STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY Department of Economic History and International Relations Master's Thesis in International Relations Spring Term 2020

Student: Jerker Bohman Supervisor: Elisabeth Corell

Evaluating urban climate policies: A comparative case study of Stockholm and Dublin

Abstract

Climate change is a collective action problem that has been seen as something that needs a global solution. This has resulted in multilateral agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, which can largely be said to have been unsuccessful so far. This has led to an increased awareness of the potential of cities as being part of the solution. Cities are often seen as key sources of climate change, but also as key sites for climate action. The Paris Agreement needs to be implemented on all political levels to be effective. This makes cities an important site for climate policy implementation. Some scholars of urban climate governance have looked at ways to evaluate climate policies in cities as a way to improve these processes. This study means to contribute to that field. The aim of the study is to evaluate climate policies in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin. This has been done by testing an analytical framework which made it possible to shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and the governance structures in the plans. By doing this it was also possible to identify challenges in using the framework and give suggestions on how the framework can be improved. The study takes the form of a comparative case study of the two cities. Document analysis was used as a method to select and analyse the data and the empirical material consisted of the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin. These are policy documents containing general development plans of the cities. It was concluded that both plans contain both strengths and weaknesses. Examples of strengths are that both plans are well-integrated with activities on the regional and national level, that responsibility for implementation is centralised on the local level, that the plans promote innovation and that the plans are connected to long-term goals and visions. Examples of weaknesses are that neither plan makes use of more hard methods such as regulation, that the Dublin City Plan is not integrated with policy on the global level and that the Stockholm City Plan lacks monitoring systems. Regarding the analytical framework it was concluded that it can be used to analyse city plans rather than metropolitan plans. By testing the framework it was also possible to identify challenges in using the framework and give suggestions on how to improve it, such as by making some of the key attributes of the plan more widely applicable.

Key words: urban climate governance, cities, climate policy, climate mitigation, climate adaptation, analytical framework, document analysis, comparative case study, Stockholm, Dublin

i

Table of contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Aim, scope and research questions ...... 2 1.2 Theory, method and empirical material ...... 3 1.3 Disposition ...... 3 2. Theory ...... 4 2.1 Theoretical background...... 4 2.2 Definition of key terms ...... 7 2.3 Analytical framework ...... 8 2.3.1 Governance ...... 9 2.3.2 Climate policies ...... 12 2.3.3 Distribution ...... 14 2.3.4 Democracy ...... 14 2.3.5 Finance...... 16 2.4 Theoretical scope ...... 16 3. Method ...... 17 3.1 Research design ...... 17 3.2 Case selection and empirical material ...... 18 3.3 Document analysis ...... 20 3.4 Approach and limitations ...... 21 3.5 Epistemology and ontology ...... 22 3.6 Ethical considerations ...... 23 4. Results and discussion ...... 23 4.1 Results from the Stockholm City Plan ...... 23 4.1.1 Governance ...... 24 4.1.2 Climate policies ...... 27 4.2 Results from the Dublin City Plan ...... 31 4.2.1 Governance ...... 31 4.2.2 Climate policies ...... 35 4.3 Comparative analysis and evaluation ...... 40 4.3.1 Comparative analysis of key attributes under the governance theme ...... 40 4.3.2 Comparative analysis of key attributes under the climate policies theme ...... 43 4.4 Challenges in using the framework and ways to improve it ...... 46 5. Concluding discussion ...... 48 References ...... 52

ii

1. Introduction

Climate change is one of the greatest threats facing humanity and other species. Rising greenhouse gas emissions are therefore of great concern and climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts are often high on the political agenda in many countries. As a result of this, climate governance, being part of the wider research field of global governance, has grown as a research field over the last decade. Climate governance often takes place on multiple political levels, ranging from the global to the local level, and involves many actors. Climate change has been described as a collective action problem (Ostrom, 2010, p. 2). The world’s countries have tried to solve this problem through international negotiations and agreements, which largely can be said to have been unsuccessful. Global climate governance has been well-studied by scholars of international relations. The inaction of nation states has created an increased awareness of the potential of cities as a place of change and implementation of climate policy. Cities sometimes even provide more ambitious climate policy than their national governments. This is not only positive as a response to the inaction of nation states, but also in itself since it is important that multilateral agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, is implemented on all levels, including the local level. If the Paris Agreement is not implemented on all levels it risks being a hollow agreement that results in false promises of nation states that do too little, too late. Van der Heijden (2019, p. 2) has written about the importance of cities in climate governance. Cities are often seen as key sources of climate change (Bulkeley et al., 2013; Van der Heijden, 2014; Gupta et al., 2015; Washington, 2015; Solecki et al., 2018). They are the source of 70 percent of global resource consumption and 70 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions (UN DESA, 2016). Cities are therefore an important site of climate governance. Those and other findings have led to an increased number of scholars studying urban climate governance. It is important for scholars of international relations to study climate governance at all levels to understand the multicentric approach that climate governance entails today. By studying climate policies in cities this study contributes to this field. The importance of cities in implementing climate policy also makes them an important target for scrutiny. Nguyen et al. (2018) have created an analytical framework for evaluating climate change policies in metropolitan plans. They suggest that their framework could be improved by being tested on more cases. This could, according to the authors, help sharpen

1 the themes and attributes which make up the framework (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 949). Improving this framework is important since it is the only analytical framework available in the literature that focuses on evaluating climate policies in the development plans of cities. Improving such frameworks could lead to more effective implementation of climate policy in cities which, as has mentioned above, is an important part of implementing multilateral agreements such as the Paris Agreement.

1.1 Aim, scope and research questions This study explores on themes related to how implementation of climate policy can be more effective on the local level, such as in cities. One important part of making policy implementation more effective is evaluation. Hence the aim of this study is to evaluate climate policies in the city plans of two cities — Stockholm and Dublin. This is done by testing parts of Nguyen et al.’s analytical framework by applying it to these two cases. Doing this makes it possible to shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and the governance structures in the city plans, as well as identify challenges in using the framework and give suggestions on how it can be improved. The scope of the study includes testing two themes from the analytical framework — governance and climate policies. Testing these selected themes instead of testing the entire framework gives the study a clear focus and makes it feasible. This choice is more thoroughly discussed in section 2.4. Another choice in terms of scope is that the study tests the framework on city plans rather than on metropolitan plans, which it was originally intended for. The reason for this is that it is important to evaluate climate policies in city plans in addition to metropolitan plans. Studying city plans, which have a narrower scope than metropolitan plans, also adds to the feasibility of the study. This choice, and the differences between city plans and metropolitan plans, is discussed more thoroughly in section 3.2. The research questions (RQ) that will be answered in this study are the following: » RQ 1: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and the governance structures in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin and how do these differ from each other? » RQ 2: What are the challenges in using the analytical framework and how can the framework be improved?

2

1.2 Theory, method and empirical material This section gives a brief account of the theory, method and empirical material used in this study. The theoretical foundation of this study mainly consists of Nguyen et al.’s (2008) analytical framework. It consists of five themes (governance, climate policies, distribution, democracy and finance) and a total of 21 key attributes divided among them. Only the governance and climate policies themes are used in this study, which results in the use of eleven key attributes. This framework is based on a conceptual framework created by Gleeson et al. (2004), but with additions from key literature from the field of urban climate governance. To situate the study, and add to the theoretical foundation, a theoretical background is presented in section 2.1. The study takes the form of a comparative case study of Stockholm and Dublin and the empirical material consists of the city plans of the two cities. They are general plans for development of the city areas. They are official documents published by the city governments and published on their websites. The comparison is meant to work as a springboard for the analysis and might show things that would risk being overlooked in a single-case study. Document analysis is used as a method to select and analyse the data. The city plans will, with the help of the analytical framework, be gone through systematically to find examples of the key attributes of the framework. This will necessitate several close readings of the documents. Doing this will make it possible to answer the research questions and to evaluate the climate policies in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin, as well as identify challenges in using the analytical framework and give suggestions on how it can be improved.

1.3 Disposition

This section describes the disposition of the rest of the thesis. Section 2 includes the theoretical foundation of the study, including a theoretical background (section 2.1), definitions of key terms (section 2.2), the analytical framework (section 2.3) and a discussion of the theoretical scope of the study (section 2.4). Section 3 includes the method used in the study, including research design (section 3.1), case selection and empirical material (section 3.2.), document analysis (section 3.3), approach and limitations (section 3.4), epistemological and ontological assumptions (section 3.5) and finally ethical considerations (section 3.6). Section 4 includes the results and discussion, including the results from the Stockholm City Plan (section 4.1), the results from the Dublin City Plan (section 4.2), the comparative

3 analysis (section 4.3) and ways to improve the framework (section 4.4). Finally, a summary and the conclusions of the study are presented in section 5.

2. Theory

In the following sections the theoretical foundation of the study is presented. This includes a theoretical background, definition of key terms, a presentation of the analytical framework and a discussion of the theoretical scope of the study.

2.1 Theoretical background As we have seen, climate change has been described as a collective action problem. This has since the 1980s led to many different governance activities on multiple political levels. Despite these efforts the political response is often seen as being inadequate (Bäckstrand et al., 2015, p. xvii). The early authors on global governance and climate change thought that the only way to solve global problems, such as climate change, were global solutions. They studied international institutional-building, which they called regimes (Krasner, 1983; Hasenclever et al., 1997). As Lederer (2015, p. 3) explains, this regime-approach was characterised by a strong state-centrism and a belief that environmental problems, such as climate change, could have an institutional solution. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was set up in 1992 and was expanded by the first climate change treaty called the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. These events validated the perspectives of the regime-scholars. It seemed realistic that these processes could lead to a global deal that would lead to effective climate action (Lederer, 2015, p. 3). The Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, often served as an example of a successful international environmental treaty (Parson, 1993). It was hoped that something similar could be done for climate change. Lederer (2015, p. 3) explains that the climate change regime has failed to do that. Instead of decreasing, global greenhouse gas emissions have increased throughout the years. For example there was a 2.2 per cent yearly increase of global greenhouse gas emissions between the years 2000 to 2010, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014, p. 6). As is well known, the Copenhagen Summit in 2009 was a failure and while the Paris Agreement was seen as a success, it has not yet been effective in decreasing global emissions of greenhouse gases. The failure of the climate change regime led to some scholars arguing that we have to move beyond the idea of global governance as the only solution to climate change. These scholars

4 put trust in states, local governments, networks and individuals instead (Lederer, 2015, p. 5). One of the things this led to was the emergence of the research field of urban climate governance. According to Bulkeley (2010, p. 230), urban climate governance research began around the time of the Kyoto Protocol in the mid-1990s (with authors such as Harvey, 1993; Lambright et al., 1996; Collier, 1997; DeAngelo & Harvey, 1998). These authors mainly looked at cities in the global North and primarily focused on mitigation of climate change rather than adaptation. Betsill and Bulkeley (2007, p. 448) mention several things that were studied during this period. Some scholars looked at the jurisdictional scope of local governments and their ability to influence greenhouse gas emissions (Collier, 1997; DeAngelo & Harvey, 1998). Others looked at in which sectors local governments can reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Collier, 1997) or which mitigation actions were taken at the local level (Agyeman et al., 1998; Angel et al., 1998). Others looked at how local governments can monitor their progress towards reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions (Easterling et al., 1998; Kates et al., 1998). Bestill and Bulkeley (2007, p. 448) explain that during the first decade of the millennium it became clear that the international research community recognized the importance of local climate change policy. After that, a number of scholars continued debating how local authorities faced climate change issues and studied processes, drivers and barriers of climate change mitigation efforts at the local level (see for example Ackerman, 2000; Betsill, 2001; Allman et al., 2004; Davies, 2005; Wilson, 2006; Bulkeley & Kern, 2006). There were three key findings from this decade: 1) climate governance takes place on multiple political levels; 2) knowledge plays an important role in local climate policy; 3) there exists a gap between policy rhetoric and implementation of local climate policy. It was also around this time that adaptation to climate change was beginning to be seen as a critical issue (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2007, p. 448). During the second decade of the twenty-first century new important findings were presented. Van der Heijden (2019, p. 3) explains that even though cities were seen as places of potentially effective climate action, there were other policy areas, such as sanitation and waste disposal, that were prioritized over climate change (see Rong, 2010; Johnson et al., 2015; Beermann et al., 2016; Van der Heijden, 2016). This means that the gap between policy rhetoric and implementation of local climate policy is still present (van der Heijden, 2019, p. 3). Another topic that was studied during this time was which factors that enable city governments to implement climate action effectively (van der Heijden, 2019, p. 3). Good

5 progress was made in this area and many such factors were identified. Examples of these are the following: 1) a supportive regional and national political and legal context (Pierre, 2011); 2) autonomy regarding climate policy implementation (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013); 3) access to funding for climate action (Clarke, 2017; Hughes, 2017); 4) vertical coordination between different levels of government (Kern & Mol, 2013; Johnson et al., 2015); 5) horizontal coordination between city governments, networks and public agencies (Knieling, 2016; Lee, 2018). Some of these factors are part of the theory behind the analytical framework that is used in this study and are discussed more thoroughly in section 2.3. The scholarly interest in evaluating the efforts of local governments, including city governments, has developed in parallel to, and more recently as a part of, the field of urban climate governance. In 1992 McLoughlin brought up the issue of Western scholars not evaluating metropolitan plans properly, and according to Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 935) this problem remains today. There have been attempts to solve this problem, but most of these have been ad hoc attempts rather than more comprehensive frameworks (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 938). Gleeson et al.’s (2004) framework is, however, an example of an attempt to create a more comprehensive and more widely applicable framework to evaluate metropolitan plans. Their framework aimed to evaluate how metropolitan plans of Australian cities responded to challenges of governance and sustainability. Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 348) mean that metropolitan planning strategies are important governance tools for reaching urban sustainability. They can provide vision and guidelines that can help shape policy in cities. They also mean that it is necessary to evaluate these plans because such evaluation could help us understand how cities respond to existing urban challenges, such as climate change, and what kind of policy tools and urban visions are used in such plans (Gleeson et al., 2004, p. 347). Gleeson et al. were not part of the field of urban climate governance, but rather looked at governance and sustainability issues in a wider sense. Nguyen et al. anticipate that “metropolitan planning strategies should evolve to become key tools in facilitating the delivery of cities’ climate actions” (2018, p. 935). And if they are key tools, then they should be evaluated. Being a part of the field of urban climate governance, Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 938) therefore note that there has been a lack of a rigorous framework for evaluating metropolitan plans and how they respond to climate change. In the same article they present an analytical framework that is meant to fill this gap. Their framework is derived from Gleeson et al.’s (2004) framework, but includes important findings from the field of urban climate governance. This framework is used in this study and is discussed more thoroughly in section 2.3.

