 2002). Furthermore, local climate governance is critical especially when the momentum for tackling climate change impacts emanates from the global level. For this reason, climate governance needs to be

“implemented in a decentralized and polycentric manner” (Pacheco et al., 2014: 573) by identifying the “multiple modes of governing … [and] … understanding how climate change is being governed locally and the fundamental challenges encountered” (Bulkeley and Kern, 2006:

2238).

Specifically, for climate governance to be effective at the local level, decisions on climate change and its impacts need to “be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty” (IPCC, 2014: 17). This includes building awareness about climate change and its impacts for different stakeholders including the public, planners and political leadership; institutionalizing climate change within local governance arrangements

(Satterthwaite et al., 2007); and implementing different strategies on mitigation, adaptation, and resilience that take cognizance of co-benefits and sustainable development principles (IPCC,

2014). While urban areas are at risk of severe climate change impacts, they also have the potential to achieve climate change goals because of their intellectual and political capital. Many capital towns and seats of governments, universities, research centers, and experts are in urban areas. They can support local governments and their governance arrangements with the needed knowledge to

promote effective climate governance to confront climate change impacts (Leichenko, 2011; UN-

Habitat, 2011; Cooke et al., 2002).

2.4.1 Planning and Climate Change Impacts

As the preceding section has revealed, tackling climate change impacts operates within governing processes and arrangements that involve different actors, interests, and levels of decision making.

Hughes (2017) identifies climate governance as operating within the physical, institutional, economic, cultural, and social aspects of cities. The conundrums of priorities that result from the interactions of these aspects of cities require that climate governance supports planning for priorities that may not even be apparent in the traditional development goals of urban planning, such as education, transportation, land use, economic development, or housing. This complexity makes planning to confront climate change impacts an imperative.

Climate action has often been the term used to refer to urgent efforts to confront climate change impacts. This is clearly reflected in the Sustainable Development Goal 13 dubbed “Climate

Action.” 5 The goal entreats United Nation member countries to “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). These efforts include developing policies, programs, projects and regulations to tackle climate change impacts (Berrang-

Ford et al., 2011)—which in this report are collectively referred to as Climate Change

Interventions (CCIs) and encompass interventions to tackle climate change impacts framed as urgent, short term and/or long term.

5 The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) notes that “Climate action means stepped-up efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-induced impacts, including: climate-related hazards in all countries; integrating climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning; and improving education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity with respect to climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.” Available online at: https://www.sdfinance.undp.org/content/sdfinance/en/home/sdg/goal-13--climate-action.html

Initially, CCIs to tackle climate change impacts aimed to control GHG emissions as many local government agencies planned for and implemented mitigation strategies (Damsø et al., 2017;

Millard-Ball, 2013) through climate action plans. This is evident in the International Council for

Local Environmental Initiatives’ Cities for Climate Protection Milestone Guide. The agency defines a climate action plan as “a strategy document that outlines a collection of measures and policies that reduce GHG emissions” (VHB Engineering, Surveying, and Landscape, PC., 2014:

3). But this definition has evolved over the years with the adoption of concepts like adaptation, resilience, and sustainable development in the IPCC Reports. For instance, Boswell et al. (2012:

7) define climate action plans as “strategic plans that establish policies and programs for reducing

(or mitigating) a community’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change”. This is appropriate in part due to the complexity of climate change as a development issue with different perspectives by different people. It is therefore not surprising that the problematization and solution space of tackling climate change impacts is characterized by variations.

In the climate change discourse, climate change is discussed as having positive or negative consequences or discussed narrowly or broadly, with some contending its reality (Eriksen et al.,

2015; Valles, 2015; Maibach et al., 2010). Such discussions represent the framings (Vanhala and

Hestbaek, 2016; Weathers and Kendall, 2016; Béland, 2009; Benford and Snow, 2000; Taylor,

2000) of climate change— how it is defined, the interpretation of its causes, and how different actors mobilize support and suggest ways to deal with climate change impacts. Vanhala and

Hestbaek (2016) suggest that climate change was initially framed in relation to liability and compensation, risk management and insurance. This later changed to concerns for loss and damage after 2008. Apparently, such framings are pervasive among scientists and policymakers who tend

to frame climate change as critical risks and security issues (Pidgeon and Butler, 2009; Uggla,

2008) or in terms of its negative impacts (Morton et al., 2011). Another framing is climate change as justice which is common among social and environmental advocates. Such framings explore concerns for health impacts and other social concerns (Valles, 2015; MacPherson, 2013; Bain et al., 2012; Maibach et al., 2010). All these frames tend to discuss climate change as a problem and provide reasons for and approaches to tackling climate change impacts.

In terms of climate policy, studies distinguish between two frames: the first addresses the technical and managemental dimensions of climate change policies drawing attention to climate governance and climate policy management (Eriksen et al., 2015; Ford and King, 2015; Käkönen et al., 2014; Taylor, 2015; Dewulf, 2013). The second highlights the socio-political framing of hazards and vulnerabilities of climate change impacts (Ribot, 2010; O’Brien et al., 2007). Popke et al. (2016) group climate change under three broad framings namely: adaptation, resilience, and vulnerability to climate change impacts. One missing aspect of these broad framings is climate mitigation which dominated framings prior to climate adaptation and resilience (Gifford and

Comeau, 2011; IPCC, 2007b; Nordhaus and Shellenberger, 2007). Eventually, certain climate change framings attain dominance and become amorphous (Vanhala and Hestbaek, 2016). Despite varying perspectives on climate change, concerns for mitigation, adaptation, and resilience have become core framings, at least for how to deal with climate change impacts while vulnerability, risks, and hazards have become dominant problematizing framings.

The IPCC (2014) reveals that the range of CCIs encompasses mitigation, adaptation, resilience, and sustainability initiatives that aim to reduce the risks and vulnerabilities to climate change impacts; build capacities to cope and traverse sudden changes to institutional, socio- economic, and natural systems due to climate change impacts; develop strategies that meet both

socio-economic and environmental goals; and strengthen governance systems to respond to climate change impacts. Different cities therefore adopt different CCIs (Damsø et al., 2017;

Millard-Ball, 2013; Carmin et al., 2012a; Carmin et al., 2012b; Romero-Lankao and Dodman,

2011; Romero-Lankao and Qin, 2011; Füssel, 2007; Hay and Mimura, 2006; Smit and Wandel,

2006). Figure 2.1 conceptualizes the solution space for tackling climate change impacts.

Figure 2.1: The Solution Space for tackling Climate Change Impacts Source: Field et al. (2014: 26)

2.4.2 Categories of Climate Change Interventions

From Figure 2.1, the main actions that cities can take to confront climate change impacts lie within socio-economic pathways, mitigation and adaptation, and governance initiatives. From this chapter’s perspective, climate governance is an encompassing framework that enables the actualization of actions through CCIs to confront climate change impacts. Further details are provided in the discussions that follow on some of the specific broad interventions or framings.

2.4.2.1 Mitigation

Many CCIs initially focused on mitigations as compared to adaptation (Bulkeley et al., 2011;

Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007). Unfortunately, this is a concept that is frequently misunderstood

(Roberts, 2010). The IPCC defines mitigation as

“a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases (GHGs) ... including, for example, the reduction of particulate matter emissions that can directly alter the radiation balance (e.g., black carbon) or measures that control emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, Volatile Organic Compounds and other pollutants that can alter the concentration of tropospheric ozone which has an indirect effect on the climate” (IPCC 2014: 125).

It is expected that urban areas and places with significant GHG emissions would need to make mitigation a priority in their climate change agenda. This is true for urban areas which are dominated by and reliant on automobiles. A greater percentage of GHG will come from their transport sector. Economies that generate energy from fossil fuels and industrial cities have greater

GHG emissions, making climate change mitigation measures critical for such places (Hughes,

2017).

Compared with other solution options to confront climate change impacts, mitigation is closely related to innovations and transformation in local economies and technological advancements (Shaw et al., 2014). The impacts of mitigation are often discussed within global contexts especially in relation to global warming; thus, benefits seemingly accrue to areas external to its implementation (Wilbanks et al., 2007b). Yet, interventions such as air quality control that is associated with mitigation strategies provide pathways to make the benefits of mitigation more closely connected to the area of implementation (Nemet et al., 2010). For some scholars, mitigation is a pre-requisite for the attainment of many other climate change goals. This is because

“mitigation reduces the rate as well as the magnitude of warming, it also increases the time available for adaptation to a particular level of climate change, potentially

by several decades, but adaptation cannot generally overcome all climate change effects. [Therefore]delaying mitigation actions may reduce options for climate- resilient pathways in the future” (Field et al., 2014: 87).

2.4.2.2 Adaptation

Different definitions of adaptation exist; all pointing to an adjustment to some changes in one’s environment. This is because the framings of adaptation are constrained by societal and organizational perceptions and misperceptions, institutional structures, principles and processes

(Adger et al., 2009a). Turner (2010) explains adaptation in terms of the capacity of systems to self-organize, learn and acclimatize to sudden or gradual changes and disturbances in their environments. To Cannon and Müller-Mahn (2010: 629), adaptation focuses on “the capacity of a society or a community to coordinate decision making, to act collectively, and to give collective action some stability by means of an institutional framework.” The IPCC converges the definitions of adaptation as “the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects.”

(IPCC, 2014: 5). Consequently, the goal of adaptation is to “reduce the vulnerability of human and natural systems to a shift in climate regime” (Fankhauser, 2009: 5).

The benefits of adaptation are both short-term and long-term. Urban authorities can improve the capacities of their residents to confront climate change impact as they experience it while simultaneously planning for future populations to also adjust to changes in human and natural systems emanating from changes in the climate (IPCC, 2014). Adaptation also helps urban authorities to secure natural and human assets, maintain and enhance ecosystem goods and services for current and future population. Because it is local and context-specific, the spectrum of interventions to implement under adaptation is varied and allow urban authorities to be innovative

in confronting climate change impacts (IPCC, 2014; Roberts and O’Donoghue, 2013, Bauer et al.,

2012; da Silva et al., 2012; Amundsen et al., 2010; Biesbroek et al., 2010; Satterthwaite et al.,

2007). Consequentially, “adaptation planning has rapidly established itself in a policy space previously dominated by mitigation planning” (Aylett, 2015: 7).

Dhar and Khirfan (2017) observe that adaptation research in planning has focused on eight areas, namely: risk assessment, socio-economic vulnerability, planning knowledge, post-disaster response, alleviation strategies, adaptation technologies, governance and social learning, and monitoring and evaluation— some of which are confirmed by Klein et al. (2003) and Berrang-

Ford et al. (2011). Unfortunately, adaptation efforts are “insufficiently developed”; often do not move “beyond the assessment and planning stages” (Berrang-Ford et al., 2011: 27); and do not engender action (Dhar and Khirfan, 2017; Berrang-Ford et al., 2011) and the needed cross-sectoral

(Hunt and Watkiss, 2011) and sustainable development linkages (Roberts, 2010). Studies on adaptation call for a government-led (Eisenack, 2014; Osberghaus et al., 2010) and deliberate process (Lehmann et al., 2015; IPCC, 2007b) that adopts an integrated approach to adaptation planning and implementation. These studies advocate a focus on cross-sectoral linkages and collaborations as well as the mainstreaming of adaptive plans into local government functions and responsibilities to engender convergence in sectoral goals and reduce the dissonance among sectoral priorities (Carmin et al., 2012a; Carmin et al., 2012b; van den Berg and Coenen, 2012;

Anguelovski and Roberts, 2011; Kok and De Coninck, 2007; Huq and Reid, 2004; Smit and

Wandel, 2006).

It is not surprising that Eisenack and Stecker (2012: 244) “conceptualizes adaptations as actions.” According to Lehmann et al. (2015: 78), these actions are “purposeful activities (…the preparation and adoption of adaptation strategies and action plans) of an operator (… planners at

the level of local municipalities) towards the specific end of [adjusting to and] mitigating the impacts from climate change.” Research on adaptation also distinguishes between “early adapters” and their motivation for adopting adaptation initiatives (Shackleton et al., 2015; Spires and

Shackleton, 2018), while others have focused on the process of adaptation (Moser et al., 2010;

Arnell and Delaney 2006; Berkhout et al., 2006), different approaches to adaptation (Aylett, 2015;

Huq and Reid, 2007); and concerns for maladaptation (Zavaleta, et al., 2018; Frank et al., 2017;

Juhola, et al., 2016; Magnan et al., 2016; Lehmann et al., 2015; Magnan, 2014; Cicchetti and

Roisman, 2011; Barnett and O’Neill, 2010).

2.4.2.3 Resilience

The IPCC (2014: 5) defines resilience as “the capacity of social, economic, and environmental systems to cope with a hazardous event or trend or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain their essential function, identity, and structure, while also maintaining the capacity for adaptation, learning, and transformation.” It also refers to a system’s capacity to “absorb disturbance and re-organize while undergoing a change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks” (Folke, 2006: 259). Dhar and Khirfan (2017) group resilience into three typologies namely engineering, ecological and evolutional resilience with each having varied objectives, foci and response targets. The objective of engineering resilience is to maintain the efficiency of systems and their ability to “bounce back” from external disturbances via strategies that focus on “efficiency, consistency, and predictability” of the systems. The aim of ecological resilience is to maintain the existence of systems and their ability to “bounce forward” to internal and external disturbances via strategies that focus on “persistence, change, and unpredictability.” Evolutional resilience focuses on a system’s ability to change and “transform

forward” with or without disturbances by focusing on the “persistence, adaptability, and transformability” of the system (Dhar and Khirfan, 2017: 75). Denton et al. also characterizes climate resilience as “climate-resilient pathway for development” and explain that it is:

a continuing process for managing changes in the climate and other driving forces affecting development, combining flexibility, innovativeness, and participative problem solving with effectiveness in mitigating and adapting to climate change. If effects of climate change are relatively severe, this process is likely to require considerations of transformational changes in threatened systems if development is to be sustained without major disruptions (2014: 1106).

A common notion of resilience is related to socio-ecological thinking where systems are conceived as non-linear, flexible, iterative, and provide continuous learning and feedback mechanisms for tackling the impacts of climate change (Moser, 2008; Norris et al., 2008; Folke,

2006). It builds on the interconnections between humans and nature through nature-based climate strategies (Kabisch et al., 2017; Kabisch et al., 2016; Folke, 2006; Walker and Salt, 2006).

Globally, there is interest in the role resilience plays in tackling climate change impacts, especially for urban areas because of the complexity of the interplay between human and natural systems in these areas (Field et al., 2014; Shaw et al., 2014; Chelleri, 2012; Gasper et al., 2011; Dodman and

Satterthwaite, 2008; Swalheim and Dodman, 2008). As a policy issue, the IPCC (2014: 18) notes that “steps that build resilience and enable sustainable development can accelerate successful climate-change adaptation globally” and locally. The reverse is also true as “human and social- ecological systems can build resilience through adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development.” (Burkett et al., 2014: 182). Hence, climate-resilience pathways “are development trajectories that combine adaptation and mitigation with effective institutions to realize the goal of sustainable development.” (Denton et al., 2014: 1106). Table 2.3 provides some elements of climate-resilient pathways.

Table 2.3: Elements of Climate-Resilient Pathways

Awareness and capacity • A high level of social awareness of climate change risks • A demonstrated commitment to contribute appropriately to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions, integrated with national development strategies • Institutional change for more effective resource management through collective action • Human capital development to improve risk management and adaptive capacities • Leadership for sustainability that effectively responds to complex challenges Resources • Access to scientific and technological expertise and options for problem solving, including effective mechanisms for providing climate information, services, and standards • Access to financing for appropriate climate change response strategies and actions • Information linkages in order to learn from experiences of others with mitigation and adaptation Practices • Continuing development and evaluation of institutionalized vulnerability assessments and risk management strategy development, and refinement based on emerging information and experience • Monitoring of emerging climate change impacts and contingency planning for responding to them, including possible needs for transformational responses • Policy, regulatory, and legal frameworks that encourage and support distributed voluntary actions for climate change risk management • • Effective programs to assist the most vulnerable populations and systems in coping with impacts of climate change Source: Denton et al (2014: 1113)

Akin to mitigation and adaptation, Bahadur and Tanner (2014: 22) explained that resilience can be viewed to encompass the varied contexts and “interaction between actors and networks, policy-making spaces, and narratives and discourses” in climate actions and how these position systems to maintain their identity and functionality after climate-induced disturbances. Inherent in the conceptualization of resilience, therefore, is the role of government and governance arrangements that are flexible, innovative, and function on multiple levels from the local to the national level when dealing with climate change impacts (da Silva et al., 2012). Such arrangements are also expected to engage widely with communities at risk of climate change impacts (Berkes,

2009; Norris et al., 2008) and take cognizance of the politics and power play across stakeholders

of climate change (Bahadur et al., 2013; Kuhlicke, 2013; Béné et al., 2012; Cannon and Müller-

Mahn, 2010; Nelson et al., 2007). Indeed:

“key characteristics of resilience pertinent to climate change and disaster contexts, including: high diversity; effective governance and institutions; the ability to work with uncertainty and change; community involvement and the appropriation of local knowledge; preparedness and planning for disturbances; high social and economic equity; robust social values and structures, acknowledging non equilibrium dynamics, continual and effective learning and the adoption of a cross- scalar perspective (Bahadur et al. (2013) cited in Bahadur and Tanner, 2014: 24).

2.4.2.4 Climate Co-Benefits

In their contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, Field et al. (2014: 89) note that “significant co-benefits, synergies, and trade-offs exist between mitigation and adaptation and among different adaptation responses; interactions occur both within and across regions.” Climate co-benefits— as represented in this statement— provide a win-win strategy in confronting the impacts of climate change while simultaneously meeting other development needs. Until recently, climate co-benefits had solely been used in relation to mitigation strategies that indirectly provide side benefits such as improving air quality and the health of residents (Nemet et al., 2010; Bollen et al., 2009). The argument is that in confronting climate change impacts, there are benefits that may accrue as side effects of the strategies being implemented (Bollen, 2009).

Thus, in planning to tackle climate change impacts, one needs to plan for multiple objectives that will result in outcomes beyond a reduction in GHG emissions— which could be direct or indirect. Some scholars argue that climate co-benefits provide incentives in harmonizing the long-term benefits of implementing mitigation strategies with local needs as it offers them the opportunities to reduce local pollution (Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2013). For example: “(i) improved energy efficiency and cleaner energy sources, leading to reduced emissions of health-

damaging climate-altering air pollutants; (ii) reduced energy and water consumption in urban areas through greening cities and recycling water; (iii) sustainable agriculture and forestry; and (iv) protection of ecosystems for carbon storage and other ecosystem services” (IPCC, 2014: 28).

In recent times, this conceptualization has expanded to combine climate change goals with broader community goals such as health, local economic development, and biodiversity management. This has emerged due to the increased connections made among climate change, poverty reduction, adaptation, resilience, and sustainable development (IPCC, 2014; Shaw et al.,

2014; Biesbroek et al., 2009; IPCC, 2007b; Klein et al., 2007).

As a result, conceptualizations such as development co-benefits and multi-dimensional development are ways to think around CCIs that can meet multiple development goals or cross- sectoral goals (IPCC, 2014; Doll et al., 2013; Nemet, 2010; IPCC, 2007b). The consensus is that

CCIs need to take cognizance of social, economic, technological, environmental, and institutional dynamics that may affect the development trajectory of residents and areas at risks of climate change impacts (Swart et al., 2003; Morita et al., 2000). In doing so, planners can plan to reduce risks and vulnerabilities while at the same time promoting socio-economic development, healthy living, and improving ecosystem goods and services (Doll et al., 2013; Naumann et al., 2011). This perspective thus implies that climate change is not merely an environmental problem but a development problem (Metz et al., 2002).

For countries in the global south, this perspective allows for the efficient use of scarce resources and help them to achieve both development and climate change goals—which would ordinarily receive low priority or attention (Doll et al., 2013; Nemet, 2010). It is not surprising therefore that countries in the global south often plan for adaptation rather than mitigation due to the co-benefit potential of adaptation strategies that provide local and direct impacts and most

importantly because they contribute less to GHG emissions (Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2013; Revi,

2008; McGranahan et al., 2007; Adger et al., 2003). Co-benefits also provide urban authorities with the potential and incentive to address development problems relating to urban infrastructure

(including transportation, greenspaces, drainage systems, etc.), housing, employment, liquid and solid waste management, health care, and population growth, while also achieving climate change goals (IPCC, 2014; Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2013; Puppim de Oliveira, 2013; Puppim de

Oliveira, 2009). These can be achieved “by mainstreaming adaptation [mitigation, and resilience] with existing local to national goals and priorities.” (Wong et al., 2014: 393)

2.5 Barriers to Planning for Climate Change Interventions

In the climate change literature, there are numerous studies about the barriers to interventions to confront climate change impacts whether mitigation and/or adaptation (Thaler et al., 2019;

Shackleton et al., 2015; Biesbroek et al., 2013; Runhaar et al., 2012; Biesbroek et al., 2011; Håkon

Inderberg, 2011; Measham et al., 2011; Amundsen et al., 2010; Burch, 2010a; Burch, 2010b;

Moser et al., 2010; Adger et al., 2009b; Adger et al., 2007; Næss et al., 2005). Factors that may hinder progress have been explored to inform advances in the planning and implementation of

CCIs.

In the climate change literature, different terms have been adopted for these factors including barriers (Lonsdale et al., 2017; Lehmann et al., 2015; Ekstrom and Moser, 2014;

Biesbroek et al., 2013; Biesbroek et al., 2011; Burch 2010a; Burch 2010b; Kollmuss and Agyeman,

2002), limits (Dow et al., 2013; Millard-Ball, 2013; Béné et al., 2012; Laube et al., 2012), and constraints (Håkon Inderberg, 2011; Bryan et al., 2009). These have, at times, been used interchangeably (Laube et al., 2012), even though they are often different (IPCC, 2014; Dow,

2013; Moser et al., 2014; Hulme et al., 2007). For instance, within the context of adaptation, the

IPCC differentiates between constraints and limits. Adaptation constraints are “factors that make it harder to plan and implement adaptation actions or that restrict options” while an adaptation limit is the “point at which an actor’s objectives (or system needs) cannot be secured from intolerable risks through adaptive actions” (IPCC, 2014: 1758). This report construes barriers to mean constraints. That is, barriers refer to any factor that can hinder or inhibit the planning and implementation of efforts to tackle climate change impacts or conditions that make efforts to tackle climate change impacts intractable or unattainable.

Barriers prevent planners from translating goals into actions or are the reasons why individuals and communities have low adaptive capacities (Eisenack and Stecker, 2012; Hinkel,

2011; O’Brien et al., 2006; Næss et al., 2005). Many of the literature capture these barriers in broad categories (Spires and Shackleton, 2018; Aylett, 2015; Shackleton et al., 2015; Ekstrom and

Moser, 2014; Biesbroek et al., 2013; Simon, 2011; Biesbroek et al., 2011; Mees and Driessen,

2011; Burch, 2010a; Burch, 2010b; Chuku, 2010; Adger et al., 2009b; Urwin and Jordan, 2008;

Adger et al., 2007). For instance, Adger et al. (2007) identify physical and ecological, technological, financial, informational and cognitive, social and cultural barriers to CCIs. This is also confirmed by Biesbroek et al. (2013) through a systematic literature review. Some studies observe that these barriers do not stand alone but are often interrelated (Runhaar et al., 2012;

Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011; Burch, 2010a; Burch, 2010b). Tables 2.4 and 2.5 provides a summary of these barriers.

Table 2.4: Barriers to Mitigation and Adaptation and their Potential Impacts Constraining Factor Implications for Adaptation Implications for Mitigation Adverse externalities ▪ Increase exposure of human ▪ Drive economic growth, energy of population growth populations to climate variability demand and energy consumption, and urbanization and change as well as demands for, resulting in increases in and pressures on, natural resources greenhouse gas emissions and ecosystem services Deficits of knowledge, ▪ Reduce national, institutional and ▪ Reduce national, institutional and education and human individual perceptions of the risks individual risk perception, capital posed by climate change as well as willingness to change behavioral the costs and benefits of different patterns and practices and to adopt adaptation options social and technological innovations to reduce emissions Divergences in social ▪ Reduce societal consensus ▪ Influence emission patterns, and cultural attitudes, regarding climate risk and therefore societal perceptions of the utility values and behaviors demand for specific adaptation of mitigation policies and policies and measures technologies, and willingness to pursue sustainable behaviors and technologies Challenges in ▪ Reduce the ability to coordinate ▪ Undermine policies, incentives and governance and adaptation policies and measures cooperation regarding the institutional and to deliver capacity to actors to development of mitigation policies arrangements plan and implement adaptation and the implementation of efficient, carbon-neutral and renewable energy technologies Lack of access to ▪ Reduces the scale of investment in ▪ Reduces the capacity of developed national and adaptation policies and measures and, particularly, developing international climate and therefore their effectiveness nations to pursue policies and finance technologies that reduce emissions. Inadequate technology ▪ Reduces the range of available ▪ Slows the rate at which society can adaptation options as well as their reduce the carbon intensity of effectiveness in reducing or energy services and transition avoiding risk from increasing rates toward low-carbon and carbon- or magnitudes of climate change neutral technologies Insufficient quality ▪ Reduce the coping range of actors, ▪ Reduce the long-term and/or quantity of vulnerability to non-climatic factors sustainability of different energy natural resources and potential competition for technologies resources that enhance vulnerability Adaptation and ▪ Increase vulnerability to current ▪ Reduce mitigative capacity and development deficits climate variability as well as future undermine international climate change cooperative efforts on climate owing to a contentious legacy of cooperation on development Inequality ▪ Places the impacts of climate ▪ Constrains the ability for change and the burden of adaptation developing nations with low- disproportionately on the most income levels, or different vulnerable and/or transfers them to communities or sectors within future generations nations, to contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation

Source: IPCC (2014: 95)

Table 2.5: Selection of Literature on the Institutional Barriers to Efforts to Tackle Climate Change Impacts Specific Issues Sources Arnell and Delaney (2006) Flugman et al. (2012) Moser et al. (2010) Aylett (2015) Hallegatte (2009) Moser et al. (2012) Berkhout et al. (2006) Hughes (2015) Næss et al. (2005) Bierbaum et al. (2013) Huh et al. (2017) Nordgren et al. (2016) Biesbroek et al. (2011) IPCC (2001) Reyer et al (2012) Bryan et al. (2009) IPCC (2007) Roberts & O’Donoghue Financial and resource Bulkeley (2013) IPCC (2014) (2013) capacity challenges Bulkeley and Kern (2006) Jiang et al. (2013) Satterthwaite et al. (2007) (particularly staff capacity) Burch (2010a) Kabubo-Mariara (2009) Sharp et al. (2011) Burch (2010b) Koch et al. (2007) Simon, 2011 Chuku, 2010 Leck and Simon (2013) Thaler et al. (2019) Crabbé and Robin (2006) Lehmann et al. (2015) Urwin and Jordan (2008) Doll et al. (2013) Lonsdale et al (2017) West et al. (2009) Ebert et al. (2009) Mees and Driessen (2011) Wheeler (2008). Moser et al. (2012) Garrelts, et al. (2011) Amundsen et al. (2010) Mukheibir et al (2013) Harries and Penning-Rowsell Anguelovski and Carmin (2011) Næss et al. (2005) Lack of leadership, (2011) Aylett (2015) Nordgren et al. (2016) regulatory, and political Hughes (2017) Biesbroek et al. (2011) Oberlack (2014) challenges lack of political Huh et al. (2017) Burch (2010a) Reckien et al. (2014) will absence of clarity on IPCC (2001) Burch (2010b) Roberts & O’Donoghue local government role in IPCC (2007) Chuku (2010) (2013) climate action centralization IPCC (2014) Crabbé and Robin (2006) Simon (2011) of climate decisions Lehmann et al. (2015) Ford et al. (2011) Storbjörk (2010) Lonsdale et al (2017) Galaz (2005) Thaler et al. (2019) Mees and Driessen (2011) Urwin and Jordan (2008)

Table 2.5: Selection of Literature on the Institutional Barriers to Efforts to Tackle Climate Change Impacts (Continued).

Specific Issues Sources Adger et al. (2007) Hallegatte (2009) Lehmann et al (2013) Amundsen et al. (2010) Deressa et al. (2009) Lehmann et al. (2015) Archie et al. (2012) Hammill and Tanner (2011) Lonsdale et al (2017) Lack of or inadequate Aylett (2015) Huh et al. (2017) Mees and Driessen (2011) knowledge, Information, and Berkhout et al. (2006) Hunt and Watkiss (2011) Moser (2010) awareness on climate change, Biesbroek et al (2011) IPCC (2001) Nordgren et al. (2016) gap between science and Burch (2010a) IPCC (2007) Smith and Pilifosova (2003) policy Poor information Chuku (2010) IPCC (2014) Runhaar et al. (2012) sharing Corfee-Morlot et al. (2011) Jantarasami et al. (2010) Simon (2012) Dhar and Khirfan (2017) Kemp et al. (2015) Thaler et al. (2019) Doll et al. (2013) Leck and Simon (2013) Urwin and Jordan (2008) Lonsdale et al (2017) Variation in the institutional Aylett (2015) Inderberg (2011) Mees and Driessen (2011) home of climate change staff Biesbroek et al (2011) IPCC (2001) Moser and Ekstrom (2010) Poor stakeholder Bulkeley et al. (2006) IPCC (2007) Næss et al. (2005) collaboration and Burch (2010a) IPCC (2014) Naumann et al. (2011) involvement conflicts among Chuku (2010) Jiang et al. (2013) Roberts & O’Donoghue departments (sectoral silos) Corfee-Morlot et al. (2011) Kabisch et al. (2016) (2013) dissonance between national Frantzeskaki and Tillie (2014) Koch et al. (2007) Runhaar et al. (2012) and local development Hansen et al. (2015) Krellenberg (2012) Simon (2012) governments (institutional Hardoy and Lankao (2011) Leck and Simon (2013) Thaler et al. (2019) fragmentation) Huh et al. (2017) Lehmann et al. (2015) Urwin and Jordan (2008).

Table 2.5: Selection of Literature on the Institutional Barriers to Efforts to Tackle Climate Change Impacts (Continued). Specific Issues Sources The absence of a vision Poor Arnell and Delaney (2006) Eisenack (2013) Næss et al. (2005) planning and/or non- Berkhout et al. (2006) Hughes (2017) Nelson (2011) implementation of plans, lack Burch (2010a) Huh et al. (2017) O’Brien and Wolf (2010) or inadequate Corfee-Morlot et al. (2011) Kabisch et al. (2016) Runhaar et al. (2012) mainstreaming, the Dessai et al. (2007) Lehmann et al. (2015) Sarewitz (2004) inefficiency of private Doll et al. (2013) Lonsdale et al (2017) Thaler et al. (2019). adaptation strategies Arnell and Delaney (2006) Hansen et al. (2015) Mees and Driessen (2011) Arvai, et al. (2006) Hughes (2017) Moser et al. (2010) Aylett (2015) Huh et al. (2017) Næss et al. (2005) Competing planning goals Shi et al. (2015) Kabisch et al. (2016) Runhaar et al. (2012) and priorities disconnection Biesbroek et al. (2011) Klein and Juhola (2014) Shackleton et al. (2015) between short and long-term Burch (2010a) Lata and Nunn (2012) Simon (2011) goals (or conflicting time Chuku (2010) Leck and Simon (2013) Spruijt et al. (2014) scales) Corfee-Morlot et al. (2011) Lehmann et al. (2015) Termeer et al. (2012) Ellenwood et al. (2012) Lonsdale et al (2017) Thaler et al. (2019) Frantzeskaki and Tilie (2014) Measham et al. (2011) Urwin and Jordan (2008) Path dependency fear of the Abel et al. (2011) Corfee-Morlot et al. (2011) Næss et al. (2005) unknown framing and Barnett et al. (2015), Jones (2010) Runhaar et al. (2012) problematization of climate Burch (2010a) Kabisch et al. (2016) Shackleton et al. (2015) issues as traditional Burch and Robinson (2007) Lonsdale et al (2017) Thaler et al. (2019) environmental problems Chhetri et al. (2010)

Source: Compiled by Author (2019).

* This is not to be construed as an exhaustive collection of all the literature materials on the institutional to CCIs. ** In the compilation, no distinction is made between barriers to climate change mitigation and adaptation. *** The wording of the specific issues is based on the author’s interpretations of the various references.

2.5.1 Institutional Barriers

In this section, the chapter tackles the specificity of barriers to CCIs from the institutional perspective. Table 2.5 summarizes some broad categorizations of climate change barriers and studies that provide insights into these barriers. Aylett (2015) discusses these barriers within the context of urban governance. — akin to many other studies that explore the role and challenges of urban authorities in planning for and implementing climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts (Ziervogel, 2017; Aylett, 2015; Abel et al., 2011; Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011;

Amundsen, 2010). To achieve climate change goals depends on available resources to implement

CCIs including human information and finance that require coordination. Eisenack and Stecker

(2012) explain that the resource challenge for planning and implementing CCIs stems from the fact that stakeholders lack the required information to plan for climate change impacts, lack financial resources to implement the plan, and lack the human capacity to utilize existing incentives and opportunities. This broad configuration of climate change-resource interface operates within institutional environments that are characterized by formal and informal rules and socio-political interactions (Lehmann et al., 2015). For this reason, it is imperative that CCIs are effectively coordinated.

The availability of staff or human resource is not enough. They must have adequate knowledge and expertise in climate change issues and the capacity to act (Nelson, 2013; O’Brien and Wolf, 2010). When decision makers, urban planners, and development stakeholders have limited knowledge of climate change issues, it makes their mainstreaming or integration into development difficult or absent (Leal Filho et al., 2016). These staffs are segmented or distributed across different departments making the planning and implementation of CCIs difficult. As Aylett notes, the “institutional home for climate change staff also varies, with the most common location

for staff tasked with the climate portfolio being the bureau or department responsible for environmental issues” (2015: 9). This creates a challenge where the staff working on climate change issues work within the limits of their departmental or sectoral silos, making the coordination of CCIs and the agencies or staff involved difficult.

In addition, poor coordination results in poor information sharing and flow across and between different departments and governance hierarchies (Lehmann et al., 2015). Since CCIs often transcend jurisdictional boundaries, they require “serious consideration and commitment” to coordination and collaboration (Tang et al., 2010: 42). In some instances, ambiguity about the source of authority to act to achieve climate change goals presents challenges as these goals may differ among implementing agencies. This may hinder progress to tackle climate change impacts

(Bulkeley, 2013; Moser et al., 2012; Sharp et al., 2011; Moser et al., 2010) across different governmental jurisdictions or among local government agencies (Hughes, 2015; Aylett, 2014).

Without a clear articulation of roles and coordination of activities, CCIs may not be implemented or achieve expected goals. Consequently, through political negotiation, inter-municipal cooperation, and regional planning, coordination challenges can be navigated (Swanstrom, 2001).

Furthermore, the predominance of staff working on climate change in environmental departments have the tendency of construing CCIs as efforts to address only environmental problems and not development problems; thus, limiting its co-benefit and sustainable development potentials. Different departments also interpret or define mitigation and adaptation differently and this affects how CCIs are planned (Hansen et al., 2015; Frantzeskaki and Tillie, 2014; Naumann et al., 2011)— although this may also be due to ignorance (Thaler et al., 2019; Huh et al., 2017;

Lonsdale et al., 2017; Nordgren et al., 2016; Kemp et al., 2015; Lehmann et al., 2013; Archie et al., 2012; Runhaar et al., 2012; Biesbroek et al., 2011; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011; Amundsen et

al., 2010; Burch, 2010a; Jantarasami et al., 2010). Since many local governments do not have the human capital to work on climate change issues (Bryan et al., 2009; Kabubo-Mariara, 2009) and lack the necessary climate information and data, departments expected to lead the planning of CCIs are not able to utilize available knowledge from the scientific community to inform their efforts.

Unfortunately, this has contributed to the uncertainty and ambiguity about climate change issues

(Dessai et al., 2007; Sarewitz, 2004). Additionally, these departments have not been able to properly problematize climate change issues (Hammill and Tanner, 2011; Deressa et al., 2009) thereby deepening the gap between science and policy (Hansen et al., 2015; Frantzeskaki and Tilie,

2014; Spruijt et al., 2014; Moser, 2010). These, unfortunately, create another layer of institutional barriers in the fight against climate change impacts.

While the climate change literature argues for an increased role of local governance and governments in the fight against climate change impacts, Bulkeley and Kern (2006) observe that this effort will depend on overcoming challenges of securing financial resources. This will enable local governments to self-govern and create enabling environments for other agents to participate in climate governance. The challenge exists because of the dissonance between short-term development goals— that politicians prioritize as they coincide with their administrative cycles of political authorities— and long-term goals and planning cycles, which often are typical of CCIs

(Hughes, 2017; Kabisch et al., 2016; Roberts, 2010). Other reasons include differences in the time scales of climate goals compared to other development goals and the intangible nature of climate goals that makes it difficult to attain political support for CCIs (Lehmann et al., 2015; Eisenack and Stecker, 2012; Hardoy and Lankao, 2011). As a result, CCIs do not receive adequate financial attention compared to other development priorities such as housing, transportation, and economic development (Roberts and O’Donoghue, 2013). Efforts to tackle climate change impacts often fail

due to “basic institutional and resource challenges … and not factors such as lack of access to new technologies and more sophisticated data sets” (Roberts, 2010: 412). This makes financial resources a fundamental requirement for efforts to tackle climate change impacts.

It is thus not surprising that climate finance remains central to climate change discussions as it provides understanding as to how funds for climate change is being mobilized and distributed.

The attainment of global, national, and subnational climate change goals depends heavily on the availability of finance for planning and implementing CCIs (UNFCCC, 2011a; UNFCCC, 2011b;

UNFCCC, 2009). For developing countries and countries in Africa, development finance is already a challenge. Climate change impacts pose another layer to this challenge by increasing the development needs that require funding. Hence, in countries at risk of and vulnerable to climate change, climate finance is vital in enabling them to deal with this immense challenge. Put differently, “climate finance aims at reducing emissions, and enhancing sinks of greenhouse gases and aims at reducing the vulnerability of, and maintaining and increasing the resilience of, human and ecological systems to negative climate change impacts” (UNFCCC, 2014; 5). Climate finance can also enable national and sub-national agencies to effectively mainstream and implement CCIs

(Pickering et al., 2017).

The United Nations Environmental Program observes that climate finance is central in many international financing agreements on the environment (UNEP, 2012). Currently, there are general funds like the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, the Special Climate

Change Fund, and the Least Developed Countries Fund (UNFCCC, 2016; Abbott and Gartner,

2011). There are also dedicated funds for various broad framings of climate change such as adaptation (Persson and Remling, 2014; Stadelmann et al., 2014) and mitigation. These take the form of both bilateral and multilateral agreements (Pickering et al., 2017). As resilience has

become another dominant framing, there are also dedicated financing arrangement for it such as the US$1.3 billion multi-donor Climate Investment Fund. This fund supports the implementation of the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience. There is also an increasing role of the private sector in climate finance, globally (McNicoll et al., 2017; Pauw, 2017; Pauw et al., 2016; Stadelmann et al., 2013). To access climate finance at the international level depends on the framing of various

CCIs (Käkönen et al., 2014). Some challenges exist and Bak et al. (2017) that the success of CCIs will depend on the quantity and type of climate finance. Even more challenging is ensuring that available climate finance can effectively match the scale and magnitude of climate change impacts

(Miller, 2008). Since developed countries have committed to increasing climate finance flows to

US$ 100 billion per year by 2020, it is anticipated that this will help those countries at risk and vulnerable to climate change impacts have the capacity to act (UNFCCC, 2014). Furthermore, national and local authorities are better placed to integrate climate change with development goals as this is a viable way to ensure that climate finance funnels through to the local level to tackle climate change impacts (Stewart et al., 2009; Miller, 2008).

Consequently, the absence of climate finance at any level of decision making is a huge barrier to attaining climate change goals (Thaler et al., 2019; Huh et al., 2017; Lonsdale et al.,

2017; Nordgren et al., 2016; Aylett, 2015; Hughes, 2015; IPCC, 2014; Bulkeley, 2013; Roberts and O’Donoghue, 2013; Simon, 2011; Biesbroek et al., 2011; Mees and Driessen, 2011; Burch,

2010a; Moser et al., 2010; Hallegatte, 2009; Kabubo-Mariara, 2009; Urwin and Jordan, 2008;

IPCC, 2007; Koch et al., 2007; Satterthwaite et al., 2007; Arnell and Delaney, 2006; Berkhout et al., 2006; Bulkeley and Kein, 2006; Næss et al., 2005). For instance, in discussing climate change mitigation, Hughes (2017: 372) concludes that “the most straightforward political entry point is produced by the fact that reducing GHG emissions, on the whole, costs money. While efficiency

gains can reduce energy and transportation costs, new revenue streams must be identified, or existing revenue redirected, to fund the programs and investments needed to reduce GHG emissions.” Consequently, local governments will need to identify the different ways to fund efforts to confront climate change impacts, either by restructuring existing development financing arrangements or identifying new funding sources (Hughes, 2015; Wheeler, 2008).

In other instances, policy and institutional rigidities can affect CCIs because many urban authorities treat CCIs as part of traditional government functions. This can be challenging because climate change poses risks and vulnerabilities that traditional urban planning and policy frameworks may not be able to address (Burch, 2010a; Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Smit and Wandel,

2006; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). This in effect leads to institutional inertia or path dependency and prevents local government authorities from deducing new and innovative ways to confront climate change impacts (Thaler et al., 2019; Barnett et al., 2015; Shackleton et al., 2015;

Abel et al., 2011; Chhetri et al., 2010; Jones, 2010). Studies reveal that bureaucratic rigidities and path dependency create restrictive governance arrangements (Amundsen et al., 2010) for confronting climate change impacts— thus many local government agencies are not able to determine the pathways to facilitate and evaluate co-benefits potentials of their interventions (Doll et al., 2013). Institutional inertia or path dependency is thus an indication of a “lack of capacity in different government bodies” (Jiang et al., 2013). Another barrier is an absence of a clear vision at the local level on climate change concerns (Doll et al., 2013) often due to a lack of or self- interested leadership (Moser et al., 2012; Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011). Such absence means that the guidelines and principles for implementing mitigation, adaption, and sustainable development would be absent and the opportunities for their implementation will not be addressed

(Pelling, 2011; Burch, 2010a; Moser et al., 2010; O’Brien and Wolf, 2010; Hallegatte, 2009).

2.5.2 Socio-Cultural Barriers

According to the IPCC (2014: 26), “the social acceptability and/or effectiveness of climate policies are inﬂuenced by the extent to which they incentivize or depend on regionally appropriate changes in lifestyles or behaviors. Inertia in many aspects of the socio-economic system constrains adaptation and mitigation options.” The Panel adds that “underestimating the complexity of adaptation as a social process can create unrealistic expectations about achieving intended adaptation outcomes.” Eriksen et al. (2015: 526) and Hulme (2010), concur with the IPCC, and argue that the social dynamics — in the form of “informal and formal institutions, learning, diverse local values and negotiation of interests”— of climate change impacts and the vulnerability it induces are crucial for navigating the political aspects of climate change in the form of what decisions and actions are taken. This is critical for traversing the dominance of climate change knowledge produced by the global north and to mainstream community dynamics, interests and values in the problematization and formulation of efforts to tackle climate change impacts (Eriksen et al., 2015).

The social acceptability of climate change depends in part on the level of awareness by the public. Residents often have the perception that climate change impacts are in the distant future and thus do not merit priority in immediate development interventions (Van Boven et al., 2018a;

Van Boven et al., 2018b; Wolf et al., 2010). As indicated in the previous section, these perceptions are also held by administrative decision-makers who sometimes do not appreciate the magnitude of climate change impacts. In other instances, the acceptability of climate change as a challenge is related to demographic factors. Across different cities, the more educated and wealthier a person is, the more likely the person may be interested in climate change issues and likely to induce its social acceptability (Adger and Vincent, 2005). This raises concerns of the roles that inequality,

justice, and fairness play in climate change discourse and requires an in-depth exploration of not merely what these issues are but how they affect the capacity of residents to respond to their climate change risks and vulnerabilities (Mahony, 2014; Taylor, 2013).

Stakeholder participation is also crucial in ensuring that climate change issues are accepted by residents and different social groups (Ribot, 2010). Eakin and Appendini (2008) explain that different social groups have different development visions and priorities. This dissonance can cause climate change goals to take a low priority in the development processes if such interests are not factored into the planning processes. Again, it can prevent local government agencies from benefiting from the opportunities that these groups, especially those vulnerable to and at risk of climate impacts, can offer when planning for CCIs. To Manuel-Navarrete (2013), this is critical for co-production of climate change knowledge and efforts that can help contextualize climate action to the vulnerabilities of residents and groups and make them responsive and effective.

Additionally, involving different groups in the planning of CCIs ensures that there are not treated merely as victims but as active agents capable of developing their capacities to tackle climate change impacts. Table 2.6 provides a summary of the socio-cultural barriers to urban greenspace planning and some studies associated with such barriers.

Table 2.6: Selection of Literature on the Socio-Cultural Barriers to Efforts to Tackle Climate Change Impacts Specific Issue (s) Literature Sources Futuristic nature of climate Adger et al. (2007) Leiserowitz (2005) Shackleton et al. (2015) change impacts hopelessness and Adger et al. (2009a) Lorenzoni and Pidgeon (2006) Van Boven et al (2018a) helpless to act against action Adger et al. (2009b) Lorenzoni et al. (2007) Van Boven et al. (2018b) Perceived insignificance of Aylett (2015) Ockwell et al. (2009) Wolf et al. (2010) individual actions Gifford and Chen (2017) Semenza et al (2008) Unwillingness to change behaviors Adger et al. (2009a) Lorenzoni et al. (2007) Pelling (2011) and attitudes attributing causes of Adger et al. (2009b) Matthews et al. (2015) Shackleton et al. (2015) and responsibility for climate Byne and Jinjun (2009) O’Brien (2005) Steg et al. (2001) change to other agents Gifford and Chen (2017) Ockwell et al. (2009) Wolf et al. (2010). Jones and Boyd (2011) Lack of social acceptability and Adger et al. (2009b) Jones and Boyd (2011) O’Brien et al. (2006) support Negative perceptions of Adger et al. (2009a) Koch et al. (2007) Semenza et al. (2008) climate change impacts Blake (1999) Lehmann et al. (2015) Spires and Shackleton (2018) (disinterest since climate change Byne and Jinjun (2009) Leiserowitz (2006) Stoll-Kleemann et al. (2001) impacts are long-term) uncertainty Dow et al. (2013) Lonsdale et al (2017) Swim et al. (2009) and skepticism about climate Esteve et al. (2018) Lorenzoni and Pidgeon (2006) Van Boven et al (2018a) change denial of climate change Gifford (2012) Lorenzoni et al. (2005) Van Boven et al (2018b) Gifford and Chen (2017) Lorenzoni et al. (2007) Vulturius and Swartling (2015) Huh et al. (2017) Matthews et al. (2015) Wolf et al. (2010) Demographic factors including Adger and Vincent (2005) Krause (2011a) Shackleton et al. (2015) poverty, wealth and education Gifford (2011) Krause (2011b) Sharp et al. (2011) relationships with climate change Gifford and Chen (2017) Krause (2012) Swim et al. (2009) action Huh et al. (2017) Semenza et al. (2008) Zahran et al. (2008).

Table 2.6: Selection of Literature on the Socio-Cultural Barriers to Efforts to Tackle Climate Change Impacts (Continued)

Specific Issue (s) Literature Sources Dissonance in interests and Bisaro and Hinkel (2016) Gifford (2011) Ockwell et al. (2009) priorities of different social Byne and Jinjun (2009) Gifford and Chen (2017) Poortinga and Pidgeon (2003) groups. Low priority of climate Eakin and Appendin (2008) Hinkel et al. (2018) Shackleton et al. (2015) change among people's needs Esteve et al. (2018) Lata and Nunn (2012) Thaler et al. (2019) Evans et al. (2016) Lorenzoni et al. (2007) Van Boven et al (2018a) Geiger and Swim (2016) Matthews et al. (2015) Van Boven et al (2018b) Participation of different social Bisaro and Hinkel (2016) Gifford (2011) Manuel-Navarrete (2013) groups perceived lack of action by Carlsson and Sandström (2008) Gifford and Chen (2017) Ockwell et al. (2009) other actors such as business and Esteve et al. (2018) Lorenzoni et al. (2007) Shackleton et al. (2015). politicians Evans et al. (2016) Low level of public awareness of Adger et al. (2009a) Lata and Nunn (2012) Semenza et al (2008) climate change issues, Lack of Adger et al. (2009b) Lehmann et al (2015) Shackleton et al. (2015) information Evans et al. (2016) Lorenzoni and Pidgeon (2006) Spires and Shackleton (2018) Geiger and Swim (2016) Lorenzoni et al. (2007) Thaler et al. (2019) Gifford (2011) Ockwell et al. (2009) Wolf et al. (2010) Gifford and Chen (2017) Low level of trust for community Blake (1999) Jones (2010) Semenza et al (2008) members and politicians to act on Gifford (2011) Jones and Boyd (2011) Shackleton et al. (2015) climate change, low level of trust Gifford and Chen (2017) Lorenzoni et al. (2007) Van Boven et al (2018a) for climate change information Hinchliffe (1996) Ockwell et al. (2009) Van Boven et al (2018b) Inadequate resources to act Evans et al. (2016) Lorenzoni et al. (2007) Shackleton et al. (2015) (finance, time) Gifford (2011) Ockwell et al. (2009) Swim et al. (2009). Gifford and Chen (2017) Semenza et al (2008)

Table 2.6: Selection of Literature on the Socio-Cultural Barriers to Efforts to Tackle Climate Change Impacts (Continued)

Specific Issue (s) Literature Sources Social identity, social status, and Adger et al. (2007) Huh et al. (2017) Nielsen and Reenberg (2009) the structure of social existence Adger et al. (2009a) IPCC (2001) Ockwell et al. (2009) around climate change causing Adger et al. (2009b) IPCC (2007b) Robledo et al. (2004) agents (social norms and values) Bisaro and Hinkel (2016) IPCC (2014) Semenza et al (2008) informal institutions and Brooks and Adger (2004) Jones (2010) Shackleton et al. (2015) opportunities for social learning Coulthard (2008) Koch et al. (2007) Swim et al. (2009) and collective action Eriksen et al. (2015) Lata and Nunn (2012) Thaler et al. (2019) Evans et al. (2016) Lorenzoni et al. (2007) Tompkins (2005) Ford et al. (2006) Næss et al. (2005) Wolf (2013) Gifford (2011) Wolf et al. (2010). Gifford and Chen (2017) Source: Compiled by Author.

* This is not to be construed as an exhaustive collection of all the literature materials on the socio-cultural barriers to CCIs. ** In the compilation, no distinction is made between barriers to climate change mitigation and adaptation. *** The wording of the specific issues is based on the author’s interpretations of the various references.

2.6 Conclusion

This chapter has revealed the different pathways to confront climate change impacts either through mitigation, adaptation, and resilience. However, the success of any climate action is dependent on efforts that are integrated or multidimensional in nature—that is mainstreaming all three aspects into climate action. This is important because stand-alone plans have the potential of inducing maladaptation compared to integrated climate action plans (Tapan and Khirfan, 2017). Hence, it is imperative that co-benefit approaches and sustainable development approaches are made part of climate action planning, taking cognizance of the socio-economic contexts within which, these interventions are implemented (IPCC, 2014). The discussions on barriers to CCIs have also revealed several factors that can inhibit efforts thus knowledge and understanding is key (Tapan and Khirfan, 2017). For many parts of the world, Hunt and Watkiss (2011) observed that information about climate change impacts— that is, who is at risk and vulnerable, and how to intervene— are often inadequate, poor and unavailable. This creates uncertainty, dissonance, and disinterest in climate action (Hallegatte, 2009). Many urban areas lack plans or initiatives on either adaptation, mitigation or both. Where they exist, there are challenges mainstreaming them into urban development initiatives (Revi et al. 2014; Hunt and Watkiss 2011). The chapter also showed how barriers to urban greenspace planning can affect progress towards achieving climate change goals. Overcoming these barriers requires understanding them further in terms of how they manifest in different contexts so that urban planners can intervene based on knowledge. Such discussion should not only focus on local level issues but also on how higher-level governance structures and decisions affect climate action at the local level (Ford et al., 2011)—including understanding factors such as the legal and policy environments of climate action (Roberts and

O’Donoghue, 2013), available finance, and departmental linkages and collaborations.

CHAPTER THREE CLIMATE CHANGE IN AFRICA 3.1 Introduction

The IPCC characterizes Africa as a continent highly vulnerable to climate change impacts (IPCC,

2014). The Panel projects that the continent will face increased exposure to climate change impacts due to its low capacity to deal with these impacts. Evidence points to changes in temperature and precipitation (rainfall) across different parts of the continent. On average, surface temperatures in different parts of the continent have increased by a minimum of 0.5°C (32.9°F) in the last 50 to

100 years (Nicholson et al., 2013; Rosenzweig et al., 2011). These increases in surface temperatures are projected to exceed global averages in the 21st century (James and Washington,

2013).

Although challenges exist with current data on changes in precipitation in Africa (Kim et al., 2014), available evidence suggests a likelihood of changes in rainfall pattern. For instance, there are observed and projected variability and reductions in rainfall in North Africa

(Barkhordarian et al., 2013), Eastern Africa (Lyon and DeWitt, 2012; Williams and Funk, 2011), the horn of Africa (Williams et al., 2012), Southern Africa (Kniveton et al., 2009; Hoerling et al.,

2006), and in tropical rainforest areas in West Africa (Malhi and Wright 2004).

Changes in temperature and precipitation are shaping climate change impacts in Africa

(Boko et al., 2007; Desanker et al., 2001; Zinyowera et al., 1997). For instance, Africa’s water resources and coastal zones remain highly sensitive to changes in climatic conditions (Zinyowera et al., 1997). This takes the form of sea-level rise, coastal erosion, and destruction to rivers and lakes as well as marine ecosystems (Niang, 2014). Furthermore, climate change impacts are increasing groundwater salinity and the availability of underground water in Africa (Dodman,

2008; Douglas et al. 2008). Other studies argue that climate change impacts will affect freshwater

ecosystems and increase pollution and sedimentation of water resources (Darwall et al., 2011;

Vörösmarty et al., 2005).

In addition to water resources, climate change will impact the productivity and production of agriculture, thereby threatening food security in Africa (Desanker et al., 2001). Projections by

Parry et al. (2004: 45) reveals that by the 2080s, about 80–120 million people in the world will be at risk of hunger and more than 70% of those people will be in Africa. Animal rearing is being affected (Freier et al., 2012; Schilling et al., 2012) while cash crops that provide the continent with foreign exchange are also being affected by climate change impacts. The suitability of crops such as coffee (Läderach et al., 2010), tea (Eitzinger et al., 2011), cashew (Läderach et al., 2011a), cotton (Läderach et al., 2011b), and cocoa (Läderach et al., 2013) are projected to be affected by climate change impacts; this has implication for the economic development of Africa, which depends on the export of such crops for foreign exchange earnings. Consequently, climate change threatens the economic capacity of African countries by eroding the foundations of their growth and development. Hoornweg (2011) argues that developing countries, including many countries in Africa, will accrue about 75% of the costs of damages caused by climate change leading to reductions in their GDP by 4% to 5%.

According to Hope (2011), climate change is also inducing rural-urban migration as changing rainfalls patterns and frequent droughts are making agriculture productivity in rural areas challenging, thus forcing rural farmers to migrate to urban areas to find alternative livelihoods.

Stress from climate change is, therefore, another factor inducing rural-urban migration in Africa

(Hope, 2011; Barrios et al., 2006), thus accelerating urbanization trends on the continent.

Furthermore, climate change impacts will disrupt natural resources and existing biodiversity, wildlife and terrestrial ecosystems, increase the vulnerabilities of human settlements

and infrastructure, intensify desertification in Africa, and heighten health risks by increasing vector and water-borne diseases (IPCC, 2014; Yuen and Kumssa, 2011; Desanker et al., 2001) such as cholera (Murray et al., 2012); malaria (Ermert et al., 2012; Parham et al., 2012), leishmaniasis

(Postigo, 2010), Rift Valley fever (Hightower et al., 2012), as well as tick- and rodent-borne diseases (Olwoch et al., 2007). Boko et al. (2007) also identify impacts on energy, tourism, and increased incidence of flooding. As a result, climate change impacts are posing significant threats to “sustainable development and growth … in Africa” (Hope, 2011: 37). Unfortunately, Africa is one of the continents characterized by countries with “lowest adaptive capacity” (Allison et al.,

2009: 185); this makes Africa highly vulnerable to climate change impacts.

For Africa’s urban areas, Mosha (2011) observes similar trends. The author identifies seven specific climate change impacts namely: sea-level rise, storm surges, and coastal erosion; earthquake and tsunamis; flooding and landslides; heat waves and increased heat-island effect; water scarcity and decreasing water quality; and decline in air quality. These are confirmed by the

IPCC (2014) and the UN-Habitat (2011) at the global level as they conclude that cities across the world are hotspots for climate change impacts and vulnerabilities.

3.2 Climate Change and Planning in Africa

In Africa, many of the efforts to confront climate change impacts have focused on community- based adaptation, according to Niang et al. (2014). While national and local government actions on climate change have been increasing gradually, efforts to deal with climate change impacts have predominantly been initiated and facilitated by international development agencies and non- governmental organizations who pilot their ideas as ways to offer learning opportunities in understanding community risks and vulnerabilities in addition to how communities cope with and

manage climate change impacts. For this reason, many studies have concluded that social capital plays in efforts to tackle climate change in Africa. These studies argue that many communities at risks of climate change impacts act collectively to reduce their vulnerabilities and build their capacities to confront impacts (Yaméogo et al., 2018; Paul et al., 2016; Pelling and High, 2005;

Adger, 2003). In the process, they develop social learning capacities that are used to further confront future impacts.

Many African countries have either began processes to prepare national mitigation and adaptation plans or have prepared one to guide efforts on climate change. For countries characterized as “least developed”, they prepare National Adaptation Programmes of Action

(NAPAs) or National Climate Change Response Strategies (NCCRS) with funding from the international development community. National Adaptation Plans resulted from the Cancun

Agreements at the 2010 Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, which called for increased attention to adaptation in addition to mitigation (UNFCCC, 2011a). This was a follow- up to the 2007 Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia, that addressed the findings from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. In the report, the panel articulated unambiguously that climate change impacts were real, evident, and need urgent action. The call for National

Adaptation Plans was thus critical because the Bali Action Plan that resulted from the conference focused predominantly on enhancing “national/international action on mitigation of climate change” (UNFCCC, 2008b: 3). There are also some pilot projects on resilience such as the

“Working with Informality to Build Resilience in African Cities” that offer cities the opportunity to promote resilience through an integrative framework that utilizes both adaptation and mitigation to tackle climate change challenges in Africa (Owusu-Daaku and Diko, 2018).

Studies on Africa reveal that even though the majority of CCIs focus on adaptation, the interventions are often narrow. This is because many of the national and local government plans and initiatives have disaster risk reduction as the goal (Sissoko et al., 2011). The predominant themes are agricultural productivity and production, food security, water resource management, reforestation and afforestation, and disaster management. Specifically, interventions have included changes in farming practices to overcome risks associated with climate change and variability such as using climate-resistant crop varieties (Laube et al., 2012; Yaro, 2010; Thomas et al., 2007), adopting irrigation practices to deal with prolonged droughts (Biazin et al., 2012) and conservation practices such as agroforestry, afforestation, and erosion management (Kassam et al., 2012).

Others have focused on awareness creation and education (Rector et al., 2013; Figueiredo and Perkins, 2013; Reid et al., 2010) along with developing the capacities of individuals, communities and national and local institutions (Pramova et al., 2012; Madzwamuse, 2010). In addition to these themes, Rector et al., (2013) note that some CCIs have focused on energy.

Lesotho (Rector et al., 2013) and Mali (Fröde et al., 2013) have also implemented cross-sectoral and integrated interventions on climate change. Furthermore, participatory processes that consider the socio-economic, cultural and environmental aspects of those experiencing climate change impacts have also been implemented (Jones, 2012; Huq, 2011; Tschakert and Dietrich, 2010;

Ziervogel and Opere, 2010). For instance, by considering the social and cultural aspects of those vulnerable and at risk of climate change impacts, CCIs in Africa have used local and traditional institutions to build the adaptive capacities of residents and communities. This has allowed planners to appreciate the role indigenous knowledge plays in residents’ efforts to tackle climate change impacts (Guthiga and Newsham, 2011; Ifejika Speranza et al., 2010; Mortimore, 2010).

However, while some efforts are being taken to deal with climate change impacts, challenges exist (Berrang-Ford et al., 2011; Ziervogel et al., 2008). These challenges are the focus of the subsequent section.

3.3 Barriers to Planning for Climate Change Interventions in Africa

Institutional barriers remain strong in the climate change literature on Africa. One of the major setbacks to CCIs in Africa is an absence of an effective framework to implement them. Several

CCIs are reactive and spontaneous. Because many of the interventions are on a pilot basis, they mostly offer lessons and not structural responses to climate change impacts in Africa. Niang et al.

(2014) explain that this has emerged in part because of the divergence between climate change policy and planning levels. Several studies point to a challenge in translating climate change policies at the national level to the local level (Musah-Surugu et al., 2018; Adu-Boateng, 2015).

Thus, even though some countries in Africa have prepared national mitigation and adaptation plans to confront climate change impacts, the institutional frameworks to implement CCIs in these plans are either absent and/or are not effectively coordinated.

In some cases, the interventions identified to confront climate change impacts are ambiguous, ineffective and inappropriate to tackle identified climate risks and vulnerabilities.

Studies also reveal that many of the interventions fail to mainstream cultural, traditional, and context-specific factors in the planning of CCIs thus interventions are often unresponsive, lack local acceptance and ownership, and often do not draw a link between CCIs, residents and community livelihoods, and the overall development needs of residents (Musah-Surugu et al.,

2018). One reason for this is a lack of participation by residents and community stakeholders in both the identification of climate risks and vulnerabilities as well as the formulation of local coping

and adaptive strategies to deal with climate change impacts (Chevallier, 2012; Bele et al., 2011).

In certain cases, this has led to maladaptation risks thereby deepening the vulnerabilities of residents and communities to climate change impacts (Magnan et al., 2016).

A major barrier to CCIs in Africa relates to the politics of climate change. Studies in South

Africa reveal, for instance, that climate action receives little attention and prioritization from political authorities (Chevallier, 2012; Toteng, 2012; Bele et al., 2011; Berrang-Ford et al., 2011;

Conway and Schipper, 2011; Madzwamuse, 2010). While some legislative and policy frameworks for adaptation exist in some Africa countries, they are normally fragmented. Due to this fragmentation, CCIs lack coherence and coordination among the various institutions that can play major roles in their implementation. This incoherence acts as a barrier, limiting the mainstreaming of CCIs into efforts at the local level. (Sonwa et al., 2012; Hisali et al., 2011; Kalame et al., 2011;

Stringer et al., 2009; Patt and Schröter, 2008). For example, unclear land tenure systems often lead to conflicts over natural resources in Africa which has made it difficult for many governments to implement ecosystems initiatives to confront climate change impacts (Robledo et al., 2012).

This thus brings to the fore the challenge of departmental silos that serve as barriers to climate action. In Africa, the evidence is that governance systems that are not adaptive, integrative and do not have multilevel governance framework for climate action entrench departmental silos in climate action planning and implementation. As a result, achieving effectiveness in responding to climate change impacts warrants traversing these systemic governance challenges by employing adaptive governance principles (Bunce et al., 2010a; Bunce et al., 2010b; Berkes, 2009; Koch et al., 2007). Furthermore, Ludi et al. (2012) observe that elite capture and corruption are institutional barriers to climate action planning in Africa. They add that many climate change institutions do

not have social roots and pay little attention to the technology needed for their outfits to remain effective in dealing with climate change impacts.

Another barrier is inadequate human resources that can provide insight into climate issues in Africa. This is thus one of the reasons why Africa has limited information on the manifestation of current climate change impacts as well as projected impacts (Brown et al., 2010; Ziervogel and

Zermoglio, 2009). In the absence of up-to-date and reliable climate change information, generating the needed and appropriate response to climate change impacts remains daunting (Ziervogel and

Zermoglio, 2009). It is thus not surprising to note that many of the interventions of climate actions in Africa have been on a pilot basis, with the goal of providing further insights as to what might or might not work for Africa.

At the social level, Ziervogel et al. (2008) find that demography can act as social barriers to climate action planning. Characteristics like income and wealth, gender, ethnicity, religion, class, caste, or profession can either facilitate the successful planning and implementation of climate actions or hinder progress in developing the adaptive capacities of residents and communities. Grothmann and Patt (2005) also draw attention to the fact that residents’ perception and mindsets can serve as barriers to climate change impacts. Studies in Mozambique (Artur and

Hilhorst, 2012; Patt and Schröter, 2008), Ethiopia and South Africa (Byran et al., 2009), Kenya

(Roncoli et al., 2010) and Zimbabwe and Zambia (Mubaya et al., 2012) confirm this. Interestingly, many residents conceive climate change impacts as a religious issue believing that it is an act of

God, due to ancestors, or witchcraft. Residents and communities thus fail to recognize people’s role in climate change which makes it difficult for them to accept interventions that will help them overcome their impacts (Hameso, 2018; Sanganyado et al., 2018; Codjoe et al., 2014; Bunce et al.,

2010a; Bunce et al., 2010b; Adelekan and Gbadegesin, 2005).

3.4 Conclusion

The literature review on Africa provides some overview of climate change impacts that the continent faces. It has discussed CCIs and its barriers in Africa. It notes that the dependence on natural resources in Africa contributes to the predominance of adaptation strategies, as these strategies aim to manage and sustain the benefits of natural resources. In terms of climate change awareness, studies reveal that some residents viewed themselves as having no control over climate change impacts as these were acts of God or due to ancestors. These different observations demonstrate the context specificity of climate change issues. Understanding these dimensions about climate should, therefore, inform the ways climate change impacts are confronted in different geographical contexts.

Indeed, climate change impacts present dire consequences for the development of Africa.

Effective planning can provide a mechanism to tackle these impacts. However, various challenges relating to regulatory frameworks for CCIs, clear policy directions, financial and human resources as well as effective coordination among departments planning for CCIs at the local level, constrain planning efforts. Owing to this, a proper understanding of the manifestations of these barriers in different geographic contexts can help to effectively plan for CCIs. Again, with CCIs in Africa being concentrated at the national level in the form of national adaptation and mitigations plans, understanding how these plans are integrated into local efforts to deal with climate change impacts is vital in their effectiveness. One of such CCIs is increasing the availability of greenspaces in urban areas. The next two chapters review the literature on urban greenspaces and their barriers.

CHAPTER FOUR A GLOBAL VIEW OF URBAN GREENSPACES AND GREENSPACE PLANNING 4.1 Introduction

In this century, where there are more people living in urban areas, human-environment interactions have been stressed in many ways. Urbanization is shaping changes in land use and land cover leading to stresses in human-environment interactions (Cilliers et al., 2013; Kestemont et al.,

2011). Cilliers et al. (2013) explain that rapid urbanization impacts the environment negatively.

