University of Exeter

WHY ARE SOME LOCAL AUTHORITIES MORE DRIVEN TO REDUCE THEIR CO2 EMISSIONS?

Case study analysis: South West England

Supervisor: Bridget Woodman

Submitted by Bridget Brown to the University of Exeter as a dissertation towards the degree of Master of Science by advanced study in Energy Policy and Sustainability,

September 2010.

I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified with appropriate acknowledgement and referencing and I also certify that no material is included for which a degree has previously been conferred upon me.

………………………….(signature of candidate)

Number of words: 12,916

2

ABSTRACT

The focus of this study is to explore why some local authorities set ambitious carbon emission reduction targets. Data from South West England was gathered through a combination of questionnaires and interviews. Although every council is subject to national policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions (CRC, NI186), a disparity was found between different councils due, in part, to the approach adopted by individuals working for different councils, either employed or elected. The study suggests in a number of local authorities, the agenda is being driven forward by a fundamental belief on the part of some individuals that tackling climate change is an important issue. Other issues help or hinder the progress of these individuals and these factors varied from place to place, depending on what stage the council had reached in terms of reducing emissions.

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Bridget and Catherine for the support on this project and their motivation throughout the year. Extended thanks go to the staff at Regen South West, in particular Hazel Williams and Cheryl Hiles, for their help at the outset of this study and continued support over the period of this project. I would like to thank all the people who completed the questionnaire and all the people who gave their time for the interviews, without this help the study would have not been possible. I would also like to thank Pamela Trevithick and Charlotte Paterson for their constant encouragement during this year.

4

CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3

LIST OF TABLES 5

LIST OF FIGURES 6

1. INTRODUCTION 7

1.1 Context 7

1.2 Call for research 10

1.3 Aims and objectives 10

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 12

2.1 Local authorities 12

2.1.1 How local authorities are organised 12

2.1.2 Responsibilities and influence of local authorities 13

2.1.3 Funding in local authorities 14

2.1.4 Policy in local authorities 18

2.2 Voluntary schemes available for local government 21

2.3 Local climate governance 23

2.4 Willing individuals 26

2.5 Drivers for local carbon emissions reduction 26

2.6 Barriers to local carbon emissions reduction targets 32

2.7 Targets in South West England 35

2.8 Summary of literature 36

3. METHODOLOGY 38

3.1 Research methodology 38

3.2 Primary data collection 38

3.3 Questionnaire design 39

3.3.1 Likert Scale 40

3.3.2 Pilot 41

3.4 Interviews 41

3.5 Method of data analysis 42

4. RESULTS 43

5

4.1 Primary data 43

4.2 Identification of major drivers and barriers 44

4.3 Correlation results 45

4.4 Financial drivers and barriers 45

4.5 Policy drivers and barriers 47

4.6 The presence of a willing individual and political will 50

4.7 Doing the right thing 53

4.8 Learning experiences 53

5. CONCLUSION 54

6. FURTHER WORK 56

7. REFERENCES 57

8. APPENDIX 65

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Local authority responsibility for major services in England ....................................... 14

Table 2 – Local authority funding definitions ............................................................................. 17

Table 3 – Climate change national indicators in South West England ....................................... 19

Table 4 – Planning policy statements ......................................................................................... 21

Table 5 – Drivers for local carbon emissions reduction .............................................................. 28

Table 6 - Barriers to local carbon emissions reduction targets .................................................. 35

Table 7 – Carbon emission reduction targets in South West England ........................................ 36

Table 8 – Methods of data collection ......................................................................................... 39

Table 9 – Questionnaire response rates ..................................................................................... 43

Table 10 – Top three drivers and barriers .................................................................................. 45

6

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 – Local government .......................................................................................................8

Figure 2.1 – Map of local authorities in South West England ..................................................... 12

Figure 2.2 –Structure of local authority with a cabinet .............................................................. 13

Figure 2.3 – Local authority spending ......................................................................................... 16

Figure 2.4 – Per capita emissions in South West England .......................................................... 20

Figure 2.5 - South West Local Authority Climate Change Declaration Signatories .................... 23

Figure 2.6 – Hierarchy of needs for local climate governance ................................................... 24

Figure 2.7 - Comparing the successful with the less successful authorities ............................... 25

Figure 2.8 - Examples of multiple consequences of carbon reduction at the local scale ........... 32

Figure 4.1 – Respondents: local authority .................................................................................. 44

Figure 4.2 – Respondents: elected and employed...................................................................... 44

Figure 4.3 – Results for Opportunity to save money .................................................................. 46

Figure 4.4 – Results for Opportunity to make money ................................................................ 46

Figure 4.5 – Results for National legislation as a driver .............................................................. 48

Figure 4.6 – Results for influence of a willing individual on carbon emission reduction targets 50

Figure 4.7 – Results for lack of political support as a barrier...................................................... 52

Figure 4.8 – Results for lack of political support for Gloucestershire, Somerset and Devon ..... 52

7

1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a context for this research project. It identifies why research on this

subject is important and outlines the aims and objectives of the project.

1.1 Context

The previous UK government fully accepted that climate change is happening and that

Britain needs to become a low carbon country - an acceptance cemented by the Climate

Change Act 2008 which set legally binding ‘carbon budgets’, aiming to cut UK emissions by

34% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050.

A recent publication, The Low Carbon Transition Plan, details the importance of local

authorities and makes provisions for the support of local government:

The Government wants to encourage and empower local authorities to take additional action in tackling climate change, where they wish to do so. It believes that people should increasingly be able to look to their local authority not only to provide established services, but also to co-ordinate, tailor and drive the development of a low carbon economy in their area, in a way that suits their preferences.

(DECC, 2009)

The role of local authorities in the mitigation of climate change, and the opportunities

that are available to them, were clearly summed up by the previous Communities

Secretary John Denham:

Strong leadership, clear vision and ambition from councils could deliver reductions in carbon emissions of millions of tonnes annually and potentially unlock £1bn in income for councils.

(Communities and Local Government, 2010)

With the change of government in the general election in May 2010, the future role and

influence of local government in tackling climate change has become uncertain. This study

was carried out during the transition of government and, therefore, a number of documents

referenced in this study may not be taken forward and the new government’s replacement

policy documents were not published at the time of writing. However, this project

addresses how local authorities are thinking about and responding to the challenge of

tackling climate change.

8

Despite the recent election, it is clear that local government is ideally placed to make a

significant contribution to reducing emissions. Local government has influence over a

number of stakeholders, including the public through the services it provides, it has ‘a

strategic role convening and leading other public, private and voluntary sector partners, and

working with regional bodies’ (LGA, 2007, p17).

The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) still maintains that local authorities

take a key position in tackling climate change - as demonstrated in the following statement:

Local authorities . . . can promote renewable energy and greater energy efficiency through local planning, transport, housing and education – and they can reach out to their wider communities and encourage other local service providers to take action.

(DECC, 2010a)

Local governments are more directly involved in local activities than the national

government and should, therefore, be more aware of local conditions and opportunities.

This position should enable them to capitalise on emission reduction opportunities within

their own areas (DeAngelo and Harvey, 1998). Wilbanks and Kates summarise this

succinctly: ‘Global changes in climate, environment, economies, populations, governments,

institutions, and cultures converge in localities (1999, p601). The following diagram has

been put together which sets this out, showing where local government is placed.

Figure 1.1 – Local government

9

The position that local governments hold means they can ‘exercise a degree of influence

over emissions of greenhouse gases that directly impact on the ability of national

governments to reach targets to which they have agreed internationally’ (Bulkeley and

Betsill, 2005, p45) – and can do so for the following reasons:

Cities are sites of high consumption of energy and production of waste.

Local authorities are often able to take on board the complex sustainable development agenda.

Local authorities are key actors in the urban arena in terms of co-ordinating action between different partners and facilitating community involvement with policy programmes.

Some local governments have considerable experience in addressing environmental issues, which can act as demonstration projects or form the basis for new experimentation.

(Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005)

Local authorities are close to both businesses and the public which puts them in a good

position to provide information and advice and ‘can run awareness campaigns about climate

change and other environmental issues. Within this context, it is particularly important that

they set a good example themselves, for instance through energy efficiency investments in

public buildings’ (Collier, 1997, p43). However each area and authority is different and has

different needs and requirements. It is important to acknowledge this and allow for

‘mitigation action to be tailored to local circumstances’ (McEvoy et al, 1999, p418).

The Audit Commission published a detailed report entitled The role of councils in reducing

domestic CO2 emissions. This report focuses on what councils can do to reduce their carbon

emissions. They acknowledge the disparity across the country in terms of reducing

emissions as follows:

Since 2008, two-thirds of local strategic partnerships (LSP) have set a target to reduce CO2 emissions.

But only one in five partnerships has set a stretching target and many areas with high emissions have no target.

Few areas have developed ambitious long-term strategies to drive CO2 reductions. (Audit commission, 2009, p5)

This report also looks specifically at carbon emission reduction success and states that ‘all

but three of the 354 council areas in England saw a decrease in per capita domestic CO2

between 2005 and 2007. Changes ranged from a reduction of 8.8 per cent in Exeter City

Council to an increase of 0.6 per cent in the Isles of Scilly’ (Audit commission, 2009, p24),

both of which are located in South West England.

10

1.2 Call for research

Whilst local authorities are achieving reductions in CO2 emissions it is clear that some are

performing better than others (DECC, 2010b). There are a number of reports on the

potential of local authorities for making reductions in this area but with very little focus on

what influences decisions to invest in carbon reduction strategies (Audit commission, 2009).

Within this context, there is significant literature on climate governance and what motivates

local government to reduce carbon emissions in their areas as well as barriers that stop

action taking place but the majority of this literature is based on case studies outside the UK

(Sippel and Jenssen, 2009; Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005; Lambright et al, 1996).

The lack of UK based case studies (see Table 5) leaves a gap in our ability to relate and apply

literature and research to the UK situation. The variation in progress has been reviewed by

the Audit Commission (2009) which identifies two extremes - Exeter and the Isles of Scilly,

both located in South West England. This provided an opportunity to examine why this

apparent variation exists within this region - hence the subject of this study, which looked at

how and why local authorities make decisions about reducing carbon emissions from their

own activities and within their area. There was less focus on how they achieve the

reductions and in which sectors they should focus their efforts because this is city specific. If

there is willingness within the authority, then the answer to this issue should be relatively

clear and straight forward.

1.3 Aims and objectives

The main aim of this research project was to explore why some local authorities make the

decision to reduce their carbon emissions more than others. The exploration was framed by

carbon emission reduction targets in order to add a tangible measure of intensions and

achievement through the targets that have been set. Following this, the research questions

are:

What are the key drivers/barriers to local authorities in the south west adopting

carbon emissions reduction targets?

What are the key barriers to local authorities in the south west achieving the carbon

emissions reduction targets?

11

This study starts with an examination of local authorities in order to contextualise the

decision making with respect to carbon reduction. Following this, existing academic

literature covering drivers and barriers that have already been identified is examined. The

methods of data collection is discussed in Chapter 3. The results obtained are presented and

discussed in Chapter 4. The study is concluded in Chapter 5.

12

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This section places this study within the current literature. In order to provide a background

to the drivers and barriers to carbon emission reduction targets, the basics of how local

authorities are structured is explained. Following this, the current literature on climate

governance on a local level is examined.

2.1 Local authorities

The way that local authorities work is important to understand and this section details how

local government is organised, the services for which local authorities are responsible, their

finances, and lastly policy that affects local authorities in term of reducing carbon emissions.

2.1.1 How local authorities are organised

Allman et al found that there was a ‘large difference between how important most

authorities saw internal cooperation and coordination between county and district councils’

(2004, p281) with respect to barriers to addressing climate change. In light of this, the

structure of local authorities will now be examined.

Local government across England is either run by a single tier unitary authority or by a two

tier system with county and district councils. County councils cover the entire county and

provide around 80 per cent of the services in these areas. Each district council covers a

smaller area within the county and provides more local services (LGA, 2010).

In South West England authorities are organised as follows:

(South West Observatory, 2010)

Figure 2.1 – Map of local authorities in South West England

13

The Local Government Act 2000 set out how local government can be structured:

an executive mayor and a cabinet, the public vote for a mayor who then appoints the cabinet

a leader and a cabinet, local councillors elect a council leader who then appoints a cabinet

structure of committees, in areas with populations below 85,000, councils may use a structure of committees in which no distinction is made between cabinet and backbenchers

(LGA, 2010)

The following diagram, based on Bristol City Council, shows an example of how a council

with a cabinet is structured.

