Responding to change in an urban policy arena - Brisbane

320 Pages·2017·4.57 MB·English

by  Paul Schmidt

Responsive Governance and Complex Urban Settings: Responding
to change in an urban policy arena - Brisbane (QLD) Australia and
Portland (OR) USA
Paul Christopher Schmidt
BEnvMan (SustDev), HonsClass 1

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at
The University of Queensland in 2015
School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management
i
Abstract
Despite remarkable progress in planning and management, the development of
adaptive governance for urban settings is incomplete; particularly in the context of
global change and uncertainty (Birkmann et al. 2010, Wilkinson 2012). Urban settings
are characterised by complex institutions and power relations that tend to resist rather
than adjust to change. Established interests are often prioritised; emergent ‘non-core’
interests can remain marginal, and can lose capacity during critical change (Jänicke
1997). Given this situation, how does the governance of a ‘non-core’ policy arena
adjust to change over time?
Public administration and political science literatures examine the role of networks,
policy instruments and institutions in changes to governance. The adaptive
governance problem demands a better understanding of responsive change with
respect to: institutions (Goodin 1996, Dovers and Hezri 2010); hybrid governance
arrangements (Skelcher 2012); power relations (Evans 2011); and the role of the
public in public governance (Sorenson and Torfing 2005). As such, the investigation
contributes towards a more critical application of resilience thinking to governance
settings. This research develops an investigative framework from these literatures to
examine the diverse responses of governance actors to change.
Using a comparative case study approach, the investigative framework examines how
policy instruments (i.e. formal structures), urban regimes (i.e. informal structures) and
the broader institutional context (e.g. regional governance) interact to shape the types
and extent of governance adjustments over time. The focus is the policy arena of urban
ecological governance within two metropolitan areas of Brisbane (QLD) Australia and
Portland (OR) USA. These cases show important aspects of responsive governance
in urban settings that are not included within more normative recommendations for
adaptive governance, such as advocacy, contention and multiple framings of
governance. How or whether inter-actor responses are coordinated depend on these
and other factors such as legitimacy and interaction between types of responses.
The research concludes that rather than seeing resilient policy arenas as requiring the
‘governance of adaptation’ through particular normative forums, structures or
principles, it is more useful to focus on and potentially steer the supporting factors that
underpin diverse inter-actor responses to change across a policy arena. This
ii
‘governance and adaptation’ view recognises that in urban settings, actors and their
agency are embedded within multiple structures. Many of these structures cannot be
adapted, but critically, some realign as an adjustment to change and this potentially
supports adaptation. Metagovernance is found to be critical, although in general it is
partially decentred amongst a set of key actors. A ‘governance and adaptation’
framework builds a policy arena-wide explanation from empirical settings. The findings
have significant implications for efforts to enhance responsive governance in urban
settings and to better strengthen its resilience to future uncertainties.
iii
Declaration by author

This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in
the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that
I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including
statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures,
professional editorial advice, and any other original research work used or reported in
my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the
commencement of my research higher degree candidature and does not include a
substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other
degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated
which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University
Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the
thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act
1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate
School.

I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the
copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright
permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis.

iv
Publications during candidature
Morrison, T. H., McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J. R., Peterson, A. & Schmidt, P. 2010, “Back
to the Future? Planning for environmental outcomes and the new Caring for our
Country program,” Australian Geographer, 41, 521–538.

Schmidt, P. & Morrison, T.H. 2012, “Watershed management in an urban setting:
process, scale and administration”. Land Use Policy, 29, 45–52

Publications included in this thesis
Schmidt, P. & Morrison, T.H. 2012, “Watershed management in an urban setting:
process, scale and administration,” Land Use Policy, 29, 45–52

Publication citation – incorporated as Chapter 5 [status – published]

Contributor Statement of contribution
Schmidt (Candidate) Designed data collection (90%)
Undertook research (100%)
Wrote, edited & framed the paper (85%)
Morrison, T.H. (Advisor) Designed data collection (10%)
Edited and framed the paper (15%)

v
Contributions by others to the thesis

“The following figures were prepared at the author’s request: Figures 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5
(maps of the study areas) by Fabian Vaca; Figure 8.7 by Kym Thomas; and Figures
6.2, 6.3, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 by Naomi Schmidt.

Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another
degree

“None”

vi
Acknowledgements
My sincere thanks go to my advisory team: Ann Peterson; Tiffany Morrison; Ryan
McAllister and Greg Brown. Thank you for the encouragement, support and robust
discussion along the way. Special thanks to Ann and Tiffany for their assistance in
editing.

Thanks also to my colleagues at the School of Geography, Planning and
Environmental Management for their ongoing support, interest and advice. In addition
I can’t thank my friends enough. Those who read drafts, provided valuable feedback
and other support: Cam; Jason; Manon; Laurel; Ann; Inala writers group; and others.