Globally, these negative impacts are already manifesting in changes in land use, atmospheric composition, water cycles, and loss of biodiversity (IPCC, 2014; UN-Habitat, 2012; Kestemont et al., 2011). In Africa and Asia, the fastest urbanizing regions in the world, it is projected that the negative impacts of urbanization on the environment would increase, especially when the capacity to manage the process is often inadequate, non-existing, fantasized, and/or inappropriate (Watson,

2014; UN-Habitat, 2012; Roy, 2011; Cilliers et al., 2010).

Increase in urbanization often poses dilemmas for urban planners. For example, should urban planners promote pro-development or pro-environment approaches? Can the two approaches be promoted and what are the implications for residents’ wellbeing and the natural environment? In reality, many urban areas have implemented pro-development approaches

(Cilliers et al., 2010) and consequently, the environment has been negatively affected. Turner et al

(2004) and Miller (2005) observe an adverse relationship between urbanization and the natural environments. They argue that as urban areas grow and expand, the natural environment declines, depriving people of the ecosystem system services that it offers.

Yet urban areas are often the best avenues to attain both economic and environmental goals as well as meet the social needs of people (Cilliers and Timmermans, 2013; UN-Habitat, 2012;

Wu, 2008; van den Berg et al., 2007). From a global perspective, this chapter explores this potential by focusing on one natural-based urban amenity— urban greenspace— as it can help urban authorities attain economic, social, and environmental goals and improve human-environment interactions. Urban greenspace is an important amenity in urban areas and often the only natural space that connects urban residents to nature. They are characterized by social-ecological systems and values that impact residents’ urban experience and life (Green et al., 2016). This chapter examines its definition, importance, planning and how literature captures the factors that inhibit urban authorities from adequately providing for this urban amenity.

4.2 Defining Urban Greenspaces

Greenspaces are often treated with a measure of publicness, public ownership, and open access. It is thus a public space. Wendel et al. (2012) explain that greenspace is an outdoor urban amenity that is available to the public and has social, environmental and economic benefits to all those who use it as well as the community. It is a common concept used in urban planning often termed differently such as open space, urban greenery, urban vegetation, among others. Sandström et al.

(2006) note that urban greenspace is the sum of greenery or natural habitat in an urban area. They include parks, gardens, recreation venues, vacant lots, and brownfields (Gupta et al., 2012;

Kattwinkel et al., 2011; Harrison and Davies, 2002). They could be located within the city, along with water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and seafronts, adjacent to or around historical sites, or along with transportation networks such as roads, railway corridors, and trails, among others

(Gupta et al., 2012).

While these may exist in their natural form, urban greenspaces can be consciously planned, created or modified. For this reason, they are not merely natural habitats but also encompass

human-modified vegetated areas (Budruk et al., 2009). Recently, informal urban greenspaces have emerged in the greenspace literature to refer to natural areas or vegetative spaces that are not intentionally designed but have spontaneously sprung up in the urban landscape due to neglect and/or colonization of urban spaces by natural agents (Rupprecht and Byne, 2017; Rupprecht et al., 2015a; Rupprecht et al., 2015b; Rupprecht et al., 2014). As an urban infrastructure, it is construed as green infrastructure to incorporate the interconnectedness that exists between and among different urban green or natural areas. Furthermore, urban greenspaces can refer to the totality of the networks of natural areas at different spatial scales and including both natural, quasi- natural and/or human-modified landscapes (Pearlmutter et al., 2017; Etingoff, 2016; Firehock and

Walker, 2015; Austin, 2014; Tzoulas et al., 2007; Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Sandström,

2002).

4.3 Importance of Urban Greenspaces

The literature on urban greenspace identifies its benefits to be multidimensional. This multidimensionality has often been the underpinning strategy to convincing urban authorities of the need to provide urban greenspaces. The benefits are often tied to the ecosystem goods and services that urban greenspaces offer to urban residents as their availability, accessibility and attractiveness are considered integral to the urban quality of life (Van Herzele and Wiedemann,

2003). In the discussion that follows, the chapter explores the different benefits or importance of urban greenspaces.

4.3.1 Environmental Benefits

The environmental benefits of urban greenspaces are rooted in the provisioning and regulating services of ecosystems and their relationship with human wellbeing (Alcamo et al., 2003). This has played crucial roles in integrated sustainable urban development (Gupta et al., 2012). One of the roles of urban greenspaces is that it reduces pollution in urban areas (Alcamo et al., 2003).

Researchers argue that urban greenspaces absorb pollutants and clean the air through carbon sequestration as well as purify water and soils in urban areas (Pouyat et al., 2009; Nijkamp and

Leventa, 2004; Alcamo et al., 2003). They also protect urban areas from flooding (Zhang et al.,

2012; Alcamo et al., 2003). Through microclimate regulation, urban greenspaces also stop and reduce rising urban temperature (Declet-Barreto et al., 2013; Alcamo et al., 2003).

Aronson et al. (2017) argue that one of the significant contributions that urban greenspaces make to the environment is the ability to enhance an area’s biodiversity. Mortberg and Wallentinus

(2000) observed seven specialized forest bird species in urban greenspace corridors and concluded that the quality of a habitat is its ability to conserve biodiversity, which urban forests can achieve.

Different urban greenspace types can help urban areas protect and support certain species (Trimble and van Aarde, 2014), no matter how small the space may be or whether these greenspaces have been intentionally created to serve that purpose or not (Bigirimana et al., 2012; Lubbe et al. 2010;

Cumming and Wesolowska, 2004). Urban greenspaces create the environment for pollinators to function and support different tree species in urban areas (Frankie et al., 2009; Matteson et al.,

2008; Alcamo et al., 2003). They also enrich and help native species flourish (Cornelis and Hermy,

2004). All of these environmental benefits contribute to the resilience of urban areas and help to enhance their ecological systems (Colding, 2012).

4.3.2 Social Benefits

A social benefit of urban greenspaces is that they contribute to improving residents’ health in urban areas. The social and health benefits of urban greenspaces in the form of parks was inspired by

Fredrick Law Olmsted (1822-1903) who advocated for public access to natural spaces and experiences (Martin, 2011; Zaitzevsky, 1982; Fein, 1972; Mitchell, 1924; Olmsted and Hubbard,

1922). Olmsted argued that:

It is a scientific fact that the occasional contemplation of natural scenes of an impressive character, particularly if this contemplation occurs in connection with relief from ordinary cares, change of air and change of habits, is favorable to the health and vigor of men and especially to the health and vigor of their intellect beyond any other conditions which can be offered them, that it not only gives pleasure for the time being but increases the subsequent capacity for happiness and the means of securing happiness. The want of such occasional recreation where men and women are habitually pressed by their business or household cares often results in a class of disorders the characteristic quality of which is mental disability, sometimes taking the severe forms of softening of the brain, paralysis, palsey, monomania, or insanity, but more frequently of mental and nervous excitability, moroseness, melancholy, or irascibility, incapacitating the subject for the proper exercise of the intellectual and moral forces. (Frederick Law Olmsted, 1993: online)

Olmsted argues further:

If we analyze the operations of scenes of beauty upon the mind, and consider the intimate relation of the mind upon the nervous system and the whole physical economy, the action and reaction which constantly occur between bodily and mental conditions, the reinvigoration which results from such scenes is readily comprehended... The enjoyment of scenery employs the mind without fatigue and yet exercises it; tranquilizes it and yet enlivens it; and thus, through the influence of the mind over the body gives the effect of refreshing rest and reinvigoration to the whole system (Frederick Law Olmsted, 1993: online)

Studies on urban greenspaces have confirmed Olmsted’s observations and provide evidence of how urban greenspaces help people recuperate from their physical and mental stresses

(Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2010; Alcamo et al., 2003). They, therefore, enable residents to find an escape from the stresses and pressures of urban living (Maller, et al., 2006; Olmsted and Hubbard,

1922). Some studies also reveal that urban greenspaces provide children with the physical space to play, learn and develop their mental and physical abilities. Hence, they do not only contribute to adults’ physical and mental development but to those of children too (Bowler et al., 2010).

Some residents reveal that urban greenspaces help them feel safe. (Maas et al., 2009; Troy and Grove, 2008; Kuo, 2003). Others point to the role of street trees in reducing crime and making neighborhoods walkable (Wolf, 2005), while for some urban community parks and gardens enable them to perpetuate a sense of community and cohesion (Peters et al., 2010; Seeland and

Dübendorfer, 2009). In blighted communities and neighborhoods, turning vacant lots into greenspaces such as gardens and farms has increased residents’ feelings of safety, enhanced community cohesion, and helped minimize crime (Garvin et al., 2013; Branas et al., 2011). And by improving the aesthetic value of communities, residents’ connection and attachments to their community or neighborhood have improved (Cilliers et al., 2010). Additionally, they encourage social interaction and serve as cultural and historic centers for communities (Cilliers and

Timmermans, 2013).

In the form of urban farms and gardens, urban greenspaces have also contributed to reducing hunger and promoting healthy eating lifestyles. Typically, urban agriculture has enabled many neighborhoods to change vacant lots to productive spaces for food production (Corrigan,

2011). This has increased the availability of and accessibility to residents to healthy food for residents and helped reduce obesity (Morland et al., 2002).

4.3.3 Economic Benefits

The economic benefits of urban greenspaces have often been situated within the context of its monetary value to people, property and the urban communities. Cilliers and Timmermans (2013)

explain that this has been one way to justify the benefits of urban greenspace investments to urban authorities. They explain further that such monetary value could be in terms of the direct and indirect financial gains from urban greenspaces. For instance, urban greenspaces can increase the property values of residents (Parent and vom Hofe, 2013; Brander and Koetse, 2011; Jim and

Chen, 2009; Kong et al., 2007). This is frequently measured in terms of the proximity of properties to urban greenspaces such as parks, trails, and golf courses (Parent and vom Hofe, 2013).

Thus, the closer an urban greenspace is to a house, studies reveal that the higher the likelihood of economic benefits such as higher sales price or value (Parent and vom Hofe, 2013;

Anderson and West 2006; Bolitzer and Netusil, 2000). In some studies, such as Woolley et al.

(2003), the economic benefits of urban greenspaces related to the willingness of residents to pay higher prices for a residential property close to urban greenspaces. In other instances, the economic benefits of urban greenspaces have been justified based on the cost-effectiveness of using them as urban infrastructure to control stormwater and the resulting savings that cities make (Kertesz et al., 2014; Benedict and McMahon, 2006). These cost savings accrue to energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and water treatment costs (Cilliers 2010; Benedict and McMahon, 2006).

Greenspaces also improve the image of places and help to encourage retail and attract tourists. It creates an environment that encourages worker productivity (Woolley et al., 2003).

These end up as improved tax returns on properties of urban areas thus helping to improve their financial capacity (Cilliers, 2010). Consequently, an urban area that can boast of a significant amount of urban greenspace can position itself as a livable city with a high quality of life. This makes it competitive as well as marketable (World Bank, 2007; Jim, 2004).

4.3.4 Cultural Benefits

Culturally, urban greenspaces are valued for their recreational functions (Chen and Jim, 2008;

Florgård and Forsberg, 2006; Alcamo et al., 2003) as they provide places for urban residents to relax, engage in recreational activities such as sports, theatre, and music performances, festivals, and opportunities for tourism where the heritage and history of neighborhoods and communities can be communicated (Majumdar et al., 2011; Deng et al., 2010; Chiesura, 2004). Urban greenspaces are public spaces that allow for different people to coexist and share the urban experience (Berney, 2010; Gaffikin et al., 2010). They, therefore, provide an avenue for diversity, inclusion and cultural exchange for everyone to enjoy no matter the race, ethnicity, income, gender, age, or origin; they are spaces for everyone (Wendel et al., 2012).

Unfortunately, many urban residents may not get to enjoy these benefits because of ineffective or unresponsive planning that does not engender urban greenspace provision (Miller,

2005; Miller and Hobbs, 2002). It is from this context that the next section is introduced. It examines the various ways of planning for urban greenspaces to help urban residents appreciate and draw closer to nature, as well as benefit from the various ecosystem services they offer.

This is important because there is a growing threat to greenspaces in urban areas, particularly in places where urbanization is rampant. This threat is quickly eroding the benefits that society can gain from urban greenspaces. However, some scholars argue that urban areas have the potential to support biodiversity and sustain social, economic and environmental goals

(Kabisch, 2015; Haase et al., 2013; UN-Habitat, 2012; Goddard et al., 2010). But this can only be attained if urban planning ensures that urban greenspaces are provided, protected and improved.

4.4 Urban Greenspace Planning

According to Cilliers and Timmermans (2013), greenspace planning can help urban areas improve the benefits that greenspaces provide. Global development agenda such as the United Nations SDG and the IPCC call for natural-based strategies to promote urban sustainability, especially with an increase in climate change impacts such as flooding and rising urban temperatures due to the increases in impervious surfaces (United Nations General Assembly, 2015; IPCC, 2014). In rapid urbanizing regions such as Africa and Asia, where urban planning capacities are weak while climate change impacts are expected to be severe, the need and potential for urban greenspaces are crucial (IPCC, 2014; Trimble and van Aarde, 2014; UN-Habitat, 2012). They particularly identify the role that human-modified greenspace such as community parks, gardens, and golf courses, among, can play in enhancing ecosystem services.

For example, the United Nations’ SDG, a global development agenda, has put forward 17 goals that United Nations member nations are expected to attain by 2030. These goals seek to promote sustainable development through poverty reduction, economic prosperity, human development, and climate action. Goal 11 of the SDG is “Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” with 11 targets. Sustainable urban planning (UN-Habitat, 2012), which emphasizes urban greenspace planning is evident in three of these targets. These are:

Target 3: “By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.” Target 7: “By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities.” Target 8: Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning.” (United Nations General Assembly, 2015)

The IPCC (2014) also encourages urban authorities to plan for urban greenspaces as part of the strategies to manage the impacts of climate change. Greenspaces are also considered an aspect of planning for a prosperous city (UN-Habitat, 2012). Planning for cities, therefore, means that urban planning “values the protection of the urban environment and natural assets while ensuring growth, and seeking ways to use energy more efficiently, minimize pressure on surrounding land and natural resources, minimize environmental losses by generating creative solutions to enhance the quality of the environment” (UN-Habitat, 2012: 14).

However, this would be dependent on urban planners’ capacity to understand the benefits of urban greenspaces and how to harness them for their residents through their urban or spatial plans. Since Kabisch and Haase (2013: 113) define urban greenspaces as “any vegetation found in the urban environment, including parks, open spaces, residential gardens, or street trees,” urban greenspace planning can be explained as a conscious or intentional process to increase and improve the vegetation in an urban area. This involves determining the quantity, quality, accessibility, and connectivity of vegetative areas through site selection, mainstreaming of ecological services and traversing implementation and management barriers (Li et al., 2015; Govindarajulu, 2014). In determining the quantity of greenspaces, planners consider urban residents’ desires and greenspace requirements by law such as through planning standards (Boulton et al., 2018; La Rosa, 2014;

Chiesura, 2004). To determine the quality of greenspaces, planners focus on their social and ecological functions in urban areas (Douglas et al., 2017; Rigolon, 2016; Tian et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011; Li et al., 2005). Furthermore, planners consider residents’ utilization and accessibility of greenspaces (Fan et al., 2017; Rigolon, 2016; Reyes et al., 2014; Pham et al. 2012; Wendel et al., 2012). Indeed, urban greenspace planning is critical as it “epitomizes good planning and management, a healthy environment for humans, vegetation and wildlife populations, and bestows

pride on its citizenry and government” (Jim, 2004: 311). The onus rests on urban authorities especially when greenspaces and the ecosystem services they offer can be negatively affected settlements are urbanizing and densifying (Haaland et al., 2015; Li et al., 2015; Fuller and Gaston,

2009; Jim, 2004). To plan for urban greenspaces, different researchers have offered different frameworks; these are explained in the subsequent paragraphs.

Contextualizing urban greenspace planning as a governance issue, Green et al. (2016: 77) note that the planning and management of urban greenspace is a continuous process of “social- ecological transformation.” From an adaptive governance perspective, they argue that the complexity and uncertainty associated with urban problems in post-industrial North American cities—those experiencing population decline or shrinkage, decline in industrial economy, increase in vacant lots, urban blight, etc.— demand an urban greenspace planning and management structure that can adjust to changing urban conditions, integrate different but interconnected urban problems, be flexible to different challenges, builds a network of formal and informal institutions and stakeholders and offer innovations in how to plan and manage urban greenspaces to optimize its ecosystem services. This approach is collaborative in nature and encourages public participation and engagement that allows each actor to appreciate their contribution to the decision-making process (Cosens, 2013). Such complexity and uncertainty are apparent in urban areas in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Thus, an adaptive governance in urban greenspace planning can enable urban areas and regions to address dynamic and complex socio-ecological issues including rapid population growth, inadequate urban finance, increased informality and slums, poor sanitation, low access to social services such as healthcare, education, and water, traffic congestions, and unemployment

(Green et al., 2016). Through an adaptive governance approach, urban authorities can encourage

experimentation with new strategies to find ways to deal with declining urban greenspaces associated with rapid urbanization and build the capacity of institutions, residents, and communities to contribute to and support greenspace initiatives.

Specifically, the adaptive governance approach for greenspace planning involves the modification and design of urban greenspaces based on linking different areas and corridors of the natural environment in urban areas through a flexible process that can adapt to short, medium, and long-term redevelopment opportunities. Presenting this framework within cities undergoing shrinkage and having vacant lots, Green et al. (2016), notes that cities need to be proactive and flexible to take advantage of vacant lots for developing greenspaces. At the same time, urban authorities will need to understand the complexity of planting trees in public spaces, its implications for zoning, infrastructure conflicts, cost of maintenance, and disservices such as allergens and public safety. This is because these factors present limitations on the nature of greenspaces such as its size, shape, and distribution. Subsequently, obtaining the benefits of urban greenspaces mean that they must be functional, of good quality and adequate quantity, and be connected both at the urban and regional scale (Benedict and McMahon, 2006).

Another aspect of the adaptive governance approach is its ability to deal with inadequate information in the urban greenspace planning process. It provides a learning structure that enables urban planners to gather information across different actors through conscious monitoring and feedback mechanisms during implementation. It also uses scientific understandings associated with greenspaces to enhance their functionality and performance (Green et al., 2016). Thus, the system adapts and is flexible to information that it gathers on socio-ecological issues (Huitema et al., 2009; Karkkainen, 2003). According to Karkkainen (2003), the adaptive governance approach is underpinned by principles such as initial scientific testing and prediction, designing testable

hypotheses; verifying, monitoring and evaluating tested hypothesis; and using findings to inform and manage new interventions.

Sandström et al. (2006: 386) also argue that any “successful [urban] green planning requires simultaneous consideration of ecological, cultural, demographic, sociological and physical aspects of the urban landscape.” They argue that planners need to have a clear understanding of biodiversity and be able to use their understanding effectively to plan at different spatial levels and across different departments and organizations in an interactive learning process.

Key to these understanding are issues of habitats, species, patterns, processes, and techniques for using their knowledge of biodiversity.

In their research of six large cities in Sweden, they observed that urban greenspace planning comprises strategic planning, tactical planning, and operational planning. Strategic planning focuses on deciding on the long-term urban greenspace goals for an urban area while tactical planning involves decisions about how to attain the strategic long-term goals. Here, urban planners decide on different alternatives to determine which one will best help the city attain the strategic goals. Operational planning involves the implementation of selected alternatives through routine tasks undertaken throughout the year to attain the strategic goal (Sandström et al., 2006).

Indeed, goal setting is an important aspect of greenspace planning. Benedict and McMahon

(2006) provide further insights into urban greenspace planning goals. They note that goals need to be clear and prioritized as this ensures that alternatives are appropriately identified for implementation. Additionally, clear goals remove ambiguities and help to ensure that the intent of the goals is clearly understood across all levels of decision making.

Cilliers et al. (2010) propose an integrated framework that consists of three greenspace planning tools. They are the Green Credit tool, the Workbench method, and the Value-Added

Planning method. The authors recognize that in planning for greenspaces, the tasks go beyond planning for biodiversity to include planning for its economic benefits, the quality of greenspaces, and encouraging effective participation.

The Green Credit tool provides a way to account for the benefits of greenspaces by providing a way to quantitatively measure their value. It uses a three-prong approach that focuses on a value matrix, a collection of values, and green compensations. The value matrix is a qualitative measure that identifies the value of different greenspace through a situation analysis.

This is conducted using a questionnaire to collect information about what element of greenspace might be lost during an urban development project and asks residents to rank how they value the elements of greenspaces that might be lost to urban development. The second stage involves broader stakeholder participation to determine their role and interest in an urban development project, to collect the value of greenspaces, and determine their impact on urban development before any project commences. The green compensations examine the negative impacts of urban development on greenspaces in communities. This aspect of the tool is used to determine the compensation structure that may be needed to sustain greenspace values and benefits for the entire community and not merely where the urban development project might take place (Cilliers et al.,

2010).

In the Workbench method, there are four main processes. According to Cilliers et al. (2011:

217) they are: (i) Experience: Capturing the current reality value (ii) Strive: Capturing the needs and dreams of stakeholders (iii) Plan: Incorporating values into future plans and visions, and (iv)

Make: Executing plans and determining the new quality balance in terms of experience. The objective of this method is to facilitate a participatory process that enables urban planners to understand how different stakeholders view, perceive and value urban greenspaces and to engage

them in the decision-making process to plan for, implement, manage and maintain urban greenspaces.

Another component of this integrated and multidisciplinary approach to greenspace planning is the Value-Added planning approach. This approach uses qualitative techniques to understand the value of greenspaces to guide sustainable spatial planning. The aim is to help greenspace planning ensure that investments into greenspaces yield benefits for city authorities.

According to Cilliers and Timmermans (2013), this approach determines and captures the benefits and values of greenspaces using a comprehensive checklist and subsequently determines the monetary values of these benefits.

Van Herzele and Wiedemann (2003) provide another framework for planning for urban greenspaces. In their framework, they identify five principles that should characterize urban greenspace provision. The first is that greenspace provision must be “citizen-based” because its purpose is to support the quality of life of urban residents. Thus, urban greenspaces must be connected to where residents live and to their interests. Secondly, there must be a clear distinction among the “functional levels” of urban greenspaces as different greenspaces serve different purposes. The scale and distribution of greenspaces—whether within or outside the city— should, therefore, be clearly differentiated in terms of their function and purpose. Thirdly, proximity, accessibility, and safety, among others should be prioritized in the planning of urban greenspaces.

They term these as the “preconditions for use.” Fourthly, urban greenspaces must have a “variety of qualities” to engender different activities and experiences for residents for each greenspace or the total array of greenspaces in the urban area or region. Lastly, urban greenspaces should provide

“multiple uses” as this will allow residents to use them in different ways.

4.5 Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning

Rapid urbanization has resulted in changes in land use and land cover in most of the world’s urban areas (Zhang et al., 2004; Whitford et al., 2001). It has caused a surge in the demand for land leading to rapid densification in many cities (Haaland et al., 2015; Jim, 2004). Some specific land uses have been affected the most. One ecological consequence of rapid urbanization and its attendant densification and industrialization is the decline in urban greenspaces (Haaland et al.,

2015; Salazar et al., 2015; UN-Habitat, 2012; Dallimer et al., 2011; Miller, 2005). This occurs through the modifications of the urban ecology and the alteration of the natural vegetation and habitations (Turrini and Knop, 2015; Tratalos et al., 2007); resulting also in a reduction and loss of species diversity (McKinney, 2002). As places become urbanized, the relationships and interactions that people have with the natural environment often decreases thereby weakening urban residents’ experience with nature (Soga et al., 2015; Miller, 2005; Turner et al., 2004). The decline in urban greenspaces often lead to increases in urban temperatures (Yang et al., 2017;

Feizizadeh and Blaschke, 2013; Su et al., 2011), reduction in air and water quality (Donovan et al., 2005), and the exposure of urban residents to health risks (Tian et al., 2011; Miller, 2005).

Unfortunately, urban greenspace decline has resulted from some urban policies and planning decisions (Nor et al., 2017; Dallimer et al., 2011). Hence, urban planning needs to provide effective frameworks to adequately respond to this challenge by ensuring that urban greenspaces remain a germane aspect of residents’ urban experience and to harness its benefits for human wellbeing. (Aouissi et al., 2017; UN-Habitat, 2012; Tzoulas et al., 2007). Kabisch et al. (2016) argue that this challenge is not unique to urban greenspaces but applies to the broad set of nature- based strategies. They identify three main areas by which improving knowledge can help urban planners and other professionals to mainstream nature-based strategies to tackle complex

environmental challenges. The first relates to improving knowledge on the feasibility of nature- based strategies and the opportunities they offer for specific actions. Secondly, they emphasize the need for understanding the effectiveness of these strategies and the factors that support their effectiveness. Lastly, they point to a need to understand the barriers and opportunities for implementing these strategies in urban areas. The concern for understanding the barriers to nature- based strategies concurs with Green et al. (2016: 78). They argue that to fully attain the potentials of ecosystem services that greenspaces offer, there is a need to traverse “significant governance barriers.” It is from this perspective that the chapter discusses the various barriers to urban greenspace planning. In line with the focus of this research, these barriers have been categorized broadly into institutional and socio-cultural barriers to urban greenspace planning

4.5.1 Institutional Barriers

Green et al. (2016) point to the complexity of barriers as they form an interconnected web within and across jurisdictions and departments of an urban authority. Issues of resources, cooperation, and how residents will respond to social and ecological initiatives to protect and manage the natural environment serve as barriers to many urban authorities (Boulton et al., 2018; Green et al., 2016).

Unfortunately, these barriers are aggravated by uncertainties and complexities in external forces such as changing regional, national, and global economics, anthropogenic issues such as climate change, and the rapidly changing internal socio-ecological dynamics of urban areas (Boulton et al., 2018; Keeley et al., 2013). One of the barriers to urban planning has been rapid urbanization and its implications for residents’ urban experience and wellbeing as well as the natural environment (Angel et al., 2011). Generally, greenspaces are removed to accommodate urban residents as settlements urbanize (Nagendra and Gopal, 2010). While this gives an overall picture

of the barriers to urban greenspace planning, there are some specific barriers that manifest as consequences of urbanization.

According to Thompson (2002), urban greenspaces in this urban century requires considerable attention to the social, ecological and economic dimensions of urban areas. This is confirmed by Byrne and Jinjun (2009) and Matthews et al. (2015), in the case of green infrastructure who identify that the barriers to urban greenspace planning encompass biological, physical, social, cultural, and institutional factors that weaken urban planning capacity to plan for this urban amenity. Studies show that institutional factors often undermine urban authorities to effectively plan and manage urban greenspaces. Li et al. (2015) and Mikulec et al. (2013) argue that most often urban planners and policymakers do not support urban greenspace initiatives. Some reasons include the conflicts between the time span of the goals of urban greenspaces and electoral cycles. The short-term nature of electoral cycles puts pressure on electoral officials to focus more on tangible infrastructure investments and those with direct economic returns rather than those of greenspaces which are often intangible in nature (Kabisch et al., 2016; Kabisch, 2015; Kabisch and Haase, 2013). Consequently, there is often a lack of political will to implement greenspace initiatives due to the dissonance among priorities of urban authorities.

Furthermore, urban planners and politicians sometimes lack an understanding and the needed training on issues of biodiversity and how greenspaces could help improve the biodiversity of urban areas— their understanding is normally obsolete and not abreast with current knowledge on the subject (Sandström et al., 2006). As a result, urban greenspaces often receive low priority in planning as they are not mainstreamed into the planning process (Adjei Mensah, 2014a; Heynen,

2006; Heynen and Perkins, 2005; Sandström, 2002). The low level of expertise is exacerbated by having inadequate data on urban greenspaces (Kabisch, 2015; Schäffler and Swilling, 2013) and

the absence of reliable and effective visions (Sandström et al., 2006). These problems exist alongside political, historical, and/or financial factors that limit urban authorities from implementing policies and plans on biodiversity (Boulton et al., 2018; Kabisch et al., 2016).

Additionally, the planning philosophy, governance structures (Byrne and Jinjun, 2009), and path dependence or over-reliance on traditional planning systems (Droste et al., 2017; Haase,

2017; Matthews et al., 2015; Sandström, 2002) affect effective planning, design, and management of urban greenspaces. As a result, there is an absence of a strategic goal and vision, and a presence of uncertainty, as to how to tackle pressures on urban greenspaces due to rapid urbanization

(Kabisch, 2015). Studies reveal that the absence of a comprehensive approach to green planning that provides a long-term strategic vision and goals for urban greenspaces and their development perpetuates its decline in urban areas (Byomkesh et al., 2012; Tian et al., 2011; Madureira et al.,

2011) as strong visions are crucial for consolidating and harmonizing needs and aspirations for changing environments needing development action (Ache, 2000). This “can become self- reinforcing” (Gwedla and Shackleton, 2015: 24) as the absence of a vision on greenspaces will likely result in a lack of or reduction in the allocation of finances in city budgets (Gulsrud et al.,

2013).

Set against uncontrolled development and the demand for land, urban greenspaces are put under pressure leading to them being repurposed and converted to other land uses (Kabisch, 2015;

Li et al., 2015). Even when urban greenspace plans exist, the inability of urban authorities to implement them (McWilliam et al., 2014; Byomkesh et al., 2012; Nor Akmar et al., 2011) and the non-enforcement of legalizations that protect urban greenspaces (Byomkesh et al., 2012; Ottitsch and Krott, 2005) often culminates in their decline. This is worsened by several ambiguities in the

urban greenspace legislations and policies which make it difficult to implement (McWilliam et al.,

2014).

There is a need to recognize and understand the complex relationships that are embedded in the planning and management of urban ecosystem services (Green et al., 2016; Kronenberg,

2015). Beyond the issues raised so far, urban greenspace planning encompasses several administrative and social interactions that need to be effectively coordinated. Indeed, Nijkamp and

Bycan-Levent (2009) reveal that urban authorities with urban greenspace planning functions and responsibilities segmented across different departments are often less effective. This is because the functions and responsibilities of the different departments and their professionals are poorly harmonized (Kirkpatrick et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2010; Simson, 2008) and may be characterized by conflicting priorities and objectives (Sandström, 2002). The low priority on urban greenspaces is compounded by lack of incentives to support these initiatives from urban government leadership; which detrimentally impacts on existing greenspaces in terms of their maintenance and management (Zhang et al., 2012). Cobbinah and Darkwah (2016) also note that there are various ways and differences in how different urban departments define urban greenspaces and this affects institutional response to its planning and provision. For instance, they argue that “a major discursive context framing urban greenery projects in many African countries has overly focused on urban trees” (2016: 158).

Another barrier that urban authorities encounter in urban greenspace planning is a lack of or inadequate financial resources (De Sousa, 2003). According to Sandström et al. (2006: 50), urban authorities do not have the “necessary resources to plan for biodiversity.” This challenge is not unique to developing countries but also seen in cities in the United States (Pincetl et al., 2013;

Pincetl, 2010; Zhang et al., 2007; Ottitsch and Krott, 2005) and Europe (Sandström et al., 2006;

Byomkesh et al., 2012; Kabisch, 2015; Kronenberg, 2015) as well. For instance, in Southern

Ontario, Canada, it was identified that a lack of resources limited staff from enforcing encroachment bylaws and policies (McWilliam et al., 2014).

Again, there is the challenge of the physical space available for urban greenspace provision

(Boulton et al., 2018; Jim, 2004). This raises conflicts for urban authorities trying to implement their greenspace visions. This could lead to urban planners changing requirements to include greenspaces in urban development projects and reducing the required standard for greenspace provisions, especially in areas being planned in a city or suburb (Gwedla and Shackleton, 2015).

This is the constant battle that many urban authorities face, confronted with choosing between pro- development and pro-environment spatial plans (Cilliers and Timmermans, 2013). Faced with the physical and financial constraints, urban authorities have often gone for the former. In a recent article, Boulton et al. (2018) conceptualize these numerous factors that shape urban greenspace planning in a diagram, which is presented in Figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1: Factors that Shape Urban Greenspace Planning Source: Boulton et al. (2018: 97)

These factors reduce the capacity of urban authorities to adequately plan for urban greenspaces (Matthews et al., 2015; Byrne and Jinjun, 2009). As a result, they are unable to integrate ecosystem services in urban planning processes (Kronenberg, 2015; Wilkinson et al.,

2013; Ernstson et al., 2010; Andersson et al., 2007).

4.5.2 Socio-Cultural Barriers to Greenspace Planning

One of the social-cultural barriers to urban greenspace planning is understanding how they are perceived by urban residents. Research reveals that residents’ perceptions, attitudes, and preferences may not be in harmony with urban development goals (Green et al., 2016) and this has implications for ownership and support for greenspace initiatives. This is because residents’

“attitudes influence behavior toward urban greenspaces” (Balram and Dragicevi, 2005: 147).

Clayton and Myers (2009) explain that the relationship between residents’ behavior and nature is complex and often shaped by their mental appreciation and emotions. By understanding these relationships, urban planners can identify ways to ensure that urban greenspace planning mainstreams residents’ behavior and attitudes. This may require expanding greenspace goals to strengthen the relationship between people and nature as well as reflect residents’ preferences

(Standish et al., 2013).

Another aspect of the social-cultural barriers to urban greenspace planning is residents’ appreciations for them. Gwedla and Shackleton (2017) reveal that urban residents often vandalize trees without any justification, and encroach on urban greenspaces (Zérah, 2007) while Koskela and Pain (2000) identified that urban greenspaces such as trees and parks are sometimes considered

“unpleasant and unsafe, especially by women.” O’Brien (2005) found that urban residents were insecure around some parks. This perception is somewhat justified in that residents were wary of

urban greenspaces without adequate walking paths, those that are not well maintained, and along streets without proper street lighting systems (O’Brien, 2005; Thomas and Thompson, 2004).

Generally, one of the reasons for residents’ low appreciation of urban greenspaces is attributed to low awareness of their benefits or misconceptions about their impacts (Kronenberg,

2015; Kirkpatrick et al., 2013; Lohr et al., 2004). Many residents are largely uninformed and misinformed about the impacts of greenspace whether negative or positive (Coyle, 2005). This observation is not limited to only urban greenspaces. Studies confirm that there seem to be a general lack of understanding of the benefits of environmental policies on issues such as energy conservation, climate change, and green roofs and buildings among many others (Kronenberg,

2015; Kirkpatrick et al., 2013; Hoffman and Henn, 2008; Coyle, 2005; Lohr et al., 2004)

Another barrier is the failure of urban authorities to encourage residents’ participation in urban greenspace planning. Balram and Dragićević (2005) observe that urban planners do not engage residents and subsequently do not mainstream their interests in greenspace initiatives.

Since urban greenspaces are an important aspect of residents’ urban experience and life (van den

Berg et al., 2007), it is crucial that they are involved in shaping the goals and visions for urban greenspaces. For one, it provides a pathway for social and environmental functions of urban greenspaces to be connected to economic goals (Balram and Dragicevi, 2005) and needs of residents (Matsuoka and Kaplan, 2008). By encouraging community participation in greenspace planning, it enables urban authorities to build support for their initiatives and empower residents to embark on their own greenspace initiatives (Adjei Mensah et al., 2017). Another advantage is that through participation, urban authorities become informed about the value residents place on different types of greenspaces so that they can effectively plan them to meet residents’ needs and preferences (Cilliers and Timmermans, 2013; Cilliers et al., 2013 Cilliers et al., 2010; Balram and

Dragicevi, 2005). This is important because, in many urban areas, urban planning needs to meet the demands for housing, infrastructure, education, water and sanitation, healthcare, business development, among many others. These compete with urban greenspaces for limited resources and physical space. Evidently, urban greenspaces are less prioritized in relation to these urban needs (Cilliers et al., 2010). However, by involving residents in the greenspace planning process, urban authorities can position themselves to garner support from residents to meet these other needs as well as greenspace planning goals and objectives. Since urban greenspace preferences vary by socio-economic status or cultural norms (Shackleton et al., 2015; Hope et al., 2003;

Pedlowski et al., 2002), it is only through engaging urban residents that these variations can be mainstreamed in urban greenspace planning.

If residents are not adequately involved in the greenspace planning process, there is the potential for a free-rider effect where many urban residents would enjoy the benefits of urban greenspaces without contributing to its cost of construction, operation, and maintenance (Mincey et al., 2013). Residents will also take advantage of the law enforcement of greenspace policies and legislation by not taking responsibilities for their trees which has a consequential effect on ecosystem services for the city or urban area (Fischer and Steed, 2008).

4.5.3 Barriers to Planning for Urban Greenspaces as Climate Change Interventions

In the context of nature-based strategies as CCIs, Byrne and Jinjun (2009) and Matthews et al. have conceptualized the barriers to using greenspaces and green infrastructure respectively as CCIs. These strategies can serve as mitigation, adaptation, and resilience interventions to tackle climate change impacts (Kabisch et al., 2017; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Kabisch et al., 2016;

Naumann et al., 2014). Using urban greenspaces as CCIs are also characterized by barriers. Byrne and Jinjun (2009) and Matthews et al.’s (2015) provide appropriate entry points.

Figures 4.2 and 4.3 present two conceptualizations of barriers to using urban greenspaces and green infrastructure as CCIs respectively. In Figure 4.2, Byrne and Jinjun (2009: 5) present parameters that can acts as barriers to CCIs using urban greenspaces namely: (i) “the biophysical characteristics of the built environment; (ii) the philosophy of planning which underpins land use regulation and management; (iii) structures of governance which shape decision-making processes

(e.g. opportunities for public involvement); and (iv) residents’ perceptions and use of parks, reserves and other kinds of greenspace”. These parameters are barriers to CCIs because they can reduce the capacity of local government agencies from using urban greenspaces as CCIs. For instance, existing governance structures such as departmental silos, rigidities, poor coordination and cooperation across departments can constrain efforts to use urban greenspaces as CCIs.

Similarly, residents’ perceptions and misconceptions, as well as the dissonance between residents’ priorities, can affect whether urban greenspaces are used as CCIs. Akin to earlier discussions, this complex mix of factors can affect the capacity of local government agencies to plan for CCIs—in this case, urban greenspaces.

Figure 4.2: Capacity of Greenspaces for Climate Adaptation. Source: Byrne and Jinjun (2009: 38)

In Figure 4.3, Matthews et al. (2015) confirm the factors outlined by Byrne and Jinjun

(2009). However, they suggest two additional points that deal with processes of coordination, sharing of resources, adoption, and dissemination of best practices and strategies to overcome path dependence of “inertia” in planning systems that pose as barriers to green infrastructure (including urban greenspace) planning. They add that the little knowledge about the factors that can inhibit the use of nature-based strategies such as urban green infrastructure as CCIs can pose as a barrier to their successful planning and implementation (Matthews et al., 2015: 162). Furthermore, they add that “the agency of nature” (Matthews et al., 2015: 162) is important in building the capacity

to plan for CCIs. Evidently, these observations reveal that essentially, the institutional and socio- cultural barriers to CCIs can affect the capacity to tackle climate change impacts.

Figure 4.3: Capacity of Green Infrastructure for Climate Adaptation. Source: Matthews et al. (2015: 161)

4.6 Tackling the Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning

While urbanization presents daunting challenges to urban planning authorities, Žlender and

Thompson (2017) and the UN-Habitat (2012) argue that any efforts to tackle urbanization should include urban greenspace planning. As the preceding sections have shown, there are several factors that can inhibit urban authorities from effectively planning for urban greenspaces. The discussion in this section explores some recommendations for tackling these barriers to urban greenspace planning.

The first effort should be a commitment to greenspace planning by urban authorities. These commitments must emphasize greenspaces as a major component of urban development and have a commitment towards the implementation of urban greenspaces initiatives (United Nations

General Assembly, 2015; UN-Habitat, 2012; Jim, 2004). This means that they must receive some level of priority and investments from higher levels of governments, across different departments, and encourage and empower stakeholders to contribute to attaining urban greenspace goals that are responsive and context-specific to the residents that would benefit from them (Green et al.,

2016). The barriers to urban greenspaces are complex and prevalent (Green et al., 2016). Yet, with a commitment from urban authorities they can be managed, minimized and/or eradicated to attain urban greenspace goals. This will require urban authorities to have flexible governance structures that are adaptive to the changing socio-ecological and economic dynamics of urban areas so that they can traverse traditional understandings, institutional inertia, and bureaucratic rigidities that prevent innovation and new thinking around greenspaces and ecosystem services (Green et al.,

2016)

To Jim (2004), one way to do this is for urban authorities to employ spatial planning strategies that integrate the creation of green networks and a greenspace database for urban areas.

This can be supported by raising awareness about the importance and benefits of urban greenspaces and the clear communication of urban greenspace initiatives to urban residents (Kabisch, 2015).

More importantly, urban authorities need to involve different stakeholders and the public in the greenspace planning process including professionals from various disciplines and backgrounds

(Tian et al., 2011; Nor Akmar et al., 2011; Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Sandström et al., 2006).

Different stakeholders— from residents, the private sector, and other departments— whose actions and inactions may affect greenspace planning should be involved in every phase of the planning

process. For residents, attitude studies can be implemented to test residents’ awareness, perceptions and preferences for greenspaces by different gender, age and income groups (Balram and Dragicevi, 2005). The findings can then be integrated into the planning process to help raise residents’ awareness, understanding, and support for greenspace initiatives while reducing negative behaviors such as encroachments on urban greenspaces (McWilliam et al., 2014;

Johnston and Shimada, 2004; Austin, 2002). As more departments are involved in urban greenspace planning, synergies can be developed, and conflicting responsibilities can be harmonized to have more clarity as to the roles and functions of these departments in greenspace planning and management (Fischer and Steed, 2008; Benedict and McMahon, 2006).

It is also important that participation is complemented by effective and clear channels of communication between different departments and between residents and urban authorities to enable all stakeholders to speak out about their concerns (Gwedla and Shackleton, 2015; Benedict and McMahon, 2006). These processes will encourage accountability, local content, interest, and ownership as well as facilitate learning across stakeholders (Ferketic et al., 2010; Balint and

Mashinya, 2008; Benedict and McMahon, 2006) and more importantly, attain greenspace goals

(Ashley et al., 2006)

Another aspect of tackling these barriers is to widen the goals of urban greenspace planning to encompass land use, conservation, restoration, and socio-ecological and economic aspects of urban areas to enhance human-environment interactions (Standish et al., 2013; Tzoulas et al., 2007;

Benedict and McMahon, 2006).

4.7 Conclusion

In this review of urban greenspaces and greenspace planning, the literature has primary emerge from North America, Europe, and Asia with some literature (Boulton et al., 2018; Cornelis and

Hermy, 2004). Many scholars have observed that urban greenspace research in other parts of the world—especially in Africa and Latin America (Boulton et al., 2018) is lacking although there is a general consensus on its importance (Cornelis and Hermy, 2004; Woolley, 2003). While the foregoing discussions have presented an important understanding of urban greenspaces, greenspace planning and barriers to urban greenspace planning, there is also a need to explore and examine how these are discussed in Africa, specifically in Ghana. The next chapter pays attention to the state of knowledge of urban greenspaces and greenspace planning in Africa and Ghana.

CHAPTER FIVE URBAN GREENSPACES AND PLANNING IN GHANA

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the discussions focus on the urban greenspace literature on Africa, followed by a discussion on Ghana with specific attention to the Kumasi Metropolis. The United Nations’ 2018

Revised World Urbanization Prospects estimates that more than four billion people currently live in urban areas. More than 547 million of this population live in urban Africa; this is about 13% of the total urban population of the world and is projected to grow rapidly. In 2007, when more than

50% of the world’s population lived in urban areas, with Africa and Asia considered the regions experiencing rapid fastest urban population growth with the expectation to double between 2000 and 2030. Moriconi-Ebrard et al. (2016) explain, for example, that West Africa, the sub-region where Ghana is located, accounted for about 152 urban settlements, with residents of more than

10,000 in 1950. By 2010, there were about 1,947 such urban settlements in West Africa. In the whole of Africa, it is estimated that the percentage of the population living in urban areas has increased from 14.3% in 1950 to 41.2% in 2015 with projections of 58.9% by 2050 (Table 5.1 and

5.2).

These trends have thus placed urbanization at the center of global development discourses due to the implications of urban population growth. The increase in the share of the population in urban areas means that urban planners are confronted with new and intensified urban development challenges. The need to increase housing, water and sanitation, education, healthcare, transportation infrastructure and traffic congestion, energy security, declining urban greenspaces and biodiversity as well as climate change impacts are taking on new dimensions as a result of rapid changes in urban population (UN-Habitat, 2014; UN-Habitat, 2012; UN-Habitat, 2010; UN-

Habitat, 2008; UNFPA, 2007; Angel et al., 2005). In Africa, natural population growth, rural- urban migration, and reclassification of settlements as urban are often identified as the causes of rapid urbanization (Cobbinah et al., 2015a; McGranahan and Satterthwaite, 2014; Songsore,

2009). The first two causes confirm UNFPA’s observation that demographic pressures are the core reasons for rapid urbanization in Africa (UNFPA, 2007). Natural population growth results from higher birth rates and declining death rates (Watson, 2009; Beauchemin and Bocquier, 2004; Boadi et al., 2005) due to improvements in healthcare and life expectancy in Africa (Fox, 2012;

McGranahan et al., 2009; Redman and Jones, 2005). At the same time, the attractiveness of urban areas due to the potential for non-agricultural employment, electricity, education, and advanced healthcare services have induced rural-urban migration across the continent (Misilu et al., 2010).

Unfortunately, until recently—probably in the last decade— urban areas have received little policy attention. Many African countries have and still focus on rural development with little attention to rural-urban linkages. The expectation is often to reduce rural-urban migration by making urban areas less attractive and rural areas more attractive. Yet, several years of this focus shows that these efforts have been ill-informed and uncoordinated (Annez and Buckley, 2009). As a result, the few urban areas, most often capital towns of provinces, regions or districts, became concentration areas of population growth in many countries. It is thus not uncommon for many

African countries to be characterized by urban primacy (Henderson and Kriticos, 2018;

Goodfellow, 2013; Behrens and Bala, 2011; UN-Habitat, 2008) and many urban problems (UN-

Habitat, 2010; Annez and Buckley, 2009; Watson, 2009; UN-Habitat, 2008).

Scholars argue that urban areas are often centers of economic growth. Particularly, the

World Bank (2000) notes that no country has become industrialized without going through urbanization. In this urban century, all countries that are developed with stable economic growth

and development, higher incomes, and strong and effective institutions are highly urbanized

(Kessides, 2007; UN-Habitat, 2006; World Bank, 2000). They are also centers of innovation and technological advancement, capital formation and flow, and centers of research and development

(Kessides, 2007; World Bank, 2000). Unfortunately, for most parts of Africa, the management of urbanization has been poor and dissipated the potentials of urban areas for economic development and poverty reduction. Africa’s urbanization is thus characterized by uncontrolled growth and expansions, low economic growth, high land prices, concentrated poverty in the form of slums, traffic congestions, poor environmental conditions, and poor infrastructure and services (UN-

Habitat, 2014; Annez and Buckley, 2009; Verdière et al., 2009; UN-Habitat, 2008; UNFPA, 2007;

UN-Habitat, 2003). There are also high unemployment rates as urban areas are not able to take full advantage of Africa’s youthful urban population for economic development (UN-Habitat, 2018;

Eguavoen, 2010).

Table 5.1: Percentage of Population at Mid-Year Residing in Urban Areas by Region, 1950-2050

Percentage of Population at Mid-Year Residing in Urban Areas, 1950-2050 Region 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 World 29.6 33.8 36.6 39.3 43.0 46.7 51.7 53.9 56.2 60.4 64.5 68.4 Africa 14.3 18.6 22.6 26.8 31.5 35.0 38.9 41.2 43.5 48.4 53.6 58.9 Eastern Africa 5.7 7.7 10.7 14.6 18.0 21.0 24.4 26.6 29.0 34.5 40.7 47.1 Middle Africa 13.9 17.6 21.9 28.1 34.0 39.7 45.2 47.9 50.6 56.2 61.7 67.0 Northern Africa 25.9 31.5 37.0 41.3 45.7 48.3 50.5 51.4 52.5 55.3 59.4 64.1 Southern Africa 37.7 42.0 43.7 44.8 48.8 53.8 59.4 62.1 64.6 69.4 73.6 77.2 Western Africa 9.3 14.6 18.7 23.6 30.2 34.5 41.1 44.5 47.7 53.6 58.9 63.8 Asia 17.5 21.2 23.7 27.1 32.3 37.5 44.8 48.0 51.1 56.7 61.6 66.2 Europe 51.7 57.4 63.1 67.6 69.9 71.1 72.9 73.9 74.9 77.5 80.6 83.7 Latin America and the Caribbean 41.3 49.4 57.3 64.6 70.7 75.5 78.6 79.9 81.2 83.6 85.8 87.8 Northern America 63.9 69.9 73.8 73.9 75.4 79.1 80.8 81.6 82.6 84.7 86.9 89.0 Oceania 62.5 66.9 70.2 70.9 70.3 68.3 68.1 68.1 68.2 68.9 70.2 72.1 Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018).

Table 5.2: Average Annual Rate of Change (percent) of the Urban Population by Region, 1950-2050

1955- 1965- 1975- 1985- 1995- 2000- 2005- 2015- 2025- 2035- 2045- Region 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 World 3.10 2.61 2.62 2.63 2.15 2.29 2.23 1.90 1.58 1.33 1.13 Africa 4.93 4.39 4.40 4.38 3.36 3.52 3.61 3.58 3.32 3.04 2.71 Eastern Africa 5.38 6.01 6.07 5.14 4.18 4.17 4.44 4.45 4.17 3.74 3.28 Middle Africa 4.48 4.72 4.94 4.80 4.10 4.43 4.39 4.15 3.80 3.39 2.93 Northern Africa 4.57 4.07 3.63 3.60 2.16 2.12 2.13 2.19 1.97 1.96 1.76 Southern Africa 3.56 3.09 2.79 3.48 2.61 2.26 2.11 2.09 1.61 1.28 1.02 Western Africa 6.50 4.59 4.97 5.03 4.00 4.42 4.42 4.04 3.60 3.18 2.82 Asia 3.75 3.15 3.60 3.61 2.82 3.06 2.80 2.16 1.58 1.15 0.84 Europe 2.00 1.59 1.10 0.68 0.13 0.33 0.46 0.35 0.28 0.25 0.17 Latin America and Caribbean 4.43 3.95 3.40 2.77 2.16 1.74 1.61 1.30 1.00 0.72 0.47 Northern America 2.59 1.52 0.98 1.19 1.63 1.13 1.13 0.95 0.92 0.75 0.62 Oceania 2.85 2.77 1.35 1.61 1.02 1.35 1.78 1.42 1.24 1.15 1.07 Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018).

100

At the same time, there are socio-ecological challenges that the continent faces—which are magnified by urbanization. The 2008 State of Africa Cities Report notes that cities in Africa experience “floods, untreated sewage, bush burning, oil spillages, air pollution and irresponsible waste disposal” (UN-Habitat, 2008: 13); these challenges were also captured in the 2010 and 2014 reports (UN-Habitat, 2014; UN-Habitat, 2010). Many urban areas also experience declines in their urban greenspaces and biodiversity while their urban land area expands into the hinterlands, often affecting prime arable lands in the peri-urban areas (Amoateng et al., 2013; Cobbinah and

Amoako, 2012; Seto et al., 2011)

Consequently, the environmental sustainability of Africa’s urban areas has been called into question. Researchers observe that rapid urbanization in Africa is having negative effects on the natural environment (UN-Habitat, 2012), particularly as urban expansion induces significant land use and land cover changes and loss in biodiversity (UNFPA, 2007). Many urban authorities also do not pay attention to sustainability. With many people now moving into urban areas both in

Africa and globally, the “battle for a sustainable environmental future … [would be] … waged primarily in the world’s cities” (UNFPA, 2007: 55). In one aspect, achieving prosperity in urban areas depends on the exploitation of natural resources for their functionality and economic growth.

Yet, exploiting these resources have negative effects on the environment (UN-Habitat, 2012).

Hence, urban prosperity and environmental sustainability are interconnected—warranting that this interconnectedness is managed through effective urban sustainability initiatives.

Reports from international organizations such as UNDESA (2018) and UN-Habitat (2012) indicate that urban authorities will need to act proactively to mainstream environmental sustainability in their planning and to manage the prosperity and environmental resource interface or the human-environment interactions. Urban authorities will also need to employ an integrated

101

and multidimensional approach to handling urban problems by focusing on economic, environmental and social objectives as well as rural and urban linkages to promote urban sustainability (UNDESA, 2018; UN-Habitat, 2012; Pacione, 2003). For many scholars, the African urban agenda must focus on “sustainable urbanization” which embodies a drive to attain economic, environmental, social, political, demographic, institutional, and cultural goals (Chant and

McIlwaine, 2009).

5.2 The State of Urban Greenspaces in Africa

In Africa, new urban forms are emerging— such as megacities, city-regions, and megapolises— and redefining urban problems and their intensity as well as how urban planners respond to them.

Urban form and function are expected to transform rapidly, vastly increasing impervious surfaces and leading to a decline in natural areas in and around urban areas globally (UNFPA, 2007).

Urbanization is increasing the construction of roads, buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, and other grey infrastructure that tends to increase surface runoff water, absorb and retain heat, and have impacts on reducing air quality. This has consequences for urban land use changes resulting in a decline in urban natural greenery (Eshleman, 2004). This is happening simultaneously as impervious surfaces increase, thus leading to a decline in stormwater runoff infiltration in urban areas. In the end, these are likely to cause a surge in flooding in cities and a reduction in urban water quality (Eshleman, 2004).

As many studies show today, these events are already taking place in many urban areas across Africa. According to Cobbinah and Darkwah (2016), the “depletion of urban greenery across major cities in Africa [is] owing to urbanization-induced anthropogenic influences.” For

Africa, these trends are set against capacity challenges to deal with old, current, and emerging

102

challenges of urban development. Many green areas in urban Africa are being transformed into urban built-up lands, while peri-urban areas which often host agricultural land and urban forests are also being depleted quickly (Akinyemi, 2017; Wasige et al., 2012; Yemefack et al., 2006).

For instance, in Nigeria, Akinyemi (2013) observed that many land use changes in urban areas are unplanned due to the absence of clear land use policies. As a result, urbanization-induced increase in the built environment often results in the dissipation of urban greenery and biodiversity

(Akinyemi, 2017). In Kagera Basin of Lake Victoria (Wasige et al., 2013) and southern Cameroon

(Yemefack et al., 2006), the conversion of land from agriculture to buildings often begins with the change of forest lands to agriculture land and eventually changing again into buildings due to urbanization. This thus creates a three-step process of how the natural environment is transformed into the built environment in Africa: forests to cultivated lands to built-up areas (Akinyemi, 2017).

In South Africa, Namugize et al. (2018) studying the uMngeni Catchment area revealed that as the built-up area increased, the natural vegetation declined simultaneously. They observed a 17% decline in the natural vegetation of the uMngeni Catchment area between 1994 and 2011 due to land use changes and conversion resulting from urbanization and urban expansion. In East

Africa, the expansion of human settlements and urban centers are among several factors causing rapid loss of natural forests (Maitima et al., 2009)— while other factors such as expansion of farm and grazing lands (Maitima et al., 2009) are some reasons for the loss of natural forests on the continent. This is not surprising because the continent remains rural (UNDESA, 2018).

Furthermore, land use and land cover change studies reveal that human activities are predominantly the cause of greenspace decline in both rural, peri-urban, and urban areas in Africa

(Schoeman et al., 2013). This is in line with global trends. Lambin et al. (2006) revealed that prime farmlands are in decline due to urban expansion since many farmlands are located at the periphery

103

of urban areas. These farmlands offer low price lands for residential development in many urban areas in the world. Schoeman et al. (2013) explain that human activities and urban expansion caused South Africa’s natural landscape to decline to only 22% of its land area. These trends are in line with global observations by Geist et al (2006), who observed that urban expansion often affects farmlands because of the proximity and location of cities close to prime agriculture lands.

Subsequently, the direct effect of urban expansion is often a loss in farmlands as people tend to encroach on these lands. At the same time, increased preference of residents to move away from the noise and chaos of urban centers lead to the encroachment of the lands in the urban periphery, where most farms and urban forests are located. It is not surprising therefore that Geist et al. conclude that

residential preferences for private houses in a “green” environment, and economic incentives provided by private land developers and/or the state to achieve this, drive the extension of peri-urban settlements primarily in but not limited to the developed world, fragmenting the landscapes of such large areas that various ecosystem processes are threatened (2006: 52).

Another dimension of urban greenspaces in Africa relates to environmental justice. For example, tree density and composition vary across urban areas and neighborhoods depending on the income level of residents, the size of the urban area, and a neighborhood’s racial composition.

This is especially evident in studies in South Africa. Tree density and composition are

“significantly lower in smaller towns and those marginalized during the previous racially-based political regime” of apartheid (Gwedla and Shackleton, 2017: 11; Gwedla and Shackleton, 2015).

Within towns, poor areas had fewer street trees, with many streets having none. Again, larger and wealthy urban areas have higher tree density in Africa as they are in a better position to implement their visions of greenspaces.

104

Studies in Africa show that greenspaces enhance the presence and abundance of biodiversity in urban areas as in the case of Annaba, Algeria, (Aouissi et al., 2017) and

Grahamstown, South Africa (Shackleton, 2016), although this may depend on the kind of urban environment in which they are found (Shackleton, 2014; Kuruneri-Chitepo and Shackleton, 2011;

Stoffberg et al., 2010). Again, residents are normally not aware of the kind of species available and this may lead to the proliferation of invasive species as in the case of South Africa (Shackleton and Shackleton, 2016).

Several studies concur with the benefits of greenspaces in North America and Europe

(Shackleton et al., 2016). However, unique to the African context is the use of urban trees as sources of medicine. Urban residents use plant bark to treat different ailments (Furukawa et al.,

2016). For many peri-urban areas of Africa, urban greenspaces provide households with fruits, wood for energy and shading from the scorching sun and dust (Shackleton et al., 2015). Residents of poor residential areas also use wood from urban greenspaces for “building, fencing and utensils, herbal medicines, planting material and mulch” (Kaoma and Shackleton, 2014: 244).

5.3 Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning in Africa

Urban greenspace planning in Africa is characterized by a number of barriers. Some studies point to political and bureaucratic factors that place low importance on its provision in urban areas

(Darkwah and Cobbinah, 2014; Adjei Mensah, 2014a; Adjei Mensah, 2014b; McConnachie et al.,

2008). Other studies point to weak institutional capacities that do not provide guidance on urban greenspace goals and visions compared to urban areas in North America and Europe (Adjei

Mensah, 2014a; Quagraine, 2011; McConnachie et al., 2008). Urban managers also do not mainstream urban greenspace visions into their plans; when they do, they are predominantly

105

limited to tree planting projects (Gwedla and Shackleton, 2015; Cobinnah and Darkwah, 2014).

For instance, Shackleton et al. observe that “specific guidelines for implementation [of environmental and sustainability issues] are generally absent…. [as] urban forestry and tree planting are rarely mentioned in the broader land use and environmental policies other than the national forest act…, but even there it is relatively superficial” (2014: 500).

According to the UN-Habitat (2008), inadequate staff and the unwillingness of urban authorities to enforce development controls is another reason for the depletion of urban greenspaces in Africa. Other factors include the limited availability of finance to fund urban greenspace initiatives, limited spaces for greenspaces initiatives, and encroachment of existing greenspaces by residents and developers (Gwedla and Shackleton, 2015; Adjei Mensah, 2014a;

Adjei Mensah, 2014b; Amoateng et al., 2013; Quagraine, 2011). For many African cities, where urban poverty is endemic, there is frequently low attention to urban greenspace vision in favor of economic development (Gwedla and Shackleton, 2015). It is therefore not surprising to find that out of 15 cities studied by the African Green City Index project, only eight had a clear policy on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2010).

Nonetheless, there is a general awareness that there is a need for urban greenspace and biodiversity conservation in Africa (UN-Habitat, 2014; Schäffler and Swilling, 2013; UN-Habitat,

2010; UN-Habitat, 2008). Shackleton et al. (2016: 1) notes that there is an emerging “support and willingness-to-pay or work amongst urban residents for green infrastructure and the services it provides” in South Africa. Therefore, there are calls for mainstreaming of urban greenspaces and biodiversity conservation in land use and urban development plans to protect environmentally sensitive areas (United Nations General Assembly, 2015; Gatesire et al., 2014; IPCC, 2014; UN-

Habitat, 2012).

106

5.4 Urban Planning in Ghana6

Planning for development in Ghana was often led by chiefs until the arrival of the British

Colonialists. The chiefs played a key role in local governance and led local development that pleased their people (Rugege, 2003). Scholars argue that chiefs were paramount in roles relating to customary issues, governance, judiciary matters, and the military; they also instituted legislative regimes for their people (Tutu II, 2004, Adjaye and Misawa, 2006). During the colonial period, chiefs also played important roles in helping the colonizers govern and had oversight over residents and facilitated development (Adjei et al., 2017; Awortwi, 2011).

Nonetheless, it was at that point in time also that the role of chiefs in local government began to wane through the passage of laws that limited their administrative and legislative functions (Abotchie, 2006). This continued in the post-independence era, with chiefs being limited to advisory functions in the subsequent decentralized local governance systems that were adopted by various regimes (Adjei et al., 2017; Sackey, 2012; Awortwi, 2011; Abotchie, 2006). The roles of chiefs continued to be vague and alienated in local governance despite recognition of the power they hold and capacity to promote participatory democracy and good governance. Local governance reforms on decentralization in 1988 and 1993 continued the alienation of chiefs as major actors in the formal development planning process (Adjei et al., 2017; Abotchie, 2006).

Despite these limited roles, Tieleman and Uitermark (2019: 720) observes that chiefs contribute to state formation and plays critical roles in cities of Ghana. Such roles include:

1. The Chief as a Community Leader by providing guidance to their people;

2. The Chief as Land Manager as they are the “custodians of the [urban] lands; and

6 This research focuses on national and local level planning as these are the spatial levels were policies and plans are formulated and development interventions identified for implementation. 107

3. The Chief as Local Gatekeeper by acting as “are powerful middle-men between

formal authorities and the local population.”

Currently, planning occurs at three levels in Ghana: national, regional, and at the local level. However, it is at the national and local levels that policies and plans are prepared and implemented (Acheampong and Ibrahim, 2016). At all these levels, chiefs play only consultative and advisory roles (Abotchie, 2006). As part of Ghana’s decentralization, Metropolitan,

Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs) are the formal agencies or authorities for planning and development at the local level. These MMDAs are responsible for preparing four-year MTDPs to guide the development of their jurisdictions (Mensah, 2005) in consultation with different stakeholders. These plans are facilitated by the PCUs, who use guidelines prepared by the NDPC to ensure that the policies, programs, and projects, among other initiatives for implementation in these plans, align with Ghana’s development agenda (NDPC, 2013; NDPC, 2009; NDPC, 2006).

These guidelines are based on National Development Policy Frameworks (NDPFs), which are also prepared every four years. The NDPFs guide and set the agenda at all levels and sectors of national development (Figure 5.1). Thus, interventions in Ghana’s NDPFs relating to sustainability, adaptation, mitigation, and/or resilience—such as the provision of urban greenspaces through tree planting, afforestation, among others— are expected to translate into district, municipal, and metropolitan level interventions. This is evident in the NDPFs for the

2010-2013 and 2014-2017 periods. The former, for instance, aimed to “integrate/mainstream impact of climate change into … district plans” in Ghana (NDPC, 2010: 145). The 2006-2009 guidelines also emphasized the need for environmental and natural resource management (NDPC,

2006).

108

For climate change, there are a number of national climate-change-specific policy frameworks that are separate from these NDPFs. The NDPC through its NDPFs take into consideration all available national policies and plans—including those on climate change.

Therefore, it is expected that MMDAs align their development plans with NDPFs and climate- change-specific policy frameworks as part of their plan preparation processes. Thus, it is expected that policies, programs, projects that aim to increase urban greenspaces at the national level and efforts to tackle climate change impacts converge with local-level interventions.

Figure 5.1: Structure of Governance and Development Planning in Ghana Source: Acheampong and Ibrahim (2016: 7)

5.4.1 Urban Planning and Urban Greenspaces in Ghana

According to the Ghana Statistical Service (2013), from the population and housing census, there were an estimated 24,658,823 people living in Ghana in 2010 with 12,024,845 (48.8%) being

109

males and 12,633,978 (51.2%) being females. In that same year, 2010, there were about

12,545,229 people living in urban areas with 6,016,059 (48%) males and 6,529,170 (52%) females.

Ghana’s population is also youthful, with the majority of residents between the ages of 10 and 35 years (Ghana Statistical Service, 2013).7

In 2010, there were more people living in urban areas in Ghana (50.9%) than in rural areas.8

In 2018, the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division

(2018), estimated that about 16,517,000 of Ghana’s population of 29,464,000 lived in urban areas

(Figure 5.2). This means that about 56.1% of Ghana’s population now live in urban areas. The urban population has grown rapidly between 1950 to 2015 from 15.4% to 54.1% (Figure 5.3).

Such rapid growth of the urban population has consequences for Ghana’s urban areas. The predominant one is the unplanned nature of Ghana’s urban areas, with the accompanying results of uncontrolled expansion, slum development, declining urban greenspaces, traffic congestion and limited access to social services such as potable water, sanitation, and effective waste management systems (Anaafo and Inkoom, 2016; Acheampong and Ibrahim, 2016; Amoako and Korboe, 2011;

Adarkwa and Owusu-Akyaw, 2001).

The Ghana Statistical Service notes that “while at the national level, the growth of the population is the result of decreasing but still high fertility and declining mortality, the general movement of the population from the rural to urban areas redistributes the population internally and affects the process of urbanization in the country” (2013: 223). In other words, rural-urban migration, natural increases, and reclassification of rural areas as urban areas are factors

7 According to Ghana’s National Youth Policy, youth are “persons who are within the age bracket of fifteen (15) and thirty-five (35)” (Ministry of Youth and Sports, 2010: 5). 8 In Ghana, there are two types of localities: Urban and Rural localities. According to the Ghana Statistical Service (2010: xxii), “the classification of localities into urban and rural was based on population size. Localities with 5,000 or more persons were classified as urban while localities with less than 5,000 persons were classified as rural.”

110

contributing to rapid urbanization in Ghana, similar to the documented trends across the Africa continent (Cobbinah et al., 2015a; Songsore, 2009).

Figure 5.2: Population Distribution by Locality in Ghana for 2018 Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018).

Figure 5.3: Proportion of Urban Population in Ghana, 1950 - 2050.9 Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018).

9 There is a slight variation in the 2010 urban population statistic between UNDESA (2018) and Ghana Statistical Service (2013). In the former, 50.7% live in urban areas while in the latter 50.9% live in urban area. This difference could be due to reporting error between the two agencies as United Nations departments rely on data supplied to it by national agencies. 111

For the Kumasi Metropolis, the second-largest urban area in Ghana, the Ghana Statistical

Service (2014: 75) notes that the “Metropolis is completely urbanized.” It is estimated that there are about 1,730,249 persons in the Kumasi Metropolis (Figure 5.4), which represents 36.2% of the

Ashanti Region’s population of 2010. From this figure, 47.8% are males whereas 52.2% are females. The population of the Metropolis is youthful with an estimated 41.2% between the ages of 15 - 34 years10. The Metropolis occupies a physical space of 214.3 sq. km and a population density of 8,075 persons per sq. km (Ghana Statistical Service, 2013).