(Bristol City Council, 2010a)

Figure 2.2 – Structure of a local authority with a cabinet

2.1.2 Responsibilities and influence of local authorities

The extent to which local authorities can have an impact on reducing carbon emissions

depends on which services they are responsible for and what they have influence over

(Collier, 1997).

Councils provide mandatory and discretionary services and functions. Mandatory services

are governed by law and are tightly controlled by central government, resulting in a similar

level of service across the country. Discretionary services are optional and the ‘Local

Government Act 2003 introduced a general power to charge for discretionary services

14

provided they are not prohibited by other legislation and the council does not make a profit’

(LGA, 2010, p2).

The following table details how the services are divided between the unitary, county and

district councils.

(edited from DCLG, 2009a)

Table 1 - Local authority responsibility for major services in England

2.1.3 Funding in local authorities

The funding that local authorities receive is a significantly complex issue. This section will

highlight the major streams of income from central government. This is an important area

to understand because the availability of funding contributes to both the drivers and barriers

as set out in Sections 2.5 and 2.6.

Fleming and Webber acknowledged that ‘the combination of different bodies, funding

streams and changes in names presents a very complicated and confusing framework from

within which local and regional energy management activities take place’ (2004, p765). This

is reinforced by the Local Government Association (LGA) who state ‘the current situation

with regard to funding opportunities for local authorities is confusing and can be misleading’

15

(2004, p17). Although this is a little out of date, it seems that understanding local authority

funding continues to present challenges. For example it requires a 794 page document,

published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), to explain it

fully (Capaldi, 2008).

There are a number of different funding streams which local authorities receive and for this

reason it is important to understand where these come from because there are different

rules that apply in terms of how the money can be spent (IDeA, 2010). Local authority

spending are divided into revenue expenditure and capital expenditure. On the whole,

revenue expenditure is financed through a balance of central government grant including

business rates and locally raised council taxes. Capital expenditure is principally financed

through central government grant, borrowing and capital receipts (DCLG, 2009a). The

following distinguishes between capital and revenue expenditure:

Revenue expenditure – in a general sense, expenditure on recurring items including

the running of services.

Capital expenditure – expenditure on the acquisition of fixed assets or expenditure,

which adds to and does not merely maintain the value of existing fixed assets.

(DCLG, 2009a)

Figure 2.3 shows how capital and revenue expenditure are organised with definitions shown

in Table 2.

16

Figure 2.3 – Local authority spending

17

Definitions

Formula grant This is based on the idea of equalisation, that is, taking account of relative spending needs and the resources that can be raised locally (IDeA, 2010). There are no restrictions on what local government can spend it on.

Area based grant Allocated according to specific policy criteria rather than general formulae. Replaced the Local Area Agreement (LAA) grant, is non-ring-fenced and supports the delivery of local, regional and national priorities in their areas (Communities and Local Government, 2008a).

Specific government grant

‘This is distributed outside the main settlement. Some of these are known as ring-fenced grants which control council spending. These usually fund particular services or initiatives that are a national priority. For example, funding for schools is paid through the Dedicated Schools Grant reflecting the priority the Government place on education’ (Communities and Local Government, 2008b, p3).

Housing Revenue Account

This is a ring-fenced account to ensure that rents paid by local authority tenants make a fair contribution. Other local authority services are funded through council tax and central government support for the benefit of all local taxpayers. This arrangement ensures no cross-subsidy between council tenants and council tax-payers (DCLG, 2009a).

Supported Capital Expenditure (Revenue),

The amount of expenditure towards which revenue grant support will be paid to a local authority on the cost of its borrowing. The revenue grant support is provided to help authorities with the costs of financing loans (DCLG, 2009a).

Supported Capital Expenditure (Capital Grant)

Used for capital grants

Capital Grants Grants may be given by government departments, mainly for transport, housing or regeneration work. Local authorities receive grants and contributions from other sources, for example non-departmental public body’s and the National Lottery distributors, as well as contributions from the private sector, for example for access roads or traffic management schemes (DCLG, 2009a, p101).

Prudential rules system This is a set of borrowing rules for local authorities, the key feature is that local authorities should determine the level of their capital investment – and how much they borrow to finance that investment – based on their own assessment of what they can afford (DCLG, 2009a).

Table 2 – Local authority funding definitions

SALIX Finance

Salix is an organisation which is a not for profit company limited by guarantee who provide

funding for which local authorities are able to apply. They provide funding for energy

efficiency technologies with the aim of reducing carbon emissions. They offer loans and

grants and only work with UK public sector bodies (SALIX, 2010).

18

2.1.4 Policy in local authorities

An understanding of national climate change policy is important because ‘in general,

environmental policy in Europe adopts a top-down approach’ (Collier 1997, p25). Sippel and

Jensson (2009) found that the ‘national framework conditions were important’ with respect

to local climate change governance. Collier states that national and international mitigation

policies can make the realization of local mitigation policies easier (1997). This section

details the major policies that local authorities have to comply with.

Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme

The Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC) is a mandatory scheme

that aims to improve energy efficiency and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the UK.

The scheme started in April 2010 and will affect buildings, including in the public sector,

which use more than 6000 MWh per annum. Carbon reduction performance will be

published in a league table and participants will be rewarded or penalised depending on

their position in the league table (DECC, 2010c). From April 2013, carbon allowances will be

auctioned, rather than sold at a fixed price. The LGA published a report to guide local

authorities through the CRC. The report makes it clear what local authorities are responsible

for within the CRC:

The local authority is responsible for schools as well as any trading companies in which it holds 51 per cent or more of the issued share capital. The local authority will not be responsible for fire authorities where they are legally separated from the local authority and other bodies that are created by statute.

(LGA, 2009)

Local Government Performance Framework: A single set of National Indicators

Of the 198 National Indicators which local authorities have to report on there are two which

directly relate to carbon emissions reduction.

NI185: CO2 reduction from Local Authority operations

NI186: Per capita CO2 emissions in the LA area

And two that relate more generally to climate change:

NI187 - Tackling fuel poverty

NI188 - Planning to Adapt to Climate Change

(DCLG, 2007)

19

In addition to reporting on the National Indicators, local authorities are required to

select up to 35 indicators to include in their Local Area Agreement. These 35 target

indicators are ‘the only measures against which Government can agree targets with a

local authority or partnership and the only trigger for performance management by

Central Government’ (DCLG, 2008, p17). Applying this to South West England, a brief

review of Local Area Agreements shows the climate change indicators that have been

selected as targets. This can be seen in the following table and is one way of

demonstrating that different local authorities set different priorities (IDeA, 2010b).

National Indicator

Local Authority 185 186 187 188

Bath and North East Somerset Y

Y

Bournemouth Y Y

Y

Bristol

Y

Cornwall

Y Y

Devon

Y Y

Dorset Y Y Y Y

Gloucestershire

Y Y Y

Isles of Scilly

Y

North Somerset

Y

Y

Plymouth

Y Y

Poole Y Y

Y

Somerset Y Y Y Y

South Gloucestershire

Y

Y

Swindon

Y

Torbay

Y Y

Wiltshire

Y

Table 3 – Climate change national indicators in South West England

Currently local authorities are required to report emissions data to DECC under National

Indicator 186. The data, which is only available between 2005 and 2007, which has been put

together in the following graph, drawing on data from the DECC, shows that in the south

west there is a variation between reductions, most notably in Exeter.

20

Figure 2.4 – Per capita emissions in South West England

(DECC, 2010b)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

BANES

Bournemouth

Bristol, City of

Caradon

Carrick

Kerrier

North Cornwall

Penwith

Restormel

East Devon

Exeter

Mid Devon

North Devon

South Hams

Teignbridge

Torridge

West Devon

Christchurch

East Dorset

North Dorset

Purbeck

West Dorset

Weymouth and Portland

Cheltenham

Cotswold

Forest of Dean

Gloucester

Stroud

Tewkesbury

Isles of Scilly

North Somerset

Plymouth

Poole

Mendip

Sedgemoor

South Somerset

Taunton Deane

West Somerset

South Gloucestershire

Swindon

Torbay

Kennet

North Wiltshire

Salisbury

West Wiltshire

Per capita emissions (t)

2005

2006

2007

21

Planning policy

In March 2010, the document Consultation on a Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a

Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate was published. The aim of this consultation is ‘to

get stakeholder views and comments on the new draft planning policy which combines and

updates the existing planning policy statements on climate change (PPS1 supplement) and

renewable energy (PPS22)’ (DCLG, 2010, p2). A brief review of relevant planning policy

statements has been put together in the table below.

Planning Policy Statement 22:

Renewable Energy (2004)

‘This provides valuable guidance to planning authorities

with regards to assessing renewable energy potential,

setting regional targets and formulating policy’(DCLG,

2009b, p11).

Planning and Climate Change

Supplement to Planning Policy

Statement 1 (2007)

‘The supplement sets out how planning can contribute

to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change

through measures such as renewable energy’ (DCLG,

2009b, p11).

Consultation on a Planning

Policy Statement: Planning for a

Low Carbon Future in a

Changing Climate

‘We also expect regions to establish appropriate

regional targets with levels of ambition consistent with

meeting the national targets for renewable energy and

emissions reductions’ (DCLG, 2010, p11).

Table 4 – Planning policy statements

Although these planning policy statements are not directly related to reducing carbon

emissions, they are significant in that they require regional targets to be set. These may

influence how local authorities set carbon emission reduction targets as these are directly

related to reductions in emissions from energy production.

2.2 Voluntary schemes available for local government

There are various organisations which provide local authorities with free help to reduce their

carbon emissions. A brief description of the following organisations has been included here

because they are either discussed in the relevant literature or brought up in the data

collected as part of this study.

22

ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) - Cities for Climate Protection Campaign

The Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Campaign assists cities in adopting policies and

implementing quantifiable measures to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions, improve air

quality, and enhance urban liveability and sustainability. As of 2009, the CCP Campaign has

grown to involve more than 1000 local governments worldwide, which are committed to

integrating climate change mitigation into their decision-making processes (ICLEI, 2010a).

The Carbon Trust

The Carbon Trust, through their Carbon Trust Standard, certify organisations that have

measured, managed and genuinely reduced their carbon footprint and committed to making

further reductions year on year. Achieving the Standard reduces the cost of compliance

under the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC) (The Carbon

Trust, 2010).

Energy Saving Trust - One-to-One Support Programme

The Energy Saving Trust offers a one-to-one support programme. The programme aims to

help local authorities to reduce area-wide carbon emissions and demonstrate local

leadership in addressing climate change. It is currently helping over 130 local authorities

and will assist more in the future (Energy Saving Trust, 2010a).

Voluntary declarations

Signing up to voluntary declarations means that the council commits to work with central

government to contribute to the delivery of the UK Climate Change Programme at a local

level, the Kyoto Protocol and the targets for carbon dioxide reduction by 2010 (Energy

Saving Trust, 2010b). The following map, from Our South West, shows which authorities in

the south west have signed up to the ‘Nottingham declaration’ and the ‘Devon, Plymouth

and Torbay declaration’.

23

(Our south west, 2010)

Figure 2.5 - South West Local Authority Climate Change Declaration Signatories

Agenda 21

Agenda 21 is a sustainable development program run by the United Nations launched at the

Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It details

action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments,

and major groups to ensure development is sustainable (UN, 2009). Collier states that ‘both

the national Government and local municipalities have stressed the importance of

implementing Agenda 21, which was seen as enshrining sustainable development at the

local level, as well as increasing environmental awareness’ (1997, p31).

2.3 Local climate governance

Bulkeley, who writes almost exclusively on the issue of environmental governance, states in

the paper on cities and climate change that although a large body of work has been

accumulated on this subject, that certain findings have tended to focus on individual case

studies (Bulkeley et al 2009). In addition, the paper states that there has also been a

24

tendency to focus on first-movers on the issue of climate change, with the result that we

know little about the particular challenges for global and mega-cities – and how climate

change is being addressed in ‘ordinary’ cities across the world (Bulkeley et al 2009).

The most relevant and recent work on this subject has been carried out by McCartney (2010)

who poses the question “What makes some councils more effective at tackling climate

change than others?” Based on interviews with five councils McCartney arrived at five main

themes and used Abraham Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ to provide a framework as follows:

(McCartney, 2010)

Figure 2.6 – Hierarchy of needs for local climate governance

McCartney (2010) clearly states that if a council has limited political and organisational

commitment to reducing area-wide carbon emissions it will not be able to ‘act meaningfully’

and emission reduction will ‘happen on a limited and superficial scale’. He goes on to state

that this ‘puts a renewed emphasis on the role, capacity, and ability of elected members as

well as senior officers to show leadership – which should be a considered a priority.’