6

2.2 Definition of key terms In this section five key terms that are used in this thesis are defined — climate policy, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, climate action and governance (including some variations). To define climate policy it is first important to define policy. Policy in this thesis means public policy. This is policy made by governments which affects every citizen within a jurisdiction, be it national or local (Howlett et al., 2014, p. 17). This thesis uses a definition by Jenkins that describes public policy as “a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should, in principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve” (Jenkins, 1978 as cited in Howlett et al., 2014, pp. 18-19). This definition is specific enough to include the content of policy — goals and means — and making sure it is achievable, but still wide enough to include the wide variety of goals and means used in climate policy-making. Climate policy then is public policy with a goal of either mitigating climate change or adapting to climate change. Climate change mitigation (climate mitigation for short) means hindering climate change, mainly by reducing or preventing greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change adaptation (climate adaptation for short) means adapting society to the changes that are a result of climate change, such as for example more extreme and frequent weather events, increased risk of flooding and higher sea levels. An adaptation measure could for example be building barriers to adapt to higher sea levels. A broad definition of climate policy is used in this study that includes climate mitigation and adaptation measures, as well as policies that are not branded as climate policies, but indirectly help the city mitigate climate change or adapt to it. Sometimes the term climate action is used in this thesis. This can be seen as a wider term used to describe any action in cities that lead to climate mitigation or adaptation, which includes, but is not limited to, public policy. Governance is defined by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as follows: Governance is about the processes by which public policy decisions are made and implemented. It is the result of interactions, relationships and networks between the different sectors (government, public sector, private sector and civil society) and involves decisions, negotiation, and different power relations between stakeholders to determine who gets what, when and how. The relationships between government and different sectors of society

7

determine how things are done, and how services are provided. Governance is therefore much more than government […]. (UNDP, 2015, p. 5) This is a useful definition because it is wide enough to include all the different actors that are part of governance processes today, including the local governments of cities. By this definition, governance is something that takes place on all political levels, and not only the global level. From the definition above follows that climate governance is the processes by which climate policy is made and implemented. Finally, urban climate governance means the process of making and implementing climate policy in urban areas, such as cities.

2.3 Analytical framework This section presents the analytical framework that is used in this study. It is created by Nguyen et al. (2018) and consists of five themes (governance, climate policies, distribution, democracy and finance) with a number of key attributes belonging to each theme, for a total of 21 key attributes (see table 1). The purpose of the framework is to evaluate climate policies in metropolitan plans. The climate policies theme relates directly to these policies while the other themes relate to things that enable the implementation of climate policy, such as governance structure, distribution of the policies, how democratic these processes are and the financial aspects of implementation. The framework is based on the conceptual framework created by Gleeson et al. (2004), but has been adjusted for the field of urban climate governance. To do this, Nguyen et al. (2018) incorporated the framework into key literature from that field. These conceptual resources are presented in sections 2.3.1–2.3.5. It consists of academic researchers such as for example Kern, Alber and Bulkeley, as well as reports from organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) or the city network called C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) that also conducts research. A few times Nguyen et al. (2018) are used as a reference when explaining the key attributes. This is the case when it was not possible to access the primary source. In the following section each theme are presented in turn with emphasis on the first two themes — governance and climate policies — since these are the ones that is used in this study. The other three themes are presented in short to make it clear which parts of the analytical framework that are left out. The theoretical scope of the study is more thoroughly discussed in section 2.4.

8

TABLE 1: Analytical framework for evaluating climate policies in cities

Governance Climate policies Distribution Democracy Finance

Key Power Temporal scale and Action scales Participation Financial measures attributes dimensions continuity scale

Vertical Tools: Distribution: Responsibility Formulation and

integration  Planning and equitable implementation management tools access to costs services and  Monitoring systems and standardised green databases technologies

 Risk assessment

Coordination Levers Impact frame Budgetary processes

Governance Innovation Accountability modes

Governance Analytic framework Reflexivity scale

Regional diffusion

Source: Adapted from Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 941) 2.3.1 Governance

The governance theme relates to the governance structure of the metropolitan plan. There are six key attributes under this theme: power dimensions, vertical integration, coordination, governance modes, governance scale and regional diffusion. These are explained below.

- Power dimensions This key attribute refers to the power dimensions of the city which affects the power dimensions of the metropolitan plan (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 941). According to C40 (2015, p. 16) power dimensions are the degree of control and influence over assets and functions a city government has. According to the organization these components are important for climate action in cities. There are four power dimensions: own or operate; set or enforce policy/regulations; control budget; and set vision (C40, 2015, p. 16). C40 explains these briefly in their report (C40, 2015, p. 16-17). The first one relates to how big part of the city’s assets the city owns. For example land, property or infrastructure. The second one relates to the city’s capacity to set or enforce policy or regulations, such as climate policy or an

9 environmental regulation. This is contrasted to situations where cities cannot do that themselves and are dependent on local, regional or national governments to set or enforce policy or regulations in the city. The third one relates to the capacity of the city to control the budget. Some cities have full control over their own budget, some can influence the budget, but does not control it and some have no control or influence over the budget. The fourth and final power dimension relates to the capacity of the city to set the vision for effective climate action in the city. A clear vision leads to clear goals and makes it easier for cities to acquire commitments from other parties, which in turn leads to more successful climate action (C40, 2015, p. 17)

- Vertical integration This key attribute refers to whether the metropolitan plan is integrated with activities on other government scales (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). In their report on cities and green growth, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) mentions the importance of vertical coordination between local, regional and national levels of government to ensure effective policy implementation (Hammer et al., 2011, p. 92-93). This ensures that policy on the national level is implemented on the local level and shows meaningful results (Hammer et al., p. 93). This is the same thing as what Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 359) call vertical integration. They mean that vertical integration is important since without it there is a risk of inconsistency between plans on different levels and confusion regarding responsibilities which might lead to a less effective implementation of policy.

- Coordination This key attribute informs whether the metropolitan plan promotes coordination between the city government and other actors (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). Similarly to vertical integration there is also a need for horizontal coordination. This could be internally between the city and public agencies or externally between the city and networks or other policy relationships. According to Bulkeley and Moser (2007, p. 7) such coordinated efforts can be more cost-effective than uncoordinated efforts since there are fewer transaction costs and more time efficiencies. It also increases public investment opportunities and reduces risk of gaps and contradictions between policy objectives of different actors (Allain-Dupré, 2011, p. 27).

- Governance modes This key attribute refers to what governance mode the city uses according to the metropolitan plan (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). A number of scholars have identified different governance

10 modes within cities (Kern & Alber, 2009; Broto & Bulkeley, 2013). Four governance modes are discussed here: self-governing, governing by provision, governing by regulation and governing through enabling. The four governance modes are explained by Kern and Alber (2009, p. 5). Self-governing is when city governments govern themselves to “lead by example” (Broto & Bulkeley, 2013, p. 95). In relation to climate policy this could for example be improving energy efficiency in buildings owned by the city. Tools used in this governance mode are reorganization of the city government, institutional innovation and public investments. Governing through enabling means coordinating partnerships with voluntary private actors and supporting initiatives by other actors, as well as active community engagement. Persuasion of other actors and the use of incentives and support are important tools for this governance mode (Broto & Bulkeley, 2013, p. 95). Governing by provision means the city being the main provider of public services and resources. Tools available for this governance mode are for example investments in infrastructure. Governing by regulation is a more traditional approach and means the use of regulation and sanctions to integrate climate change policy into other sectors such as energy, transport and land use (Kern & Alber, 2009, p. 5). Nguyen et al. (2018) do not clarify if any of these governance modes are preferable over others. They seem to see these as different ways of governing without an opinion of which is better. They probably mean it is best to make use of several of these governance modes. Kern and Alber (2009, p. 24) discuss this however. They mean that a majority of municipalities prefer to use self-governing and governing by enabling, rather than governing by regulation. One possible reason for this, according to the authors (Kern & Alber, 2009, p. 24) is that there could be problems of coordination within local governments, or that they could suffer from a lack of political support, which in turn can make local authorities reluctant to use more authoritative powers to implement climate policy. They say that this is a negative trend and that cities should use all options to implement climate policy, including making better use of more authoritative measures, such as governing by regulation (Kern & Alber, 2009, p. 26).

- Governance scale Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 942) explain that “governance scale refers to the scale at which the metropolitan plan governs”, which means if the climate policies presented in the plan are meant to be implemented on a metropolitan or city level (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 944). This key attribute also refers to whether the responsibility for implementation of the metropolitan

11 plan lies at one political level or is shared between different levels (Gleeson et al., 2004, p. 359). An example of when the latter could be the case is when a regional authority has created the plan, but public agencies on both regional and local level are responsible for implementation. Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 359) mean that when the responsibility for implementation is shared between different levels there is a risk of confusion and inconsistencies which might hinder implementation. It is therefore preferred to have one or more authorities on the same level being responsible for implementation.

- Regional diffusion This key attribute refers to whether the metropolitan plan promotes regional diffusion (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). According to Bassett and Shandas (2010, p. 436) policy innovation can be described as something that happens in clusters on a regional scale. An example of this could be local governments entering a coalition or forming a network to set up transport networks across municipal or county boundaries. Regional diffusion is useful since it can decrease costs and improve overall efficiency (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942).

2.3.2 Climate policies

The governance theme relates to the climate policies in the metropolitan plan. There are five key attributes under this theme: temporal scale and continuity, tools, levers, innovation and analytic framework. These are explained below.

- Temporal scale and continuity Temporal scale refers to the time frame of the metropolitan plan. This can be short-, medium- or long-term (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). According to Tewdwr-Jones a long-term plan is important since it can reduce the risk of short-term decisions being prioritized over long-term needs (as cited in Hutt, 2016, p. 1). Continuity on the other hand refers to whether the current plan is consistent with former metropolitan processes (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). Continuity could be had by applying feedback mechanisms and consulting those who created and worked with former plans (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 944). The authors are not clear on why this is important, but one possible reason could be that continuity is important to make use of existing knowledge and to make sure earlier progress is not lost.

- Tools This key attribute informs which kind of tools the metropolitan plan promotes (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). McCarney et al. (2011, p. 258) point out the importance of planning and management tools when addressing greenhouse gas emissions in cities. Examples of such

12 tools are “official plans, development guidelines, development permits, densifications plans [and] transit planning” (McCarney et al., 2011, p. 258). Other important tools are monitoring systems and standardised databases. Monitoring systems can be used to measure a city’s contribution to, as well as its vulnerability to, climate change. Storing such information in standardised databases can help create benchmarks so that cities can measure their performance (McCarney et al., 2011, p. 262-263). A fifth and final type of tool is risk assessment which can be used to assess risks, such as extreme weather events or rising sea levels (McCarney et al., 2011, p. 255). These are all tools that can be used to facilitate climate actions in cities and help them deliver appropriate climate change policies.

- Levers This key attribute refers to which levers are included in the metropolitan plan (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). According to C40 (2015, p. 36) cities can use four types of instruments to deliver change, which they call levers. These are: projects and programmes; policies or regulations; incentives or disincentives; and procurement. Neither C40 nor Nguyen et al. define these levers. Even though they might be self-explanatory I will gives some examples to clarify them. Projects and programmes are used to change human behaviour by promoting something that is positive for the city. This could for example be a project to enhance the city’s public transport network and a programme to make more citizens use public transport to decrease traffic in the city. Policies or regulations could for example be a policy to increase the amount of energy coming from renewable sources in a city, while an example of a regulation could be a regulation of a certain type of fuel to decrease the city’s dependence on fossil fuels. Examples of incentives are lowered taxes on certain fuels or electric vehicles, while an example of disincentives are congestions taxes to make it more expensive to use cars in certain areas, which in turn reduces traffic. Procurement is when the public sector invests in goods and services which often amounts to a big part of the economy and therefore can be a powerful tool to promote sustainability by choosing sustainable products. All of these tools are ways for the city to deliver climate action.

- Innovation The key attribute innovation refers to whether the metropolitan plan promotes the use of innovative technologies that can be applied to strengthen sustainable development in the city (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). These could be any kind of green technologies, but two examples are renewable energy and electric vehicles.