Figure 5.4: Population of Kumasi in 2000 and 2010 Source: United Nations Statistics Division (2018)

10 Note that even though Ghana’s definition for a youth is between 15 and 35 years, data from the census reports were available for only those between 15 – 34 years—primarily because of the cohort intervals. 112

Kumasi’s urbanization process has resulted in rapid urban expansion (Stow et al., 2016)— the spread of the physical space which Kumasi occupies. From 1986 to 2001, it is estimated that the annual urban expansion rate of the Metropolis was 5.03 % and 3.89 % between 2001 and 2014; averaging about 4.5% annually between 1986 and 2014. This translates into an increase from 51.8 sq. km to 177.5 sq. km between 1986 and 2014 (Acheampong et al., 2017: 831). This rapid urban expansion has induced a significant demand for land, housing, and other urban amenities in the

Metropolis and has significantly changed its physical structure (Afriyie et al., 2014; Afrane and

Amoako, 2011). For instance, many residential land uses have been changed into commercial uses and mixed-use development at the city center (Poku-Boansi and Cobbinah, 2018a; Korah et al.,

2017), while residential development has surged in peri-urban settlements (Abass et al., 2018;

Afriyie et al., 2014; Afrane and Amoako, 2011).

Urban authorities are thus faced with enormous pressures as they do not have the necessary capacity to manage Kumasi’s urbanization processes and its ramifications (Poku-Boansi and

Cobbinah, 2018a). Cobinnah and Amoako (2012) estimate that about 79% of the Metropolis has been planned, where different land uses have clearly been demarcated. Set against the challenges of weak regulation and enforcement capacities of planning regulations, the urban expansion process has not followed or adhered to planning schemes designed for the Metropolis and its neighborhoods (Nunbogu et al., 2018; Owusu-Ansah, 2016). As a result, land use changes have been ad hoc, uncontrolled, unregulated, and haphazard (Cobbinah and Aboagye, 2017; Cobbinah and Niminga, 2017). Kumasi’s urbanization process is also characterized by unwieldy urban land management and administration system that pushes the urban poor and migrants out of the formal planning system; it has also facilitated the emergence and consolidation of informal settlements

(Amoako and Boamah, 2017; Sabbi and Mensah, 2016). Owusu and Oteng-Ababio (2015)

113

observed that urban areas in Ghana may be characterized by a dichotomy of societies with one being served by improved and reliable urban infrastructure and the other being informal settlements made up of slum and poor residents. As evidence from other studies in Kumasi and

Accra reveal, this urban dichotomy has already taken root (Amoako, 2016; Okyere and Kita,

2015).

Some scholars trace the challenge of urban planning in Kumasi and Ghana in general to its adherence to colonial planning with little to no modification, adaptation, or reform over many years (Arku et al., 2016; Acheampong and Ibrahim, 2016; Schmidt, 2005). Schmidt argues that

“in order to establish a culturally acceptable landscape, administrative officials and town planners borrowed from familiar design features and referred to contemporary intellectual thought to legitimate their decisions” (2005: 353). Yet others also argue that both the colonial and post- colonial planning regimes have been characterized by similar challenges, where spatial planning visions and goals failed to materialize (Amoako and Adom-Asamoah, 2018; Obeng-Odoom,

2015). Factors such as “inadequate staffing, low capacity, lack of institutional coordination, political interference in planning, complex land tenure and evolving land markets among others”

(Fuseini and Kemp, 2015: 309) created a conducive environment for current urban challenges to emerge, persist and intensify thereby undermining the urban sustainability of the Kumasi

Metropolis.

5.4.2 Greenspace Depletion in the Kumasi Metropolis

The climatic region and vegetation of the Kumasi Metropolis are conducive for developing its urban greenery. It falls within the moist semideciduous South-East Ecological Zone and the soil is fertile for flora and fauna. The major tree species in the area include Ceiba, Triplochlon, and Celtis

114

species (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). This vegetative cover together with the 1945 plan of the

Kumasi Metropolis inspired the popular accolade of Kumasi as the “Garden City of West Africa”

(Adjei Mensah, 2014a; Ghana Statistical Service, 2014, Quagraine, 2011). However, as a result of rapid urbanization, this popular accolade seems meaningless as most of the urban greenspaces of the Metropolis have been depleted with the exception of a few such as the landscapes and gardens of the “KNUST [(Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology)], Kumasi Zoological

Gardens, Manhyia Gardens and Nhyiaso still have green environments which need conscientious conservation plans” (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014: 2). Rapid urbanization has increased pressures on urban greenspaces and environmental resources such as urban forests and gardens, nature reserves, water bodies, and community parks thereby facilitating the rapid conversion of urban greenspaces to commercial, residential and institutional uses in the Metropolis (Korah and

Cobbinah, 2017: Adjei Mensah, 2014a; Adjei Mensah, 2014b; Quagraine, 2011; Tontoh, 2011).

Increase in demand for land for residential land use has also resulted in the “conversion of open spaces, road reservation and areas liable to flooding into residential land use” for both areas with and without formal planning schemes (Poku-Boansi and Cobbinah, 2018b: 571). In the absence of formal regulatory planning, Korah et al. (2017) observe that many informal settlements have occupied lands reserved for greenspaces and other amenities in places like Aboabo and

Ayigya.

Additionally, Kumasi’s rapid growth has led to overcrowding in the city. This has forced people to build on lands reserved for the protection of river catchment areas while others have encroached on public and private open spaces (Korah et al., 2017; Adjei Mensah, 2014a; Adjei

Mensah, 2014b; Tontoh, 2011). Lands dedicated as urban greenspaces that support recreation such as community parks, children’s playgrounds, and gardens are fast depleting (Owusu-Ansah, 2016;

115

Quagraine, 2011) in the Metropolis and elsewhere in Ghana (Arku et al., 2016). The expansion of the Metropolis into its peri-urban areas has also placed enormous pressure on nature reserves and riparian areas. This is aggravated by the desire to move away from the noise, pollution, and chaos of the urban core, which has surged demand for urban lands in the periphery such as Feyiase,

Deduako, and Abuakwa (Cobbinah et al., 2015b; Amoateng et al., 2013). Residents are also buildings in the floodplains of rivers, threatening both the quality of water as well as the capacity of rivers to cater for stormwater runoffs (Amoako and Boamah, 2017; Eduful and Shively, 2015;

Ahmed and Dinye 2012; Fuseini and Kemp, 2015). Eduful and Shively explain that land uses along the Subin River shows:

that land use does not occur in any particular order; some developments in the floodplain began as early as the 1980s, and some are quite recent. The wetland area and the buffer zone (riparian zone) are dominated by mechanical workshops (garages), a gas station, and a car washing bay. These activities discharge chemicals, oils, and debris directly into the river which is harmful to the stream's aquatic life and contributes to deteriorating water quality (2015: 211).

A study by Amoateng et al. also observed that:

the physical expansion has also involved extensive replacement of water areas (rivers, floodplains, and riparian zones) by urban land uses… About 9% (18 km2) of the city's built-up area in 2013 was converted from rivers and adjoining floodplains leading to a drastic reduction in the extent of these inland water systems by 83% from 38 km2 in 1985 to 6 km2 in 2013. The rivers and floodplains were illegally gradually encroached and/or instantaneously land filled for various physical developments including residential, commercial, industrial and civic and cultural land uses. (2018: 112a)

Again, Nero and Anning (2018) identified the impact of rapid urbanization on the soil structure and composition in the Metropolis. They observed that the urban soils contained fragments of cloths, plastics, concrete, and metals which prevented plants from growing freely and affected the free flow of water; this has critical implications for growing the urban greenspace

116

capacity of the Metropolis to tackle climate change impacts. Like studies in Accra (Nero and

Anning, 2018; Nero et al., 2018; Ofori et al. 2018), Kumasi’s urbanization is also having a negative effect on biodiversity.

A reason for the depletion of urban greenspaces in the Metropolis is attributed to weak policy and regulatory environment which is mostly confusing, complicated, conflicting and spread across different urban development departments in Ghana (Acheampong, 2018; Sabbi and Adjei

Mensah, 2016; Acheampong and Ibrahim, 2016; MESTI, 2015; Adjei Mensah, 2014a; Adjei

Mensah, 2014b; Owusu-Ansah and Braimah, 2013). Furthermore, Poku-Boansi and Cobbinah

(2018: 571) argue that a “lack of cooperation among the planning agencies particularly between traditional leaders and Town and Country Planning Department [(now Physical Planning

Department)], ineffective planning institutions (in terms of logistics, personnel and legal mandate), and activities of nonchalant urban residents who develop without development permits” contributes to the decline in urban greenspaces within the Kumasi Metropolis. This type of situation is not unique to only the Kumasi Metropolis but pertains to Ghana’s urban planning processes in general (Acheampong, 2018; Ofori et al., 2018; Cobbinah et al., 2017a; Arku et al.,

2016; Acheampong and Ibrahim, 2015; Quagraine, 2011; Otoo et al., 2006; Schmidt, 2005;

Asomani Boateng, 2002). Traditional leaders who are often custodians of customary lands have increasingly sold lands demarcated for urban greenspaces without adhering to legal and required planning processes (Amoako and Adom-Asamoah, 2018; Owusu and Oteng-Ababio, 2015). As

Yeboah and Shaw (2013) explain, lands that are deemed to have low economic profitability such

117

as open spaces, playgrounds, floodplains, and sanitary areas are often converted to residential and commercial uses by chiefs to render them economically profitable.11

As a result, the prime goals of many chiefs in planning and zoning non-demarcated lands have often been to generate residential and economic land uses for profit. This is not surprising as traditional leaders are often the principal beneficiaries of proceeds accruing from the sale of community resources such as lands (Yeboah and Shaw, 2013; Ubink and Quan, 2008). Urban greenspaces which are often communal in nature and do not represent profitable returns are thus not integrated into planning schemes inspired by traditional leaders (Anaafo and Inkoom, 2016;

Yeboah and Shaw, 2013). Also, traditional leaders exert tremendous pressures on planning institutions to change land uses of urban greenspaces for residential and commercial uses (Amoako and Adom-Asamoah, 2018; Kuusaana and Eledi, 2015; Owusu and Oteng-Ababio, 2015). Owusu-

Ansah and Braimah provide further insight:

Under pressure from chiefs and homebuilders, elements of the planning scheme could be manipulated by the officials of the TCPD [Town and Country Planning Department] and Planning Committees to their advantage. In this way, large tracts of land are allocated for residential housing even in approved subdivisions often at the expense of public facilities such as schools, playgrounds, open spaces and public parks which do not yield immediate financial returns to landowners (2013: 697).

Urban planning authorities also do not make urban greenspaces a priority in the planning and development of the Kumasi Metropolis. For instance, by not planning for and paying attention to the protection of greenbelts around floodplains, there have been massive encroachments by residents for development and farming (Amoateng et al., 2018b; Owusu and Oteng-Ababio, 2015).

11 Chiefs are traditional leaders in Ghana. They are often custodians of communal and clan lands but have limited planning functions with the local government system. However, they hold and control enormous political power and influence in the development process even though they are not formally recognized in Ghana’s local government systems. They own and control most of the lands in many settlements across Ghana—which also enable them to command a lot power. 118

The residents of Kumasi are also noted to contribute to urban greenspace decline through encroachment (Amoako and Adom-Asamoah, 2018; Adjei Mensah, 2016; Owusu Ansah, 2016;

Eduful and Shively, 2015). As a result, many of the existing urban greenspaces have been poorly maintained making them an easy target for conversion into different land uses (Adjei Mensah,

2016; Eduful and Shively, 2015; Adjei Mensah, 2014a; Adjei Mensah, 2014b; Quagraine, 2011).

All these factors have reduced residents’ accessibility to urban greenspaces in the

Metropolis. Adjei Mensah (2016: 165), for instance, observes that it takes about “50 to 60 minutes” for residents in Kumasi “to have access to a natural public park” as many neighborhoods currently do not have any parks. At the same time, the few existing urban greenspaces lack basic facilities while the few that do have them are in deplorable states in the case of Kumasi Zoo and Kumasi

Children’s Park. Parks such as Adehyeman Gardens, Kumasi Zoo, Fante Newtown Park and

Abbey’s Park are noisy due to their location at the urban core while the Kumasi Children’s Park,

Ridge Park, and Parks and Gardens at Patasi Neighborhood are situated along busy roads. This prevents residents from enjoying the conducive, tranquil, and relaxing ambiance that urban greenspaces of their nature are expected to provide (Adjei Mensah, 2016). It is also not uncommon to find parts of these parks being used as dumpsites by residents, a phenomenon that is not unique to the Kumasi Metropolis (Arku et al., 2016; Asomani-Boateng and Haight, 1998). Table 5.3 summarizes the condition of the main urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis.

119

Table 5.3: Condition of Urban Greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis No. Urban Greenspace Condition 1. Abbeys Park No vegetation; used for soccer, funerals and political rallies 2. Baba Yara Sports Stadium Used for major sports activity 3. Dogo Moro Park No vegetation 4. Kumasi Gulf Course Exists in pristine conditions 5. Kumasi Zoological Garden Still used as zoo 6. Amakom Children’s Park Unattended, weedy and taken over by squatters 7. KNUST Botanical Garden Exists in pristine conditions 8. Addo’s Park Partly used for soccer and part used for toilet facilities; no vegetation 9. Suntreso Park No vegetation, taken over by hawkers and taxis 10. Race Course Previously used as a squatter settlement, now earmarked for hospitality complex 11. Kejetia Roundabout Garden Largely taken over by hawkers 12. Adehyeman Gardens Recreational/restaurant 13. Jackson Park Entertainment/funeral grounds 14. Dunkirk Park Nurses quarters 15. Fante Newtown Park Encroached upon for commercial activities 16. Cricket Park Used for the extension of Manhyia hospital 17. Rattray Park Now a recreational center with grass, shrubs and trees 18. Rivoli Park Cinema buildings 19. Asafo Tennis Court Bus terminal 20. Prince of Wales Lorry terminal 21. Mbrom Park Commercial buildings 22. Para Garden Used for transport interchange 23. Ornamental Garden Center Encroached by commercial uses and filled with commercial waste 24. Manhyia Community Park Used as durbar and/or funeral grounds 25. Aboabo Nature Reserve Encroached by wooden structures, unauthorized buildings; and business activities. The area has been notorious for drug use, robbery and prostitution 26. Atonsu Nature Reserve Redesigned for commercial and residential uses. Heavily encroached by illegal developments. Lies in ﬂood prone zone 27. Subin Nature Reserve Heavily encroached by farming, fish smoking and selling of ﬂower and plants seedlings. There are also commercial uses 28. Kaasi Nature Reserve Encroached for saw-milling and charcoal burning. 29. Adwinase-Kwadaso Nature Shady trees and other species along the stream. Observed Reserve encroachments by residential and commercial uses

Source: Adjei Mensah (2014b: 102) and Owusu Ansah (2016: 566) and Amoako and Adom-

Asamoah (2018: 8)

120

5.5 Conclusion

Despite all of the challenges with urban greenspaces and urban planning in the Kumasi Metropolis, studies show that existing urban greenspaces are contributing to reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—a gas that contributes to rising temperatures in urban areas—although these vary depending on the urban greenspace typology (Nero et al., 2017: 79). This is a critical observation that shows that there is still potential for urban authorities to prioritize urban greenspace planning in the Metropolis to tackle climate change impacts. The call by the Ghana Statistical Service (2014) for efforts to conserve existing urban greenspaces is timely not only for the Kumasi Metropolis but for urban areas in Ghana in general (Arku et al., 2016). These are in line with global calls that recognize urban greenspaces as pathways for cities to promote urban sustainability (United

Nations General Assembly, 2015; IPCC, 2014; UN-Habitat, 2012).

121

CHAPTER SIX RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 6.1 Introduction

This chapter focuses on the strategies adopted to answer the dissertation research questions. It covers the data collection process, analysis, and presentation for this study. In each of the various issues discussed in this chapter, detailed explanation and reasons for specific actions have been advanced.

6.2 Scope of Research

This study was conducted in the Kumasi Metropolis, located within the Ashanti Region of Ghana and the region’s capital. It covers approximately 82.74 sq. miles (214.3 sq. km) and constitutes

0.9% of the region’s land area. It is one of thirty districts in the region and shares boundaries with

Kwabre East and Afigya Kwabre districts to the north. To the west, the Metropolis shares boundaries with Atwima Kwanwoma and Atwima Nwabiagya districts and to the east, the Asokore

Mampong and Ejisu-Juaben municipalities. At the south of the Metropolis is the Bosomtwe

District. The Metropolis is located between Latitude 6.35oN and 6.40oS and Longitude 1.30oW and

1o E (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). The Kumasi Metropolis is home to a population of

1,730,249 inhabitants. This represents about 36.2% of the region’s population of 4,780,380 (Ghana

Statistical Service, 2014).

122

Figure 6.1: Map of the Kumasi Metropolis, the Study Area of this Study Project. Source: Author’s Construct (2019).

* These maps do not take into account changes in regions and districts after 2017.

Since the reform of decentralized decision making and planning in Ghana in 1988, a new structure of local governance was initiated wherein districts, municipalities, and metropolises are delineated by population and governed by unified local government authorities called Assemblies.

According to the Local Government Act of 1993 (Act 462), a metropolitan assembly covers a jurisdiction with over 250,000 people, a population of over 95,000 for a municipal assembly, and a district assembly for a jurisdiction with population between 75,000 and 95,000 (Diko and Akrofi,

123

2013; Institute of Local Government Studies, 2010). These assemblies perform administrative and planning functions to promote development (Ahwoi, 2010a; Institute of Local Government

Studies, 2010). In the Kumasi Metropolis, the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA) is the development authority for socio-economic and physical planning and development.12 It is important to note that the Kumasi Metropolis has experienced changes to its jurisdiction due to the reclassification of some neighborhoods and communities within it as either municipalities or districts. The Government of Ghana in November 2017 created thirty-eight new local government jurisdictions. For the Kumasi Metropolis, areas such as Oforikrom, Kwadaso, Old Tafo, Asokwa, and Suame, which were previously part of the Metropolis, were demarcated as new municipalities.

This research focuses on Kumasi Metropolis as it officially existed prior to November 2017.

6.3 Research Approach

6.3.1 Research Design

This research uses a case study research design as it allows researchers to undertake indepth examination and understanding of a specific phenomenon (Yin, 2014)— in this case, barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis and its implications for climate change interventions. Subsequently, it represents the structure or framework that guides the attainment of research goals (Yin, 2014; De Vaus, 2001). This study comprises both qualitative and quantitative approaches, a setup that a case study research design facilitates (Yin, 2014).

The conceptualization of urban greenspaces within the context of climate change guides this research, particularly, this research is guided by the observations found in Byrne and Jinjun

(2009) and Matthews et al. (2015). As revealed in Chapter Five, these authors present some

12 For more information about the decentralized planning system of Ghana, see Institute of Local Government Studies (2010) 124

parameters that determine the capacity of greenspaces and green infrastructure for climate change adaptation. Indeed, Byrne and Jinjun (2009) and Matthews et al. (2015) concur that these parameters are critical research areas to understand the factors that can hinder or facilitate adaptive capacity for cities. Guided by both conceptualizations, specifically that of Byrne and Jinjun (2009), this research focused on the social-political aspects of the capacity of greenspaces for climate action. In addition, this research focuses on residents’ perspectives of urban greenspaces in the

Kumasi Metropolis by examining the socio-cultural factors surrounding the contestation, use, and demand for urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis. Figure 6.2 below provides the guiding conceptual framework for this research.

Figure 6.2: Conceptual Focus of Dissertation Research Source: Adopted with modification from Byrne and Jinjun (2009: 38)

125

Following from this conceptualization, this research raises three main arguments. Under each of these arguments are specific research questions that this research addresses. These capture planning at the national and local levels as these are the spatial levels where policies and plans are formulated as well as where development interventions are identified for implementation. These are:

1. Institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning contribute to a low emphasis on urban

greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis.

Research questions:

i. What attention has been given to urban greenspaces in urban development plans for

the Kumasi Metropolis?

ii. What challenges do urban planners encounter in urban greenspace planning in the

Kumasi Metropolis?

iii. What factors should urban authorities consider in urban greenspace planning in the

Kumasi Metropolis?

2. The socio-cultural factors surrounding the use and demand for urban greenspaces in the

Kumasi Metropolis place a low emphasis on urban greenspaces.

Research questions:

i. What types of urban greenspaces do residents use in the Kumasi Metropolis?

ii. How do residents perceive the importance and role of urban greenspaces?

iii. How do urban residents prioritize the need for urban greenspaces within the Kumasi

Metropolis?

126

iv. What contentions arise in the planning of urban greenspaces in the Kumasi

Metropolis?

3. The institutional and socio-cultural barriers to urban greenspace planning provide hints of

the challenges in planning for CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis.

Research questions:

i. What are the forms of CCIs in urban development plans for the Kumasi

Metropolis?

ii. To what extent do urban CCIs converge or diverge from national CCIs?

iii. How do climate change framings affect the financing of CCIs, particularly urban

greenspaces?

iv. To what extent do institutional and socio-cultural barriers of urban greenspace

planning affect the effective planning of CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis?

From the initial research proposal, through the literature review, data collection and finally the writing of the dissertation report, some changes have been made to the research arguments and questions. This is owing to two reasons: first, to ensure that the dissertation research builds on the body of knowledge about greenspaces and climate change in urban Ghana and to avoid repeating existing research. Secondly, the data gathered warranted changes in some aspect of the research arguments and questions. For example, the absence of GIS data made it difficult for a comprehensive assessment of greenspace accessibility within the Metropolis. Also, some institutional respondents were reluctant to provide information concerning the management of urban parks in the Metropolis due to a regime change. These political and administrative reasons were evident in several news publications about managers of the Rattray Park in Kumasi (See

127

Appendix One). In addition, the transition regimes made it difficult for urban planners to respond to some of the questions and issues that the research focused on. As such, responses to such questions were not adequate.

Consequently, the initially proposed fourth argument “The model or framework for managing urban greenspaces contributes to the decline in urban greenspace in the Kumasi

Metropolis” and the questions under it has been removed from this research. This reduced the initial research arguments from four to three. In addition, one question under the argument “The socio-cultural factors surrounding the use and demand for urban greenspaces in the Kumasi

Metropolis place less emphasis on urban greenspace provision” have been removed due to the absence of GIS data. This question is (ii) How accessible are urban greenspaces in the Kumasi

Metropolis? Furthermore, additional questions have been introduced for Argument 3 based on the available data for this research. Table 6.1 summarizes these changes. Under Argument 1, the research question, “What is the influence of colonization and decentralization on urban greenspaces planning in the Kumasi Metropolis?” was omitted because earlier research by

Schmidt (2005) and Amoako and Adom-Asamoah (2018) provide answers to the question.

128

Table 6.1: Changes to Research Arguments and Questions Research Questions Research Argument Proposal Stage Dissertation Stage ▪ Institutional barriers to i. What attention has city authorities given to i. What attention has been given to urban greenspaces in urban greenspace greenspaces in urban development plans for urban development plans for the Kumasi Metropolis? planning contribute to a the Kumasi Metropolis? ii. What challenges do urban planners encounter in urban low emphasis on urban ii. What is the influence of colonization and greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis? greenspaces in the decentralization on urban greenspaces iii. What factors should urban authorities consider in urban Kumasi Metropolis. planning in the Kumasi Metropolis? greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis? iii. What are the perceptions and challenges of urban planners in urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis? ▪ The model or framework i. What are the challenges and limitations of for managing urban current urban greenspace management greenspaces contributes framework within the Kumasi Metropolis? to the decline in urban ii. Would the commercialization of urban greenspace in the Kumasi greenspaces for recreation promote effective Omitted Metropolis. management of urban greenspaces? iii. What would be the implications of commercializing urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis on accessibility and residents’ use of urban greenspaces?

129

Table 6.1: Changes to Research Arguments and Questions (Continued) Research Questions Research Argument Proposal Stage Dissertation Stage ▪ The socio-cultural factors i. What are the typologies of urban greenspaces i. What types of urban greenspaces do residents use in the surrounding the use and in the Kumasi Metropolis and their uses by Kumasi Metropolis? demand for urban residents? ii. How do residents perceive the importance and role of greenspaces in the ii. How accessible are urban greenspaces in the urban greenspaces? Kumasi Metropolis place Kumasi Metropolis? iii. How do urban residents prioritize the need for urban a low emphasis on urban iii. How do residents perceive the importance and greenspaces within the Kumasi Metropolis? greenspaces role of urban greenspaces? iv. What contentions arise in the planning of urban iv. How do urban residents prioritize the need for greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis? urban greenspaces within the Kumasi Metropolis? v. What contentions arise in the planning and management of urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis? ▪ The institutional and i. What are the forms of climate change i. What are the forms of CCIs in urban development socio-cultural barriers to interventions in the Kumasi Metropolis? plans for the Kumasi Metropolis? urban greenspace ii. What are the framings of urban greenspaces ii. To what extent do urban CCIs converge or diverge planning provide hints of within the context of climate change from national CCIs? the challenges in interventions? iii. How do climate change framings affect the financing planning for CCIs in the iii. To what extent would institutional and socio- of CCIs, particularly urban greenspaces? Kumasi Metropolis. cultural barriers of urban greenspaces affect the iv. To what extent do institutional and socio-cultural effective planning and implementation of barriers of urban greenspace planning affect the climate change interventions in the Kumasi effective planning of CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis? Metropolis?

Source: Author’s Construct (2019).

130

6.3.2 Types of Data

6.3.2.1 Secondary Data a) Literature Review

The literature review for this research was undertaken at four levels to critically investigate urban greenspaces and climate change. The literature review has been presented in tandem with issues relating to rapid urbanization globally and as it pertains in Africa and Ghana, particularly the

Kumasi Metropolis. It covers four chapters—two on urban greenspaces and two on climate change.

In both cases, the discussion emerged first from a global perspective and a focus on Africa, with subsequent emphasis on Ghana and Kumasi.

The literature search used specific keywords and their related synonyms that speak to the subject matter of “urban greenspaces” and “climate change.” This supported the identification of articles for the literature review at two levels. First, the search focused on finding literature on planning for urban greenspaces and secondly, on planning for climate change. Using the Boolean

Search Logic, the terms used in the literature search on urban greenspaces included: urban greenspace planning with barriers, challenges, problems, and factors. Also, urban greenspace was combined with phrases (using AND) such as urban planning, urban parks planning, urban forest planning, green infrastructure planning, green cities, greening cities, greenspace planning, greenspace management, open space planning, and open space management. Furthermore, the literature review process was guided by Byrne and Jinjun (2009) and Matthews et al. (2015) framework of greenspace capacity for climate change adaptation. Hence, urban greenspace planning was used in combination with terms like social barriers, social factors, social challenges, social problems, residents’ perceptions, residents’ attitudes, and residents’ values. Again, urban

131

greenspace planning was used in combination with such terms as institutional barriers, institutional factors, institutional challenges, institutional problems, and institutional capacity.

In the literature search on climate change, climate change was combined with barriers, challenges, problems, and factors. Also, a combination of terms such as climate adaptation AND urban planning; climate action AND urban planning; climate governance AND urban planning; climate finance AND urban planning; climate change AND urban planning were used. Using the

Byrne and Jinjun (2009) and Matthews et al. (2015) frameworks, the following terms were applied in the literature search: climate change with social barriers, social factors, social challenges, social problems, residents’ perceptions, residents’ attitudes, and residents’ values. Similarly, climate change with institutional barriers, institutional factors, institutional challenges, institutional problems, and institutional capacity. Also, a targeted literature search was undertaken to identify publications that speak to specific concepts that are related to this study. Such literature search included searches using urban greenspace planning with terms like resilience, sustainability, and adaptation.

b) Collection of Urban Development Plans, Laws and Regulations

Five urban development plans from two planning departments of the Kumasi Metropolis have been reviewed. The departments are the Physical Planning Department (PPD) or the Town and Country

Planning Department (TCPD) and the Metropolitan Planning Coordinating Unit (MPCU). The

MPCU emphasizes socio-economic developments while the PPD focuses on spatial and physical planning and development control systems. Although these two departments exist separately of each other, their functions and urban development plans often overlap (Acheampong and Ibrahim,

2016). These documents were examined to reveal how urban greenspaces and climate change

132

interventions are captured in urban planning documents, whether urban authorities place any priority in their planning, how they are framed, and the context in which they are framed; particularly whether urban greenspaces are framed within the context of climate change. This study thus examined different urban development plans and their budget sections for the Kumasi

Metropolis.

Three Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly Medium-Term Development Plans for the period of

2006-2009, 2010-2013, and 2014-2017 were obtained from the MPCU. Two other urban development plans namely Greater Kumasi Comprehensive Plan and The Kumasi City

Development Strategy 2007-2022— Creating a Better Future for the City of Kumasi were also obtained during the field data collection. Further information about these plans is provided below:

Medium-Term Development Plans (MTDP)

In 1993, Ghana adopted a new decentralized framework to reform planning in Ghana.

Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs) were delineated as planning and development authorities of their respective jurisdictions (Diko and Akrofi, 2013). Guided by the

National Development Planning Commission (NDPC), a function mandated by Section 1, 2 to 11 of the National Development Planning (System) Act 1994 (Act 480), these MMDAs prepare four- year plans to guide the implementation of socio-economic and poverty reduction interventions for their jurisdictions (NDPC, 2009).

The guidelines outline the processes MMDAs need to go through in preparing MTDPs and ensure that the plans are in line with national development priorities. The MTDPs are expected to include action plans, implementation frameworks, financial arrangements, and monitoring and evaluation plans, as well as promote integrated development planning and facilitate stakeholder

133

participation in development planning in Ghana (NDPC, 2013). The MTDPs are prepared by the

Planning Coordinating Units (PCU) of MMDAs. So far, five guidelines have been produced since

1996. Ordinarily, this will mean that MMDAs that have been in existence since 1996 should have prepared five MTDPs. However, due to the creation of new districts (often by splitting existing districts), not all MMDAs have prepared five MTDPs since 1996. Again, due to poor data management of some MMDAs, availability of and access to MTDPs are often a challenge. This study had access to three MTDPs for the Kumasi Metropolis.

Kumasi City Development Strategy (KCDS)

The KCDS, prepared by the KMA, sought to promote development in the Metropolis between

2007 and 2022. The strategic plan focused on six priority areas namely: local economic development, urban sprawl, tourism, spatial development/infrastructure, education, and health.

However, unlike the MTDP which is mandated by law and prepared using the NDPC guidelines for preparing MTDP every four years, this was a strategic long-term effort by the KMA to promote development and reduce poverty in the Metropolis.

Greater Kumasi Comprehensive Plan (GKCP)

The GKCP is a local master plan for the Kumasi Metropolis and its adjoining five districts (Afigya-

Kwabre, Atwima-Kwanwoma, Atwima-Nwabiagya, Kwabre East District, and Bosomtwe) and two municipalities (Ejisu-Juaben and Asokore-Mampong). Together, these eight MMDAs constitute the Greater Kumasi Sub-Region (GKSR), which covers a total area of about 1100.391 sq. miles (2,850 sq. km) and has a total population of 2,764,091. The master plan consists of a spatial development framework for Greater Kumasi Sub-Region, structure plan, and

134

implementation plan to guide the growth and development of the sub-region (Ministry of

Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation [MESTI] et al., 2013a; Acheampong and

Ibrahim, 2016). The GKCP consists of seven parts and these have been organized into three volumes. The preparation of this plan was supported with funding and technical support from the

Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

National Development Plans, Policies, and Regulations

At the national level, this study retrieved the following development plans for review: Ghana

Vision 2020 (First Step, 1996-2000), Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS I, 2003-2005),

Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II, 2006-2009), Ghana Shared Growth and

Development Agenda I (GSGDA, 2010-2013), Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda

II (GSGDA, 2014-2017), National Climate Change Policy Framework (NCCPF), National

Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (NCCAS), Ghana National Climate Change Policy (NCCP), and the National Climate Change Policy Action Programme for Implementation (NCCPAPI). The research also examines Ghana’s National Urban Policy Framework, Ghana National Urban

Policy Action Plan, Manual for the Preparation of Spatial Plans, the New Spatial Planning Model

Guidelines, and Zoning Guidelines and Planning Standards.

In addition to these documents, urban planning laws, acts, and regulations were retrieved.

The Acts include: Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462), Town and Country Planning Act, 1945,

Civil Service Law, 1994 (PNDCL 327), the National Development Commission Act of 1994 (Act

479), National Development Planning Systems Act, 1994 (Act 480), the District Assemblies

Common Fund Act, 1993 (Act 327) and the Land Use and Spatial Planning Bill (2016).

135

These documents were retrieved to examine their framings of urban greenspaces and CCIs such as the problematizing of urban greenspaces and climate change and whether urban greenspaces are identified as an intervention that can help urban areas confront climate change impacts in Ghana. These documents also provide evidence of whether attention has been given to urban greenspaces and climate change in local and national development plans as well as budget statements.

6.3.2.2 Primary Data Collection

This study employed two methods of primary data collection namely: interviews and survey. The discussions that follow provide a theoretical background of these methods and how they have been applied in this study.

i. Interviews

Interviews are face-to-face conversations with respondents to gather data based on a set of open- ended questions. Interviews are often characterized as a qualitative research method that encourages detailed responses from respondents. They require indepth responses from respondents on specific issues or questions (Vogt et al., 2012; Kothari, 2004). An interview schedule or interview guide is often used for interviews. The former uses a set of fixed questions to gather responses and ensures consistency across respondents. An interview guide, however, comprises a set of issues (which could be questions) that respondents respond to. It allows for flexibility as the researcher can ask follow-up questions based on the respondent’s answers.

An advantage of the interview research method is that it enables researchers to understand the context and rationale of responses (Vogt et al., 2012; Kothari, 2004). It provides a mechanism to obtain the reasons (i.e. whys) underpinning the “whats” of responses (Vogt et al., 2012); thus,

136

collecting indepth data about the issues being studied. Secondly, it often involves a few people, who targeted or purposively selected. Respondent rates are higher because interactions are often face-to-face and personal (Kothari, 2004). One challenge of this method is that interviews are difficult to use for a wide sample as it makes data collection and analysis expensive and time- consuming. Coding occurs post-data collection and is based on the responses gathered. This increases the burden of data collation and analysis, at times leading to no pattern in responses.

Also, respondents can easily wander-off if conscious efforts are not made to put respondent’s focus on the interview. There is a tendency of bias in the selection of respondents while the presence of the interviewer may induce respondents to over-stimulate responses to questions (Vogt et al., 2012;

Kothari, 2004), causing the Hawthorne effect (McCambridge et al., 2014). It also demands developing a good rapport with respondents for reliable information, as this can delay the data collection process.

This study conducted interviews with key respondents particularly those at the helm of the planning of urban greenspaces and climate change intervention in the Kumasi Metropolis.

Preliminary contact was made with respondents in summer 2015. At that time, key interviews were conducted with seven faculty members of the Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah

University of Science and Technology. These individuals were selected based on their research interests and experiences with greenspace planning and urban planning in the Metropolis.

Additionally, two urban planners in the Kumasi Metropolis— one from the PPD and one from the

MPCU— were interviewed to appreciate the issues relating to planning for urban greenspaces.

Later, between December 2017 and July 2018, additional interviews were conducted. Two staff

137

from the Department of Parks and Gardens and two staff from Lands Commission (including

Administration of Stool Lands)13 were subsequently interviewed.

Interviews focused on issues such as greenspace planning and climate change interventions in the Metropolis. The interview schedule consists of twenty-one questions. These are grouped under two areas: (i) urban greenspace planning and (ii) CCIs. Questions cover the loss of urban greenspaces and their causes, ways to improve availability and access to urban greenspaces, the role of urban greenspaces as CCIs, and how to effectively plan for urban greenspaces to confront climate change impacts in the Kumasi Metropolis (See Appendices). Questions on urban greenspaces focused addressing Argument One while questions on climate change were to help respond to Argument 3 for this research. In all these questions, the goal was to appreciate institutional perspectives to urban greenspace planning and climate change issues in the Kumasi

Metropolis and to deduce the institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning.

One challenge encountered was getting the individuals at these institutions to interview.

Because they had tight schedules, appointments were booked in advance—and in some cases, reappointments were initiated. Interviews lasted an average of 45 minutes—with occasional intrusions from other workers. Earlier interactions with some respondents provided a favorable condition to return to conduct new interviews. Table 6.2 presents the number of institutions contacted for this study.

13 In 2008, during the implementation of the land reforms through the Land Administration Program, a new Lands Commission was established under the Lands Commission Act, 2008 (Act 767). This resulted in the merger of five land institutions in Ghana namely: Land Valuation Board, Survey Department, Land Title Registry, and the Lands Commission and the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands. See Ehwi and Asante (2016) and Awuah and Hammond (2013) for details. 138

Table 6.2: Number of Institutions Contacted for the Study No. of Institutions Roles* Interviews # Kumasi • Designing management plans for green spaces in the 1 Metropolitan Metropolis Assembly • control haphazard land development and provision of basic (Metropolitan social infrastructure to avoid encroachment of open areas Planning • Undertake, finance and manage greening projects and Coordinating programs for open spaces Unit) • Assess building proposals, approve and issue building permits Town and country • TCPD formulate policies to guide and direct spatial growth 1 planning and physical development of the city Department • Manage development and zone areas into open places and (Physical other land uses Planning • protect areas conserved as open spaces Department) • issue development and building permit to land developers • Set building codes and planning standards Lands commission • Manage public lands vested in the president and the 2 (Administration of commission including open spaces Stool Lands) • Facilitate the acquisition of open spaces on behalf of the government and the KMA • Register deeds and instrument that aﬀect land throughout the city and protect open spaces from encroachment Department of • Responsible for environmental landscape development and 2 Parks and Gardens management of urban green and open spaces • Develop and beautify the landscape of new areas zoned as open spaces • Protect and maintain existing green areas • Maintain and service green spaces facilities Kwame Nkrumah • Teaching of development and physical planning 7 University of professionals Science and • Conduct consultancy services for local government Technology institutions (Department of • Conducts research on land use and environmental issues Planning) # Source: Adopted (*) with additions (#) from Amoako and Adom-Asamoah (2018: 13)

ii. Surveys

Surveys involve administering a research questionnaire containing a specific set of questions for several people (Kothari, 2004). They can be done with (in person or over the phone) or without having a conversation with respondents (through online portals, posted or emailed questionnaires).

139

Questions are either closed-ended (structured) or open-ended (unstructured). Closed-ended questions have multiple choice answers for respondents to choose from. For open-ended questions, respondents provide short explanations, additional responses or reasons to questions (i.e. no list of possible responses is provided).

An advantage of a survey research method is that it allows for easy coding and collation of data for analysis. The use of standard questions helps improve the reliability of the research (Vogt et al., 2012; Kothari, 2004). The options for open-ended questions give room to collect additional responses. However, a weakness of this method is that it confines respondents to a set of options

(closed-ended) and can lead to misguided responses if a proper understanding of the research context and concepts are not well-known and used in designing the questionnaire. Researchers might also lose the insight and context that interviews offer in a research since the data from interviews are detailed and explanatory in nature.

This study also used a survey research method. This examined the social context

(perceptions and attitudes) of urban greenspace and climate change issues in the Kumasi

Metropolis using a questionnaire that comprises both structured and semi-structured questions

(Table 6.3). The questionnaire was pretested to ensure that it generates appropriate and reliable data to answer the research questions. This occurred between December 10th, 2017 and January

15th, 2018. During the pretesting, 90 people were contacted. Data from the pre-test were not included in the final dataset. The feedback was minor but provided additional insight into the interpretation of questions and when to contact residents in the Kumasi Metropolis.

140

Table 6.3: Structure of the Questionnaire for the Survey Open-Ended Closed-Ended Sections Questions Questions 1. Use of greenspaces 5 Multiple Choice Questions 1 2. Distance/access to greenspaces 2 Multiple Choice Questions 2 3. Lifestyle and human behavior 2 Multiple Choice Questions 0 1 Likert Scale 4. Awareness of greenspace benefits 1 Likert Scale 0 5. Awareness of urban greenspace functions 1 Likert Scale 0 6. Awareness of climate change issues 9 Multiple Choice Questions 1 1 Likert Scale 7. Contribute to urban greenspace planning 5 Multiple Choice Questions 0 8. Attitude to Greenspace land use conversions 3 Multiple Choice Questions 1 9. Needs of urban residents 0 1 10. Prioritization of Greenspace 1 0 11. Greenspace Assessment 1 1 12. Demographics 1 5

Source: Author’s Construct (2019).

During the pre-testing, it was realized that all respondents should answer Q11. Again, for questionnaires, the response rate was initially high since residents were in the house because of the festive period. However, this dwindled as residents began to return to work. This meant that data collection needed to be undertaken early in the day and in the evening as well as target residents at their place of work. In addition, it became apparent that weekends were likely a time to contact residents. For this reason, the initial aim to contact residents at their place of residence changed. Residents were engaged in the sub-metropolitan area (sub-metros) where they were found at the time of the survey. In other words, instead of targeting a set number of residents at their place of residence within a sub-metropolitan area, the survey interviewed individuals located within the sub-metropolitan area during the survey period irrespective of whether they are resident in that sub-metropolitan area or not. Questionnaire interviews were thus by location or residency.

While this had the potential of affecting how the data is interpreted at the neighborhood level, residents’ general awareness of their location transcended this challenge. Findings from this

141

research are similar to location characteristics presented in Nero (2017) and Acheampong et al.

(2017), thus limiting the basis this approach may have generated. Again, since the study focused on adults, one adult in a house was selected irrespective of whether they are the household head or not. Questionnaires were administered during the weekday and weekend as many adults were often in the house during weekends.

Based on the nature of sub-metros which consisted of several towns or neighborhoods, the survey began with township or neighborhood names that corresponded to the sub-metros. With the help of a field assistant, who knew Kumasi very well, the study areas were arranged in an order that facilitated easy movements and reduced travel time.

In the design of questionnaires, Vogt et al. (2012: 33) point out that one “need to make sure to ask the right questions, to ask them in the right way, and to make special efforts to understand the answers.” The pretesting of the survey questionnaire provided a means to ensure these critical considerations were factored into the survey process. This helped ensure the validity and reliability of the research results. For this study, the sample size determination was done using a probability sampling technique. Specifically, the stratified sampling technique was applied using sub- geographical population proportions within the Kumasi Metropolis. This helped reduce biases in questionnaire administration—an observation that corresponds with recommendations of

Bechhofer and Paterson (2012).

6.3.3 Sample Size Determination

This study adopts Sloven’s formula: n = N/ [1+N (α)2], where n = sample size; N = sample frame

(total population of study area); α = confidence level (Tejada and Punzalan, 2012; Yamane,

142

1967)— to determine the sample size for this study’s survey. Table 6.4 presents the results from the estimation of the sample size for the survey using Sloven’s formula.

Three methods were used in calculating the sample size and each resulted in the same outcome. The first approach used the total population of the Metropolis as the sample frame. The second used the population of persons 15 years or older as the sample frame, and third the total number of households in the Metropolis. This was done because there was no available data on the number of households in the sub-metros which was the input for the sampling process using the stratified random sampling based on sub-geographical areas. Since all three results yielded the same sample size, and there was data for the various sub-metros on total population or population

15 years and above, these were used as proxy for the sampling process.

Table 6.4: Sample Size Determination Total Population Pop. 15 years or older Total households Sample frame (N) 1,730,249* Sample frame (N) 1,156,647* Sample frame (N) 440,283* Confidence level (α) 5% Confidence level 5% Confidence level 5% (α) Sample size 400 Sample size 400 Sample size 400 * Data from the Ghana Statistical Service (2014)

6.3.4 Sampling Process and Respondent Selection

To administer the questionnaires, the study used a two-stage sampling approach. The first stage employed the stratified random sampling method to determine the number of people to be interviewed using questionnaires at the sub-metros. The Ghana Statistical Service (2014) notes that the Kumasi Metropolis is made up of nine Sub-Metropolitan District Councils. These are

Asokwa, Bantama, Kwadaso, Manhyia, Nhyiaso, Oforikrom, Suame, Subin and Tafo.

Acheampong (2013) observes that these areas of the Kumasi Metropolis can be classified into

143

seven uniform and continuous areas based on the types of houses, densities of residents, existing facilities and services that exist in the areas, and the challenges residents encounter— particularly when it comes to housing. Informed by this understanding, the stratified random sampling was employed at the first stage of the two-stage sampling process.

The calculation of the number of questionnaires that were administered in each of the various sub-metros used data on the total population of the areas as the sample frame and persons

15 years and above (similar to the sample size determination process). Population data at the sub- metropolitan level for the Kumasi Metropolis was only available for the 2010 census year, which puts the population of the Metropolis at 2,035,064 (see footnote of Table 6.5). However, at the time of the study, Asawase was not part of the Metropolis. Hence, it was subtracted from the 2010 data of the Kumasi Metropolis.14 Table 6.5 presents the summary results of the number of questionnaires administered in the sub-metros. The results are similar with slight differences across. However, this study adopted the results from the population 15 years and above, as the study focused on matured individuals and not households. Hence, this option offered a better proximal measure for those 18 years and above who are considered adults in Ghana than the results from the total population—which included children.

14 This subsequently result in a difference in the estimated population of the Kumasi Metropolis by the Ghana Statistical Service as reported in 2014. The Service reports the population of Kumasi Metropolis as 1,730,249 while my calculation (less of Asawase population of with population of 312,258) yields 1,722,806. This difference could be attributed to a population increase between 2010 and 2014. 144

Table 6.5: Sample Size Determination for the Surveys in the Sub-Metropolitan Areas

Sub- Total Population* Pop. 15 years or older* Nature of Area# Metro Population % Sample Population % Sample Asokwa High Cost, Low 140,161 8.14 33 92,551 8.04 32 Density Residential Areas Bantama Tenement 260,474 15.12 60 172,996 15.03 60 Housing Sector Kwadaso Government 251,215 14.58 58 164,665 14.30 57 Built Sector Manhyia Indigenous 152,225 8.84 35 104,285 9.06 36 Housing Sector Nhyiaeso High Cost, Low 134,488 7.81 31 91,027 7.91 32 Density Residential Areas Oforikrom Areas of 303,016 17.59 70 205,416 17.84 72 substandard housing showing slum conditions Old Tafo Areas of 146,024 8.48 34 94,845 8.24 33 (Moshie substandard Zongo) housing showing slum conditions Mixed-Income Suame Mixed Income 161,199 9.36 37 104,626 9.09 36. Subin Central Business 174,004 10.10 40 120,961 10.51 42 District Total 1,722,806 100.00 400 1,151,372 100.00 400

* 2010 estimates of the Kumasi Metropolis from the Ghana Statistical Service (2013) was 2,035,064. This included the population of Asokore Mampong and Asawase sub-metropolitan areas of 312,258. Data at the submetro was not available for the newly created Metropolitan area. So, the 2010 estimates were used to estimate the population of the existing sub-metropolitan areas. Hence, Asokore Mampong and Asawase sub-metropolitan areas were not included in this study due to the new demarcation. # Acheampong (2013) discusses the area classification and characteristics in detail

The 400 questionnaires were administered across 20 neighborhoods in the Kumasi

Metropolis between March 12th, 2018 and July 10th, 2018, with the aid of one field assistant.

Table 6.6 provides a summary of the number of questionnaires administered in each of these neighborhoods. In selecting each individual participant, it would have been ideal to use simple

145

random sampling. While there is a sample frame, it does not provide detailed information to allow for random sampling such as the individual addresses or location of persons 18 years and older. A non-probability sampling technique was adopted instead to select each participant by means of convenience and snowball sampling. Thus, the total questionnaires administered in the sub-metros was done by means of convenience and snowballing method due to the homogenous characteristics of these areas (see Acheampong, 2013).

Table 6.6: Total Number of Questionnaires Administered During the Field Survey Sub Metro Community/Neighborhood Count Percent Asokwa Ahinsan 16 4.00 Atonsu 16 4.00 Sub-total 32 8.0 Bantama Aprepo 25 6.25 Bantama 35 8.75 Sub-total 60 15.0 Kwadaso Kwadaso 32 8.00 Kwadaso Estate 25 6.25 Sub-total 57 14.25 Manhyia Manhyia 36 9.00 Sub-total 36 9.00 Nhyiaeso Danyame 10 2.50 Nhyiaeso 22 5.50 Sub-total 32 8.00 Oforikrom Ayeduase New Site 17 4.25 Ayigya Zongo 20 5.00 Bompso 14 3.50 Oforikrom 21 5.25 Sub-total 72 18.00 Suame Breman 16 4.00 Suame 20 5.00 Sub-total 36 9.00 Subin Amakom 24 6.00 Asafo 18 4.50 Sub-total 42 10.50 Tafo Moshie Zongo 13 3.25 New Tafro 12 3.00 Old Tafo 8 2.00 Sub-total 33 8.25 TOTAL 400 100.00

Source: Author’s Construct (2019).

146

This helped in overcoming the limitation of a lack of an address database that would have allowed for a simple random sampling. To ensure that selection bias is reduced, a few guiding principles were employed: (i) The field assistant was encouraged to factor into the administration of questionnaires issues of proximity and hence, was required to ensure some distance the location of respondents; and (ii) The field assistant was trained and guided on the expectations for this study particularly on the interpretation and meaning of questions in the questionnaire to ensure consistencies in respondents’ understanding. Also, if a respondent was reluctant to be interviewed, the study moved on to the next interested person until the target 400 sample was attained. The researcher and field assistant administered the 400 questionnaires (250 by researcher and 150 by research assistant).

6.3.5 Data Coding

Different coding mechanisms were employed for the qualitative and quantitative data collected.

For the survey, responses of closed-ended questions in the questionnaires were pre-coded.

However, in some cases, the coding for some questions were modified based on the responses from the field survey. The following are the specific changes made to the coding for closed-ended questions:

▪ Questions that were not responded to by respondents due to required skips in the question

order were coded as “99 INAP.” These were subsequently treated as “Missing Data” in the

analysis. Consequently, the percentages generated did not include the missing data.

▪ In cases where respondents refused to provide a response, stated that they had no idea, or

could not provide a general response to the question, these responses were coded as “98

147

Not sure/Don't know/No response. This is a change from the initial coding of “9 Not

sure/Don’t know.” The percentages generated included these responses.

▪ In Question 2 of the questionnaire, the other section was recoded into two additional codes

namely: “6 Cultural Centre” and “7 Zoo” based on the responses from respondents.

▪ Respondents who answered “No” in Question 1 were recoded as “6 Do not go to the park”

in Question 8

▪ In Question 12, “3 Disagree Somewhat” was recoded as “4 Disagree.”

▪ Question 14 and 20 were broken down into separate questions with responses of “0 No”

and “1 Yes” in the coding process. All Yes and No questions were re-coded in this format.

▪ The changes in coding for Question 15 – 17 have been recoded as follows:

Table 6.7: Changes to Codes for Closed-Ended Questions in the Survey Questionnaire ORIGINAL CODING CHANGES Q15. Have you noticed any changes in rainfall Q15. Have you noticed any changes in rainfall patterns in the past years? patterns in the past years? Yes, increasing [ ] 1 No [ ] 0 Yes, increasing a lot [ ] 1.1 Yes, increasing [ ] 1 Yes, decreasing [ ] 1.2 Yes, increasing a lot [ ] 2 Yes, decreasing a lot [ ] 1.3 Yes, decreasing [ ] 3 Yes, changes in the rainfall season [ ] 1.4 Yes, decreasing a lot [ ] 4 No [ ] 2 Yes, changes in the rainfall season [ ] 5 Q16. Have you noticed any changes in Q16. Have you noticed any changes in temperature temperature in the past years? in the past years? Yes, increasing [ ] 1 No [ ] 0 Yes, increasing a lot [ ] 1.1 Yes, increasing [ ] 1 Yes, decreasing [ ] 1.2 Yes, increasing a lot [ ] 2 Yes, decreasing a lot [ ] 1.3 Yes, decreasing [ ] 3 Yes, changes in the dry season [ ] 1.4 Yes, decreasing a lot [ ] 4 No [ ] 2 Yes, changes in the dry season [ ] 5 Q17. Have you noticed any changes in flooding Q17. Have you noticed any changes in flooding in in the past years? the past years? Yes, increasing [ ] 1 No [ ] 0 Yes, increasing a lot [ ] 1.1 Yes, increasing [ ] 1 Yes, decreasing [ ] 1.2 Yes, increasing a lot [ ] 2 Yes, decreasing a lot [ ] 1.3 Yes, decreasing [ ] 3 No [ ] 2 Yes, decreasing a lot [ ] 4 Source: Author’s Construct (2019).

148

Responses from the few open-ended questions have been coded by first listing and reviewing all responses and subsequently identifying keywords to be used as codes (Saldaňa,

2016) for the responses (See Appendices). This research used a three-step coding process to code the open-ended questions as illustrated in Figure 6.4 below.

Figure 6.3: The Coding Process for the Open-Ended Questions of the survey Source: Author’s Construct (2019)

This study used the strand of Grounded Theory Methods (GTM) by Barney Glaser who suggests three levels of coding: open coding, selective coding, and theoretical coding (Urquhart,

2013; Glaser, 2005; Glaser, 1978). This was useful in conducting the content and framing analysis in this research (See section on Qualitative Analysis). According to Barney Glaser (1978, 2005) and Cathy Urquhart (2013), Open Coding is the first stage of the coding processes that involves the preliminary assignments of code to text, often on a line-by-line basis. As such, it is very comprehensive and forms the basis for subsequent coding (Charmaz, 2006).

149

The second stage is the Selective Coding which condenses the initial codes into categories that become the main variables (Urquhart, 2013; Glaser, 2005; Glaser, 1978). At this, the open codes are organized into important variables that help the researcher answers the research questions or address the research problem (Urquhart, 2013).

The third stage is Theoretical Coding. Here, the researcher examines the selective codes to determine relationships and meaningful connections that help shape the narrative to answer the research questions. These connections could be between other categories from the coding process, ideas inherent in literature, or represent connections themselves (Urquhart, 2013).

By going through these processes, the researcher thus brings forth a set of knowledge that can explain the phenomenon being studied and subsequently develops a theory (Urquhart, 2013;

Glaser, 2005; Glaser, 1978). Figure 6.5 illustrates how the GTM guided the coding processes for the indepth interviews and document analysis. This framework is useful and akin to the framework for coding the open-ended questions of the survey in Figure 6.4. The difference arises in terms of the quantum of text to work with. The responses from the opened-ended questions in the survey were short and not detailed and thus transitioning from open coding to theoretical coding was straight forward. The researcher undertook all the coding for this research.

150

Figure 6.4: The Coding Process for Indepth Interviews and Documents Analysis Source: Author’s Construct (2019)

151

6.3.6 Data Analysis

Data analysis is often dependent on the type of data that has been generated for analysis. Methods of data analysis can broadly be grouped into two main types namely quantitative and qualitative.

For mixed-method research like this, both quantitative and qualitative data are used; thus, warranting both quantitative and qualitative data analysis.

6.3.6.1 Quantitative Data Analysis

This research uses frequency tables and cross-tabulation analysis of coded responses to generate findings from the survey. In some cases, different charts are used to illustrate the findings from the research. This helped determine the preferences for and use of greenspaces by residents and residents’ understanding of climate change issues. The analysis was based on the survey data.

In the case of cross-tabulations, which is also referred to in some books as contingency tables, the research was able to determine the relationship between two variables, particularly those that are nominal or categorical in nature. This kind of analysis was important because the majority of the survey responses were categorical in nature; meaning the responses cannot be numerically measured and their order is not definite. In other words, categorical variables have responses that are in discrete categories compared to responses that are characterized by a continuous range of numerical values or numbers (Tomek, 2018). Such variables are grouped into two, namely nominal or ordinal data. This distinction is based on how the data is measured. In the case of nominal categorical variables, responses have some form of ordering but are arbitrary in nature and so cannot be ranked or arranged in specific orders. In contrast, ordinal categorical variables have natural orders that provide some fundamental meaning evening though they may not be exact measurements (Tomek, 2018). Due to the nature of data from the survey (Table 6.8), and in line

152

with Frey’s recommendation that the “analyses of frequencies of observed outcomes of categorical variables, or contingency tables, are the foundation of categorical data analysis” (2018:4), the analysis of the survey data was done using cross-tabulations or contingency tables.

In using, cross-tabulations, the study tested for relationships between variables using the

Contingency coefficients and Phi and Cramer’s V values. This helped in determining associations between various categorical variables, the strength of the association between the categorical variables, and their statistical significance. Using these different tests enabled us to verify the results from the data.

Phi and Cramer’s V

These are measures of association between categorical variables using a contingency or cross- tabulation table. It results in a correlation coefficient that provides insight into the strength of the association between categorical variables. The maximum possible value is 1. McHugh (2018) explains that when Phi and Cramer’s V is less than or equal to 0.19 , then the relationship is weak; modest if it is between 0.20 and 0.29 ; moderate if it is between 0.30 and 0.49; strong if it between

0.50 and 0.69; and very strong if it between 0.70 and 1. The closer the measure to 1, the stronger the association between the variables. Phi is appropriate for 2x2 cross-tabulation tables while

Cramer’s V is best for cross-tabulation tables. The formulae for these measures are:

푥2 푃ℎ𝑖 = √ 푁

Where: x2 = Chi-square value for the table,

N = Total number of cases in the table

S = Smaller of the number of columns or the number of rows.

153

푥2⁄푛 퐶푟푎푚푒푟’푠 푉 = √ 푚𝑖푛 (푟 − 1)표푟 (푐 − 1)

Where: r = number of rows,

c = number of columns

min = minimum of the two values.

Contingency coefficients

Another measure of the association between categorical variables is via Contingency coefficients.

This converts a chi-square value into a correlation coefficient that depicts the strength of an association between categorical variables (Cramer and Howitt, 2004). The index ranges from 0 to

1. The formula for this measure is:

푥2 √ 푥2 + 푁

Where: N = Total number of frequencies in the contingency table

x2 = Value of chi-square for the table

In all these analyses, the test of significance is pegged at p-value equal to or less than 0.05, which is often the standard in research. This means that there is a minimum of 95% confidence that the observed results are not by chance. Additionally, since cross-tabulation tables illustrate some form of independence, there was the need to determine which variable goes to which column.

In most research textbooks, the general rule is that the independent variable is placed in the columns, while the dependent variable is placed in the rows (Muijs, 2011). This rule has been applied in this research.

154

6.3.6.2 Qualitative Analysis

Content Analysis

The second form of analysis was content analysis. This was guided by Bengtsson’s (2016) and

Erlingsson and Brysiewicz (2017) approach to undertaking a qualitative study using content analysis. Content analysis helped the researcher to examine relevant information in national and urban plans and documents as well as transcribed interviews. Vitouladiti (2014) explains that content analysis “is a research methodology which examines textual data for patterns and structures, singles out the key features to which researchers want to pay attention, develops categories, and aggregates them into perceptible constructs to seize text meaning” (279).

Weber (1990) provides additional insight and states that content analysis is “a research method that uses a set of procedures to make valid inferences from text” (9). It is also a systematic process of analyzing texts to identify, understand, and objectively present the most important patterns, categories, constructs, and issues in a text (Thia and Ross, 2011; Gray and Densten,

1998). This method can also examine the frequency of specific words, how these words are used, and the meaning they take in texts. It also helps in classifying themes and patterns from documents to inform interpretations about issues (Drisko and Maschi, 2016; Prior, 2003; Krippendorff, 2013).

It thus encompasses both qualitative and quantitative methods involving the coding of texts into categories, themes, and patterns (Thia and Ross, 2011) as well as identifying themes emerging from interviews (Vitouladiti, 2014; Saldaňa, 2016; Emerson et al., 2011; Prior, 2003).

Content analysis is relevant for this study in that it provided a way to deeply understand the “values, intentions, attitudes and cognition” (Vitouladiti, 2014: 280) including principles, framings, and disposition of urban planners and residents in the Kumasi Metropolis towards urban greenspaces and climate change interventions as well as how such issues are captured in planning

155

documents. This study focused more on the “qualitative” aspects of content analysis and explained and “describe themes emerging from the data” (Duriau et al., 2007: 21).

Since urban greenspace planning and climate change interventions are the focus of this study, the content analysis determined whether planning documents employ these themes, in what contexts and sections of the documents they are captured, and how they are communicated. This is important because how such issues are captured in these documents determine the level of priority or attention given to them by metropolitan authorities and the narratives of climate change interventions and urban greenspaces. Furthermore, content analysis was used to examine the interviews with key institutional informants to appreciate their challenges and perceptions about adopting urban greenspaces as a climate change intervention and the institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Metropolis. The researcher coded interviews to determine themes from the respondents’ responses. In addition, verbatim quotes from the respondents were used in data analysis and report writing.

Framing analysis

Framing is a concept that relates to how specific issues and their causes are defined and how different actors mobilize support and suggest ways to deal with them. It often demonstrates how different actors present varied perspectives and assumptions about issues of public interest. Its deliberative nature makes it an interactive process that is constantly changing (Benford and Snow,

2000; Taylor, 2000). It provides insight into how resources are mobilized and the threats that specific issues encounter in the public realm (Knight and Greenberg, 2011). It is, therefore, a critical diagnostic and prognostic analytical framework for understanding which issues are mainstreamed into policies, how they are funded, and how complex issues are communicated and

156

explained to shape public understanding (Vanhala and Hestbaek, 2016; Benford and Snow, 2000).

In effect, frames set the limits and context for people to understand issues (Weathers and Kendall,

2016) and present researchers with a tool to examine the drivers and barriers of policies (Béland,

2009).

In this study, content analysis complemented the framing analysis and provided the basis to identify and understand the various framings in the local development plans. The success of the content and framing analyses was dependent on the coding process. This is because effective coding helps to identify key texts that speak to the research questions for this study. Here too, this research was guided by GTM that enabled the researcher to systematically analyze the qualitative data from the interviews conducted as well as the documents retrieved from the various planning departments.

157

Table 6.8: Summary of Research Design

Research Research Methods of Data Data Analysis Research Questions Sources of Data Argument Variables/Issues Collection Technique Institutional What attention has ▪ Problematization of ▪ Urban ▪ Plans from the PPD ▪ Content analysis barriers to urban been given to urban greenspaces development Plans and MPCU ▪ Framing greenspace greenspaces in urban ▪ Nature of greenspace for Kumasi ▪ Document analysis planning development plans interventions Metropolis downloads from the contribute to a for the Kumasi ▪ Financial arrangements NDPC low emphasis on Metropolis? for greenspace urban interventions greenspaces in What challenges do ▪ Attitudes, values, and ▪ Urban ▪ Plans from the PPD ▪ Content analysis the Kumasi urban planners importance of development Plans and MPCU ▪ Framing Metropolis. encounter in urban greenspaces for Kumasi ▪ Face-to-face analysis greenspace planning ▪ Innovations in Metropolis interviews in the Kumasi greenspace ▪ Interviews with Metropolis? interventions urban planning ▪ Challenges of professionals greenspace planning What factors should ▪ Internal organizational ▪ Urban ▪ Plans from the PPD ▪ Content analysis urban authorities factors affecting development Plans and MPCU ▪ Framing analysis consider in urban greenspace planning for Kumasi ▪ Face-to-face greenspace planning ▪ External organization Metropolis interviews in the Kumasi factors affecting ▪ Interviews with Metropolis? greenspace planning urban planning professionals

158

Table 6.8: Summary of Research Design (Continued)

Research Research Methods of Data Data Analysis Research Questions Sources of Data Argument Variables/Issues Collection Technique The socio- What types of urban ▪ Type of greenspace ▪ Urban residents ▪ Survey ▪ Frequency tables cultural factors greenspaces do used questionnaires ▪ Cross- surrounding the residents use in the ▪ Name of greenspace tabulations use of and Kumasi Metropolis? used demand for urban ▪ Satisfaction from greenspaces in greenspace used the Kumasi How do residents ▪ Awareness of ▪ Urban residents ▪ Survey ▪ Frequency tables Metropolis place perceive the greenspace benefits questionnaires ▪ Cross- a low emphasis importance and role and functions tabulations on urban of urban ▪ Awareness of climate greenspaces. greenspaces? change issues How do urban ▪ Needs of urban ▪ Urban residents ▪ Survey ▪ Frequency tables residents prioritize residents questionnaires ▪ Cross- the need for urban ▪ Needs of urban tabulations greenspaces within residents in relation to the Kumasi greenspaces Metropolis? What contentions ▪ Attitudes of residents ▪ Urban residents ▪ Survey ▪ Frequency tables arise in the planning towards greenspace ▪ Interviews with questionnaires ▪ Content analysis and management of conversion to other urban planning ▪ Face-to-face urban greenspaces in land uses professionals interviews the Kumasi ▪ Willingness to Metropolis? contribute to greenspace planning

159

Table 6.8: Summary of Research Design (Continued)

Research Research Methods of Data Data Analysis Research Questions Sources of Data Argument Variables/Issues Collection Technique The institutional What are the forms of ▪ Urban ▪ Plans from PPD and ▪ Content analysis and socio-cultural CCIs in urban ▪ Types of CCIs development plans MPCU ▪ Framing analysis barriers to urban development plans for greenspace the Kumasi Metropolis? planning provide To what extent do urban ▪ Differences between ▪ Urban ▪ Plans from PPD and ▪ Content analysis hints of the CCIs converge or national and local development plans MPCU ▪ Framing analysis challenges in diverge from national CCIs ▪ National ▪ Document downloads planning for CCIs CCIs? ▪ Similarities between Development from the NDPC and in the Kumasi national and local Planning MFEP website Metropolis. CCIs Frameworks 2. How do climate change ▪ Types of CCIs ▪ Urban ▪ Plans from PPD and ▪ Content analysis framings affect the ▪ Nature of financial development plans MPCU ▪ Framing analysis financing of CCIs, arrangements for ▪ National ▪ Document downloads particularly urban CCIs Development from the NDPC and greenspaces? Planning MFEP website Frameworks To what extent do ▪ Based on the ▪ Based on data ▪ NA ▪ Content analysis institutional and socio- analysis of all analysis ▪ Framing analysis cultural barriers of urban variables. ▪ Frequency tables greenspace planning ▪ Cross-tabulations affect effective planning of CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis?

Source: Author’s Construct (2019)

160

6.4 Triangulation

To ensure that the results from this study are verifiable, different data collection methods were employed. This approach often termed Triangulation is undergirded by the idea that different ways of observing a specific phenomenon is better than one source and helps to minimize the effects of errors or bias that often characterizes a single approach (Bechhofer and Paterson, 2012). One way to do this is to use different research methods in collecting data to answer a specified research question(s) (Varkevisser et al., 2003).