Although McCartney’s work directly applies to this study, the data set used is somewhat

limited and the results are unpublished. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the wider

source of existing literature on this subject.

25

Allman et al carried out a survey on the progress of English and Welsh local authorities in

addressing climate change, looking at both adaptation and mitigation. The surveys, carried

out in 2000 and 2002, found that ‘local authorities have made little progress in . . . taking

action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions’ (2004, p281). More interestingly they found

that ‘the successful and less successful authorities highlighted different barriers to their

addressing climate change’ (2004, p282). They identified ‘successful’ authorities by

determining whether the authority had completed the first four stages of the ICLEI CCP

methodology as follows:

1. Conduct an emissions inventory. 2. Establish an emissions target. 3. Develop the Local Action Plan. 4. Implement policies and measures. 5. Monitor emissions reductions achieved by their mitigation actions.

(ICLEI, 2010b)

The following graph shows the results of the survey with the responses split into the

successful and less successful authorities.

(Allman et al, 2004, p280)

Figure 2.7 - Comparing the successful with the less successful authorities

In summary Allman et al (2004) found that the ‘main differences between the barriers

identified by the successful authorities compared to the other local authorities fell within

two groups:

26

• Support – i.e. either internal from elected members and chief officers or

external support from the government in terms of funding and guidance;

• Coordination – i.e. in terms of working with different departments and

working successfully with other regional authorities and the public sector’.

(Allman et al, 2004, p279)

2.4 Willing individuals

There are many drivers and barriers to local action to mitigate climate change, detailed in

the following section, however these often require the input of a willing individual to take

advantage of the drivers and find ways round the barriers. In this respect, and according to

the majority of the studies in this area which conclude that the success of initiating climate

policy depends on a ‘willing individual’, ‘champion’ or ‘policy entrepreneur’ within the local

authority (Bulkeley et al, 2009; Sippel and Jenssen, 2009; Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003; Kousky

and Schneider, 2003; CSE, 2005). For local authorities in the UK and Sweden, Collier and

Löfstedt report a link between a high level of involvement in climate protection and the

existence of one or two particularly committed individuals in the municipality (Collier and

Löfstedt 1997). These ’issue champions’ seem to be particularly important in the early stage

of local climate governance (Sippel and Jensson, 2009) but these progressive individuals

need to be ‘positioned within the administrative and political structures of local government

in such a way as to be effective’ (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003, p184).

These same ‘policy entrepreneurs’ are particularly important for the process of persuasion

within a municipality and can give an impetus for local climate governance (Bulkeley and

Kern 2006, p2252). An example from China shows that due to the mayor’s vision and

leadership the city was able to ‘implement polices to transform production and consumption

in the city to a low carbon system’ (Qi et al, 2008, p396).

2.5 Drivers for local carbon emissions reduction

Sippel and Jenssen (2009) have carried out a wide review of literature on climate governance

and have categorised the drivers of local climate governance. Their table has been edited to

include a fourth column showing the case studies that were used in the literature. This

shows that although there has been a significant amount of work on identifying the drivers

and barriers, they have been taken from across the world and that the UK is

underrepresented.

27

Motivation Description Authors Case studies

Economic Cost savings Betsill 2001, p397, 401; Collier and Löfstedt 1997, p27; Dodman 2009, p198; Fleming and Webber 2004, p763; ICLEI 2008, p6; Kousky and Schneider 2003, p365ff, p397; Lambright et al 1996, p468, 474; Qi et al 2008, p393f.

Cities for Climate Protection in USA Durban, South Africa Quito, Equador Sweden and UK (Cardiff city council, Leicester city council, Newcastle city council) Australia USA Toronto and Chicago China

Revenues Lambright et al 1996, p468; Qi et al 2008, p394

Smart growth

Betsill 2001, p397f.; Carmin et al 2009, p19; Fleming and Webber 2004, p763; Kousky and Schneider 2003, p367; Lambright et al 1996, p468; Qi et al 2008, p396

Energy prices LGA, 2008; Bristol Green Capital, 2009

Political/ cultural

External pressure (national legislation)

Bulkeley et al 2009, p11, 74; Dhakal 2004, p86; Fleming and Webber 2004, p763; Schreurs 2008, p352

Cities for Climate Protection in USA Beijing, Cape Town, Hong Kong, Yogyakarta, New Dehli, Melbourne, Mexico City, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, and Seoul Durban, South Africa Quito, Equador Sweden and UK (Cardiff city council, Leicester city council, Newcastle city council) Asian mega-cities Australia Toronto and Chicago US cities California, USA Germany Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan Provinces & prefectures within China Asian Cities

Internal pressure – from local community

Brody et al 2008, p37ff; Carmin et al 2009, piii; Kousky and Schneider 2003, p361; Zahran et al 2008, p559

Trend-setting/ reputation

Bulkeley et al 2009, p14; Carmin et al 2009, piii; Collier and Löfstedt 1997, p36; Kousky and Schneider 2003, p365, 367; ICLEI 2008, p6; Schreurs 2008, p345, 350ff

28

Liveability Air quality Betsill 2001, p397f.; Dhakal 2004, p95, 105; Fleming and Webber 2004; Kousky and Schneider 2003, p367; Lambright et al 1996, p472; Romero-Lankao 2007, p351; Schröder and Bulkeley 2009, p358

Cities for Climate Protection in USA USA Beijing, Cape Town, Hong Kong, Yogyakarta, New Dehli, Melbourne, Mexico City, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, and Seoul Asian mega-cities Leicester city council US cities Toronto and Chicago Mexico city London and Los Angeles

Traffic congestion

Betsill 2001, p397; Bulkeley et al 2009, p73; Kousky and Schneider 2003, p367; Schröder and Bulkeley, 2009, p358

Improve people’s quality of life

Betsill 2001, p398; Bulkeley et al 2009, p73; Dhakal 2004, p105; Fleming and Webber 2004, p763, 769; Lambright et al 1996, p469; Shackley et al 2002, p7;

Alleviate fuel poverty

Fleming and Webber 2004, p769

Informational Perceived vulnerability

Alber and Kern 2008, p2; Brody et al 2008, p36; Bulkeley et al 2009, p74; Carmin et al 2009, p19; Qi et al 2008, p394; Zahran et al 2008, p558

Dhaka, Bangladesh US cities Beijing, Cape Town, Hong Kong, Yogyakarta, New Dehli, Melbourne, Mexico City, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, and Seoul Durban, South Africa Quito, Equador China Durban, South Africa Asian cities Cities for Climate Protection in USA

Note: Format of references taken from source

(Edited table from Sippel and Jenssen, 2009)

Table 5 – Drivers for local carbon emissions reduction

A brief description of the drivers listed in the table above is included here to provide

additional understanding.

Cost Savings: The idea of cost savings as a motivator or driver within local authorities is

straight forward. As budgets are tightened and constantly scrutinised the opportunities to

save money are being sought in all departments. Within carbon emission reduction, the

scope for financial savings is significant and is often the primary driver - with carbon

29

emission reductions being a ‘happy by-product’ (Collier and Löfstedt, 1997; Lambright et al,

1996).

Revenues: Lambright et al (1996) wrote about the Toronto District Heating Corporation

which was directed by the City Council. The corporation sold steam to buildings in the city

and was looking to expand its customer base, develop district cooling and generate

electricity. This project resulted in carbon emission reduction but also provided the council

with financial benefits.

Smart growth: This refers to case studies where local authorities considered a particular

project in order to enhance the local economy thereby to ‘improve the competitive position

of the city and attract investments, business and high skilled workers’ (OECD, 1995, p21,

quoted in Betsill 2001, p397) Kousky and Schneider (2003) also talk about this idea in their

work.

Energy Prices: The LGA published a report titled Volatile times: transport, climate change

and the price of oil which was aimed at informing local authorities about rising energy prices

and what they can do to insulate themselves from the rises (LGA, 2008). Bristol City Council

published its own response to peak oil and how peak oil is going to affect the city (Bristol

Green Capital, 2009). These two reports make it clear that energy prices may be a driver for

carbon emission reductions in local authorities.

External pressure – National legislation: National legislation can be a significant driver for

local authorities to reduce their carbon emissions - as Schreurs found in China where ‘the

establishment of local climate action strategies is largely a response to central government

expectations and demands’ (Schreurs 2008, p352). Bulkley et al (2009) and Dhakal (2004)

echo this point, stating that an important factor in creating a positive political space for local

action on climate change is the impetus of, or pressure from, national government.

In the UK ‘there is legislation that puts a duty on local government to prepare strategies to

improve the energy efficiency of the housing stock in their area, to reduce fuel poverty and

to prepare Community Plans’ (Fleming and Webber 2004, p763). Since the report was

published a set of national indicators have been introduced which requires local authorities

30

to report on carbon emissions within their operations and per capita emissions in their area.

More recently the CRC has come into force which is discussed in Section 2.1.4.

Internal pressure: This is said to come from the local community and there are mixed views

among the analysts as to whether this is a significant driver or not. Brody et al (2008) found

that the number of environmental non-profit groups were the strongest predictor of sign up

to voluntary climate change programmes, whereas Kousky and Schneider (2003) found

citizen and NGO pressure to be a relevant motivation in only 2 out of 23 US cities who signed

up to a voluntary climate change programme.

Zahran et al (2008) found a link between the demography of a community, particularly a link

between ‘well- educated and politically liberal’ people, and their views on policies to

mitigate climate change, in this case supportive. It appears that for adaptation, local

governments may also be motivated by internal pressure, because there is a responsibility

‘to protect property and residents from natural disasters’ (Carmin et al, 2009, piii). This

maybe important because local authorities often have joint mitigation and adaptation

strategies (Devon County Council, 2005). But on the other hand, McCartney (2010)

developed a hierarchy of needs, discussed above and he puts local citizen engagement and

meaningful behaviour change as the final level, rather than as a primary driver.

All that can be concluded here is that there are local variations with a range of factors a

number of which have already been indicated.

Trend setting or reputation: Sippel and Jenssen separate trend setting and reputation into

two separate drivers, but acknowledge that there is a close link between them and state that

‘front runners in local climate action seem to be motivated partly by the belief that they help

improve the city’s reputation’ (2009, p12). Local authorities have stated that it is important

to attract people and business to move to their area and one way of doing this is by

presenting a ‘green’ image (Collier and Löfstedt, 1997; Kousky and Schneider, 2003).

An understanding of image and an opportunity to demonstrate leadership can also persuade

councils to spend significant amounts of money to achieve very large sustainable cuts in

emissions (ICLEI 2008). Bulkeley et al (2009) highlight the support that is available from the

International organisation ICLEI through their CCP (Cities for Climate Protection) programme

31

or the Climate Alliance which in the past have provided opportunities to lead - and have also

developed means of recognizing and rewarding leadership.

Air quality: The idea of air quality as a driver for carbon emission reduction is not as clear cut

as it might first appear. In Mexico it was used as a stepping stone to get climate change on

the agenda (Romero-Lankao 2007), which means in this case it was used as a driver. Dhakal

states that it is important to ‘synergise measures to reduce air pollution and CO2 emissions’

(2004, p7). However in nearly every other case study air quality was described as a co-

benefit rather than as a primary driver (Fleming and Webber 2004, Kousky and Schneider

2003).

Traffic congestion: As with air quality, traffic congestion is often used as co-benefit (Betsill,

2001; Bulkeley et al, 2009; Kousky and Schneider, 2003). Schröder and Bulkeley provide an

example of a potential two stage approach when combining traffic congestion and carbon

emission reduction. The congestion charge in London was brought in to reduce local air

pollution and congestion, and it also raised revenue for public transport and increased the

use of alternative modes of travel. Although ‘this mechanism has not yet been successfully

explicitly used to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, a proposal to change the basis of

the congestion charge in order to take account of vehicle greenhouse gas emissions was

made, but later dropped by incoming Mayor Boris Johnson’ (2009, p353).

Improve people’s quality of life: Bulkeley et al state that ‘local adaptation activities are

often a side-benefit of activities that are designed to improve quality of life in a city’ (2009,

p73). This fits closely with the idea of co-benefits to climate change policy, of which there

can be multiple, as shown by Shackley et al (2002) in the following diagram:

32

(Shackley et al, 2002)

Figure 2.8 - Examples of multiple consequences of carbon reduction at the local scale Fleming and Webber state that authorities where these measures were implemented

‘because it helped to improve the quality of life of people living and working in their area,

rather than because of a statutory duty’ (2004, p769). In Toronto ‘the mayor loved

aesthetics and thus launched a tree-planting program to protect the climate and make the

city more beautiful’ (Lambright et al, 1996, p472).

