Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Methodology
The research methods involve a combination of primary and secondary data
collection and analysis. We conducted semi-structured interviews with citizens
and decision-makers at various levels and scales (19 interviews) - with planners,
policy-makers and practitioners working across various policy sectors (planning,
environment, disaster-risk management, water resources). Each interview lasted
between one and two hours. In addition to the individual interviews, we engaged
stakeholders in selected focus groups. Interviews were combined with reviews
of policies, urban plans and institutional and organizational arrangements (e.g.
GOT 1999, 2004a, 2004b, 2077a, 2007b, 2011a, 2011b). Two local case studies
were selected at ward/sub-ward levels within Kinondoni Municipality to study
community and local-level responses, local governance and forms of coproduction
in climate-risk management. The case studies illustrate issues related to
participation and co-management of flooding and water resources in informal
settlements that are exposed and vulnerable to different kinds of floods. Suna
is subject to high-magnitude river floods; Bonde la Mpunga to more localized
flash floods. Different types of floods mobilize different kinds of responses
and institutions. The inclusion of local researchers and PhD candidates on the
research team helped in validating findings. We also drew on findings from other
Climate Change and Urban Vulnerability in Africa (CLUVA) research activities,
for example on risks and vulnerability to floods (CLUVA 2014).
Drivers and barriers
The extent to which different modes of governance are actually deployed and
have been successful is the result of a wide range of factors that can act as both
drivers and barriers to achieving urban climate-change responses or resilience.
The literature distinguishes three sets of factors in particular:
institutional
,
political
and
socio-technical
(see Bulkeley 2013); the latter set includes
ecological factors
as
well (Ostrom 2005).
Institutional factors shape the capacity of urban institutions (formal and
informal) - as prescribed and practised - to respond to or withstand risks,
or improve a system's resilience - concerning matters like organizational
arrangements and operations, knowledge, financial resources, and allocation of
responsibilities between levels and actors (e.g. for coproduction or 'community'
governance) (Bulkeley 2013; Ostrom 2005 and 1996). Regarding the constraints
of
multilevel governance
, we investigate how the
state
at national and regional levels
work - through (hierarchical) steering and coordination - to balance powers
and enable or constrain adaptation of city and sub-city level actors through
processes related to the
decentralization
and
devolution of
key functions and
resources of the public sector; the
delegation
of public authority (for instance, to
civil society or private markets); and the
de-concentration
of public authority and
tasks to regional state bodies or a variety of (semi-) autonomous corporations or
Search WWH ::
Custom Search