For this reason, this study used different ways to examine barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis. By targeting institutional and household respondents by means of indepth interviews and a survey respectively, this study was able to examine the possible barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Metropolis. For instance, data collection from urban development professionals revealed that residents’ attitudes towards urban greenspaces in the

Metropolis was poor as they do not see it as a priority among their development needs. This was triangulated using data on attitudes, perceptions, and use of urban greenspaces by respondents from the survey. Similarly, while urban development professionals from the PPD and MPCU suggested from the interviews that they pay attention to urban greenspaces in their planning activities, urban development plans were examined to verify whether such claims are valid. The urban development plans were a good source of verification because they are documents that guide the development at the local level (NDPC, 2009) and reflect the planned intentions of urban planning authorities. This approach thus allowed the study to understand the barriers to urban greenspace planning from different perspectives (Bechhofer and Paterson, 2012; Varkevisser et al., 2003).

161

6.5 Research Validity and Reliability

Validity and reliability in research are vital for ensuring that research findings and conclusions are credible, trustworthy and representing what was intended to be measured as well as allow for appropriate generalization or transferability of research findings to other applicable contexts. It thus helps distinguish between what might be considered good or bad research. They relate predominantly to the research processes and instruments (Carmines and Zeller, 1979). This is because of the possibility of wanton intrusions and biases in the research or data collection processes.

Validity according to Kothari (2004) is a measure of the degree to which a test or research instruments measure a specific phenomenon. Carmines and Zeller (1979) add that this deals with the relationship between the research issues (or concept) being measured and the indicators that are supposed to be used to measure them. For this reason, it is a measure of how accurate and truthful measurements and findings are for a research. Often two types of validity issues are discussed namely internal and external validity. While internal validity tackles how accurate and truthful research instruments are in a survey research for a study area or group, external validity deals with how accurate and truthful research instruments are in a survey research across similar study areas or groups (Kothari, 2004).

Carmines and Zeller (1979: 11) further adds that reliability “concerns the extent to which an experiment, test, or any measuring procedure yields the same results on repeated trials.” In other words, the reliability measures how accurate or precise the procedure adopted to measure a phenomenon is (Kothari, 2004). Consistency or the ability to repeat a survey research and have similar research findings or outcomes is thus related to the reliability of a survey research.

Subsequently, the aim is often to ensure that the survey research yield results that would not differ

162

after repeated trials. In both cases, validity and reliability, there are bound to be some level of biases. However, Carmines and Zeller (1979) remind that the issue relates more to the “extent” or

“degree”. Hence in tackling validity and reliability issues in surveys, the target is to enhance validity and reliability by achieving the minimal error or bias possible.

In survey research, the potential sources of such validity issues arise due to “coding, ambiguous instructions, differential emphasis on different words during an interview, [and] interviewer fatigue” (Carmines and Zeller, 1979: 14). With these examples in mind, the sources of such errors include the research, the respondents, field assistants, contexts as well as the strategy for collecting data (Kothari, 2004; Carmines and Zeller, 1979).

To negotiate this challenge in this study, clear variables and indicators were identified to inform the questions in the questionnaire. This began by clearly defining the questions to ensure that there were no ambiguities in their meaning and expectations. The questionnaire for the survey research was informed by concepts, variables, and indicators identified in the literature review.

Similarly, questionnaires used in similar studies were downloaded, reviewed and adapted to suit this study’s context and research questions. From the Ghana Statistical Service (2014) report for the Kumasi Metropolis, 90% of the residents 11 years and over are literate in English. For those

15 years and above, the percentage is 87.67%. Despite this high literacy rates in English, the field assistant was trained to ensure that they effectively communicate the intents and meaning of the questions and indicators in the local language of the area, Twi, when needed.

The research instruments were pre-tested to ensure that the responses from the questions met the expectations for the research. The feedback helped ensure that the questions were refined and without ambiguities. Low response rates and, wide variations in responses were initial challenges during the pre-testing of the instruments. For instance, a definition for greenspaces was

163

provided in the questionnaires, respondents seem unfamiliar with the concept at times.

Additionally, in some areas where pre-testing was conducted in the study area, it was apparent that some of the respondents were illiterate in English. In these cases, the questions in the questionnaire were communicated in the local language, Twi. While this was anticipated and planned for, it became evident the language dynamics and translation of the terminologies in the questionnaire to the local language needed some adjustments. Respondents unfamiliarity with the concepts such as greenspaces required that examples familiar to them were used as cases for them to relate when defining the term. For example, to overcome the definition challenge of greenspaces, examples of popular greenspaces outside the metropolis were identified and used in such situations. In addition, real-life and hypothetical scenarios and illustrations were employed to help respondents understand the questions. These illustrations included referring respondents to urban greenspace scenarios in other jurisdictions; mainly in developed countries; for them to get an idea of the concept being studied.

Again, questions about short to long term needs of the respondents yielded low responses during the pre-testing stage. A recommendation the research assistant was that respondent should be asked about their top three development needs. Respondents were subsequently asked to list the top three development needs that they want for their communities. Furthermore, the research instruments were administered by a highly qualified volunteer with a graduate degree in development planning. The field assistant was oriented on the context, language, and meaning of each question in the questionnaire.

164

6.6 Institutional Review Board Process

For field data collection to commence, the research needed approval from the University of

Cincinnati’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Subsequently, an application was submitted to the

IRB and was reviewed approved (see Appendices for approved letter). After approval, field data collection commenced in the Kumasi Metropolis including the pre-testing of research instruments.

6.7 Threats and Limitation of the Study

Conducting a survey of urban residents has the tendency of yielding low respondent rates and response rates (Kothari, 2004). The former relates to the proportion of the respondents to the survey while the response rate is the proportion of respondents responding to specific questions in the research instruments such as a questionnaire. This is attributed to the busy nature of urban dwellers who are often unavailable to respond to survey questionnaires. This may be aggravated if questionnaires are done by mail. In this study, all questionnaires were administered by means of face-to-face interaction with respondents—both during the week and weekends. Another reliability challenge that may arise is the entering of survey responses into the SPSS software.

The quantum of questionnaires (400) entailed a lot of time. Making sure that the field assistant accurately records participant responses can also present challenges. To overcome this, questionnaires administered each day were reviewed and where challenges were evident in the responses, inquiries made from the field assistant to clarify. Doing this right after the data collection each day allowed the PI to minimize challenges ahead of time—and when the information was recent.

165

CHAPTER SEVEN CLIMATE CHANGE INTERVENTIONS IN THE KUMASI METROPOLIS15 7.1 Introduction

There is no doubt that climate change impacts are real in this urban century. There has also been increased attention on climate change in international development discourse and calls for achieving goals that address climate change impacts (Planners for Climate Action, 2018; United

Nations General Assembly, 2015). However, the attainment of goals on climate change is dependent on how climate change issues are framed and mainstreamed into development plans at all levels of governance. Unfortunately, the global relevance and momentum on climate change have not led to similar momentum at the national and local level (Ziervogel et al., 2016).

In Ghana, climate change issues have progressively been integrated into national development policy frameworks. The NDPC, using guidelines for preparing MTDPs, encourages

MMDAs to give “special considerations” to climate change issues in their development plans, including identifying interventions to tackle climate change impacts. As indicated in Section 5.4, planning in Ghana anticipates an integration of national-level development priorities into plans at the local level. Thus, climate change issues and CCIs identified in national plans— including afforestation and tree planting initiatives (which can be conceived as efforts to increase greenspaces)— are expected to be adapted to local planning contexts by MMDAs. This chapter takes cognizance of this expectation and examines whether there is a divergence or convergence

15 This Chapter has been published: Diko, S. K. 2018. Towards Integration: Managing the Divergence between National Climate Change Interventions and Urban Planning in Ghana. In Smart, Resilient and Transition Cities. Emerging Approaches and Tools for a Climate-Sensitive Urban Development. Eds. Adriana Galderisi, Angela Colucci. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press. pp. 141-151.

166

of Ghana’s national agenda on climate change— as presented in NDPFs and climate-change- specific policy frameworks— and urban planning interventions for the Kumasi Metropolis.

The aim of establishing divergence or convergence is in two folds. The first is to appreciate whether urban development plans for the Kumasi Metropolis pay attention to climate change issues, and secondly to determine whether these plans frame urban greenspaces as CCIs. Hence, discussions in this chapter provide some basis for understanding the need for the effective planning of CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis. To further understand and plan for CCIs in the Kumasi

Metropolis, this chapter also examines the funding arrangements for development interventions in the Kumasi Metropolis to appreciate the funding of CCIs. This chapter contributes to Argument three of this research with attention to three research questions: (i) What are the forms of CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis? (ii) To what extent do urban CCIs converge or diverge from national

CCIs? and (iii) How do climate change framings affect the identification, planning, and finance of development interventions, particularly urban greenspaces? The chapter uses the contents of four urban development plans for the Kumasi Metropolis— that is the MTDPs for the 2006-2009,

2010-2013, and 2014-2017 periods, and the GKCP— to respond to these questions, as these reflect the planned intentions for the Metropolis.

This chapter is organized into six sections after the introduction. Section 7.2 examines

NDPFs and climate-change-specific policy frameworks to understand the framings of climate change issues. This is important for identifying which national issues on climate change are integrated into urban development plans for the Kumasi Metropolis. Sections 7.3 examines the

CCIs for urban areas as presented in the NDPFs and climate-change-specific policy frameworks.

Section 7.4 reviews guidelines for preparing MTDPs to identify climate change expectations for

MMDAs, with Section 7.5 examines CCIs in urban development plans for the Kumasi

167

Metropolis— including whether urban greenspaces are framed as CCIs— and the financial arrangements associated with them. This is followed by a discussion of the findings in Section 7.6 and a conclusion of the chapter in Section 7.7.

7.2 Climate Change Issues in National Development Policy Frameworks16

From 1996 up to 2014, the NDPC has facilitated and prepared five NDPFs in Ghana. The first was

Ghana Vision 2020 prepared for the 1996-2000 period. Two poverty reduction papers were also prepared between 2003 and 2009: Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS I) from 2003 to 2005 and the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II) from 2006 to 2009. Between 2010 and

2017, the NDPC has prepared two additional NDPFs: The Ghana Shared Growth and

Development Agenda (GSGDA) I and II. GSGDA I covered 2010 to 2013 and GSGDA II, 2014 to

2017. For all the NDPFs, the NDPC developed Guidelines for the Preparation of Medium-Term

Development Plans for MMDAs to guide how they prepare their development plan.

A review of the NDPFs reveal that there were concerns for the “Environment” and

“Environmental and Natural Resource Management” such as deforestation, coastal erosion, and drought. Yet, the term “climate change” only appeared sometime later. Specifically, the first appearance of “climate change” was in the GPRS II, which began in 2006 (Figure 7.1). In Ghana

Vision 2020, the NDPC identified environmental challenges facing Ghana to include: “pollution, deforestation, soil and coastal erosion and inefficient waste management” (NDPC 1995: vi). In response, the NDPC identified preemptive measures to understand “the causes of environmental

16 This section was initially published in Owusu-Daaku KN, Diko, SK. The Sea Defense Project in the Ada East District and its Implications for Climate Change Policy Implementation in Ghana’s Peri-Urban Areas. In Urban Perspectives: Climate Change, Migration, Planning and Financing. Washington DC: Wilson Center and USAID, 2017. pp. 28 – 49. It is subsequently updated in Diko, S. K. (2018). Towards Integration: Managing the Divergence between National Climate Change Interventions and Urban Planning in Ghana. In Smart, Resilient and Transition Cities. Emerging Approaches and Tools for a Climate-Sensitive Urban Development. Eds. Adriana Galderisi, Angela Colucci. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press. pp. 141-151. 168

degradation [that] presents Ghana with an opportunity to avoid many of the errors committed by the industrialized countries in the past” (1995: 39). The aim was to reduce “ecological and environmental degradation” and promote “an efficient management system and environmentally sound development of all water resources in the country” (NDPC, 1995: 63).

This focus continued in GPRS I which also identified challenges with the “Environment.”

The policy framework connected environmental factors to poverty, explaining that poverty “may be caused or exacerbated by… exposure to shocks due to limited use of technology to stem the effects of droughts, floods, army worms, crop pests, crop diseases, and environmental degradation”

(NDPC, 2003: 3). The impetus was to align national goals with international goals through

“environmental sustainability and regeneration” (ibid.: 35) and a long-term objective “to maintain a sound environment and to prevent all forms of environmental degradation” (ibid: 39). There was no allusion to climate change in GPRS I. In effect, climate change issues in NDPFs prior to GPRS

II were not targeted, focused, or seen as a binding factor that affects Ghana’s development. By extension, while environmental issues were expected to form part of the issues MMDAs integrate into their MTDPs, the absence of climate change framings implied a lack of attention to climate change issues in these plans.

The first evidence of the term “climate change” appeared in GPRS II. Some policies, goals, and strategies were framed using “climate variability” and “climate change.” In problematizing climate change, GPRS II explicitly related the natural environment, environmental degradation, and natural resources to climate change. In one instance, the GPRS II problematized that “adverse environmental factors such as climate variability and land/soil degradation continue to be challenges posed to the growth potential of the agricultural sector” in Ghana (2005: 15). The policy framework also framed poverty within climate change by emphasizing that climate change impacts

169

especially “drought and desertification” has “vulnerability and exclusion” ramifications (NDPC,

2005: 115). GPRS II thus marked the onset of climate change framings in Ghana’s national development as seen in the NDPFs.

In GSGDA I and II, appreciation and integration of climate change issues were stronger and pervasive. These NDPFs were prepared taking cognizance of the need to confront climate change impacts in Ghana. In GSGDA I, for example, there was a call for “…environmental sustainability as well as determine[ing] the impact pathways of climate change and the areas of national vulnerability for appropriate policy interventions” (NDPC, 2010: 5). GSGDA I and II conspicuously identified climate change as a key development issue and used “climate change” in its policy goals, objectives, and strategies.

Figure 7.1: Progression of Climate Change Integration in NDPFs in Ghana Source: Author’s Construct (2018).

170

Despite earlier interventions by non-government actors (See Wurtenberger et al., 2011), it was the GPRS II period that consolidated efforts towards national efforts to tackle climate change impacts. During its implementation, the National Climate Change Committee (NCCE) was formed and together with the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology (MEST) initiated processes to integrate climate change issues in national development (Wurtenberger et al., 2011).

Consequently, some national climate change vulnerability and adaptation assessments were conducted, and four climate-change-specific policy frameworks were formulated. The climate- change-specific policy frameworks are: The NCCPF and NCCAS prepared in 2010, the NCCP in

2013, and the NCCPAPI in 2015.

In these climate change documents, it was apparent that the government of Ghana identifies climate change as a key development issue needing urgent attention and integration into Ghana’s development efforts. These documents outline in details climatic zones, sectors, regions, and livelihoods at risk of climate change impacts, the nature of vulnerability and risks, and the interventions the government aims to implement. The NCCPF, NCCAS, and NCCP provide a general focus and objectives of climate change policy while the NCCPAPI outlines specific actions to tackle climate change impacts in Ghana for different groups, sectors, and regions at risk.

7.3 Urban CCI in National Development Policy Frameworks

Different CCIs are found in the GPRS II, GSGDA I and II, and the four climate-change-specific policy frameworks. In these documents, CCIs can be put into three framings. Table 7.1 provides a summary of how the CCIs have been framed in the NDPFs. In all cases, only the “policy objectives” associated with climate change framings have been counted. The first framing relates to CCIs that directly capture the term climate change at the “key focus area”, “issues”

171

(problematizing), “policy objectives”, and/or “strategy” level. The second framing relates to CCIs that capture climate change at both the issues and strategy level. The third relates to CCIs that capture climate change at either the issues or strategy level.

Overall, there are only two policy objectives in GPRS II, fourteen in GSGDA I and fifteen in GSGDA II that are associated with climate change framings; one policy objective directly uses the term climate change in GPRS II while two directly use it in GSGDA I and II. For strategies, climate change is framed in ten strategies in GPRS II, twenty-five in GSGDA I, and twenty-nine in GSGDA II.

Table 7.1: CCIs in National Development Policy Frameworks17 Type of CCI Framing Vision 2020 GPRS I GPRS II GSGDA I GSGDA II Framing 1 0 0 1 3 4 Framing 2 0 0 0 9 7 Framing 3 0 0 1 3 3 Total 0 0 2 15 14

The policies and strategies in the three NDPFs with climate change framings are multidimensional relating to all aspects of development. They include a need to create awareness on climate change issues; conduct research and build a knowledge base on climate change for

Ghana; promote sustainable and alternative livelihoods for those at risk, implement effort to reduce

CO2 emissions; promote conservations and forestry; encourage the use of sustainable energy sources; adopt effective waste management systems; develop disaster response and early warning systems; and ensure effective water resource management, among many others. These CCIs are similar to the focus areas that the various climate-change-specific policy frameworks promote.

17 In cases where the policy objectives directly target climate change as a policy priority or focus, all strategies under the section were counted. 172

The NCCP, for instance, delineates five policy areas and ten strategic intervention areas

(See Table 7.2). Compared to the NCCAS and NCCPF, the vision of NCCP— “to ensure a climate- resilient and climate-compatible economy while achieving sustainable development through equitable low-carbon economic growth for Ghana” (MESTI, 2013: ix) — is more encompassing.

The NCCPF, on the other hand, has three focus areas captured by its objectives: low carbon growth; effective adaptation to climate change; and social development. The NCCAS focuses only on adaptation strategies. The goal of the NCCAS is “to enhance Ghana’s current and future development to climate change impacts by strengthening its adaptive capacity and building resilience of the society and ecosystems” (UNEP and UNDP, 2010: 17). NCCAS has ten priority areas on climate change adaptation strategies dealing with early warning systems, sustainable livelihoods, land use management, research and awareness creation, environmental sanitation, water resources, agriculture, health, and energy. NCCAS and NCCPF are both outcomes of the formative processes towards the preparation of NCCP; hence the similarities that emerge. Not surprisingly, the focus areas of both NCCAS and NCCPF are also similar to those that the NCCP delineates. All these documents are expected to shape and guide specific interventions at the national, regional, and local levels. Resulting from these three climate-change-specific NDPFs,

NCCPAPI provides a detailed outline of the specific CCIs that need to be implemented to confront climate change impacts. A review of this document with emphasis on urban areas reveal that there are 19 urban CCIs covering four program interventions areas namely: (i) Flood prevention activities; (ii) Conservation of trees through agroforestry, on-farm practices and greening of urban areas; (iii) Improved drainage in urban areas; and (iv) Renewable energy development. Thus, at the national level, it is evident that urban greenspace strategies such as tree and forestry conservation as well as urban greening were explicitly framed as CCIs.

173

Table 7.2: List of Strategic Focus Areas of Ghana’s NCCP Policy Themes Strategic Focus Areas A. Agriculture and Food Security 1. Develop Climate-resilient Agriculture and Food Security Systems B. Disaster Preparedness and 2. Build Climate-resilient Infrastructure Response 3. Increase Resilience of Vulnerable Communities to Climate-related Risks C. Natural Resource Management 4. Increase Carbon Sinks 5. Improve Management and Resilience of Terrestrial, Aquatic and Marine Ecosystems D. Equitable Social Development 6. Address Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health 7. Minimize Impacts of Climate Change on Access to Water and Sanitation 8. Addressing Gender Issues in Climate Change 9. Address Climate Change and Migration E. Energy, Industrial, and 10. Minimize Greenhouse Gas Emissions Infrastructural Development Source: MESTI (2015)

The expectation is that climate change issues and the CCIs—including those on urban greenspaces such as tree conservation, forestry and urban greening— outlined in these NDPFs will be integrated into development planning at all levels in Ghana. These are explicitly stated as strategies in GSGDA I and II. The strategies are to “integrate/mainstream impact of climate change into … district plans” (NDPC, 2010: 145) and to “promote planning and integration of climate change and disaster risk reduction measures into all facets of national development planning”

(NDPC, 2010: 179; NDPC, 2013: 212). This expectation is further consolidated by the guidelines for the preparation of MTDPs, which is examined in the subsequent section.

7.4 Climate Change and the Guidelines for the Preparation of MTDPs

The climate change discourse in Ghana starting from the GPRS II era sought to improve awareness of and to integrate climate change issues into Ghana’s development at the local, and regional

174

levels. This was to be achieved using district guidelines for the preparation of MTDPs. This structure is influenced by the local governance and development planning arrangements in Ghana

(See Figure 5.1). The discussions that follow focus on only guidelines for preparing district

MTDPs to form a basis for comparison and critical analysis of urban development plans for the

Kumasi Metropolis.

At the time of data collection, guidelines for the preparation of MTDPs for Ghana Vision

2020 and GPRS I were not accessible. Hence, attention is dedicated to those after the GPRS I; three guidelines for the preparation of MTDPs have been prepared by the NDPC after GPRS I.

They outline the roles of different actors in the preparations of MTDPs18 and the stages in the process. Overall, while the processes are slightly different due to merging or rewording of stages for some of the guidelines, they are broadly similar. For all the three guidelines reviewed, there were stages on: conducting a performance review of previous plans, compiling a district profile, harmonizing community needs and aspirations to avoid conflicts and consolidate where appropriate, linking harmonized community needs and aspirations to national development priorities, prioritizing community needs and aspirations, and formulating development goals, objectives, strategies, programs, programs of action and action plans, financial plans and budgets, monitoring and evaluation frameworks, as well as disseminating strategies for the MTDPs.

There was no mention of climate change issues in the GPRS II guidelines— this is despite it being adopted in the GPRS II policy framework. Environmental issues received little attention; the only connection made was to the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7, to “ensure environmental sustainability” by 2015. This was in part because the GPRS II guidelines which guided the MTDP preparation for the 2006-2009 period explained that the “Guidelines have been

18 For details of the roles, see chapter two of each of the guidelines for preparing MTDPs for 2006-2009, 2010-2013, and 2014-2017. 175

developed to incorporate dimensions of development including the MDGs … and environmental sustainability” (NDPC, 2006: i). This was different in GSGDA I and II guidelines as they emphasized that MTDPs pay “special consideration” to “environmental concerns” and “climate change issues” (NDPC, 2009: 14).

In the GSGDA I guidelines, climate change was listed as an issue that must be discussed in the district profile (See NDPC, 2009: 9), which was absent in GPRS II guidelines. In the prioritization of development needs and aspirations, MMDAs were expected to use “climate change issues” and “environmental concerns” as criteria in the decision-making process. These criteria were also expected to be integrated into the “formulation of development programmes” by

MMDAs and they were to “indicate the mitigation measures to be undertaken to address the effect of their programmes on the environment using for example, the Strategic Environmental

Assessment [SEA] tool, [and] climate change strategies” (NDPC, 2009: 19). The guidelines further provided a list of potential CCIs to guide MMDAs. This is not surprising because, from the onset of the guidelines, the NDPC explained: the “Guidelines have been designed to serve three purposes

[including]: … ensure that DMTDPs integrate cross-cutting issues… [such as] SEA, Climate

Change, Vulnerability…in development programmes and projects for sustainable development”

(2009: 2).

All climate change discussions in the GSGDA I guidelines were also present in GSGDA

II guidelines with additional expectations from MMDAs. First, they were expected to go beyond simple profiling to use advanced data collection approaches such as Climate Vulnerability

Capacity Analysis tools to examine their climate change capacity.19 Additionally, in conducting the performance review for the 2010-2013 MTDP, MMDAs were expected to examine the extent

19 For an example of this tool, refer to Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook by Care International. http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/adaptation/CARE_CVCAHandbook.pdf 176

to which “Implementation of cross-cutting issues such as … environment, [and] climate change…” issues were integrated into the MTDP prepared and implemented during the GSGDA I period

(NDPC, 2013: 9). They were also expected to consider the possibility of promoting and developing a green economy. Thus “environment, climate change and green economy” became part of the criteria for prioritizing and formulating development programs in the GSGDA II guidelines

(NDPC, 2013: 21). In addition, since urban greenspaces strategies were considered as CCIs, it is expected that they are framed within climate change contexts where appropriate.

There is a strong connection between climate change issues in the NDPFs and guidelines for preparing MTDPs, except for the observation made for GPRS II. This is not surprising for two reasons. First, it is the same organization that facilitated and prepared both documents. Secondly, since MMDAs are expected to have MTDPs that align with NDPFs, the guidelines are obviously a reflection of this expectation. However, whether these expectations manifest in the prepared

MTDPs is another issue. This is the focus of the sections that follow where plans prepared between

2006 and 2014 period have been examined to appreciate the extent to which climate change issues have been integrated into these plans.

7.5 Climate Change and Urban Planning in the Kumasi Metropolis

In this section, the chapter focuses on climate change and CCIs in urban planning in the Kumasi

Metropolis by reviewing four urban development plans for the Metropolis. It also draws attention to whether urban greenspaces have been framed as CCIs in urban development plans.

177

7.5.1 Climate Change Framing and Integration in Urban Development Plans for the Kumasi

Metropolis

There was no mention of climate change or CCIs in the 2006-2009 and 2010-2013 MTDPs. The closest indication of connections to climate change issues and CCIs can be found under discussions on “environmental sustainability” as a result of the incorporation of the MDGs. Interventions, objectives, and projects in these plans have some implications for climate change but were not framed as such. They can be put into three areas namely: (i) promoting environmental sanitation and a clean environment; (ii) conducting environmental impact assessments and environmental audits; and (iii) urban reforestation. These interventions were expected to deal with development challenges such as decreasing arable land, declining greenspaces, invasion, and encroachment on water bodies, flooding (KMA, 2006; KMA, 2009), inadequate sanitation and drainage infrastructure, among many others (KMA, 2009). In the 2010-2013 MTDP, there was a clear divergence from the GSGDA I guidelines which explicitly called for “special considerations” to climate change issues in prioritization and programs of action (NDPC, 2009: 14). Thus, although urban greenspaces were identified as interventions in the 2006-2009 and 2010-2013 MTDPs, they were not framed as CCIs like the GSGDA I and II and the climate-change-specific NDPFs.

On the contrary, there was a shift in the 2014-2017 MTDP. A section of the metropolitan profile in the plan was dedicated to climate change; an expectation from the GSGDA II guidelines.

The plan also alluded to one climate-change-specific NDPF, the NCCAS. The plan framed climate change as a global issue with local consequences. In the profile section, the KMA explains climate change, discusses its causes and consequences, and some broad strategies to manage climate change impacts. The discussions identify changes in weather patterns as effects of climate change.

The discussions are technical and sometimes amorphous. At least, there was a clear recognition

178

that climate change is anthropogenic, with human activities distorting the natural balance of climate patterns globally and locally. Development issues such as population growth, declining urban greenspaces, solid waste disposal, and use of Chlorofluorocarbons-emitting household appliances were framed as climate change challenges. The plan also identified CCIs that KMA can adopt to confront these climate change challenges.

The 2014-2017 MTDP also reveals that climate change impacts are already being experienced in Ghana. Citing evidence from the NCCAS, the KMA notes that flooding has been a major issue in Ghana with expectations of increased incidence due to climate change. From the plan, “Climate forecast and climate change scenarios for the country predict a more severe and frequent pattern of drought and flood events” (KMA, 2013: 142). Similar connections were made to the economy, with the plan explaining that the climate-dependent economy of Ghana makes it highly vulnerable to climate change.

The plan discusses the causes of climate change in the Kumasi Metropolis by drawing similarities with global factors without attribution to any detailed scientific study or climate change vulnerability assessments. Arguments were rationalized based on “reasonable” assumptions such as:

“Over the past decade, the population of Kumasi has doubled resulting in the use of more vehicles and industries. Emission from these industries, vehicles and other means of transportation, as well as charcoal burning, contribute to climate change by increasing the levels of Carbon-Mono-Carbon and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.” (KMA, 2013: 143)

The total number of vehicles and emission patterns of carbon-mono oxide and carbon dioxide in the metropolis are not articulated but speculated on arguments of population increases.

While this assumption may be valid, it affects planning and target setting. Similar argument styles were adopted for discussions on the “depletion of forest for industrial and residential purposes,”

179

emission of methane gases at landfill sites, and “release of Chlorofluorocarbons, commonly known as CFCs… into the atmosphere” (KMA, 2013: 143). Only when discussing the consequences of climate change in the metropolis was some evidence presented. The authority notes that climate change-induced flooding in the metropolis displaced 374 people in 2012, 504 people in 2013 and

569 people in 2014 with 15 recorded climate change-related deaths between 2012 and 2014. At the objectives and strategy section of the plan, the KMA identifies that urban residents have

“inadequate knowledge” of climate change and its impacts, without providing any data to support this assertion (KMA, 2013: 184 and 215). All fifty-three identified objectives were adopted directly from GSGDA II without adjusting it to suits Kumasi’s context. Among these, only one had climate change framing.

For a plan that has a long-term focus (2012-2030), the GKCP, unfortunately, followed similar patterns in the 2006-2009 and 2010-2013 MTDPs for the Kumasi Metropolis. Climate change appeared only four times in the whole of the GKCP. These only emerged in environmental impact assessments (EIA) for proposed projects on transportation, water supply, liquid waste, solid waste, and the electricity sector. Urban challenges, development goals, objectives, and strategies were not framed within climate change contexts. Although the plan makes considerations for

“Environmental Conservation and Disaster Management”— the third pillar of the GKCP (MESTI et al., 2013: 2-1) — these were not framed or connected to climate change. To establish legitimacy, the GKCP in some cases made references to other NDPFs, one of which was the GSGDA I guidelines, where the plan incorporated the need for a strategic environmental assessment (SEA).

The preparation of the GKCP is not guided by the NDPC guidelines. Nonetheless, it is surprising that by using the GSGDA I to partly establish legitimacy, the plan failed to integrate the call for

“special considerations” for climate change issues by the same guidelines.

180

7.5.2 CCIs in Urban Development Plans

As observed earlier, it was only the 2014-2017 MTDP of the Kumasi Metropolis that explicitly framed development within climate change issues and explicitly identified CCIs. Subsequently, this section focuses on CCIs identified in this plan.

First, climate change is seen in only one objective and strategy for the Metropolis. This related to a challenge of “inadequate knowledge” about climate change issues (KMA, 2013: 184 and 215). In response, the KMA aimed to provide “training” to “equip community members with life skills to…climate change” (KMA, 2013: 242 and 254). However, a closer look at the objective and strategy show that they had been adopted almost word-for-word from the GSGDA II policy framework. This is a challenge because it shows that climate change issues have not been adequately contextualized to the metropolis.

Additionally, the KMA sought to implement “mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change” in the Kumasi Metropolis through “afforestation” and “dredging of silted rivers and streams.” These were captured in the profile section of the 2014-2017 MTDP as projects whose implementation began from 2013 and early 2014 respectively. For instance, the afforestation project is an initiative under “the Kumasi Urban Forestry Project, [which] is geared at planting and growing one million trees along the major driveways of Kumasi… to … help reduce the effects of climate change” (KMA, 2013: 144). This example illustrates a reframing of some development interventions from the preceding plan as CCIs by the Assembly; a realization that espouses the co- benefits of CCIs or that CCIs have strong connections to other development interventions.

Unfortunately, a further review of objectives and strategies show that this understanding did not manifest in new interventions in the 2014-2017 MTDP. For instance, projects to “reverse forest

181

and land degradation,” which are urban greenspace initiatives, were not framed as CCIs in the plan.

Since one objective was framed within the context of climate change, it was expected that the plan will delineate projects/activities with locations for implementation, output indicators, time schedule for implementation, indicative budget, sources of funding, and implementation agencies, as part of the MTDP’s action plan section. Yet, there was no mention of this objective and its associated projects in the plan. In the plan, no connection has been developed among the problematizing of climate change issues in the Metropolis, the degree and extent of climate change impacts, the level of vulnerability of Metropolis to climate change impacts, explicit climate change goals and objectives, projects and explicit targets that show the expected outcomes and contributions of projects to tackling climate change impacts.

Interestingly, there was a minimum of ninety-six projects that have climate change implications in the 2014-2017 MTDP action plan section— seventeen projects in 2014, forty-seven in 2015, thirteen in 2016, and nineteen in 2017. These projects relate to six objectives namely: (i)

To reverse forest and land degradation; (ii) To manage waste, reduce pollution and noise; (iii)

Promote resilient urban infrastructure development, maintenance and provision of basic service;

(iv) To develop recreational facilities and promote cultural heritage and nature conservation in urban areas; (v) To mitigate and reduce natural disasters and reduce risks and vulnerability; and

(vi) To create and sustain an efficient transport system that meet user needs. They can also be grouped into three main initiatives namely: education and awareness, urban greenery and afforestation, and disaster prevention and management systems. These are clearly related to the

CCIs in the NDPFs and climate-change specific national documents but were not framed as CCIs.

Specifically, and for the purpose of this analysis, projects “to reverse forest and land degradation,”

182

which are urban greenspace interventions were not captured as CCIs. This is crucial in that the absence of a proper climate change framing can potentially affect how urban greenspace interventions are planned and implemented in terms of its capacity to effectively tackle climate change impacts as a CCI.

7.5.3 Climate Finance in the 2014-2017 MTDP of the Kumasi Metropolis20

The preceding section reveals that some CCIs were considered in the 2014-2017 when presenting the profile of the Kumasi Metropolis such as the Kumasi Urban Forestry Project. Although the projects outlined in the action plans did not frame objectives such as “To reverse forest and land degradation” as a CCI, this objective has climate change implication in terms of its potential to reduce CO2 emissions and improve air quality. This together with the five other objectives that have climate change implications in the 2014-2017 MTDP underpin this analysis. Here, these

“potential CCIs”21 have been examined to determine whether their financing arrangements provide any indications of climate change framing.

The yearly action plans for 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 consist of projects, their location, output indicators, time schedule, indicative budget (amount and source), and implementation agencies (lead and collaborating). For each objective, there are development projects to be implemented. Unfortunately, the action plans have not framed objectives within climate change contexts and so even though some projects under these objectives can tackle climate change impacts, they cannot be considered as climate change framing. An examination of the funding

20 Discussions of climate finance in the Kumasi Metropolis have been published in: Diko, S. K. (2019). Missed opportunities? Financing climate action in urban Ghana and Uganda. In Appreciating Difference: The Geography of Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Africa. Ed. Patrick Cobbinah and Michael Addaney. Palgrave MacMillan (Springer). pp. 499 - 530. 21 These objectives are decribed as potential CCIs because of their climate change implications based on the words used in stating the strategy. This understanding has been construed based on literature, as in the case of “To reverse forest and land degradation” and its potential in reducing CO2 emissions. 183

sources for various projects confirms this as there is no mention of any international, national, or local climate finance facility. This is critical as the plan at least had some climate change framing in terms of the problems, causes and consequences of climate change in the Kumasi Metropolis.

Nonetheless, projects under the six objectives were examined because of their climate change implications as they covered: afforestation and land management, waste management, efficient transportation, natural disaster management, and resilient infrastructure. These projects were expected to be funded by Internally Generated Funds (IGF), the Urban Development Grant

(UDF), the District Development Fund (DDF), the District Assembly’s Common Fund (DACF),

Civil Society Fund (CSF) and Agence Française de Développement (AFD) and Public-Private

Partnerships (PPP).22 The DACF and the IGF are local funds available to KMA to finance its developmental projects. DACF is direct financial allocations from the Government of Ghana while

IGF is revenues generated by the KMA through property tax, fees, licensing, rates, etc. (Ahwoi,

2010a; Ahwoi, 2010b). All others are funds from external agents channeled through government ministries using development programs.

For instance, the DDF is implemented through the Ministry of Local Government and

Rural Development to support Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies with additional funding for their planned development projects (Ministry of Local Government and Rural

Development, 2012; World Bank, 2011). The DDF is a performance-based funding by the

Government of Ghana with support from Denmark, Germany, France, Canada, and Switzerland through their aid agencies to support infrastructure projects related to education, sanitation, waste management, transportation and commerce (KfW Development Bank, 2016; World Bank, 2011).

22 For a detailed discussion about the role of foreign aid and investments in local governance in Ghana, see: Mogues, Tewodaj, and Samuel Benin. 2012. Do external grants to district governments discourage own revenue generation? A look at local public finance dynamics in Ghana. World Development 40 (5): 1054-1067. 184

The UDG is also a performance-based grant for local urban governments in Ghana that is modeled around the DDF. It provides additional funding for urban authorities and agencies benefiting from

DDF. It falls under “Component 2: Enhancing decentralized urban service delivery” of the World

Bank’s Local Government Capacity Support Project which was initiated in 2011 (World Bank

2011: vi). The Civil Society Funds are funding from non-governmental organizations that the

Assembly works within in the Metropolis. The UDF, DDF and the CSF are possible sources because the projects that the KMA plan to implement align with the goals, visions, and priorities of these organizations. Thus, through collaborations and partnerships, the KMA receives some funds from these agencies to finance their projects.

The review of the Annual Progress Report for 2016 for the Kumasi Metropolis which shows stages of implementation of these projects in Table 7.3 revealed that tree planting in the

Metropolis was executed. Out of the 170,000 trees that targeted in the MDTP, only 2,738 seedlings were planted. This comprised 469 along roads in the Metropolis and about 2,269 seedlings supplied to schools for planting. For the desilting of drains, only 20 out 40 were reported to have been executed by the KMA. There was no mention of the construction of public parks. However, maintenance of existing parks was postponed to 2017. In 2017, the progress report indicated 2,998 seedlings were planted along major roads and seeds distributed to selected schools in the

Metropolis. In addition, the report reveals that the Department of Parks and Gardens, the Forestry

Department, and Environmental Health Unit had planted and nurtured a total 50,000 trees and

100,000 trees along with water bodies and roads respectively. Yet, interviews with personnel at the Department of Parks and Gardens did not confirm this (KMA, 2017). The Assembly explains that this implementation challenge is due to inadequate financial resources. Table 7.4 provides a summary of the funding amount received from different sources by the KMA. For instance, only

185

78.7% of the estimated IGF was realized, while 85.9% of the DACF was received by the Assembly by the end of the year (KMA, 2016).

Table 7.3: Potential CCIs and their funding sources in the KMA’s MTDP, 2014 - 2017 Indicative No. of Funding Objective Project Focus Budget Project Sources (GH¢)23 2014 Action Plan To reverse forest and land • Planting of 6000 trees 4 70,000 IGF/ UDF degradation and form tree planting clubs 4 2,306,000 UDF • Construction of public parks To manage waste, reduce • Desilting of river Susan 1 220,000 DDF pollution and noise located at Susano- Anloga 2015 Action Plan To reverse forest and land • Planting of 170,000 trees 4 105,000 DACF/ degradation and form tree planting UDG clubs To mitigate and reduce • Desilting of rivers and 2 400,000 DACF/ natural disasters and reduce choked drains DDF risks and vulnerability • An educational 1 6,000 IGF campaign on flooding and its impacts on communities Promote resilient urban • Land acquisition for 1 50,000 DACF infrastructure development, public use 1 28,000 CSF maintenance, and provision of • Street Naming 1 17,520 CSF basic service • Media campaign on 1 15918.87 AFD public awareness • Stakeholder consultation To develop recreational • Construction of public 5 1,656,340.48 UDG/ facilities and promote cultural parks DDF heritage and nature IGF/PPP conservation in urban areas

23 End of Year Dollar ($) to Cedi (GH¢) exchange rate: December 31, 2014, US$ 1 = GH¢ 3.2001; December 31, 2015, US$ 1 = GH¢ 3.795; December 30, 2016, US$ 1 = GH¢ 4.2002; December 29, 2017, US$ 1 = GH¢ 4.4157; December 28, 2018, US$ 1 = GH¢ 4.82.

186

Table 7.3: Potential CCIs and their funding sources in the KMA’s MTDP, 2014 – 2017 (Continued) Indicative No. of Funding Objective Project Focus Budget Project Sources (GH¢)24 2016 Action Plan To reverse forest and land • Planting of 170,000 trees and 4 105,000 DACF degradation form tree planting clubs UDG Enhance capacity to mitigate • Intensify educational 1 6,000 IGF and reduce the impact of campaign on flooding and its natural disaster, risk, and impact on communities vulnerability • Desilt chocked drains and 1 200,000 DACF streams in the Metropolis Promote resilient urban • Land acquisition for public 1 50,000 DACF infrastructure development, use maintenance and provision of 2 1,760,000 AFD basic service • Street naming 2017 Action Plan To reverse forest and land • Planting of 170,000 trees and 4 90,000 DACF degradation form tree planting clubs UDG To mitigate and reduce natural • Intensify educational 1 10,000 IGF disasters and reduce risks and campaign on flooding and its vulnerability impact on communities 300,000 DACF • Desilt chocked drains and 1 streams in the Metropolis Source: Based on information from the KMA’s 2014-2017 MTDP

24 End of Year Dollar ($) to Cedi (GH¢) exchange rate: December 31, 2014, US$ 1 = GH¢ 3.2001; December 31, 2015, US$ 1 = GH¢ 3.795; December 30, 2016, US$ 1 = GH¢ 4.2002; December 29, 2017, US$ 1 = GH¢ 4.4157; December 28, 2018, US$ 1 = GH¢ 4.82. 187

Table 7.4: Revenue Flow for the Kumasi Metropolis between 2014-2017 (in Gh¢ millions).

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Funding

Source

Target Target Target Target

Actual Actual Actual Actual Baseline IGF 13.43 20.64 20.12 25.42 24.21 29.60 29.38 35.67 35.29 DACF 2.43 3.66 2.70 7.23 7.24 9.35 7.14 11.10 - PWDs & CF 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.25 4.00 - GSFP 3.98 2.89 5.02 3.80 2.40 - - - - DDF 2.69 - - 7.74 1.98 9.33 2.91 8.30 0.01 UDG 8.90 13.51 11.19 21.61 8.83 49.18 20.75 39.13 - GoG 9.52 12.24 12.85 - 8.50 - 9.29 13.30 - HIPC 0.33 0.20 0.37 0.36 0.55 0.23 0.18 0.40 - Central Gov’t 1.04 0.57 1.43 0.74 0.01 0.50 - 0.19 - Treasury CIDA ------0.08 - GUMPP - - - - - 4.00 1.25 3.50 0.00 Total 54.39 50.50 53.77 81.89 53.81 4.00 71.14 115.68 0.00 *Total 42.44 53.79 53.77 66.97 53.81 102.30 71.14 115.68 35.30 Source: KMA (2017: 7-8) * Estimated to verify totals. There seems to be a mismatch in some of the calculations, which could be due to computing or input error by generators of the report.

7.6 Discussion

7.6.1 Framing and Integration of Climate Change in Urban Development Plans

Evidence from the analysis of the four urban development plans for the Kumasi Metropolis reveals that using the NDPC guidelines for the preparation of MTDPs will not be adequate to achieve climate change integration in the Metropolis, despite the NDPC’s aim to integrate climate change issues at all levels of national development and planning. This is because the guidelines do not provide detailed approaches to assessing climate change vulnerabilities and climate capacity of

MMDAs. Merely directing MMDAs to pay “special consideration” to climate change issues without a framework of how to achieve such expectation leads to ambiguity and low attention to climate change issues by MMDAs, as the Kumasi Metropolis experience has revealed. Findings

188

from this chapter affirm Adu-Boateng’s (2015) observation of the climate change policy divergence at the national and local level in the Tamale Metropolis, a city in northern Ghana. In the case of the Kumasi Metropolis, it is apparent that climate change issues were discussed superficially with no clear connections between the climate challenge problem in the Metropolis and the potential CCIs that can help tackle climate change impacts. And since the problematization was weak and the framing of CCIs was absent, the plans did not outline targets on reducing CO2 emissions, climate change-induced flooding, and rising temperatures, which the 2014-2017 MTDP captures as climate change problems in the Metropolis. Hence, although reversing forest degradation is an urban greenspace initiative, by not framing it as a CCI, it is not clear which climate change impacts it will resolve and to what extent.

The KMA will, therefore, need to establish its climate change impacts and vulnerability by identifying communities and people that are particularly vulnerable and the forms of their vulnerability in the Kumasi Metropolis as well as determine how CCIs— in this case, urban greenspace initiatives such as urban afforestation and tree planting— can effectively contribute to tackling climate change impacts. This is critical for setting the needed targets and goals on climate change in the Kumasi Metropolis, as studies elsewhere have shown (Deslatte and Swann, 2016).

Without proper diagnosis, the KMA will not be able to identify synergies and overlaps in using urban greenspaces as CCIs and harness its co-benefits benefits for tackling both socio-economic priorities and increasing the availability and access to urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis.

Thus, proper climate change vulnerability assessments and the identification of the approaches to manage them are vital entry points for climate change integration. As Ziervogel et al. (2016) study have shown, having a climate action plan is fundamental to begin processes of integration with

189

local, regional, and national climate change policies. To this end, the KMA will need to prepare a climate action plan that can be integrated with MTDPs for the Metropolis.

This divergence also hints that the NDPC has had little oversight over the preparation of

MTDPs by the KMA. They have not been able to ensure that climate change expectations delineated in their own guidelines are conformed to. Indeed, the process of climate change integration is progressively taking hold in Ghana. However, it will be critical to redefine the processes of climate change integration into MTDPs and other urban development plans beyond the NDPC guidelines. This is because the guidelines do not fully present a climate change integration framework to guide MMDAs as to “how” to integrate climate change issues when preparing MTDPs. Therefore, to begin processes to enhance climate change issues integration into

MTDPs, the NDPC will need to ensure that “special considerations” to climate change expectations into urban plans are adhered to by MMDAs such as the KMA. The role of the NDPC,

NCCE, and MESTI is also paramount. They can plan and implement initiatives to increase awareness and understanding of various Ghana’s climate-change-specific NDPFs such as NCCPF,

NCCAS, NCCP, and NCCPAPI among MMDAs. Together, such training will help the KMA to have the capacity to mainstream CCIs horizontally into MTDPs and vertically with national climate change policies.

7.6.2 Institutional Capacity and Planning Climate Change Interventions

In the 2014-2017 MTDP for the Kumasi Metropolis, it was clear that the KMA was aware of climate change impacts in their city. Climate change framing was from a global perspective and contextualized locally with little scientific evidence. This could stem from the weak capacities of these authorities on climate change. The climate change framing in the KMA’s MTDP was also

190

weak. This resulted in no explicit CCIs. A clear transition from problematizing, through the identification of objectives and strategies, and onto project formulation was absent.

Thus, even though some objectives and projects seemed to relate to climate change, a clear conclusion cannot be made. Such weak framings show that climate change has received little prioritization in KMA’s MTDP, at least as outlined in the plan. Akin to recent studies on Kumasi

Metropolis (Darkwah et al. 2018; Poku-Boansi and Cobbinah 2018a), this chapter points to low mainstreaming of climate change and its related concepts such as adaptation and resilience in urban planning—and subsequently low climate change prioritization. It is also an indication of low climate capacity of the KMA.

For instance, in Ghana, the NDPC expects MMDAs to conduct detailed climate change vulnerability assessments to inform the CCIs they adopt in their MTDPs. The evidence from the review of urban development plans for the Kumasi Metropolis reveals that this aim has not been attained. The absence of such an assessment in the plan is indicative of a weakness among urban planners of the KMA to undertake such an assessment, thus there is a need for urban planners at the KMA to be trained in different climate change vulnerability assessment methodologies, climate change action planning, climate policy mainstreaming, and climate co-benefits. This will help develop their capacity. More specifically, there is a need to improve the urban greenspace capacity of urban planners and help to appreciate how urban greenspaces can be planned and designed to tackle climate change impacts while attaining socio-economic goals. All these trainings will help facilitate processes and enhance efforts to integrate different CCIs into urban development plans, identify the CCIs that are most effective for specific climate change impacts, and identify those who can contribute to and benefit from their implementation in the Kumasi Metropolis.

191

Promoting climate co-benefit in the Kumasi Metropolis can enable the Kumasi Metropolis to assess how other development interventions in the KMA’s urban development plans for the

Metropolis can potentially help combat climate change impacts. However, this will demand an indepth appreciation of how climate co-benefit interventions operate (Doll et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2013; Puppim de Oliveira, 2013; Nemet et al., 2010; Bollen et al., 2009). Thus, the effectiveness of interventions that can potentially be CCIs will depend on how they are adequately framed. Framing these interventions within climate change contexts will help to identify the specific types of climate change impacts these interventions can tackle and whether they are the appropriate interventions to deal with such impacts.

The KMA can also form partnerships on climate change with non-governmental organizations and academic institutions to develop the needed capacity as well as develop a climate action plan that can be integrated into urban development plans for the Metropolis. The authority can, for instance, partner with the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology to utilize their climate change experts to help conduct vulnerability assessments and capacity training.

This will help facilitate an interdisciplinary learning process of shared knowledge about climate change for the Metropolis, as in the case of Bergrivier Municipality, South Africa (Ziervogel et al., 2016).

7.6.3 Path Dependency in Planning for Climate Change Interventions

The plan treated climate change as a traditional urban planning issue. Indeed, interventions relating to afforestation and greenspaces—and others such as urban infrastructure, sanitation and drainage, and transportation— are not unique and framed broadly. Thus, even though urban greenspaces interventions such as reversing forest degradation may contribute somewhat to tackling climate

192

change impacts, they may not be adequate and, worse, ineffective in addressing the fundamental concerns in climate change adaptation and resilience. At the same time, projects and programs were framed ambiguously and without innovation suggesting institutional inertia or path dependency in efforts to tackle climate change by the KMA. Projects including tree planting and urban forestry are captured ambitiously without detailed information on nature, uniqueness, and specific climate change impacts these projects will tackle. Matthews et al. (2015) identify path dependency as a critical barrier to confronting climate change impacts. This is because it limits urban authorities to traditional practices with little or no initiative to adapt planning, budgeting, and other departmental functions to climate change (Matthews et al. 2015; Aylett, 2013). In other words, urban planners easily treat urban development interventions simply as CCIs (Matthews et al., 2015; Matthews, 2013; Low and Astle, 2009), as in the case of tree planting and urban forestry projects that the KMA implemented. Furthermore, it is critical for projects and programs to convey explicit goals and innovative ideas on co-benefits (Owusu-Daaku and Diko 2017), as this will ensure that the KMA avoids maladaptation and provide the Metropolis with sustainable paths to building its adaptive capacities.

7.6.4 Missed Opportunities for Urban Climate Finance

In the case of climate finance, it was evident that there were no connections to international climate finance opportunities that are available to cities through bilateral, multilateral agreements and the private sector. The KMA expects to fund most of its projects using the DACF, IGF, DDF, UDG,

CSF, and PPP between 2014 and 2017. None of these funding options have climate change framings. This provides some insights into the reason projects identified by KMA in the plan do not have climate change framings. Thus, in the KMA’s MTDP, there were no explicit

193

arrangements for accessing climate finance. This apparent absence of awareness of climate finance opportunities by the KMA exists despite the UNFCCC (2009) and Pickering et al. (2017) observation that there is an increasing availability of climate finance through the Green Climate

Fund, Global Environment Facility, multilateral development banks, bilateral aid agencies, national climate change trust funds, and various private climate finance arrangements. For private climate finance, for instance, Bowen (2011) explains that a clear policy commitment is needed to ensure policy credibility that can align local CCIs directly with the private sector. Without proper climate framing, this policy alignment will not be achieved, and policy credibility will be lost thereby depriving urban authorities such as the KMA of accessing private climate finance through public-private partnerships to increase the availability and access to urban greenspaces and use this urban amenity as a CCI.

Additionally, urban authorities will need to prioritize context-specific interventions with strong co-benefits, ensure that CCIs have greater impacts and coordinate with central governments to access climate finance (Soanes et al., 2017). All these need to be part of their urban development plans as it is an official articulation of their planned intentions. Central governments also have a unique role. Before climate finance arrangements can be integrated into urban development plans, these must already be available through national climate change financing arrangements such as national climate change funds and programs (Deri and Alam, 2008). By establishing clear requirements and processes to access national climate finance, urban authorities can position themselves to access it (UNDP et al., 2013).

194

7.6.5 Missed Opportunities for National Action on Climate Finance

The absence of specific climate finance arrangements in these plans can also stem from the fact that national governments have not accessed international climate finance opportunities. Thus, these urban authorities have not identified them as sources of funding in their plans. This is especially evident in the case of KMA’s plan where both DDF and UDG are international development finance facilitates available to local government authorities through the Ministry of

Local Governance and Rural Development. This finding emerges despite the strong framings and integration of climate change issues in national development in Ghana (See Section 7.5.1 and

7.5.2). Thus, for the KMA to have access to climate finance, the Government of Ghana needs to have a clear policy direction on climate and negotiate with different agents of international climate finance to fund CCIs in urban areas. Deri and Alam call this the “regulatory and facilitation roles” of central governments in local climate finance (2008: 6). This is critical for developing the necessary institutional readiness and capacity to tackle climate change impacts. This is because urban authorities such as the KMA are the key agents for planning, funding, and management of local CCIs (Manuel-Navarrete et al. 2009; Stewart et al., 2009).

7.7 Conclusion

This chapter has presented how climate change issues and CCIs are discussed in NDPFs in

Ghana— including climate-change specific NDPFs. Findings reveal that climate change issues have progressively been integrated into national development planning compared to urban planning in the Kumasi Metropoles. Despite the expectation that MMDAs should give “special consideration” to climate change issues in their development plans, the framings of development problems and interventions in urban development plans for the Kumasi Metropolis did not

195

adequately take cognizance of climate change impacts for the area. There is some significant divergence, as urban development plans for the Kumasi Metropolis do not frame climate change issues and identify explicit CCIs and climate goals to tackle climate change impacts. Like Adu-

Boateng (2015) observed in the Tamale Metropolis, this chapter finds that the guidelines for the preparation of MTDPs do not ensure proper climate change integration and the planning for CCIs in urban development plans. Subsequently, the findings suggest that capacity building on climate change issues and CCIs should form the basis to facilitate climate change integration into urban development plans in the Kumasi Metropolis. This confirms observations in climate literature that argues that building the institutional capacity of urban authorities on climate change issues is imperative (Manda et al., 2016; Buchner et al., 2014; IPCC, 2014; Deri and Alam, 2008). For one, the ability to assess climate change risks and vulnerability, plan and implement CCIs to tackle climate change impacts, as well as mobilize climate finance depends on the climate change capacity of urban planning authorities such as the KMA. Capacity building initiatives should, therefore, enable urban authorities to plan and implement a mix of small-to-large-scales CCIs, clearly identify funding gaps and funding sources, and promote urban climate finance.

In this regard, the KMA through its planning departments needs to build their capacity to identify innovative ways to plan and finance urban CCIs. This will require clear climate change framings of projects and programs such as urban greenspaces that are central to international development agencies. With proper framing, the KMA will be able to demonstrate the contribution of their urban greenspace initiatives towards tackling climate change impacts, thereby positioning them to access climate finance such as the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, and the Special Climate Change Fund. In other words, this will enable the KMA to align their

CCIs to climate finance opportunities and ensure their accessibility. Without clear framing,

196

planning of CCIs and identification of climate finance sources, the opportunity that climate finance offers as additional finance for development in urban areas will be missed by the KMA. It is apparent that CCIs are not adequately framed in urban development plans for the Kumasi

Metropolis. This is despite these plans having interventions such as urban greenspaces that can be conceived as CCIs. Subsequently, the chapter that follows focuses on urban greenspace planning and the institutional and socio-cultural barriers that exist in the Kumasi Metropolis. The aim is to understand whether challenges to planning for urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis provide some insight for using them as CCIs.

197

CHAPTER EIGHT INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO PLANNING FOR URBAN GREENSPACES IN THE KUMASI METROPOLIS 25

8.1 Introduction

The global calls for promoting sustainable cities through increasing the availability of urban greenspaces (IPCC, 2014; United Nations General Assembly, 2015) are underpinned by the numerous benefits this amenity provides for urban areas in tackling climate change impacts. Urban greenspaces tackle climate change impacts such as helping to absorb and reduce stormwater runoff, reduce flooding and erosion (Zhang et al., 2012); remove harmful pollutants from the air and water (Zhou et al., 2011); reduce urban temperature (Depietri et al., 2012); and preserve natural ecosystems (Nielsen et al., 2014). These global calls place the onus on urban authorities.

For cities in Africa, this a tremendous challenge as it is one of the fastest urbanizing regions in the world (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014). Since urbanization (Salazar et al., 2015) and urban planning decisions (Nor et al., 2017; Dallimer et al.,

2011) have sometimes contributed to urban greenspace decline, planning initiatives that harness the benefits of urban greenspaces and make them an important aspect of residents’ urban experience is therefore a necessity (James et al., 2009; Tzoulas et al., 2007), even more so as they are crucial for tackling climate change impacts (Kabisch, 2017; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016;

Matthews et al., 2015; IPCC, 2014). To harness their potential in tackling climate change impacts, it is imperative that barriers to urban greenspace planning are overcome (Matthews et al., 2015;

Byrne and Jinjun, 2009). Findings from the literature review showed that barriers to urban

25 This chapter has been published with some modification in: Diko, Stephen Kofi, and Danilo Palazzo. 2018. Institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi metropolis of Ghana. Urban Forum. ttps://doi- org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1007/s12132-018-9349-0 198

greenspace planning encompass biological, physical, social, cultural, and institutional factors

(Boulton et al., 2018; Matthews et al., 2015; Jim, 2012; Byrne and Jinjun, 2009).

This chapter turns attention on the institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis of Ghana. As discussed in earlier chapters, one of the consequences of rapid urbanization has been a decline in urban greenspaces (Nero, 2018; Adjei Mensah, 2014a;

Adjei Mensah, 2014b; GSS, 2014; Quagraine, 2011; Tontoh, 2011). Thus, increasing the availability of and access to urban greenspaces as a way to tackle climate change impacts will require overcoming different barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis.

This chapter contributes to Argument One of this research and focuses on three questions:

(i) What attention has been given to urban greenspaces in urban development plans for the Kumasi

Metropolis? (ii) What challenges do urban planners encounter in urban greenspace planning in the

Kumasi Metropolis? (iii) What factors should urban authorities consider in urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis? The results of this chapter are based on a content and framing analysis of interviews with key urban planning professionals and urban development plans for the

Metropolis. It highlights directly on the institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning in the

Kumasi Metropolis and draws implications for how these barriers can affect the planning of CCIs in the Metropolis and Ghana.

8.2 Problematization of and Attention to Urban Greenspaces in Urban Development Plans

In 1988, Ghana began a comprehensive process of political, administrative, planning, and fiscal decentralization. This reform introduced a new framework based on decentralized local governance. The reform was consolidated by the Local Government Act, 1993, Act 462 (updated to Local Government Act, 2016, Act 936). This Act established MMDAs as development planning

199

authorities. Two planning departments subsequently emerged within MMDAs: PCUs and PPDs.

PCUs tackle socio-economic development while the PPDs focus on spatial and physical planning.

Although these two departments exist separately from each other— and prepare separate urban development plans— their functions and plans often overlap (Acheampong and Ibrahim, 2016).

The paragraphs that follow discuss how urban development plans for the Kumasi Metropolis pay attention to urban greenspaces.

Four out of the five urban development plans collected during the data collection stage discuss urban greenspaces but do not use the term explicitly. However, the types of urban greenspaces such as open space, gardens, forests, parks and green areas are used. These were evident in 2006-2009, 2010-2013 and 2014-2017 MTDPs and the GKCP. Loss, underutilized, neglected, and depletion are defining words that characterized how these plans problematize urban greenspaces in the Metropolis, pointing to their decline and loss of Kumasi’s identity as a “Garden

City.” The KMA notes in the 2010-2013 MTDP that

Apart from the zoological gardens, there are other patches of vegetative cover scattered at the peri-urban areas of the Metropolis. However, the rapid spate of urbanization has caused the depletion of most of these nature reserves … the Metropolis is deprived of the greenery that earned her the accolade “the Garden City of West Africa (29-31).

The two planning departments attribute urban greenspace decline to densification; poor enforcement of urban bye-laws due to a lack of political will; deforestation and physical development in waterways; urban farming along most river banks; limited open spaces and recreational places; and poor participation of stakeholders in planning (KMA, 2006; KMA, 2013;

MESTI et al., 2013). The GKCP by MESTI et al. (2013: Chapter 8, p.35) further notes that “even if the open space is designed on the layout plan, it is not actually secured because of district fund

200

shortage.” These plans in problematizing greenspaces provide evidence of some institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis.

8.2.1 Planning for Urban Greenspaces

Kumasi’s Garden-city-inspired plan in 1945 envisioned parks around Kumasi Zoo Gardens, Fante

New Town, Amakom Children’s park and Kejetia Park (presently Adehyeman gardens) (Adjei

Mensah 2014b). Figure 8.1 shows the existing urban greenspace types in the Kumasi Metropolis, with grasses being the dominant type. In the post-colonial era, two different comprehensive master plans have been prepared.

The first (Figure 8.2), prepared in 1963 and the second in 2013 (Figure 8.4). The 1963 plan perpetuated the garden city principles and was to be implemented between 1963 and 1985

(Amoako and Adom-Asamoah, 2018; Amoako and Korboe, 2011; Korboe and Tipple, 1995). The plan dedicated 40% of land in the city, representing about 20,000 hectares, to urban greenspaces

(Adarkwa and Owusu-Akyaw, 2001).

Similarly, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1945 (CAP. 84: Section 1 and 2) and currently the Land Use and Spatial Planning Act, 2016 (Act 925) emphasize a need for urban greenspaces (See p. 99; Section 134 and 145). The Acts require national urban planning and local planning authorities (PPD and PCU) working with other decentralized departments such as Parks and Gardens, Survey Department, and Lands Commission to plan for greenspaces.

201

Figure 8.1: Greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis as of 2013. Source: Generated based on data from the Town and Country Planning Department of Kumasi.

Figure 8.2: Planning Scheme for Kumasi Metropolis, 1963 Source: Adopted with modification from MESTI et al (2013: Chapter 8, p. 27)

202

Figure 8.3: Land Use Map of Kumasi Metropolis, 1985 Source: Town and Country Planning Department (1985)26

8.2.2 Initiatives on Urban Greenspace Planning

Urban greenspace initiatives outlined in the MTDPs and GKCP can be placed into three main categories: provision, restoration, and educational. Strategies in the 2010-2013 MTDP focused on urban afforestation and public awareness initiatives on protecting wetlands (KMA, 2010: 178).

The 2014-2017 MTDP focused on creating open spaces and green belts in the Metropolis through law enforcement and stakeholder involvements (KMA, 2014: 250). Five community parks were also identified for implementation in five communities— Asafo, Ridge Nhyiaeso, Dadiesoaba,

Nsiah Asare Sokoban, and Amankwatia— in the Metropolis. Only one has been implemented; the

Rattray Recreational Park at Ridge Nhyiaeso which was completed in June 2015.

26 This was retrieved with the help of a colleague (Patrick Brandful Cobbinah) who had published an article title: Cobbinah, Patrick Brandful, Clifford Amoako, and Michael Osei Asibey. 2019. The changing face of Kumasi central, Ghana. Geoforum 101: 49-61. 203

Figure 8.4: Planned Greenspaces in the GKSR, 2013-2028 Source: MEST et al. (2013: Chapter 11, p. 18)

In the GKCP, the PPD outlines five objectives and seven strategies for “Open Space and

Recreation Facility Development.” They specify securing existing land for urban greenspaces, maintaining and effectively managing existing urban greenspaces, identifying new sites to develop urban greenspaces, promoting urban greenspaces utilization and developing a hierarchical system for parks and recreational facilities in the GKSR. They also aimed at improving urban greenspaces at the central core— at Adum and Kejetia (the CBD of Kumasi)— through land use changes

(MESTI et al., 2013; Chapter 8, p. 23). However, the availability of land is a limitation. Hence, the PPD recognizes it “needs to rely on the surrounding suburban districts… to get access to suburban green space for fresh air, water, open space, and recreation space” (MESTI et al., 2013:

204

Chapter 3, p. 7). So, while the PCU focuses on creating greenspace such as urban parks within the

Metropolis, the PPD focuses on developing greenspaces in the adjoining districts in the GKSR; outside the Kumasi Metropolis. This is confirmed by the master plan presented in Figure 8.4.

8.3 Challenges of Urban Planners in Urban Greenspace Planning

In this section, the chapter examines the feedback from urban development professionals in the

Kumasi Metropolis that provide additional context and understanding to institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Metropolis.

8.3.1 Urban Visions for the Kumasi Metropolis

The interviews revealed that despite the potential for the 1945 and 1963 plans to promote urban greenspaces, this vision never materialized because the plans did not incorporate the local context and institutional dynamics of Kumasi. Planners explained that government’s interest to invest in the vision was low despite its political appeal. The low interest by governments was due to the notion that investing in urban greenspaces implies prioritizing urban greenery over residents’ basic needs— and Kumasi’s economic significance (See Amoako and Korboe, 2011). Thus, a new vision that focused on promoting economic development for the Metropolis was promoted by urban planners in the Metropolis. The emphasis on economic development is evident in the GKCP and confirmed by Planner 1 from the PPD:

But then we got to know that Kumasi had been living in that garden city status for a long period of time making Kumasi drawback in terms of development… But alongside it, our focus should be economic… So, we are creating an identity to divert away from the garden city (Planner 1, 2015).

205

The challenge of mainstreaming contextual issues into plans persisted after 1945 leading to low harmony between rapid urbanization and the needs of residents. So, while “planners and politicians and citizens became proud of it and loved” the idea of a “Garden City,” contentions existed between residents’ needs and the idea. Subsequently, “there was no conscious effort to promote that idea or even preserve [it] (Planner 3, 2015). “Hence, … it was just easy to lose” this vision (Planner 5, 2015).

Planners also explained that urban visions lacked a collective consensus. The 1945 and 1963 plans were prepared through centralized planning processes with little or no residents’ participation. Apparently, planning in both the colonial (Obeng-Odoom, 2015; Schmidt, 2005) and post-colonial era (Sackeyfio, 2012) provided limited opportunities for natives to be involved in community development. From this context, creating a collective vision is imperative, which many of the planners interviewed agreed. For instance, one planner notes: So, we need to have a common vision as to how we want our settlements to be like and then all of us come together to enforce it

(Planner 6, 2015). This observation is crucial as the 2013 GKCP was supported by the JICA, drawing attention to the need to sensitize residents and planning departments to support and own the plan. As another planner observes:

… we call it the JICA Plan and not our plan. First, because it was sponsored by JICA. Second, the technical people were Japanese consultants. Of course, they had the local team [PPD] that supported it but basically, they [the Japanese consultants] were in control (Planner 3, 2015)

8.3.2 Capacity Issues of the Urban Planning Departments

From the interviews, the power dynamics of land use and land ownership was varied among urban planners. On the one hand, some suggested that the PPD does not have the power to control land use; interestingly, this came from planners at the PCU and PPD. Conversely, some urban planners

206

suggested that that PPD does not have control over land ownership but hold the power to control how land is used in the Metropolis. The limited view of planning powers has unfortunately restricted planners to sedentary roles at the PCU and PPD without any tangible control over developers’ use of land in the Metropolis. As one planner explains:

They [planners] don’t enforce the plans that they design properly at the assemblies… and what they do is that they caution people. They will write: “Stop work, produce permit” [on buildings that are being constructed without a permit]. That is where they end (Planner 3, 2015)

Urban planners have seemingly failed to realize that the power to control land use supersedes the power of land ownership as mandated by Act 925, which view urban authorities as the “human settlement and planning authority for its area of authority” (Section 34). This is one reason lands demarcated for urban greenspaces are easily encroached on. A planner from the PPD explains that planning layouts or local master plans for different areas of the Metropolis clearly show demarcated areas for urban greenspaces. But these have not actualized due to a lack of capacity to claim, develop and manage these demarcated areas—this is also confirmed in the

GKCP. This challenge has emerged in part due to poor collaboration with other decentralized departments. Staff from the Lands Commission and Department of Parks and Gardens confirm this. For instance, by law, it is the Department of Parks and Gardens’ responsibility to maintain urban landscapes (Amoako and Adom-Asamoah, 2018). There is also a lack of effective cooperation between the PPD and landowners leading to land use contestations. Apparently,

“… there is a very weak relationship between planning as an activity, land ownership, and the big governance environment… In the Ghanaian system, chiefs own land and the town and country planning department [i.e. PPD] organizes land but you don’t find the two cooperating effectively. (Planner 7, 2015)

207

Some urban planners also circumvent planning requirements for their parochial interests at the expense of the public interest, leading to the repurposing of lands for urban greenspaces to other land uses.