Alleviate fuel poverty: There can be synergies between measures to reduce carbon

emissions and alleviate fuel poverty. Fleming and Webber make reference to buildings’

energy standards. And they state that as standards ‘improve, people may also be able to

afford to heat their houses more extensively. Energy-efficiency measures in buildings may

thus increase comfort levels and help to alleviate fuel poverty’ (2004, p769).

Perceived vulnerability: As discussed above in ‘Internal pressure’ local authorities often

have joint mitigation and adaptation strategies (Devon County Council, 2005). This driver is

the link between the adaptation and mitigation of climate change and it appears that

‘vulnerability to climate change impacts seems to be a motivator for local mitigation

activities, too’ (Sippel and Jenssen, 2009, p14).

2.6 Barriers to local carbon emissions reduction targets

In the same way that Sippel and Jenssen (2009) identified drivers to local climate governance

in the previous section, they also categorised the barriers, detailed in the following table.

33

Barrier Description Exemplary quotation

Tragedy of the Commons (trend setting)

‘From a rational choice perspective, it makes little sense for a city government to expend resources to control its GHG emissions, since it is not at all clear that action to control emissions in one particular place will have any measurable effect on the overall threat of global climate change’ (Betsill, 2001, p394).

Economic Costs /Financial resources

‘many cities are not willing to invest financial resources in controlling GHG emissions, since doing so often requires significant up-front costs’ (Betsill, 2001, p399).

Human resources ‘Of the 342 respondents who stated they do not have enough resources . . . the majority (81%) stated they need finance, with 58% stating that more staff are required’ (Jones et al, 2000, p206).

Accessibility of funds ‘The ability to secure funding from external sources – from national governments, the European Union, or charitable foundations – has been shown to make a significant difference in the local capacity to address climate change’ (Bulkeley et al, 2009, p17)

Path dependency ‘Because some groups benefit from the stauts quo, they actively promote more of the same, and create obstacles to investment in alternatives.’ (Suzuki et al, 2009, p28)

Realizable benefits ‘Studies instead show that climate change is seldom the main driver behind initiatives but instead a potential positive by-product of activities aimed at addressing other local problems’ (Storbjörk, 2007, p468)

Political / Cultural

Need for policy entrepreneurs

‘in some cities the existence of an issue ‘champion’ was essential to initiating climate policy’ (Kousky and Schneider, 2003, p361)

Lack of political support

‘without strong support from the decision makers climate change will not be on the local government agenda’ (Fleming and Webber, 2004, p763)

Short time horizons ‘Indeed, climate change will most likely result in many damages at global, regional, and local levels, but these damages are less likely to make significant impacts on the local economy in the relatively short period of time that government officials are in office’ (Qi et al, 2008, p393)

Competitive policy issues

‘Other issues take higher priority in the council’ (Allman et al, 2004, p280)

Behavioural constraints

‘A new planning process that involves many planners and designers will certainly challenge the natural tendency of people – and professionals in particular – to resist change of any kind’ (Suzuki et al, 2009, p29)

34

Institutional Absence of national mandate

‘However, in the absence of central government direction, specific ‘climate protection’ strategies have historically been rare’ (Bulkeley and Kern, 2006, p2239)

Good local governance ‘Good governance is a crucial determining factor of effective adaptation as the level of vulnerability to climate change, especially for the urban poor, is directly related to the quality of national and local government’ (Satterthwaite, 2007, p9)

Internal integration and coordination problems

‘Correlating with this need to integrate energy and climate policy issues into other policy fields, new problems of horizontal coordination have become apparent in Berlin’ (Monstadt, 2007, p339)

Institutionalization ‘Translating political will into policy action thus requires that city governments institutionalise their efforts to control GHG emissions and designate responsibility for co-ordinating climate-related activities across city government’ (Betsill, 2001, p400)

Lack of cooperation Local stakeholders: ‘Specifically, the findings suggest that adaptation efforts will be enhanced if cities . . . engage non-governmental stakeholders, including NGOs, consultants, and universities in planning and implementation.’ (Carmin et al, 2009, piii) Regionally: ‘Successful climate policy often depends on technical infrastructure which transcends city borders.’ (Alber and Kern, 2008, p15) Other policy levels: ‘The role of national government, and of relations between local and national government, in shaping urban climate governance can therefore be critical’ (Bulkeley et al, 2009, p15)

Regulatory framework ‘The cases of London and Los Angeles demonstrate that . . . their limitation to perform climate change policy is somewhat determined by legal frameworks at national or state levels’ (Schröder and Bulkeley, 2009, p358)

Limited control over utilities

‘The liberalization and privatization have diminished the control of the Bundesländer and municipalities over the prices, investments and corporate policies of the utilities’ (Monstadt, 2007, p327)

Informational Lack of expertise ‘Issues such as low local human capacity to undertake this kind of planning, and the limited knowledge and understanding of climate issues at local and municipal level are some of the more obvious obstacles.’ (Mukheibir and Ziervogel, 2007, p156)

35

Public interest and participation

‘public sensibility to both environmental issues in general and climate change issues specifically is also important, in that local authorities are unlikely to get involved unless there is public and political support’ (Collier, 1997, p45)

Limited monitoring and evaluation

‘many of the local governments do not have up-to-date emissions inventories to work with’ (Sugiyama and Takeuchi, 2008, p435)

Little localized information

‘Specifically, the findings suggest that adaptation efforts will be enhanced if cities . . . obtain or generate information about local risks and locally-relevant adaptation measures’ (Carmin et al, 2009, piii)

(edited table from Sippel and Jenssen, 2009)

Table 6 - Barriers to local carbon emissions reduction targets

This table provides a comprehensive list of the barriers to local climate action. However,

whilst it is informative, it does not provide any detailed information about the extent to

which each barrier identified influences decisions.

2.7 Targets in South West England

Based on local climate change strategies the following targets were gathered to provide an

indication of where each council was positioned in terms of ambition with respect to carbon

emission reduction targets. Ideally the targets would be aligned to the same baseline year

and the exact reduction in tonnes would be ascertained to allow for a direct comparison to

be made between the authorities. However, this process is very technical and the data that

would make this possible is not available.

Reduction Baseline

year

Target year Reference

Bath and North East Somerset

30% 2007/8 2014 BANES, 2009

Bournemouth 6.80% 2008/09 2010/11 Bournemouth Borough Council,

2010

Bristol 40% 2005 2020 Bristol City Council, 2010b

Cornwall 40% 2009 2020 Interview 2

Devon 3.30% 2008/09 2011/12 Devon County Council, 2007

Dorset 30% 2005/6 2020 Dorset County Council, 2009

36

Gloucestershire 10% 2005/06 2012 Gloucestershire County Council,

2010

Isles of Scilly NO TARGETS SET Isles of Scilly, 2010

North Somerset 12.50% 2005 2010/11 Interview 4

Plymouth 60% 2006/7 2020 Plymouth City Council, 2010

Poole 12% 2008/09 2010/11 Borough of Poole, 2009

Somerset 30% 2008 2015 Somerset County Council, 2008

South

Gloucestershire

60% 1990 2050 South Gloucestershire Council,

2006

Swindon 20% 1990 2010 Swindon Borough Council, 2006

Torbay 30% 1990 2020 Torbay Council, 2008

Wiltshire 3% 2009/10 2010/11 Wiltshire Council, 2010

Table 7 – Carbon emission reduction targets in South West England

This table provides basic information on the carbon emission reduction targets set in the

south west and it is not possible to include a direction comparison. It is also not clear, from

this information, whether there is any intention of meeting these targets, or whether they

have just been published as a way of showing willingness. Therefore, the primary focus of

this study was to explore the decision making process, but the idea of reduction targets was

maintained in order to provide a focal point on which the can respondents base their

answers.

2.8 Summary of literature

This study is focused on gathering data from local authorities in South West England in order

to gain an understanding of how decisions are made and to what extent the drivers and

barriers identified are relevant.

Local authorities are complicated and large organisations. The processes that have to be

followed in order for decisions to be made are complex - largely due to the fact that local

authorities have to be democratic institutions. The way that local authorities are funded is

intricate and a full understanding of this is goes beyond the scope of this study. Yet as is

evident, local authorities are influenced - in varying degrees - on people’s views on climate

change is an important factor that influences council decision making.

37

There are a significant number of studies covering the drivers and barriers to carbon

emission reduction on a local level. A number of drivers and barriers have been identified by

a variety of authors from around the world. These drivers and barriers have been identified

in relation to specific case studies, and more often than not on case studies of very proactive

cities who have signed up to a number of voluntary schemes, such as ICLEI’s Cities for

Climate Protection Campaign. This results in data that excludes information about cities that

do not currently place climate change action as a priority. There is also a significant gap in

the data in terms of case studies from the UK.

38

3. METHODOLOGY

This research is focused on how and why decisions are made with respect to reducing

carbon emissions in local authorities in South West England. Data was gathered in order to

answer the following research questions.

What are the key drivers/barriers to local authorities in the south west adopting

carbon emissions reduction targets?

What are the key barriers to local authorities in the south west achieving the carbon

emissions reduction targets?

It is understood that different local authorities in the region will be at different stages within

a carbon management process and have different levels of knowledge in this area. The

research needs to take this into account and should be flexible to allow for differences

between participants.

3.1 Research methodology

A triangulation approach was selected as the most appropriate to answer the research

questions. A combination of questionnaires and interviews was used in a two-phase

approach to gather a wide base of quantitative data in the first phase, followed up by semi-

structured interviews to provide an element of depth (Creswell, 1994).

The literature identifies and categorises a number of drivers and barriers based on case

studies from around the world. While it appears that a significant amount of work has been

done in this area there are very few case studies based in the UK and none from South West

England.

3.2 Primary data collection

The two-phase approach consisted of questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The

research is looking to identify barriers to carbon reduction in local authorities that may be

lagging behind in this area as well as authorities that are excelling in this area. However, due

to the nature of the research questions there is a risk that the respondents are biased

towards people that are already working in the field of sustainability and are interested in

the subject. With respect to the questionnaires these local authorities that currently have

39

no interest in this subject may also have no interest in completing the questionnaire.

Therefore respondents for the interviews were selected to make up for this potential bias in

the data. The specific details of each method is described in the following section.

Questionnaire Interviews

Participants

The population for this phase is defined as all local authority employees and councillors in South West England. Contact with the participants was carried out in collaboration with the organisation Regen South West as well as using publically available contact details for councillors across the region.

The population for the interview was selected using purposive sampling, where participants will be hand-picked in order to obtain data from across the region but to also include data from unitary, county and district authorities. The participants were able to offer themselves up to take part in an interview as part of the questionnaire.

Advantages Economical in terms of cost, materials and time

Standardised answers

Wide variety of respondents

Quantitative data for analysis

Greater depth of information

Flexibility – questions can be tailored to respondent

Insights can be gained from more than just written answers

Risks Low response rate

Can be biased towards the researchers way of seeing things

Little opportunity for the researcher to check truthfulness of answers

Time consuming

Data analysis complicated due to non-standard responses

Interviewer effect – interviewee statements may be affected by the identity of the interviewer

Inhibitions – speaking on record can be daunting for certain people

Reliability and validity

Reliability of respondent’s answers may be affected by a number of variables such as time of day, work load, recent experiences etc. (Bell, 2003)

Direct contact at the point of the interview means that data can be checked for accuracy. However, the impact of the interviewer and of the context means that consistency and objectivity are hard to achieve (Denscombe, 2007).

Table 8 – Methods of data collection

3.3 Questionnaire design

A nine question survey was designed in order to answer the research questions set out in

above. The full questionnaire is detailed in Appendix 1. The internet survey was distributed

via e-mail to the population defined above. The initial questions addressed details of the

40

respondent, such as identifying which local authority they worked for and their role within it.

Based on the literature review the questions sought to gather information on the following:

The importance of drivers in setting carbon emission reduction targets measured on

a 5 point Likert scale (discussed below)

Funding streams considered when setting carbon emission reduction targets

The importance of barriers in setting carbon emission reduction targets measured

on a 5 point Likert scale (discussed below)

The importance of the presence of a willing individual within the local authority in

setting stretching carbon emission reduction targets measured on a 5 point Likert

scale (discussed below)

The drivers and barriers identified in the literature review were narrowed down to ensure

they were not repeated and were easy for the respondents to understand in a short online

survey.

Each question offered the opportunity for the respondent to make additional comments in

order to overcome the risk that the questions could be biased by the researcher’s point of

view.