13

- Analytic framework This key attribute informs which type of analytic framework the metropolitan is based on (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). There are two kinds of analytic frameworks, according to Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 355). The first is based on the assumption that past trends (economic, social or ecological), and the drivers behind them, are relatively static. This results in a more static approach to planning where past trends are projected when planning for the future. The second is based on the assumption that trends are unstable and develop in a non-linear fashion. This results in a more dynamic approach where the planning is predictive of the future, but where the goals are adaptable to changes (Gleeson et al., 2004, p. 349). According to Duit et al. (2010, p. 303) the second assumption about trends is true for climate change and therefore Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 945) mean that it is preferable that a metropolitan plan is based on such assumptions.

2.3.3 Distribution - Action scales This key attribute refers to on what scale the metropolitan plan is implemented (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 942). C40 (2015, p. 59) uses four different measurements for the scale of implementation of climate policy in cities. The first one is transformative, which means that the policy is implemented on a city-wide scale. The second one is significant, which means that the policy is implemented across most of the city. The third one is pilot, which means a climate policy is being tested. And the fourth and final one is proposed, which means the policy is awaiting final authorisation before being tested or implemented.

- Distribution According to Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 943) this key attribute relates to whether the metropolitan plan promotes equitable access to services and goods, such as public transportation or green technologies. They exemplify green technologies as energy-saving appliances and electric vehicles.

2.3.4 Democracy - Participation scale This key attribute refers to if plan promotes community involvement (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 943). McCarney et al. (2011, p. 266) write that one important way to make climate action in cities more democratic is to promote inclusiveness. Important groups to include in these processes are citizens, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and private sectors. Engaging

14 these groups could be done in a number of ways, such as consultations, public hearings and meetings. McCarney et al. (2011, p. 266) explain that this, not only increases loyalty to the city, but also helps them create a sense of ownership of the policy that is being implemented. This can increase support of climate policy in the city.

- Responsibility This key attribute refers to whether responsibility for implementation of the metropolitan plan is centralised with one certain authority or shared by several public agencies (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 943). According to Olum (2014, p. 26) it is important to have clear responsibilities for policy implementation. Responsibilities may be centralised with a local government or decentralised among several public agencies. Olum (2014, p. 23) points out that decentralisation can be a problem in some countries where certain pre-conditions are not met, but also that decentralisation is way to deepen democracy at the local level (p. 37). This key attribute seemingly overlaps slightly with the governance scale key attribute under the governance theme, as seen above. Both key attributes refers to the responsibility for implementation of the plan. The governance scale is more about where on the political scale (e.g. locally or regionally) the responsibility lie, whereas the responsibility key attribute is more about if there are one or more authorities, such as public agencies, that are responsible for implementation.

- Impact frame The impact frame key attribute refers to whether the metropolitan plan includes the costs and benefits of its climate policies (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 943). Kelly (2012, p. 124) explains that giving citizens a clearer idea of the costs and benefits associated with policy implementation can lead to improved policy design. It helps citizens understand what they can expect from democratic decisions. This in turn can also help deepen democracy.

- Accountability This key attribute refers to whether the metropolitan plan includes mechanisms for identifying and sanctioning public agencies that are not following the metropolitan plan (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 943). Waldron (2014, p. 31) says that it is important to be able to hold political officials accountable through transparency and sanctioning.

15

- Reflexivity This key attribute refers to whether the metropolitan plan identifies its limitations and if there are mechanisms and monitoring in place to evaluate how implementation of the plan is affected by these limitations (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 943).

2.3.5 Finance - Financial measures Merk et al. (2012, p. 7) write about cities’ ability to promote green and sustainable cities by investing in infrastructure and using financial instrument such as congestion charges, toll lanes or betterment levies. The financial measures key attribute informs whether the plan uses such instruments to fund the implementation of climate policy (Nguyen et al., 2018, p. 943).

- Formulation and implementation costs According to Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 943) this key attribute refers to the capacity of the city government and public agencies to fund policy implementation themselves.

- Budgetary processes Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 349) explain that budgetary processes refers to “what extent the plan is linked to government budgeting (including taxing and spending) processes”. This is a bit unclear and is not thoroughly explained in the article. My interpretation is that he means whether the metropolitan plan clearly states if and how it is connected to the city government’s budget. This could be if a portion of the budget is set aside especially for implementing the plan or if certain policies in the plan are funded by taxing or spending schemes that are in the budget. Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 361) say that weak links between metropolitan plans and budgetary processes can impede implementation of the plans.

2.4 Theoretical scope For the purposes of this study two themes from the analytical framework is used: governance and climate policies. The reason for only using two of the five themes of the framework is to stay within the scope and get a clear focus of the study. The themes that are left out are the following: distribution, democracy and finance. This means that only climate policies in the city plans, and the governance structure behind them, can be studied in this study. It cannot evaluate the distributional, democratic or financial aspects of the climate policies of the cities. This also means that the entire analytical framework is not tested, but rather parts of it.

16

The choice of including the climate policies theme is obvious, but the choice of choosing the governance theme over the other three themes should be explained. This choice is not based on previous research, but rather personal opinion of which themes are the most important ones. The governance theme is of greater importance than the other three because the governance structure of a city creates a necessary basis and acts as a springboard for policy implementation. Without a governance structure, it is not possible to implement policy. Distribution, including on what scale climate policy is implemented and equitable access to its effects; democracy, including public participation, responsibility and accountability; and finance, including financial measures, costs and budgetary processes, are all important aspects. They are however, in my opinion, secondary to the governance structure. This is the reasoning behind the choice of the themes which are part of the analysis in this study.

3. Method

In the following sections the study’s research design and method for selection and analysis of data are presented. This study consists of a comparative case study including two cases. A qualitative text analysis in the form of document analysis is used as a method to select and analyse the empirical material. The empirical material consists of the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin.

3.1 Research design This study takes the form of a comparative case study. The units of analysis are Stockholm and Dublin, and in more detail, the city plans of these cities. Since there is more than one case it can be described as a multiple-case study (Bryman, 2015, p. 67). The comparative design means studying two or more contrasting cases. It makes use of the logic of comparison and implies “that we can understand social phenomena better when they are compared in relation to two or more meaningfully contrasting cases” (Bryman, 2015, p. 65). This is relevant in this study, since applying the analytical framework to two cases in comparative manner instead of one might lead to interesting findings that would otherwise be overlooked. The comparison can act as a springboard for the analysis. Since this is a form of case study the results are not generalizable. It is only possible to say something about these two particular cases. The study does, however, have a high replicability. The reason for this is that the analytical framework and the empirical

17 material are available for anyone to access. Therefore anyone who wished could replicate this study. With that said, it is important to note that due to its qualitative nature there is an unavoidable interpretive nature to the analysis, which increases the risk of a replicated version of this study showing differences in the results. To decrease this risk it is important to be careful and transparent in the presentation of the data and the analysis of it.

3.2 Case selection and empirical material As was mentioned in the introduction, the analytical framework is tested on the city plans of the cities, rather than their metropolitan plans. The reason for this is that it is important to test the analytical framework on city plans to see if that works as well. If it does, it means that the analytical framework has a broader use than intended by Nguyen et al., which would strengthen its overall applicability. My opinion is that it is important to evaluate both city plans and metropolitan plans to get the full picture of how cities implement climate policy. If only metropolitan plans are studied one can miss measures that are only for the city and its suburbs, but not relevant for the whole metropolitan area. City plans are also narrower in scope than metropolitan plans which add to the feasibility of the study by giving it a clear focus. So what is the difference between a city plan and a metropolitan plan? The answer is not simple since both city plans and metropolitan plans can take many forms and look very different between cities and countries. Logically, however, metropolitan plans are always broader in scope, since they are including the whole metropolitan area of a city. As an example this would in Stockholm be what is called Greater Stockholm (Storstockholm), which includes 26 municipalities. Stockholm’s metropolitan plan would include all these municipalities and would therefore have a much wider scope than a city plan. Naturally, this might also lead to such a plan being less detailed than a city plan. Both types of plans seem to often deal with the same things, but on a different geographical scale and different political levels — the city plan being on a city-wide and local level, whereas a metropolitan plan is on a metropolitan and regional level. To keep a clear focus of the study and to make sure it is feasible, the city plans of the cities are studied. A limitation of this approach is that the study is using an analytical framework which is made to study metropolitan plans rather than city plans. There is a risk of the framework not being fully applicable if there are differences between the two types of plans that I am not aware of. This is, on the other hand, what is being tested and there is always a risk of theories or analytical frameworks not being fully applicable when being tested.

18

As cases, Stockholm and Dublin were chosen because of their comparable size in terms of population (see table 2) and because both are capitals of their respective countries. Both Sweden and Ireland are also members of the European Union (EU). Furthermore, both cities have a proper city plan that could be used for analysis. These cases have been selected because of their similarities rather than their differences (Bryman, 2015, p. 69). This means that the differences that are found between the cities’ plans are more likely to be due to factors related to how the city functions internally rather than differences that were there from the outset. If one of the cases was a member of the EU, but the other one was not, a difference could be due to this rather than something internal. If the cases differed in terms of being a capital city or not, and if there were a wider population gap between the cities, this could also be factors that would not be beneficial to include in this study. Choosing cases with these similarities decreases the risk that outside factors affect the differences between the cases. The two city plans make up the empirical material in this study. The city plans are general plans for development of the city areas of the two cities. They are official documents published by the local governments and they are available on the websites of the two cities. It was therefore easy to access the documents. It might have been preferable to study more than two cases, but due to time constraints that is not possible. It is better to focus on two cases and make a thorough study of them. If the study included more than two cases there would be a risk of not having time to go through all the data which would be a problem for the study. The name of Stockholm’s plan is Stockholm City Plan (City of Stockholm, 2018), and Dublin’s plan is called Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 (Dublin City Council, 2016b) (but will be called Dublin City Plan henceforth). The Stockholm City Plan is 172 pages long and the Dublin City Plan is 408 pages long. This shows that city plans can vary in terms of length. The Stockholm City Plan is published in both Swedish and English. The English version was used in this study. TABLE 2: Basic information on the cities and their city plans Name of city Population size Name of city plan Length of plan Dublin City Dublin 554,554 (CSO, 2016) Development Plan 408 pages 2016–2022

Stockholm 962,154 (SCB, 2019) Stockholm City Plan 172 pages

19

3.3 Document analysis Document analysis is used as a method in this study. It is a form of qualitative text analysis that uses a systematic procedure to analyse documents (Gross, 2018, p. 544). It requires the data to be reviewed, examined and interpreted repeatedly. Such procedures can give empirical knowledge about the unit of analysis. Document analysis are often used as part of a mixed-methods approach, but can also be used as a stand-alone method. Gross (2018, p. 544) explains that when document analysis is used as a stand-alone method, it can, among other things, answer questions about policy. Bowen (2009, p. 31) points out that document analysis is a good method for analysing policy documents which are the main source of data in this study. It also adds to the feasibility of the study since document analysis is generally an efficient method. There is no data collection involved, but instead a selection of data that already exists (Bowen, 2009, p. 31). All these traits make document analysis relevant for this study and a prime candidate to be used as a method. Its application makes it possible to select the data needed for the analysis. This does in turn make it possible to use the analytical framework to identify strengths and weaknesses within the city plans. Scott (as cited in Bryman, 2015, p. 546) suggests the use of four criteria that can be used to assess the quality of documents: authenticity, credibility, representativeness and meaning. Authenticity means if the document is genuine and of known origin. Credibility means if the document is free from error and gives a true account of what is presented. Representativeness means if the document is a typical example of its kind. Meaning means if the document is clear and comprehensible. If used to assess the plans in this study one can say that they have a high authenticity since they are from known and genuine sources — the local governments of Stockholm and Dublin. The credibility of the documents are not as easy to assess, but since there are many public officials involved in writing these documents and they most likely go through several checks before being published, most errors are probably corrected. There is also little reason for the city governments to distort the facts in the plans. Therefore the credibility of the plans can be seen as quite high. The representativeness of the plans is also high. Even though city plans can take a variety of forms, the plans in this study are typical examples of general development plans of cities. In terms of the meaning of the plan, they are clear, readable and easy to understand. This is probably helped by the plans being accessible to the public, and that they are not only written for public officials and politicians. By doing this assessment it is made clear that the city plans have high quality and are good choices for analysis.

20

3.4 Approach and limitations The analytical framework was used to identify strengths and weaknesses in the city plans. This was done by doing close readings of the city plans while searching for pieces of text that can be seen as an example of one of the key attributes. The analytical framework was used systematically to go through all key attributes under each theme (the governance and climate policies themes) one by one. The material was then coded by first marking relevant sentences and paragraphs in the document. Relevant sentences and paragraphs were then copied and pasted into separate documents. Separate documents were used for each theme and separate headings were used for the different key attributes. By doing that it was possible to code the empirical material. This helped in breaking down the text and provided a basis for analysis. As seen above, a broad definition of climate policy is used in this study. Climate policy was therefore operationalised as climate policy relating to both climate mitigation and climate adaptation. Policies that are not explicitly described as climate policy in the plans, but that indirectly help the city mitigate climate change, or adapt to it, were also included. Instead of doing close readings of the text, another possible approach would have been to search the documents for specific words or terms to find examples of the key attributes. This was not done due to the risk of missing important things. There would especially be a high risk of missing the policies that indirectly lead to climate mitigation or adaptation, but are not themselves described as such. A close reading of the text instead of searching for specific words or terms also increases the possibility of being able to read between the lines and find things that are implied, but not explicitly stated in the text. Close readings of the text were therefore necessary for this study. The unavoidable interpretive nature of this approach demands transparency and carefulness when the findings are reported. This is discussed more thoroughly in the beginning of section 4. It is important to note what can be said with this type of study. One good explanation is the one used by Davidson et al. (2019) to describe their study of resilience as a component of sustainability in metropolitan plans. Their study is also a comparative study using document analysis. They say that: “The limitations of this sort of study are that a forensic examination of the words and frames used does not necessarily expose outcomes in the field. However, it does allow the examination of intent […]” (Davidson et al., 2019, p. 4). This also applies to this study. This study can only say something about the intent of the cities as they are presented in the city plans and not what is actually implemented or how successful certain

21 policies are. The intent and planning of policy-making is, however, an important part of the process and therefore worthwhile to study. Another thing that is important to remember is that this study only looks at city plans without taking other plans into consideration. Both Stockholm and Dublin, as will be seen, have several other minor plans, such as climate action plans and other more detailed plans for specific areas. A thorough study evaluating a city’s climate policy could be done by studying both the city plan and all other relevant documents. This would yield a much more detailed insight into the climate policies of the city. This would, however, be very time consuming and a much larger project than what is feasible for this study. This study therefore probably yielded less detailed and complete results than a more thorough study, but it was still possible to shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies in the two cities as presented in the city plans. Since the city plans work as central steering documents for the city, they are also important to evaluate in their own right. Such central documents need to include details regarding climate action in the city. Therefore, if a prioritisation has to be made regarding what to study, the city plans should be the first choice, rather than more specified plans such as climate action plans.