“…For example, when they [urban planners] do change of land use, you find out that the school has a park that is supposed to be two plots, and they do change of land use and give part of it [land] to somebody and the planner gets private benefits instead of making sure that the public good is protected. (Planner 6, 2015)

8.3.3 Disharmony in Land Management between Chiefs and Urban Planners

Customary land ownership— lands owned and controlled by chiefs— constitute a larger proportion of lands in Ghana (Kasanga 2016; Yeboah and Shaw 2013; Otsuka et al. 2003). This has had a negative impact on the implementation of site and service programs in Ghana. The ineffectiveness of the program coupled with the limited capacity of urban authorities to quickly map and zone lands, in the phase of rapid urbanization and high demand for land, have occasioned many landowners particularly chiefs to commission draftsmen to prepare planning layouts for undeveloped and non-demarcated areas. These draftsmen do not have adequate knowledge of expected standards when preparing planning layouts. Consequently, urban greenspaces are not planned and/or the expected land requirements for urban greenspaces are not conformed to. One urban planner explains:

Because it [planning layout] was not formal [i.e. not prepared by the PPD], then the whole idea of …making provision for greenspaces was lost. Even in instances where they [chiefs] engage people to prepare these schemes and there are reservations for urban greenspace, they [chiefs] either subdivide or change the use… [Even] when they [the chiefs] zone an area for open space, they keep it for as long as there are enough plots to sell (Planner 5, 2015)

Also, the PPD lack the funds, personnel, and logistics to monitor these layouts and may even not be aware of where the land for which a planning layout has been prepared is located. As a result,

208

lands demarcated for urban greenspaces are repurposed, mostly without authorization. According to one planner: So, you find the plans are in the tale and development is far ahead. Before you go in to implement [the plans for urban greenspaces], the green is already gone (Planner 7, 2015).

In situations where such layouts are enforced, chiefs influence politicians to put pressure on urban planners to grant permits to change lands demarcated for urban greenspaces. This is possible because these chiefs carry great influence.27 This power dynamic makes urban greenspace planning vulnerable as it limits the PPD from exerting full control over demarcated lands for greenspaces. Subsequently, a planner from the PPD suggests that [the KMA] should buy those areas [lands demarcated for urban greenspaces] … [and] give [Department of] parks and gardens enough resources… [to] maintain the place well (Planner 1, 2015).

8.3.4 Political Interference in Urban Greenspace Planning

Another issue is that politicians lack the political will to protect urban greenspaces because they are afraid of losing electoral votes. Politicians tend to support residents even when they flout laws and encroach on urban greenspaces. This is exacerbated by the fact that initiatives of the government in power are often at variance with local plans. The planner from the PCU puts it this way:

The problem has to do with the politicians being afraid of incurring the displeasure of the people. [Many] people don’t have work; they sell on the streets or create their own kiosk. Then because you want greenspace [and] want to ensure the free flow of water, you demolish [these structures]. You can imagine the chaos, so probably they decide to stay away from such issues… [So] we should make sure our plans work. We need to come out with concrete ways to punish those who flout the laws…[to]… scare people. [But] the political-will should be forthcoming, we should get politicians to be supporting whatever plans that we work on (Planner 2, 2015).

27 This dynamic has been discussed extensively in Amoako and Adom-Asamoah (2018). They frame this as the socio- spatial and pollical dynamics of greenspace planning and management in the Kumasi Metropolis. 209

8.4.5 Low Appreciation of Urban Greenspaces amongst Urban Residents and Land Developers

There seems to be a general perception, at least per those interviewed, that residents and land developers have a low appreciation for urban greenspaces. Usually, lands demarcated for urban greenspaces are left to grow wild, without any protection, or investments by authorities, due to a lack of funds. Since governments hardly pay compensations for these lands, landowners sell them to private land developers who change their land use, often without recourse to the PPD. One urban planner explains:

But they [lands for urban greenspaces] were left undeveloped. So, they [chiefs] thought they were vacant plots… [and]… started selling them. In some cases, they may not even come to the planning authority. [If they do] they come in the name of change of use and then…develop it. (Planner 5, 2015)

Urban planners also explained that residents’ livelihood interests normally override the benefits of urban greenspaces. Apparently, urban challenges such as poverty, inadequate access to water and proper sanitation, traffic congestions, and unemployment make the demand for urban greenspaces low among residents. The planner from the PPD notes:

It is not a priority at all… People will even criticize him (the Metropolitan Chief Executive) that we don’t have hospitals, and you are sitting there constructing [Translated] parks. Parks, can we eat them? [Translated]. That is the typical Ghanaian for you… (Planner 1, 2015)

Such perceptions and attitudes make it difficult for residents to own urban greenspace initiatives; a reason why the garden city vision may have failed. Residents seem to view parks as elitist and for the wealthy, because of the cost of maintenance associated with designed greenspaces. Some planners point out that:

You may call it the garden city, but the people don’t appreciate it that way (Planner 4, 2015) … I think when it comes to parks, even simple grassing, landscaping, …people see it more as a luxury (Planner 3, 2015)

210

Figure 8.5: Destruction of Greenspaces along roads by Pedestrians and Commercial Activities Source: Field Data Collection, December 28, 2017

Also, it is not uncommon to see the disappearance of urban greenspaces such as landscaping of roadside and medians after a few months of road construction. They are invaded by street hawkers and vendors. Furthermore, residents willingly buy lands they know are dedicated greenspaces and convert them to other land uses. Some comments from planners give credence to these observations:

As soon as the contractor hands over, or even before the job is completed, hawkers and the vendors take over. And nobody does anything. So, it has something to do with the poverty level, people are more concerned about their immediate things (Planner 3, 2015).

211

You can’t find playgrounds, community grounds [and] community football pitches. People have bought those places and used them for stores (Planner 5, 2015)

Consequently, based on the perceptions of those interviewed, there is a greater need for sensitization about the benefits of urban greenspaces among chiefs, residents and various stakeholders of urban planning in the Metropolis. Moreover, many MTDPs often lack a coherent spatial component as they focus on social-economic initiatives without a clear articulation of their impacts on the spatial morphology of the Kumasi Metropolis. As a recommendation, one planner suggests:

We have no other option than sensitization because if you look at the kind of paradigm we are operating with as planners and the fact that we are now in an era of democracy. You need people to buy into it [the idea of urban greenspaces]. So, communication and sensitization must be part of it if we want to sustain it. (Planner 3, 2015)

8.4 Discussion

The nature of the urban greenspace initiatives is indicative of capacity challenges of urban planning departments in the Metropolis. This has limited both the PPD and PCU from innovatively thinking around urban greenspace depletion in an urbanization context. With the Metropolis completely urbanized, initiatives in the plans did not consider design and greenspace options for densified landscapes; initiatives focused predominantly on traditional greenspace initiatives like urban parks and tree planting. Urban greenspaces received little attention in the plans with no clear model, goal, or impetus for action towards improving quality, quantity, accessibility, and connectivity of urban greenspaces as well as how these urban greenspaces contribute to tackling climate change impacts in the Kumasi Metropolis. Singapore provides good lessons in this respect as it conceived and attained a garden city status despite the challenges of urbanization. The city worked around its densification process to ensure greenspace benefits for its residents (Tuan Seik, 2001). Urban

212

greenspace provision was intentional and achieved via progressive planning reforms and a greenspace model— backed by political and economic commitments— that view urban greenspaces as an opportunity for economic development and residents’ access to quality urban life (Henderson, 2013; Tan et al., 2013; Jim, 2004).

For the Kumasi Metropolis, increasing the availability and access to urban greenspaces— and conceiving them as CCIs— will mean overcoming low political and economic commitments that see greenspaces as distant from economic development and quality urban life. Overcoming such barriers demands that urban greenspace planning needs to mainstream and reflect the social and cultural dynamics of the Kumasi Metropolis, in addition to viewing urban greenspaces as strategies to tackle climate change impacts (CCIs). This will not only promote harmony between residents’ desires to meet their socio-economic aspirations and the goals of urban greenspace planning but also help to use and reposition urban greenspaces as a CCI. This is crucial because when confronted with rapid urbanization and the demand for land, residents have encroached on urban greenspaces to satisfy such socio-economic needs like housing (Korah et al., 2015;

Amoateng et al., 2013), thereby limiting the potential of urban greenspaces to tackle climate change impacts in the Kumasi Metropolis.

From the interviews, it seems that residents by their actions demonstrate a low appreciation for urban greenspaces. Studies in the Kumasi Metropolis— for example, Adjei Mensah (2014b) and Quagraine (2011)— observe that many residents have willingly bought wetlands and open spaces for residential or commercial purposes— such as in Aboabo and Ayeduase (Korah et al.,

2015). Also, parks such as the Suntreso community park, Dunkirk community park, Atonsu nature reserve, Subin nature reserve, and Kaasi nature reserve have been taken over by residents for residential and commercial uses.

213

Yet, residents’ demand for land to meet their needs is an indication that they prioritize meeting their basic needs over a desire for urban greenspaces— this argument is examined further in the next chapter. This is especially relevant where residents see urban planning as an “elitist” endeavor (Cobbinah, 2017), which does not take into account their development interests. Hence, it is crucial for urban greenspace planning to be cognizance of the socio-economic— and socio- cultural context (Schmidt, 2005)— of urban residents and the built environment. For this reason, to use urban greenspaces as CCIs will mean that urban authorities need to ensure that urban greenspaces address both climate goals as well as the socio-economic needs of residents. This is an issue which is explored further in the next chapter.

Additionally, the role of political commitment to urban greenspace planning is imperative.

The evidence from the Kumasi Metropolis shows that it is generally absent and planning initiatives often encounter political interference. Since the Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolis

“determines the final plan, a power he exercises not necessarily in accordance with planning principles” (Obeng-Odoom, 2010: 87), greenspace plans can easily be overruled. However, such power manifested positively in the case of the planning and construction of the Rattray Park in

Kumasi that points to the imperativeness of political commitment. The Chief Executive showed personal interest in the project, even at the expense of residents’ dissent. This ensured that the project was implemented and commissioned in 2015. To use urban greenspaces as CCIs will, therefore, require political commitments that understands the urgent need to tackle climate change impacts and appreciate the role urban greenspaces can play in tackling climate change impacts in the Kumasi Metropolis.

Furthermore, several other departments work with the PCU and PPD in urban greenspace planning in the Metropolis (See Amoako and Adom-Asamoah (2018) for their specific roles).

214

Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp (2009) argue that a system where planning functions are spread across several departments promotes ineffective urban greenspace planning. This chapter confirms this observation and reveals that this has resulted in differences in greenspace initiatives by the

PCU and PPD, which affirms studies that found conflicting roles (Acheampong et al., 2016) and poor collaboration and coordination (Addo-Fordwuor, 2014; Adjei Mensah, 2014b; Owusu-Ansah and Braimah, 2013) among decentralized departments in Ghana. Such as poor collaboration among decentralized departments can also affect the planning of urban greenspaces as CCIs as this can lead to conflicts in priorities and goals, duplications of efforts, and the non-implementation of

CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis.

This institutional relationship is complicated by the power’s chiefs exert on urban planning departments. Owusu and Asamoah (2005) study of the physical development of Ayeduase, a neighborhood in Kumasi, reveals that the consequence is often encroachment on lands for utilities, open spaces, and wetlands. Again, wetlands in Kronom, Atonsu, Ahinsan, Bohyen, and Susanso have been sold indiscriminately while peri-urban areas including Emena, Deduako, Esreso, and

Esaase have been negatively affected (Tontoh, 2011). Amoako and Adom-Asamoah (2018:1) refer to this dynamic as the “socio-spatial politics” of urban greenspace management.

Overall, these institutional barriers can be categorized into two: internal institutional barriers—because they originate within planning departments— and external institutional barriers— because they originate from outside planning departments in the Metropolis. In effect, the external and internal factors underpin the barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi

Metropolis, which contributes to the low capacity of KMA to plan for urban greenspaces and weakens their ability to use urban greenspaces as CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis.

215

These relationships provide implications on the ability of the KMA to deal with these barriers. Firstly, the KMA can directly institute mechanisms that can help resolve the impacts of internal factors to urban greenspace planning in the Metropolis. This is because the KMA has control over these barriers and can deal directly with them through internal re-organization or reforms. Secondly, external factors that weaken the KMA’s capacity to plan effectively for urban greenspaces will require the authority to negotiate and collaborate effectively with chiefs, the staff of other departments, and residents who impact their urban greenspace planning efforts. In some instances where appreciation and understanding of the role of urban greenspaces are low or absent among actors, the KMA will need to sensitize them to appreciate and explain to them how their actions are negatively affecting effective urban greenspace planning. Thus, negotiations, collaborations, and sensitization initiatives are critical in overcoming the external barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis. Figure 8.6 summarizes the institutional barriers to urban greenspaces and its relationship to using urban greenspaces as CCIs in the Metropolis.

Internal factors External Factors

▪ Low attention to urban ▪ Disharmony in land greenspaces in urban plans Institutional Barriers to management between ▪ Lack of innovation and Urban Greenspace chiefs and urban planners urban visions for the urban ▪ Misconception about the Planning in the Kumasi greenspaces Metropolis use of land ▪ Capacity challenges of the ▪ Perceived low urban planning departments appreciation of urban ▪ Political interference greenspaces ▪ Poor framing of urban greenspaces as CCIs Low Urban Greenspace Planning Capacity

Weak Capacity to use Urban Greenspaces as CCIs

Figure 8.6: Institutional Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning in the Kumasi Metropolis Source: Author’s Construct (2018).

216

8.5 Conclusion

The institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning demonstrate the inherent challenges of urban planning in Ghana. To overcome these institutional barriers require planning reform that ensure that there are clear visions and innovations in urban greenspace planning initiatives; effective collaborations among decentralized departments, chiefs and residents; an institutional set-up that is able to attract political and economic commitments for urban greenspace planning initiatives, as well as the appreciation that urban greenspaces are critical urban amenities that can help tackle the impacts of climate change in the Kumasi Metropolis.

Subsequently, the institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning and the implementation of strategies to overcome them should make greenspaces germane to urban development and resident’s urban experience in the Kumasi Metropolis— and should be the focus of urban greenspace planning capacity building. The absence of such considerations will make initiatives of planning departments on urban greenspaces ineffective as well as undermine efforts to use urban greenspaces as CCIs.

One way to overcome the challenge of urban greenspace declines, taking cognizance of the various institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis, is to have an urban greenspace plan. This plan will help the KMA to identify different initiatives at different spatial scales on greenspaces, identify the goals and targets for these initiatives and, most importantly, how these initiatives will contribute to tackling climate change impacts as CCIs in the Metropolis. This plan will form the basis to negotiate with the private sector and international development agencies for funding and will enable the KMA to identify the roles of different stakeholders and how they can engender their interests and support urban greenspace initiatives in the Kumasi Metropolis.

217

However, the institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning are but one dimension of barriers to urban greenspace planning in the metropolis. In this Chapter, residents’ perception and appreciation of urban greenspaces, according to the interviews, are also barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis. The next chapter focuses on providing an in-depth understanding of these specific dynamics from the standpoint of residents in the Metropolis. The aim is to provide a further understanding of the barriers to urban greenspace planning in the

Kumasi Metropolis.

218

CHAPTER NINE SOCIO-CULTURAL BARRIERS TO URBAN GREENSPACE PLANNING

9.1 Introduction

Previous chapters revealed that different factors can inhibit urban greenspace planning. For instance, residents’ perceptions, attitudes, and preferences often influence urban greenspace planning (Green et al., 2016; Standish et al., 2013; Clayton and Myers, 2009). Additionally, residents’ appreciation for (Gwedla and Shackleton, 2015; Zérah, 2007) and awareness of the benefits of or misconceptions about greenspaces can affect urban greenspace planning

(Kronenberg, 2015; Kirkpatrick et al., 2013). For others, an absence of residents’ participation in urban greenspace planning (Adjei Mensah et al., 2017; Shivanand and Dragićević 2005) can affect their provision. This is because urban greenspace preferences are underpinned by socio-economic and cultural factors (Shackleton et al., 2015; Hope et al., 2003). Also, urban development professionals in the Kumasi Metropolis conclude that since residents encroach on urban greenspaces, it means they do not have an appreciation for them.

Subsequently, this chapter makes the argument that social factors surrounding the use and demand for urban greenspaces can influence urban greenspace planning. It presents results from the survey of 400 adults in the Kumasi Metropolis. After the characteristics of respondents, the chapter presents results on residents’ awareness of greenspace benefits and functions, residents’ support for urban greenspace planning initiatives, how they prioritize urban greenspaces in relation to other development needs, and residents’ awareness of climate change issues. These are followed by a discussion of the results. The chapter concludes by determining whether the social factors surrounding the use and demand for urban greenspaces influence urban greenspace planning in the

Kumasi Metropolis and its implications for planning CCIs.

219

9.2 Statistical Measures and Significance of Research Variables

This study uses both frequency tables and cross-tabulations to present the results from the analysis.

In the case of cross-tabulations, three statistical measures have been used to determine the differences and strength of association between variables namely: Phi and Cramer's V, and

Contingency Coefficient (See Chapter 6 for details). The results of the measures of association are summarized in Table 9.1 below.

Table 9.1: Statistical Measures and the Significance of the relationship between variables. Contingency Phi Cramer's V N of Variables Coefficient Valid Value Sig. Value Sig. Value Sig. Cases Visit to any greenspace during the past year in the Kumasi Metropolis Sub-metro (Residents’ location) 0.495 0.001 0.495 0.001 0.443 0.001 400 Sex Structure 0.320 0.001 0.320 0.001 0.305 0.001 400 Age Distribution 0.108 0.461 0.108 0.461 0.107 0.461 400 Highest educational qualification 0.129 0.156 0.129 0.156 0.128 0.156 400 Household Size 0.196 0.001 0.196 0.001 0.192 0.001 400 Overall Physical Condition of Urban Greenspaces Visited Greenspace Type Visited 1.17 0.001 0.585 0.001 0.760 0.001 247 Prioritization of urban greenspaces and recreational facilities Sub-metro (Residents’ location) 0.638 0.001 0.285 0.001 0.538 0.001 400 Sex Structure 0.186 0.017 0.186 0.017 0.183 0.017 400 Age Distribution 0.429 0.001 0.192 0.001 0.395 0.001 400 Highest educational qualification 0.336 0.001 0.168 0.001 0.319 0.001 400 Household Size 0.310 0.001 0.219 0.001 0.296 0.001 400 Awareness of Climate Change Sub-metro (Residents’ location) 0.331 0.001 0.331 0.001 0.314 0.001 400 Sex Structure 0.069 0.165 0.069 0.165 0.069 0.165 400 Age Distribution 0.148 0.120 0.148 0.120 0.146 0.120 400 Highest educational qualification 0.476 0.001 0.476 0.001 0.430 0.001 400 Household Size 0.149 0.012 0.149 0.012 0.147 0.012 400

Source: Field Survey, 2018

220

With respect to visit to any greenspace during the past year in the Kumasi Metropolis, the measures indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) among respondents based on the sub-metro they live, their gender and household size. The association between visits to greenspaces and residents’ location as well as gender were moderate (Phi < 0.5) while that of household size was modest (Phi < 0.3). The difference between the physical conditions of greenspace types was also statistically significant and had strong associations. Under climate change awareness, differences in educational attainment and residents’ location were statistically significant and had moderate associations (Phi < 0.5). The differences under prioritization of urban greenspaces were statistically significant across all variables, with modest to strong statistical associations (Table

9.1). This chapter draws connections and conclusions based on the statistically significant results from these measures.

9.3 Characteristics of Respondents

Overall, 400 questionnaires were administered in nine sub-metropolitan areas in the Kumasi

Metropolis. Out of this, 168 were females (42%) and 232 were males (58%). Since the number of questionnaires administered was dependent on the adult population for each sub-metro, Oforikrom had the highest recorded respondents (72), with the least being in Asokwa and Nhyiaeso (32).

There are more people under forty-five years in the sample than those forty-five years and above.

Together, 339 of the 400 respondents were below forty-five years old with 43 respondents between

18 - 25 years (10.8%), 169 between 26 - 35 years (42.3%), and 127 between 36 – 45 years (31.8%).

The majority of the respondents had attained Senior High School (SHS) education followed by

Junior High School (JHS) education with 124 (31.0%) and 138 (34.5%) respondents respectively.

Details of the demographic characteristics of respondents are summarized in Table 9.2.

221

Table 9.2: Summary of Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents Asokwa Bantama Kwadaso Manhyia Nhyiaeso Demographic Characteristics Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Sex Structure Female 15 8.9 24 14.3 37 22.0 11 6.5 12 7.1 Male 17 7.3 36 15.5 20 8.6 25 10.8 20 8.6 Total 32 8.0 60 15.0 57 14.3 36 9.0 32 8.0 Age Distribution 18 - 25 0 0.0 4 9.3 5 11.6 4 9.3 9 20.9 26 - 35 10 5.9 24 14.2 25 14.8 18 10.7 11 6.5 36 - 45 14 11.0 30 23.6 8 6.3 9 7.1 10 7.9 46 - 55 3 7.5 1 2.5 17 42.5 2 5.0 1 2.5 56 - 65 5 31.3 1 6.3 1 6.3 3 18.8 1 6.3 66+ 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 32 8.0 60 15.0 57 14.3 36 9.0 32 8.0 Highest None 2 20.0 0 0.0 1 10.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 educational Primary 5 16.7 4 13.3 1 3.3 5 16.7 2 6.7 qualification JHS 8 6.5 30 24.2 9 7.3 4 3.2 11 8.9 SHS 11 8.0 23 16.7 16 11.6 20 14.5 11 8.0 Tertiary 6 6.1 3 3.1 30 30.6 7 7.1 8 8.2 Total 32 8.0 60 15.0 57 14.3 36 9.0 32 8.0 Household Size 1 - 3 10 5.7 26 14.9 23 13.2 18 10.3 12 6.9 4 - 6 16 9.5 13 7.7 34 20.1 15 8.9 15 8.9 7 + 6 10.5 21 36.8 0 0.0 3 5.3 5 8.8 Total 32 8.0 60 15.0 57 14.3 36 9.0 32 8.0

222

Table 9.2: Summary of Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents (Continued) Demographic Oforikrom Suame Subin Tafo Total Characteristics Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % % Sex Structure Female 19 11.3 12 7.1 24 14.3 14 8.3 168 42.0 100.0 Male 53 22.8 24 10.3 18 7.8 19 8.2 232 58.0 100.0 Total 72 18.0 36 9.0 42 10.5 33 8.3 400 100.0 100.0 Age Distribution 18 - 25 3 7.0 5 11.6 9 20.9 4 9.3 43 10.8 100.0 26 - 35 30 17.8 17 10.1 18 10.7 16 9.5 169 42.3 100.0 36 - 45 26 20.5 10 7.9 10 7.9 10 7.9 127 31.8 100.0 46 - 55 6 15.0 3 7.5 4 10.0 3 7.5 40 10.0 100.0 56 - 65 4 25.0 0 0.0 1 6.3 0 0.0 16 4.0 100.0 66+ 3 60.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 1.3 100.0 Total 72 18.0 36 9.0 42 10.5 33 8.3 400 100.0 100.0 Highest None 5 50.0 2 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 2.5 100.0 educational Primary 9 30.0 1 3.3 2 6.7 1 3.3 30 7.5 100.0 qualification JHS 26 21.0 12 9.7 8 6.5 16 12.9 124 31.0 100.0 SHS 21 15.2 6 4.3 23 16.7 7 5.1 138 34.5 100.0 Tertiary 11 11.2 15 15.3 9 9.2 9 9.2 98 24.5 100.0 Total 72 18.0 36 9.0 42 10.5 33 8.3 400 100.0 100.0 Household Size 1 - 3 33 19.0 17 9.8 16 9.2 19 10.9 174 43.5 100.0 4 - 6 30 17.8 15 8.9 22 13.0 9 5.3 169 42.3 100.0 7 + 9 15.8 4 7.0 4 7.0 5 8.8 57 14.3 100.0 Total 72 18.0 36 9.0 42 10.5 33 8.3 400 100.0 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2018

NB: All estimates are row percentages except the highlighted column, which represents total column percentages of variables under the

demographic characteristics.

223

9.3 Use of Greenspaces

In the Kumasi Metropolis, 247 (61.8%) out of the 400 respondents surveyed had visited a type of greenspace at least once in the year preceding 2018. Five out of nine sub-metros had more than

50% of the respondents visiting a greenspace in the twelve months before the survey. The proportions were higher in areas where there are known greenspaces such as Manhyia and

Nhyiaeso (Table 9.3).

Table 9.3: Visit to any Greenspace during the Past Year in the Kumasi Metropolis No Yes Total Variables Count % Count % Count % Sub-metros Asokwa 12 37.5 20 62.5 32 100.0 Bantama 43 71.7 17 28.3 60 100.0 Kwadaso 23 40.4 34 59.6 57 100.0 Manhyia 0 0.0 36 100.0 36 100.0 Nhyiaeso 2 6.3 30 93.8 32 100.0 Oforikrom 22 30.6 50 69.4 72 100.0 Suame 4 11.1 32 88.9 36 100.0 Subin 24 57.1 18 42.9 42 100.0 Tafo 23 69.7 10 30.3 33 100.0 Total 153 38.3 247 61.8 400 100.0 Sex Female 95 56.5 73 43.5 168 100.0 Male 58 25.0 174 75.0 232 100.0 Total 153 38.3 247 61.8 400 100.0 Age 18 - 25 years 15 34.9 28 65.1 43 100.0 26 - 35 years 66 39.1 103 60.9 169 100.0 36 - 45 years 46 36.2 81 63.8 127 100.0 46 - 55 years 14 35.0 26 65.0 40 100.0 56 - 65 years 10 62.5 6 37.5 16 100.0 66 years above 2 40.0 3 60.0 5 100.0 Total 153 38.3 247 61.8 400 100.0 Highest No education 4 40.0 4 60.0 10 100.0 educational Primary 12 40.0 18 60.0 30 100.0 qualification Junior High School 54 43.5 70 56.5 124 100.0 Senior Secondary 52 37.7 86 62.3 138 100.0 Tertiary 29 29.6 69 70.4 98 100.0 Total 153 38.3 247 61.8 400 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

224

Males are more likely to visit a greenspace in the Kumasi Metropolis than females as 75% of all males had visited a greenspace in the past year compared to 43.5% of females. On average, the likelihood of a person visiting a greenspace is not influenced by age. Across the various age groups, at least 60% had visited a greenspace (except for those between 56 - 65 years). There was not much difference across educational level. At least 55% had visited a greenspace in the

Metropolis in the past year (Table 9.3).

Respondents visit different greenspaces in the Metropolis including football fields, gardens, parks, trees, cultural center, and the zoo. Most respondents visit gardens (31.6%) with the least being the zoo (3.6%). It was not surprising because different gardens in the Metropolis offer places to hold ceremonial events such as weddings, photoshoots, and eating spaces (Table 9.4).

Table 9.4: Type of Greenspace often Utilized by Respondents

Variables Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Type of greenspace Often utilized Football field 14 3.5 5.7 5.7 Gardens 78 19.5 31.6 37.2 Parks 63 15.8 25.5 62.8 Trees 66 16.5 26.7 89.5 Cultural Center 17 4.3 6.9 96.4 Zoo 9 2.3 3.6 100.0 Total 247 61.8 100.0 INAP 153 38.3 Overall Total 400 100.0 Name of Greenspace Visited Amakom Children's Park 6 1.5 2.4 2.4 Golden Tulip Gardens 3 0.8 1.2 3.6 Community Parks/Public squares 10 2.5 4.0 7.7 KNUST Botanical Garden 39 9.8 15.8 23.5 Kumasi Cultural Center 17 4.3 6.9 30.4 Kumasi Zoo 9 2.3 3.6 34.0 Manhyia Palace 36 9 14.6 48.6 Rattray Park 44 11 17.8 66.4 Sits under Tree 66 16.5 26.7 93.1 School Parks 17 4.3 6.9 100.0 Total 247 61.8 100.0 INAP 153 38.8 Overall Total 400 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

225

In terms of the physical conditions of the greenspaces visited, about 85.8% had something positive to say about their conditions. About 25.9% and 59.9% of respondents said that the conditions were excellent and good while only 8.1% said the conditions were poor (Table 9.5).

Table 9.5: Physical Condition of Urban Greenspaces Visited

Not sure/ Excellent Good Fair Poor Total

Don't know

Greenspace

% % % % % %

Count Count Count Count Count Count

Amakom Children's Park 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 100.0 0 0.0 6 100.0 Golden Tulip Gardens 3 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 100.0 KNUST Botanical Garden 7 17.9 32 82.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 39 100.0 Kumasi Cultural Center 0 0.0 17 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 100.0 Kumasi Zoo 0 0.0 2 22.2 7 77.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 100.0 Manhyia Palace 6 16.7 28 77.8 0 0.0 2 5.6 0 0.0 36 100.0 Rattray Park 12 27.3 32 72.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 44 100.0 Sits under Tree 33 50.0 27 40.9 1 1.5 0 0.0 5 7.6 66 100.0 School Parks 1 5.9 4 23.5 2 11.8 10 58.8 0 0.0 17 100.0 Other Community Parks 2 20.0 6 60.0 0 0.0 2 20.0 0 0.0 10 100.0 Total 64 25.9 148 59.9 10 4.0 20 8.1 5 2.0 247 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

From Table 9.6, 71.7% and 17.4% indicated that they were very satisfied and satisfied with the value they receive from urban greenspace visited respectively. Thus, at least 80% were satisfied with the greenspaces that they were using. This is not surprising because the few parks and gardens that are left are either recently constructed such as the Rattray Park or institutional in nature; hence, they receive regular maintenance such as the Manhyia Palace Gardens, the KNUST Botanical

Gardens, Kumasi Zoo, and Kumasi Cultural Center (See Figures 9.1 and 9.2). Those who indicated trees, sit under them around their homes for shade and relaxations and require little to no maintenance. However, for those indicating poor conditions (8.1%) and dissatisfaction (9.3%), this is attributed to the poor conditions of community parks such as the Amakom Children’s and school parks in the Metropolis. In Table 9.5, all respondents indicated that the physical conditions of the

226

Amakom Children’s park were poor and 58.8% indicated that school parks are of poor conditions.

This is because these urban greenspaces are not grassed, experience low to no maintenance, and often pose a serious risk to those who use them (See Figures 9.3 and 9.4).

Table 9.6: Value Household Receives from Greenspaces Cumulative Variables Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 177 44.3 71.7 71.7 Satisfied 43 10.8 17.4 89.1 Neutral 2 0.5 0.8 89.9 Dissatisfied 4 1.0 1.6 91.5 Very Dissatisfied 19 4.8 7.7 99.2 Not sure/Don't know/No Response 2 0.5 0.8 100.0 Total 247 61.8 100.0 INAP 153 38.3 Overall Total 400 100.0

Figure 9.1: Department of Parks and Gardens Office Source: Field Survey, 2018

227

Figure 9.2: Greenspaces at the Kumasi Cultural Center Source: Field Survey, 2018

Figure 9.3: (a) Bompso School Park (b) Oforikrom School Park Source: Field Survey, 2018

228

Figure 9.4: Condition of Amakom Children’s Park in the Kumasi Metropolis Source: Field Survey, 2018

Generally, a majority of respondents have decreased their use of greenspaces as of the time the survey was conducted. As much as 62.3% of respondents alluded to this fact. Only 37.7% of respondent who had used greenspaces in the previous year indicated that they do not use greenspace currently and this is slightly lower than the record for the previous years of 38.3%

(Table 9.7). No reasons were given by respondents and the data available do not provide any rationale for these changes. However, the physical conditions and safety concerns around urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis could be a reason.

Table 9.7: Changes in Greenspace Usage Valid Cumulative Change Frequency Percent Percent Percent Use the same amount of greenspace as in the past 79 19.8 32.0 32.0 Make greater use greenspaces 8 2 3.2 35.2 Make less use greenspaces 67 16.8 27.1 62.3 Do not use greenspaces now 93 23.3 37.7 100.0 Total 247 61.9 100.0 INAP (Did not use greenspace before) 153 38.3 Overall Total 400 100 Source: Field Survey, 2018

229

9.4 Awareness of Greenspace Benefits and Functions

To test residents’ awareness of the benefits and functions of greenspaces, four broad areas were considered namely: social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits. Under each of these broad areas, specific statements were made to test whether respondents agree or disagree with those statements. Responses from respondents show that they are aware of the benefits of greenspaces. As Table 9.8 reveals, the majority of respondents agreed that urban greenspaces have social benefits. About 99.5% agree that greenspaces can strengthen a community’s image and sense of place, 96.8% indicated that greenspaces can promote resident’s health, and 72.8% allude to the fact that greenspace can offer some education to residents thereby fostering some form of human development. The highest indication of residents disagreeing with the statements about greenspaces related to whether greenspaces can help reduce crime and promote safety. About

25.5% of respondents said they disagreed to this statement. This is not surprising bearing in mind the conditions of some community parks in the Metropolis. Some residents had indicated that robberies and even murder have occurred in some parks because they are dilapidated, without lighting and engulf with bushes. In Amakom, residents complained about the state of the Amakom

Children’s Park (See Figure 9.4) and narrated experiences of crimes that had taken place there.

Table 9.8: Residents’ Awareness of the Social Benefits of Greenspaces Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strengthen Community Image and Sense of Place Strongly Agree 362 90.5 90.5 90.5 Agree 36 9.0 9.0 99.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No response 2 0.5 0.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2018

230

Table 9.8: Residents’ Awareness of the Social Benefits of Greenspaces (Continued) Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Promote Health and Wellness Strongly Agree 347 86.8 86.8 86.8 Agree 40 10.0 10.0 96.8 Disagree 2 0.5 0.5 97.3 Strongly Disagree 5 1.3 1.3 98.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No 6 1.5 1.5 100.0 response Total 400 100.0 100.0 Foster Human Development Strongly Agree 214 53.5 53.5 53.5 Agree 77 19.3 19.3 72.8 Disagree 5 1.3 1.3 74.0 Strongly Disagree 2 0.5 0.5 74.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No 102 25.5 25.5 100.0 response Total 400 100.0 100.0 Strengthen Safety and Security (Protection from Crime) Strongly Agree 119 29.8 29.8 29.8 Agree 41 10.3 10.3 40.0 Disagree 28 7.0 7.0 47.0 Strongly Disagree 74 18.5 18.5 65.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No 138 34.5 34.5 100.0 response Total 400 100.0 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

For economic benefits, residents agreed that greenspaces provide jobs and avenues for people to engage in some economic activities. About 97.3% of respondents agreed that urban greenspaces support economic activities and only 2.8% disagreed with the statement (Table 9.9).

Such a strong response is indicative of the practice in the Metropolis where residents working in the informal sector such as artisans and hawkers use the shade of trees to rest and undertake their activities (See Figure 9.5).

231

Table 9.9: Residents’ Awareness of the Economic Benefits of Greenspaces (Support Economic Activities such as jobs and business creation) Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Strongly Agree 340 85.0 85.0 85.0 Agree 49 12.3 12.3 97.3 Disagree 11 2.8 2.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

Figure 9.5: Artisans working under Trees in the Kumasi Metropolis Source: Field Survey, 2018

For the cultural benefits of greenspaces, respondents were asked to agree or disagree with three statements. On whether greenspaces can increase the cultural unity and identity of communities, 72.6% of residents agreed while 2.5% of residents disagreed; 50.8% agreed that greenspaces facilitate community problem solving by providing avenues for communities to converge and interact, and 99.5% agreed that urban greenspaces provide recreational experiences for those who use them (Table 9.10). Similar observations were noted about the environmental benefits of greenspaces. The majority of respondents agreed that greenspaces protect environmental resources and help tackle changes in the weather (Table 9.11). These observations were further supported by responses about the functions of greenspaces (Table 9.12). Hence, residents in the Kumasi Metropolis are aware of the benefits and functions of greenspaces.

232

Table 9.10: Residents’ Awareness of the Cultural Benefits of Greenspaces Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Greenspaces Increase Cultural Unity and Identity Strongly Agree 209 52.3 52.3 52.3 Agree 81 20.3 20.3 72.5 Disagree 10 2.5 2.5 75.0 Not sure/ Don’t know/No response 100 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Facilitate Community Problem Solving Strongly Agree 159 39.8 39.8 39.8 Agree 44 11.0 11.0 50.8 Disagree 3 0.8 0.8 51.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No response 194 48.5 48.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Provide Recreational Experiences Strongly Agree 364 91.0 91.0 91.0 Agree 34 8.5 8.5 99.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No response 2 0.5 0.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

Table 9.11: Residents’ Awareness of the Environmental Benefits of Greenspaces Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Greenspaces Protect Environmental Resources Strongly Agree 347 86.8 86.8 86.8 Agree 42 10.5 10.5 97.3 Disagree 5 1.3 1.3 98.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No response 6 1.5 1.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Help Tackle the Impacts of Changes in the Weather Strongly Agree 335 83.8 83.8 83.8 Agree 46 11.5 11.5 95.3 Strongly Disagree 5 1.3 1.3 96.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No response 14 3.5 3.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

233

Table 9.12: Residents’ Awareness of the Functions of greenspaces Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Provide Aesthetic, recreational, leisure, etc. functions Strongly Agree 233 58.3 58.3 58.3 Agree 63 15.8 15.8 74.0 Not sure/ Don’t know/No 104 26.0 26.0 100.0 response Total 400 100.0 100.0 Can help reduce microclimatic (weather) conditions Strongly Agree 321 80.3 80.3 80.3 Agree 70 17.5 17.5 97.8 Neither agree nor disagree 3 .8 .8 98.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No 6 1.5 1.5 100.0 response Total 400 100.0 100.0 Greenspaces regulate air quality Strongly Agree 325 81.3 81.3 81.3 Agree 69 17.3 17.3 98.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No 6 1.5 1.5 100.0 response Total 400 100.0 100.0 Absorb run-off water, filters water, reduce flooding Strongly Agree 297 74.3 74.3 74.3 Agree 74 18.5 18.5 92.8 Neither agree nor disagree 5 1.3 1.3 94.0 Strongly Disagree 2 .5 .5 94.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No 22 5.5 5.5 100.0 response Total 400 100.0 100.0 Provides opportunities for food productions Strongly Agree 199 49.8 49.8 49.8 Agree 36 9.0 9.0 58.8 Not sure/ Don’t know/No 165 41.3 41.3 100.0 response Total 400 100.0 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

9.5 Residents Support for Urban Greenspace Planning in the Kumasi Metropolis

From the results of respondents’ awareness of the benefits and functions of greenspaces, it was apparent that 97.3% of residents understand that greenspaces protect environmental resources.

Again, 95.3% were also of the view that they help tackle the changes in the weather, 97.8% believe that greenspaces can help reduce microclimatic (weather) conditions, 98.5% agree that they can

234

regulate air quality, and 92.8% concur that greenspaces can absorb and filter run-off water and reduce flooding. These results are relevant for understanding whether residents’ awareness of the benefits and functions of greenspace can translate into a desire to support initiatives that seek to increase the quality and quantity of greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis

Table 9.13: Residents’ Support for Urban Greenspace Initiative.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA) developing urban greenspaces Strongly Support 295 73.8 73.8 73.8 Support 93 23.3 23.3 97.0 Will not Support 12 3.0 3.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 A tax or a fee for every household for greenspaces Strongly Support 210 52.5 52.5 52.5 Support 26 6.5 6.5 59.0 Support Somewhat 96 24.0 24.0 83.0 Will not Support 41 10.3 10.3 93.3 Strongly Will not Support 27 6.8 6.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Volunteer in planning and maintaining greenspaces Strongly Support 246 61.5 61.5 61.5 Support 73 18.3 18.3 79.8 Support Somewhat 65 16.3 16.3 96.0 Will not Support 16 4.0 4.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Charge people for using urban greenspaces Strongly Support 164 41.0 41.0 41.0 Support 109 27.3 27.3 68.3 Support Somewhat 74 18.5 18.5 86.8 Will not Support Somewhat 32 8.0 8.0 94.8 Will not Support 21 5.3 5.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Use of acquired land for greenspaces Developed for passive use 74 18.5 18.5 18.5 Developed for active 100 25.0 25.0 43.5 Developed for both passive and 219 54.8 54.8 98.3 active use Not sure/Don’t know/No 7 1.8 1.8 100.0 response Total 400 100.0 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

235

Overall, the study finds that most residents will support urban greenspace initiatives with only 3% dissenting. Specifically, 83% of respondents are willing to support some form of tax to support the provision of new greenspaces and maintain existing ones. This includes paying fees to use urban greenspace facilities within the Metropolis. As much as 86.8% of residents were in support of such an initiative and 96% of respondents were willing to volunteer on urban greenspace projects both in terms of planning and maintaining them in the Metropolis.

Furthermore, a majority of residents preferred urban greenspaces that are used for both passive activities such as trails, resting shelters, etc. and active use such a playing football, basketball, etc. Between the two types of urban greenspaces, more residents preferred active urban greenspaces. These details are presented in Table 9.13. The level of interest, buy-in, or support for greenspaces is a huge potential that requires urban planning departments to be cognizant and harness it for effective urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis.

9.6 Prioritization of Greenspace

Another issue that this research studied was how important urban greenspaces are to residents in relation to other development needs. For instance, residents were asked to indicate three important development needs that they want the KMA to tackle for them. In the first option of development needs, some residents desire the KMA to provide jobs and promote business development (31%) and others also desire an improvement in transportation systems such as the construction of more roads, maintenance of existing roads and the management of traffic congestions (26.5%). In the second option, majority desire improvements in transportation (12%) and sanitation and waste management (11.8%), while for the third option, 38% of respondents indicated a desire to see improvements in transportation. These results are summarized in Table 9.14.

236

Table 9.14: Development Needs of Respondents Valid Cumulative Development Needs Frequency Percent Percent Percent First Development Needs Provide Community/Recreational center 15 3.8 3.8 3.8 Energy and Security 19 4.8 4.8 8.5 Drainage and flood management 34 8.5 8.5 17.0 Provide social amenities 42 10.5 10.5 27.5 Sanitation and Waste Management 47 11.8 11.8 39.3 Improve transportation 106 26.5 26.5 65.8 Job creation and business development 124 31.0 31.0 96.8 Not sure/Don't know/No response 13 3.3 3.3 100.0 Total 400 100 100 Second Development Needs Provide Community/Recreational center 5 1.3 1.3 1.3 Energy and Security 11 2.8 2.8 4.0 Drainage and flood management 5 1.3 1.3 5.3 Provide social amenities 34 8.5 8.5 13.8 Sanitation and Waste Management 47 11.8 11.8 25.5 Improve transportation 48 12.0 12.0 37.5 Job creation and business development 18 4.5 4.5 42.0 Well Planned communities and noise 11 2.8 2.8 44.8 reduction Not sure/Don't know/No response 221 55.3 55.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Third Development Needs Provide Community/Recreational center 7 1.8 1.8 1.8 Reduce Crime 5 1.3 1.3 3.0 Drainage and flood management 1 0.3 0.3 3.3 Provide social amenities 11 2.8 2.8 6.0 Sanitation and Waste Management 5 1.3 1.3 7.3 Improve transportation 20 5.0 5.0 12.3 Job creation and business development 2 0.5 0.5 12.8 Well Planned communities 1 0.3 0.3 13.0 Not sure/Don't know/No response 348 87.0 87.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2018

Respondents’ perceptions of how urban authorities have managed existing greenspaces reveal that these agencies are viewed negatively by the respondents. About 71.3% of respondents are dissatisfied with the way urban authorities have managed urban greenspaces in the Kumasi

Metropolis (Table 9.15).

237

Table 9.15: Overall Satisfaction with Urban Greenspace Planning and Management Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Somewhat Satisfied 92 23.0 23.0 23.0 Neutral 23 5.8 5.8 28.8 Somewhat Dissatisfied 46 11.5 11.5 40.3 Very Dissatisfied 239 59.8 59.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

While respondents are eager to support urban greenspaces, urban authorities will need to demonstrate effective urban greenspace planning and management if they are to realize the potential that lies with residents’ willingness to support urban greenspace initiatives in the Kumasi

Metropolis. Furthermore, very few respondents indicated a desire for recreation centers with 15

(3.8%) out the 400 respondents indicating a need for it in the short term. When these observations are juxtaposed with results on the priority of greenspaces in relation to these needs, most respondents indicate that they are a low priority. From the study, 52.5% of respondents viewed greenspace as a low priority and 7.0% as a very low priority. About 25.8% percent of respondents viewed it as a medium priority while 2.8% and 10.8% indicated very high priority and high priority respectively. These were generally similar across the various sub-metros, age groups, education attainments, and gender as summarized in Table 9.16. Interestingly, a majority of residents that will support urban greenspace initiatives in the Kumasi Metropolis also view it as a low priority

(Table 9.17).

238

Table 9.16: Prioritization of Urban Greenspaces and Recreation facilities Not Very high High Medium Very low Low sure/Don’t Total priority priority priority priority priority know/No response Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Sub-metros Asokwa 2 6.3 1 3.1 14 43.8 6 18.8 6 18.8 3 9.4 32 100.0 Bantama 0 0.0 17 28.3 28 46.7 0 0.0 15 25.0 0 0.0 60 100.0 Kwadaso 0 0.0 2 3.5 14 24.6 0 0.0 41 71.9 0 0.0 57 100.0 Manhyia 2 5.6 5 13.9 12 33.3 2 5.6 15 41.7 0 0.0 36 100.0 Nhyiaeso 3 9.4 10 31.3 4 12.5 0 0.0 15 46.9 0 0.0 32 100.0 Oforikrom 0 0.0 3 4.2 13 18.1 8 11.1 48 66.7 0 0.0 72 100.0 Suame 1 2.8 0 0.0 5 13.9 3 8.3 27 75.0 0 0.0 36 100.0 Subin 2 4.8 4 9.5 10 23.8 7 16.7 17 40.5 2 4.8 42 100.0 Tafo 1 3.0 1 3.0 3 9.1 2 6.1 26 78.8 0 0.0 33 100.0 Total 11 2.8 43 10.8 103 25.8 28 7.0 210 52.5 5 1.3 400 100.0 Sex Female 1 0.6 13 7.7 53 31.5 15 8.9 83 49.4 3 1.8 168 100.0 Male 10 4.3 30 12.9 50 21.6 13 5.6 127 54.7 2 0.9 232 100.0 Total 11 2.8 43 10.8 103 25.8 28 7.0 210 52.5 5 1.3 400 100.0 Age 18 - 25 years 4 9.3 4 9.3 11 25.6 2 4.7 22 51.2 0 0.0 43 100.0 26 - 35 years 3 1.8 6 3.6 41 24.3 11 6.5 106 62.7 2 1.2 169 100.0 36 - 45 years 4 3.1 29 22.8 32 25.2 10 7.9 51 40.2 1 0.8 127 100.0 46 - 55 years 0 0.0 4 10.0 9 22.5 3 7.5 24 60.0 0 0.0 40 100.0 56 - 65 years 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 56.3 2 12.5 3 18.8 2 12.5 16 100.0 66 + years 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 4 80.0 0 0.0 5 100.0 Total 11 2.8 43 10.8 103 25.8 28 7.0 210 52.5 5 1.3 400 100.0 Highest No education 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 60.0 1 10.0 3 30.0 0 0.0 10 100.0 educational Primary 1 3.3 1 3.3 11 36.7 8 26.7 9 30.0 0 0.0 30 100.0 qualification JHS 3 2.4 19 15.3 34 27.4 6 4.8 60 48.4 2 1.6 124 100.0 SHS 5 3.6 15 10.9 26 18.8 11 8.0 78 56.5 3 2.2 138 100.0 Tertiary 2 2.0 8 8.2 26 26.5 2 2.0 60 61.2 0 0.0 98 100.0 Total 11 2.8 43 10.8 103 25.8 28 7.0 210 52.5 5 1.3 400 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

239

Table 9.17: Prioritization of UGS in relation to Residents Support and Satisfaction with UGS Management Very high High Medium Very low Not sure/ Low priority Total priority priority priority priority Don’t know Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA) Developing Urban Greenspaces Strongly Support 11 3.7 39 13.2 83 28.1 25 8.5 133 45.1 4 1.4 295 100.0 Support 0 0.0 4 4.3 20 21.5 3 3.2 65 69.9 1 1.1 93 100.0 Will not Support 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 100.0 0 0.0 12 100.0 Total 11 2.8 43 10.8 103 25.8 28 7.0 210 52.5 5 1.3 400 100.0 A Tax or a Fee for every Household to for Greenspaces Strongly Support 9 4.3 37 17.6 60 28.6 15 7.1 89 42.4 0 0.0 210 100.0 Support 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 34.6 3 11.5 13 50.0 1 3.8 26 100.0 Support Somewhat 0 0.0 4 4.2 24 25.0 0 0.0 66 68.8 2 2.1 96 100.0 Will not Support 2 4.9 0 0.0 10 24.4 8 19.5 19 46.3 2 4.9 41 100.0 Strongly Will not Support 0 0.0 2 7.4 0 0.0 2 7.4 23 85.2 0 0.0 27 100.0 Total 11 2.8 43 10.8 103 25.8 28 7.0 210 52.5 5 1.3 400 100.0 A Program that allows any Resident to Volunteer in Planning and Maintaining Greenspaces Strongly Support 9 3.7 41 16.7 65 26.4 26 10.6 105 42.7 0 0.0 246 100.0 Support 0 0.0 2 2.7 34 46.6 2 2.7 30 41.1 5 6.8 73 100.0 Support Somewhat 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 6.2 0 0.0 61 93.8 0 0.0 65 100.0 Will not Support 2 12.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 87.5 0 0.0 16 100.0 Total 11 2.8 43 10.8 103 25.8 28 7.0 210 52.5 5 1.3 400 100.0 Charge People for using Urban Greenspaces such as it is being done for the Rattray Park Strongly Support 4 2.4 27 16.5 46 28.0 16 9.8 69 42.1 2 1.2 164 100.0 Support 2 1.8 11 10.1 31 28.4 1 .9 62 56.9 2 1.8 109 100.0 Support Somewhat 3 4.1 5 6.8 23 31.1 2 2.7 41 55.4 0 0.0 74 100.0 Will not Support 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 9.4 29 90.6 0 0.0 32 100.0 Somewhat Will not Support 2 9.5 0 0.0 3 14.3 6 28.6 9 42.9 1 4.8 21 100.0 Total 11 2.8 43 10.8 103 25.8 28 7.0 210 52.5 5 1.3 400 100.0 Overall Satisfaction with urban Greenspace Planning and Management Somewhat Satisfied 0 0.0 22 23.9 41 44.6 0 0.0 29 31.5 0 0.0 92 100.0 Neutral 2 8.7 0 0.0 11 47.8 2 8.7 6 26.1 2 8.7 23 100.0 Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0.0 9 19.6 9 19.6 19 41.3 9 19.6 0 0.0 46 100.0 Very Dissatisfied 9 3.8 12 5.0 42 17.6 7 2.9 166 69.5 3 1.3 239 100.0 Total 11 2.8 43 10.8 103 25.8 28 7.0 210 52.5 5 1.3 400 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

240

9.7 Awareness of Climate Change Issues

After testing residents’ awareness of the benefits and functions of urban greenspaces, residents were also tested on their understanding of climate change issues. The questionnaire was designed first to test residents’ awareness of elements of climate changes such as changes in climate patterns, rainfall, temperature, and an impact of climate change in the form of flooding. Without indicating that these impacts were related to climate change, residents were asked to indicate their experiences with changes in rainfall patterns, temperature, and flooding in the Kumasi Metropolis.

It is important at this stage to indicate the differences in the measures of awareness about the different climate patterns. If a resident indicates that “yes” there have been changes in rainfall patterns, they are further probed to indicate the intensity or severity of rainfall and its frequency.

Subsequently, “Yes, increasing” implies that there have been changes in rainfall or temperatures patterns in the past years. For rainfall, the rains have been heavy, or the intensity was high; for temperature, it has been rising or hotter; and for the seasons, there have been prolonged droughts or shorter rainfalls as well as their unpredictability. The reverse applies to decreases.

More than 95% of respondents indicated that they have observed changes in rainfall patterns in the past years. While 41.3% suggested changes in the rainy seasons, 51.8% indicated an increase in the intensity of rainfall while 5.3% indicated a decline in the intensity. For changes in temperature, only 2.8% of respondent indicated that they have not observed any changes, with

19.8% suggesting that there have been changes in the dry season. About 51.1% of respondents indicated increases in temperature and 26.5% observed decreases in temperatures (Table 9.18).

241

Table 9.18: Residents’ Awareness of Changes in Climate in the past years Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Changes in rainfall patterns in the past years No 7 1.8 1.8 1.8 Yes, increasing 103 25.8 25.8 27.5 Yes, increasing a lot 104 26.0 26.0 53.5 Yes, decreasing 21 5.3 5.3 58.8 Yes, changes in the dry season 165 41.3 41.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Changes in temperature in the past years No 11 2.8 2.8 2.8 Yes, increasing 129 32.3 32.3 35.0 Yes, increasing a lot 75 18.8 18.8 53.8 Yes, decreasing 102 25.5 25.5 79.3 Yes, decreasing a lot 4 1.0 1.0 80.3 Yes, changes in the dry season 79 19.8 19.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Changes in flooding in the past years No 177 44.3 44.3 44.3 Yes, increasing 170 42.5 42.5 86.8 Yes, increasing a lot 26 6.5 6.5 93.3 Yes, decreasing 23 5.8 5.8 99.0 Yes, decreasing a lot 4 1.0 1.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

Indeed, such varied responses give credence to the variability of the climate patterns in the

Kumasi Metropolis. In other words, all these measures show that residents are aware of changes in climatic elements in the Metropolis. Although a minimum of 90% of residents indicate observing changes in rainfall and temperature patterns, only 55.3% of all respondents have heard of the term climate change. Awareness was high in a majority of the sub-metros except for Asokwa

(46.9%) and Bantama (25%) with less than 50% from these areas having some awareness of the term climate change. Males were more likely to be aware of climate change than females while individuals with the minimum educational attainment of SHS being more likely aware of the term

(Table 9.19).

242

Table 9.19: Residents’ Awareness of the term “Climate Change.” No Yes Total Total Count % Count % Count % Sub-metros Asokwa 17 53.1 15 46.9 32 100.0 Bantama 45 75.0 15 25.0 60 100.0 Kwadaso 16 28.1 41 71.9 57 100.0 Manhyia 10 27.8 26 72.2 36 100.0 Nhyiaeso 19 59.4 13 40.6 32 100.0 Oforikrom 22 30.6 50 69.4 72 100.0 Suame 17 47.2 19 52.8 36 100.0 Subin 21 50.0 21 50.0 42 100.0 Tafo 12 36.4 21 63.6 33 100.0 Total 179 44.8 221 55.3 400 100.0 Sex Female 82 48.8 86 51.2 168 100.0 Male 97 41.8 135 58.2 232 100.0 Total 179 44.8 221 55.3 400 100.0 Age 18 - 25 years 24 55.8 19 44.2 43 100.0 26 - 35 years 66 39.1 103 60.9 169 100.0 36 - 45 years 65 51.2 62 48.8 127 100.0 46 - 55 years 15 37.5 25 62.5 40 100.0 56 - 65 years 8 50.0 8 50.0 16 100.0 66 years above 1 20.0 4 80.0 5 100.0 Total 179 44.8 221 55.3 400 100.0 Highest No education 6 60.0 4 40.0 10 100.0 educational Primary 23 76.7 7 23.3 30 100.0 qualification JHS 89 71.8 35 28.2 124 100.0 SHS 49 35.5 89 64.5 138 100.0 Tertiary 14 14.3 84 85.7 98 100.0 Total 179 44.8 221 55.3 400 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

Respondents alluded to different reasons for the changes in rainfall, temperature, and flooding. In this study, we measured these reasons against four main causal factors. For those who were aware of the term climate change, 90% of these respondents confirmed that changes in rainfall, temperature, and flooding in the Kumasi Metropolis were due to climate change. About

66.8% of respondents believe that human activities contribute to these changes while 51.5% of respondents think that the effectiveness and inactions by institutions responsible for managing the environment contribute to these changes (Table 9.20). For all those who indicated some other

243

cause, 78.2% of respondents attributed it to God while 21.8% to natural causes. These constitute

21.5% and 6.0% of the 400 respondents from the Kumasi Metropolis respectively.

Table 9.20: Reasons for Changes in Rainfall, Temperature, and Flooding Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Climate Change Yes 199 49.8 90.0 90.0 Don’t know/Not sure 22 5.5 10.0 100.0 Total 221 55.3 100.0 INAP 179 44.8 400 100.0 Human Activities No 72 18.0 18.0 18.0 Yes 267 66.8 66.8 84.8 Don’t know/Not sure/No response 61 15.3 15.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Institutional inadequacies No 112 28.0 28.0 28.0 Yes 206 51.5 51.5 79.5 Don’t know/Not sure/No response 82 20.5 20.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Other causes Act of God 86 21.5 78.2 78.2 It is Natural 24 6.0 21.8 100.0 Total 110 27.5 100.0 INAP 290 72.5 400 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

To further appreciate residents’ understanding of the term climate change, they were asked to indicate or explain what they know about climate change. From Table 9.21, 66.1% related climate change to changes in the seasons, 8.6% to the difficulty in predicting the seasons while others explained that climate change is connected to increase in rainfalls (4.5%) and rising temperature (10.9%). All these are related to climate change and demonstrate that some residents of the Kumasi Metropolis are aware of climate change and its impacts. However, despite the

244

awareness about climate change and its impacts, most residents simply perceive climate change as mere changes in seasonal patterns.

Table 9.21: What do you know about Climate Change? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Changes in the seasons 146 36.5 66.1 66.1 Difficult to predict the seasons 19 4.8 8.6 74.7 Increase in rainfalls 10 2.5 4.5 79.2 Rising temperature 24 6.0 10.9 90.0 Relates to the weather 12 3.0 5.4 95.5 Not sure/Don't know/No response 10 2.5 4.5 100.0 Total 221 55.3 100.0 INAP 179 44.8 400 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

Respondents were further tested to determine their understanding of fundamental climate change facts as this is critical in knowing their level of awareness. They were asked to agree or disagree with four statements about climate change namely: (i) Climate change is just a natural fluctuation in earth’s temperatures; (ii) Climate change is not due to human activities; (iii) Climate change evidence is unreliable; and (iv) Climate change can be tackled by increasing the amount of greenspaces. The data from the first statement reveals that 38.5% of respondents agree that climate change is a natural phenomenon while 49.8% disagree. In other words, close to 50% of respondents believe that climate change is natural which is contrary to the established evidence about climate change. The majority of respondents agree that climate change is human-induced with 78.3% disagreeing with the statement that “Climate change is not due to human activities.” The majority

(57.5%) are either unsure or do not know whether the evidence on climate change is reliable or not. And lastly, 91.4% of respondents think that “climate change can be tackled by increasing the amount of greenspaces” (Table 9.22). 245

Table 9.22: General Understanding of Climate Change Issues Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Climate change is just a natural fluctuation in earth’s temperatures Agree Strongly 62 15.5 28.1 28.1 Agree 23 5.8 10.4 38.5 Neither agree nor disagree 5 1.3 2.3 40.7 Disagree 43 10.8 19.5 60.2 Disagree Strongly 67 16.8 30.3 90.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No response 21 5.3 9.5 100.0 Total 221 55.3 100.0 INAP 179 44.8 Overall Total 400 100.0 Climate change is not due to human activities Agree Strongly 25 6.3 11.3 11.3 Agree 4 1.0 1.8 13.1 Neither agree nor disagree 4 1.0 1.8 14.9 Disagree 65 16.3 29.4 44.3 Disagree Strongly 108 27.0 48.9 93.2 Not sure/ Don’t know/No response 15 3.8 6.8 100.0 Total 221 55.3 100.0 INAP 179 44.8 Overall Total 400 100.0 Climate change evidence is unreliable Agree Strongly 2 0.5 0.9 0.9 Neither agree nor disagree 12 3.0 5.4 6.3 Disagree 21 5.3 9.5 15.8 Disagree Strongly 59 14.8 26.7 42.5 Not sure/ Don’t know/No response 127 31.8 57.5 100.0 Total 221 55.3 100.0 INAP 179 44.8 Overall Total 400 100.0 Climate change can be tackled by increasing the amount of greenspaces Agree Strongly 167 41.8 75.6 75.6 Agree 35 8.8 15.8 91.4 Neither agree nor disagree 2 0.5 0.9 92.3 Disagree Strongly 2 0.5 0.9 93.2 Not sure/ Don’t know/No response 15 3.8 6.8 100.0 Total 221 55.3 100.0 INAP 179 44.8 Overall Total 400 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

These results provide implications for residents’ understanding of climate change issues and the role such understanding can play in demystifying the skepticism around the reality of 246

climate change and its impacts. This is because any misconception, misunderstanding, or misinformation can lead to climate skepticism and the tendency to derail support for climate change interventions and leave many residents vulnerable to its impacts because of inaction or delayed response. From the results of the first three statements, we find that even though some respondents may be aware of the term climate change, they do not have adequate understanding to help them appreciate the complexity of the challenge.

Table 9.23: Personal Importance and Ability to Control or Manage Climate Change Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Personal Importance of Climate Change to Respondents Very important 83 20.8 37.6 37.6 Important 90 22.5 40.7 78.3 Not important 43 10.8 19.5 97.7 Not sure/Don’t know/No response 5 1.3 2.3 100.0 Total 221 55.3 100.0 INAP 179 44.8 400 100.0 Do you think anything can be done to tackle climate change? No 29 7.3 13.1 13.1 Yes 184 46.0 83.3 96.4 Don’t know/Not sure 8 2.0 3.6 100.0 Total 221 55.3 100.0 INAP 179 44.8 400 100.0 Climate change is already too late to do anything about climate change Agree Strongly 2 0.5 0.9 0.9 Agree 7 1.8 3.2 4.1 Disagree 73 18.3 33.0 37.1 Disagree Strongly 126 31.5 57.0 94.1 Not sure/ Don’t know/response 13 3.3 5.9 100.0 Total 221 55.3 100.0 INAP 179 44.8 400 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2018

247

Furthermore, about 78% of respondents who were aware of climate change indicated that it is an issue that is of personal importance to them (Table 9.23). The majority of respondents also indicated that climate change can be tackled and that it is not too late to do something about it

(Table 9.23). This disposition is an indication of willingness to support climate change initiatives and the belief that human actions can alter climate change trajectories.

9.8 Discussion of Results

9.8.1 Use of Greenspaces

The results from the data analysis revealed that majority of residents (61.6%) of the Kumasi

Metropolis interviewed had visited some form of greenspace. There was a clear variation between male and female use of greenspaces as well as sub-metros. Sub-metros like Asokwa, Kwadaso,

Oforikrom, Nhyiaeso, which are characterized by high cost, and low-density residential areas

(Nero, 2017; Acheampong, 2013) had high proportions of residents visiting urban greenspaces.

Areas like Subin and Tafo which are the oldest areas of the Metropolis had fewer proportions of residents visiting urban greenspaces. This could be because these places have higher densities and are without any urban greenspace (Nero, 2017). The exceptions are Manhyia, an indigenous area with high density and home to the Manhyia Palace. The palace has green landscapes including gardens and the Otumfuo Park. The results of the study show similar results for Asokwa, Kwadaso,

Oforikrom, and Nhyiaeso.

Visits to greenspaces were consistent among age groups and residents with different educational attainments. Indeed, this is not surprising with the history of and respect for greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis— and the Ghanaian society in general (Barre et al., 2009;

Ntiamoa-Baidu, 2008; Sarfo-Mensah and Oduro, 2007; Campbell, 2004). They have always been

248

an integral aspect of the residents’ cultural identity, pre-existing the colonial period (Schmidt,

2005; Dei, 1994). Culturally, residents appreciate sitting under trees to play games and relax. Many have cultural beliefs related to protecting forests and river areas as they deem such places sacred.

Thus, it is not uncommon to find taboos, rituals, and traditional beliefs that residents respect, which contribute to forest conservation as well as river protection (Sarfo-Mensah and Oduro, 2007).

Indeed, many groves and forests at the fringes of communities were left untouched due to religious and cultural reasons (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 2008). Unfortunately, modern society with its urbanity— including market forces— and rapid changes in residents’ beliefs have altered residents’ disposition about these places as sacred. As a result, forests and river bodies have been destroyed without recourse to taboos and traditional beliefs (Sarfo-Mensah and Oduro, 2010; Sarfo-Mensah and Oduro, 2007).

Besides sitting under trees, residents visit popular places such as the KNUST Botanical

Gardens, Kumasi Cultural Center, Kumasi Zoo, Manhyia Palace, and Rattray Park (Table 9.4).

Visits to the Manhyia Place, for example, have cultural roots. The palace hosts the Akwasidae festival once every six weeks and the annual Adae Kese Festival and thus become a cultural destination for many residents from across the Metropolis (and beyond) to pay their respect to their

King and observe the display of their cultural heritage. The Rattray Park was also constructed in

June 2015. Many residents are attracted to its modernity and seek to experience the relatively new urban amenity provided by the KMA. Furthermore, the existing greenspaces within the Kumasi

Metropolis, though depleting, are evenly distributed within the Kumasi Metropolis (Nero, 2017), with the KNUST Botanical Garden, Kumasi Cultural Center, Kumasi Zoo, Manhyia Palace, and

Rattray Park in proximity to the various sub-metros. These greenspaces are also well maintained and are near restaurants or have restaurants on site. These attract residents who often use them as

249

venues for photoshoots, weddings, and parties as they provide value for their users. In this study, residents noted that the physical conditions of greenspaces are good (87.8%); thus, they are satisfied (89.1%) with the value they derived from them (Table 9.6).

The decline in both quantity and quality of communal greenspaces within the Kumasi

Metropolis contributes to a decline in visits to urban greenspaces. About 62.3% of those interviewed make less use of or do not use greenspaces while 32% the use same amount of greenspace as in the past. Also, few respondents visit places like the Amakom Children’s Park

(1.5%), community Parks/Public squares (2.5%), Kumasi Zoo (2.3%), and school Parks (4.3%) because of their poor conditions and security challenges (Table 9.4 and Table 9.5). Poor maintenance of existing communal greenspaces contributes to residents’ dissatisfaction with the way urban authorities in the Kumasi Metropolis manage urban greenspaces. Furthermore, residents complain about the traffic congestion issues and this could also explain a decline in the use of greenspaces (Table 9.14). Indeed, traffic is frequently at a standstill around Rattray Park during peak hours and days that major events are held. This can serve as a disincentive for residents to regularly use this urban amenity. The decline in greenspace use and residents’ dissatisfaction

(71.3%) with the way urban authorities manage urban greenspaces can be a barrier to greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis. These issues provide some suggestions for urban greenspace planning in the Metropolis. First, residents will use urban greenspaces if they are of good condition.