3.3.1 Likert Scale

The measurement based on a Likert scale was chosen as it is allows the respondent the

opportunity to provide an answer with more depth than a simple close-ended question,

whilst maintaining standardised data analysis than would be obtained with an open-ended

response. The data obtained using a Likert scale ‘can be considered an ordinal measurement

since any two respondents will vary in their interpretation of the scale values’ (Corder and

Foreman, 2009, p3).

This scale is highly reliable when it comes to an approximate ordering of people with regard

to a particular attitude or attitude complex. The score includes a measure of intensity as

expressed on each statement’ (Miller and Salkind, 2002, p330) and generally requires

nonparametric statistics. However, Likert scales may be subject to distortion from several

causes, including the following:

41

acquiescence bias: ‘a culturally based tendency to agree with others

because it is perceived to be ‘easier’ to agree than disagree’ (Bowling, 2005,

p286).

Social desirability bias: ‘data that are systematically biased toward

respondents perceptions of what is ‘correct’ or socially acceptable’

(Maccoby and Maccoby 1954, quoted in Fisher, 1993, p303).

Central tendency bias: Respondents may avoid using extreme response

categories biased towards the demand distribution mean (Hollingworth,

1910).

The use of the triangulation approach is employed in order avoid bias as much as

possible.

3.3.2 Pilot

The questionnaire was tested to ensure that it did not take too long to complete, to check

the questions and instructions were clear and easy to understand and to ensure that it was

clear why any questions were skipped. This was carried out among students and academics

to provide a fresh view point. The questionnaire was then tested on a local authority

employee to ensure the terminology was appropriate for the target respondents and

question wording and order were amended as appropriate.

3.4 Interviews

The second phase of primary data collection was completed by carrying out audio taped

semi-structured interviews. The participants were selected based on the questionnaire

responses in order to obtain a variety of opinions, a cross section across the south west and

a mixture of unitary, county and district councils. Where possible a variety of positions held

within the councils were interviewed. The participant’s views were sought from the vantage

of their particular positions, so the nature of the information required exploratory and

responsive questioning (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). Therefore semi-structured interviews

were selected to ensure certain themes were discussed but also allowed for unknown data

to be gathered depending on the expertise of the interviewee (Denscombe, 2007).

42

3.5 Method of data analysis

Data obtained from the questionnaires were coded and reviewed using a number of

techniques including, simple bar graphs, nonparametric correlations and weighted averages.

Spearman’s Gamma, which is used when working with ordinal level data that is ranked in a

small number of response categories (Siegel and Castellan, 2002), was used to check for

correlations between different variables. The interviews were analysed using content

analysis. The transcriptions were classified into fewer categories (Weber, 1999) based on

the drivers and barriers identified in the literature review and then reassessed to look for

information that extended beyond the previously identified categories (Denscombe, 2007).

Lastly the questionnaire data was reviewed alongside the interview data in order to find

agreement as well as any contradictions.

43

4. RESULTS

This section presents the results of the questionnaire and the interviews analysis. Firstly a

summary of the respondents is given, the major drivers and barriers are indentified from the

questionnaire data and the correlation analysis is presented Analysis and discussion of the

results is broken down into the following sections: financial drivers and barriers, policy

drivers and barriers and the presence of a willing individual and political will. Following this,

the idea of ‘doing the right thing’ with respect to climate change action is discussed and

finally learning experiences of the data collection is discussed.

4.1 Primary data

There were 72 questionnaire respondents in total with the following response rates for each

question as follows:

Question Response

count

Q1 Which local authority do you work for? 71 (97%)

Q2 What is your job title? 70 (96%)

Q3 Has your local authority set carbon emissions reduction targets? 62 (85%)

Q4 How important are the following drivers when setting carbon emissions

reduction targets?

59 (81%)

Q5 Which of the following funding streams are considered when setting

carbon emissions reduction targets?

50 (68%)

Q6 How important are the following barriers when setting carbon emissions

reduction targets?

53 (73%)

Q7 Stretching carbon emissions reduction targets have been set in my

authority due to the presence of a particular member of staff. In your

experience, to what extent do you agree with this statement?

53 (73%)

Q8 Do you have any other comments in relation to carbon emissions

reduction targets in your local authority?

27 (37%)

Q9 If you would be happy to take part in a more in-depth interview on this

subject please fill in your contact details here:

14 (19%)

Table 9 – Questionnaire response rates

44

The full data set gathered from the questionnaires is shown in Appendix 2. Based on the

answers to questions 1 and 2 the following information about the respondents is available:

Figure 4.1 – Respondents: local authority

Figure 4.2 – Respondents: elected and employed

A total of seven interviews were carried out. To preserve anonymity details of the specific

roles cannot be given. There were representations from four unitary, two county and one

district council. Six of the interviewees were council employees and one was a councillor.

4.2 Identification of major drivers and barriers

Using a weighted mean to indicate the top three drivers the following results were derived.

45

Weighted mean

Top three drivers

Energy prices Opportunity to save money Alleviate fuel poverty

3.9 3.8 3.6

Top three barriers

Lack of financial resources Funding available is difficult to access Lack of human resources

3.9 3.5 3.4

Table 10 – Top three drivers and barriers

Although using a weighted mean with an ordinal data set is not strictly valid (Göb et al, 2007)

it provides indicative information which is easy to understand and gives a starting point from

which to analyse the data.

4.3 Correlation results

In an attempt to ascertain whether there were any links between the drivers and barriers,

the results of each question were correlated using Spearman’s Gamma. The table of results

are shown in Appendix 3. The gamma statistic computes the level of association between

the two variables and in this case only one statistically significant association was found –

there is a ‘strong’ correlation between air quality and traffic congestion. These two issues

are inherently linked so this correlation result is not surprising. There were not any other

correlations found that were statistically significant. It is not possible make a judgement on

the reason for this however it is likely that the lack of data has a significant impact on these

results.

4.4 Financial drivers and barriers

As found in the literature, cost savings and financial barriers exist in nearly all of the case

studies within carbon emission reduction the scope for financial savings can be significant

and is often the primary driver with carbon emission reductions being a ‘happy by-product’

(Collier and Löfstedt 1997, Lambright et al, 1996). The questionnaire data above supports

the idea that money is a important factor in the ability for local authorities to reduce carbon

emissions. The questionnaire data demonstrates this idea quite clearly as shown in the

following two graphs.

46

Figure 4.3 – Results for Opportunity to save money

Figure 4.4 – Results for Opportunity to make money

The opportunity to save money is a significant driver, shown above and supported in the

majority of the interviews. The idea of cost savings is straightforward particularly in the

current climate of public sector cuts, finance is something that affects all departments and it

something everyone can understand. Every project has to be justified on a financial basis

which was highlighted explicitly in two interviews (Interviews 1 and 7) and the importance of

cost saving was indicated in other interviews too:

It is less clear cut when you look at the opportunity to make money, which councils are not

strictly able to do under the Local Government Act (2000), whereas they can generate income

e.g. through car parks. The technical understanding of this issue may have caused some

confusion when answering this question. This may explain why there is a split in opinion

between elected and employed respondents, based on the respondents responsibilities and

their understanding of this issue. The concept of councils making money was expressed to be

a problem by councillor who said that they had put solar panels on the council house to avoid

penalties under the CRC rather than to make money (Interview 5). One contradiction to this

was ascertained in an interview where the interviewee had a twinkle in his eye when he spoke

about the opportunity for implementing a project which would make money.

47

Although funding can be seen as a driver, or lack of it a barrier to progress, other factors are

just as important. In one case, a slightly disillusioned employee who was not part of team

found that support was lacking and said that money was not necessarily the be all and end all.

The issue of finance is a difficult barrier to overcome particularly in terms of simply trying to

provide more funding for this agenda. However, one funding stream appears to have been

successful in enabling some of the interviewees to implement certain carbon reduction

projects – SALIX finance provide loans to local authorities for energy efficiency projects. The

finance is based on a five year term and allows projects with longer paybacks to have a chance

of implementation (Interviews 1, 2 and 7). This provides local authorities a way out of

justifying projects within the yearly budgets.

4.5 Policy drivers and barriers

Schreurs (2008) found that in China the central government’s expectations and demands lead

to the establishment of local climate action strategies. Bulkley et al (2009) and Dhakal (2004)

echo this stating that an important factor in creating a positive political space for local action

on climate change is the impetus of, or pressure from, national government. In the UK the

main national policies which have an impact on local authority operations in terms of carbon

emission reduction are the national indicator set and the CRC. These policies were brought up

in every interview without being prompted. These policies force the issue of carbon emission

reduction into the minds of local authority employees. The questionnaire results support this.

48

Figure 4.5 – Results for National legislation as a driver

When looking at these two main policies, the national indicators and the CRC, it is found that

local authority employees have come up against certain issues.

CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme

Buildings owned and operated by the local authority that fall under the CRC are relatively easy

to manage and most local authorities have set up special teams to collect the data and deal

with the administration of the scheme (Interview 4 and 7). The issue gets more complicated

when schools are introduced as the local authority is the CRC participant and so responsible

for the legal and financial aspects of the scheme, rather than the school itself. In one case an

interviewee stated that the hardest part of his job was convincing schools to reduce their

energy use in order to ensure that the authority performed well in the CRC league table and

did not face financial penalties.

This disconnect requires the authorities to have extra skills and time in order to convince or

sell the idea of energy efficiency and carbon reduction to the schools. One way around this

issue that is currently under consultation is the option of changing Schools Finance Regulations

to enable local authorities to charge any loss attributable to schools to the Schools Budget and

apportion this out to schools based on their individual performance (Teachernet, 2010). The

ins and outs of school finance is a complicated issue. A big disconnect exists between revenue

and capital spending, so if a local authority invests capital into a school for energy saving

49

measures there is no way for the local authority to benefit from the cost savings or revenue

generated from the energy saving (Interview 6). The consequences of changing the Schools

Finance Regulations is too complex an issue to examine here in any depth, but the fact that

this gap between legal responsibility and incentive to take action in schools has been

recognised is important.

National Indicators 185 and 186

According to the Audit Commission ‘the introduction of these indicators in 2008 has focused

councils’ attention on CO2 emissions reduction’ (2009, p18). The data collected in this study

supports this claim and work surrounding NI185 and NI186 was in the front of the minds of the

interviewees. However, the Audit Commission goes onto state that ‘councils have limited

influence over the actions that will contribute to CO2 reductions measured by NI186’ (2009,

p18). For example,

Changes from one year to the next in the [national] mix of fuels used to generate electricity have resulted in increased domestic emissions in some areas, even where electricity consumption has reduced. The benefit of some action, such as supplying electricity generated from low-carbon or renewable sources to the national grid, can only be measured at the national level.

(Audit Commission, 2009, p18)

This appears to be a significant issue in the ability for local authorities to meet targets,

however it was not mentioned by a single interviewee. Perhaps this is because it is something

they do not feel they have control over, or maybe it is because they are not aware of the issue.

It is not possible to make a judgement on this issue based on the data available within this

study.

There are also problems with the delay in the data being available to the local authorities in

order to review their performance and make timely adjustments to their action plans, as

identified in a number of the interviews.

50

4.6 The presence of a willing individual and political will

As stated in the literature most of the successful local climate governance has wholly or in part

been down to the presence of a willing individual. For local authorities in the UK and Sweden,

Collier and Löfstedt (1997, p35) report a link between a high level of involvement in climate

protection and the existence of one or two particularly committed individuals in the

municipality. The results of the questionnaire support this idea to a certain extent, more so

with the employees. The elected members answers to this point fell across all answers,

making the importance of a willing individual less clear.

Figure 4.6 – Results for influence of a willing individual on carbon emission reduction targets

There was a general consensus among the interviewees that often progress has been made

due to a willing individual.

The results from the interviews go some way to explaining the disparity between councillors

and employees and clarifying the questionnaire results. In one case a councillor gave an

answer of ‘strongly disagree’ based on the fact that it was not down to a single individual, but

rather a number of people were important in progressing the agenda.

51

This assertion was also felt by an employee who believed that a combination of willing officers

and councillors were vital to the progress they had made.

Conversely in a district council, that was making slower progress, an employee felt that they

were not in a position to make a significant impact.

Following on from the idea of ‘willing individuals’, it appears to make a difference where that

willing individual is positioned. The influence of the councillors, in particular the leader of the

council and the cabinet members is significant.

