* Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Portland State University, [email protected]
** Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Geography, Portland State University, [email protected]
Cities as Place for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation:
A Case Study of Portland, Oregon, USA
Heejun Chang*·Lily House-Peters**
기후완화와 적응의 장소로서의 도시 - 미국 오레건주 포트랜드시 사례연구 -
장희준*·Lily House-Peters**
Abstract：Cities are major sources of greenhouse gas emissions but also suitable places for implementing proactive climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. Based on the interdisciplinary review of literature, we categorize the current discussion about urban climate mitigation and adaptation planning, policy and practices into four perspectives - sustainability science, global change science, multilevel governance, and structural engineering. While these four schools of thought have distinct perspectives rooted in different disciplinary lenses, our synthesis of the literature identifies several universal themes that are common to all of the perspectives in the context of combating threats posed by climate change. The Portland case study illustrates that a city can make changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase adaptive capacity to climate change impacts by implementing smart growth, devising local climate action plans that target emission reductions in various sectors, recognizing the interactions and influences of multiple scales of governance, and supporting the installation of various green infrastructures that contribute to green economy.
Furthermore, a university can serve as a hub in this climate mitigation and adaptation arena by connecting various levels of community organizations in both public and private sectors, creating innovative research centers and spatially- explicit green infrastructure, designing impact assessments and campus carbon inventories, and engaging students and the larger community through service learning.
Key Words : climate mitigation and adaptation, cities, smart growth, green infrastructure, green economy, Portland
요약：도시는 적극적으로 온실가스배출을 저감하고 기후변화에 대한 적응전략을 구현할 수 있는 적합한 장소이다. 기존의 도시 기후 변화 완화와 적응의계획, 정책, 이행에 관한 연구를 지속가능성 과학, 세계변화 과학, 다차원 거버넌스, 구조공학의 네가지 범주로 나 누어 고찰하였다. 이 네가지 학문은 관점이 서로 다르지만 모두 기후변화로 인해 야기될 수 있는 위협을 극복하는데 보편적인 주제를 공유하고 있다. 포트랜드 시의 사례연구는 도시가 현명한 성장, 국지적인 기후대응 계획, 다차원 규모의 거버넌스, 녹생성장에 기여 하는 그린 인프라구조의 설치등을 통해 온실가스를 저감하고 기후변화에 능동적으로 대응할 수 있음을 제시한다. 더욱이 도시에 위 치한 대학은 민간과 공공부문의 다양한 조직을 연결하고, 혁신적인 연구센터와 공간적으로 명확한 그린 인프라스트럭처를 창출하며, 영향평가 방법과 캠퍼스 탄소 인벤토리를 구축하며, 서비스 학습을 통해 학생과 커뮤너티를 연결하여 이러한 기후변화의 완화와 대 응의 허브로서 작용할 수 있다.
주요어 : 기후완화와 적응, 도시, 현명한 성장, 녹색 인프라스트럭처, 녹색성장, 포트랜드
1. Introduction
Within the scientific community, it is now widely accepted that the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere over the last century have been primarily caused by anthropogenic activities (IPCC, 2007; UNDP, 2008). Such increases in GHG will block outgoing long wave radiation from Earth, thus warming the lower atmosphere.
As warm air can hold more water vapor, evaporation from land surfaces increases, thus intensifying the global water cycle (Huntington, 2006). The implications of this acceleration for natural resources vary by region. While some regions may have increased precipitation and flood occurrences, other regions may have reduced access to water supply or increased fire occurrences. Although precise future projections at the regional scale are uncertain, changes in temperature and precipitation patterns are likely to produce an increased occurrence of droughts, floods and heat waves, alter water quality and quantity, and lead to widespread pest and disease outbreaks in some areas (IPCC, 2007; USCAP, 2009). The potential threat to populations and ecosystems worldwide, posed by the negative
impacts of climate change, has galvanized scientists, policy-makers, and governments to design and implement mitigation and adaptation strategies at multiple spatial scales.