Special thanks to the Planning and Geography Schools at Portland State University
for their assistance and support: Mike Hibbert Mike Houck and Ethan Seltzer for
practical support, connections and advice on the Portland case study; Lori Hennings
and Portland Metro for kindly providing spatial data for Figures 3.3 and 3.5. Thanks
also to the generosity of everyone in Portland who helped me to understand and
participate in the city and its surrounds.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) –
Climate Adaptation Flagship funded this research through a top-up scholarship.
Without this support the Portland case study would not have been possible.

I also gratefully acknowledge the many government officials, organisational managers
and tireless environmental volunteers who participated in interviews and allowed me
into their planning and management forums.

And of course to my family, the primary support team, Kerrie and Freya, Karlos and
extended family. Thank you so much for lending me to this research for a few years.
Your support really made this work possible.

vii
Keywords
urban, environment, governance, adaptation, biodiversity, institutions, policy,
planning, networks, urban regimes

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)
ANZSRC code: 160603, Comparative Government and Politics 40%
ANZSRC code: 160510, Public Policy, 30%
ANZSRC code: 120504, Land Use and Environmental Planning, 30%

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification
FoR code: 1606, Political Science, 40%
FoR code: 1605, Public Policy and Administration, 30%
FoR code: 1205, Urban and Regional Planning, 30%

viii
Table of Contents
Title page i
Abstract ii
Declarations by author iv
Publications during candidature and included in this thesis v
Contributions by others vi
Acknowledgements vii
Keywords and classification codes viii
Table of contents ix
List of figures and tables xi
List of abbreviations used in the thesis xiv
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Making the case for governance that adapts 4
1.2 Researching responsive governance in an urban policy arena: aim,
questions and contribution 6
1.3 Research approach 9
1.4 Thesis structure 10
2 Planning, managing and responding to change: Perspectives
from the literature 13
2.1 Perspectives on public governance within the social science literature 14
2.2 Perspectives on inter-actor responses to change 24
2.3 Chapter conclusion 33
3 Research design: Case study analysis of responsive governance 34
3.1 Framing a robust qualitative approach 35
3.2 Investigating a context embedded and radial phenomenon 36
3.3 Conceptual frameworks for research and investigation: context, structure
and agency 40
3.4 Case study design and methods 48
3.5 Validity and reliability and robustness of design 64
3.6 Chapter conclusion 65
4 Background to the empirical cases 66
4.1 Urban environmental governance and responses to change 67
4.2 Backgrounding the Portland Metro case 70
4.3 Backgrounding the Brisbane case 79
4.4 Chapter conclusion 85
5 Watershed management in an urban setting: Process, scale and
administration 87
5.1 Integrated environmental management in theory and practice: participatory
processes, regionalism and governance 91
5.2 Case study: management of Oxley Creek, Brisbane (1996–2008) 93
5.3 Analysis: process, scale and administration 100
5.4 Chapter conclusion 102
6 Anatomy of a governance arena: Embeddedness part 1 104
ix
6.1 Governance arena anatomy and urban ecological resources 105
6.2 Identifying the Brisbane and Portland arenas 108
6.3 Brisbane’s arena for ecological governance 111
6.4 Portland’s arena for ecological governance 118
6.5 Comparing the arenas of Brisbane and Portland 126
6.6 Arena anatomy and the implications for responsive governance 128
6.7 Chapter conclusion 134
7 Responsive governance and the problem of context embeddedness:
Embeddedness part 2 135
7.1 Governance and embeddedness 136
7.2 The nature of embeddedness in Brisbane 138
7.3 The nature of embeddedness in Portland 155
7.4 Comparing the embeddedness of Brisbane and Portland 167
7.5 The problem of embeddedness and implications for responsive governance 171
8 Adjustment to change: Sector, state and societal structures over time 173
8.1 Governance and responding to change 174
8.2 Methodological approach 175
8.3 Responding to change in Portland 177
8.4 Responding to change in Brisbane 188
8.5 A refined model of response to change within governance arenas 197
8.6 Chapter conclusion 202
9 Metagovernance, legitimacy and collective action frames 203
9.1 Metagovernance and responding to change 204
9.2 Investigating metagovernance through collective action frames 206
9.3 Arena metagovernance in Brisbane 207
9.4 Arena metagovernance in Portland 212
9.5 Arena level metagovernance: invoking legitimacy and summoning
institutions 217
9.6 Chapter conclusion 218
10 Synthesis and conclusion 221
10.1 Contributions to theory 222
10.2 Practical implications 227
10.3 Future work in this area 229
10.4 Conclusion 229
List of references 231
Appendices
1. Glossary 261
2. Interview participant summary 264
3. Questions to frame semi-structured interviews 265
4. Ethics approval letter 258
5. Portland instrument table 270
6. Brisbane instrument table 292
7. Frame analysis tables 296
8. Example portion of case study database 305
x