Sippel and Jensson state that ‘issue champions seem to be particularly important in the early

stage of local climate governance’ (2009, p35). This fact means that it is often difficult to speak

to or find the willing individual that was vital in pushing forward the climate change agenda in

a particular authority. Often the interviewees were in a position where they had not worked

with the people who had initiated the policy which may have taken place a number of years

ago. This makes this subject a difficult one to research and the depths of this issue go beyond

the scope of this study.

The importance of the position of the willing individual leads on to political support or lack

thereof. When carrying out the interviews it appeared that political will was an important

factor when setting carbon emission reduction targets.

52

However, the results from the questionnaire do not provide a clear indication and the answers

from both elected members and employees are widely spread.

Figure 4.7 – Results for lack of political support as a barrier

Looking into this data a little further it can be seen that even within a single authority there is

still significant disagreement. Gloucestershire, Somerset and Devon were selected as they all

had over ten respondents from within the authority.

Figure 4.8 – Results for lack of political support for Gloucestershire, Somerset and Devon

It is not clear why there is this spread and perhaps this requires further investigation.

However, it may be down to a misinterpretation of the question. ‘Political will’ could be seen

as an overall willingness of the party in power or the view of the individual councillors. This

misunderstanding could vary from respondent to respondent which would produce very

53

different responses. One of the interviewees explained that, in their case, the political makeup

was less important than the views of the individual councillor.

4.7 Doing the right thing

There was a general feeling amongst the interviewees who were working for proactive councils

that tackling climate change was a moral obligation or that there was a fundamental belief that

reducing carbon emissions was the right thing to do. One respondent to the questionnaire

added this rather passionate comment.

In one interview, when asked what was the councils motivation to putting solar panels on

schools the answer was “it’s philosophical”. It seems that the willing individuals, discussed

earlier, had this belief or understanding that they had a responsibility to bring this issue to the

table and attempt to do something about it. The officers responsible for implementing this

agenda often talked about having to sell this idea to other employees of the council, that they

had to convince others that this was an important issue in order to get projects going. The

challenge of educating people about climate change is a difficult task and goes beyond the

scope of this project.

4.8 Learning experiences

During this research it was found that the design of the questionnaire could have been

improved in order to achieve a high response rate. A number of councillors responded to the

request to complete the survey with statements such as “this does not apply to me” or “I’m

not in a position to answer this survey”. It became clear that the wording of the questionnaire

was aimed specifically at officers that were dealing with sustainability or climate change. With

the understanding that there is generally only one person responsible for these issues within

each council, it may have been better to gather more generalised information regarding the

views on this subject of council employees and councillors alike.

54

5. CONCLUSION

The aim of this study was to explore why some local authorities make the decision to reduce

their carbon emissions more than others. The exploration was initially framed by carbon

emission reduction targets, however it was found that obtaining data to allow a comparison of

targets was not possible, the idea of reduction targets was maintained in order to provide a

focal point on which the can respondents base their answers.

The literature review focused on gathering data from local authorities in South West England

in order to gain an understanding of how decisions are made, and to what extent the drivers

and barriers identified are relevant. Local authorities are complicated and large organisations.

The processes that have to be followed in order for decisions to be made are complex - largely

due to the fact that local authorities have to be democratic institutions. The way that local

authorities are funded is intricate and a full understanding of this is goes beyond the scope of

this study. Yet as is evident, local authorities are influenced - in varying degrees - on people’s

views on climate change as an important factor that influences council decision making.

There are a significant number of studies covering the drivers and barriers to carbon emission

reduction on a local level. A number of drivers and barriers have been identified by a variety

of authors from around the world. These drivers and barriers have been identified in relation

to specific case studies, and more often than not on case studies of very proactive cities who

have signed up to a number of voluntary schemes, such as ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection

Campaign. This results in data that excludes information about cities that do not currently

place climate change action as a priority. There is also a significant gap in the data in terms of

case studies from the UK.

The questionnaire data gathered in this study showed that the major drivers to setting carbon

emission reduction targets were ‘Energy prices’, ‘Opportunity to save money’ and ‘Alleviate

fuel poverty’. Similarly the major barriers were ‘Lack of financial resources’, ‘Funding available

is difficult to access’ and ‘Lack of human resources’. The majority of these centre around

finance which indicates that both employees and the elected members are sensitive to costs.

This is something that is understandable, particularly in the current climate of public sector

cuts, which heightens this sensitivity in all of the councils operations irrespective of carbon

55

reduction targets. The SALIX finance provides an opportunity for local authorities to access a

low cost loan for energy efficiency projects outside of the annual budgets.

The national policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions within local authorities such as

National Indicators 185 and 186 and the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme force employees to

consider carbon emissions. Although both these policies pose certain problems, for example

the difficulty with data availability within NI186, and the disconnect between local authorities

and the schools in the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, these issues are being reviewed. It is

important that policies which compel local authority employees to reduce the carbon

emissions are kept in place.

The policies mentioned above are important, however, the results of this study show that in

order maximise the potential of these national policies the role of the willing individual within

the organisation is vital. These willing individuals, sometimes through a belief that tackling

climate change is important, also search out other opportunities where carbon reductions can

be made alongside realising other benefits to the community. Where they are positioned in

the council is also relevant to their ability to influence others in the council and get policies in

place that make a difference. This is also the case with councillors and their position within

the council. Their willingness, or otherwise, can have a significant effect of the direction of the

council.

The influence of political will as a driver for setting ambitious carbon emission reduction

targets is unclear. The results of the interviews suggest that the political will makes a

significant difference to the overall driver of the authority. However, the questionnaire results

for this issue were mixed. The political make up of the council is based on the constituents and

their priorities. The views of the general public of climate change and the importance of

reducing emissions has an impact on who is elected, but achieving this change in attitude

could take generations to accomplish.

56

6. FURTHER WORK

During this work the following areas have been identified as areas requiring further research:

The disconnect between who is legally responsible for the financial aspects of the CRC

and who has control over the building, in this case the school.

Local authority employees awareness of the detail of National Indicator 186.

An in depth study into the influence of willing individuals on climate change actions

within local authorities.

The importance of political will in achieving significant reductions in carbon emissions

in local authorities.

How do the beliefs about climate change of the employees and elected member

influence the progress of local authorities in reduction of carbon emissions.

57

7. REFERENCES

Alber, G. and Kern, K. (2008) Governing Climate Change in Cities: Modes of Urban Climate

Governance in Multi-level Systems, Documentation Competitive Cities and Climate

Change Conference, Milan 9-10 October 2008.

Allman, L., Fleming, P. and Wallace, A. (2004) The Progress of English and Welsh Local

Authorities in Addressing Climate Change, Local Environment, 9/3, 271-283.

Audit Commission (2009) Lofty ambitions: The role of councils in reducing domestic CO2

emissions, Audit Commission Publishing Team, London.

BANES (2009) Bath & North East Somerset Council Carbon Management Plan 2009-2014, URL:

http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environment%20and%20Planning

/CMP%20FINAL%20for%20website.pdf.

Bell, J. (2003) Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers in education and

social science, 3rd Edition, Open University Press, Philadelphia.

Betsill, M. M. (2001) Mitigation Climate Change in US Cities: opportunities and obstacles, Local

Environment, 6(4), 393-406.

Borough of Poole (2009) Poole’s revised local area agreement 2008 – 2011, URL:

http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/aio/9715582.

Bournemouth Borough Council (2010) Go Green Bournemouth, URL:

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/Library/PDF/Living/Environment/_climate_change_d

ocs/4140%20Climate%20Change%20Brochure.pdf.

Bowling, A. (2005) Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data

quality, Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 281–291.

Bristol City Council (2010a) Council and democracy, URL:

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/council-and-democracy/

Bristol City Council (2010b) Climate Change and Energy Security Framework, URL:

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/committee/2010/ua/ua000/0225_8.pdf.

Bristol Green Capital (2009) Building a positive future for Bristol after Peak Oil, commissioned

by Bristol City Council and the Green Capital Momentum Group of the Bristol

Partnership, Bristol Green Capital, Bristol.

58

Brody, S.D., Zahran, S., Grover, H., Vedlitz, A. (2008) A spatial analysis of local climate change

policy in the United States: Risk, stress, and opportunity, Landscape and Urban Planning,

87, 33-41.

Bulkeley H, Betsill M (2003) Cities and Climate Change: Urban Sustainability and Global

Environmental Governance, Routledge, London.

Bulkeley, H. and Betsill, M. (2005) Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and the

‘Urban’ Politics of Climate Change, Environmental Politics, Vol. 14, No. 1, 42 – 63.

Bulkeley, H. and Kern, K. (2006) Local Government and the Governing of Climate Change in

Germany and the UK, Urban Studies, 43, 2237-2259.

Bulkeley, H., Schroeder, H., Janda, K., Zhao, J., Armstrong, A., Yi Chu, S., Gosh, S. (2009) Cities

and Climate Change: The role of institutions, governance and urban planning, Report

prepared for the World Bank Urban Research Symposium on Climate Change, 28-30

June 2009, Marseille.

Capaldi, A. (2008) Councillors’ guide to local government finance 2008 fully revised edition,

CIPFA, the chartered institute of public finance and accountancy, London.

Carmin, J., Roberts, D. and Anguelovski, I. (2009) Planning Climate Resilient Cities: Early Lessons

from Early Adapters, Paper presented at the World Bank Urban Research Symposium on

Climate Change, 28-30 June 2009, Marseille.

Climate Change Act, ch. 27 (2008).

Collier, U. (1997) Local authorities and climate protection in the EU: putting subsidiarity into

practice?, Local Environment, 2(1), pp. 39–57.

Collier, U. and Löfstedt, R.E. (1997) Think globally, act locally? Local climate change and energy

policies in Sweden and the UK, Global Environmental Change, 7(1), 25-40.

Communities and Local Government (2008a) Area Based Grant General guidance, Department

for Communities and Local Government, London.

Communities and Local Government (2008b) A guide to the Local Government Finance

Settlement, Department for Communities and Local Government, London.

Communities and Local Government (2010) Meeting the challenge of climate change will

establish a new era in local government, Website accessed 3rd May 2010,

<http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1394658>.

59

Corder, G.W. and Foreman, D.I. (2009) Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: a step-by-

step approach, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

Creswell, J.W. (1994) Research design: qualitative and quantitative approaches, Sage

publications, London.

CSE (2005) Local & Regional Action to Cut Carbon: An appraisal of the scope for further CO2

emission reductions from local and regional activity, Centre for Sustainable Energy (with

Impetus Consulting, Quantock Energy & Environment) on behalf of Defra and the UK

Climate Change Programme Review.

Dhakal, S., (2004) Urban Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Asian Mega-Cities,

Policies for a Sustainable Future, Urban Environmental Management Project, Institute

for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Kangawa, Japan.

DCLG (2007) The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities & Local Authority

Partnerships: Single Set of National Indicators, Department for Communities and Local

Government, Wetherby.

DCLG (2008) National Indicators for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnerships:

Handbook of Definitions, Department for Communities and Local Government,

Wetherby.

DCLG (2009a) Local Government Financial Statistics England No.19, Communities and Local

Government Publications, London.

DCLG (2009b) Renewable Energy Capacity in Regional Spatial Strategies, Communities and

Local Government Publications, London.

DCLG (2010) Consultation on a Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Low Carbon Future in

a Changing Climate, Communities and Local Government Publications, London.

DeAngelo, B. & Harvey, L. D. (1998) The jurisdictional framework for municipal action to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions: case studies from Canada, USA and Germany, Local

Environment, 3(2), pp. 111–136.

DECC (2009), Low carbon transition plan, Department of Energy and Climate Change, London,

UK.

60

DECC (2010a) What local authorities and councils are doing about climate change, URL:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/change_energy/tackling_clima/

public_sector/local_auth/local_auth.aspx.

DECC (2010b), 2007 Local Authority Carbon Dioxide Figures (last updated: 9 November 2009),

Website accessed 2nd August 2010, URL:

<http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_change/data/data.aspx>.

DECC (2010c) The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme: User Guide, Department of Energy and

Climate Change, The Stationary Office, Norwich.

Denscombe, M. (2007) The good research guide for small-scale social research projects, 3rd

edition, Open University Press, New York.

Devon County Council (2005) A Warm Response: Our Climate Change Challenge, Devon County

Council, Exeter.

Devon County Council (2007) Devon County Council’s Carbon Management Programme, URL:

http://www.devon.gov.uk/carbonmgmtprogramme.pdf.

Dodman, D. (2009) Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas

emissions inventories, Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 185-201.

Dorset County Council (2009) Carbon Management Beyond 2010, URL:

http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=141832&filetype=pdf.