3.5 Epistemology and ontology The epistemological foundation of this study is interpretivism (Bryman, 2015, p. 26). This makes it possible to understand human behaviour and organisation, as organised through politics to face the common threat of climate change. My role, as the researcher, in this process is to interpret the official documents and to do an analysis of the findings to shed light on the strength and weaknesses of the climate policies in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin. I therefore need to interpret what the documents say explicitly, but also understand the meaning behind the documents. The ontological assumption of the study is based on constructionism (Bryman, 2015, p. 29). It is the “ontological position [...] that asserts that social phenomenon and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors” (Bryman, 2015, p. 29). When applied to the cases in this study it means that the social reality of local political organisation in Stockholm and Dublin is viewed as something being formed and reformed by the officials, politicians and others who are part of that reality. That kind of organisation is a social construction and must be analysed as such.

22

3.6 Ethical considerations There are few, if any, potential ethical dilemmas connected to this study. Document analysis is a method that could have ethical dilemmas connected to it when dealing with documents containing personal or otherwise sensitive information, but that is not a problem in this study. The documents used are official documents published by local authorities and do not contain any personal or sensitive information. As seen above, they were also easy to get access to, which means that there was no risk of stepping over any ethical boundaries in the process of getting access to the documents.

4. Results and discussion

As seen in the introduction, the aim of this study is to evaluate the climate policies in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin. This has been done by testing parts of the analytical framework on these two cases by using the governance and climate policies themes of the framework to analyse the plans. The research questions that will be answered are: 1) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and the governance structures in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin and how do these differ from each other? 2) What are the challenges in using the analytical framework and how could the framework be improved? In the following sections the results from the analysis of the city plans are presented and discussed. In section 4.1 and 4.2, the results from plans are presented. This was done by quoting important sentences and paragraphs from the city plans and then commenting on why they are examples of key attributes from the themes that are studied. Direct quotations instead of paraphrasing were used as a way to increase transparency. This is important since the analysis inevitably is of an interpretive nature. I interpret something from a city plan as being an example of a key attribute from the analytical framework. Increasing transparency in this way makes it easier for other researchers to critically examine my analysis. After the results are presented, the comparative analysis and the critical discussion are presented in section 4.3. In section 4.4, challenges in using the framework and suggestions on how it can be improved are discussed.

4.1 Results from the Stockholm City Plan

In this section the results from the analysis of the Stockholm City Plan are presented. It is divided into two sub-sections that consider the two themes — governance and climate

23 policies — in turn. The results relating to each key attribute are presented one by one under separate headings.

4.1.1 Governance - Power dimensions As discussed earlier, information on power dimensions is something that is not always present in the plans. Nguyen et al. sourced their information from the C40 website. Regarding the power dimensions of the Stockholm City Plan, one thing is mentioned that is an example of that. The plan says that “The municipal planning monopoly gives a municipality the exclusive right to decide on detailed development plans” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 43), which can be said to be an example of the second and fourth power dimension “set or enforce policy/regulations” and “set vision”. Since the City of Stockholm is also Stockholm Municipality it gives them the right to decide on detailed development plans which is an example of setting policy and setting vision. The former since there are several policies presented in the Stockholm City Plan (some of which are discussed below) and the latter since the plan also presents visions for future effective climate action in the city. The plan mentions that “The Stockholm City Plan takes as its starting point the city’s vision for a city that is cohesive, climate-smart and sustainable” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 28). Stockholm also has an ambitious goal of being fossil fuel free by 2040 — which is even more ambitious than the national target of being climate neutral by 2045 (Fossil Free Sweden, n.d., para. 1). This, in combination with the Stockholm’s vision of being climate-smart and sustainable, makes it clear that the city sets its own vision and that the vision includes effective climate action. Information regarding the other two power dimensions — own and operate and set budget — is not available in the Stockholm City Plan. Since Stockholm is a C40 member it is however available on the C40 website under the Stockholm city profile (C40 Climate Leadership Group, n.d.). According to that information, Stockholm has strong or partial powers in most areas (public buildings, energy supply, finance and economy, city roads, urban land use, waste and water) regarding owning and operating, and budgetary and revenue control (as well as the two power dimensions mentioned above). The only area with limited powers is public transport, which is reasonable since it is Region Stockholm that have the responsibility for public transport and not the City of Stockholm.

24

- Vertical integration As seen in the theory section, vertical integration between local, regional and national levels of government is seen as important. In addition to that I will also add the global level to the discussion. My reasons for this are discussed further down, in section 4.4, where the framework is discussed. When it comes to vertical integration, the Stockholm City Plan mentions three important things. The first is that “the City Plan also needs to relate to the plans and strategies at regional, national and global level” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 16). The second is the statement that “A continuous collaboration with the government, region, public agencies and organisations is necessary in order to successfully realise the intentions of the City Plan” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 41). These two examples indicate a will to integrate the plan vertically between different levels of government. “Vertical integration” is not mentioned explicitly, but relating the city plan to plans and strategies on other levels of government can be seen as a way of integrating the plan on these levels. Furthermore, the need for continuous collaboration with different levels of government (and other actors) can be seen as a form of vertical coordination which is an important part of vertical integration, as shown in the theory section. The third and final example of vertical integration is connected to the global level: “Stockholm’s planning is also affected by the EU’s environmental requirements, directives and regulations, and by the multilateral UN work towards sustainable cities encapsulated in the global Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 41). This shows a will to integrate the Stockholm City Plan to requirements, directives and regulations on the global level. It is important to note that none of these three examples are explained in any great detail in the plan and it is not always clear how these examples of vertical integration will be carried out. With that said, it does show an understanding of the importance of vertical integration and a will to face these problems.

- Coordination There are two examples of coordination in the Stockholm City Plan. The first one is the following: “The city is an active participant in several international forums, such as C40 and Eurocities, as a way of learning from others and sharing best practices” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 41). This is an example of external horizontal coordination. C40 and Eurocities are both city networks — the former on the global level and the latter on the European level. The

25 second example is related to the implementation of the plan of which the plan says the following: “Achieving this requires cooperation between physical planning, an active land use policy and the city’s system of governance, with the sights set on sustainable development” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 7). This can be seen as an example of internal horizontal coordination between the city and public agencies.

- Governance modes There are examples of more than one governance mode in the Stockholm City Plan. The following statement shows two of these: The city does, however, have some influence in the energy field. This comes primarily from its strategic and systematic approach in developing the city’s structure in a way that promotes sustainable travel, lower use of resources and local energy production. Conscious use and development of the city’s own properties and vehicles also contributes towards achieving the target. (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 104) This is a combination of two governance modes. The first one is governing through enabling because developing the city’s structure to promote sustainable travel is a way of creating incentives for people to change their behaviour. The second one is self-governing since the city’s own properties and vehicles are used in a “conscious” manner. I interpret “conscious” as sustainable here. This could not only help reach certain target set up by the city, but also work as a way of leading by example. This can in turn inspire businesses and individuals to change their behaviour. There are no clear examples of governing by provision or governing by regulation in the Stockholm City Plan.

- Governance scale Unsurprisingly, the Stockholm City Plan governs on a city-wide scale rather than a metropolitan scale. This includes suburbs that are within Stockholm Municipality. Responsibility for implementation lies with the city government on the local level. This means that is has been approved by the City Council (kommunfullmäktige) and that the City Executive Board (kommunstyrelsen) is responsible for implementing the plan.

- Regional diffusion When it comes to regional diffusion there are four interesting examples in the Stockholm City Plan. The first one and second one is related. The plan says that “Joined-up planning is needed between the city and neighbouring municipalities to ensure that built-up areas and infrastructure work in tandem” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 11) and that “Regional collaboration is of the utmost importance for planning issues that are not limited to a single

26 municipality, such as infrastructure, green structure and space for utilities infrastructure” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 41). These two examples show a will to collaborate with neighbouring municipalities to get a stronger infrastructure. This is an example of regional diffusion. When it comes to public transportation there is automatically collaboration between the municipalities of Region Stockholm since it is the regions rather than the municipalities that have responsibility for public transportation in Sweden. There are however for example ongoing collaboration between Stockholm Municipality and Uppsala Municipality (which is not part of Region Stockholm) as well. One example is the trains from Region Stockholm that are working as commuter trains between Stockholm and Uppsala. These are mentioned as follows: “Interaction with other cities in the region is an important factor in the future growth of Stockholm. The East Link and the quadruple tracking to Uppsala are prime examples of investments that are crucial for Stockholm” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 57). The quadruple tracking that is mentioned is for the commuter trains mentioned above. This is an example of transport networks set up across county boundaries, which is an example of regional diffusion. Even though it is the regions that are responsible for these types of coordinated transport networks, the City of Stockholm clearly promotes this kind of collaboration. The plan also mentions that “Regional cooperation is needed on effective solutions for large-scale technical facilities, such as waste management, recycling, energy plants and water and sewage works” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 13). This is also an example of regional diffusion. The plan does not mention any ongoing projects of that type, but it again shows an understanding of the importance of regional diffusion and intent to make use of that.

4.1.2 Climate policies - Temporal scale and continuity The temporal scale, or the time frame, of the Stockholm City Plan can be said to be long term since it is built around Stockholm’s Vision 2040 (City of Stockholm, 2015). The plan also mentions that “Stockholm’s new climate strategy was adopted in 2016 with the aim of attaining a fossil fuel free city by 2040” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 17). The climate strategy is presented in a separate document, but is mentioned several times throughout the Stockholm City Plan. This makes it clear that the plan does not only reach to 2040 in general, but also regarding climate policy.

27

Regarding continuity it is not as clear. The Stockholm City Plan does not mention former city plans, feedback mechanisms or consultations with officials who were involved in former planning processes.

- Tools The plan mentions several different planning and management tools. I will present two examples. The first is seen in the following statement: “A City Plan is not legally binding, but plays a central role in the city’s development by virtue of its guideline function. Its focus is translated into detailed development plans and permits on land and water use, which are legally binding” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 14). The development of plans and permits, as mentioned here, are a form of management tools. How land and water is used can be relevant for climate mitigation and adaptation efforts and therefore such plans and permits are useful in relation to climate policy. The second relates to planning and management of green spaces in the city: “Greener Stockholm was adopted in February 2017 and provides guidelines for planning, action and management of the city’s parks and green spaces” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 17). A strategy such as Greener Stockholm (City of Stockholm, 2017a) is a combination of a planning and management tool. Green spaces can be useful for both climate mitigation and adaptation since they can help prevent flooding, lower temperatures and capture carbon (Mathey et al., 2011). The Stockholm City Plan also makes use of risk assessment tools. One example of this is the following statement: “Climate change poses new challenges for city planning in Stockholm. Flooding can cause material damage and interrupt public functions, which in turn can cause high costs for society. The risk of subsidence and landslides may also increase” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 99). This statement mentions increased flooding, subsidence and number of landslides and is clearly connected to climate change. Another example concerns sea level rise and is seen in this statement: “Sea level rises will have an impact on Stockholm over the longer term” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 99). Here the risk of sea level rise is mentioned as a risk in a long term perspective. The last example concerns the increased risk that comes with increased rainfall: “[...] annual rainfall in Stockholm is expected to increase by almost 30 per cent towards the end of the century” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 100). This statement also shows that the plan assess long term risks that will increase over time. In these three statements one can see that the plan discusses potential future risks that can be the result of climate change. These are examples of risk assessment tools.

28

The Stockholm City Plan does not mention the use of monitoring systems and standardised databases.

