State of Australian Cities Conference 2013 Doing Adaptation Differently? Does Neoliberalism Influence Adaptation Planning in Queensland? Lachlan McClure1 and Douglas Baker 1 1School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment Science and Engineering Faculty Queensland University of Technology Abstract: Australian cities are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Adapting to climate change is a critical task for contemporary spatial planning, one that is widely recognised by the planning profession and beginning to receive substantive attention in planning policy. However adaptation takes place within the context of established spatial governance regimes and planning cultures, and examples of effective adaptation are often grounded in progressive contexts markedly different than Australia. In Australia, planning is subject to strong neoliberal reform agendas (Gleeson & Low, 2000a, 2000b) and national adaptation policies align with neoliberal views (Granberg & Glover, 2011). Planning in Queensland has been subject to deregulation (Buxton et al., 2012) and the continued influence of neoliberalism (Wright & Cleary, 2012). The influence of neoliberalism on climate change adaptation has received little consideration in research and literature. This paper reviews a case study of adaptation planning through the lens of the recent and contemporary influences of neoliberalism. It examines spatial/land-use planning for climate change adaptation in Queensland, identifying the underlying rationales, priorities and strategies. A justification for such an investigation is advanced based on the challenges to planning facilitating adaptation and identified links to neoliberalism. A preliminary analysis of interviews with planners is then used to identify and discuss the ideological influences practitioners perceive in current approaches to adaptation in Queensland and the implications of such. 1.0 Introduction and Scope Adapting to climate change is a critical task for contemporary spatial planning. Planning for climate change adaptation involves navigating and negotiating competing objectives and interests, a contested landscape wherein ideological influences may influence the scope and direction of policy. This paper introduces a study of spatial planning for climate change adaptation in a governance context characterised by neoliberal influences. It will identify influences and look to instances where planning has considered and pursued adaptation despite a limiting framework and context. Three themes underpin this paper: climate change adaptation, spatial planning and neoliberal governance. Spatial adaptation is any process or measure which seeks to change land use patterns or land use characteristics to accommodate climate change. Planning is expected to provide the instrumental framework or delivery mechanism to implement strategies and measures to reduces the vulnerability and increase resilience (Meyer et al., 2010). It is also involved in exploring and negotiating priorities and options within a contested policy landscape (Biesbroek et al., 2009; Davoudi et al., 2009). The critical geography literature discusses neoliberalisation as the process of market oriented regulatory restructuring which occurs through varied and uneven processes but has a common foundation in contemporary economic literalism (Brenner & Theodore, 2005; Peck et al., 2009). Neoliberalism has been identified as ‘an essential descriptor of the political trends and bureaucratic transformations forming the conditions under which planners work’ (Sager, 2011, p149). Consistent with a rationale of deregulation, neoliberal perspectives have called for planning to be rolled back and reoriented around a market framework of incentives, flexible planning tools and entrepreneurial models of governance (Taşan-Kok & Baeten, 2012). This neoliberalisation of spatial governance may have significant implications to how planning goes about adaptation and the overall capacity of planning to respond to climate change and facilitate adaptation (Fieldman, 2011; Whitehead, 2013). First a justification is provided for the adoption of neoliberalism as a lens to review spatial planning for climate change adaptation. Second an argument is made for selecting Queensland as a case study of a planning framework in which neoliberal influences are present. Finally a preliminary analysis of pilot interviews is discussed to explore the ideological influences in current approaches to adaptation in Queensland. 1 State of Australian Cities Conference 2013 2.0 Spatial Adaptation and Neoliberalism The following section makes an argument for an analysis of planning policy and practice concerned with climate change adaptation through the lens of the influence of neoliberalism. This argument is made on the basis of the identified challenges to the capacity of planning to successfully facilitate adaptation and observations linking adaptation paths with characteristics of neoliberal governance. 2.1 Challenges in Facilitating Adaptation Planning is said to have many of the necessary characteristics to meet the challenge of adapting to climate change. Susskind (2010) states that adaptation planning needs to be action oriented, adaptive, strategic and broadly supported. Crane and Landis (2010, p398) argue that planning is ‘strategic, adaptive, results oriented, involve diverse stakeholders, and incorporate multiple scenarios’ and is experienced in working under conditions of uncertainty, incomplete information and coordinating collective action. Hurlimann and March (2012, p480) also argue planning is suited to facilitate adaptation. However others are more conscious of the challenges to facilitating adaptation including competing objectives, strong economic development agendas and historic ineffectiveness at facilitating sustainability (Bulkeley, 2006; Campbell, 2006; Howard, 2009). Planning involves multiple complex concerns. Bulkeley (2006, 2009) argues that the adaptation agenda may cause tensions between other legitimate dimensions of planning. This occurs when adaptation objectives such as development of renewable energy infrastructure and limiting development on floodplains are subordinated by other objectives such as visual amenity and housing provision (Bulkeley, 2009). Similarly Measham et al. (2010) observed conditions where other planning objectives competed with adaptation for priority and resources, ultimately constraining adaptation. These situations are attributed by Owens and Cowell (2010) to competing interpretations of sustainability and divergent conceptions of the public good. In these situations adaptation may be supported at the strategic level but not successfully implemented. While the reconciliation of objectives is a function of planning and may legitimately qualify the achievement of some objectives (Owens & Cowell, 2010), this process has conventionally resulted in the prioritisation of economic objectives over socio-environmental interests. Economic development agendas may also undermine climate change adaptation. Howard (2009, p30) considers that adaptation is ‘not a task for which planning is constitutionally well equipped’ based on the continued influence of ‘the political and economic forces that powerfully shaped the profession’. It has been argued of sustainability for example that it has been captured by economic interests and redeployed through notions of sustainable development to support existing development patterns (Gunder, 2006). These forces underpin the dominant development agenda which Grist (2008) identifies as responsible for approaches to adaptation which fail to question the underlying sustainability of development patterns. Brooks et al. (2009) similarly conclude that approaches which do not significantly challenge existing development patterns will be inadequate to facilitate the required adaptation. Planning may on a rhetorical level cite adaptation but falter through a commitment to fundamentally unsustainable economic objectives and development patterns which undermine the capacity for the pervasive change. The capacity to facilitate adaptation has also been questioned with reference to planning’s historic part in contributing to climate change and ineffectiveness at delivering more sustainable development. Responsibility unsustainable spatial development patterns characterised by urban sprawl and automotive dependence cannot be exclusively attributed to market forces, but planning policies such as highway development and density restrictions argues Brooks et al. (2009). This is described by Howard (2009, p30) as ‘a century of disastrous planning’ for which planning is attributed ‘historic culpability in the emergence of climate change’. Howard (2009) likewise questions the prospect for planning to facilitate adaptation without significant reorientation. Similarly sustainability has while originally heralded as providing planning new purpose and legitimacy (Davoudi, 2000) has been lacking in implementation (Gunder, 2006). Owens and Cowell (2010) argue that a gap exists between rhetoric and outcome and that only modest reductions the level of environmental damage caused by development has been achieved. Similar problems are faced by adaptation warns Brown (2011); it is open to broad interpretation, difficult to translate into policy and could be used to justify existing development patterns. These challenges which involve conflicting objectives, strong development agendas and the past ineffectiveness highlight the contested landscape in which adaptation