Abstract
Urban physical public infrastructure is a frontline defense mechanism to manage and mitigate climate-related impacts. Market instruments are often cited as possible means to spread risk and reduce financial burdens on the public sector. The authors argue that existing research tends to focus on the technical issues of instruments and neglects considering institutional dynamics that may enable or constrain local market-based financing mechanisms. In this article, three core dilemmas (values uncertainty, planning horizon, and indirect benefits) are used to analyze the responses of practitioners to a possible financing instrument. The findings indicate that the practitioner’s responses to tax increment financing were largely shaped by the adaptation dilemmas and not the characteristics of the instrument per se. By mapping the dilemmas onto whether they would recommend it, participants imposed a financial barrier on climate adaptation investments. The authors conclude that a key imperative in the design of policy instruments is to pay attention to the congruency of informal institutions at the ‘street level’ in order to be in-step with the current sociopolitical conditions. The findings also point to four key attributes that a local market-based instrument would need to be aligned and responsive to the Dutch planning and development context.
Highlights
Physical public infrastructure is a frontline defense mechanism to manage and mitigate climate-related impacts at the urban level
How do policymakers and practitioners make sense of the complexity associated with climate adaptation? What ‘short-cuts’ and rationales do they use to overcome complex problems? We identify three dilemmas that are addressed in the literature (Adger et al, 2009; Haug et al, 2010; Walker et al, 2011; Mees et al, 2012; Preston et al, 2013): value uncertainty, planning horizon problems, and indirect benefits
Lack of funding is often cited as a substantial barrier to making investments in local climate adaptation
Summary
Physical public infrastructure is a frontline defense mechanism to manage and mitigate climate-related impacts at the urban level. Mounting evidence has demonstrated that climate change will require cities to make investment decisions and allocate resources to modify existing physical infrastructure, which includes conventional ‘grey’ infrastructure such as roads, power grids, piped sewer, and water systems, by introducing new strategies that reduce vulnerabilities and increase resilience to changing weather patterns (Carter et al, 2015). Robust capital planning, and new types of infrastructure will be required to address adverse impacts, such as permeable pavement, Planning Practice & Research 251 renewal of existing systems to separate storm water and sewage, elevation of urban areas, strategically deployed green space and tree planting, additional space for water storage and retention, and enhanced above-grade drainage and grading plans, (Makropoulos & Butler, 2010; Bobylev et al, 2013). Policymakers are confronted with and confounded by a range of dilemmas about how to finance long-term climate adaptation infrastructure
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