- Levers The Stockholm City Plan presents several levers, or instruments to deliver change. There are five examples that are relevant for climate mitigation and adaptation. The first example can be seen in the following statement: “The city will act to reduce road traffic sufficiently for CO₂ emissions to fall by at least 80,000 tonnes” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 83). This is a statement that is taken from a separate document called “Strategy for fossil-fuel free Stockholm by 2040” (City of Stockholm, 2017b), but quoted in the Stockholm City Plan. This is a lever used to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from road traffic. The second example is a lever that is also related to decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles: New technology and fossil free fuels will have a positive effect, but that effect depends on the scale and speed of their breakthrough in the market. To accelerate the transition, the number of charging points for electric vehicles needs to be expanded on the city’s land and on private land. (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 77) This lever can be said to belong to the projects and programmes category. A programme to increase the number of charging points for electric vehicles is a way to speed up the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. It could also be said to belong to the incentives category since increasing the number of charging points will make using electric vehicles more accessible, which in turn creates incentive for people to start using them. The third example is a lever that belongs to the incentives and disincentives category: “Policy instruments such as congestion charges or parking charges and availability affect transport demand and thus demand for infrastructure, new developments and public transport” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 77). Having congestion charges (also called congestion taxes) and parking charges are disincentives that are meant to reduce traffic and promote public transport, which will in turn reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The fourth example is related to energy production and building standards: “The amount of renewable electricity produced will increase and newly built homes will have to meet higher energy standards” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 17). This is a form of policy lever. Implementing policies that increases clean energy production and energy efficiency in buildings helps mitigate climate change by lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

29

A fifth and final example is a lever that is related to a policy to increase green infrastructure in the city: “The green infrastructure forms the basis for the ecosystem services that the city needs. [...] They also help Stockholm to mitigate climate change by reducing flooding and maintaining more even temperatures” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 89). Although reducing flooding and maintaining more even temperatures should be classified as climate adaptation efforts rather than something that mitigates climate change, it is still relevant. This is an example of a climate adaptation policy. To be clear: Green infrastructure could also help mitigate climate change by binding CO2, but that is not what the quoted statement is about. Maintaining more even temperatures in the city can for example be done by increasing shade from trees and by regulating water absorption in vegetation, but that is not the same as hindering rising temperatures by mitigating climate change. The only type of lever not mentioned in the Stockholm City Plan is procurement.

- Innovation Regarding innovation the Stockholm City Plan makes several statements that show an interest in innovative solutions as a way to reach the goal of being a climate-smart city. One example is the following: “To enable a climate-smart, growing city, the buildings must be defined by sustainable energy solutions, smart environmental technology and a design tailored to future climate change” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 26). It also says that “The innovation and learning process is important in environmental projects [...]” (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 97). Both of these statements show a more general understanding of the importance of smart environmental technology and innovative solutions as part of the city’s climate action. More concrete examples of the actual use of innovative solutions are seen above. One example is the promotion of electric vehicles. Another is the promotion of renewable energy sources. These are examples of green technologies and therefore examples of innovation as defined in the theory section.

- Analytic framework When it comes to climate policy I would argue that the Stockholm City Plan is based on a predictive approach that tries to create dynamic goals rather than static ones. This is not something that is discussed in the plan, but there is a general sense of adaptiveness and understanding that climate change is something that might not develop in the same linear fashion as some other trends in society. The system of risk assessment and process-driven climate adaptation work is an example of this (City of Stockholm, 2018, p. 99).

30

4.2 Results from the Dublin City Plan

In this section the results from the analysis of the Dublin City Plan are presented. Just as with the presentation of the results from the Stockholm City Plan, this section is divided into two sub-sections that consider the two themes — governance and climate policies — in turn. The results relating to each key attribute are presented one by one under separate headings.

4.2.1 Governance - Power dimensions Information regarding the power dimensions of the Dublin City Plan is not available in the plan itself. It is also not a C40 member which means the information cannot be sourced from their website as was done by Nguyen et al. in their study of London and Melbourne as discussed above and done in this study in the analysis of the Stockholm City Plan. This means that there are no results regarding the power dimensions of the Dublin City Plan. This is problematized and discussed further down in section 4.3 and 4.4 where the comparative discussion and the discussion of the framework take place.

- Vertical integration When it comes to vertical integration the Dublin City Plan has exceptionally clear explanations of how the plan is connected to plans on other levels of government. One example of this is the following: The development plan sets out the spatial framework for the city within the context of the National Development Plan, National Spatial Strategy (2002 – 2020), National Climate Change Strategy, Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area (2010 – 2022) and the Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016 – 2035. (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 13) Here the plan mentions the most important national plans. It further mentions the Dublin City Plan’s connection to them: Taking account of the development framework set out in higher level regional and national plans, the proposed strategy for Dublin promotes the consolidation of the city […]. The development plan is fully consistent with all of these higher level plans, as is demonstrated in the core strategy. (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 13) As seen, the plan clearly states that it is consistent with plans on regional and national level. This is an example of vertical integration. Besides the national plans mentioned above the plan also lists other important plans and how they are connected to the Dublin City Plan (2016b, pp. 18-30). This includes the climate change, transport and land use strategies.

31

Two plans are especially important for the climate policy of Dublin, and therefore for this study. One is the strategy regarding sustainable energy policies and another is the strategy for the transition to a low carbon future. They are both mentioned in the Dublin City Plan as seen in the following statement: “Dublin City Council is committed to pursuing sustainable energy policies in accordance with the White Paper ‘Towards a Sustainable Energy Future for Ireland 2007 – 2020’ and ‘Ireland’s Transition to a Low Carbon Energy Future 2015 – 2030’” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 43). It is important that the Dublin City Plan is integrated with these plans since they are important national climate policy documents.

- Coordination When it comes to coordination the Dublin City Plan clearly states that the City Council promotes internal coordination with public agencies as well as external coordination with private actors and other stakeholders. One example can be seen here: “The successful implementation of a significant number of the policies and objectives of the plan will necessitate ongoing collaboration and a sense of goodwill across a range of agencies and stakeholders” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 15). It expresses an understanding of the importance of collaboration between the city and other actors including public agencies, which is a form of coordination. Another interesting example is the following statement: Engagement around the vision and implementation of the plan is essential to achieving a sustainable Dublin. Through existing networks and bodies, engagement with citizens, agencies and other stakeholders will be effected and a two-way communication on the plan and its delivery will be established. The Council will also utilise mechanisms such as online forums and discussion threads to engage with as many people and communities as possible. (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 37) Here the city’s interest in engaging other actors is mentioned. This includes both internal and external coordination since it both mentions agencies as well as citizens and other stakeholders. It also mentions what mechanisms will be used to achieve this coordination. An example of the city coordinating measures with a private actor in the energy sector is seen in this statement: “The Dublin Waste to Energy Project is a public private partnership (PPP) between Dublin City Council (acting on behalf of the four Dublin local authorities) and Covanta, to provide a thermal treatment plant to treat municipal waste that cannot be reused or re-cycled” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 44). Covanta is an energy company that operates power plants that burns waste to produce electricity. Such coordination can, as seen in the theory section, be more cost-efficient than if the city would provide the thermal

32 treatment plant on its own. The result of this particular partnership could result in higher energy efficiency in the city which in turn can help mitigate climate change. Another statement that exemplifies coordination with private actors in the energy sector is the following: Dublin City Council will be open to the future requirements of the major service providers including Bord Gáis, Eirgrid and the ESB, where it is proposed to enhance or upgrade existing facilities or networks, or provide new infrastructure in order to extend or strengthen energy supply to meet demand and meet climate reduction targets. (Dublin City Council, 2018, p. 159) Eirgrid is a company that operates the Irish electricity grid while Bord Gáis and ESB are companies that produce energy and deliver energy. That the Dublin City Council coordinates their efforts to meet climate reduction targets with these companies are an example of external coordination. The Dublin City plan also includes examples of the city coordinating measures with the transport sector. One such example is the Dublin City Council’s intent “To work with the relevant transport providers, agencies and stakeholders to facilitate the integration of active travel (walking, cycling etc.) with public transport, thereby making it easier for people to access and use the public transport system” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 125). This is an example of external coordination with the potential result of increasing use of public transport, which in turn is a way to decrease greenhouse gas emissions in cities. Another statement shows the city’s coordination with the rail network operators in Ireland. This aim is presented in the following way: To work with Iarnród Eireann, the NTA, Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) and other operators to progress a coordinated approach to improving the rail network, integrated with other public transport modes to ensure maximum public benefit and promoting sustainable transport and improved connectivity. (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 125) This is also related to public transport and is important for the same reason as the statement discussed above, but is instead an example of internal coordination since Iarnród Eireann is a state-owned enterprise while the NTA and TII are public agencies. The plan also mentions other measures that are directly connected to climate change issues. One such example can be seen as one of the main strategic issues presented in the plan: “Developing greater co-ordination with the other planning authorities and Environmental Protection Agency in the Greater Dublin Region with regard to infrastructural

33 and climate change issues” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 145). This kind of coordination with a regional agency is also an example of internal coordination.

- Governance modes There are several governance modes present in the Dublin City Plan. The most pronounced one is governing through enabling which is clearly used by the Dublin City Council in its coordinated efforts and partnerships with private actors and other stakeholders as seen above. There are also examples of self-governing. One such example can be seen in the following statement: “Dublin city has sought a more ambitious target of a 20% reduction for the whole city and for a 33% reduction for the Council’s own energy by 2020” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 41). This is an example of self-governing since it is a way of leading by example. The Dublin City Council has a more ambitious target to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from their own activities than the target for the city. This is a way to inspire other actors to be more ambitious and potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the city even more. There are also examples of governing by provision in the plan. For example the plan expresses that: Dublin City Council’s policies and objectives intend to provide high-quality public infrastructure which aims to minimise waste, provide flood protection, reduce flood risk in Dublin city as far as possible, mitigate where possible and adapt to the impacts of climate change, protect and improve water resources/water dependent ecosystems and to support the green infrastructure network. (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 141) Such a statement can be seen as a way for the city to show that it is the main provider of public services and resources and that is provides protection from future hazards by mitigating and adapting to climate change. There are no clear examples of governing by regulation in the plan.

- Governance scale Just like Stockholm, the Dublin City Plan governs on a city scale-wide rather than a metropolitan scale. The plan says that “Under the Planning and Development Acts 2000 (as amended), Dublin City Council has a statutory obligation to secure the implementation of the objectives of the city development plan” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 226). This means the Dublin City Council is responsible for the implementation of the Dublin City Plan, which in turn means the responsibility for implementation is centralised on the local level.

34

- Regional diffusion When it comes to regional diffusion there are only a few examples in the Dublin City Plan. The first one refers to flood management as the Dublin City Council aims “To work with neighbouring local authorities when developing cross-boundary flood management work programmes and when considering cross-boundary development” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 152). Coordinated management over municipal borders is a form of regional diffusion and flood management can be seen as a climate adaptation measure, which makes it relevant in relation to climate policy. The second example relates to green spaces and can be seen in the following statement: “Dublin City Council continues to build effective landscape partnership approaches with neighbouring local authorities, other State and semi-State bodies, non-governmental and community organisations” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 162). Green spaces can, as have been discussed above, contribute to climate mitigation and adaptation. That the city coordinates these measures with neighbouring local authorities is a form of regional diffusion. The third example relates to public transport. The plan says that “This council will work with its neighbouring local authorities and the National Transport Authority to achieve a doubling of all active travel and public transport trips and to halve private vehicular trips to Dublin by 2030” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 18). This is an example of regional diffusion. The Dublin City Council works neighbouring local authorities to change transport behaviour.

4.2.2 Climate policies - Temporal scale and continuity The temporal scale, or time frame, of the Dublin City Plan is short-term since the plan itself only reaches to 2022. The plan does, however, clarify that it is also connected to long-term goals. One example of this can be seen in the following statement: “The development plan sets out a new approach to meet the needs and aspirations of citizens of Dublin and the country, not only for the 6-year life of the plan, but for the long term” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 10). It also mentions several long-term visions that the city has. Two visions, for 2030 and 2050 respectively, can be seen here: Our 30 year vision is for a zero carbon city with all energy coming from renewable energy sources. All buildings will have been built or retrofitted to near zero energy building standards, which will provide comfortable, warm, living and working environments. We will

35

halve the use of ‘conventionally-fuelled’ cars in urban transport by 2030 and phase them out by 2050; achieve essential CO₂-free city logistics in Dublin by 2030. (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 18) Both of these visions are clearly relevant in terms of climate policies and are on a long-term scale. The plan presents what will be implemented during the six year life-time of the plan, but also discusses long-term needs and solutions. The Dublin City Plan can therefore be categorised as both short- and long-term. Regarding continuity — how consistent the Dublin City Plan is with previous city plans — it is less clear. One statement says the following: Our new City Development Plan is the product of two years of extensive consultation with a wide range of community groups, residents, businesses and members of the public. In the region of 2,000 submissions were received from the general public and other stakeholders over the course of the City Development Plan preparation process. (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 1) As seen, the plan does discuss feedback mechanisms and consultation periods in the making of the plan, but does not explicitly mention people working on previous plans as being part of those processes. It is rather consultations and feedback from the public and other stakeholders that is mentioned. This makes it hard to evaluate the continuity of the Dublin City Plan.