Energy Saving Trust (2010a) Local authority one-to-one support, URL:

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/business/Business/Local-Authorities/Support-

services/Local-authority-one-to-one-support.

Energy Saving Trust (2010b) The Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change, URL:

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/nottingham.

Fisher, R.J. (1993) Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning, The Journal

of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Sep., 1993), pp. 303-315.

Fleming, P.D. and Webber, P.H. (2004) Local and regional greenhouse gas management,

Energy Policy 32, 761–771.

Gloucestershire County Council (2010) How we are responding to Climate Change, URL:

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=94387.

61

Göb, R., McCollin, C. and Ramalhoto, M. (2007) Ordinal Methodology in the Analysis of Likert

Scales, Quality & Quantity, Volume 41(5), 601-626.

Hollingworth H.L. (1910) The central tendency of judgment, The Journal of Philosophy,

Psychology and Scientific Methods, Vol. 7, No. 17 (Aug. 18, 1910), pp. 461-469.

ICLEI Australia (2008) Cities for Climate Protection Australia: Local Government Action on

Climate Change – Measures Evaluation Report 2008.

ICLEI (2010a) Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Campaign, URL:

http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=10829.

ICLEI (2010b) The Five Milestone Process, URL: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=810.

IDeA (2010) Councillor’s guide: The essential guide for all new councillors, Improvement and

Development Agency for local government, London.

Isles of Scilly (2010) email from foi@scilly.gov.uk, see Appendix 4.

Jones, E., Leach, M. and Wade, J. (2000) Local policies for DSM: the UK’s home energy

conservation act, Energy Policy, 28, 201-211.

Kousky, C. and Schneider, S. H. (2003) Global climate policy: will cities lead the way?, Climate

Policy, 3(4), 359-372.

Lambright, Henry W., Changnon, Stanley A., Harvey, L.D. Danny (1996). Urban reactions to the

global warming issue: Agenda setting in Toronto and Chicago, Climatic Change, 34, 463-

478.

LGA (2004) Energy for Sustainable Communities: Revised Energy Policy Document, Local

Government Association, London.

LGA (2007) A climate of change - final report of the LGA climate change commission, Local

Government Association, London.

LGA (2008) Volatile times: transport, climate change and the price of oil, Local Government

Association, London.

LGA (2009) Cutting through the green tape II: preparing for the carbon reduction commitment

(CRC), Local Government Association, London.

LGA (2010) The LGA quick guide to local government, Local Government Association, London.

Local Government Act, Ch 22, (2000).

62

McCartney, D (2010) A successful approach to climate change, Improvement and development

agency, URL: http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=19625911

McEvoy, D., Gibbs, D. W. & Longhurst, J. W. S. (1999) The prospects for improved energy

efficiency in the UK residential sector, Journal of Environmental Planning and

Management, 42, pp. 409–424.

Miller, D.C. and Salkind, N.J. (2002) Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement 6th

Edition, Sage Publications, London.

Monstadt, J. (2007) Urban Governance and the Transition of Energy Systems: Institutional

Change and Shifting Energy and Climate Policies in Berlin, International Journal of Urban

and Regional Research, 31/2, 326-343.

Mukheibir, P. and Ziervogel, G. (2007) Developing a Municipal Adaptation Plan (MAP) for

climate change: the city of Cape Town, Environment and Urbanization, 19, 143- 158.

Our South West (2010) South West Local Authority Climate Change Declaration Signatories,

URL: http://www.oursouthwest.com/climate/registry/la-declarations-map-vJan10.pdf.

Plymouth City Council (2010) Environmental issues, URL:

http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/homepage/environmentandplanning/environmentalissue

s.htm.

Qi, Y., Ma, L., Zhang, H. and Li, H. (2008) Translating a global issue Into Local Priority: China’s

Local Government Response to Climate Change, The Journal of Environment &

Development, 17, 379-400.

Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003) Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students

and researchers, Sage Publications Ltd, London.

Romero-Lankao, P. (2007) How do Local Governments in Mexico City Manage Global

Warming?, Local Environment, 12(5), 519-535.

SALIX (2010) About Us, URL: http://www.salixfinance.co.uk/about_us.html.

Satterthwaite, D. (2007) Climate change and urbanization: effects and implications for urban

governance, Contribution to the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Population

Distribution, Urbanization, International Migration and Development, UN/POP/EGM-

URB/2008/16.

63

Schreurs, M. A. (2008) From the Bottom Up. Local and Sub-national Climate Change Politics,

The Journal of Environment and Development, 17, 343-355.

Siegel, S. and Castellan, N.J. (2002) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences, 2nd

edition, McGraw-Hill International Editions, London.

Sippel, M and Jenssen, T (2009) What about local climate governance? A review of promise and

problems, Social Science Research Network, URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-

muenchen.de/20987/.

Shackley, S., Fleming, P., Bulkeley, H., 2002. Low Carbon Spaces. Area-Based Carbon Emission

Reduction: A Scoping Study. A report to the Sustainable Development Commission

prepared by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Sustainable Development

Commission, London.

Schroeder, H. and Bulkeley, H. (2009) Global cities and the governance of climate change:

What is the role of law in cities?, Fordham Urb. L.J., 313-359.

Somerset County Council (2008) Responding to climate change in Somerset, URL:

http://www.somerset.gov.uk/irj/go/km/docs/CouncilDocuments/SCC/Documents/Envir

onment/Sustainable%20Development/20080220RespondingToClimateChangeInSomers

et.pdf.

South Gloucestershire Council (2006) South Gloucestershire Climate Change Strategy and

Action Plan 2006,URL: http://www.southglos.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1529B6C3-8911-

4522-B906-0E7088A482F1/0/PTE060135.pdf.

South West Observatory (2010) State of the South West 2010, South West Observatory, URL:

http://www.swo.org.uk/publications/state-of-the-south-west/.

Storbjörk, S. (2007) Governing Climate Adaptation in the Local Arena: Challenges of Risk

Management and Planning in Sweden, Local Environment, 12/5, 457-469.

Sugiyama, N. and Takeuchi, T. (2008) Local Policies for Climate Change in Japan, The Journal of

Environment and Development, 17, 424-441.

Suzuki, H., Dastur, A., Moffatt, S. and Yabuki, N. (2009) Eco2Cities. Ecological Cities as

Economic Cities. Unedited Conference Edition. The International Bank for Reconstruction

and Development / The World Bank, Washington.

64

Swindon Borough Council (2006) Climate Change Action Plan, URL:

http://www.swindon.gov.uk/swi_sbc_climate_bro1.pdf.

Teachernet (2010) Consultation on Schools Finance (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010,

URL: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=13963.

The Carbon Trust (2010) Carbon Trust Standard, URL: http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/cut-

carbon-reduce-costs/promote/carbon-trust-standard/Pages/carbon-trust-

standard.aspx.

Torbay Council (2008) A Climate Change Strategy for Torbay 2008 – 2013, URL:

http://www.torbay.gov.uk/climate-change-strategy.pdf.

UN (2009) Agenda 21, URL: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml.

Weber, R.P. (1999) Basic content analysis, 2nd edition, Sage Publications Inc., London.

Wilbanks, T. J. & Kates, R.W. (1999) Global change in local places: how scale matters, Climatic

Change, 43, pp. 601–628.

Wiltshire Council (2010) 10:10 Campaign, URL:

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/environmentandplanning/climatechange/climatechange10

10campaign.htm.

Zahran, S., Brody, S. D., Vedlitz, A., Grover, H., Miller, C. (2008) Vulnerability and capacity:

explaining local commitment to climate-change policy, Environment and Planning C:

Government and Policy, 26, 544-562.

65

8. APPENDIX

66

Appendix 1 – Questionnaire

9. QUESTIONNAIRE

CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS IN LOCAL AUTHORITIES

The aim of this study is to gain an understanding of how local authorities in south west England set carbon emissions reduction targets, whether they are successful in achieving these targets, and to provide recommendations to overcome

any barriers specific to south west England.

Bridget Brown

MSc Energy Policy and Sustainability

University of Exeter

bb244@exeter.ac.uk

All questions contained in this questionnaire are strictly confidential.

Q1. Which local authority do you work for?

Q2. What is your job title?

Q3. Has your local authority set carbon emissions reduction targets?

Yes No

Please state these targets if available:

Drivers for setting carbon emissions reduction targets

Q4. How important are the following drivers when setting carbon emissions reduction targets?

Driver Critical Very

Important Important

Slightly important

Not important at all

Energy prices

Alleviate fuel poverty

Improve people’s quality of life

Air quality

Traffic congestion

Opportunity to make money

Opportunity to save money

Opportunity to be a trend setter

Perceived vulnerability to climate change impacts

National legislation

Pressure from local community

Other - Please specify:

Please continue onto the next page

67

Funding for carbon emissions reduction targets

Q5. Which of the following funding streams are considered when setting carbon emissions reduction targets? (tick all that apply)

Reward grant payable upon the

achievement of a target in the LAA Cost savings such as energy efficiency measures

Revenue based incentive such as

Feed-in-Tariff

External funding such as European regional development fund

Other - Please specify:

Barriers to setting carbon emissions reduction targets

Q6. How important are the following barriers when setting carbon emissions reduction targets?

Barrier Critical Very

Important Important

Slightly important

Not important at all

Lack of public interest and opinion

Lack of human resources (staff numbers, time etc)

Lack of expertise

Need for policy entrepreneurs

Lack of financial resources

Funding available is difficult to access

Internal integration and coordination problems

Short term thinking of decision makers

Lack of explicit statutory duty to address climate change

Lack of political support

Other - Please specify:

Q7. Stretching carbon emissions reduction targets have been set in my authority due to the presence of a particular member of staff. In your experience, to what extent do you agree with this statement?

Strongly agree

Moderately agree

Neither agree or disagree

Moderately disagree Strongly disagree

If you agree with the statement above please state the role that they played:

Q8. Do you have any other comments in relation to carbon emissions reduction targets in your local authority?

Q9. If you would be happy to take part in a more in-depth interview on this subject please fill in your contact details here:

Name:

Telephone number: e-mail address:

Thank you very much for your participation.

68

Appendix 2 – Questionnaire results

Please state these targets if available:

West Dorset District Council will reduce CO2 emissions from Council Operations by 35% by

2013/14 from 2008/09 levels.

2% per annum for 5 years

10% reduction by 2010 - ie, the 10/10 commitment.

2.5%pa, with milestone targets of 10% by 2010, 30% by 2020 and 60% by 2050 against 2006/07 baseline. These are under review in 2010/11. Also 10:10 aspirational target of

10% reduction in 2010/11 against 2009/10 emissions excluding schools and outsourced

emissions.

These are internal to individual council departmetns and are part of the Carbon Reduction

Commitment, in which the Council is obliged to participate. I have no immediate handle on the figures.

The council has signed up to the 10:10 Campaign and aims to cut its carbon emissions by

up to 10% during the 2010/2011.

10% a year

20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2015

Exeter wide: 30% reduction by 2020 based on 1990 levels Within the Council: 20%

reduction by 2012/13 based on 2006/07 levels and 10% reduction during 2010/11 (10:10 campaign)

I do not know, would need to ask an Officer for that information...Environmental Services

dept.

35% reduction by end of 2011 based on a 2008 baseline for our own emissions from our

own operations.

I don't know

Not high enough

30% CO2 reduction by 2020

69

The targets below refer to Councils own buildings/operations - Reduction of 1/3 by 2014

as aport of the Carbon Trusts Carbon Management Plan Also 5% by 2011 under National Indicator 185

We have a target in our Carbon Management Strategy and Implementation Plan of reducing CO2 emissions by 12.5% by 2012 from our baseline year of 2004/05

Don't know off the top off my head GCC are 10% by 2011 SDC - can't remember in

same order although both have signed up to 10:10

15% over 5 years, with a strive for 10% this year uaspart of 10:10 project

40 % reduction by 2015

don't know

2010 and other policies lots of talk but not sure as our leader has visions!

I have ticked both boxes because I am not sure - you also need to contact ian.bateman@devon.gov.uk

I think they are 30% by 2020 but if you want me to be more certain I would have to go and look this up.

Do not remember

beyond my comprehension

The 10% reduction by the end of 2010, the 10/10 agreement

4% per annum

10% in 2010 + govt guidance

I believe it to be a reduction of 20% over the next 5 years, but would need to check ........

it will be on the DCC website............... have you studied the council web's

Not sure which shows it is not high on the political map in this town.