In this respect, poor maintenance and management of urban greenspaces can induce residents to question the ability of urban authorities to manage new urban greenspaces and negatively affect their social acceptance and support. Second, the type of urban greenspaces that residents use demonstrates a need for greenspaces that take into account social and cultural factors such as how residents can be entertained and participate in special events when they visit public urban

250

greenspaces. Residents use of places such as the Rattray Park, Manhyia Palace, and KNUST

Botanical Garden offer insights. This is the reason why 79.5% of respondents prefer the KMA to provide active urban greenspaces (Table 9.13). Understanding residents’ urban greenspace preferences (Shackleton et al., 2015; Hope et al., 2003) is therefore important for engendering urban greenspace utilization in the Kumasi Metropolis. Consequently, Kothencz et al. (2017) and

Lo et al. (2012) point out that urban authorities should plan for greenspaces that provide a mix of services and values including good scenery, places for recreation, and areas that allow visitors to enjoy the beauty of the natural landscape, relax, and engage in some form of physical activities.

This will help residents to have some attachment to the place and return at another time.

9.8.2 Awareness of Greenspace Benefits and Functions

In this study, the majority of residents were aware of the benefits and functions of greenspaces. In all the fifteen measures, more than 70% of residents agreed to the statements on the benefits and function of this urban amenity. This shows that residents are aware of the role greenspaces play within an urban area. Such awareness may hold some potential and help urban authorities receive the needed buy-in and residents’ appreciation of their greenspace initiatives. Such awareness is important for residents to appreciate the efforts of urban authorities to increase the quantity and improve the quality of urban greenspaces. Studies reveal that residents’ perceptions, attitudes, and preferences influence urban development goals on greenspaces (Green et al., 2016). As a result, urban planners in the Kumasi Metropolis can rely on residents’ awareness of greenspace benefits and functions to strengthen the relationship between residents and nature as well as reflect their preferences. This is because residents are likely to support such initiatives due to their understanding of its relevance (Standish et al., 2013).

251

The literature on urban greenspaces revealed that many residents are largely uninformed and misinformed about the negative or positive impacts of greenspaces (Coyle, 2005). Gwedla and

Shackleton (2015) found that residents often vandalize trees without any justification and encroach on greenspaces. Other studies reveal that residents consider urban greenspaces as hostile and unsafe (Nero, 2017; Koskela and Pain, 2000). However, in the Kumasi Metropolis, frequent tree planting campaigns and initiatives to reinstate Kumasi as the Garden City of West Africa have contributed to the high awareness of greenspace benefits and functions among residents. In addition, the majority of the population is educated beyond the primary school level and have been educated on the benefits of trees, forests, gardens, etc. leading to such a high awareness. Thus, sensitization programs and education are vital avenues to improve residents’ awareness about the benefits and functions of urban greenspaces.

Again, this research reveals that high awareness about greenspace benefits and functions alone cannot guarantee residents’ actions to maintain and sustain urban greenspaces within the

Kumasi Metropolis. Research on the Metropolis points to the continued contribution of residents to urban greenspace decline as residents’ demand for land has resulted in the conversion of urban greenspaces to residential land use (Poku-Boansi and Cobbinah, 2018b). Some residents have developed informal settlements on reserved greenspaces, build around river catchment areas

(Korah et al., 2017; Adjei Mensah, 2014a; Adjei Mensah, 2014b; Tontoh, 2011), and encroached on neglected recreational and community parks (Owusu-Ansah, 2013; Quagraine, 2011).

Consequently, awareness alone will not offer tangible avenues to overcome the challenges that its absence perpetuates. What is important is to understand the relationships between residents’ awareness of greenspace benefits and functions in relation to the actual benefits that they gain from urban greenspaces (Kothencz et al., 2017). This is the object of the section that follows.

252

9.8.3 Residents’ Support for and Prioritization of Urban Greenspace Planning

Residents who responded to the survey were willing to support any initiative that the KMA will put in place to increase and improve urban greenspaces. With 83% of respondents willing to pay some form of urban greenspace tax, 96% willing to volunteer on greenspace projects, and 86.8% willing to pay user fees to enjoy the benefits of urban greenspaces, the KMA can rely on residents to enhance the greenspaces within the Kumasi Metropolis.

However, this will be dependent on how residents see this urban amenity as a priority that needs their support and attention. This is crucial because in relation to other development issues such as drainage and flood management, provision of social amenities, sanitation, and waste management, improving transportation, and job creation and business development, urban greenspaces are considered by 52.5% of respondents as a low priority and 7.0% as a very low priority (Table 9.16). At the same time, a majority of residents who support these initiatives also view urban greenspaces as medium to low priority (Table 9.17).

Indeed, the involvement of residents in urban greenspace planning can enable them to influence the kind of development they want urban authorities to pursue (Gwedla and Shackleton,

2015; Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Balram and Dragićević, 2005), encourage accountability and ownership (Ferketic et al., 2010; Balint and Mashinya 2008) and help attain urban greenspace goals (Ashley et al., 2006; Benedict and McMahon, 2006). Unfortunately, Adjei Mensah et al.

(2017) finds that in the Kumasi Metropolis, residents’ participation in urban greenspace planning is virtually absent. Such low involvement is considered a barrier in the urban greenspace planning literature as it can prevent residents from expressing their interests and needs in the planning process (Green et al., 2016; Balram and Dragićević, 2005).

253

Hence, residents’ willingness to pay and volunteer on greenspace initiatives will become tangible if the KMA involves them in urban greenspace planning and implementation.

Participation will help residents articulate their visions for urban greenspaces and development preferences (Cilliers et al., 2013; Cilliers and Timmermans, 2013; Cilliers et al, 2010; van den

Berg et al., 2007) for the Kumasi Metropolis and enable the KMA to connect social and economic goals to environmental goals. This is important because urban greenspaces are one of several urban amenities that the KMA needs to provide.

In cities like the Kumasi Metropolis, where development needs are fundamentally focused on economic goals and social amenities like hospitals, schools, drainage and transportation systems, understanding residents’ preference for urban greenspace will help them reposition the way they communicate the necessity of urban greenspaces. Here, the KMA can highlight the tangible and visible benefits of urban greenspaces to residents both now and in the future. In the process, the support that residents have expressed in this research will become a tangible element of the urban planning and development as well as provide avenues for residents to undertake their own greenspace initiatives in the Metropolis.

9.8.4 Awareness of Climate Change Issues

Residents interviewed were also aware of changes in rainfall and temperature patterns in the

Kumasi Metropolis. About 95% of respondents observed changes in rainfall patterns and 51.1% for changes in temperature in the past years. Overall, most residents have observed variations in weather patterns and seasons (Table 9.18). Only 55.3% have heard of the term climate change. For those who have heard the term before, their understanding seems to be mixed. In some instances, residents believe that climate change is due to human activities and institutional ineffectiveness.

254

But when examined on fundamental statements about climate change, the study finds that some residents believe that climate change is due to God (21.5%) and natural causes (6.0%) and many were unsure about the reliability of climate change evidence (Table 9.21 and Table 9.22).

Generally, those who are aware, believe that climate change is an issue important to them, with

91.4% believing that greenspaces can be used to tackle the impacts of climate change.

These findings raise some concerns for planning CCIs such as urban greenspaces. For CCIs that require appropriate lifestyle or behavior changes, residents’ belief that something can be done to tackle climate change (83%) and that it is not too late to do anything about climate change (90%) shows a willingness to confront these impacts. However, as the understanding of urban greenspace awareness demonstrates, urban planners may need to move beyond awareness to ensure social acceptability of CCIs, especially among those who think that climate change is a natural condition or an act of God. These residents may feel that the authority may be addressing insurmountable challenges with scarce resources, at the expense of other pressing development needs. This, therefore, requires that appropriate measures are taken to provide residents with an improved understanding of climate change and how it is impacting them now and how it might impact them in the future.

Again, despite the high awareness of changes in temperature and rainfall patterns and their causes by residents, they are also not expressed as pressing development issues by residents when asked about the development issues the KMA need to address in the short to long term. This is besides the fact that some residents viewed climate change as an important issue personal to them

(Table 9.23). It is worth noting that residents’ needs— such as transportation systems and traffic congestions, drainage management, sanitation management and job creation (Table 9.14)— can be achieved simultaneously with climate change goals. For this reason, while residents’ awareness

255

about changes in climate patterns and climate change impacts can provide some pathway towards social acceptability, it is also pertinent that planning for CCIs considers broader community goals by being cognizant of residents’ development needs—which many studies advocate (IPCC, 2014;

Shaw et al., 2014; Biesbroek et al., 2009). Figure 9.6 connects all these socio-cultural factors and how it affects the demand for urban greenspaces, which in turn affects the capacity to plan for

CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis.

256

Figure 9.6: Socio-cultural factors and Urban Greenspace Planning in the Kumasi Metropolis Author’s Construct (2019).

257

9.9 Conclusion

This chapter has focused on the argument that the socio-cultural factors surrounding the use and demand for urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis place a low emphasis on urban greenspace provision. From this argument, the study suggests that how residents of the Kumasi

Metropolis use urban greenspaces, as well as their demand for the KMA to provide this urban amenity, does not place much attention on urban greenspaces. As a result, these acts as barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Metropolis. The results and discussions of the analysis reveal some main findings considering the socio-cultural barriers to urban greenspaces in relation to their use and demand by residents.

First, residents will only use urban greenspaces that are well maintained, active— that is, they encourage relaxation, exercises, social events, etc.— and have little to no security risks. As a result, residents will visit urban greenspaces such as Rattray Park, Kumasi Cultural Center,

Manhyia Palace and KNUST Botanical Gardens at the expense of football fields and community parks such as the Amakom Children’s Park. The use of these urban greenspaces demonstrates that poorly maintained urban greenspaces and those that pose perceived risk to residents do not encourage their use and thus residents are unlikely to demand urban greenspaces knowing that they have other development needs that the KMA can tackle with scare financial resources.

Second, despite residents’ high awareness of the benefits and functions of urban greenspaces as well as support for the KMA on some urban greenspace initiatives, they are not enough to encourage residents to demand urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis. It is apparent that residents’ development needs in the form of drainage and flood management, the provision of social amenities such as health care and education, sanitation and waste management,

258

and particularly improved transportation and job creation and business development trumps their prioritization and demand for urban greenspaces.

Thus, while urban greenspace awareness can be a potential for urban greenspace planning, the inability of the KMA to meet residents’ other development needs inhibits their demand for urban greenspaces in the Metropolis. In other words, residents do not consider urban greenspaces as a priority and this is a barrier to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis. Similar conclusions can be made in relation to awareness about changes in rainfall and temperature patterns as well as about climate change and its impacts. Subsequently, although residents believe that climate change can be tackled by increasing the quantity of greenspaces, the KMA cannot rely only on awareness as evidence of social acceptability. The authority will need to align urban greenspace planning with residents’ development priorities if urban greenspaces are to be used as

CCIs.

259

CHAPTER TEN HINTS FOR PLANNING URBAN GREENSPACES AS CLIMATE CHANGE INTERVENTIONS

10.1 Introduction

This research has argued three points. The first is that the institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning contribute to a low emphasis on urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis. Secondly, the socio-cultural factors surrounding the use and demand for urban greenspaces in the Kumasi

Metropolis place a low emphasis on urban greenspace provision. Thirdly, that the institutional and socio-cultural barriers to urban greenspace planning provide hints of the challenges in planning for CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis. This chapter summarizes the findings and makes recommendations on how to overcome the barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi

Metropolis as well as use them as CCIs.

10.2 Summary of Findings

10.2.1 Institutional Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning

Institutional Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning Weaken Capacity to Plan for CCIs

Findings from this research reveal that urban greenspaces receive low attention in urban development plans as they are not viewed by urban planners and in the plan as a priority for the development of Kumasi Metropolis. Urban greenspace planning in the Metropolis is inhibited by a lack of innovation in visions for urban greenspaces, capacity concerns such as inadequate finances and human resources of urban planning departments, political interference, disharmony in land management between landowners and urban planners, and a misconception about the use of land by landowners, residents and land developers. All these have weakened the capacity of the 260

KMA to effectively plan for urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis, thereby affecting the capacity of KMA to use urban greenspaces as CCIs.

Thus, although conceptually urban greenspaces can provide benefits to combat climate change impacts in the Metropolis, these factors have limited the KMA from effectively planning for this urban amenity in terms of increasing the quantity and quality of urban greenspaces in the

Kumasi Metropolis. As a result, over the years, urban greenspaces have seen a continuous decline, which in turn deprives the Metropolis and its residents from the role urban greenspaces play in tackling climate change impacts such as reducing urban heat island effects, improving air quality, and reducing the intensity of stormwater runoff. For instance, the loss of greenspaces has impacted

GHG emissions in the Metropolis. The Global Forest Watch notes that the Kumasi Metropolis has lost about 1.02 Kha of its tree cover between 2001 and 2017, an estimated 36% decline since 2000.

The Global Forest Watch further explains that “between 2001 and 2017, a total of 183kt of CO₂

(10.8kt per year) was released into the atmosphere as a result of tree cover loss in Kumasi.”28

Hence, the continuous loss of green cover has implications for reducing CO₂ emissions in the

Kumasi Metropolis through carbon sequestration, an observation similar to Nero et al. (2017b).

Poor Framing of Urban Greenspaces as CCIs

In addition to the institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis, poor climate change integration has inhibited the KMA from using urban greenspaces in CCIs in urban development plans. Consequently, the plans do not articulate the contributions of urban greenspace initiatives such as afforestation, community parks and tree planting in tackling climate change impacts in the Metropolis. Since the KMA has not undertaken any climate vulnerability

28 This data is available online through the Global Forest Watch Portal. 261

assessment, the Authority does not know the level of vulnerability of the Metropolis to climate change impacts as well as where these impacts are endemic and how urban greenspaces can contribute to tackling these impacts. Owing to this, even though urban greenspaces can serve as

CCIs, the poor climate change framing and integration have resulted in a poor transition from the problematization of climate change in the Metropolis to climate goals, objectives, projects, and targets for urban greenspace initiatives such as afforestation, community parks, and tree planting.

Another effect is that the KMA has not been able to identify climate finance arrangements to fund urban greenspace initiatives as well as tackle climate change impacts. In the phase of limited financial resources to implement urban greenspaces as articulated in the Annual Progress

Reports by the KMA, this is a missed opportunity to access funding for CCIs in the Kumasi

Metropolis.

Guidelines for the Preparation of MTDPs is not enough for Climate Change Integration

In the climate change literature, there is an emphasis on climate governance where scholars study the different governance arrangements for planning and implementing CCIs to achieve climate change goals, objectives (Lee and Painter, 2015). The literature points to two main arrangements namely: horizontal and vertical governance arrangements (Hughes, 2015). In the later, vertical governance arrangement, climate governance comprises hierarchical systems and processes—such as from the national to local levels— for making decisions about tackling climate change impacts

(Hughes, 2015; Lee and Painter, 2015; Kooiman, 2003). To achieve, some form climate governance in Ghana, guidelines for the preparation of MTDPs have been prepared by the NDPC to ensure that MMDAs give special consideration to climate change issues and CCIs.

262

Findings from this research illustrate that the climate governance arrangement through the use guidelines to integrate climate change issues into urban planning has not been effective even in the case of urban greenspaces which by their nature contributes to reducing GHG emissions, reducing urban heat island effects, and reducing the incidence of flooding. Despite the NDPC requirement for attention to climate change issues in MTDPs, this has not effectively materialized in the various plans for the Kumasi Metropolis. In situations where they are discussed, climate change is presented on reasonable assumptions. Evidence from the Kumasi Metropolis points to a clear absence of a vision for climate change, a lack of an assessment of the present climate vulnerability and capacity situation, an absence of a communication and stakeholder involvement plan in identifying climate change priorities, an absence of climate financing arrangements, and an absence of initiatives to build institutional and community level climate capacity. These point to the limitations of the guidelines for preparing development plans in Ghana; they do not ensure effective planning of CCIs in the Kumasi Metropolis, as evidence from urban greenspace planning in the Metropolis reveals.

10.2.2 Socio-Cultural Barriers to Urban Greenspace Planning and Planning for CCIs

Awareness about Benefits and Functions of Urban Greenspaces and Climate Change Impacts

The study found that residents are awareness of the benefits and functions of greenspaces as well as climate change impacts in the form of erratic rainfall patterns and rising temperature.

Nonetheless, this awareness has not stopped residents from encroaching on urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis. Residents have converted urban greenspaces to residential land use and encroached on protected areas to engage in economic activities. Consequently, the interpretation of residents’ behavior in relation to urban greenspace decline in the greenspace literature and by

263

urban planners, especially in the global south, may be misconstrued. A critical look at residents’ behavior shows that urban greenspaces are demanded to fulfill fundamental needs of engaging in economic activities as well as providing shelter or residence. Based on this, it is apparent that residents’ destructive behavior in relation to urban greenspaces reflects an indirect demand on urban authorities to pay attention to their development needs such as spaces for housing and economic activities. As a result, the KMA must be cognizant of residents’ behaviors to shape how they understand and respond to their needs and tackle the challenge of urban greenspace declines in the Metropolis, as well as use this urban amenity as a CCI.

Residents’ awareness suggests that advocacy on urban greenspace functions and benefits may not be as important as helping residents to find spaces within the Kumasi Metropolis to engage in economic activities and have decent shelters or residencies. Consequently, awareness alone on the benefits and functions of urban greenspace, a predominant greenspace strategy by the KMA, will not offer tangible avenues to traverse residents’ behavior in relation to urban greenspace decline in the Kumasi Metropolis. Furthermore, residents are willing to pay user-fees to enjoy the benefits of urban greenspaces in the Metropolis. This is important in rethinking the design options and visions for urban greenspaces and its accessibility and equity implications in addition to how residents’ can contribute to the planning and implementation of CCIs in Kumasi Metropolis.

Residents’ willingness to pay fees or taxes and volunteer on greenspace initiatives is a critical potential that can provide the KMA with financial resources to increase the quantity of urban greenspaces as well as rehabilitate deteriorated community parks and school fields across the

Metropolis, thereby increasing the role urban greenspaces can play as CCIs in the Metropolis.

264

Urban Greenspace Prioritization by Residents

From this research, residents’ awareness of the benefits and functions of urban greenspaces did not translate in residents considering urban greenspaces as a priority. Evidently, while residents are interested in urban greenspaces as an urban amenity, the desire jobs and expansion of transportation infrastructure in the Metropolis transcends their need for urban greenspaces. Thus, in planning for CCIs—including using urban greenspaces— there is a need to consider how socio- economic and climate goals can be attained simultaneously. This is where the role of co-benefits is paramount for planners as they offer a framework for using urban greenspaces as CCIs that address social, economic, and environmental goals in the form of addressing climate change impacts. Table 10.1 presents a summary of all the barriers of urban greenspace planning identified in the Kumasi Metropolis based on this research.

265

Table 10.1: List of Institutional and Socio-cultural Barriers and their Sources in the Kumasi Metropolis Level of Planning Category of Barriers Nature of Barrier Source of Barrier Local Level 1. Institutional barriers to ▪ Low attention to urban greenspaces Urban Planning Departments (PCU and PPD) (Kumasi Urban Greenspaces in the in urban plans Metropolis) Kumasi Metropolis ▪ Lack of innovation and urban Urban Planning Departments (PCU and PPD) visions for the urban greenspaces ▪ Capacity challenges of the urban Urban Planning Departments (PCU and PPD) planning departments Department of Parks and Gardens ▪ Political interference in urban Politicians greenspace planning ▪ Disharmony in land management Chiefs and other landowners between chiefs and urban planners Urban Planners Residents ▪ Misconception about the use of land Urban Planners Chiefs and other landowners Land developers ▪ Poor framing of urban greenspaces Urban Planning Departments (PCU and PPD) as CCIs ▪ Perceived low appreciation of urban Residents greenspaces Landowners ▪ Poor maintenance of urban Urban Planning Departments (PCU and PPD) greenspaces Department of Parks and Gardens 2. Socio-cultural barriers to ▪ Prioritization of urban greenspaces Residents Urban Greenspaces in the ▪ Low demand for urban greenspaces Residents Kumasi Metropolis National Level 1. Institutional Barriers to ▪ Ineffectiveness of the guidelines for NDPC Urban Greenspaces in the the preparation of MTDPs in Kumasi Metropolis ensuring climate change integration and identification of CCIs in urban development plans ▪ Absence of climate financing Ministry of Finance arrangements for MMDAs NDPC MESTI Source: Author’s Construct (2019).

266

10.3 Hints for Urban Greenspace Planning

The preceding section revealed a number of barriers affecting the urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis and how they limit the KMA from using urban greenspaces as CCIs. In the next section, the chapter discusses how the KMA can overcome these barriers in order to enhance the role urban greenspaces play in tackling climate change impacts in the Metropolis.

10.3.1 Building the Capacity of Urban Planners in the Kumasi Metropolis

One of the critical observations from this research are the challenges that urban planners encounter in relation to dealing with residents and land developers encroaching on lands demarcated as urban greenspaces. In other instances, urban planners are also unable to effectively prepare planning layouts or schemes, as landowners—mostly the chiefs— commission draftsmen to prepare these schemes. The result is that these plans do not often conform to planning standards, as the primary motive of these plans is to make profits. The reason for these trends as revealed urban planning professionals in the Metropolis are due to capacity challenges in terms of finance and the human resource to prepare these plans. Allocating more funds to urban planning departments is critical to helping overcome this challenge.

For human resources, it will require training the urban planners in these departments to use satellite and aerial images in mapping the unmapped areas of the Metropolis and to track the physical expansion and encroachment on existing greenspaces. Training in Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) is thus critical for this endeavor, especially when Diko and Akrofi

(2014) observed that many urban planning departments do not have GIS database to guide their urban development activities in Ghana. In terms of finance, it would be crucial for urban planning departments and the Department of Parks and Gardens to be able to buyout lands demarcated as

267

greenspaces in the Metropolis in addition to planning and developing them into greenspaces that meet both socio-economic and environmental goals. Subsequently, the KMA can rely on resident’s willingness to support urban greenspace initiatives and willingness pay to use greenspaces in the

Metropolis to raise funding for urban greenspace initiatives. However, the achievement of this will also depend on the accountability and transparency in using funds generated to support urban greenspaces.

Again, planners need to be trained to appreciate different greenspace strategies for densifying and urbanizing areas. This is important because the various urban greenspace strategies identified by the KMA in their urban development plans lacked innovation and did not take into account the physical constraints that rapid physical expansion exerts on urban greenspaces within the Metropolis. This where important case studies are relevant. Exposing urban planners to different ideas and how these strategies can be adapted to the context of the Kumasi Metropolis will help increase the quality and quantity of urban greenspaces, and more importantly, helped them to be conceived as CCIs to tackle climate change impacts in the Metropolis.

10.3.2 Providing effective guidelines to integrate climate change issues and Plan CCIs

Findings from this research reveal that Ghana’s NDPC will need to develop new guidelines that either complement or expand the current guidelines for preparing MTDPs to have a clear and concise section on planning CCIs or climate action planning. A starting point is to refer to the

Guiding Principles for City Climate Action Planning published by the UN-Habitat (Tuts et al.,

2015). The report outlines the key steps for developing a comprehensive plan to tackle climate change impacts. However, the use of this framework will depend on the capacity of the urban planners at the KMA. An organizational self-assessment tool on climate change is thus critical to

268

begin the process to determine the institutional capacity of the KMA in understanding their climate vulnerability and developing their climate action plan.

It is thus critical for researchers to continue to point out the limitations of such guidelines that are often imposed by national planning authorities such as the NDPC and provide ways to ensure effective climate change integration and planning of CCIs to tackle climate change impacts in urban areas. Subsequently, there is a need to redesign the guidelines for the preparation of

MTDPs to include how to conduct climate vulnerability assessments, formulate climate change goals and targets, prepare climate change communication and stakeholder participation frameworks, formulate CCIs, identify climate financing arrangements, and formulate monitoring and evaluation frameworks for CCIs. This should be followed by workshops that train urban planners on how to use these guidelines.

10.3.3 Increasing Collaboration in Urban Greenspace Planning

Even though chiefs are not considered as integral actors in the formal planning process in Ghana— and only restricted to advisory roles—years of planning interventions have shown that they are strategic partners in the development of Kumasi. From this, it is crucial that they are seen as partners in the physical and socio-economic development processes of the Kumasi Metropolis to ensure that lands demarcated for urban greenspaces are not sold and developed into other land uses. Through these partnerships, urban planners can provide strategic visions of greenspaces that demonstrate how both the KMA and the chiefs can have economic returns from lands demarcated as urban greenspaces.

Furthermore, the knowledge of residents’ readiness should also move the KMA to design initiatives that can help improve the tree planting and nurturing activities within the Metropolis as

269

all these actions will contribute to helping the Metropolis increase its tree cover and reduce its

CO2 emission. Effective collaborations with different institutions in the Kumasi Metropolis such as schools, hospitals, and the corporations and banks are vital avenues since their premises can be viable locations to increase urban greenery in the Kumasi Metropolis. This will mean, for instance, that the KMA collaborates effectively with all decentralized departments under whose supervisions these different institutions come under. Through proper design and configuration of these initiatives, the KMA can increase its greenspaces and at the same time design them as CCIs.

10.3.4 Integrating Co-Benefits in Urban Greenspace Planning

Another important hint for urban planners is the adoption of urban greenspaces within the contexts of co-benefits. As seen from planning visions and residents’ perspectives, promoting economic development and improving the urban infrastructure is their priority. However, these can be promoted while achieving climate change goals by using urban greenspace as CCIs. In other words, urban greenspace initiatives must be designed to engender relaxation, create jobs, and encourage business development within the Kumasi Metropolis, as has been done with the Rattray

Park and Kumasi Cultural Center.

Lessons from cities that have successfully promoted urban greenspaces as an economic strategy will provide the KMA with the needed insight to adapt such approaches to their planning efforts. The World Economic Forum provides a lot of case studies that can help the KMA effectively plan to achieve both urban greenspace and economic development goals— all a view of also building local capacity against climate change impacts.

As the literature review pointed out, the global south is constrained when it comes to funding its own development. For this reason, the best way to use scarce resource efficiently will

270

be to pursue development co-benefits that ensure that climate change goals are achieved through urban greenspace prioritization. This has the potential to reduce greenhouse emission, improve air quality as well as create job opportunities for people through businesses, increase productivity, and develop tourism.

Hence, through co-benefits, the KMA can address the need to increase access and availability of urban greenspaces as encouraged by the SDG 11 Target 7 while also improving the transportation, drainage systems, housing, employment, and health care needs of residents of the

Kumasi Metropolis (IPCC, 2014; Puppim et al., 2013). However, this is dependent on the effectiveness of the KMA in mainstreaming climate change issues in their planning and preparation of urban development plans (Wong et al., 2014: 393).

10.3.5 Government of Ghana needs to take lead in Climate Finance

There is a consensus that urban authorities are the duty bearers of CCIs at the local level (Manuel-

Navarrete et al. 2009; Stewart et al., 2009). As a result, the KMA is fundamentally responsible for planning and implementing CCIs such as urban greenspaces. However, the planning framework of Ghana is structured in such a way that the activities of MMDAs are guided and influenced by the central government. It is based on this framework that the District Development Fund and

Urban Development Fund are utilized by the KMA for specific projects via a government ministry.

At the same time, the KMA relies on the Government of Ghana for its share of the DACF for its development.

Thus, for climate finance to be effective and reliable for urban authorities to utilize, it is imperative that the Government of Ghana established a climate financing arrangement that allows urban planning authorities to identify climate financing opportunities and the guidelines to harness

271

them. Deri and Alam referred to this as the “regulatory and facilitation roles” of central governments in local climate finance (2008, p. 6). It is thus recommended that the Government of

Ghana designs an effective financing facility with clear guidance as to how MMDAs such as the

KMA can access these climate funds to finance their CCIs.

Table 10.2 summarizes the recommendations to help urban planning institutions and urban planners overcome the barriers in planning for urban greenspaces and frame them as CCIs to tackle climate change impacts in the Kumasi Metropolis. These are entry points to inform further deliberations to translate the recommendations into specific programs of actions and projects for the Kumasi Metropolis, and other planning jurisdictions in Ghana.

272

Table 10.2: Recommendations for Overcoming Urban Greenspace Planning Barriers in the Kumasi Metropolis Hint Barrier Recommendation Main Actors 1. Building the ▪ Low attention to urban - Train urban planners on innovative Capacity of Urban greenspaces in urban plans greenspace strategies for densifying and Planners in the ▪ Lack of innovation and urban urbanizing areas. Kumasi Metropolis visions for the urban greenspaces - Harness resident’s willingness to support urban greenspace initiatives to plan and raise PPD funding for urban greenspace initiatives. PCU - Buyout lands demarcated as greenspaces in Department of the Metropolis. Parks & ▪ Capacity challenges of the urban - Use satellite and aerial images in mapping the Gardens planning departments unmapped areas of the Metropolis and to Lands track the physical expansion and Commission encroachment of existing greenspaces. KNUST - Train urban planners in using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). ▪ Misconception about the use of - Train urban planners on land use laws and land management practices. 2. Providing effective ▪ Poor framing of urban - Perform an organizational self-assessment to guidelines to greenspaces as CCIs determine the climate change capacity of the integrate climate ▪ Absence of climate financing Kumasi Metropolis and its planning change issues and arrangements for MMDAs institutions. CCIs - Train urban planners on climate vulnerability assessment, climate change goal setting and NDPC targets, climate change communication and MESTI stakeholder participation, identification of KNUST CCIs, climate finance, and monitoring and MMDAs evaluation of CCIs. ▪ Ineffectiveness of the guidelines - Redesign the guidelines for preparing MTDPs for the preparation of MTDPs in to provide ways to ensure effective climate ensuring climate change change integration and planning of CCIs to integration and identification of tackle climate change impacts. CCIs in urban development plans Source: Author’s Construct (2019).

273

Table 10.2: Recommendation for Overcoming Urban Greenspace Planning Barriers (Continued)

Hint Barrier Recommendation Main Actors 3. Increased ▪ Lack of innovation and urban visions - Develop strategic visions for urban greenspaces Collaboration in for the urban greenspaces that demonstrate economic returns from lands Urban Greenspace ▪ Poor maintenance of urban demarcated as urban greenspaces. Planning greenspaces - Promote public-private partnerships in urban greenspace planning ▪ Disharmony in land management - Build strong partnerships with chiefs and between chiefs and urban planners landowners in the Kumasi Metropolis. PCU ▪ Political interference in urban - Educate chiefs and residents to appreciate the PPD greenspace planning value and roles of greenspaces, open spaces as Department effective tools to tackle climate changes of Parks & impacts and for recreation, healthy living, etc. Gardens - Ensure effective collaboration with different institutions such as schools, hospitals, and banks, etc. to develop institutional greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis. - Train chiefs and urban planners on the concept and strategies for transferring development rights in support of urban greenspaces 4. Integrating Co- ▪ Lack of innovation and urban visions - Plan and develop lands demarcated as for the urban greenspaces greenspaces to attain socio-economic and Benefits in Urban PCU ▪ Poor framing of urban greenspaces as environmental goals. Greenspace PPD CCIs - Learn successful strategies on using urban Planning Department ▪ Perceived low appreciation of urban greenspaces as an economic development of Parks & greenspaces by urban planners strategy from cities across the globe. Gardens ▪ Prioritization of urban greenspaces - Adapt urban greenspace planning to the culture ▪ Low demand for urban greenspaces of residents of Kumasi Metropolis 5. Government of ▪ Poor framing of urban greenspaces as - Establish a national climate financing Ghana needs to CCIs framework that allows urban planning NDPC take lead in Climate ▪ Absence of climate financing authorities to identify climate finance Ministry of Finance arrangements for MMDAs opportunities. Finance - Establish guidelines to harness climate finance MESTI opportunities from both the Government of KNUST Ghana and the private sector. Source: Author’s Construct (2019). 274

10.4 Contribution to Theory

This research makes three main contributions to urban planning and climate change literature, particularly within the context of Ghana. In terms of the institutional barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis, the research consolidates findings relating to the challenges of urban planning in Ghana. Inadequate finances and human resources challenges, political interference, unruly land management systems, contentions between land use among landowners, residents and land developers, which are challenges of urban greenspace planning are also challenges documented as inhibiting effective urban planning in the Kumasi Metropolis, and

Ghana in general. It is thus evident why some scholars argue that the decline in urban greenspace in the Kumasi Metropolis are outcomes of poor urban planning (Arku et al. 2016; Sabbi and Adjei

Mensah, 2016; Mensah 2014a; Quagraine, 2011; Tontoh, 2011; Dinye et al., 1987). Thus, to increase urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis, and use them as CCIs, it is imperative that urban reforms address the fundamental challenges of urban planning in Ghana.

The second contribution this research makes relates to the understanding of climate governance in Ghana through the planning of CCIs. The guidelines for the preparation of MTDPs by the NDPC expects climate change integration and the identification of CCIs for implementation. Evidence from this research has revealed that this has not been achieved in the

Kumasi Metropolis, even for urban greenspaces which are documented CCIs that enable urban areas to combat climate change impacts. The findings on poor framing and integration identified in this research complement Adu-Boateng’s (2015) research in the Tamale Metropolis. The author employed a similar approach of examining urban development plans to determine whether urban plans integrate climate change issues—the only research about climate change integration and planning CCIs exists. Using urban greenspaces as a case in point, this research demonstrates that

275

using guides for the preparation of MTDPs would be effective to effectively plan for CCIs, thus requiring a comprehensive framework that builds urban planners’ capacity to understand their climate change vulnerabilities and plan for CCIs to tackle these vulnerabilities.

In explaining the socio-cultural factors underpinning urban greenspace decline and planning, Gwedla and Shackleton (2017) for instance argues that urban residents often vandalize trees without any justification, while Zérah (2007) points to residents’ encroachment on greenspaces as a challenge in urban areas. In Ghana, some scholars (Adjei Mensah, 2014a; Adjei

Mensah, 2014b; Amoateng et al., 2013; Quagraine, 2011) have also documented residents’ encroachment on urban greenspaces as reasons for their decline and cast urban residents as vandalizers. It is from this perspective that this research makes its third contribution. It offers an alternative argument to that which characterizes residents, in a negative light, as encroachers and destroyers of urban greenspaces. It advances an argument that the socio-cultural factors surrounding the use, demand, and support for urban amenities in the Kumasi Metropolis place a low emphasis on urban greenspaces. It reveals that the low emphasis is indicative of residents’ priority of meeting their basic needs over a desire for urban greenspaces, and not merely actions of encroachment and/or vandalism. To transcend the contestation that emanates from resident’s socio-economic needs and provision of urban greenspaces in the Metropolis, this research suggests and argues for an articulated framework that integrates residents’ socio-economic needs into urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis if they are to be used as CCIs. It advocates for planning urban greenspaces using co-benefits principles as well as increased collaboration between urban planners and residents of the Kumasi Metropolis.

In relation to Byrne and Jinjun (2009) and Matthews et al (2015) observation in using urban greenspaces and green infrastructure as CCIs —as presented in Figures 4.2 and 4.3— this research

276

has provided contextual manifestations of the factors that can affect the capacity of urban planning departments in using urban greenspaces as CCIs based on evidence from the Kumasi Metropolis.

It thus demonstrates that these although, conceptually, the categorization of barriers to urban greenspace planning are similar, their manifestations differ across different geographical and socio-cultural contexts. It is thus imperative for researchers to study the nature and character of the barriers to urban greenspaces and how they affect how they are used as CCIs in geographical contexts.

10.5 Areas of Further Research

For starters, future research will focus on the argument that was omitted in this study. The argument, the model or framework for managing urban greenspaces contributes to the decline in urban greenspace in the Kumasi Metropolis, and its associated research questions— particularly

(i) Would the commercialization of urban greenspaces for recreation promote effective management of urban greenspaces? And (ii) What would be the implications of commercializing urban greenspaces in the Kumasi Metropolis on accessibility and residents’ use of urban greenspaces? — would be examined in future research endeavors. Already, findings in this research demonstrate residents’ willingness to pay to use some urban greenspaces within the

Kumasi Metropolis such as the Rattray Park. Asibey et al. (2018) and Arku et al (2016) point to

Rattray Park in the Kumasi Metropolis and Afua Sundaland Park in Accra, respectively, and the readiness of their users to continue to pay for the services they get from the park if it means that it would be maintained and sustained. But the success of this model will depend on how the process is managed and how proceeds from the park are used by park managers. Understanding the factors that can sustain this model is thus critical for ensuring its success in the Kumasi Metropolis, and

277

elsewhere in Ghana. Additionally, to consolidate the alternative argument that the low emphasis is indicative of residents’ priority of meeting their basic needs over a desire for urban greenspaces, and not merely actions of encroachment and/or vandalism, more research will be conducted using employing Environmental Behavior Studies. This approach allows researchers to study the interactions between residents and their physical spaces in addition to patterns of human behavior that enable residents to accomplish daily activities and the resources that support these activities

(Mehta, 2013; Perin, 1973; Barker, 1968).

The method and approach used in this studying climate change framing and integration in urban development plans for the Kumasi Metropolis is one that can be replicated across other jurisdictions in Ghana, where currently, there are 254 MMDAs. They are all expected to use the guidelines for the preparation of MTDPs to prepare their own four-year plans to guide the development of their jurisdictions. Like the Kumasi Metropolis, the NDPC expects these MMDAs to pay “special consideration” to climate change issues as well as provide pathways to promote sustainable development. The use of content analysis to determine the level of attention paid to urban greenspaces and CCIs is a novelty in the literature on Ghana’s urban development planning process. Moving forward, further research will include other jurisdictions other than the Kumasi

Metropolis to determine the level of climate change integration in urban development plans and attention to urban greenspaces and other natural-based solutions to dealing with the impacts of climate change in Ghana.

Again, with the rapid expansion of the built environment into suburban areas in Ghana, there are also concerns for the destruction of urban greenspaces. With emerging formalized real estate markets that provide residential housing through residential subdivisions, there is potential to mainstream urban greenspace design principles into the planning and design of these

278

communities. Future research will explore the potential role of the private sector in integrating urban greenspaces in the planning and design of neighborhoods, which has been seemingly absent in indigenous neighborhoods of the Kumasi Metropolis (Nero, 2017) and how this contributes to reducing CO2 emissions. Here, the role private real developers play in integrating sustainability principles in their planning will be examined with a desire for a comparative study between cities in Ghana and the United States.

10.6 Conclusion

This research has provided responses to three main arguments with a view to understand how the barriers of urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis can provide hints for CCIs in

Ghana. The literature review established a critical connection between climate change and urban greenspaces and the subsequent discussions on the institutional and socio-cultural barriers to urban greenspace planning in the Kumasi Metropolis revealed that some challenges exist. Chapters

Seven to Nine comprise the research results and suggested actions. These chapters also consist of hints that are relevant for enhancing urban greenspace planning as well as using them as CCIs in

Ghana. Chapter Ten concluded this report with a summary of the main suggested for urban greenspace planning in Ghana. Collectively, it is anticipated that each of these chapters (Chapter

Seven to Ten) will contribute to helping urban authorities in Ghana understand the need for effective urban greenspace planning by overcoming the various barriers, as these are critical for ensuring that urban greenspaces are effectively used as CCIs in Ghana.

279

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abass, Kabila, Selase Kofi Adanu, and Seth Agyemang. 2018. Peri-urbanization and loss of arable land in Kumasi metropolis in three decades: Evidence from remote sensing image analysis. Land use Policy 72: 470-9. Abbott, Kenneth W., and David Gartner. 2011. The Green Climate Fund and the future of environmental governance. Earth System Governance Working Paper 16. Lund and Amsterdam: Earth System Governance Project. Abel, Nick, Russell Gorddard, Ben Harman, Anne Leitch, Jennifer Langridge, Anthony Ryan, and Sonja Heyenga. 2011. Sea level rise, coastal development and planned retreat: Analytical framework, governance principles and an Australian case study. Environmental Science and Policy 14 (3): 279-88. Ache, Peter. 2000. Vision and creativity— Challenge for city regions. Futures 32 (5): 435-449. Acheampong, Ransford A. 2013. Situational Analysis of Housing in the Greater Kumasi Sub- Region. Study Prepared for the JICA Study Team as Part of the Comprehensive Urban Development Plan for Greater Kumasi Project. Acheampong, Ransford A. 2018. Spatial Planning in Ghana. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Acheampong, Ransford A., and Alhassan Ibrahim. 2016. One nation, two planning systems? spatial planning and multi-level policy integration in Ghana: Mechanisms, challenges and the way forward. Urban Forum 27 (1): 1-18. Acheampong, Ransford A., Felix S. K. Agyemang, and Mohammed Abdul-Fatawu. 2017. Quantifying the spatio-temporal patterns of settlement growth in a metropolitan region of Ghana. Geojournal 82 (4): 823-40. Adarkwa, Kwarfo. K., and Owusu-Akyaw, K. 2001. Development control in Kumasi. In K. K. Adarkwa and J. Post (Eds.), The fate of the tree: Planning and managing the development of Kumasi, Ghana. Accra: Woeli Publishing Services, pp. 199–208. Adarkwa, Kwasi Kwafo, and Michael Poku-Boansi. 2011. Climate change and the housing environment in Ghana. Eds. B. Yuen and A. Kumssa, Climate Change and Sustainable Urban 21 Development in Africa and Asia, pp.103-116. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Addo-Fordwuor, Dominic. 2014. Green space depletion in Ghana’s urban settlements: A case of Kumasi. A Masters’ Thesis. Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi. http://ir.knust.edu.gh/bitstream/123456789/7078/1/DOMINIC%20ADDO- FORDWUOR.pdf Adelekan, Ibidun O., and A. S. Gbadegesin. 2005. Analysis of the public perception of climate change issues in an indigenous African city. International Journal of Environmental Studies 62 (1): 115-24. Adger W. Neil, O’Brien Karen L., Lorenzoni Irene. 2009a. Adaptation now. In Adger, W. Neil, Irene Lorenzoni, and Karen L. O'Brien, eds. Adapting to climate change: Thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press. pp 1–22

280

Adger, W. Neil, and Katherine Vincent. 2005. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337 (4): 399-410. Adger, W. Neil, Saleemul Huq, Katrina Brown, Declan Conway, and Mike Hulme. 2003. Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3 (3): 179-95. Adger, W. Neil, Shardul Agrawala, M. Monirul Qader Mirza, Cecilia Conde, Karen O’Brien, Juan Pulhin, Roger Pulwarty, Barry Smit, and Kiyoshi Takahashi. 2007. Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity. Change. In Parry, Martin. 2007. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Adger, W. Neil, Suraje Dessai, Marisa Goulden, Mike Hulme, Irene Lorenzoni, Donald R. Nelson, Lars Otto Naess, Johanna Wolf, and Anita Wreford. 2009b. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change 93 (3): 335-54. Adger, W. Neil, Terry P. Hughes, Carl Folke, Stephen R. Carpenter, and Johan Rockström. 2005. Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309 (5737): 1036-9. Adjei Mensah, Collins, Lauren Andres, Paul Baidoo, James Kweku Eshun, and Kwabena Barima Antwi. 2017. Community participation in urban planning: The case of managing green spaces in Kumasi, Ghana. Urban Forum 28 (2): 125-41. Adjei Mensah, Collins. 2014a. Destruction of urban green spaces: A problem beyond urbanization in Kumasi city (Ghana). American Journal of Environmental Protection 3(1), 1-9. Adjei Mensah, Collins. 2014b. Is Kumasi Still a Garden City? Land Use Analysis between 1980- 2010. Journal of Environment and Ecology 5(2), 89-107. Adjei Mensah, Collins. 2016. The state of green spaces in Kumasi city (Ghana): Lessons for other African cities. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis 8 (2): 159-78. Adjei, Prince Osei-Wusu, Abrefa Kwaku Busia, and George Meyiri Bob-Milliar. "Democratic decentralization and disempowerment of traditional authorities under Ghana’s local governance and development system: a spatio-temporal review." Journal of Political Power 10 (3): 303-325. Adu-Boateng, Afua. 2015. Barriers to climate change policy responses for urban areas: A study of Tamale Metropolitan Assembly, Ghana. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 13 : 49-57. Afrane, Sam and Clifford Amoako. 2011. Peri-Urban development in Kumasi. In: Adarkwa, K.K. (Ed.), Future of the Tree: Towards Growth and Development of Kumasi. University Printing Press, Kumasi, pp. 92–110. Afriyie, Kwadwo, Kabila Abass, and Janet Afua Abrafi Adomako. 2014. Urbanization of the rural landscape: assessing the effects in peri-urban Kumasi. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 6 (1): 1-19.

281

Ahadzie, Divine Kwaku, I. Dinye, Romanus D. Dinye, and David G. Proverbs. 2016. Flood risk perception, coping and management in two vulnerable communities in Kumasi, Ghana. International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering 6 (3): 538-49. Ahern, Mike, R. Sari Kovats, Paul Wilkinson, Roger Few, and Franziska Matthies. 2005. Global health impacts of floods: Epidemiologic evidence. Epidemiologic Reviews 27 (1): 36-46. Ahmed, Abubakari, and Romanus D. Dinye. 2012. Impact of land use activities on Subin and Aboabo Rivers in Kumasi Metropolis. International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, 4(7), 241–251. DOI:10.5897/IJWREE12.036. Ahwoi Kwabena. 2010b. Rethinking Decentralization and Local Government in Ghana- Proposals for Amendment. Constitutional Review Series 6. Accra: The Institute of Economic Affairs: https://ieagh.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/crs-6.pdf Ahwoi, Kwabena. 2010a. Local government and decentralisation in Ghana. Accra, Unimax Mcmillan. Akinyemi, Felicia O. 2013. An assessment of land-use changes in the cocoa belt of south-west Nigeria. International Journal of Remote Sensing 34 (8): 2858-75. Akinyemi, Felicia O. 2017. Land change in the central Albertine rift: Insights from analysis and mapping of land use-land cover change in north-western Rwanda. Applied Geography 87 : 127-38. Alcamo, Joseph. Neville J. Ash, Colin D. Butler, J. Baird Callicott, Doris Capistrano, Stephen R. Carpenter, Juan Carlos Castilla, Robert Chambers, et al. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf Allison, Edward H., Allison L. Perry, Marie-Caroline Badjeck, W. Neil Adger, Katrina Brown, Declan Conway, Ashley S. Halls, et al. 2009. Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 10 (2): 173-96. Amoako, Clifford, and Adom-Asamoah, Gifty 2018. From the seat of a traditional Kingdom to a Garden city: the socio-spatial politics of managing green areas in Kumasi, Ghana. African Geographical Review. DOI: 10.1080/19376812.2018.1436076 Amoako, Clifford, and Emmanuel Frimpong Boamah. 2017. Build as you earn and learn: Informal urbanism and incremental housing financing in Kumasi, Ghana. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 32 (3): 429-48. Amoako, Clifford. 2016. Brutal presence or convenient absence: The role of the state in the politics of flooding in informal Accra, Ghana. Geoforum, 77: 5-16. Amoako, Clifford., and Korboe, David. 2011. Historical development, population growth and present structure of Kumasi. In K. K. Adarkwa, Future of the Tree: Towards growth and development of Kumasi. Kumasi: University Printing Press, KNUST. pp. 35-54 Amoateng, Paul, C. Max Finlayson, Jonathon Howard, and Ben Wilson. 2018a. A multi-faceted analysis of annual flood incidences in Kumasi, Ghana. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 : 105-17.

282

Amoateng, Paul, C. Max Finlayson, Jonathon Howard, and Ben Wilson. 2018b. Dwindling rivers and floodplains in Kumasi, Ghana: A socio-spatial analysis of the extent and trend. Applied Geography 90: 82-95. Amoateng, Paul, Patrick B. Cobbinah, and Kwasi Owusu-Adade. 2013. Managing physical development in peri-urban areas of Kumasi, Ghana: A case of Abuakwa. Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering 7 (1): 96-109. Amos-Abanyie, Samuel. 2011. Climate Change and Housing in Kumasi. In Future of the Tree: Towards Growth and Development of Kumasi. Adarkwa, Kwasi Kwafo. ed. Kumasi: University Printing Press. Amundsen, Helene, Frode Berglund, and Hege Westskogh. 2010. Overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation-a question of multilevel governance? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 28 (2): 276-89. Anaafo, David, and Dan Kweku Baah Inkoom. 2016. Land governance and decentralized physical planning in mid-sized cities in Ghana: A case study of the Nkoranza South Municipality. Urban Forum 27 (1): 93-111. Anderson, Soren T., and Sarah E. West. 2006. Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 36 (6): 773-89. Andersson, Erik, Stephan Barthel, Karin Ahrné. 2007. Measuring social-ecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecological Applications 17 (5): 1267-78. Angel, Shlomo, Jason Parent, Daniel L. Civco, Alexander Blei, and David Potere. 2011. The dimensions of global urban expansion: Estimates and projections for all countries, 2000– 2050. Progress in Planning 75 (2): 53-107. Anguelovski, Isabelle, and JoAnn Carmin. 2011. Something borrowed, everything new: Innovation and institutionalization in urban climate governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3 (3): 169-75. Anguelovski, Isabelle, Eric Chu, and JoAnn Carmin. 2014. Variations in approaches to urban climate adaptation: Experiences and experimentation from the global south. Global Environmental Change 27 (1): 156-67. Anguelovski, Isabelle, Roberts, Debra. 2011. Spatial (in) justice in urban climate policy: a multi- scale analysis of climate impacts in Durban. In: Carmin, JoAnn and Julian Agyeman (Eds.), Environmental Inequalities Beyond Borders: Local Perspectives on Global Injustices. MIT Press, Cambridge. pp. 19-44. Annez, Patricia Clarke, and Robert M. Buckley. 2009. Urbanization and Growth: Setting the Context. In Annez Clarke, Michael Spence, and Robert M. Buckley. Urbanization and growth. Herndon: World Bank Publications. pp: 1 – 46. https://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPREMNET/Resources/489960- 1338997241035/Growth_Commission_Vol1_Urbanization_Growth.pdf Antwi-Boasiako, Kwame Badu. 2010. Public administration: Local government and decentralization in Ghana. Journal of African Studies and development 2 (7): 166-175.

283

Aouissi, Hani Amir, Julien Gasparini, Adnène Ibrahim Belabed, and Zihad Bouslama. 2017. Impact of greenspaces in city on avian species richness and abundance in northern Africa. Comptes Rendus Biologies 340 (8): 394-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2017.07.002 Archie, Kelli M., Lisa Dilling, Jana B. Milford, and Fred C. Pampel. 2012. Climate change and western public lands: A survey of U.S. federal land managers on the status of adaptation efforts. Ecology and Society 17 (4): 20-. Arku, Godwin, Ian E. A. Yeboah, and Hanson Nyantakyi-Frimpong. 2016. Public parks as an element of urban planning: A missing piece in Accra's growth and development. Local Environment 21 (12): 1500-15. Armson, David, Pete Stringer, and A. Roland Ennos. 2013. The effect of street trees and amenity grass on urban surface water runoff in Manchester, UK. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (3): 282-6. Arnell, Nigel W., and E. Kate Delaney. 2006. Adapting to climate change: Public water supply in England and wales. Climatic Change 78 (2): 227-55. Aronson, Myla FJ, Christopher A. Lepczyk, Karl L. Evans, Mark A. Goddard, Susannah B. Lerman, J. Scott MacIvor, Charles H. Nilon, and Timothy Vargo. 2017. Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15 (4): 189-196. Artur, Luis, and Dorothea Hilhorst. 2012. Everyday realities of climate change adaptation in Mozambique. Global Environmental Change 22 (2): 529-36. Arvai, Joseph, Gavin Bridge, Nives Dolsak, Robert Franzese, Tomas Koontz, April Luginbuhl, Paul Robbins, et al. 2006. Adaptive management of the global climate problem: Bridging the gap between climate research and climate policy. Climatic Change 78 (1): 217-25. Ashley, Rebecca, Diane Russell, and Brent Swallow. 2006. The policy terrain in protected area landscapes: Challenges for agroforestry in integrated landscape conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 15 (2): 663-89. Asibey, Michael Osei, Vivian Yeboah, Michael Poku-Boansi, and Charles Bamfo. 2018. Exploring the use, behaviour and role of urbanites towards management and sustainability of Kumasi Rattray Park, Ghana. Journal of Urban Management. Asomani-Boateng, R., and Murray Haight. 1998. Assessment of municipal solid waste management practices in Accra, Ghana. Journal of Environmental Systems 26 (1): 41-55. Asomani-Boateng, Raymond. 2002. Urban cultivation in Accra: An examination of the nature, practices, problems, potentials and urban planning implications. Habitat International 26 (4): 591-607. Austin, Gary. 2014. Green infrastructure for landscape planning: Integrating human and natural systems. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Austin, Maureen E. 2002. Partnership opportunities in neighborhood tree planting initiatives: Building from local knowledge. Journal of Arboriculture 28 (4): 178-186.

284

Awortwi, Nicholas. 2011. An unbreakable path? A comparative study of decentralization and local government development trajectories in Ghana and Uganda." International Review of Administrative Sciences 77 2: 347-377. Awuah, Kwasi Gyau Baffour, and Felix Nikoi Hammond. 2013. Prognosis of land title formalization in urban Ghana: The myth and reality of awareness and relevance. African Studies Quarterly 14 (1/2): 55-75. Awuor, Cynthia Brenda, Victor Ayo Orindi, and Andrew Ochieng Adwera. 2008. Climate change and coastal cities: The case of Mombasa, Kenya. Environment & Urbanization 20 (1): 231-42. Aylett, Alex. 2010. Conflict, collaboration and climate change: Participatory democracy and urban environmental struggles in Durban, South Africa. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34 (3): 478-95. Aylett, Alex. 2013. The socio-institutional dynamics of urban climate governance: A comparative analysis of innovation and change in Durban (KZN, south Africa) and Portland (OR, USA). Urban Studies 50 (7): 1386-402. Aylett, Alexander. 2015. Institutionalizing the urban governance of climate change adaptation: Results of an international survey. Urban Climate 14 : 4-16. Bahadur, Aditya V., and Thomas Tanner. 2014. Policy climates and climate policies: Analyzing the politics of building urban climate change resilience. Urban Climate 7 : 20-32. Bahadur, Aditya V., Maggie Ibrahim, and Thomas Tanner. 2013. Characterizing resilience: Unpacking the concept for tackling climate change and development. Climate and Development 5 (1): 55-65. Bain, Paul G., Matthew J. Hornsey, Renata Bongiorno, and Carla Jeffries. 2012. Promoting pro- environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change 2 (8): 600-3. Bak, Céline, Amar Bhattacharya, Ottmar Edenhofer, and Brigitte Knopf. 2017. Towards a comprehensive approach to climate policy, sustainable infrastructure, and finance. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 11 (33): 1-14. Barker, Roger Garlock. 1968. Ecological Psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Balint, Peter J., and Judith Mashinya. 2008. Campfire during Zimbabwe’s national crisis: Local impacts and broader implications for community-based wildlife management. Society and Natural Resources 21 (9): 783-796. Balram, Shivanand, and Suzana Dragićević. 2005. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape and Urban Planning 71 (2): 147-62. Barkhordarian, Armineh, Hans von Storch, and Jonas Bhend. 2013. The expectation of future precipitation change over the Mediterranean region is different from what we observe. Climate Dynamics 40, (1-2): 225-244. Barnett, Jon, and Saffron O’Neill. 2010. Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change 20 (2): 211-3.

285

Barnett, Jon, Louisa S. Evans, Catherine Gross, Anthony S. Kiem, Richard T. Kingsford, Jean P. Palutikof, Catherine M. Pickering, and Scott G. Smithers. 2015. From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: Path dependency and the speed of change. Ecology and Society 20 (3): 5. Baró, Francesc, Lydia Chaparro, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Johannes Langemeyer, David J. Nowak, and Jaume Terradas. 2014. Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: The case of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio 43 (4): 466-79. Barre, Rita Yembilah, Miriam Grant, and Dianne Draper. 2009. The role of taboos in conservation of sacred groves in Ghana's Tallensi-Nabdam district. Social & Cultural Geography 10 (1): 25-39. Bartlett, Sheridan. 2008. Climate change and urban children: Impacts and implications for adaptation in low- and middle-income countries. Environment & Urbanization 20 (2): 501-19. Bauer, Anja, Judith Feichtinger, and Reinhard Steurer. 2012. The governance of climate change adaptation in 10 OECD countries: Challenges and approaches. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 14 (3): 279-304. Baycan-Levent, Tüzin, and Peter Nijkamp. 2009. Planning and management of urban green spaces in Europe: Comparative analysis. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 135 (1): 1-12. Beauchemin, Cris, and Philippe Bocquier. 2004. Migration and urbanization in francophone west Africa: An overview of the recent empirical evidence. Urban Studies 41 (11): 2245-72. Bechhofer, Frank, and Lindsay Paterson. 2012. Principles of research design in the social sciences. Taylor and Francis. Behrens, Kristian, and Alain Pholo Bala. 2011. Do rent-seeking and interregional transfers contribute to urban primacy in sub-Saharan Africa? Rent-seeking and urban primacy in sub-Saharan Africa. Papers in Regional Science 92(1): 163-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00400.x Béland, Daniel. 2009. Ideas, institutions, and policy change. Journal of European public policy, 16(5), 701-718. Bele, Mekou Youssoufa, Olufunso Somorin, Denis Jean Sonwa, Johnson Ndi Nkem, and Bruno Locatelli. 2011. Forests and climate change adaptation policies in Cameroon. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 16 (3): 369-85. Béné, Christophe, Rachel Godfrey Wood, Andrew Newsham, and Mark Davies. 2012. Resilience: New utopia or new tyranny? reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programs. IDS Working Papers 2012 (405): 1-61. Benedict, Mark A., Edward McMahon, and Inc ebrary. 2006. Green infrastructure: Linking landscapes and communities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26 (1): 611-39. 286

Berkes, Fikret. 2009. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5): 1692- 702. Berkhout, Frans, Julia Hertin, and David M. Gann. 2006. Learning to adapt: Organizational adaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic Change 78 (1): 135-56. Berney, Rachel. 2010. Learning from Bogotá: How municipal experts transformed public space. Journal of Urban Design 15 (4): 539-58. Berrang-Ford, Lea, James D. Ford, and Jaclyn Paterson. 2011. Are we adapting to climate change? Global Environmental Change 21 (1): 25-33. Betsill, Michele, and Harriet Bulkeley. 2007. Looking back and thinking ahead: A decade of cities and climate change research. Local Environment 12 (5): 447-56. Beveridge, Charles E., Paul Rocheleau, and David Larkin. 1995. Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing the American landscape. New York: Rizzoli. Biazin, Birhanu, Geert Sterk, Melesse Temesgen, Abdu Abdulkedir, and Leo Stroosnijder. 2012. Rainwater harvesting and management in rainfed agricultural systems in sub-Saharan Africa – A review. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 47-48: 139-51. Bierbaum, Rosina, Joel B. Smith, Arthur Lee, Maria Blair, Lynne Carter, F. Stuart Chapin III, Paul Fleming, et al. 2013. A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the united states: More than before, but less than needed. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18 (3): 361-406. Biesbroek, G. Robbert, Judith EM Klostermann, Catrien Jam Termeer, and Pavel Kabat. 2013. On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Regional Environmental Change 13 (5): 1119-29. Biesbroek, G. Robbert, Rob J. Swart, and van der Knaap, Wim G.M. 2009. The mitigation– adaptation dichotomy and the role of spatial planning. Habitat International 33 (3): 230- 7. Biesbroek, G. Robbert, Rob J. Swart, Timothy R. Carter, Caroline Cowan, Thomas Henrichs, Hanna Mela, Michael D. Morecroft, and Daniela Rey. 2010. Europe adapts to climate change: Comparing national adaptation strategies. Global Environmental Change 20 (3): 440-50. Biesbroek, Robbert, Judith Klostermann, Catrien Termeer, and Pavel Kabat. 2011. Barriers to climate change adaptation in the Netherlands. Climate Law 2 (2): 181-99. Bigirimana, Joseph, Jan Bogaert, Charles De Cannière, Marie-José Bigendako, and Ingrid Parmentier. 2012. Domestic garden plant diversity in Bujumbura, Burundi: Role of the socio-economic status of the neighborhood and alien species invasion risk. Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2): 118-26. Bisaro, Alexander, and Jochen Hinkel. 2016. Governance of social dilemmas in climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change 6 (4): 354-9. Blake, James. 1999. Overcoming the 'value-action gap' in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment 4 (3): 257-78. 287

Boadi, Kwasi, Markku Kuitunen, Kolawole Raheem, and Kari Hanninen. 2005. Urbanization without development: Environmental and health implications in African cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability 7 (4): 465-500. Boko, Michel, Isabelle Niang, Anthony Nyong, Coleen Vogel, Andrew Githeko (Kenya), Mahmoud Medany, Balgis Osman-Elasha, Ramadjita Tabo, Pius Yanda. 2007: Africa. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 433-467. Bolitzer, Benjamin, and Noelwah R. Netusil. 2000. The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management 59 (3): 185-93. Bollen, Johannes, Bruno Guay, Stéphanie Jamet, and Jan Corfee-Morlot. 2009. Co-benefits of climate change mitigation policies: Literature review and new results. No. 693. Paris: OECD Publishing. Boswell, Michael R., Adrienne I. Greve, and Tammy L. Seale. 2012. Local climate action planning. Washington: Island Press. Boulton, Chris, Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes, and Jason Byrne. 2018. Factors shaping urban greenspace provision: A systematic review of the literature. Landscape and Urban Planning 178: 82-101. Bowen, Alex. 2011. Raising climate finance to support developing country action: Some economic considerations. Climate Policy 11 (3): 1020-. Bowler, Diana E., Lisette M. Buyung-Ali, Teri M. Knight, and Andrew S. Pullin. 2010. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC public health 10 (1): 456. Branas, Charles C., Rose A. Cheney, John M. MacDonald, Vicky W. Tam, Tara D. Jackson, and Thomas R. Ten Have. 2011. A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space. American Journal of Epidemiology 174 (11): 1296-306. Brander, Luke M., and Mark J. Koetse. 2011. The value of urban open space: Meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. Journal of Environmental Management 92 (10): 2763-73. Brooks, Nick, and W. Neil Adger. 2004. Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity. In: Bo Lim and Erika Spanger-Siegfried (Eds), Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: Developing strategies, policies and measures. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 165-181. https://adaptation- undp.org/sites/default/files/downloads/adaptation_policy_frameworks_for_climate_chan ge_-_developing_strategies_policies_and_measures_0.pdf Brown, H. Carolyn Peach, Johnson Ndi Nkem, Denis J. Sonwa, and Youssoufa Bele. 2010. Institutional adaptive capacity and climate change response in the Congo basin forests of Cameroon. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15 (3): 263-82.

288

Bruneniece, Ieva and Maris Klavins. Normative Principles for Adaptation to Climate Change Policy Design and Governance. In Jörg Knieling and Walter Leal Filho (Eds.) Climate change governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 41-66. Bryan, Elizabeth, Temesgen T. Deressa, Glwadys A. Gbetibouo, and Claudia Ringler. 2009. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: Options and constraints. Environmental Science and Policy 12 (4): 413-26. Bryan, Elizabeth, Temesgen T. Deressa, Glwadys A. Gbetibouo, and Claudia Ringler. 2009. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environmental science & policy 12 (4): 413-426. Buchner, Barbara, Martin Stadelmann, Jane Wilkinson, Federico Mazza, Anja Rosenberg and Dario Abramskiehn. 2014. The global landscape of climate finance 2014. Venice: Climate Policy Initiative. https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape- of-climate-finance-2014/ Budruk, Megha, Heidi Thomas, and Timothy Tyrrell. 2009. Urban green spaces: A study of place attachment and environmental attitudes in India. Society and Natural Resources 22 (9): 824-839. Bulkeley, Harriet, and Kristine Kern. 2006. Local government and the governing of climate change in Germany and the UK. Urban Studies 43 (12): 2237-59. Bulkeley, Harriet, Heike Schroeder, Katy Janda, Jimin Zhao, Andrea Armstrong, Shu Yi Chu, and Shibani Ghosh 2011. The role of institutions, governance, and urban planning for mitigation and adaptation. In: Hoornweg, Daniel, Freire, Mila, Lee, Marcus J., Bhada- Tata, Perinaz; Yuen, Belinda, (Eds), Cities and Climate Change: Responding to an Urgent Agenda. Urban Development Series. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2312, pp 125–159. Bulkeley, Harriet. 2013. Cities and climate change. London and New York: Routledge. Bunce, Matthew, Katrina Brown, and Sergio Rosendo. 2010a. Policy misfits, climate change and cross-scale vulnerability in coastal Africa: How development projects undermine resilience. Environmental Science and Policy 13 (6): 485-97. Bunce, Matthew, Sergio Rosendo, and Katrina Brown. 2010b. Perceptions of climate change, multiple stressors and livelihoods on marginal African coasts. Environment, Development and Sustainability 12 (3): 407-40. Burch, Sarah, and John Robinson. 2007. A framework for explaining the s between capacity and action in response to global climate change. Climate Policy 7 (4): 304-16. Burch, Sarah. 2010a. In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: An examination of barriers to action in three Canadian cities. Energy Policy 38 (12): 7575-85. Burch, Sarah. 2010b. Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: Insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change 20 (2): 287-97. Burkett, Virginia R., Avelino G. Suarez, Marco Bindi, Ceclia Conde, Rupa Mukerji, Michael J. Prather, Asuncion Lera St Clair, and Gary W. Yohe. 2014: Point of departure. In: Climate 289

Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 169-194. Byomkesh, Talukder, Nobukazu Nakagoshi, and Ashraf M. Dewan. 2012. Urbanization and green space dynamics in greater Dhaka, Bangladesh. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 8 (1): 45-58. Byrne, Jason, and Yang Jinjun. 2009. Can urban greenspace combat climate change? towards a subtropical cities research agenda. Australian Planner 46 (4): 36-43. Camilleri, Michael, Roman Jaques, and Nigel Isaacs. 2001. Impacts of climate change on building performance in new zealand. Building Research & Information 29 (6): 440-50. Campbell, Michael O'neal. 2004. “Traditional Forest Protection and Woodlots in the Coastal Savannah of Ghana.” Environmental Conservation 31 (3). Cambridge University Press: 225–32. doi:10.1017/S0376892904001389. Campion, Benjamin Betey, and Jörg-Friedhelm Venzke. 2013. Rainfall variability, floods and adaptations of the urban poor to flooding in Kumasi, Ghana. Natural Hazards 65 (3): 1895-911. Cannon, Terry, and Detlef Müller-Mahn. 2010. Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate change. Natural Hazards 55 (3): 621-35. Caprì, Salvatore, Matteo Ignaccolo, Giuseppe Inturri, and Michela Le Pira. 2016. Green walking networks for climate change adaptation. Transportation Research Part D 45 : 84-95. Carlsson, Lars, Annica Sandström. 2008. Network governance of the commons. International Journal of the Commons 2 (1): 33-54. Carmin, J., Nadkarni, N., Rhie, C., 2012a. Progress and Challenges in Urban Climate Adaptation Planning: Results of a Global Survey. DUSP/MIT, Cambridge, MA. Carmin, JoAnn, Isabelle Anguelovski, and Debra Roberts. 2012b. Urban climate adaptation in the global south: Planning in an emerging policy domain. Journal of Planning Education and Research 32 (1): 18-32. Carmines, Edward G., and Richard A. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. Vol. no. 07-017. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications. Chant, Sylvia H., Cathy McIlwaine, and Inc ebrary. 2009. Geographies of development in the 21st century: An introduction to the global south. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Chelleri, Lorenzo. 2012. From the «Resilient city» to urban resilience. a review essay on understanding and integrating the resilience perspective for urban systems. Documents d'Analisi Geografica 58 (2): 287-306. Chen, Wendy Y., and C. Y. Jim. 2008. Cost–benefit analysis of the leisure value of urban greening in the new Chinese city of Zhuhai. Cities 25 (5): 298-309. 290

Chevallier, Romy. 2012: Political barriers to climate change adaptation implementation in SADC. In: Overcoming Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation Implementation in Southern Africa [Masters, L. and L. Duff (eds.)]. Africa Institute of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 1-19 Chhetri, Netra B., William E. Easterling, Adam Terando, and Linda Mearns. 2010. Modeling path dependence in agricultural adaptation to climate variability and change. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (4): 894-907. Chiesura, Anna. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (1): 129-38. Choi, Onelack, and Ann Fisher. 2003. The impacts of socioeconomic development and climate change on severe weather catastrophe losses: Mid-Atlantic region (MAR) and the U.S. Climatic Change 58 (1): 149-70. Chuku, Chuku Agbai. 2010. Pursuing an integrated development and climate policy framework in Africa: Options for mainstreaming. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15 (1): 41-52. Cicchetti, Dante, and Glenn I. Roisman. 2011. The origins and organization of adaptation and maladaptation. Vol. 36. Hoboken, N. J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Cilliers, Elizelle J., Emma Diemont, Derk-Jan Stobbelaar, and Wim Timmermans. 2011. Sustainable green urban planning: The workbench spatial quality method. Journal of Place Management and Development 4 (2): 214. Cilliers, Elizelle Juaneé, and Wim Timmermans. 2013. Approaching value added planning in the green environment. Journal of Place Management and Development 6 (2): 144. Cilliers, Elizelle Juaneé, Emma Diemont, Derk-Jan Stobbelaar, and Wim Timmermans. 2010. Sustainable green urban planning: The green credit tool. Journal of Place Management and Development 3 (1): 57. Cilliers, Sarel, Juaneé Cilliers, Rina Lubbe, and Stefan Siebert. 2013. Ecosystem services of urban green spaces in African countries—perspectives and challenges. Urban Ecosystems 16 (4): 681-702. Clayton, Susan, and Gene Myers. 2009. Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, Ltd. Cobbah, Josiah. 2017. 2011. Bringing About Change in Local Government: The Leader as Change Agent. In Decentralization in Ghana. Accra: Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration. Cobbinah, Patrick B., and Clifford Amoako. 2012. Urban sprawl and the loss of peri-urban land in Kumasi, Ghana. International Journal of Social and Human Sciences 6 (388): e397. Cobbinah, Patrick Brandful, and George Kwadwo Anane. 2016. Climate change adaptation in rural Ghana: Indigenous perceptions and strategies. Climate and Development 8 (2): 169- 78. Cobbinah, Patrick Brandful, and Honorata Nsomah Aboagye. 2017. A Ghanaian twist to urban sprawl. Land Use Policy 61: 231-241.