- Tools When it comes to planning and management tools the Dublin City Plan presents many of these. I will present four examples of such tools that are relevant for climate policy. The first example mentions a mitigation plan and adaptation framework that is on its way: The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill 2015 was passed in December 2015 and requires the preparation of a new national mitigation plan and an adaptation framework. Such a plan will be developed by Dublin City Council for the city in accordance with guidance and building on current work. (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 41) Developing such a guide is important to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the city and for adapting the city to climate change. It is an example of a planning and management tool. The second example is related to sustainable energy as part of mitigation strategies: “Mitigation strategies and energy strategies are important for mitigating climate change, and an Action Plan on foot of same, such as the Dublin City Sustainable Energy Action Plan 2010 – 2020, can assist greatly towards meeting national goals” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, pp. 143- 144). This is also an example of a planning and management tool, but with a more clear focus than the more general plan in the first example. The third example is a management plan

36 relating to flood risk management and climate adaptation. It can be seen in one of the aims presented in the plan: To ensure each flood risk management activity is examined to determine actions required to embed and provide for effective climate change adaptation as set out in the Dublin City Council climate change adaptation policy and in the OPW [Office of Public Works] Climate Change Sectoral Adaptation Plan Flood Risk Management applicable at the time. (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 152) This can be seen an example of the city trying to coordinate its adaptation policy with a management plan to make sure that flood risk management not only results in short-term solutions, but also is adapted to a changing climate. A fourth and final example of a planning and management tool can be seen when the plan presents “The development of a green infrastructure strategy for recreation, amenity, biodiversity and climate change reasons” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 54). This is an example of a planning and management tool regarding green infrastructure which, as has been discussed earlier, is something that can help with both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. The plan also presents several risk assessment tools. I will present three examples of these. The first example is that the plan clearly and simply states that “The development plan also contains a strategic flood risk assessment” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 13). It also explains this in more detail later in the plan as seen in this second example: Given the onset of climate change and increased flood risk from extreme events, flood risk assessment and management into all aspects of the development plan, including the areas of urban design, flood resilient construction materials and individual developments, must be undertaken. (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 143) These examples makes it clear that the Dublin City Plan includes risk assessment tools regarding flooding. It does however also present risk assessment regarding other threats. This can be seen in the third example: “Climate change is one of the most significant and challenging issues facing humanity. It is important that Dublin City Council responds to this issue. Climate change will result in rising sea levels and more frequent and more severe rainfall events” (Dublin City Council, p. 149). Here risk assessment regarding rising sea levels and severe rainfall is presented with a clear connection to climate change. Regarding the final type of tool — monitoring systems and standardised databases — there are several examples in the Dublin City Plan. One is especially important for this study since it clearly relates to climate change: “Dublin City Council will continue to publish an annual Sustainability Report which will include accurate measurements of energy efficient

37 improvements, delivery of renewable energy and sustainable transport infrastructure and the overall carbon emissions reductions in the city” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 227). Publishing reports regularly with the mentioned measurements is a form of monitoring system. The plan also says that “In order to consistently and properly track and measure progress on the implementation of the plan, a set of city performance indicators has been devised” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 31). It expands on this later in the plan with the following statement: City Performance Indicators are a means by which the city’s progress can be measured in accordance with stated goals by providing benchmarks. Indicators can also prompt action, and are the means by which to communicate to the public the progress made towards the development plan vision. (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 228) These two statements present the City Performance Indicators that are part of the monitoring system presented in the plan. As can be seen in the appendices of the Dublin City Plan, these include indicators of carbon reduction and energy performance which are both important in relation to climate policy (Dublin City Council, 2016a, p. 230). Gathering these indicators regularly and using them as benchmarks is an example of using a standardised database.

- Levers Regarding levers, or instruments to deliver change, there are several examples in the Dublin City Plan. The first example shows a general policy related to climate mitigation: “It is the Policy of Dublin City Council: To mitigate the impacts of climate change through the implementation of policies that reduce energy consumption, reduce energy loss/wastage, and support the supply of energy from renewable sources” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 43). This is a lever in the policies and regulations category. It can be described as an overarching policy without much detail. The second example is of a more focused policy. It can be seen in the following statement describing one of the plans strategic issues: “Reducing dependency on fossil fuels and improve energy efficiency in new and existing buildings and promote the use of renewable energy in the city’s building stock” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 145). This policy relates to decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. The third example is also of the policies or regulations category. The plan says the city should include “green infrastructure, to reduce the city’s reliance of fossil fuels and provide for carbon soakage, all in accordance with the National Climate Change Strategy” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 21). This is a policy that has a more clear focus than the first example and means to increase the use of green infrastructure as part of Dublin’s climate mitigation strategy.

38

The plan also uses other kinds of levers. The fourth example will show this: “The Council, in co-operation with Codema (City of Dublin Energy Management Agency), has embarked on various initiatives/events to help reduce energy usage. These include the ‘Think Energy’ campaign, a 3-year programme to reduce energy demand” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 41). This lever is an example of a programme used by the Dublin City Council to achieve change. The fifth and final example is of the project and programmes category and can be seen in the following statement: “This council will work with its neighbouring local authorities and the National Transport Authority to achieve a doubling of all active travel and public transport trips and to halve private vehicular trips to Dublin by 2030” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 18). This can be described as a project or programme started by the council to change transport behaviour in the city. The categories of levers called procurement and incentives or disincentives are not mentioned in the plan.

- Innovation Regarding innovation, the plan shows a focus on renewable energy and electric vehicles to lower the emissions of greenhouse gases. There are several examples of this in the plan. One is the following: “Dublin City Council promotes more sustainable energy technologies that are clean sources of energy and which have a lower environmental impact on the receiving environment” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 34). This statement shows a general interest in sustainable energy technologies, which can be seen as green technologies, which in turn is an important part of innovation as defined earlier. Another example mentions renewable energy explicitly: “Dublin City Council will support a wide range of energy supply solutions to meet future demand, with particular emphasis on renewable energy sources and those which are less carbon intensive” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 159). This shows an understanding of the importance of renewable energy sources to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the city. Renewable energy is also seen as an important part of the innovation key attribute of the analytical framework. There are several examples of electric vehicles being promoted. Two examples are that the plan says that “Electric vehicles are more sustainable to run than conventional vehicles and electric charging points have been provided throughout the city” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 119) and that it wants “To support the growth of Electric Vehicles and e-bikes, with support facilities as an alternative to the use of fossil-fuel-burning vehicles, through a roll-out of additional electric charging points in collaboration with relevant agencies at appropriate

39 locations” (Dublin City Council, 2016b, p. 131). These two statements show an interest in increasing the usage of electric vehicles to phase out vehicles using conventional fuels. Electric vehicles is a form of green technology and therefore important for the innovation key attribute.

- Analytic framework It is not entirely clear what kind of analytic framework that is used in the Dublin City Plan — whether trends are seen as relatively static or more unstable and non-linear. When it comes to climate change, I would argue that it is more of the latter rather than the former. As seen above, the plan uses risk assessment and innovation to try to find new solutions to prepare for future changes instead of only using solutions to past problems which might prove irrelevant in a future with a changing climate. This kind of dynamic mind-set fits better with a view on trends as unstable and non-linear.

4.3 Comparative analysis and evaluation In this section a comparative analysis of the climate policies and the governance structures in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin are presented. This includes a comparison of the results related to all eleven key attributes divided under the respective themes. The differences and similarities between the plans are summarised and presented in table 3 below.

4.3.1 Comparative analysis of key attributes under the governance theme It is not possible to do a comparison of the power dimensions of the two city plans since information regarding that key attribute was not available in the Dublin City Plan, as seen above. I will however evaluate the power dimensions of the Stockholm City Plan without doing a comparison. The Stockholm City Plan is strong regarding all four power dimensions (set or enforce policy/regulations; set vision; own and operate; and set budget) except when it comes to owning and operating public transport, since Region Stockholm, rather than the City of Stockholm, have that responsibility. The City of Stockholm, however, promotes the ongoing collaboration between the City of Stockholm, Region Stockholm and Uppsala Municipality regarding the public transport between the municipalities. The overall strong power dimensions of the Stockholm City Plan increase the amount of control the city has over developing the city in the right direction. This makes it possible to set ambitious goals — such as the goal of being fossil fuel free by 2040 — and make sure the needed policy is implemented. The planning in the Stockholm City Plan is affected by requirements from national, EU and UN level, but the city has powers to choose the way to

40 reach targets set on higher levels of government and can, as have been seen, be even more ambitious. This is a strong foundation for effective climate action and therefore a strength of the Stockholm City Plan. When it comes to vertical integration both plans show strengths, but also a couple of weaknesses. The Dublin City Plan is integrated with plans on regional and national level and clearly states which these are and how the plan is connected to them. This includes several different plans, but also plans that are highly important for climate policy. Besides integrating the plans, the Dublin City Plan is not clear regarding coordination with public agencies and higher levels of government, which can be said to be a weakness. The Stockholm City Plan is also integrated with plans on regional and national level, but also mentions integration with plans on the global level. This can be considered strength. The Stockholm City Plan is less clear than the Dublin City Plan on naming all the relevant plans and how they are connected to the city plan. This can be seen as a minor weakness. Minor since they are mentioned, but not as clearly. That both plans are well integrated with plans other levels of government is important since it helps make sure climate policy from higher levels of government are implemented on the local level. It also decreases the risk of inconsistency between plans on different levels which might hinder effective implementation of policy. Even though there are a few weaknesses regarding the vertical integration of the plans, both plans have strong vertical integration on the whole, which should be seen as a strength of the plans. Regarding coordination the Stockholm City Plan shows a weaker result than the Dublin City Plan. The former mentions horizontal coordination with international networks such as C40 and Eurocities which is a form of external coordination. The plan also shows examples of coordination between the city and public agencies which is a form of internal coordination. These are both positive examples of coordination, but there are other forms of horizontal coordination that would be positive for the city, but that are not mentioned in the plan. There are however examples of these in the Dublin City Plan. It does not only mention internal coordination with public agencies, but also external coordination with citizens and other stakeholders from the private sector. It mentions public private partnerships with energy companies and operators within the transport sector. Coordination, both externally and internally, can increase cost-effectiveness, increase public investment opportunities and close gaps between policy objectives of different actors. The broad coordination with many different actors and stakeholders is a strength of the Dublin City Plan. The Stockholm City Plan, on the other hand, presents a more narrow form of coordination that does not include

41 coordination with private actors. This can be seen as a weakness that might hinder effective climate action in Stockholm. When it comes to governance modes there are both differences and similarities between the two plans. Both plans are partly based on the governance mode of governing through enabling. The Stockholm City Plan creates incentives for people to change their traveling behaviour by structuring the city in a way that creates incentives to use public transport. The Dublin City Plan shows several examples of partnerships with private actors and the community. Both plans also show signs of self-governing. Both cities have set more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets than their national governments and try to inspire other actors by having ambitious targets to lower emissions from their own activities and properties. A difference between the two plans is that the Dublin City Plan more clearly shows the use of governing by provision than the Stockholm City Plan. Most cities provide services and resources in some degree, but this governance mode is about wanting to be recognized as the main provider of those things. This is clearly seen in the Dublin City Plan, but less so in the Stockholm City Plan. None of the plans show clear signs of using the more traditional approach of governing by regulation. The combination of governance modes used by the cities and the lack of the more traditional approach shows that they prefer more soft methods of governance rather than more authoritative methods. This might be positive as long as it works, but if there are problems with some actors not changing their behaviour fast enough for effective climate action, perhaps a bit more regulation could be necessary. I would therefore say that it is important for the cities to evaluate their methods and be ready to change them if needed. What might be said to be a strength today might prove to be a weakness tomorrow if the current methods do not provide effective climate action. Regarding governance scale both plans govern on a city-wide scale. Besides regional coordination and collaboration the plans are not meant to govern on regional or metropolitan scale. Furthermore, the city governments are responsible for implementation which means the responsibility is centralised on the local level. This is a positive thing since it can reduce the risk of confusion and inconsistencies that come with responsibility being shared between different political levels. The last key attribute of the governance theme is regional diffusion. Both plans show examples of this. The Stockholm City Plan collaborates with neighbouring municipalities to strengthen infrastructure. There are also examples of regional collaboration regarding public transport which is promoted by the City of Stockholm. The Dublin City Plan also contains examples of regional diffusion. Mainly regarding flood management and green spaces. Both

42 of which, as has been seen, can be important for climate mitigation and adaptation. There are also examples of regional diffusion relating to the increase of active travel and public transport to Dublin. Both plans therefore make use of regional diffusion, but there is a difference what these collaborations consist of. All of them are however of interest for climate policy. Making use of these kinds of collaborations is a positive thing for both cities and can help improve efficiency and reduce costs. This is therefore a strength of the plans.