2%

2020 TARGET; I DO NOT HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

Pass

Climate Change Strategy: From 1990 levels: 30% by 2020, at least 60% by 2050 LA

Carbon management Plan: Reduce CO2 emissions by a minimum of 20%, with aspirations to reach 25%

no idea

not sure

not sure

Dunno Suggest you contact the sustainibility Champion - Mrs Francis Newth

Variuos Policy initiatives including targets for reducing use of energy and polices within the

Planning process to ensure that developers/households consider energy savings at the design stage

We have a 25% by 2015/16 against 2008/09carbon emission reduction target for the

council. We also have an Local Area Agreement target of a 9.1% reduction in per capita area emissions by end of 2010/11 against 2007/08.

not sure!

40% cut on 2005 levels by 2020 in citywide emissions. 10% cut in council emissions in 2010/11 year, plus a 3% year-on-year cut.

20% by 2015 40% by 2020 energy self sufficient by 2025 baseline 2009

approx 3 % per annum

Targets for the Torbay area have been set locally in line with the older national targets of 60% reduction by 2050 (with five year carbon budgets up to this date). Our Climate

Change Strategy is undergoing a formal review and update later this summer/early Autumn which will reflect the new national targets (34% by 2020 and 80% by 2050

compared to 1990 levels). The Local Authority also has a Carbon Management Plan

which specifies targets to reduce emissions from the corporate estate (including schools) of at least 20% of 2007/08 levels by 2012/13.

12.5% per capita reduction from 2005 baseline to 2010/11

Note: These are taken from the questionnaire, mistakes have been left in.

70

71

72

Do you have any other comments in relation to carbon emissions reduction targets in your local authority?

I am the CHairman of the BSI GHG Management Committee, currently participating in the development of ISO standards on carbon footpirnting of products and organisations. I yake in a keen interest in the processes rather than, necessarily, the targets.

Two points: I was unclear if this survey was for our local authrity opeartaions or for carbon reduction in the local area ? Re: our authority the Carbon Trust have been a key support and driver.

Doing our best in difficult circumstances

I am still not convinced that the IPPC and Al Gore are only in for the money for the money they can make. Some of the data sites are distinctly dodgy, particularly the twisting of data collction to show the hockey stick, they have ignore to vital warm period in the last 2500 yrs to skew their stats

such as..?

This council talks the talk but fails to walk the walk it has heating on in JUNE in its sheltered schemes because tenants complain to a manager. The temperature outside in June 2010 demonstrates lack of commitment. I believe Leader and snr management team have forgotten carbon reduction I never hear of it not even sure if they are signed up to 2010.

The general corporate approach is that schools (which represent 28% of the LA emissions) are a Directorate not corporate responsibility. This is not helpful because the Children and Young People's Services Directorate (CYPS) has core responsibilities for education, children's social care and families early years. It is also not helpful because of the autonomy of school governing bodies. Given limited resources CYPS will always prioritise safeguarding of children before carbon emissions reduction.

Speaking as a councillor I am quite proud (but by no means complacent) of the way our authority has responded to the climate change agenda.

no

All Cllrs support the Carbon Emissions programme but the lack of available staff to provide the technical data is causing serious delay.

if this survey is financed by public funds be careful it does not become a self serving exercise and of little use to the wider community

Yes they do not go far enough in the planning of retrofitting all housing stock both private and social. To raise awareness and to assist that type of business TDBC and Genesis Centre on the 7th to 9th of October will have a major fair supported by May day and BTCI as well as many other associated businesses. If yo would like further details please contact me.

Please note that the Cabinet Member for Environment at Somerset County Council Anthony Trollope-Bellew has asked that you treat this response as from him too

If there were a reduction in Quango's & the massive production of high quality paper ........... it could reduce the CO footprint ......... many Cllrs do not have time to read so many copies & go straight in the re-cycle bin.

If the Council was serious they would do more to encourage public transport and put pressure on commuter parking in the town centre

Wec shoiuld be setting increases to help the economic recovery not cuts

Hopefully our discussion the other should have helped. Cllr Dave Butt asked me to respond on his behalf with this. I can't really say that I've matched exactly what he thinks though, so hopefully the opinions of the two officers on this agenda should be helpful enough. Best of luck.

Our reductions are due mainly to the Portfolio Holder for Envitonment, who concentrates on energy saving.

no

Not enough soon enough

There is a pressure for higher and higher targets to be set year on year so those taking work early set say 10% it is then expected the authorities the follwoing year aim higher - this is resulting in high probably unachieveable targets which could be demoralising and have a

73

negative impact of carbon reduction work.

They were set by politicians (i.e. me!) and not staff.

see interview

NI186 is not a useful measure of local action on carbon emissions (due to a time lag of 18 months and the lack of ability to show how local actions are affecting the data) We are in the process of creating a number of proxy indicators associated with reducing carbon emissions from the Torbay area to usefully serve as a better barometer of how we are performing on this agenda as Local authority and as a Local Strategic Partnership. This will be integrated into the revised Climate Change Strategy.

Use of scenario planning is integral to setting targets, this has not been done to date.

I am quite new to PCC so please take these answers with a pinch of salt. Many thanks and good luck!

Note: These are taken from the questionnaire, mistakes have been left in.

74

Appendix 3 – Correlation results

To calculate Gamma, two quantities must be found:

Na is the number of pairs of cases ranked in the same order on both variables.

Ni is the number of pairs of cases ranked differently on the variables.

Gamma: 0 to 0.3 = Weak; 0.3 to 0.6 = Moderate; 0.6 to 1 = Strong

Energ

y p

rice

s

Alle

via

te fuel povert

y

Impro

ve p

eople

’s q

ualit

y

of lif

e

Air q

ualit

y

Tra

ffic

congest

ion

Opport

unity to m

ake

money

Opport

unity to s

ave

money

Opport

unity to b

e a

tre

nd

setter

Perc

eiv

ed v

uln

era

bili

ty to

clim

ate

change im

pact

s

National le

gis

lation

Pre

ssure

fro

m loca

l

com

munity

Lack

of public

inte

rest

and

opin

ion

Lack

of hum

an r

eso

urc

es

(sta

ff n

um

bers

, tim

e e

tc)

Lack

of exp

ert

ise

Need for

polic

y

entr

epre

neurs

Lack

of financi

al re

sourc

es

Fundin

g a

vaila

ble

is

difficu

lt to a

ccess

Inte

rnal in

tegra

tion a

nd

coord

ination p

roble

ms

Short

term

thin

kin

g o

f

deci

sion m

akers

La

ck o

f exp

licit s

tatu

tory

duty

to a

ddre

ss c

limate

change

Lack

of polit

ical su

pport

Energy prices 0.5 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 -0.1 0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 -0.1 0.2 -0.3

Alleviate fuel poverty 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2

Improve people’s quality of life 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.4 -0.1 0.3 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

Air quality 0.7 0.0 -0.2 0.1 0.1 -0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2

Traffic congestion -0.1 -0.3 0.1 0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.1

Opportunity to make money 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

Opportunity to save money 0.2 -0.1 0.4 0.0 -0.2 0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1

Opportunity to be a trend setter 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 -0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0

Perceived vulnerability to climate change impacts 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2

National legislation 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1

Pressure from local community 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.2

Lack of public interest and opinion 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4

Lack of human resources (staff numbers, time etc) 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3

Lack of expertise 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3

Need for policy entrepreneurs 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5

Lack of financial resources 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4

Funding available is difficult to access 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2

Internal integration and coordination problems 0.5 0.2 0.4

Short term thinking of decision makers 0.6 0.6

Lack of explicit statutory duty to address climate change 0.5

Lack of political support

Ba

rrie

rsD

riv

ers

gamma values

75

Testing Gamma for Significance – the z value is calculated using the following formula.

For statistical significance z = +/-1.96

Energ

y p

rice

s

Alle

via

te fuel povert

y

Impro

ve p

eople

’s q

ualit

y

of lif

e

Air q

ualit

y

Tra

ffic

congest

ion

Opport

unity to m

ake

money

Opport

unity to s

ave

money

Opport

unity to b

e a

tre

nd

setter

Perc

eiv

ed v

uln

era

bili

ty to

clim

ate

change im

pact

s

National le

gis

lation

Pre

ssure

fro

m loca

l

com

munity

Lack

of public

inte

rest

and

opin

ion

Lack

of hum

an r

eso

urc

es

(sta

ff n

um

bers

, tim

e e

tc)

Lack

of exp

ert

ise

Need for

polic

y

entr

epre

neurs

Lack

of financi

al

reso

urc

es

Fundin

g a

vaila

ble

is

difficu

lt to a

ccess

Inte

rnal in

tegra

tion a

nd

coord

ination p

roble

ms

Short

term

thin

kin

g o

f

deci

sion m

akers

La

ck o

f exp

licit s

tatu

tory

duty

to a

ddre

ss c

limate

change

Lack

of polit

ical su

pport

Energy prices 1.6 -0.3 0.0 0.2 1.4 1.7 0.3 -0.2 1.0 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.1 -0.4 0.5 -1.1

Alleviate fuel poverty 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.1 -0.7 -0.2 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.2 -0.1 1.0 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6

Improve people’s quality of life 1.9 1.8 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.2 1.4 -0.4 1.0 0.4 -0.5 0.2 0.7 -0.2 0.0 -0.2 0.6

Air quality 2.0 0.0 -0.8 0.2 0.6 -1.0 1.3 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.0 -0.2 0.9 0.5

Traffic congestion -0.5 -0.9 0.3 0.8 -0.8 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.9 0.1 -0.3 -0.2 0.3

Opportunity to make money 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.5 -0.5 1.0 0.5 0.4 1.2 0.9 0.3 -0.3 0.0 -0.3

Opportunity to save money 0.8 -0.2 1.4 -0.2 -0.6 0.7 0.8 -0.3 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.5

Opportunity to be a trend setter 1.8 1.2 0.4 -0.1 1.1 0.9 -0.2 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.0

Perceived vulnerability to climate change impacts 0.5 1.2 0.3 1.6 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5

National legislation 0.5 -0.5 0.3 0.5 -0.2 0.7 0.7 0.5 -0.2 0.0 -0.5

Pressure from local community 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.1 -0.2 -0.7 -0.3 0.2 0.8

Lack of public interest and opinion 1.0 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.5 1.3 1.4

Lack of human resources (staff numbers, time etc) 1.6 0.9 1.8 1.3 0.4 0.7 1.1 0.9

Lack of expertise 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.1

Need for policy entrepreneurs 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.6

Lack of financial resources 1.7 0.5 0.6 1.4 1.2

Funding available is difficult to access 1.6 0.6 0.9 0.6

Internal integration and coordination problems 1.7 0.7 1.3

Short term thinking of decision makers 1.9 1.9

Lack of explicit statutory duty to address climate change 1.7

Lack of political support

Ba

rrie

rs

z values

Dri

ve

rs

76

Appendix 4 - Email from the Isles of Scilly

From: foi [foi@scilly.gov.uk]

Sent: 11 August 2010 15:11

To: Brown, Bridget

Subject: FW: Research project: Carbon Emissions Reduction Targets in Local Authorities FOI 1140

In response to your request please see the answers below.

The council of the Isles of Scilly currently has no published carbon reduction targets. If you would like to

look at our current perspective on sustainable energy please follow the following web link:

http://www.scilly.gov.uk/environment/planning/islesofscillysustainableenergystrategy.htm

This link is to our Sustainable Energy Strategy, which is planned to be reviewed in early 2011.

Our local planning design guide (http://www.scilly.gov.uk/environment/planning/designguide.htm) also

encourages the use of energy efficiency and environmental sustainability practices in designing and building

new residential and business developments. we probably have one of the earliest examples of a ground

source heat pump in a public building (our medical centre) in the UK

In addition we recognise that one key threat to the Islands sustainability is energy security and as part of our

obligations in meeting National Indicator 188 (Adaptation to Climate Change) we will looking at practical

ways of reducing energy and implementing renewables that are appropriate to the Scale and special

conservation status of the Islands over the near to mid term.

Regards

foi@scilly.gov.uk

Council of the Isles of Scilly

Town Hall

St Marys

Isles of Scilly

TR210LW

01720 424038

From: Brown, Bridget

Sent: 09 August 2010 17:26

To: enquiries

Subject: Research project: Carbon Emissions Reduction Targets in Local Authorities

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an MSc Energy Policy student at the University of Exeter and am working with Regen SW on a

dissertation examining the drivers and success factors for local authorities in setting and achieving carbon

77

reduction targets in their local area.

I was wondering if the Isles of Scilly has set carbon emission reduction targets? I have looked on your

website but to no avail.

Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to provide.

Kind regards,

Bridget Brown

MSc Energy Policy and Sustainability