291

Cobbinah, Patrick Brandful, and Nelson Nyabanyi N-yanbini. 2019. Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Ghana: The Spatial Planning Dimension. In The Geography of Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Africa, pp. 421-450. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Cobbinah, Patrick Brandful, and Rhoda Mensah Darkwah. 2016. African urbanism: The geography of urban greenery. Urban Forum 27 (2): 149-65. Cobbinah, Patrick Brandful, and Rockson Niminga-Beka. 2017a. Urbanisation in Ghana: Residential land use under siege in Kumasi central. Cities 60: 388-401. Cobbinah, Patrick Brandful, Eric Gaisie, and Lucia Owusu-Amponsah. 2015b. Peri-urban morphology and indigenous livelihoods in Ghana. Habitat International 50: 120-9. Cobbinah, Patrick Brandful, Michael Odei Erdiaw-Kwasie, and Paul Amoateng. 2015a. Africa's urbanization: Implications for sustainable development. Cities 47: 62-72. Cobbinah, Patrick. 2017. Managing cities and resolving conflicts: Local people's attitudes towards urban planning in Kumasi, Ghana. Land use Policy, 68, 222-231. DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.050 Codjoe, Samuel Nii Ardey, George Owusu, and Virginia Burkett. 2014. Perception, experience, and indigenous knowledge of climate change and variability: The case of Accra, a Sub- Saharan African city. Regional Environmental Change 14 (1): 369-83. Cohen-Shacham, Emmanuelle, Gretchen Marie Walters, Stewart Maginnis, Christine Janzen. 2016. Nature-based solutions to address societal challenges. Gland, Switzerland. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-036.pdf Colding, Johan. 2012. Creating incentives for increased public engagement in ecosystem management through urban commons. In: Boyd, E. and Folke, C. (Eds), Adapting institutions: governance, complexity and social-ecological resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 101–124. Conway, Declan, and E. Lisa F. Schipper. 2011. Adaptation to climate change in Africa: Challenges and opportunities identified from Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change 21 (1): 227-37. Cooke, Philip, Clare Davies, and Rob Wilson. 2002. Innovation advantages of cities: From knowledge to equity in five basic steps. European Planning Studies 10 (2): 233-50. Corfee-Morlot, Jan, Ian Cochran, Stéphane Hallegatte, and Pierre-Jonathan Teasdale. 2011. Multilevel risk governance and urban adaptation policy. Climatic Change 104 (1): 169- 97. Cornelis, Johnny, and Martin Hermy. 2004. Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (4): 385-401. Cornelis, Johnny, and Martin Hermy. 2004. Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning 69(4): 385-401. Corrigan, Michelle P. 2011. Growing what you eat: Developing community gardens in Baltimore, Maryland. Applied Geography 31(4): 1232-1241. Cosens, Barbara A. 2013. Legitimacy, adaptation, and resilience in ecosystem management. Ecology and Society 18 (1): 3.

292

Coulthard, Sarah. 2008. Adapting to environmental change in artisanal fisheries—Insights from a south Indian lagoon. Global Environmental Change 18 (3): 479-89. Coyle, Kevin. 2005. Environmental literacy in America: What ten years of NEETF/Roper research and related studies say about environmental literacy in the US. National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. [online: Accessed on August 24, 2018] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED522820.pdf Crabbé, P., and M. Robin. 2006. Institutional adaptation of water resource infrastructures to climate change in eastern Ontario. Climatic Change 78 (1): 103-33. Cramer, Duncan, and Dennis Howitt. 2004. The SAGE Dictionary of Statistics. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857020123. Cumming, Meg S., and Wanda Wesolowska. 2004. Habitat separation in a species-rich assemblage of jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) in a suburban study site in Zimbabwe. Journal of Zoology 262 (1): 1-10. da Silva, Jo, Sam Kernaghan, and Andrés Luque. 2012. A systems approach to meeting the challenges of urban climate change. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 4 (2): 125-45. Dallimer, Martin, Zhiyao Tang, Peter R. Bibby, Paul Brindley, Kevin J. Gaston, and Zoe G. Davies. 2011. Temporal changes in greenspace in a highly urbanized region. Biology Letters 7 (5): 763-6. Damsø, Tue, Tyge Kjær, and Thomas Budde Christensen. 2017. Implementation of local climate action plans: Copenhagen – towards a carbon-neutral capital. Journal of Cleaner Production 167 : 406-15. Darkwah, Rhoda M., and Patrick B. Cobbinah. 2014. Stewardship of urban greenery in an era of global urbanization. International Journal of Environmental, Ecological, Geological and Geophysical Engineering 8 (10): 671-674. Darkwah, Rhoda Mensah, Patrick Brandful Cobbinah, and Prince Aboagye Anokye. 2018. Contextualising urban resilience in Ghana: Local perspectives and experiences. Geoforum 94 : 12-23. Darwall, W., Kevin Smith, David Allen, Robert Holland, Ian Harrison, and Emma Brooks. (eds.). 2011. The Diversity of Life in African Freshwaters: Under Water, Under Threat. An Analysis of the Status and Distribution of Freshwater Species throughout Mainland Africa. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Cambridge, UK, and Gland, Switzerland, 348 pp. Dasgupta, Aisha, and Angela Baschieri. 2010. Vulnerability to climate change in rural Ghana: Mainstreaming climate change in poverty-reduction strategies. Journal of International Development 22 (6): 803-20. De Sousa, Christopher A. 2003. Turning brownfields into green space in the city of Toronto. Landscape and Urban Planning 62 (4): 181-98. De Vaus, David. A. 2001. Research design in social research. London: SAGE.

293

Declet-Barreto, Juan, Anthony J. Brazel, Chris A. Martin, Winston T. L. Chow, and Sharon L. Harlan. 2013. Creating the park cool island in an inner-city neighborhood: Heat mitigation strategy for Phoenix, AZ. Urban Ecosystems 16 (3): 617-35. Dei, George JS. 1994. Indigenous African knowledge systems: local traditions of sustainable forestry. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 14 (1): 28-41. Deng, Jinyang, Kathryn G. Arano, Chad Pierskalla, and Joseph McNeel. 2010. Linking urban forests and urban tourism: a case of Savannah, Georgia. Tourism Analysis 15 (2): 167- 181. Denton, Fatima, Thomas J. Wilbanks, Achala C. Abeysinghe, Ian Burton, Qingzhu Gao, Maria Carmen Lemos, Toshihiko Masui, Karen L. O’Brien, and Koko Warner. 2014. Climate- resilient pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1101-1131. Depietri, Yaella, Fabrice G. Renaud, and Giorgos Kallis. 2012. Heat waves and floods in urban areas: A policy-oriented review of ecosystem services. Sustainability Science 7 (1): 95- 107. Deressa, Temesgen Tadesse, Rashid M. Hassan, Claudia Ringler, Tekie Alemu, and Mahmud Yesuf. 2009. Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile basin of Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change 19 (2): 248-55. Deri, Andrea and Munawwar Alam. 2008. Local Governments and Climate Change. Commonwealth Secretariat Discussion Paper, No. 2, Commonwealth Secretariat, London. Accessed on 22nd August 2018. https://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/docserver/5k3w8fb9pc31- en.pdf?expires=1555958780&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=45637DCED571A662 499D86D264C57E6F Desanker, Pual, Christopher Magadza, et al. 2001: Africa. In: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, and D.J. Dokken (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 487-531 Deslatte, Aaron, and William L. Swann. 2016. is the price right? gauging the marketplace for local sustainable policy tools. Journal of Urban Affairs 38 (4): 581-96. Dessai, Suraje, Karen O’Brien, and Mike Hulme. 2007. Editorial: On uncertainty and climate change. Global Environmental Change 17 (1): 1-3.

294

Dewulf, A. 2013. Contrasting frames in policy debates on climate change adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4 (4): 321-30. Dhar, Tapan K., and Luna Khirfan. 2017. A multi-scale and multi-dimensional framework for enhancing the resilience of urban form to climate change. Urban Climate 19 : 72-91. Diko, Stephen Kofi and Ansah Akrofi Akrofi. 2013. Optimizing Property Rate Returns for Urban Development in Ghana, Using Geographic Information Systems. In Allison M. Garland (Eds) Innovation in Urban Development: Incremental Housing, Big Data, and Gender. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. pp. 146 –165. Diko, Stephen Kofi. 2018. Toward Integration: Managing the Divergence Between National Climate Change Interventions and Urban Planning in Ghana. In Adriana Galderisi and Angela Colucci (Eds), Smart, Resilient and Transition Cities: Emerging Approaches and Tools for a Climate-Sensitive Urban Development. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc. pp. 141-152 Dinye, Romanus., Edusei, Joseph. and King, Rudith. S. 1987. District Resources Development Handbook: Kumasi District. Kumasi: University of Science and Technology, Department of Housing and Planning Research. Dodman, David, and David Satterthwaite. 2008. Institutional capacity, climate change adaptation and the urban poor. IDS Bulletin 39 (4): 67-74. Dodman, David, and Diana Mitlin. 2013. Challenges for community‐based adaptation: discovering the potential for transformation. Journal of International Development 25 (5): 640-659. Dodman, David. 2008. Against the tide: climate change and high-risk cities. IIED Briefing Papers. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. http://pubs.iied.org/17042IIED/ Doll, Christopher N. H., Magali Dreyfus, Sohail Ahmad, and Osman Balaban. 2013. Institutional framework for urban development with co-benefits: The Indian experience. Journal of Cleaner Production 58 : 121-9. Donovan, Rossa G., Hope E. Stewart, Susan M. Owen, A. Robert Mackenzie, and C. Nicholas Hewitt. 2005. Development and application of an urban tree air quality score for photochemical pollution episodes using the Birmingham, United Kingdom, area as a case study. Environmental Science and Technology 39 (17): 6730-8. Douglas, Ian, Kurshid Alam, Maryanne Maghenda, Yasmin Mcdonnell, Louise Mclean, and Jack Campbell. 2008. Unjust waters: Climate change, flooding, and the urban poor in Africa. Environment & Urbanization 20 (1): 187-205. Douglas, Owen, Mick Lennon, and Mark Scott. 2017. Green space benefits for health and wellbeing: A life-course approach for urban planning, design and management. Cities 66: 53- 62. Dow, Kirstin, Frans Berkhout, Benjamin L. Preston, Richard JT Klein, Guy Midgley, and M. Rebecca Shaw. 2013. Commentary: Limits to adaptation. Nature Climate Change 3 (4): 305-7.

295

Drisko, James W., Tina Maschi. 2016. Content analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Droste, Nils, Christoph Schröter-Schlaack, Bernd Hansjürgens, and Horst Zimmermann. 2017. Implementing Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Areas: Financing and Governance Aspects. In: Kabisch, Nadja, Horst Korn, Jutta Stadler, and Aletta Bon. Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas: Linkages between science, policy and practice. Cham, Switzerland: SpringerOpen. pp. 307 – 322. Dumenu, William Kwadwo and Elizabeth Asantewaa Obeng. 2016. Climate change and rural communities in Ghana: Social vulnerability, impacts, adaptations and policy implications. Environmental Science and Policy 55 : 208-17. Duriau, Vincent J., Rhonda K. Reger, and Michael D. Pfarrer. 2007. A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods 10 (1): 5-34. Eakin, Hallie C., and Anthony Patt. 2011. Are adaptation studies effective, and what can enhance their practical impact? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2 (2): 141-153. Eakin, Hallie, and Kirsten Appendini. 2008. Livelihood change, farming, and managing flood risk in the Lerma valley, Mexico. Agriculture and Human Values 25 (4): 555-66. Ebert, Suzanne, Orieta Hulea, and David Strobel. 2009. Floodplain restoration along the lower Danube: A climate change adaptation case study. Climate and Development 1 (3): 212-9. Economist Intelligence Unit. 2010. African Green City Index: Assessing the environmental performance of Africa’s major cities. https://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/features/greencityindex_international/all/en/pdf/report _africa_en.pdf Eduful, Michael, and David Shively. 2015. Perceptions of urban land use and degradation of water bodies in Kumasi, Ghana. Habitat International 50: 206-13. Eguavoen, Irit. 2010. Lawbreakers and livelihood makers: Youth-specific poverty and ambiguous livelihood strategies in Africa. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies 5 (3): 268-273. Ehwi, Richmond J., and Lewis A. Asante. 2016. Ex-post analysis of land title registration in Ghana since 2008 merger: Accra lands commission in perspective." Sage Open 6 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016643351 Eisenack, Klaus, and Rebecca Stecker. 2012. A framework for analyzing climate change adaptations as actions. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 17 (3): 243-60. Eisenack, Klaus. 2014. The inefficiency of private adaptation to pollution in the presence of endogenous market structure. Environmental and Resource Economics 57 (1): 81-99. Eitzinger, Anton, Peter Läderach, Audberto Quiroga, Antonio Pantoja, and Jason Gordon. 2011. Future Climate Scenarios for Kenya’s Tea Growing Areas. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/Climate_change/kenya/CIAT_Future- Climate-Scenarios-for-tea-growing-areas2011.pdf

296

Ekstrom, Julia A., and Susanne C. Moser. 2014. Identifying and overcoming barriers in urban climate adaptation: Case study findings from the san Francisco bay area, California, USA. Urban Climate 9 : 54-74. Elias, Peter, and Ademola Omojola. 2015. Case study: The challenges of climate change for Lagos, Nigeria. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 13 : 74-8. Ellenwood, Mikaela S., Lisa Dilling, and Jana B. Milford. 2012. Managing united states public lands in response to climate change: A view from the ground up. Environmental Management 49 (5): 954-67. Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 2011. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. 2nd Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eriksen, Siri H., Andrea J. Nightingale, and Hallie Eakin. 2015. Reframing adaptation: The political nature of climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change 35 : 523-33. Ermert, Volker, Andreas H. Fink, Andrew P. Morse, and Heiko Paeth. 2011. The impact of regional climate change on malaria risk due to greenhouse forcing and land-use changes in tropical Africa. Environmental Health Perspectives 120 (1): 77-84. Ernstson, Henrik, Stephan Barthel, Erik Andersson, and Sara T. Borgström. 2010. Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: The case of Stockholm. Ecology and Society 15 (4): 28. Eshleman, Keith N. 2004. Hydrological consequences of land use change: A review of the state- of-science. Esteve, Paloma, Consuelo Varela-Ortega, and Thomas E. Downing. 2018. A stakeholder-based assessment of barriers to climate change adaptation in a water-scarce basin in Spain. Regional Environmental Change 18 (8): 2505-17. Etingoff, Kim. 2016. Urban ecology: Strategies for green infrastructure and land use. New Jersey: Apple Academic Press Toronto. Evans, Louisa S., Christina C. Hicks, W. Neil Adger, Jon Barnett, Allison L. Perry, Pedro Fidelman, and Renae Tobin. 2016. Structural and psycho-social limits to climate change adaptation in the great barrier reef region. Plos One 11 (3): e0150575. Fan, Peilei, Lihua Xu, Wenze Yue, and Jiquan Chen. 2017. Accessibility of public urban green space in an urban periphery: The case of Shanghai. Landscape and Urban Planning 165: 177-92. Fankhauser, Samuel. 2009. Copenhagen Consensus on Climate: A perspective paper on adaptation as a response to climate change. Copenhagen Consensus Centre: Copenhagen. https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/pp_adaptation_fankhauser_v.3. 0.pdf Fein, Albert. 1972. Frederick Law Olmsted and the American environmental tradition. New York: G. Braziller. Feizizadeh, Bakhtiar, and Thomas Blaschke. 2013. Examining urban heat island relations to land use and air pollution: Multiple endmember spectral mixture analysis for thermal remote

297

sensing. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 6 (3): 1749-56. Ferketic, J. Stephen, Andrew M. Latimer, and John A. Silander. 2010. Conservation justice in metropolitan cape town: A study at the Macassar dunes conservation area. Biological Conservation 143 (5): 1168-74. Field, Christopher B., Vicente R. Barros, Katharine J. Mach, Michael D. Mastrandrea, Maarten K. van Aalst (Netherlands), W. Neil Adger, Douglas J. Arent, Jonathon Barnett, Richard A. Betts, T. Eren Bilir, Joern Birkmann (Germany), JoAnn Carmin, Dave D. Chadee, Andrew J. Challinor, Monalisa Chatterjee et al. 2014: Technical summary. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 35-94. Figueiredo, Patricia, and Patricia E. Perkins. 2013. Women and water management in times of climate change: Participatory and inclusive processes. Journal of Cleaner Production 60: 188-94. Firehock, Karen and R. Andrew Walker. 2015. Strategic green infrastructure planning: A multi- scale approach. Washington, DC: Island Press. Fischer, Burnell C., and Brian C. Steed. 2008. Street trees: a misunderstood common pool resource. Paper presented at the International Society of Arboriculture: 84th Annual Conference and Trade Show, St. Louis, Missouri. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL, July 26-30, 2008. [online: Accessed on August 10, 2018]. https://urbanforestry.indiana.edu/doc/publications/2008-street-trees.pdf Florgård, Clas, and Oskar Forsberg. 2006. Residents’ use of remnant natural vegetation in the residential area of Järvafältet, Stockholm. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 5 (2): 83- 92. Flugman, Evan, Pallab Mozumder, and Timothy Randhir. 2012. Facilitating adaptation to global climate change: Perspectives from experts and decision makers serving the Florida Keys. Climatic Change 112 (3): 1015-35. Folke, Carl. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 253-67. Ford, James D., and Diana King. 2015. Coverage and framing of climate change adaptation in the media: A review of influential north American newspapers during 1993– 2013. Environmental Science and Policy 48 : 137-46. Ford, James D., Barry Smit, and Johanna Wandel. 2006. Vulnerability to climate change in the arctic: A case study from arctic bay, Canada. Global Environmental Change 16 (2): 145- 60. 298

Ford, James D., Lea Berrang-Ford, and Jaclyn Paterson. 2011. A systematic review of observed climate change adaptation in developed nations: A letter. Climatic Change 106 (2): 327- 36. Ford, James David, and Lea Berrang-Ford. 2011. Climate change adaptation in developed nations: From theory to practice. Vol. 42. New York; Dordrecht;: Springer. Fox, Sean. 2012. Urbanization as a global historical process: Theory and evidence from sub- Saharan Africa. Population and Development Review 38 (2): 285-310. Frank, Aline, Glenn T. Howe, Christoph Sperisen, Peter Brang, J. Bradley St Clair, Dirk R. Schmatz, and Caroline Heiri. 2017. Risk of genetic maladaptation due to climate change in three major European tree species. Global Change Biology 23 (12): 5358-71. Frankie, Gordon W., Robbin W. Thorp, Jennifer Hernandez, Mark Rizzardi, Barbara Ertter, Jaime C. Pawelek, Sara L. Witt, Mary Schindler, Rollin Coville, and Victoria A. Wojcik. 2009. Native bees are a rich natural resource in urban California gardens. California Agriculture 63 (3): 113-20. Frantzeskaki, Niki, and Nico Tilie. 2014. The dynamics of urban ecosystem governance in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ambio 43 (4): 542-55. Frederick Law Olmsted.1993. Yosemite and the Mariposa grove: a preliminary report, 1865. Yosemite Assn. [Online: Accessed on November 28, 2018]. https://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/olmsted/report.html Freier, Korbinian P., Rainer Bruggemann, Jürgen Scheffran, Manfred Finckh, and Uwe A. Schneider. 2012. Assessing the predictability of future livelihood strategies of pastoralists in semi-arid Morocco under climate change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79 (2): 371-382. Fröde, Alexander, Michael Scholze, and Nadia Manasfi. 2013. Taking a climate perspective on development: GIZ's climate proofing for development approach. Climate and Development 5 (2): 160-164. Fröhlich, Jannes and Jörg Knieling. 2013. Conceptualizing Climate Change Governance. In Jörg Knieling and Walter Leal Filho (Eds.) Climate change governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 9-26. Fuller, Richard A., and Kevin J. Gaston. 2009. The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biology Letters 5 (3): 352-5. Furukawa, Takuya, Samuel K. Kiboi, Patrick B. Chalo Mutiso, and Kazue Fujiwara. 2016. Multiple use patterns of medicinal trees in an urban forest in Nairobi, Kenya. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 18: 34-40. Fuseini, Issahaka, and Jaco Kemp. 2015. A review of spatial planning in Ghana’s socio-economic development trajectory: A sustainable development perspective. Land use Policy 47: 309- 20. Füssel, Hans-Martin. 2007. Adaptation planning for climate change: Concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustainability Science 2 (2): 265-75.

299

Gaffikin, Frank, Malachy Mceldowney, and Ken Sterrett. 2010. Creating shared public space in the contested city: The role of urban design. Journal of Urban Design 15 (4): 493-513. Galaz, Victor. 2005. Social-ecological resilience and social conflict: Institutions and strategic adaptation in Swedish water management. Ambio 34 (7): 567-72. Garrelts, Heiko, and Hellmuth Lange. 2011. Path dependencies and path change in complex fields of action: Climate adaptation policies in Germany in the realm of flood risk management. Ambio 40 (2): 200-9. Garvin, Eugenia C., Carolyn C. Cannuscio, and Charles C. Branas. 2013. Greening vacant lots to reduce violent crime: A randomized controlled trial. Injury Prevention : Journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention 19 (3): 198-203. Gasper, Rebecca, Andrew Blohm, and Matthias Ruth. 2011. Social and economic impacts of climate change on the urban environment. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3 (3): 150-7. Gatesire, Theodette, Donat. Nsabimana, Aisha. Nyiramana, Jean Leonard Seburanga, Melanie O. Mirville. 2014. Bird diversity and distribution in relation to urban landscape types in northern Rwanda. The Scientific World Journal 2014: 157-824. Geiger, Nathaniel, and Janet K. Swim. 2016. Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology 47 : 79-90. Geist, Helmut, William McConnell, Eric F. Lambin, Emilio Moran, Diogenes Alves, Thomas Rudel. 2006. Causes and Trajectories of Land-Use/Cover Change. In: Lambin E.F., Geist H. (eds) Land-Use and Land-Cover Change. Global Change - The IGBP Series. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32202-7_3 Ghana Statistical Service. 2013. 2010 Population and Housing Census. National Analytical Report. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service. Retrieved from http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010phc/National_Analytical_Report.pdf Ghana Statistical Service. 2014. 2010 Population and Housing Census. District Analytical Report. Kumasi Metropolitan Area. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service. Retrieved from http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010_District_Report/Ashanti/KMA.pdf Gifford, Robert D. and Angel K. S. Chen. 2017. Why aren't we taking action? psychological barriers to climate-positive food choices. Climatic Change 140 (2): 165-78. Gifford, Robert, and Louise A. Comeau. 2011. Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change 21 (4): 1301-7. Gifford, Robert. 2011. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist 66 (4): 290-302. Glaser, Barney J. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press. Glaser, Barney J. 2005. The Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.

300

Goddard, Mark A., Andrew J. Dougill, and Tim G. Benton. 2010. Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25 (2): 90-8. Goodfellow, Tom. 2013. Planning and development regulation amid rapid urban growth: Explaining divergent trajectories in Africa. Geoforum 48: 83-93. Gordon McGranahan and David Satterthwaite. 2014. Urbanisation concepts and trends. IIED Working Paper. IIED, London. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10709IIED.pdf Gordon, Brian S. 2018. Chi-Square Test. In Bruce B. Frey (Eds.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. 4 vols. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139. Govindarajulu, Dhanapal. 2014. Urban green space planning for climate adaptation in Indian cities. Urban Climate 10: 35-41. Grahn, Patrik and Ulrika K. Stigsdotter. 2010. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 94 (3–4): 264-275 Gray, Judy H., and Iain L. Densten. 1998. Integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis using latent and manifest variables. Quality and Quantity 32 (4): 419-31. Green, Olivia Odom, Ahjond S. Garmestani, Sandra Albro, Natalie C. Ban, Adam Berland, Caitlin E. Burkman, Mary M. Gardiner, et al. 2016. Adaptive governance to promote ecosystem services in urban green spaces. Urban Ecosystems 19 (1): 77-93. Grimm, Nancy B., Stanley H. Faeth, Nancy E. Golubiewski, Charles L. Redman, Jianguo Wu, Xuemei Bai, and John M. Briggs. 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319 (5864): 756-60. Grothmann, Torsten, and Anthony Patt. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change 15 (3): 199-213. Gulsrud, Natalie M., Saskia Gooding, and Cecil C. Konijnendijk van Den Bosch. 2013. Green space branding in Denmark in an era of neoliberal governance. Urban forestry & urban greening 12 (3): 330-337. Gupta, Kshama, Pramod Kumar, S. K. Pathan, and K. P. Sharma. 2012. Urban neighborhood green index – A measure of green spaces in urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 105 (3): 325-35. Guthiga, Paul, and Andrew Newsham. 2011. Meteorologists meeting rainmakers: Indigenous knowledge and climate policy processes in Kenya. IDS Bulletin 42 (3): 104-9. Gwedla, Nanamhla, and Charlie M. Shackleton. 2015. The development visions and attitudes towards urban forestry of officials responsible for greening in South African towns." Land Use Policy 42: 17-26. Gwedla, Nanamhla, and Charlie M. Shackleton. 2017. Population size and development history determine street tree distribution and composition within and between eastern cape towns, south Africa. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 25: 11-8.

301

Haaland, Christine, van den Bosch, and Cecil Konijnendijk. 2015. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 14 (4): 760-71. Haase, Annegret. 2017. The Contribution of Nature-Based Solutions to Socially Inclusive Urban Development– Some Reflections from a Social-environmental Perspective. In: Kabisch, Nadja, Horst Korn, Jutta Stadler, and Aletta Bon. Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas: Linkages between science, policy and practice. Cham, Switzerland: SpringerOpen. pp. 221 - 236 Haase, Dagmar, Nadja Kabisch, and Annegret Haase. 2013. Endless urban growth? on the mismatch of population, household and urban land area growth and its effects on the urban debate. PLoS One 8 (6): e66531. Håkon Inderberg, Tor. 2011. Institutional constraints to adaptive capacity: Adaptability to climate change in the Norwegian electricity sector. Local Environment 16 (4): 303-17. Hall, Jim W., Paul B. Sayers, and Richard J. Dawson. 2005. National-scale assessment of current and future flood risk in England and wales. Natural Hazards 36 (1): 147-64. Hallegatte, Stéphane. 2009. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environmental Change 19 (2): 240-7. Hameso, Seyoum. 2018. Farmers and policy-makers’ perceptions of climate change in Ethiopia. Climate and Development 10 (4): 347-59. Hammill, Anne, and Thomas Tanner. 2011. Harmonizing climate risk management: Adaptation screening and assessment tools for development co-operation. Vol. no.36. Paris: OECD Publishing. Hansen, Rieke, Niki Frantzeskaki, Timon McPhearson, Emily Rall, Nadja Kabisch, Anna Kaczorowska, Jaan-Henrik Kain, Martina Artmann, and Stephan Pauleit. 2015. The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of european and American cities. Ecosystem Services 12 : 228-46. Hardoy, Jorgelina, and Patricia Romero Lankao. 2011. Latin American cities and climate change: Challenges and options to mitigation and adaptation responses. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3 (3): 158-63. Harries, Tim, and Edmund Penning-Rowsell. 2011. Victim pressure, institutional inertia and climate change adaptation: The case of flood risk. Global Environmental Change 21 (1): 188-97. Harrison, Carolyn, and Gail Davies. 2002. Conserving biodiversity that matters: Practitioners' perspectives on brownfield development and urban nature conservation in London. Journal of Environmental Management 65 (1): 95-108. Harrison, Gareth P., and H. (Bert) W. Whittington. 2002. Susceptibility of the Batoka gorge hydroelectric scheme to climate change. Journal of Hydrology 264 (1): 230-41. Hay, John, and Nobuo Mimura. 2006. Supporting climate change vulnerability and adaptation assessments in the Asia-pacific region: An example of sustainability science. Sustainability Science 1 (1): 23-35. 302

Hebbert, Michael, and Vladimir Jankovic. 2013. Cities and climate change: The precedents and why they matter. Urban Studies50 (7): 1332-47. Henderson, J. Vernon, and Sebastian Kriticos. 2018. The development of the African system of cities. Annual Review of Economics, Vol 10 10 (1): 287-314. Henderson, Joan C. 2013. Urban parks and green spaces in Singapore. Managing Leisure 18 (3): 213-25. Heynen, Nik, and Harold A. Perkins. 2005. Scalar dialectics in green: Urban private property and the contradictions of the neoliberalization of nature. Capitalism Nature Socialism 16 (1): 99-113. Heynen, Nik. 2006. Green urban political ecologies: Toward a better understanding of inner-city environmental change. Environment and Planning A 38 (3): 499-516. Hightower, Allen, Carl Kinkade, Patrick M. Nguku, Amwayi Anyangu, David Mutonga, Jared Omolo, M. Kariuki Njenga et al. 2012. Relationship of climate, geography, and geology to the incidence of Rift Valley fever in Kenya during the 2006–2007 outbreak. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene 86, no. (2): 373-380. Hinchliffe, Steve. 1996. Helping the earth begins at home the social construction of socio- environmental responsibilities. Global Environmental Change 6 (1): 53-62. Hinkel, Jochen, Jeroen C J H Aerts, Sally Brown, Jose A. Jiménez, Daniel Lincke, Robert J. Nicholls, Paolo Scussolini, Agustín Sanchez-Arcilla, Athanasios Vafeidis, and Kwasi Appeaning Addo. 2018. The ability of societies to adapt to twenty-first-century sea-level rise. Nature Climate Change 8 (7): 570-8. Hinkel, Jochen. 2011. “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: Towards a clarification of the science-policy interface. Global Environmental Change 21 (1): 198-208. Hisali, Eria, Patrick Birungi, and Faisal Buyinza. 2011. Adaptation to climate change in Uganda: Evidence from micro-level data. Global Environmental Change 21 (4): 1245-61. Hoerling, Martin, James Hurrell, Jon Eischeid, and Adam Phillips. 2006. Detection and attribution of twentieth-century northern and southern African rainfall change. Journal of Climate 19 (16): 3989-4008. Hoffman, Andrew J., and Rebecca Henn. 2008. Overcoming the social and psychological barriers to green building. Organization and Environment 21 (4): 390-419. Holloway, Tracey, Jonathan A. Patz, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, and Jonathan A. Foley. 2005. Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature 438 (7066): 310-7. Hoornweg, Daniel A. 2011. Cities and climate change: Responding to an urgent agenda. Washington, D.C: World Bank. Hope, Diane, Corinna Gries, Weixing Zhu, William F. Fagan, Charles L. Redman, Nancy B. Grimm, Amy L. Nelson, Chris Martin, and Ann Kinzig. 2003. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100 (15): 8788-92.

303

Hope, Kempe Ronald. 2011. Climate change in the context of urban development in Africa." In Climate Change and Sustainable Urban Development in Africa and Asia, pp. 37-55. Springer, Dordrecht. Hughes, Sara. 2015. A meta-analysis of urban climate change adaptation planning in the U.S. Urban Climate 14: 17-29. Hughes, Sara. 2017. The politics of urban climate change policy: Toward a research agenda. Urban Affairs Review 53 (2): 362-80. Huh, Taewook, Yongsung Park, and Ji Yang. 2017. Multilateral governance for climate change adaptation in S. Korea: The mechanisms of formulating adaptation policies. Sustainability 9 (8): 1364. Huitema, Dave, Erik Mostert, Wouter Egas, Sabine Moellenkamp, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, and Resul Yalcin. 2009. Adaptive water governance: Assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecology and Society 14 (1): 26. Hulme, Michael, Adger, Neil, Dessai, Suraje, Lorenzoni, Irene, Naess, Lars and Wreford, Anita. 2007. Limits and barriers to adaptation: four propositions. Working Paper. Hulme, Mike. 2010. Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Global Environmental Change 20 (4): 558-64. Hunt, Alistair, and Paul Watkiss. 2011. Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: A review of the literature. Climatic Change 104 (1): 13-49. Huq, Saleemul, and Hannah Reid. 2004. Mainstreaming adaptation in development. IDS Bulletin 35 (3): 15-21. Huq, Saleemul. 2011: Improving Information for Community-Based Adaptation. IIED Opinion, Lessons from Adaptation in Practice Series, October 2011, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK. http://pubs.iied.org/17103IIED/ Ifejika Speranza, Chinwe, Boniface Kiteme, Peter Ambenje, Urs Wiesmann, and Samuel Makali. 2010. Indigenous knowledge related to climate variability and change: Insights from droughts in semi-arid areas of former Makueni district, Kenya. Climatic Change 100 (2): 295-315. Institute of Local Government Studies. 2010. A Guide to District Assemblies in Ghana. Accra: Institute of Local Government Studies and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Ghana. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ghana/10487.pdf International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. N.A. Cities for Climate Protection Milestone Guide. http://archive.iclei.org/documents/USA/toolkit/CCP_Toolkit.pdf IPCC, 2007a. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 304

Change [Watson, R.T. and the Core Writing Team (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA, 398 pp. IPCC. 2007b. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-22. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf Issahaku, Abdul‐Rahaman, Benjamin Betey Campion, and Regina Edziyie. 2016. Rainfall and temperature changes and variability in the Upper East Region of Ghana. Earth and Space Science 3 (8): 284-294. James, Philip, Konstantinos Tzoulas, M. D. Adams, Alan Barber, John Box, Juergen Breuste, Thomas Elmqvist et al. 2009. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 8 (2): 65-75. James, Rachel, and Richard Washington. 2013. Changes in African temperature and precipitation associated with degrees of global warming. Climatic Change 117 (4): 859-72. Jantarasami, Lesley C., Joshua J. Lawler, and Craig W. Thomas. 2010. Institutional barriers to climate change adaptation in U.S. national parks and forests. Ecology and Society 15 (4): 33. Jiang, Ping, Yihui Chen, Yong Geng, Wenbo Dong, Bing Xue, Bin Xu, and Wanxin Li. 2013. Analysis of the co-benefits of climate change mitigation and air pollution reduction in china. Journal of Cleaner Production 58 : 130-7. Jim, Chi Yung, and Wendy Y. Chen. 2009. Value of scenic views: Hedonic assessment of private housing in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning 91 (4): 226-34. Jim, Chi Yung, Yuhong Tian, and Yan Tao. 2012. Challenges and strategies for greening the compact city of Hong Kong. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 138 (2): 101- 9. Jim, Chi Yung. 2004. Green-space preservation and allocation for sustainable greening of compact cities. Cities 21 (4): 311-20. Johnston, Mark, and Lia D. Shimada. 2004. urban forestry in a multicultural society. Journal of Arboriculture 30 (3): 185.

305

Jones, Lindsey, and Emily Boyd. 2011. Exploring social barriers to adaptation: Insights from western Nepal. Global Environmental Change 21 (4): 1262-74. Jones, Lindsey. 2010. Overcoming Social Barriers to Adaptation. Overseas Development Institute, Background Note. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2646812 Jones, Lindsey. 2012: Social barriers to adaptation: exploring implications and identifying options for adaptation policy across the SADC Region. In: Overcoming Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation Implementation in Southern Africa [Masters, L. and L. Duff (eds.)]. Africa Institute of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 41-60. Juhola, Sirkku, Erik Glaas, Björn-Ola Linnér, Tina-Simone Neset. 2016. Redefining maladaptation. Environmental Science and Policy 55 (1): 135-40. Kabisch, Nadja, and Dagmar Haase. 2013. Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990– 2006. Landscape and Urban Planning 110: 113-22. Kabisch, Nadja, Horst Korn, Jutta Stadler, and Aletta Bonn. 2017. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas—Linkages Between Science, Policy and Practice. In: Kabisch N., Korn H., Stadler J., Bonn A. (eds) Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions. Springer: Cham, Switzerland: Springer Open. Kabisch, Nadja, Niki Frantzeskaki, Stephan Pauleit, Sandra Naumann, McKenna Davis, Martina Artmann, Dagmar Haase et al. 2016. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society 21(2). [online: Accessed on August 10, 2018]. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 Kabisch, Nadja. 2015. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning—The case of Berlin, Germany. Land use Policy 42: 557-67. Kabubo-Mariara, Jane. 2009. Global warming and livestock husbandry in Kenya: Impacts and adaptations. Ecological Economics 68 (7): 1915-24. Käkönen, Mira, Louis Lebel, Kamilla Karhunmaa, Va Dany, and Thuon Try. 2014. Rendering climate change governable in the least-developed countries: Policy narratives and expert technologies in Cambodia. In Forum for Development studies 41(3) 351-376. Kalame, Fobissie Blese, Olavi Luukkanen, and Markku Kanninen. 2011. Making the national adaptation programme of action (NAPA) more responsive to the livelihood needs of tree planting farmers, drawing on previous experience in dryland Sudan. Forests 2 (4): 948- 60. Kaoma, Humphrey, and Charlie M. Shackleton. 2014. Collection of urban tree products by households in poorer residential areas of three South African towns. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 13 (2): 244-52. Karkkainen, Bradley C. 2003. Adaptive ecosystem management and regulatory penalty defaults: Toward a bounded pragmatism. Minnesota Law Review 87 (4): 943. Kasanga, Kasim. 2016. Land tenure, resource access and decentralization: the political economy of land tenure in Ghana. In Managing land tenure and resource access in West Africa:

306

Proceedings of a regional workshop held at Gorée, Sénégal, 18-22 November 1996. London: IIED, 1997, p. 84-106. Kumasi, Ghana: UST. Kassam, Amir, Theodor Friedrich, Rolf Derpsch, Rabah Lahmar, Rachid Mrabet, Gottlieb Basch, Emilio J. González-Sánchez, and Rachid Serraj. 2012. Conservation agriculture in the dry Mediterranean climate. Field Crops Research 132: 7-17. Kattwinkel, Mira, Robert Biedermann, and Michael Kleyer. 2011. Temporary conservation for urban biodiversity. Biological Conservation 144 (9): 2335-43. Keeley, Melissa, Althea Koburger, David P. Dolowitz, Dale Medearis, Darla Nickel, and William Shuster. 2013. Perspectives on the use of green infrastructure for stormwater management in Cleveland and Milwaukee. Environmental Management 51 (6): 1093- 108. Kemp, David B., Kilian Eichenseer, and Wolfgang Kiessling. 2015. Maximum rates of climate change are systematically underestimated in the geological record. Nature Communications 6 (1): 8890. Kertesz, Ruben, Olivia Odom Green, and William D. Shuster. 2014. Modeling the hydrologic and economic efficacy of stormwater utility credit programs for US single family residences. Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research 70 (11): 1746. Kessides, Christine. 2007. The urban transition in Sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and opportunities. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25 (4): 466-485. Kestemont, Bruno, Lise Frendo, and Edwin Zaccai. 2011. Indicators of the impacts of development on environment: A comparison of Africa and Europe. Ecological Indicators 11 (3): 848-56. KfW Development Bank. 2016. Project Information. Accessed on 18th August 2018. https://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/PDF/Entwicklungsfinanzierung/L%C3%A4nder- und-Programme/Subsahara-Afrika/Projekt-Ghana-Governance-EN-2014.pdf Kim, Hyomin, Dong-Kun Lee, and Sunyong Sung. 2016. Effect of urban green spaces and flooded area type on flooding probability. Sustainability (Switzerland) 8 (2): 134-. Kim, J., Duane E. Waliser, Chris A. Mattmann, Cameron E. Goodale, Andrew F. Hart, Paul A. Zimdars, Daniel J. Crichton, et al. 2014. Evaluation of the CORDEX-africa multi-RCM hindcast: Systematic model errors. Climate Dynamics 42 (5): 1189-202. Kirkpatrick, Jamie B., Aidan Davison, and Andrew Harwood. 2013. How tree professionals perceive trees and conflicts about trees in Australia's urban forest. Landscape and Urban Planning 119: 124-30. Kirshen, Paul, Matthias Ruth, and W. Anderson. 2006. Climate’s long-term impacts on urban infrastructures and services: The case of Metro Boston. In: M. Ruth, K. Donaghy and P. Kirshen (eds) Regional Climate Change and Variability: Impacts and Responses, Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, pp.190–252. Kithiia, Justus, and Robyn Dowling. 2010. An integrated city-level planning process to address the impacts of climate change in Kenya: The case of Mombasa. Cities 27 (6): 466-75.

307

Klein, Richard J. T., Robert J. Nicholls, and Frank Thomalla. 2003. Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept? Global Environmental Change B: Environmental Hazards 5 (1): 35-45. Klein, Richard J. T., Sirkku Juhola. 2014. A framework for Nordic actor-oriented climate adaptation research. Environmental Science and Policy 40 : 101-15. Klein, Richard J.T., Huq, Saleemul, Denton, Fatima, Downing, Thomas E., Richels, Richard G., Robinson, John B., Toth, Ferenc L. 2007. Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 745-777. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf Knieling, Jörg and Walter Leal Filho. 2013. Climate Change Governance: The Challenge for Politics and Public Administration, Enterprises and Civil Society. In Jörg Knieling and Walter Leal Filho (Eds.) Climate change governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 1- 8. Knight, Graham, and Josh Greenberg. 2011. Talk of the enemy: Adversarial framing and climate change discourse. Social Movement Studies 10 (4): 323-40. Kniveton, Dominic R., Russell Layberry, Charles Jonathan Roger Williams, and Mika Peck. 2009. Trends in the start of the wet season over Africa. International Journal of Climatology: A Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 29 (9): 1216-1225. Koch, Ingrid Christine, Coleen Vogel, and Zarina Patel. 2007. Institutional dynamics and climate change adaptation in South Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12 (8): 1323-39. Kok, Marcel, and Heleen de Coninck. 2007. Widening the scope of policies to address climate change: Directions for mainstreaming. Environmental Science and Policy 10 (7): 587-99. Kollmuss, Anja, and Julian Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8 (3): 239-. Kong, Fanhua, Haiwei Yin, and Nobukazu Nakagoshi. 2007. Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic price modelling of the amenity value of urban green space: A case study in Jinan city, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (3): 240-52. Kong, Fanhua, Haiwei Yin, Philip James, Lucy R. Hutyra, and Hong S. He. 2014. Effects of spatial pattern of greenspace on urban cooling in a large metropolitan area of eastern china. Landscape and Urban Planning 128 : 35-47. Kooiman, Jan. 2003. Governing as Governance. London: Sage Korah, Prosper Issahaku, and Patrick Brandful Cobbinah. 2017. Juggling through Ghanaian urbanisation: Flood hazard mapping of Kumasi. Geojournal 82 (6): 1195-212. Korah, Prosper Issahaku, and Patrick Brandful Cobbinah. 2019. Institutional Responses to Climate Change Adaptation: Flood Management at the Metropolitan Level in Accra,

308

Ghana. In The Geography of Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Africa, pp. 451-478. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Korah, Prosper Issahaku, Patrick Brandful Cobbinah, Abraham Marshall Nunbogu, and Sarah Gyogluu. 2017. Spatial plans and urban development trajectory in Kumasi, Ghana. Geojournal 82 (6): 1113-34. Korboe, David, and A. Graham Tipple. 1995. Kumasi. Cities 12 (4): 267-74. Koskela, Hille, and Rachel Pain. 2000. Revisiting fear and place: Women's fear of attack and the built environment. Geoforum31 (2): 269-80. Kothari, Chakravanti Rajagopalachari. 2004. Research Methods: Methods and Techniques. 2nd Edition. New Delhi: New Age International Publishers. Kothencz, Gyula, Ronald Kolcsár, Pablo Cabrera-Barona, and Péter Szilassi. 2017. Urban green space perception and its contribution to well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14 (7): 766. Krause, Rachel M. 2011a. Policy Innovation, Intergovernmental Relations, and the Adoption of Climate Protection Initiatives by U.S. Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs 33 (1): 45–60. Krause, Rachel M. 2011b. Symbolic or Substantive Policy? Measuring the Extent of Local Commitment to Climate Protection. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 29 (1): 46–62 Krause, Rachel M. 2012. Political Decision-Making and the Local Provision of Public Goods: The Case of Municipal Climate Protection in the US. Urban Studies 49 (11): 2399–2417. doi:10.1177/0042098011427183. Krellenberg, Kerstin. 2012. A science-policy approach towards local adaptation planning: The case of Santiago de Chile." In Resilient Cities 2, pp. 233-240. Springer, Dordrecht. Krippendorff, Klaus. 2013. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. 3rd ed. London: SAGE. Kronenberg, Jakub. 2015. Why not to green a city? institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 12 : 218-27. Kuhlicke, Christian. 2013. Resilience: A capacity and a myth: Findings from an in-depth case study in disaster management research. Natural Hazards 67 (1): 61-76. Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly. 2006. Metropolitan Medium-Term Development Plan, 2006- 2009. Kumasi: KMA. Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly. 2009. Metropolitan Medium-Term Development Plan, 2010- 2013. Kumasi: KMA. Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly. 2013. Metropolitan Medium-Term Development Plan, 2014- 2017. Kumasi: Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly. Kuo, Frances E. 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture 29 (3): 148-155. Kuruneri-Chitepo, Chiyedza, and Charlie M. Shackleton. 2011. The distribution, abundance and composition of street trees in selected towns of the eastern cape, South Africa. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 10 (3): 247-54.

309

Kuusaana, E. D., and J. A. Eledi. 2015. As the city grows, where do the farmers go? understanding peri-urbanization and food systems in Ghana - evidence from the Tamale Metropolis. Urban Forum 26 (4): 443-65. La Rosa, Daniele. 2014. Accessibility to greenspaces: GIS-based indicators for sustainable planning in a dense urban context. Ecological Indicators 42: 122-34. Läderach, Peter, A. Martinez-Valle, Götz Schroth, and N. Castro. 2013. Predicting the future climatic suitability for cocoa farming of the world’s leading producer countries, Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. Climatic Change 119 (3-4): 841-854. Läderach, Peter, Anton Eitzinger, Armando Martinez and Narioski Castro. 2011a. Predicting the Impact of Climate Change on Cashew Growing Regions in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security Programme (CCAFS) and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), CIAT, Managua, Nicaragua, 29 pp. https://www.africancashewalliance.com/sites/default/files/documents/ghana_ivory_coast _climate_change_and_cashew.pdf Läderach, Peter, Anton Eitzinger, Armando Martínez, and Narioski Castro. 2011b. Predicting the Impact of Climate Change on Cotton Growing Regions in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. Final Report, Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security Programme (CCAFS) and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), CIAT, Managua, Nicaragua, 34 pp. https://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/10/03/document_cw_01.pdf Laderach, Peter, with the collaboration of Anton Eitzinger, Oriana Ovalle, Julian Ramírez and Andy Jarvis. 2010. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in the Kenyan Coffee Sector: Final Report. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia, 42 pp. http://dapa.ciat.cgiar.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/kenyan-coffee- sector.pdf Lambin, Eric F., and Helmut Geist. 2006. Land-use and land-cover change: Local processes and global impacts. Lambin, Eric F., Geist, Helmut J. (Eds.). Berlin: Springer. Lata, Shalini, and Patrick Nunn. 2012. Misperceptions of climate-change risk as barriers to climate-change adaptation: A case study from the Rewa delta, Fiji. Climatic Change 110 (1): 169-86. Laube, Wolfram, Benjamin Schraven, and Martha Awo. 2012. Smallholder adaptation to climate change: Dynamics and limits in northern Ghana. Climatic Change 111 (3): 753-74. Leal Filho, Walter, Joost Platje, Wolfgang Gerstlberger, Remigijus Ciegis, Juha Kääriä, Maris Klavins, and Linas Kliucininkas. The role of governance in realising the transition towards sustainable societies. Journal of Cleaner Production113 (2016): 755-766. Leck, Hayley, and David Simon. 2013. Fostering multiscalar collaboration and co-operation for effective governance of climate change adaptation. Urban Studies 50 (6): 1221-38. Lee, Taedong, and Martin Painter. 2015. Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate 14 : 566-77. Lehmann, Paul, Miriam Brenck, Oliver Gebhardt, Sven Schaller, and Elisabeth Süßbauer. 2015. Barriers and opportunities for urban adaptation planning: Analytical framework and 310

evidence from cities in Latin America and Germany. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 20 (1): 75-97. Leichenko, Robin. 2011. Climate change and urban resilience. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3 (3): 164-8. Leiserowitz, Anthony A. 2005. American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis 25 (6): 1433-42. Leiserowitz, Anthony. 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77 (1): 45-72. Lewsey, Clement, Gonzalo Cid, and Edward Kruse. 2004. Assessing climate change impacts on coastal infrastructure in the eastern Caribbean. Marine Policy 28 (5): 393-409. Li, Feng, Rusong Wang, Juergen Paulussen, and Xusheng Liu. 2005. Comprehensive concept planning of urban greening based on ecological principles: A case study in Beijing, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 72 (4): 325-36. Li, Haifeng, Wenbo Chen, and Wei He. 2015. Planning of green space ecological network in urban areas: An example of Nanchang, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12 (10): 12889-904. Li, Xiaoma, Weiqi Zhou, Zhiyun Ouyang, Weihua Xu, and Hua Zheng. 2012. Spatial pattern of greenspace affects land surface temperature: Evidence from the heavily urbanized Beijing metropolitan area, china. Landscape Ecology 27 (6): 887-98. Liu, Wen, Weiping Chen, and Chi Peng. 2014. Assessing the effectiveness of green infrastructures on urban flooding reduction: A community scale study. Ecological Modelling 291 : 6-14. Lo, Alex Y. H., and Chi Yung Jim. 2012. Citizen attitude and expectation towards greenspace provision in compact urban milieu. Land use Policy 29 (3): 577-86. Lohr, Virginia I., Caroline H. Pearson-Mims, John Tarnai, and Don A. Dillman. 2004. how urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture 30 (1): 28. Lonsdale, Whitney R., Heidi E. Kretser, Cheryl-Lesley B. Chetkiewicz, and Molly S. Cross. 2017. Similarities and differences in barriers and opportunities affecting climate change adaptation action in four north American landscapes. Environmental Management 60 (6): 1076-89. Lorenzoni, Irene, and Nick F. Pidgeon. 2006. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change 77 (1): 73-95. Lorenzoni, Irene, Sophie Nicholson-Cole, and Lorraine Whitmarsh. 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change 17 (3): 445-59. Low, Nicholas, and Rachel Astle. 2009. Path dependence in urban transport: An institutional analysis of urban passenger transport in Melbourne, Australia, 1956–2006. Transport Policy 16 (2): 47-58. Lu, Jacqueline W. T., Erika S. Svendsen, Lindsay K. Campbell, Jennifer Greenfeld, Jessie Braden, Kristen L. King, and Nancy Falxa-Raymond. 2010. Biological, social, and urban 311

design factors affecting young street tree mortality in New York city. Cities and the Environment 3 (1): 1-15. Lubbe, Charles S., Stefan. J. Siebert, and Stewart S. Cilliers. 2010. Political legacy of South Africa affects the plant diversity patterns of urban domestic gardens along a socio- economic gradient. Scientific Research and Essays 5 (19): 2900-2910 Ludi, Eva, Lindsey Jones, and Simon Levine. 2012. Changing focus? How to take adaptive capacity seriously. How to Take Adaptive Capacity Seriously. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2782343 Lyon, Bradfield, and David G. DeWitt. 2012. A recent and abrupt decline in the East African long rains. Geophysical Research Letters 39 (2): L02702. DOI:10.1029/2011GL050337. Maas, Jolanda, Peter Spreeuwenberg, Marijke Van Winsum-Westra, Robert A. Verheij, Sjerp Vries, and Peter P. Groenewegen. 2009. Is green space in the living environment associated with people's feelings of social safety? Environment and Planning A 41 (7): 1763-77. Macpherson, Cheryl Cox. 2013. Climate change is a bioethics problem. Bioethics 27 (6): 305-8. Madureira, Helena, Teresa Andresen, and Ana Monteiro. 2011. Green structure and planning evolution in Porto. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 10 (2): 141-9. Madzwamuse, M., 2010: Drowning Voices: The Climate Change Discourse in South Africa. Policy Brief 05/2010, Heinrich-Böll-Foundation Southern Africa, Cape Town, South Africa, 8. https://za.boell.org/2014/02/03/drowning-voices-climate-change-discourse- south-africa-publications Magnan, Alexandre, Lisa Schipper, Maxine Burkett, Sukaina Bharwani, Ian Burton, Siri Eriksen, François Gemenne, J Schaar, and Gina Ziervogel. 2016. Addressing the risk of maladaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7: 646-665. doi:10.1002/wcc.409 Magnan, Alexandre. 2014. Avoiding maladaptation to climate change: Towards guiding principles. SAPI EN Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society 7 (1). Mahony, Martin. 2014. The predictive state: Science, territory and the future of the Indian climate. Social Studies of Science 44 (1): 109-33. Maibach, Edward W., Matthew Nisbet, Paula Baldwin, Karen Akerlof, and Guoqing Diao. 2010. Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10 (1): 299-. Maitima, Joseph M., Simon M. Mugatha, Robin S. Reid, Louis N. Gachimbi, Amos Majule, Herbert Lyaruu, Derek Pomery, Stephen Mathai, and Sam Mugisha. 2009. The linkages between land use change, land degradation and biodiversity across East Africa. LUCID Working Paper 42. Nairobi (Kenya): ILRI. http://hdl.handle.net/10568/1934. Majumdar, Suman, Jinyang Deng, Yaoqi Zhang, and Chad Pierskalla. 2011. Using contingent valuation to estimate the willingness of tourists to pay for urban forests: A study in savannah, Georgia. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 10 (4): 275-80.

312

Malhi, Yadvinder, and James Wright. 2004. Spatial patterns and recent trends in the climate of tropical rainforest regions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 359 (1443): 311-329. Maller, Cecily, Mardie Townsend, Anita Pryor, Peter Brown, and Lawrence St Leger. 2006. Healthy nature healthy people: 'contact with nature' as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International 21 (1): 45-54. Manda, Joanne, Sujala Pant and Raniya Sobir. 2016. Making Local Government Fit for Purpose: A Framework for an Integrated Climate Change Response at the Local Level. Accessed on 22nd August 2018. Bangkok: United Nations Development Programe https://www.climatefinance- developmenteffectiveness.org/sites/default/files/documents/09_06_16/Making%20Local %20Governance%20Fit%20For%20Purpose.pdf Manuel-Navarrete, David, Mark Pelling, and Michael Redclift 2009. Governance as process: Power spheres and climate change response. Environment, politics and development working paper series, 9. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Pelling/publication/254415999_Governance_ as_process_Powerspheres_and_climate_change_response/links/549005580cf214269f264 69c/Governance-as-process-Powerspheres-and-climate-change-response.pdf Manuel-Navarrete, David. 2013. Human-environmental integration and social power in global environmental change research. In: Sygna, L., O'Brien, K., Wolf, J. (Eds.), A Changing Environment for Human Security: Transformative Approaches to Research, Policy and Action. Routledge, London, pp. 305–315. Martin, Justin. 2011. Genius of place: The life of Frederick Law Olmsted. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Matsuoka, Rodney H., and Rachel Kaplan. 2008. People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (1): 7- 19. Matteson, Kevin C., John S. Ascher, and Gail A. Langellotto. 2008. Bee richness and abundance in New York city urban gardens. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 101 (1): 140-50. Matthews, Tony, Alex Y. Lo, and Jason A. Byrne. 2015. Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning 138 : 155-63. Matthews, Tony. 2013. Institutional perspectives on operationalizing climate adaptation through planning. Planning theory & practice 14 (2): 198-210. McCambridge, Jim, John Witton, and Diana R. Elbourne. 2014. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of clinical epidemiology 67 (3): 267-277.

313

McCarney, Patricia. 2013. Cities and Governance: Coming to Terms with Climate Challenges. In Jörg Knieling and Walter Leal Filho (Eds.) Climate change governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 85-103. McConnachie, Matthew, Charlie M. Shackleton, and Gillian K. McGregor. 2008. The extent of public green space and alien plant species in 10 small towns of the sub-tropical thicket biome, South Africa. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 7 (1): 1-13. McGranahan, Gordon, Deborah Balk, and Bridget Anderson. 2007. The rising tide: Assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environment & Urbanization 19 (1): 17-37. McGranahan, Gordon, Diana Mitlin, David Satterthwaite, Cecilia Tacoli and Ivan Turok. 2009. Africa’s urban transition and the role of regional collaboration. Human Settlements Working Paper Series Theme: Urban Change – 5. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10571IIED.pdf Mckinney, Michael L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52 (10): 883-90. McMichael, Anthony J., S. Friel, A. Nyong, and C. Corvalan. 2008. Global environmental change and health: Impacts, inequalities, and the health sector. British Medical Journal 336 (7637): 191-4. McNicoll, Lauren, Raphaël Jachnik, Gaylor Montmasson-Clair, and Shakespear Mudombi. 2017. Estimating publicly-mobilised private finance for climate action: A South African case study. OECD Environment Working Papers 125, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/a606277c-en McWilliam, Wendy, Robert Brown, Paul Eagles, and Mark Seasons. 2014. Barriers to the effective planning and management of residential encroachment within urban forest edges: A southern Ontario, Canada case study. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening13 (1): 48-62. Measham, Thomas G., Benjamin L. Preston, Timothy F. Smith, Cassandra Brooke, Russell Gorddard, Geoff Withycombe, and Craig Morrison. 2011. Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning: Barriers and challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 16 (8): 889-909. Mees, Heleen-Lydeke P., and Peter P. J. Driessen. 2011. Adaptation to climate change in urban areas: Climate-greening London, rotterdam, and Toronto. Climate Law 2 (2): 251-80. Mehta, Vikas. 2013. The Street : A Quintessential Social Public Space. London: Routledge. Mensa-Bonsu, Isaac F. and Owusu-Ansah, Justice. 2011. State of the Environment in Kumasi. In Future of the Tree: Towards Growth and Development of Kumasi. Adarkwa, Kwasi Kwafo. Ed. Kumasi: University Printing Press. Mensah, John. 2005. Problems of district medium-term development plan implementation in Ghana: The way forward. International Development Planning Review 27: 245-70. Metz, Bert, Marcel Berk, Michel den Elzen, Bert de Vries, and Detlef van Vuuren. 2002. Towards an equitable global climate change regime: Compatibility with article 2 of the climate

314

change convention and the link with sustainable development. Climate Policy 2 (2): 211- 30. Mikulec, Philip, Alan R. Diduck, Beverly Froese, Heather Unger, and Kathryn MacKenzie. 2013. Legal and policy barriers to community gardening in Winnipeg, Canada. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 22 (2): 69-89. Millard-Ball, Adam. 2013. The limits to planning: Causal impacts of city climate action plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research 33 (1): 5-19. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program). 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: A framework for assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.html Miller, Alan S. 2008. Financing the integration of climate change mitigation into development. Climate Policy, 8(2), 152-169. doi:10.3763/cpol.2007.0432 Miller, James R. 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20 (8): 430-4. Miller, James R., and Richard J. Hobbs. 2002. Conservation where people live and work. Conservation Biology 16 (2): 330-7. Mincey, Sarah K., Miranda Hutten, Burnell C. Fischer, Tom P. Evans, Susan I. Stewart, and Jessica M. Vogt. 2013. Structuring institutional analysis for urban ecosystems: A key to sustainable urban forest management. Urban Ecosystems 16 (3): 553-71. Ministry for Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation (MESTI), 2015. Land Use and Spatial Planning Bill, 2016, MESTI Accra. Available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/ndpc- static/CACHES/PUBLICATIONS/2016/08/05/Land+Use+And+Spatial+Planning+Bill+2 015.pdf. Accessed 4 August 2017. Ministry of environment, science, technology and Innovation (MESTI), Town and country planning department (TCPD), Japan international cooperation agency (JICA). 2013. The study on the Comprehensive Urban Development Plan for Greater Kumasi in the Republic of Ghana. Draft final report. Main Text Volume 1-3. Spatial Development Framework (SDF) for Greater Kumasi Sub-Region. Accra: Republic of Ghana. Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation. 2013. Ghana National Climate Change Policy, Accra: MESTI, Government of Ghana. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ndpc- static/CACHES/NEWS/2015/07/22//Ghana+Climate+Change+Policy.pdf Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation. 2015. National Climate Change Policy Action Programme for Implementation: 2015–2020, Accra: MESTI, Government of Ghana. https://www.weadapt.org/sites/weadapt.org/files/ghana_national_climate_change_master _plan_2015_2020.pdf Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development. 2012. Operational manual for the implementation and administration of the district development facility. Accra, Government of Ghana.

315

Ministry of Youth and Sports. 2010. National Youth Policy of Ghana Theme: Towards an Empowered Youth, Impacting Positively on National Development. http://www.youthpolicy.org/national/Ghana_2010_National_Youth_Policy.pdf. Accessed 4 August 2018. Mitchell, Broadus. 1924. Frederick Law Olmsted, a critic of the old south. Vol. 42 (2). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Moriconi-Ebrard, François, Dominique Harre, and Philipp Heinrigs. 2016. Urbanisation Dynamics in West Africa 1950–2010. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/development/urbanisation-dynamics-in-west-africa- 1950-2010-9789264252233-en.htm Morita, Tsuneyuki, Nebos̆ ja Nakićenović, and John Robinson. 2000. Overview of mitigation scenarios for global climate stabilization based on new IPCC emission scenarios (SRES). Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 3 (2): 65-88. Morland, Kimberly, Steve Wing, Ana Diez Roux, and Charles Poole. 2002. Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. American journal of preventive medicine 22 (1): 23-29. Mörtberg, Ulla and Hans-Georg Wallentinus. 2000. Red-listed forest bird species in an urban environment - Assessment of green space corridors. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):215-226 Mortimore, Michael. 2010. Adapting to drought in the Sahel: Lessons for climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1 (1): 134-43. Morton, Thomas A., Anna Rabinovich, Dan Marshall, and Pamela Bretschneider. 2011. The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change 21 (1): 103-9. Moser, Susanne C. 2010. Now more than ever: The need for more societally relevant research on vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Applied Geography 30 (4): 464-74. Moser, Susanne C., Julia A. Ekstrom, and Roger E. Kasperson. 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): 22026-31. Moser, Susanne C., S. Jeffress Williams, and Donald F. Boesch. 2012. Wicked challenges at Land’s End: Managing coastal vulnerability under climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37 (1): 51-78. Mosha, Aloysius Clemence. 2011. The effects of climate change on urban human settlements in Africa. In Climate Change and Sustainable Urban Development in Africa and Asia, pp. 69-100. Springer, Dordrecht. Mubaya, Chipo Plaxedes, Jemimah Njuki, Eness Paidamoyo Mutsvangwa, Francis Temba Mugabe, and Durton Nanja. 2012. Climate variability and change or multiple stressors? farmer perceptions regarding threats to livelihoods in Zimbabwe and Zambia. Journal of Environmental Management 102: 9-17.