4.3.2 Comparative analysis of key attributes under the climate policies theme I will begin by discussing the key attribute temporal scale and continuity. Regarding temporal scale, or time frame, there are both similarities and differences in the plans. The Stockholm City Plan is a long-term plan with a general vision for 2040 and a goal of being fossil fuel free the same year, which is important for climate policy in the city. The Dublin City Plan, on the other hand, is a short-term plan in itself since it only reaches to 2022. Its connection to the city’s long-term visions for 2030 and 2050, including being a zero carbon city by 2050, does however also make it long-term in a sense. That the temporal scale of the plan is long-term or, in the case of Dublin, the plan at least being connected to long-term goals and visions, is important since it can reduce the risk of short-term decisions being prioritized over long-term needs. Therefore the long-term temporal scale of the plans is a strength. The continuity of the plans — whether the plans are consistent with previous plans — is on the other hand less clear. The Stockholm City Plan does not mention former city plans, feedback mechanisms or consultations with those involved with previous plans at all. The Dublin City Plan does discuss feedback mechanisms and consultations periods, but it seems these focus more on the public and other stakeholders. It does not mentioned involvement of key persons working with previous plans. If the fact that this is not mentioned in either plan is because it did not happen it should be seen as weaknesses of the plans. Not having continuity is a problem because it increases the risk of earlier lessons being lost and makes it harder to make use of existing knowledge. If it did happen, but is not mentioned in the plan, this is also a weakness since discussing these processes in the plans makes the process more transparent and easy to follow. The key attribute called tools consists of three different types: planning and management tools, risk assessment and monitoring systems and standardised databases. These are discussed each in turn. Both plans make use of planning and management tools. Both plans have more general climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. Beside these the Stockholm

43

City Plan presents plans and permits for land and water use, as well as planning and management tools related to green spaces. The Dublin City Plan presents several such tools, including energy strategies, flood risk management plans and planning and management tools for green infrastructure. Making use of such tools is a way of providing more effective planning and management which can in turn lead to more effective climate action. This is a strength of both plans. Both plans also make use of risk assessment regarding flooding, sea level rise and extreme weather events. Both plans also clearly link these to climate change by acknowledging increased risks in those areas in the future. Acknowledging such risks and preparing for the future with climate adaptation measures is very important. That both plans include these things should be seen as strengths. A clear difference between the plans in terms of tools is that the Stockholm City Plan does not include any monitoring systems and standardised databases. This is an apparent weakness of that plan. The Dublin City Plan does however make use of both of these tools. The plan mentions the use of annual sustainability reports which include climate mitigation measures. This can be seen as a form of tool to monitor progress. It also explains the use of city performance indicators that are used to monitor progress and that can be used as benchmarks. This is a type of standardised database. This is a strength of the Dublin City Plan. Putting all of these tools together, one can see that the Dublin City Plan makes use of all three types of tools, while the Stockholm City Plan makes use of the first two, but not monitoring systems and standardised databases. All in all it is a strength of both plans that they make use of a wide variety of tools, but the Stockholm City Plan shows a clear weakness in not using all of the available tools. Regarding levers, which can also be called instruments to deliver change, there are four types (projects and programmes, policies or regulations, incentives or disincentives; and procurement). There are examples of most of these in both plans. The Stockholm City Plan makes use of all four types of levers. The most interesting is perhaps the congestion charges used to decrease traffic in the city which in turn might help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A strength of the Stockholm City Plan is therefore its use of a wide variety of levers. The only type of lever that is not present in the plan is procurement. This is a potential weakness, which is discussed below. The Dublin City Plan makes use of project and programmes as well as policies and regulations. One example being the programme that is done together with neighbouring local

44 authorities to double the amount of active travel and public transport to the city while halving the use of private vehicles to Dublin. A weakness regarding the levers presented in the Dublin City Plan is that it does not include any procurement nor incentives or disincentives. These are potentially powerful levers that can be used to help achieve climate targets. It is therefore a weakness of the Dublin City Plan that it does not make use of those levers. A similarity between the two plans is that neither presents procurement as a lever. This is interesting since public procurement with environmental and sustainability standards could probably be a powerful way to decrease greenhouse gas emissions connected to public spending. It can also set an example and inspire other actors to lower their own emissions. Not making use of this can be seen as a weakness of the plans. If they are using it, but does not highlight it in the plans, this is also a weakness since it is important to show that the city is using procurement so it can inspire other actors. The penultimate key attribute is innovation. Both plans present examples of innovative solutions being used to promote sustainable development and effective climate actions in the cities. Both plans promote and use green technologies such as renewable energy and electric vehicles. This shows that the plans are not only dependant on old methods and technologies, but also use innovation for climate mitigation and adaptation. This is a strength of both plans. The final key attribute is analytic framework. As has been seen, it is not entirely clear whether the plans are built on the view of trends as being relatively static or unstable and non-linear. The Stockholm City Plan shows more examples leaning towards the latter, rather than the former. The Dublin City Plan might also be seen as being built on the latter view, but there is not enough clear evidence of this to be sure. The lack of clear evidence of what kind of analytic framework is being used in the plans makes it hard to evaluate this key attribute. If the plans are built on the view as trends being unstable and something that develops in a non- linear fashion, it should be seen as a strength. This is because that view is most appropriate for climate change which has been discussed above. I have now made a comparative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and governance structures in both plans. The findings are summarised in table 3.

45

TABLE 3: Comparative analysis of the Stockholm City Plan and the Dublin City Plan

 Both plans include strong vertical integration on regional and national level  Both plans use several different governance modes that focus on soft methods and use less of the more traditional Similarities and hard methods such as governance by regulation  Responsibility for implementation of the plans is centralised on the local level in both cases Governance  Both plans include regional diffusion  The Stockholm City Plan includes integration of policy on global level, while the Dublin City Plan does not  The Dublin City Plan is using coordination with a wide Differences range of actors, while the Stockholm City Plan uses a narrower form of coordination, omitting for example private actors  Both plans are connected to long-term goals and visions  Both plans lack clarity regarding continuity and how consistent they are with previous city plans Similarities  Neither plan use procurement as a lever  Both plans include innovation in the form of green technologies to improve climate action  Climate policies The Stockholm City Plan reaches to 2040 while the Dublin City Plan reaches to 2022  The Dublin City Plan includes all three types of tools, while The Stockholm City Plan does not include the tool called Differences monitoring systems and standardised databases  The Stockholm City Plan includes all types of levers besides procurement, while the Dublin City Plan lacks both procurement and incentives and disincentives Source: Layout adapted from Nguyen et al. (2018, p. 948) 4.4 Challenges in using the framework and ways to improve it In this study parts of Nguyen et al.’s analytical framework have been tested by being applied to the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin. This has made it possible to evaluate the climate policies in the city plans. By doing this it was also possible to identify five challenges in using the framework. I will in this section discuss these challenges and give suggestions on how the framework can be improved. This is important to do since improving frameworks such as this one could make future evaluation of city plans easier and more effective. This could in turn lead to more effective implementation of climate policy in cities, which is an important part of implementing multilateral agreements such as the Paris Agreement which needs to be implemented on all political levels, including the local level. First a general view on using the framework is presented. This is followed by the discussion of the challenges that

46 were encountered in using the framework and the suggestions on how the framework can be improved. In general, it worked well to use Nguyen et al.’s analytical framework to analyse the city plans. As has been discussed above, the framework is made to analyse metropolitan plans rather than city plans, but it is now clear that it works well to analyse both types of plans. The differences between the two types of plans are not distinct enough as to hinder its use in analysing city plans. One key attribute, governance scale, is however partly made redundant when used in analysing city plans since a city plan most likely would always govern on a city-wide scale rather than a metropolitan scale, whereas the latter could do both. The second part of the governance scale key attribute (relating to whether responsibility is centralised on the local level or spread over several levels) is however interesting when analysing city plans, which makes it useful to include. This was a challenge that was encountered in using the framework. An improvement could be to disregard the first part of that key attribute, and only use the second part, when using the framework to analyse city plans. The second challenge that was encountered was regarding the power dimensions key attribute. It is problematic since it is only easily evaluated if the city being studied is part of the C40 network. This is because, as has been mentioned above, information regarding power dimensions rarely is part of a city or metropolitan plan, but has to be sourced from the C40 website. In this study it was possible to get information on the power dimensions of Stockholm, but not Dublin. Nguyen et al.’s analytical framework is not made exclusively for studying C40 cities, but yet one of the key attributes of the framework requires information sourced from the network’s website — information that is only available for C40 cities. Since the analytical framework presumably is meant to be applicable to cities that are not part of C40 as well, this specific key attribute should be adjusted so that it is made possible. One possible way to do this would be to make the key attribute less specific and anchor the different types of power dimensions in research not made by and for the C40 network alone. The third challenge is similar to the second one but regards the analytic framework key attribute. This key attribute is also problematic since the information presumably very rarely is available in a city or metropolitan plan. Such plans will not explicitly discuss whether it is based on a view of trends as being relatively static or unstable and non-linear. This is something that has to be studied by looking at whether the goals are dynamic or if there is a general understanding in the plan of uncertainness regarding future trends under the effects of climate change. This is usually rather vague and not something easily studied. One way to improve the framework is therefore to clarify this key attribute by narrowing it down to focus

47 on what is most important. In my opinion that is whether the goals in the plan are dynamic or not. Since it is preferable to have an analytic framework based on the view that trends are unstable and non-linear it must be preferable to have dynamic goals that can adapt to future trends affected by climate change. This key attribute could for example simply be called “dynamic goals” instead of “analytic framework”. By doing that the key attribute should be made more clear and easier to study. The fourth challenge is connected to the vertical integration key attribute. The problem is that the global level is not included in this key attribute. Only vertical integration between the local, regional and national level is mentioned. Today many countries integrate their national policies with policies on the global level. One such example is countries of the EU who integrates EU policy. When it comes to climate change it is highly important since most of the world’s countries are part of the Paris Agreement which means that countries integrate UN climate policy into national frameworks. Both cases in this study — Stockholm and Dublin — are located in countries which are both members of the EU and signatories of the Paris Agreement. One way to improve the framework would therefore be to add the global level to this key attribute. A fifth and final challenge relates to the naming of the two key attributes vertical integration and coordination. These are easily mixed up since vertical integration also includes vertical coordination. One way to solve this is by changing the names to “horizontal coordination” and “vertical coordination” and be strict in their use. This would decrease the risk of confusion.

5. Concluding discussion

In this section a summary of the results and the conclusions of the study are presented. The aim of this study has been to evaluate the climate policies in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin by shedding light on the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and the governance structures in these plans. This was done by testing parts of Nguyen et al.’s analytical framework by applying the climate policies and governance themes of the framework on the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin. By doing this it was also possible to identify a number of challenges in using the framework and give suggestions on how the framework can be improved. The study thus has both empirical and theoretical conclusions. The empirical conclusions relate to the strengths and weaknesses of the city plans and the theoretical conclusions relate to the potential improvements of the framework.

48

The research questions that have been answered are: 1) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and the governance structures in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin and how do these differ from each other? 2) What are the challenges in using the analytical framework and how could the framework be improved? Nguyen et al.’s analytical framework is a modified version of a sustainability evaluation framework by Gleeson et al. (2004). The framework consists of five themes with a number of key attributes related to each. In this study two of these themes have been used — governance and climate policies — resulting in the use of eleven key attributes. Document analysis was used as a method to gather the empirical data. The analytical framework was used systematically to go through all eleven key attributes one by one. Close readings of the city plans were done to find examples of the key attributes. By doing this I was able to see which key attributes were included in the plans and which were omitted. After doing the analysis it was possible to conclude that both plans contain several strengths and weaknesses. Regarding the strengths of the governance structure it was found that both plans include strong vertical integration in general, that both plans use several different governance modes, that both plans include regional diffusion and that responsibility for implementation of the plans are centralised on the local level in both cases. Furthermore, the Stockholm City Plan includes integration of policy on the global level and the Dublin City Plan includes coordination with a wide range of actors. Regarding the weaknesses of the governance structure it was found that neither plan include more traditional and hard methods such as governance by regulation, which could be necessary if softer methods do not work. Additionally, the Dublin City Plan does not include vertical integration of policy on the global level and the Stockholm City Plan does not include coordination with private actors. Regarding the strengths of the climate policies it was found that both plans are connected to long-term goals and visions and include innovation in the form of green technologies. Furthermore, the Dublin City Plan includes all three types of tools and the Stockholm City Plan includes several types of levers. Regarding the weaknesses of the climate policies it was found that both plans lack clarity regarding continuity and how consistent they are with previous city plans. Finally, neither plan use procurement as a lever, the Stockholm City Plan lacks monitoring systems and standardised databases and the Dublin City plan does not make use of all available levers. The above findings answer the first research question regarding what the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and the governance structures in the plans are, as well as how they differ from each other. These are the empirical conclusions of the study.

49

By testing parts of the analytical framework it was also concluded that it is possible to use the framework to analyse city plans instead of metropolitan plans (which it was originally intended for). Since only the governance and climate policies themes were used I can only confirm that these themes can be applied to city plans. This means that the analytical framework has a broader use than intended by Nguyen et al., which increases its overall applicability. It was noted, however, that the governance scale key attribute was partly made redundant when using the framework to analyse city plans. This problem could be solved by using only part of that key attribute when analysing city plans. In addition to this first improvement there were also four other suggestions made on how the framework can be improved. The second improvement would be to replace the power dimensions key attribute with something less specific and anchor it in research not made by and for the C40 network. This would make it easier to apply it to cities that are not part of the C40 network. The third improvement would be to change the name and focus of the analytic framework key attribute to “dynamic goals”. The importance of having dynamic goals that can be adapted as necessary depending on future trends that are unstable and develop in a non-linear fashion is what is important in this key attribute and where the focus should lie. This would clarify this key attribute and make it easier to study. The fourth improvement would be to include the global level in the vertical integration key attribute. Vertical integration of policy does not only happen on local, regional and national level, but also on global level and should therefore be included. The fifth and final improvement would be to rename the key attributes called vertical integration and coordination to decrease the risk of confusion. Possible alternatives could be “vertical coordination” and “horizontal coordination”. These findings answer the second research question regarding the challenges in using the analytical framework and how the framework can be improved. These are the theoretical conclusions of the study. The contribution of this study has been to evaluate the climate policies of Stockholm and Dublin by shedding light on the strengths and weaknesses of the climate policies and governance structures in the city plans of the two cities. These findings could be useful for the policy makers and officials working on the plans and if taken into consideration could lead to more effective climate action in these cities. The study has also contributed to the research field of urban climate governance by testing parts of Nguyen et al.’s analytical framework on new and different cases. I have successfully used the framework to evaluate the climate policies in the city plans of Stockholm and Dublin. The city plans are a different

50 type of case since the framework is made to study metropolitan plans and the cases are new since Stockholm and Dublin have not been studied in this way before. Evaluating climate policies in the city plans, and testing the analytical framework, are important contributions since it can lead to more effective implementation of climate policy in these cities and increase the effectiveness of future evaluation. This, in turn, is important since multilateral agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, needs to be implemented on all political levels, including the local level to be effective. It is important for scholars of international relations to study all political levels to grasp the multilevel nature of climate governance today. It is important to remember that the study cannot say anything about what the cities actually do or the effects of their climate policies. It can only say something about what is being planned and what the intent of the cities are. A limitation of the study is that its scope includes only part of the analytical framework. This gives the study a clear focus, but also means that I have only studied the climate policies in the city plans and the governance structures behind them, but not the democratic, distributional and financial aspects of the climate policies in the city plans. Finally I will present suggestions for future research. Future research could do a more inclusive study on the cases of Stockholm and Dublin to include all themes of the analytical framework. To further test the feasibility of using the analytical framework to analyse city plans rather than metropolitan plans, future research could also include comparative case studies of other cases. To increase the diversity of cases these studies could include cases that are in other parts of the world — such as cities in developing countries. Comparative studies could also include more than two cases to potentially increase the number of interesting findings. Future research could also help improve the analytical framework by looking for ways to improve the power dimensions key attribute so that it is applicable to non-C40 cities. As a larger project it would also be possible to make a more thorough study of the climate policies of cities. This could include not only city and metropolitan plans, but also all minor plans of cities, such as climate action plans and other more detailed plans of specific areas.

51

References

Ackerman, F. (2000). Waste management and climate change. Local Environment, 5(2), 223– 229.

Agyeman, J., Evans B., & Kates, R. W. (1998). Greenhouse Gases Special: Thinking locally in science, practice and policy. Local Environment, 3(3), 245–46.

Allain-Dupré, D. (2011). Multi-level governance of public investment: Lessons from the crisis. OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2011/05. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg87n3bp6jb-en

Allman, L., Paul, F., & Wallace, A. (2004). The progress of English and Welsh local authorities in addressing climate change. Local Environment, 9(3), 271–283.

Angel, D. P., Attoh, S., Kromm, D., DeHart, J., Slocum, R., & White, S. (1998). The drivers of greenhouse gas emissions: What do we learn from local case studies? Local Environment, 3(3), 263–78.

Bassett, E., & Shandas, V. (2010). Innovation and climate action planning: Perspectives from municipal plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2010.509703

Beermann, J., Damodoran, A., Jörgensen, K., & Schreurs, M. (2016). Climate action in Indian cities: an emerging new research area. Journal of integrative environmental sciences, 13(1), 55–66.

Betsill, M. (2001). Mitigating climate change in US cities: Opportunities and obstacles. Local Environment, 6(4), 33–406.

Betsill, M., & Bulkeley, H. (2007). Looking back and thinking ahead: a decade of cities and climate change research. Local Environment, 12(5), 447–456.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.

Broto, V. C., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha .2012.07.005

Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

52

Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the governing of climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35(1), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ- 072809-101747

Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 136–154.

Bulkeley, H., Broto, V. C., Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2013). Cities and low carbon transitions. Routledge.

Bulkeley, H., & Kern, K. (2006). Local government and climate change governance in the UK and Germany. Urban Studies, 43(12), 2237–2259.

Bulkeley, H., & Moser, S. C. (2007). Responding to climate change: governance and social action beyond Kyoto. Global Environmental Politics, 7(2), 1–12.

Bulkeley, H., Schroeder, H., Janda, K., Zhao, J., Armstrong, A., Chu, S. Y., & Ghosh, S. (2011). The role of institutions, governance, and urban planning for mitigation and adaptation. In D. Hoornweg, M. Freire, M. J. Lee, P. Bhada-Tata, & B. Yuen (Eds.), Cities and climate change: Responding to an urgent agenda (pp. 125–159). World Bank Publications.

Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2015). Climate governance after Copenhagen: research trends and policy practice. In K. Bäckstrand & E. Lövbrand (Eds.), Research handbook on climate governance (pp. 3–13). Edward Elgar Publishing.

C40 (C40 Climate Leadership Group). (2015). Powering climate action: cities as global changemakers. Available at: https://c40productionimages.s3.amazonaws.com /other_uploads/images/295_Powering_Climate_Action_Full_Report.original.pdf (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

C40 (C40 Climate Leadership Group). (n.d.). Stockholm. Available at: https://www.c40.org /cities/stockholm#city-mayoral-powers (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

City of Stockholm. (2015). Vision 2040 – a Stockholm for everyone. Available at: https://international.stockholm.se/globalassets/vision-2040_eng.pdf (Accessed on 2020- 05-31).

City of Stockholm. (2017a). Grönare Stockholm – Riktlinjer för planering, genomförande och förvaltning av stadens parker och naturområden. Available at: http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/content/docs/mp19/planer/gronare-stockholm- 2017.pdf (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

53

City of Stockholm. (2017b). Strategy for a fossil-fuel free Stockholm by 2040. Available at: https://international.stockholm.se/globalassets/rapporter/strategy-for-a-fossil-fuel-free- stockholm-by-2040.pdf (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

City of Stockholm. (2018). Stockholm City Plan. Available at: https://vaxer.stockholm /globalassets/tema/oversiktplan-ny_light/english_stockholm_city_plan.pdf (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

Clarke, S. (2017). Local place-based collaborative governance: comparing statecentric and society-centered models. Urban Affairs Review, 53(3), 578–602. https://doi.org /10.1177/1078087416637126

Collier, U. (1997). Local authorities and climate protection in the European Union: putting subsidiarity into practice? Local Environment, 2(39), 39–57.

CSO (Central Statistics Office). (2016). Geographical distribution. Available at: https://www .cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/population/2017/Chapter_2_Geog raphical_distribution.pdf (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

Davies, A. (2005). Local action for climate change: Transnational networks and the Irish experience. Local Environment, 10(1), 21–40.

Davidson, K., Nguyen, T. M. P., Beilin, R., & Briggs, J. (2019). The emerging addition of resilience as a component of sustainability in urban policy.Cities, 92, 1–9.

DeAngelo, B. J., & Harvey, L. D. D. (1998). The jurisdictional framework for municipal action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: case studies from Canada, the USA and Germany. Local Environment, 3, 111–136.

Dublin City Council. (2016a). Dublin City Development Plan – Appendices. Available at: https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPla n/Documents/Dublin%20City%20Development%20Plan%202016%20- %202022%20Volume%202.pdf (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

Dublin City Council. (2016b). Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 – Written Statement. Available at: https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/Dublin CityDevelopmentPlan/Written%20Statement%20Volume%201.pdf (Accessed on 2020- 05-31).

Duit, A., Galaz, V., Eckerberg, K., & Ebbesson, J. (2010). Governance, complexity, and resilience. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/006

54

Easterling, W. E., Polsky, C., Goodin, D., Mayfield, M. W., Muraco, W. A., & Yarnal, B. (1998). Changing places, changing emissions: The cross-scale reliability of greenhouse gas emissions inventories in the US. Local Environment, 3(3), 247–62.

Fossil Free Sweden. (n.d.). Roadmaps for fossil free competitiveness. Available at: http://fossilfritt-sverige.se/in-english/ (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

Gleeson, B., Darbas, T., & Lawson, S. (2004). Governance, sustainability and recent Australian metropolitan strategies: A socio‐theoretic analysis. Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/0811114042000296290

Gross, J. M. S. (2018). Document analysis. In B. B. Frey (Eds.), The SAGE encylopedia of educational research, measurement and evaluation (pp. 544-548). SAGE Publications.

Gupta, J., Pfeffer, K., Verrest, H., Ros-Tonen, M (Eds.). (2015). Geographies of urban governance. Springer.

Hammer, S., Kamal-Chaoui, L., Robert, A., & Plouin, M. (2011). Cities and green growth: A conceptual framework. OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2011/08. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg0tflmzx34-e

Harvey, L. D. D. (1993). Tackling urban CO2 emissions in Toronto. Environment, 35(7), 16– 20; 38–44.

Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., & Rittberger, V (Eds.). (1997). Theories of International Regimes. Cambridge University Press.

Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2014). Conceputalizing public policy. In I. Engeli & C. R. Alllison (Eds.), Comparative Policy Studies: Conceptual and methodological challenges (pp. 17-33). Palgrave Macmillan.

Hughes, S. (2017). The politics of urban climate change policy: toward a research agenda. Urban Affairs Review, 53(2), 362–380.

Hutt, D. (2016). Long-term planning the key to sustainable cities. Southeastern Globe Communications. Available at: https://southeastasiaglobe.com/southeast-asia-cities- interview-mark-tewdwr-jones/ (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2014). Summary for policymakers, Mitigation of climate change: Contribution of working group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for- policymakers.pdf (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

55

Johnson, C., Toly, N., & Schroeder, H. (2015). The Urban Climate Challenge. Routledge.

Kates, R. W., Mayfield, M. W., Torrie, R. D., & Witcher, B. (1998). Methods for estimating greenhouse gases from local places. Local Environment, 3(3), 279–298.

Kelly, J. T. (2012). Framing democracy: a behavioral approach to democratic theory. Princeton University Press.

Kern, K., & Alber, G. (2009). Governing climate change in cities: Modes of urban climate governance in multi-level systems [Conference session]. Proceedings of the OECD Conference on Competitive Cities and Climate Change, Milan, Italy, 9–10 October, 2009. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/GoverningClimateChangein Cities%3AModes_of_Urban_Kern_Alber/2131324c39e3944740ff509232322c44ca902e8 b#paper_header (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

Kern, K., & Mol, A. (2013). Cities and global climate governance: from passive implementers to active co-decision-makers. In J. E Stiglitz & M. Kaldor (Eds.), The Quest for security: Protection without protectionism and the challenge of global governance (pp. 288–304). Columbia University Press.

Knieling, J. (2016). Climate adaptation governance in cities and regions: Theoretical fundamentals and practical evidence. Wiley Blackwell.

Krasner, S. D. (1983). International Regimes. Cornell University Press.

Lambright, W. H., Chagnon, S. A., & Harvey, L. D. D. (1996). Urban reactions to the global warmins issue: agenda setting in Toronto and Chicago. Climate Change, 34, 463–478.

Lederer, M. (2015). Climate governance after Copenhagen: research trends and policy practice. In K. Bäckstrand & E. Lövbrand. (Eds.), Research handbook on climate governance (pp. xvii–xxx). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lee, T. (2018). Evolutionary urban climate resilience: assessment of Seoul's policies. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Managemen, 8(5), 597–612.

Mathey J., Rößler S., Lehmann I., & Bräuer A. (2011). Urban green spaces: Potentials and constraints for urban adaptation to climate change. In K. Otto-Zimmermann (Eds.), Resilient Cities (pp. 479–486). Springer.

McCarney, P., Blanco, H., Carmin, J., & Colley, M. (2011). Cities and climate change: the challenges for governance. In C. Rosenzweig, W. D. Solecki, S. A. Hammer and S. Mehrotra (Eds.), Climate change and cities: first assessment report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network (pp. 249-270). Cambridge University Press.

56

McLoughlin, J. B. (1992). Shaping Melbourne’s future: town planning, the state and civil society. Cambridge University Press.

Merk, O., Saussier, S., Staropoli, C., Slack, E., & Kim, J. H. (2012). Financing green urban infrastructure. OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2012/10. OECD Publishing.

Nguyen, T. M. P., Davidson, K., & Gleeson, B. (2018). Metropolitan strategies and climate governance: Towards new evaluative approaches. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(5), 934–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12662

Olum, Y. (2014). Decentralisation in developing countries: preconditions for successful implementation. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, 15(1), 23–38.

Ostrom, E. (2010). A multi-scale approach to coping with climate change and other collective action problems. Solutions, 1, 27–36.

Parson, E. A. (1993). Protecting the ozone layer. In P. M. Haas, R. O. Keohane and M. A. Levy (Eds.), Institutions for the Earth: Sources of effective international evironmental protection (pp. 27–73). MIT Press.

Pierre, J. (2011). The politics of urban governance. Palgrave Macmillan.

Rong, F. (2010). Understanding developing country stances on post-2012 climate change negotiations: comparative analysis of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4582–4591.

SCB (Statistiska centralbyrån). (2018). Folkmängd i riket, län och kommuner 31 december 2018 och befolkningsförändringar 2018. Available at: https://www.scb.se/hitta_statistik/befolkningsstatistik/folkmangd-i-riket-lan-och- kommuner-sista-december-och-befolkningsforandringar/ (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

Solecki, W., Rosenzweig, C., Dhakal, S., Roberts, D., Barau, A. S., Schutz, S., & Ürge- Vorsatz, D. (2018). City transformations in a 1.5 ºC warmer world. Nature Climate Change 8, 177–181

UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). (2016). The World’s Cities in 2016. Available at: https://www.un.org/the_worlds_cities_in_2016.pdf (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2015). A user’s guide to measuring local governance. Available at: https://www.undp.org/a-users-guide-to-measuring-local- governance-.html (Accessed on 2020-05-31).

57

Van der Heijden, J. (2014). Governance for urban sustainability and resilience: Responding to climate change and the relevance of the built environment. Edward Elgar.

Van der Heijden, J. (2016). Opportunities and risks of the ‘new urban governance in India: to what extent can it help addressing pressing environmental problems? The Journal of Environment & Development, 25(3), 251–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496516642

Van der Heijden, J. (2019). Studying urban climate governance: Where to begin, what to look for, and how to make a meaningful contribution to scholarship and practice. Earth System Governance, 1(100005), 1–10.

Waldron, J. (2014). Accountability: fundamental to democracy. Public Law Research Paper No. 14–13. New York University School of Law.

Washington, H. (2015). Demystifying sustainability: Towards real solutions. Routledge/Earthscan.

Wilson, E. (2006). Adapting to climate change at the local level: The spatial planning response. Local Environment, 11(6), 609–625.

58