316

Muijs, Daniel. 2011. Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849203241. Mukheibir, Pierre, Natasha Kuruppu, Anna Gero, and Jade Herriman. 2013. Overcoming cross- scale challenges to climate change adaptation for local government: A focus on Australia. Climatic Change 121 (2): 271-83. Murray, Virginia, Gordon McBean, Mihir Bhatt, Sergey Borsch, Tae Sung Cheong, Wadid Fawzy Erian, Silvia Llosa, Farrokh Nadim, Mario Nunez, Ravsal Oyun, Avelino G. Suarez. 2012: Case studies. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 487-542 Musah-Surugu, Issah Justice, Albert Ahenkan, Justice Nyigmah Bawole and Samuel Antwi Darkwah. 2018. Diffusion of Climate Change Adaptation Policies Among Local Governments in Sub-Saharan Africa: Conceptual Review. In. Alves, Fátima, Leal Filho, Walter, Azeiteiro, Ulisses (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Climate Adaptation. Springer Nature: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72874-2_4 Næss, Lars Otto, Guri Bang, Siri Eriksen, and Jonas Vevatne. 2005. Institutional adaptation to climate change: Flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Global Environmental Change 15 (2): 125-38. Nagendra, Harini, and Divya Gopal. 2010. Street trees in Bangalore: Density, diversity, composition and distribution. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 9 (2): 129-37. Namugize, Jean Nepomuscene, Graham Jewitt, and Mark Graham. 2018. Effects of land use and land cover changes on water quality in the uMngeni river catchment, South Africa. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 105 : 247-64. National Development Planning Commission. 1995. Ghana – Vision 2020 (The First Step: 1996- 2000) Presidential Report on Co-Ordinated Programme of Economic and Social Development Policies (Policies for The Preparation of 1996-2000 Development Plan), Accra: Government of Ghana. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ndpc- static/CACHES/NEWS/2015/07/27//Vision+2020-First+Step.pdf National Development Planning Commission. 2003. Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy 2003- 2005. An Agenda for Growth and Prosperity, Accra: Government of Ghana. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ndpc-static/pubication/GPRS+2003-2005_February2003.pdf National Development Planning Commission. 2005. Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II), 2006 – 2009. Accra: NDPC. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ndpc- static/pubication/(GPRS+II)+2006-2009_November+2005.pdf National Development Planning Commission. 2006. Guidelines for the Preparation of District Medium-Term Development Plan under the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2006-2009. Accra: NDPC. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ndpc-

317

static/CACHES/PUBLICATIONS/2016/04/16/DMTDP+Preparation+Guide+2006- 2009.pdf National Development Planning Commission. 2009. Guidelines for the Preparation of District Medium-Term Plans under the Medium-Term Development Policy Framework 2010- 2013. Accra: NDPC. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ndpc- static/CACHES/PUBLICATIONS/2016/04/16/DMTDP+Preparation+Guide+2010- 2013.pdf National Development Planning Commission. 2010. Medium-Term National Development Policy Framework: Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA I), 2010-2013. Accra: NDPC. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ndpc-static/pubication/(GSGDA)+2010- 2013_December+2010.pdf National Development Planning Commission. 2013. Guidelines for the Preparation of District Medium-Term Development Plan under the Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda II, 2014-2017. Accra: NDPC. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ndpc- static/CACHES/PUBLICATIONS/2016/01/21/DMTDPs+Guidelines_30-12-2013.pdf National Development Planning Commission. 2014. Medium-Term National Development Policy Framework: Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA II), 2014-2017. Accra: NDPC. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ndpc-static/pubication/GSGDA+II+2014- 2017.pdf Naumann, Sandra, Gerardo Anzaldua, Holger Gerdes, Ana Frelih-Larsen, McKenna Davis, Pam Berry, Sarah Burch, Michele Sanders. 2011. Assessment of the potential of ecosystem- based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation in Europe. Final report to the European Commission. Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany and Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, Oxford, UK. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/climatechange/pdf/EbA_EBM_CC_FinalReport.p df Naumann, Sandra, Timo Kaphengst, Keighley McFarland, & Jutta Stadler. 2014: Nature-based approaches for climate change mitigation and adaptation. The challenges of climate change - partnering with nature. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Ecologic Institute, Bonn. https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/publication/2014/eco_bfn_nature-based- solutions_sept2014_en.pdf Nelson, Julie A. 2013. Ethics and the economist: What climate change demands of us. Ecological Economics 85 : 145-54. Nemet, Gregory F., Tracey Holloway, and Paul Meier. 2010. Implications of incorporating air- quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environmental Research Letters 5 (1): 014007. Nero, Bertrand F., and Alexander K. Anning. 2018. Variations in soil characteristics among urban green spaces in Kumasi, Ghana. Environmental Earth Sciences 77 (8): 1-12.

318

Nero, Bertrand F., Benjamin B. Campion, Nelson Agbo, Daniel Callo-Concha, and Manfred Denich. 2017a. Tree and trait diversity, species coexistence, and diversity-functional relations of green spaces in Kumasi, Ghana. Procedia Engineering 198 : 99-115. Nero, Bertrand F., Daniel Callo-Concha, Alexander Anning, and Manfred Denich. 2017b. Urban green spaces enhance climate change mitigation in cities of the global south: The case of Kumasi, Ghana. Procedia Engineering 198 : 69-83. Nero, Bertrand F., Nana Afranaa Kwapong, Raymond Jatta, and Oluwole Fatunbi. 2018. Tree species diversity and socioeconomic perspectives of the urban (food) forest of Accra, Ghana. Sustainability (Switzerland) 10 (10): 3417. Nero, Bertrand Festus. 2017. Urban green space dynamics and socio-environmental inequity: multi-resolution and spatiotemporal data analysis of Kumasi, Ghana. International journal of remote sensing 38 (23): 6993-7020. Nero, Bertrand Festus. 2019. Woody species and trait diversity-functional relations of green spaces in Kumasi, Ghana. Urban Ecosystems 22 (3): 1-15. Neumayer, Eric, and Thomas Plümper. 2007. The gendered nature of natural disasters: The impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981-2002. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97 (3): 551-66. Niang, Isabelle, Oliver C. Ruppel, Mohamed A. Abdrabo, Ama Essel, Christopher Lennard, Jonathan Padgham (USA), Penny Urquhart. 2014: Africa. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1199- 1265. Nicholson, Sharon E., David J. Nash, Brian M. Chase, Stefan W. Grab, Timothy M. Shanahan, Dirk Verschuren, Asfawossen Asrat, Anne-Marie Lézine, and Mohammed Umer. 2013. Temperature variability over africa during the last 2000 years. The Holocene 23 (8): 1085-94. Nielsen, Anders Busse, Matilda van den Bosch, Sreetheran Maruthaveeran, van den Bosch, Cecil Konijnendijk, and Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet. 2014. Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosystems17 (1): 305-27. Nielsen, Jonas Østergaard, and Anette Reenberg. 2010. Cultural barriers to climate change adaptation: A case study from northern Burkina Faso. Global Environmental Change 20 (1): 142-52. Niemelä, Jari. 1999. Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 8 (1): 119-31. Nijkamp, Peter, and Tüzin Baycan-Levent. 2009. Planning and management of urban green spaces in Europe: Comparative analysis. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 135 (1): 1-12.

319

Nijkamp, Peter, and Tüzin Baycan-Levent. Urban green space policies: A comparative study on performance and success conditions in European cities. 2004. In Proceedings of the 44th European Congress of the European Regional Science Association, 25–29 August 2004, Porto, Portugal. [Online: Accessed on August 10, 2018]. http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/ bitstream/1871/8932/1/20040022.pdf. Nilsson, Kjell, Cecil C. Konijnendijk, and Anders Busse Nielsen. 2013. Urban Forest Function, Design and Management. In V. Loftness, D. Haase (eds.) Sustainable Built Environments. Springer Science & Business Media: New York. pp. 701 – 732. Nor Akmar, Abdul Aziz, Cecil Konijnendijk van den Bosch, Sreetheran Maruthaveeran, and Kjell Nilsson. 2011. Greenspace planning and management in Klang valley, peninsular Malaysia. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 37(3), 99-107. Nor, Amal Najihah M., Ron Corstanje, Jim A. Harris, and Tim Brewer. 2017. Impact of rapid urban expansion on green space structure. Ecological Indicators 81 : 274-84. Nordgren, John, Missy Stults, and Sara Meerow. 2016. Supporting local climate change adaptation: Where we are and where we need to go. Environmental Science and Policy 66 : 344-52. Nordhaus, Ted, and Michael Shellenberger. 2007. Break through: From the death of environmentalism to the politics of possibility. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Norris, Fran H., Susan P. Stevens, Betty Pfefferbaum, Karen F. Wyche, and Rose L. Pfefferbaum. 2008. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology 41 (1): 127-50. Ntiamoa-Baidu, Yaa. 2008. Indigenous Beliefs and Biodiversity Conservation: The Effectiveness of Sacred Groves, Taboos and Totems in Ghana for Habitat and Species Conservation." Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture 2 (3). [online]. April 15, 2019. https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/JSRNC/article/view/4547 Nunbogu, Abraham Marshall, Prosper Issahaku Korah, Patrick Brandful Cobbinah, and Michael Poku-Boansi. 2018. Doing it ‘ourselves’: Civic initiative and self-governance in spatial planning. Cities 74: 32-41. O’Brien, Elizabeth. Social and cultural values of trees and woodlands in northwest and southeast England. 2005. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 79 (1/2): 169-184. O’Brien, Karen L., and Johanna Wolf. 2010. A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change: A values-based approach. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1 (2): 232-42. O’Brien, Karen, Siri Eriksen, Linda Sygna, and Lars Otto Naess. 2006. Questioning complacency: Climate change impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation in Norway. Ambio 35 (2): 50-6. O’Brien, Karen, Siri Eriksen, Lynn P. Nygaard, and Ane Schjolden. 2007. Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Climate policy, 7(1), 73-88.

320

O’Neill, Saffron J., Mike Hulme, John Turnpenny, and James A. Screen. 2010. Disciplines, geography, and gender in the framing of climate change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 91 (8): 997-1002. Obeng-Odoom, Franklin. 2010. An urban twist to politics in Ghana. Habitat International 34 (4): 392-9. Obeng-Odoom, Franklin. 2015. The social, spatial, and economic roots of urban inequality in Africa: Contextualizing jane Jacobs and henry George. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 74(3), 550-586. DOI:10.1111/ajes.12101 Oberlack, Christoph, and Klaus Eisenack. 2014. Alleviating barriers to urban climate change adaptation through international cooperation. Global Environmental Change 24 : 349-62. Ockwell, David, Lorraine Whitmarsh, and Saffron O'Neill. 2009. Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: Forcing people to be green or fostering grass- roots engagement? Science Communication 30 (3): 305-27. Ofori, Benjamin Y., Reuben A. Garshong, Francis Gbogbo, Erasmus H. Owusu, and Daniel K. Attuquayefio. 2018. Urban green area provides refuge for native small mammal biodiversity in a rapidly expanding city in Ghana. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 190 (8): 1-11. Okyere, Asare Seth, and Michihiro Kita. 2015. Rethinking urban informality and informal settlements growth in urban Africa: A literature discussion. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 17 (2): 101-124. Olmsted, Frederick Law, and Theodora Kimball Hubbard. 1922. Frederick law Olmsted, landscape architect, 1822-1903. New York: Putnam. Olwoch, Jane Mukarugwiza, I. G. Horak, Clarke H. Scholtz, and A. S. Van Jaarsveld. 2007. Climate change and the genus Rhipicephalus (Acari: Ixodidae) in Africa. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research 74, (1): 45-72. Osberghaus, Daniel, Astrid Dannenberg, Tim Mennel, and Bodo Sturm. 2010. The role of the government in adaptation to climate change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 28 (5): 834-50. Otoo, Emmanuel A., Duncan J. Whyatt, and Uwem E. ITE, England. 2006. Quantifying urban growth in Accra Metropolitan Area (AMA), Ghana and exploring causal mechanisms. Paper presented at the 5th FIG Regional Conference. Accra, Ghana. March 8 – 11, 2006. https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/accra/papers/ts10/ts10_03_ot oo_etal.pdf Otsuka, Keijiro, Agnes R. Quisumbing, Ellen Payongayong, and J. B. Aidoo. 2003. Land tenure and the management of land and trees: The case of customary land tenure areas of Ghana. Environment and Development Economics 8 (1): 77-104. Ottitsch, Andreas, and Max Krott. 2005. Urban forest policy and planning. In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees: A Reference Book. Springer, Berlin, pp. 117–148.

321

Owusu, George, and Martin Oteng-Ababio. 2015. Moving unruly contemporary urbanism toward sustainable urban development in Ghana by 2030. American Behavioral Scientist 59 (3): 311-27. Owusu, George. 2008. Indigenes' and migrants' access to land in peri-urban areas of Accra, Ghana. International Development Planning Review 30 (2): 177-98. Owusu, Stephen. E., and Asamoah, K. B. 2005. Servicing land for housing development in peri- urban areas of Kumasi, Ghana: theory versus practice. Journal of Science and Technology (Ghana) 25(1) Owusu-Ansah, Justice Kufour, and Imoro Braimah. 2013. The dual land management systems as an influence on physical development outcomes around Kumasi, Ghana. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 28 (4): 689-703. Owusu-Ansah, Justice Kufour. 2016. The influences of land use and sanitation infrastructure on flooding in Kumasi, Ghana. Geojournal 81 (4): 555-70. Owusu-Daaku, Kwame Ntiri and Stephen Kofi Diko. 2017. The Sea Defence project in the Ada east district and its implications for climate change policy implementation in Ghana’s Peri-urban areas. In: Annual Reducing Urban Poverty Graduate Paper Compaction, Urban Sustainability Laboratory. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington D.C., pp. 28-49. Pacheco, Jorge M., Vítor V. Vasconcelos, and Francisco C. Santos. 2014. Climate change governance, cooperation and self-organization. Physics of Life Reviews 11 (4): 573-86. Pacione, Michael. 2003. Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 65 (1): 19-30. Parent, Olivier, and Rainer vom Hofe. 2013. Understanding the impact of trails on residential property values in the presence of spatial dependence. The Annals of Regional Science 51 (2): 355-75. Parham, Paul E., Diane Pople, Céline Christiansen-Jucht, Steve Lindsay, Wes Hinsley, and Edwin Michael. 2012. Modeling the role of environmental variables on the population dynamics of the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto. Malaria Journal 11 (1): 271. Parry, Martin L., Cynthia Rosenzweig, Ana Iglesias, Matthew Livermore, and Gunther Fischer. 2004. Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global environmental change 14(1): 53-67. Patt, Anthony G., and Dagmar Schröter. 2008. Perceptions of climate risk in Mozambique: Implications for the success of adaptation strategies. Global Environmental Change 18 (3): 458-67. Pauw, W. Pieter, Richard J. T. Klein, P. Vellinga, and F. Biermann. 2016. Private finance for adaptation: Do private realities meet public ambitions? Climatic Change, 134(4), 489- 503. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1539-3 Pauw, W. Pieter. 2017. Mobilising private adaptation finance: Developed country perspectives. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 17 (1): 55-71.

322

Pearlmutter, David, Carlo Calfapietra, Roeland Samson, Liz O'Brien, Silvija Krajter Ostoić, Giovanni Sanesi, and Rocío Alonso del Amo. 2017. The urban forest: Cultivating green infrastructure for people and the environment. Vol. 7. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Pedlowski, Marcos A., Da Silva, Victor Andrade Carneiro, Janie Jasmim Corabi Adell, and Nikolas C. Heynen. 2002. Urban forest and environmental inequality in Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Urban Ecosystems 6 (1): 9-20. Pelling, Mark. 2011. Adaptation to climate change: From resilience to transformation. New York; Abingdon, Oxon, England;: Routledge. Perin, Constance. 1973. With man in mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Persson, Asa, and Elise Remling. 2014. Equity and efficiency in adaptation finance: initial experiences of the Adaptation Fund. Climate Policy, 14(4), 488-506. Peters, Karin, Birgit Elands, and Arjen Buijs. 2010. Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 9 (2): 93-100. Petterson, John S., Laura D. Stanley, Edward Glazier, and James Philipp. 2006. A preliminary assessment of social and economic impacts associated with hurricane Katrina. American Anthropologist 108 (4): 643-70. Pham, Thi-Thanh-Hien, Philippe Apparicio, Anne-Marie Séguin, Shawn Landry, and Martin Gagnon. 2012. Spatial distribution of vegetation in Montreal: An uneven distribution or environmental inequity? Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (3): 214-24. Pickering, Jonathan, Carola Betzold, and Jakob Skovgaard. 2017. Special issue: Managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(1), 1-16. doi:10.1007/s10784-016-9349-2 Pidgeon, Nick, and Catherine Butler. 2009. Risk analysis and climate change. Environmental Politics 18 (5): 670-88. Pielke Jr, Roger. 2007. Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change. Global Environmental Change 17 (3-4): 302-310. Pincetl, Stephanie, Thomas Gillespie, Diane E. Pataki, Sassan Saatchi, and Jean-Daniel Saphores. 2013. Urban tree planting programs, function or fashion? Los Angeles and urban tree planting campaigns. Geojournal 78 (3): 475-93. Pincetl, Stephanie. 2010. From the sanitary city to the sustainable city: Challenges to institutionalising biogenic (nature's services) infrastructure. Local Environment 15 (1): 43-58. Pizarro, Rafael E., Edward Blakely, and John Dee. 2006. Urban planning and policy faces climate change. Built Environment (1978-) 32 (4): 400-12. Planners for Climate Action. 2018. Planners for Climate Action Communiqué. Accessed on 5th August 2018. https://unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/P4CA- Communiqu%C3%A9.pdf

323

Poku-Boansi, Michael, and Patrick Brandful Cobbinah. 2018a. Are we planning for resilient cities in Ghana? an analysis of policy and planners' perspectives. Cities 72 : 252-60. Poku-Boansi, Michael, and Patrick Brandful Cobbinah. 2018b. Land use and urban travel in Kumasi, Ghana. Geojournal 83 (3): 563-81. Poortinga, Wouter, and Nick F. Pidgeon. 2003. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis 23 (5): 961-72. Popke, Jeff, Scott Curtis, and Douglas W. Gamble. 2016. A social justice framing of climate change discourse and policy: Adaptation, resilience and vulnerability in a Jamaican agricultural landscape. Geoforum 73 : 70-80. Population Institute. .2010. 2030: The ‘Perfect Storm’ Scenario. Population Institute. https://www.populationinstitute.org/external/files/reports/The_Perfect_Storm_Scenario_f or_2030.pdf Postigo, Jose A. Ruiz. 2010. Leishmaniasis in the world health organization eastern Mediterranean region. International journal of antimicrobial agents 36: S62-S65. Pouyat, Richard V., Ian D. Yesilonis, and Nancy E. Golubiewski. 2009. A comparison of soil organic carbon stocks between residential turf grass and native soil. Urban Ecosystems 12 (1): 45-62. Pramova, Emilia, Bruno Locatelli, Maria Brockhaus, and Sandra Fohlmeister. 2012. Ecosystem services in the national adaptation programmes of action. Climate Policy 12 (4): 393-409. Prior, Lindsay. 2003. Using documents in social research. London: SAGE. Puppim de Oliveira, Jose A, Christopher N. H. Doll, Tonni Agustiono Kurniawan, Yong Geng, Manmohan Kapshe, and Donald Huisingh. 2013. Promoting win–win situations in climate change mitigation, local environmental quality and development in Asian cities through co-benefits. Journal of Cleaner Production 58 : 1-6. Puppim de Oliveira, Jose A. 2013. Learning how to align climate, environmental and development objectives in cities: Lessons from the implementation of climate co-benefits initiatives in urban Asia. Journal of Cleaner Production 58 : 7-14. Puppim de Oliveira, Jose Antonio. 2009. The implementation of climate change related policies at the subnational level: An analysis of three countries. Habitat International 33 (3): 253-9. Quagraine, Victor K. 2011. Urban landscape depletion in the Kumasi Metropolis. In K. K. Adarkwa (Ed.), Future of the tree: Towards growth and development of Kumasi, pp. 212 -233. Kumasi: University Printing Press. Reckien, Diana, J. Flacke, Richard J. Dawson, Oliver Heidrich, Marta Olazabal, Aoife Foley, JJ- P. Hamann et al. 2014. Climate change response in Europe: What's the reality? analysis of adaptation and mitigation plans from 200 urban areas in 11 countries. Climatic Change122 (1-2): 331. Rector, Ian, Simon Hagemann, Cândida Salgado Silva, 2013: Africa Adaptation Programme Terminal Report. Prepared by the AAP Inter-Regional Technical Support Component, UNDP Africa Adaptation Programme, UNDP, New York, NY, USA. https://agora- parl.org/sites/default/files/aap_terminal_report.pdf

324

Redman, Charles L., and Nancy S. Jones. 2005. The environmental, social, and health dimensions of urban expansion. Population and Environment 26 (6): 505-20. Reid, Hannah, Saleemul Huq, and Laurel A. Murray. 2010: Community Champions: Adapting to Climate Challenges. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK, 106 pp. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10028IIED.pdf Revi, Aromar, David Satterthwaite, Fernando Aragón-Durand, Jan Corfee-Morlot, Robert BR Kiunsi, Mark Pelling, Debra Roberts, William Solecki, Sumetee Pahwa Gajjar, and Alice Sverdlik. 2014. Towards transformative adaptation in cities: the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment. Environment and Urbanization 26 (1): 11-28. Revi, Aromar. 2008. Climate change risk: An adaptation and mitigation agenda for Indian cities. Environment & Urbanization 20 (1): 207-29. Reyer, Christopher, Johann Bachinger, Ralf Bloch, Fred F. Hattermann, Pierre L. Ibisch, Stefan Kreft, Petra Lasch, et al. 2012. Climate change adaptation and sustainable regional development: A case study for the federal state of Brandenburg, Germany. Regional Environmental Change 12 (3): 523-42. Reyes, Mario, Antonio Páez, and Catherine Morency. 2014. Walking accessibility to urban parks by children: A case study of Montreal. Landscape and Urban Planning 125 : 38-47. Ribot, Jesse. 2010. Vulnerability does not just fall from the sky: toward multi-scale pro-poor climate policy. In: Robin Mearns and Andrew Norton. (Eds.). Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World. The World Bank, Washington, D. C. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/970361468324546268/Social-dimensions-of- climate-change-equity-and-vulnerability-in-a-warming-world. pp. 47 – 74. Richter, Michael. 2016. Urban climate change-related effects on extreme heat events in Rostock, Germany. Urban Ecosystems19 (2): 849-66. Rigolon, Alessandro, Matthew Browning, Kangjae Lee, and Seunguk Shin. 2018. Access to urban green space in cities of the global south: A systematic literature review. Urban Science 2 (3): 67. DOI:10.3390/urbansci2030067 Rigolon, Alessandro. 2016. A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 153: 160-9. Roberts, Debra, and Sean O’Donoghue. 2013. Urban environmental challenges and climate change action in Durban, South Africa. Environment & Urbanization 25 (2): 299-319. Roberts, Debra. 2010. Prioritizing climate change adaptation and local level resilience in Durban, south Africa. Environment & Urbanization 22 (2): 397-413. Robinson, John. 2004. Squaring the circle? some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics 48 (4): 369-84. Robledo, Carmenza, Martin Fischler, and Alberto Patiño. 2004. Increasing the resilience of hillside communities in Bolivia: Has vulnerability to climate change been reduced as a result of previous sustainable development cooperation? Mountain Research and Development 24 (1): 14-8.

325

Robledo, Carmenza, Nicole Clot, Anne Hammill, and Béatrice Riché. 2012. The role of forest ecosystems in community-based coping strategies to climate hazards: Three examples from rural areas in Africa. Forest Policy and Economics 24: 20-28. Romero Lankao, Patricia, and Hua Qin. 2011. Conceptualizing urban vulnerability to global climate and environmental change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3 (3): 142-9. Romero-Lankao, Patricia, and David Dodman. 2011. Cities in transition: Transforming urban centers from hotbeds of GHG emissions and vulnerability to seedbeds of sustainability and resilience. introduction and editorial overview. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3 (3): 113-20. Roncoli, Carla, Barrack Okoba, Violet Gathaara, Jane Ngugi, and Teresiah Nganga. 2010: Adaptation to Climate Change for Smallholder Agriculture in Kenya: Community-Based Perspectives from Five Districts. IFPRI Note, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/126804/filename/127015.pdf Rosenzweig, Cynthia, William D. Solecki, Stephen Hammer, Shagun Mehrotra. 2011. Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Roy, Ananya. 2011. Urbanisms, worlding practices and the theory of planning. Planning Theory 10 (1): 6-15. Runhaar, Hens, Heleen Mees, Arjan Wardekker, Jeroen van der Sluijs, and Peter P. J. Driessen. 2012. Adaptation to climate change related risks in Dutch urban areas: Stimuli and barriers. Regional Environmental Change 12 (4): 777-90. Rupprecht, Christoph D. D., and Jason A. Byrne. 2014. Informal urban green-space: Comparison of quantity and characteristics in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. Plos One 9 (6). Rupprecht, Christoph D. D., Jason A. Byrne, Hirofumi Ueda, and Alex Y. Lo. 2015a. ‘It's real, not fake like a park’: Residents’ perception and use of informal urban green-space in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 143: 205-18. Rupprecht, Christoph D. D., Jason A. Byrne, Jenni G. Garden, and Jean-Marc Hero. 2015b. Informal urban green space: A trilingual systematic review of its role for biodiversity and trends in the literature. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 14 (4): 883-908. Rupprecht, Christoph, and Jason A. Byrne. 2017. “Informal Urban Green Space as Anti- Gentrification Strategy?” In Just Green Enough: Urban development and environmental gentrification (Eds.) Winifred Curran, Trina Hamilton. Routledge Ruth, Matthias, Brynhildur Davidsdottir, and Anthony Amato. 2004. Climate change policies and capital vintage effects: The cases of US pulp and paper, iron and steel, and ethylene, Journal of Environmental Management 70 (3): 235–252 Sabbi, Matthew, and Collins Adjei Mensah. 2016. Juggling administrative institutions: Local state actors and the management of urban space in Kumasi, Ghana. Urban Forum 27 (1): 59- 78. 326

Sackey, Margaret. 2012. The role of customary governance systems for local democracy, good governance and service delivery: The case of Ghana. Paper presented at International IDEA’s Panel on Local Democracy, ‘Public Administration and Governance: Tradition and Transformation’ International Conference, The University of Philippines National College of Public Administration and Governance Manila, 27–29 June 2012. International IDEA The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/customary-governance-systems-and- local-democracy-in-ghana.pdf Sackeyfio, Naaborko. 2012. The politics of land and urban space in colonial Accra. History in Africa 39: 293-329. Sailor, David J. 2001. Relating residential and commercial sector electricity loads to climate— evaluating state level sensitivities and vulnerabilities. Energy 26 (7): 645-57. Salazar, Alvaro, Germán Baldi, Marina Hirota, Jozef Syktus, and Clive McAlpine. 2015. Land use and land cover change impacts on the regional climate of non-Amazonian South America: A review. Global and Planetary Change 128 : 103-19. Saldaña, Johnny. 2016. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 3rd Edition. London: SAGE. Sandstro¨m, Ulf G. 2002. Green infrastructure planning in urban Sweden. Planning Practice and Research 17 (4): 373-85. Sandström, Ulf G., Per Angelstam, and Abdul Khakee. 2006. Urban comprehensive planning – identifying barriers for the maintenance of functional habitat networks. Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (1): 43-57. Sanganyado, Edmond, Charles Teta, and Busani Masiri. 2018. Impact of African traditional worldviews on climate change adaptation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 14 (2): 189-93. Sarewitz, Daniel, Roger Pielke Jr, and Mojdeh Keykhah. 2003. Vulnerability and risk: some thoughts from a political and policy perspective. Risk Analysis: An International Journal 23 (4): 805-810. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy 7 (5): 385-403. Sarfo-Mensah, Paul and Oduro, William. 2007. Traditional Natural Resources Management Practices and Biodiversity Conservation in Ghana: A Review of Local Concepts and Issues on Change and Sustainability. FEEM Working Paper No. 90.2007. [online]. April 15, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1017238 Sarfo-Mensah, Paul, and William Oduro. 2010. Changes in beliefs and perceptions about the natural environment in the Forest-Savanna Transitional Zone of Ghana: The influence of religion. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. [online]. April 15, 2019. https://www.feem.it/m/publications_pages/201023103594NDL2010-008.pdf. Satterthwaite, David, Saleemul Huq, Hannah Reid, Mark Pelling and Patricia Romero Lankao. 2007. Adapting to climate change in urban areas: the possibilities and constraints in low

327

and middle-income nations. Human Settlements Working Paper Series Climate Change and Cities No. 1. IIED, London. http://pubs.iied.org/10549IIED/ Schäffler, Alexis, and Mark Swilling. 2013. Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure — the Johannesburg case. Ecological Economics 86: 246-57. Schilling, Janpeter, Francis EO Opiyo, and Jürgen Scheffran. 2012. Raiding pastoral livelihoods: motives and effects of violent conflict in north-western Kenya." Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 2 (1): 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-25 Schmidt, Stephen. 2005. Cultural influences and the built environment: an examination of Kumasi, Ghana. Journal of Urban Design 10(3), 353-370. Schoeman, Fritz, Terence Newby, Mark Thompson, Elzie Catharina Van den Berg. 2013. South African National Land-Cover Change Map. South African Journal of Geomatics, 2(2): 9- 105. http://www.sajg.org.za/index.php/sajg/article/view/65/38 Schröder, Carolin and Heike Walk. 2013.Local Climate Governance and the Role of Cooperatives. In Jörg Knieling and Walter Leal Filho (Eds.) Climate change governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 105-118. Seeland, Klaus, Sabine Dübendorfer, and Ralf Hansmann. 2009. Making friends in Zurich’s urban forests and parks: The role of public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures. Forest Policy and Economics 11 (1): 10-7. Semenza, Jan C., David E. Hall, Daniel J. Wilson, Brian D. Bontempo, David J. Sailor, and Linda A. George. 2008. Public perception of climate change. voluntary mitigation and barriers to behavior change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (5): 479-87. Seto, Karen C., Michail Fragkias, Burak Güneralp, and Michael K. Reilly. 2011. A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. Plos One 6 (8): e23777. Shackleton, Charlie M., and Ross T. Shackleton. 2016. Knowledge, perceptions and willingness to control designated invasive tree species in urban household gardens in South Africa. Biological Invasions 18 (6): 1599-609. Shackleton, Charlie M., Sheona. E. Shackleton, Pual Hebinck, Humphrey Kaoma, Mwale Chishaleshale, Abby Chinyimba, James Gambiza, and Davison Gumbo. 2014. Low-cost housing developments in South Africa miss the opportunities for household level urban greening. Land use Policy 36: 500-9. Shackleton, Charlie. 2016. Do indigenous street trees promote more biodiversity than alien ones? evidence using mistletoes and birds in South Africa. Forests 7 (7): 134. Shackleton, Sheona, Abby Chinyimba, Pual. G. M. Hebinck, Charlie Shackleton, and Humphery Kaoma. 2015. Multiple benefits and values of trees in urban landscapes in two small towns in northern south Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning 136: 76-86. Shackleton, Sheona, Gina Ziervogel, Susannah Sallu, Thomas Gill, and Petra Tschakert. 2015. Why is socially-just climate change adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa so challenging? A review of barriers identified from empirical cases. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 6 (3): 321-44.

328

Shackley, Simon, and Robert Deanwood. 2002. Stakeholder perceptions of climate change impacts at the regional scale: Implications for the effectiveness of regional and local responses. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45 (3): 381-402. Sharp, Elaine B., Dorothy M. Daley, and Michael S. Lynch. 2011. Understanding local adoption and implementation of climate change mitigation policy. Urban Affairs Review 47 (3): 433-57. Shaw, Alison, Sarah Burch, Freya Kristensen, John Robinson, and Ann Dale. 2014. Accelerating the sustainability transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in British Columbian communities. Global Environmental Change 25 (1): 41-51. Shemdoe, Riziki, Gabriel Kassenga, and Stephen Mbuligwe. 2015. Implementing climate change adaptation and mitigation interventions at the local government levels in Tanzania: Where do we start? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 13 : 32-41. Shi, Jing, Vivianne H. M. Visschers, and Michael Siegrist. 2015. Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Analysis 35 (12): 2183-201. Simon, David and Hayley Leck. 2015. Understanding climate adaptation and transformation challenges in African cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 13: 109-16. Simon, David. 2011. Reconciling development with the challenges of climate change: business as usual or a new paradigm? In: D.J. Kjosavik and P. Vedeld (Eds.), The Political Economy of Environment and Development in a Globalised World: Exploring the Frontiers; Essays in honour of Nadarajah Shanmugaratnam, Publisher: Tapir, Oslo, and Social Scientists’ Association of Sri Lanka: Colombo, pp.195-217. Simson, Alan. 2008. The place of trees in the city of the future. Arboricultural Journal, 31(2), 97- 108. Sissoko, Keffing, Herman van Keulen, Jan Verhagen, Vera Tekken, and Antonella Battaglini. 2011. Agriculture, livelihoods and climate change in the West African Sahel. Regional Environmental Change, 11(Suppl. 1), 119-125. Smit, Barry, and Johanna Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change16 (3): 282-92. Soanes, Marek, Neha Rai, Paul Steele, Clare Shakya, James MacGregor. 2017. Delivering real change: getting international climate finance to the local level. IIED Working Paper 10178IIED. IIED, London. Accessed on 22nd August 2018. http://pubs.iied.org/10178IIED/ Soga, Masashi, Yuichi Yamaura, Tetsuya Aikoh, Yasushi Shoji, Takahiro Kubo, and Kevin J. Gaston. 2015. Reducing the extinction of experience: Association between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace. Landscape and Urban Planning 143 : 69-75. Songsore, Jacob. 2009. The Urban Transition in Ghana: Urbanisation, National Development and Poverty Reduction. Report for IIED-UNFPA Research Meeting on Population and Urbanization issues, London

329

Sonwa, Denis J., Johnson N. Nkem, Monica E. Idinoba, Mekou Y. Bele, and Cyprian Jum. 2012. Building regional priorities in forests for development and adaptation to climate change in the Congo basin. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 17 (4): 441- 50. Spires, Meggan, and Sheona E. Shackleton. . 2018. A synthesis of barriers to and enablers of pro- poor climate change adaptation in four South African municipalities. Climate and Development 10 (5): 432-47. Spruijt, Pita, Anne B. Knol, Eleftheria Vasileiadou, Jeroen Devilee, Erik Lebret, and Arthur C. Petersen. 2014. Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: A literature review. Environmental Science and Policy 40 : 16-25. Stadelmann, Martin, Åsa Persson, Izabela Ratajczak-Juszko, and Axel Michaelowa. 2014. Equity and cost-effectiveness of multilateral adaptation finance: Are they friends or foes? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14(2), 101-120. doi:10.1007/s10784-013-9206-5 Stadelmann, Martin, Axel Michaelowa, and J. Timmons Roberts. 2013. Difficulties in accounting for private finance in international climate policy. Climate Policy, 13(6), 718-737. doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.791146 Standish, Rachel J., Richard J. Hobbs, and James R. Miller. 2013. Improving city life: Options for ecological restoration in urban landscapes and how these might influence interactions between people and nature. Landscape Ecology 28 (6): 1213-21. Steg, Linda, Charles Vlek, and Goos Slotegraaf. 2001. Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic- affective motives for using a motor car. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 4 (3): 151-69. Stewart, Richard B., Benedict Kingsbury, and Bryce Rudyk. 2009. Climate finance: Regulatory and funding strategies for climate change and global development. New York: New York University Press. Stoffberg, Gerrit Hendrik., Margaretha W. Van Rooyen, Michael J. Van Der Linde, and Hendrik T. Groeneveld. 2010. Carbon sequestration estimates of indigenous street trees in the city of Tshwane, South Africa. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 9 (1): 9-14. Stoll-Kleemann, S., Tim O’Riordan, and Carlo C. Jaeger. 2001. The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: Evidence from swiss focus groups. Global Environmental Change 11 (2): 107-17. Storbjörk, Sofie. 2010. 'it takes more to get a ship to change course': Barriers for organizational learning and local climate adaptation in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 12 (3): 235-54. Stow, Douglas A., John R. Weeks, Hsiao-Chien Shih, Lloyd L. Coulter, Harry Johnson, Yu-Hsin Tsai, Andrew Kerr, Magdalena Benza, and Foster Mensah. 2016. Inter-regional pattern of urbanization in southern Ghana in the first decade of the new millennium. Applied Geography 71: 32-43.

330

Stringer, Lindsay C., Jen C. Dyer, Mark S. Reed, Andrew J. Dougill, Chasca Twyman, and David Mkwambisi. 2009. Adaptations to climate change, drought, and desertification: Local insights to enhance policy in southern Africa. Environmental Science and Policy 12 (7): 748-65. Strohbach, Michael W., Eric Arnold, and Dagmar Haase. 2012. The Carbon Footprint of Urban Green space—A Life Cycle Approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2): 220-229. Su, Weizhong, Yong Zhang, Yingbao Yang, and Gaobin Ye. 2014. Examining the impact of greenspace patterns on land surface temperature by coupling LiDAR data with a CFD model. Sustainability (Switzerland) 6 (10): 6799-814. Su, Yongxian, Guangqing Huang, Xiuzhi Chen, Shuisen Chen, and Zhishan Li. 2011. Research progress in the eco-environmental effects of urban green spaces. Sheng Tai Xue Bao 31 (23): 7287-300. Swalheim, Sarah, and David Dodman. 2008. Building resilience: how the urban poor can drive climate adaptation. International Institute for Environment and Development: Opinion on Sustainable Development. November. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17043IIED.pdf Swanstrom, Todd. 2001. What we argue about when we argue about regionalism. Journal of Urban Affairs 23 (5): 479-96. Swart, Rob, John Robinson, and Stewart Cohen. 2003. Climate change and sustainable development: Expanding the options. Climate Policy 3 (1): S19-40. Swim, Janet, Susan Clayton, Thomas Doherty, Robert Gifford, George Howard, Joseph Reser, Paul Stern, and Elke Weber. 2009. Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. A report by the American Psychological Association’s task force on the interface between psychology and global climate change. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. https://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change-booklet.pdf Tan, Puay Yok, James Wang, and Angelia Sia. 2013. Perspectives on five decades of the urban greening of Singapore. Cities 32: 24-32. Tang, Zhenghong, Samuel D. Brody, Courtney Quinn, Liang Chang, and Ting Wei. 2010. Moving from agenda to action: Evaluating local climate change action plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53 (1): 41-62. Tanner, Thomas, Adelina Mensah, Elaine T. Lawson, Chris Gordon, Rachel Godfrey‐Wood, and Terry Cannon. 2014. Political economy of climate compatible development: Artisanal fisheries and climate change in Ghana. IDS Working Papers (446): 1-30. Tanner, Thomas, Tom Mitchell, Emily Polack and Bruce Guenther. 2009. Urban Governance for Adaptation: Addressing Climate Change Resilience in Ten Asian Cities, IDS Working Paper 315, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2009.00315_2.x Tanser, Frank C., Brian Sharp, and David le Sueur. 2003. Potential effect of climate change on malaria transmission in Africa. The Lancet 362 (9398): 1792-8.

331

Taylor, Dorceta E. 2000. The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: Injustice framing and the social construction of environmental discourses. American Behavioral Scientist 43 (4): 508-80. Taylor, Marcus. 2013. Climate change, relational vulnerability and human security: Rethinking sustainable adaptation in agrarian environments. Climate and Development 5 (4): 318-27. Taylor, Marcus. 2015. The political ecology of climate change adaptation: Livelihoods, agrarian change and the conflicts of development. London: Routledge/Earthscan. Tejada, Jeffry J., and Joyce Raymond B. Punzalan. 2012. On the misuse of Slovin’s formula. The Philippine Statistician, 61(1), 129-136. Tekpetey, Stephen Lartey, G. A. Quartey, and R. Tekpetey. 2009. Developing new adaptation strategies to climate change in Ghana: The potential of underutilized bamboo resources. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (36): 362001-1. Termeer, Catrien, Robbert Biesbroek, and Margo Van den Brink. 2012. Institutions for adaptation to climate change: Comparing national adaptation strategies in Europe. European Political Science 11 (1): 41-53. Thaler, Thomas, Marie-Sophie Attems, Mathieu Bonnefond, Darren Clarke, Amandine Gatien- Tournat, Mathilde Gralepois, Marie Fournier, et al. 2019. Drivers and barriers of adaptation initiatives – how societal transformation affects natural hazard management and risk mitigation in Europe. Science of the Total Environment 650 (Pt 1): 1073-82. Thia, Hui J., and Donald Ross. 2011. Using Content Analysis to Inquire into the Influence of Public Opinion on the Success of Public Private Partnerships. International Journal on GSTF Business Review 1(1), 237-242. Thomas, David S. G., Chasca Twyman, Henny Osbahr, and Bruce Hewitson. 2007. Adaptation to climate change and variability: Farmer responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends in South Africa. Climatic Change 83 (3): 301-22. Thomas, Gillian, and Guy Thompson. 2004. A child’s place: Why environment matters to children. London: Green Alliance and Demos. [Online: Accessed on August 10, 2018]. http://www.barnardos.org.uk/achildsplace.pdf Thompson, Catharine Ward. 2002. Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2): 59-72. Tian, Yuhong, Chi. Yung. Jim, Yan Tao, and Tao Shi. 2011. Landscape ecological assessment of green space fragmentation in Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10 (2): 79- 86. Tieleman, Joris, and Justus Uitermark. 2019. Chiefs in the City: Traditional Authority in the Modern State. Sociology 53 (4): 707–23. Doi:10.1177/0038038518809325. Tomek, Sara. 2018. Categorical Data Analysis. In the SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. 4 vols. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139. Tompkins, Emma L. 2005. Planning for climate change in small islands: Insights from national hurricane preparedness in the Cayman Islands. Global Environmental Change 15 (2): 139-49.

332

Tontoh, Agyemang Albert. 2011. A study to ascertain the growth situation of the Kumasi Metropolitan area (KMA): A remote sensing approach. Master’s thesis, Department of Geomatic Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi. Toteng, Elisha N. 2012. Political and state system barriers to the implementation of climate change adaptation in Botswana. In: Overcoming Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation Implementation in Southern Africa [Masters, L. and L. Duff (eds.)]. Africa Institute of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 22-28. Tratalos, Jamie, Richard A. Fuller, Philip H. Warren, Richard G. Davies, and Kevin J. Gaston. 2007. Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (4): 308-17. Trimble, Morgan J., and Rudi J. van Aarde. 2014. Supporting conservation with biodiversity research in sub-Saharan Africa’s human-modified landscapes. Biodiversity and Conservation 23 (9): 2345-69. Troy, Austin, and J. Morgan Grove. 2008. Property values, parks, and crime: A hedonic analysis in Baltimore, MD. Landscape and Urban Planning 87 (3): 233-45. Tschakert, Petra, and Kathleen Ann Dietrich. 2010. Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecology and Society 15 (2): 11. Tuan Seik, Foo. 2001. Planning and design of Tampines, an award-winning high-rise, high- density township in Singapore. Cities18 (1): 33-42. Turner, Monica G. 2010. Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world. Ecology 91 (10): 2833-49. Turner, Will R., Toshihiko Nakamura, And Marco Dinetti. 2004. Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. Bioscience 54 (6): 585-90. Turrini, Tabea, and Eva Knop. 2015. A landscape ecology approach identifies important drivers of urban biodiversity. Global Change Biology 21 (4): 1652-67. Tuts, Raf, Robert Kehew, Alexander Aylett, Michael Boswell, Harriet Bulkeley, Juliette Daniels, Wee Kean Fong, Robert Kehew, Cécile Martin-Phipps, and Xiaomei Tan. 2015. Guiding Principles for City Climate Action Planning. Nairobi: UN-Habitat Tzoulas, Konstantinos, Kalevi Korpela, Stephen Venn, Vesa Yli-Pelkonen, Aleksandra Kaźmierczak, Jari Niemela, and Philip James. 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (3): 167-78. Ubink, Janine M., and Julian F. Quan. 2008. How to combine tradition and modernity? Regulating customary land management in Ghana. Land Use Policy 25 (2): 198-213 Uggla, Ylva. 2008. Strategies to create risk awareness and legitimacy: The Swedish climate campaign. Journal of Risk Research 11 (6): 719-34. UNDP, UNCDF, and UNEP. 2013. Financing Local Responses to Climate Change: Implications of Decentralisation on Responses to Climate Change. Accessed on 22nd August 2018. http://www.asia- 333

pacific.undp.org/content/dam/rbap/docs/Research%20and%20Publications/democratic_g overnance/RBAP-DG-2013-Financing-Local-Response-Climate-Change.pdf UNDP. 2007. Human Development Report 2007/2008, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY UNDP. 2009. Human Development Report 2009, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY UNEP. 2012. Global environment outlook 5 (GEO 5): Environment for the future we want. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8021/GEO5_report_full_en.pdf?i sAllowed=yandsequence=5 United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2010. National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. CC DARE: Climate Change and Development – Adapting by Reducing Vulnerability. A Joint UNEP/UNDP Programme for Sub-Saharan African. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ndpc- static/CACHES/PUBLICATIONS/2016/04/16/Ghana_national_climate_change_adaptati on_strategy_nccas.pdf. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/publications/files/wup2014-highlights.pdf United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2009. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1 https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/11a01.pdf. Accessed on 14th August 2016. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2008a. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3. FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1, 14 March 2008 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2011a. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1 https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2011b. Report of the Global Environment Facility to the Conference of the Parties. FCCC/CP/2011/7. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/07.pdf. Accessed on 14th August 2016. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2014. UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance 2014 Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows Report. UNFCC: Bonn. Accessed on 15th July 2018. https://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/standing_committe e/application/pdf/2014_biennial_assessment_and_overview_of_climate_finance_flows_r eport_web.pdf

334

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2016. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1. Accessed on 15th July 2018. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10a01.pdf United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2008b. Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amount. Bonn, Germany: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf United Nations General Assembly 2015. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. United Nations Report (A/RES/70/1). Seventieth session Agenda items 15 and 116. Accessed on 14th August 2016. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/glo balcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). 2006. State of the World’s Cities 2006/7: The Millennium Development Goals and Urban Sustainability. London: Earthscan. Accessed on October 20, 2018. https://unhabitat.org/books/state-of-the-worlds-cities-20062007/# United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). 2008. The State of the African Cities Report 2008. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat): Nairobi, Kenya. Accessed on October 20, 2018https://unhabitat.org/books/the-state-of- the-african-cities-report-2008/#. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). 2010a. State of the World's Cities 2010/2011 - Cities for All: Bridging the Urban Divide. Earthscan Publications Ltd. http://mirror.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2917 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). 2010b. State of African Cities 2010: Governance, Inequalities and Urban Land Markets. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat): Nairobi, Kenya. Accessed on October 20, 2018. https://unhabitat.org/books/state-of-african-cities-2010-governance-inequalities-and- urban-land-markets-2/#. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). 2011. Cities and Climate Change: Global Report On Human Settlements 2011. London: Earthscan. https://unhabitat.org/?mbt_book=cities-and-climate-change-global-report-on-human- settlements-2011 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). 2012. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013. Prosperity of Cities. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN- Habitat): Nairobi, Kenya. Accessed on October 20, 2018. https://unhabitat.org/books/prosperity-of-cities-state-of-the-worlds-cities-20122013/# United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). 2014. State of African Cities 2014: Re-imagining sustainable urban transitions. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat): Nairobi, Kenya. Accessed on October 20, 2018.

335

https://unhabitat.org/books/state-of-african-cities-2014-re-imagining-sustainable-urban- transitions/#. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). 2018. The State of African Cities 2018 – The geography of African investment. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat): Nairobi, Kenya. Accessed on October 20, 2018. https://unhabitat.org/books/the-state-of-african-cities-2018-the-geography-of-african- investment/ United Nations Human Settlements Programme. 2003. The challenge of slums: global report on human settlements, 2003. UN-HABITAT: Nairobi. https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/Challenge%20of%20Slums.pdf United Nations Population Fund. 2007. State of world population 2007. Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth. New York: United Nations Population Fund. Retrieved from https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/695_filename_sowp2007_eng.pdf United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2018. World Urbanization Prospects: Accessed on October 20, 2018. The 2018 Revision, Online Edition. http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POPandf=tableCode%3a240%3bcountryCode%3a288%3 brefYear%3a1970%2c1980%2c1990%2c2000%2c2010%2c2015%2c2017%3bsexCode %3a0%2c1%2c2andc=2,3,6,8,10,12,14,16,17,18ands=_countryEnglishNameOrderBy:asc ,refYear:desc,areaCode:ascandv=1 United Nations. 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/applicatio n/pdf/conveng.pdf United Nations. 2002. Fifty-seventh session. Item 44 of the provisional agenda. Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration. Report of the Secretary-General. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/sgreport2002.pdf?OpenElement United Nations. 2005. Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization General Assembly Official Records Sixtieth Session Supplement No. 1 (A/60/1). http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/sgreport2005.pdf?OpenElement Urquhart, Cathy. 2013. Grounded theory for qualitative research: A practical guide. London: SAGE. Urwin, Kate, and Andrew Jordan. 2008. Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Global Environmental Change 18 (1): 180-91. Uyarra, Maria C., Isabelle M. Côté, Jennifer A. Gill, Rob R. T. Tinch, David Viner, and Andrew R. Watkinson. 2005. Island-specific preferences of tourists for environmental features: Implications of climate change for tourism-dependent states. Environmental Conservation 32 (1): 11-9. Valles, Sean A. 2015. Bioethics and the framing of climate change's health risks. Bioethics 29 (5): 334-41. 336

van Aalst, Maarten K., Terry Cannon, and Ian Burton. 2008. Community level adaptation to climate change: The potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global Environmental Change 18 (1): 165-79. Van Boven, Leaf, Phillip J. Ehret, and David K. Sherman. 2018a. Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science 13 (4): 492-507. Van Boven, Leaf, Phillip J. Ehret, and David K. Sherman. 2018b. Toward surmounting the psychological barriers to climate Policy—Appreciating contexts and acknowledging challenges: A reply to weber (2018). Perspectives on Psychological Science 13 (4): 512- 7. Van Den Berg, Agnes E., Terry Hartig and Henk Staats. 2007. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 63 (1): 79-96. Van Den Berg, Maya, and Frans Coenen. 2012. Integrating climate change adaptation into Dutch local policies and the role of contextual factors. Local Environment 17 (4): 441-60. Van Herzele, Ann, and Torsten Wiedemann. 2003. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning 63 (2): 109- 26. van Leeuwen, Eveline, Peter Nijkamp, and Teresa de Noronha Vaz. 2010. The multifunctional use of urban greenspace. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8 (1-2): 20- 5. Vanhala, Lisa, and Cecilie Hestbaek. 2016. Framing climate change loss and damage in UNFCCC negotiations. Global Environmental Politics 16 (4): 111-29. Varkevisser, Corlien M., Indra Pathmanathan, and Ann Brownlee. 2003. Designing and conducting health system research projects: Volume 1, proposal development and fieldwork. IDRC, Ottawa, ON, CA. Vaz Monteiro, Madalena, Kieron J. Doick, Phillip Handley, and Andrew Peace. 2016. The impact of greenspace size on the extent of local nocturnal air temperature cooling in London. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 16, 160-169. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.02.008 Vergara, Walter. 2005 Adapting to Climate Change: Lessons Learnt, Work in Progress and Proposed Next Steps for the World Bank in Latin America, World Bank Latin America Region, Sustainable Development Series No 25, World Bank, Washington, D. C. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/274531468242099422/pdf/557450NWP0Box 31imateChange01PUBLIC1.pdf VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape, PC. .2014. Climate Action Planning Guide. Climate Smart Communities https://cdrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/CAP- Guide_MAR-2014_FINAL.pdf Vitouladiti, Ourania. 2014. Content analysis as a research tool for marketing, management and development strategies in tourism. Procedia Economics and Finance 9: 278-87.

337

Vogt, W. Paul, Dianne C. Gardner, Lynne M. Haeffele, and Inc ebrary. 2012. When to use what research design. New York: Guilford Press. Vörösmarty, Charles J., Ellen M. Douglas, Pamela A. Green, and Carmen Revenga. 2005. Geospatial indicators of emerging water stress: An application to Africa. Ambio 34 (3): 230-6. Vulturius, Gregor and Åsa Gerger Swartling. 2015. Overcoming social barriers to learning and engagement with climate change adaptation: Experiences with Swedish forestry stakeholders. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 30 (3): 217-25. Walker, Brian H., and David Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington: Island Press. Wasige, John E., Thomas A. Groen, Eric Smaling, and Victor Jetten. 2012. Monitoring basin- scale land cover changes in Kagera Basin of Lake Victoria using: Ancillary data and remote sensing. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 21 (1): 32-42. Watson, Vanessa. 2009. ‘The planned city sweeps the poor away…’: Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation. Progress in Planning 72 (3): 151-93. Watson, Vanessa. 2014. African urban fantasies: Dreams or nightmares? Environment and Urbanization 26 (1): 215-31. Weathers, Melinda R., and Brenden E. Kendall. 2016. Developments in the framing of climate change as a public health issue in US newspapers. Environmental Communication 10 (5): 593-611. Weber, Robert Philip. 1990. Basic content analysis. 2nd ed. Vol. no. 07-049. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Wendel, Heather E. Wright, Rebecca K. Zarger, and James R. Mihelcic. 2012. Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landscape and urban planning 107 (3): 272-282. West, Jordan M., Susan H. Julius, Peter Kareiva, Carolyn Enquist, Joshua J. Lawler, Brian Petersen, Ayana E. Johnson, and M. Rebecca Shaw. 2009. U.S. natural resources and climate change: Concepts and approaches for management adaptation. Environmental Management 44 (6): 1001-21. Wheeler, Stephen M. 2008. State and municipal climate change plans: The first generation. Journal of the American Planning Association 74 (4): 481-96. Whitford, V., A. R. Ennos, and J. F. Handley. 2001. “City form and natural process” - indicators for the ecological performance of urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 57 (2): 91-103. Wilbanks, Thomas J., Patricia Romero Lankao, Manzhu Bao, F. G. H. Berkhout, Sandy Cairncross, Jean-Paul Ceron, Manmohan Kapshe et al. 2007a. Industry, settlement and society. In: M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden and C. E. Hanson (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, Cambridge, UK, pp357–390 338

Wilbanks, Thomas J., Paul Leiby, Robert Perlack, J. Timothy Ensminger, and Sherry B. Wright. 2007b. Toward an integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: Some preliminary findings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12 (5): 713-25. Wilkinson, Cathy, Marte Sendstad, Susan Parnell, Maria Schewenius. 2013. Urban governance of biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., Parnell, S., Schewenius, M., Sendstad, M., Seto, K.C., Wilkinson, C. (Eds.), Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer, Dordrecht. pp 539-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_27 Williams, A. Park, and Chris Funk. 2011. A westward extension of the warm pool leads to a westward extension of the Walker circulation, drying eastern Africa. Climate Dynamics 37 (11-12): 2417-2435. Williams, A. Park, Chris Funk, Joel Michaelsen, Sara A. Rauscher, Iain Robertson, Tommy HG Wils, Marcin Koprowski, Zewdu Eshetu, and Neil J. Loader. 2012. Recent summer precipitation trends in the Greater Horn of Africa and the emerging role of Indian Ocean sea surface temperature. Climate Dynamics 39 (9-10): 2307-2328. Wilson, David. 2003. Unravelling control freakery: Redefining central-local government relations. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5 (3): 317-46. Wolf, Johanna, Ilana Allice, and Trevor Bell. 2013. Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation: Evidence from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Global Environmental Change 23 (2): 548-62. Wolf, Johanna, W. Neil Adger, Irene Lorenzoni, Vanessa Abrahamson, and Rosalind Raine. 2010. Social capital, individual responses to heat waves and climate change adaptation: An empirical study of two UK cities. Global Environmental Change 20 (1): 44-52. Wolf, Kathleen L. 2005. Business district streetscapes, trees, and consumer response. Journal of Forestry 103 (8): 396-400. Wong, Poh Poh, Iñigo J. Losada, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Jochen Hinkel, Abdellatif Khattabi, Kathleen L. McInnes, Yoshiki Saito, Asbury Sallenger. 2014. Coastal systems and low- lying areas. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 361-409. Woolley, Helen. 2003. Urban Open Spaces. London: Spon Press. World Bank. 2000. Cities in Transition: World Bank Urban and Local Government Strategy. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Accessed on August 25, 2016. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINFNETWORK/Resources/urban.pdf

339

World Bank. 2007. Liveable cities: the benefits of urban environmental planning - a cities alliance study on good practices and useful tools (English). Washington, DC: World Bank. [Online: Accessed on August 10, 2018]. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/944211468155698900/Liveable-cities-the- benefits-of-urban-environmental-planning-a-cities-alliance-study-on-good-practices-and- useful-tools World Bank. 2011. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 112.1 Million (US$175 Million Equivalent) to the Republic of Ghana for A Local Government Capacity Support Project. Accessed on 18th August 2018. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/335001468031498518/pdf/590390PAD0P122 1e0only1910BOX358301B.pdf Wu, Jianguo (Jingle). 2008. Making the case for landscape ecology: An effective approach to urban sustainability. Landscape Journal 27 (1): 41-50. Wurtenberger, L., Ingo Bunzeck, and Xander van Tilburg. 2011. Initiatives related to climate change in Ghana: Towards coordinating efforts. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands report for Climate Knowledge and Development Network, Amsterdam, Netherlands. http://cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Ghana-initiatives-mapping- climate-change-May2011.pdf Yamane, Taro. 1967. Statistics: An introductory analysis. 2d ed. New York: Harper & Row. Yang, Jun, Jing Sun, Quansheng Ge, and Xueming Li. 2017. Assessing the impacts of urbanization-associated green space on urban land surface temperature: A case study of Dalian, China. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 22 : 1-10. Yaro, Joseph Awetori. 2013. The perception of and adaptation to climate variability/change in Ghana by small-scale and commercial farmers. Regional Environmental Change 13 (6): 1259-72. Yaro, Joseph. A., 2010: The Social Dimensions of Adaptation to Climate Change in Ghana. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 15, December 2010, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/513441468326170992/The-social- dimensions-of-adaptation-of-climate-change-in-Ghana Yeboah, Eric and David P. Shaw. 2013. Customary land tenure practices in Ghana: examining the relationship with land-use planning delivery. International Development Planning Review, 35(1), 21-39. Yeboah, Eric, and David Shaw. 2013. Customary land tenure practices in Ghana: examining the relationship with land-use planning delivery. International Development Planning Review 35 (1): 21-39. Yemefack, Martin, Wietske Bijker, and Steven M. De Jong. 2006. Investigating relationships between Landsat-7 ETM+ data and spatial segregation of LULC types under shifting agriculture in southern Cameroon. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 8 (2): 96-112. Yin, Robert K. 2014. Case study research: Design and methods. Fifth ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.

340

Yuen, Belinda, and Asfaw Kumssa. 2011. (Eds). Climate change and sustainable urban development in Africa and Asia. Springer Science & Business Media. Zahran, Sammy, Himanshu Grover, Samuel D. Brody, and Arnold Vedlitz. 2008. Risk, stress, and capacity: Explaining metropolitan commitment to climate protection. Urban Affairs Review 43 (4): 447-74. Zaitzevsky, Cynthia. 1982. Frederick Law Olmsted and the Boston Park System. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Zavaleta, Carol, Lea Berrang-Ford, James Ford, Alejandro Llanos-Cuentas, César Cárcamo, Nancy A. Ross, Guillermo Lancha, et al. 2018. Multiple non-climatic drivers of food insecurity reinforce climate change maladaptation trajectories among Peruvian indigenous Shawi in the amazon. PloS One 13 (10): e0205714. Zérah, Marie –. Hélène. 2007. Conflict between green space preservation and housing needs: The case of the Sanjay Gandhi national park in Mumbai. Cities 24 (2): 122-32. Zhang, Biao, Canqiang Zhang, Jing Zhang, and Gaodi Xie. 2012. The economic benefits of rainwater-runoff reduction by urban green spaces: A case study in Beijing, China. Journal of Environmental Management 100: 65-71. Zhang, Liquan, Jianping Wu, Yu Zhen, and Jiong Shu. 2004. A GIS-based gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern of Shanghai metropolitan area, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (1): 1-16. Zhang, Xiaoling, Liyin Shen, Vivian W. Y. Tam, and Winnie Wing Yan Lee. 2012. Barriers to implement extensive green roof systems: A Hong Kong study. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (1): 314-9. Zhang, Yaoqi, Anwar Hussain, Jinyang Deng, and Neil Letson. 2007. Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environment and Behavior 39 (6): 797- 814. Zhou, Xiaolu, and Yi-Chen Wang. 2011. Spatial–temporal dynamics of urban green space in response to rapid urbanization and greening policies. Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (3): 268-77. Ziervogel, Gina and Alfred Opere. 2010: Integrating Meteorological and Indigenous Knowledge- Based Seasonal Climate Forecasts for the Agricultural Sector: Lessons from Participatory Action Research in Sub-Saharan Africa. Climate Change Adaptation in Africa (CCAA) Learning Paper Series, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, ON, Canada. http://hdl.handle.net/10625/46185 Ziervogel, Gina, and Fernanda Zermoglio. 2009. Climate change scenarios and the development of adaptation strategies in Africa: Challenges and opportunities. Climate Research 40 (2/3): 133-46. Ziervogel, Gina, Anna Taylor, Sepo Hachigonta and Juan Hoffmaister. 2008: Climate Adaptation in Southern Africa: Addressing the Needs of Vulnerable Communities. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Stockholm, Sweden.

341

https://www.weadapt.org/sites/weadapt.org/files/legacy- new/placemarks/files/533c275ee8a1csei-oxfam-climate-adaptation-report-15july.pdf Ziervogel, Gina, Emma Archer van Garderen, and Penny Price. 2016. Strengthening the knowledge–policy interface through co-production of a climate adaptation plan: Leveraging opportunities in Bergrivier municipality, south Africa. Environment & Urbanization 28 (2): 455-74. Ziervogel, Gina, Lorena Pasquini, and Sarah Haiden. 2017. Nodes and networks in the governance of ecosystem-based adaptation: The case of the Bergrivier municipality, south Africa. Climatic Change 144 (2): 271-85. Zinyowera, M.C., B.P. Jallow, R.S. Maya, H.W.O. Okoth-Ogando, L.F. Awosika, E.S. Diop, T.E. Downing, M. El-Raey, D. Le Sueur, C.H.D. Magadza, S. Toure, and C. Vogel, 1997: Africa. In: The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability. A Special Report of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R.T., M.C. Zinyowera, R.H. Moss, and D.J. Dokken (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 29-84. Žlender, Vita, and Catharine Ward Thompson. 2017. Accessibility and use of peri-urban green space for inner-city dwellers: A comparative study. Landscape and Urban Planning 165: 193-205.

342

APPENDICES A1. List of News Publications about Ratteray Park

Awuah, I.F. Joe Jnr. 2017. “2 KMA Staff for Court Over Rattray Park.” Daily Guide Network. September 20, 2017. https://dailyguidenetwork.com/2-kma-staff-court-rattray-park/ Brakopowers, Austin. 2017. “‘Violent attacks, seizures unhealthy for Ghana’s future’ – Christian Council.” myjoyonline.com. Date: 01/13/2017 Time: 11:01:08: PM. [online]: https://www.myjoyonline.com/news/2017/January-13th/violent-attacks-seizures- unhealthy-for-ghanas-future-christian-council.php Brakopowers, Austin. 2017. “Irate NPP youth on rampage spree locking offices, driving out workers.” myjoyonline.com. Date: 01/09/2017 Time: 06:01:37: PM. [online]: https://www.myjoyonline.com/politics/2017/January-9th/irate-npp-youth-on-rampage- spree-locking-offices-driving-out-workers.php Donkor, Erastus Asare. 2016. “Assemblymen want Kojo Bonsu probed.” myjoyonline.com. Date: 07/13/2016 Time: 05:07:26:pm. [online]: https://www.myjoyonline.com/news/2016/july- 13th/assemblymen-want-kojo-bonsu-probed.php Donkor, Erastus Asare. 2016. “Kumasi Rattray Park Probe: Kojo Bonsu pleads innocence over bloated expenses.” Luv FM. Date: 01/19/2016 Time: 07:01:55: AM. [online]: http://www.myjoyonline.com/news/2016/January-19th/kumasi-rattray-park-probe-kojo- bonsu-pleads-innocence-over-bloated-expenses.php Donkor, Erastus Asare. 2017. “Rattray Park fountain starts dancing again after stolen USB saga.” Luv FM. Date: 23-12-2017 Time: 09:12:19: AM. [online]: https://www.myjoyonline.com/news/2017/December-23rd/rattray-park-fountain-starts- dancing-again-after-stolen-usb-saga.php Myjoyonline.com. 2017. “KMA set to investigate cost of Rattray Park.” myjoyonline.com. Date: 05/11/2017 Time: 01:05:10:pm. https://www.myjoyonline.com/news/2017/May- 11th/kma-set-to-investigate-cost-of-rattary-park.php

343

A2. Institutional Review Board Approval Letter

344

345

A3. Consent Forms

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

A4. Research Instruments

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

A5. List of International Development Organizations and their Roles

Organization Roles Projects Focus in Ghana Source Agence “The funds, supports and • “Ensuring food https://www.afd.fr/ Française de accelerates the transitions to a security and en Développement fairer and more sustainable world. promoting sustainable https://www.afd.fr/ (AFD) Focusing on climate, biodiversity, rural development en/page-region- peace, education, urban • Supporting urban pays/ghana development, health and development and governance, our teams carry out local government more than 4,000 projects in • Developing safer France’s overseas departments energy for economic and territories and other 115 growth countries. In this way, we • Producing intellectual contribute to the commitment of material, focusing on France and French people to key topics” support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” Intergovernment The “United Nations body for NA https://www.ipcc.c al Panel on assessing the science related to h/about/ Climate Change climate change… The IPCC https://www.ipcc.c (IPCC) is provides regular assessments of h/site/assets/upload the scientific basis of climate s/2018/02/FS_what change, its impacts and future _ipcc.pdf risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation” International It “is a membership Union NA https://www.iucn.o Union for uniquely composed of both rg/about Conservation of government and civil society Nature (IUCN) organizations. It provides public, private and non-governmental organizations with the knowledge and tools that enable human progress, economic development and nature conservation to take place together” Japan Mission: “JICA, in accordance with “To support Ghana in its https://www.jica.g International the Development Cooperation effort, JICA's o.jp/english/about/ Cooperation Charter, will work on human cooperation is primarily mission/index.html Agency (JICA) security and quality growth.” focused on 1) agriculture https://www.jica.g Vision: “JICA, with its partners, (rice cultivation); 2) o.jp/ghana/english/ will take the lead in forging bonds economic infrastructure index.html of trust across the world, aspiring (electricity and for a free, peaceful and prosperous transport); 3) health and world where people can hope for a science/mathematics better future and explore their education; and 4) diverse potentials.” capacity development in administrative and financial management.” United Nations UNDP works in about 170 countries As of 2019, the UNDP https://www.undp. Development and territories, helping to achieve has $6.40M budget for org/content/undp/e the eradication of poverty, and the 24 projects in Ghana, 365

Program reduction of inequalities and with money from 20 n/home/about- (UNDP) exclusion. We help countries to donors us.html develop policies, leadership skills, https://open.undp.o partnering abilities, institutional rg/ capabilities and build resilience in order to sustain development results. United Nations UNEP or UN Environment “is the NA https://www.unenv Environment leading global environmental ironment.org/about Programme authority that sets the global -un-environment (UN EP) environmental agenda, promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of sustainable development within the United Nations system, and serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment.”

United Nations “The UNFCCC secretariat (UN NA https://unfccc.int/a Framework Climate Change) was established in bout-us/about-the- Convention on 1992 when countries adopted the secretariat Climate Change United Nations Framework (UNFCCC) Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

With the subsequent adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Paris Agreement in 2015, Parties to these three agreements have progressively reaffirmed the secretariat’s role as the United Nations entity tasked with supporting the global response to the threat of climate change.” United Nations “UNFPA is the United Nations NA https://www.unfpa. Population Fund sexual and reproductive health org/about-us (UNFPA) agency. Our mission is to deliver a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe and every young person's potential is fulfilled.”

NB: Most of the text in this table have quoted verbatim from the websites of these organizations.

366