Initially, policy directed toward ameliorating the negative impacts of climate change focused primarily on national and international level mitigation efforts, characterized by limiting GHG emissions by reducing both the amount and carbon intensity of required energy (McEvoy et al., 2006). Top-down mitigation policy implemented at the national and international scale is generally accompanied by political pressure and substantial financial resources and has traditionally been considered vital to achieving the IPCC (2007) recommended reductions of global carbon emissions to 50 to 85% below 2000 levels by 2050. However, a growing body of recent literature makes a strong case for the importance of bottom-up mitigation strategies, as local-scale initiatives tend to build on increasing local climate change concerns, reflect local ideology, and resonate more strongly with local populations, which reduces barriers to successful implementation (AAG, 2003; Gill et al., 2004; Moser, 2006; Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007;
Bizikova et al., 2007; Burton et al., 2007). The integrated approach embraces some aspects of
Table 1. Comparison of top-down, bottom-up, and integrated approaches in climate mitigation and adaptation policy.
Top-down Bottom-up Integrated
Objectives
Practical aims
Actors
Scale
Assess the effectiveness of mitigation, impacts and risks under future climate
Processes affecting climate mitigation and adaptation and adaptive capacity
Interactions and feedbacks between multiple agents in climate mitigation and adaptation
Actions to reduce GHG and risks
Actions to reduce vulnerability and improve adaptation
Various policy options and costs
Government, Research driven Neighboorhoods, Stakeholder driven
Academia
National, regional Local Multiple scales
both top-down and bottom-up approaches. The comparison among these three different approaches is summarized in Table 1.
Beginning in the late 1990s, it became clear that solely reducing emissions would not be sufficient to reverse atmospheric GHG concentrations to low enough levels to avoid the impacts of climate change (IPCC 1997). This revelation resulted in increased examination of adaptation measures, meant to increase the adaptive capacity of both human and natural systems in an attempt to reduce vulnerability and risk associated with a wide range of future climate induced hazards. Adaptation depends on altering processes, practices, and the built environment, and adjusting behaviors to increase the resiliency of humans, infrastructure, and ecosystems to climate impacts. In contrast to mitigation, which primarily focuses on modifying practices in the energy and transport sectors, adaptation policies tend to be developed by a wider variety of sectors that exhibit sensitivity to a changing climate (McEvoy et al., 2006). Although rising accumulations of GHG in the atmosphere constitutes a global issue, the negative effects will likely exert the most significant impacts at the local scale, due to place specific vulnerability and adaptive capacity, rendering “one size fits all”
policies inadequate (Wilbanks, 2007). Similar to mitigation policy, the scale at which adaptation measures are designed and implemented is important, as top-down strategies can be interpreted as insensitive to the local context and thus dismissed by stakeholders, while bottom-up approaches may lack the human and financial structures and resources required to be effective and may be too site-specific, ignoring important linkages between places and scales (Wilbanks, 2007).
In the context of local-scale climate policy, the case has been made that cities are an effective spatial unit for implementing both bottom-up and
top-down climate mitigation and adaptation strategies (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003; Moser, 2006; McEvoy et al., 2006; Bizikova et al., 2007;
Burton et al., 2007; Ruth and Coehlo, 2007;
Wilbanks, 2007; Kirshen et al., 2008).
Urban areas, which are home to over half of the world’s population but occupy only 2.8% of the total land area of the earth, are responsible for a disproportionate share of GHG emissions due to heavy reliance on fossil fuel combustion to meet energy demands from electricity, heating, cooling, and transportation. During the first decade of the twenty-first century, large cities throughout the United States have published Climate Action Plans, declaring ambitious GHG emission reduction goals and outlining actions to achieve climate stabilization and to anticipate climate impacts that cannot be avoided (San Francisco Department of Environment, 2004; City of Chicago, 2005; City of Seattle, 2005; New York City, 2007; King County, 2007; City of Portland, 2009). Table 2 summarizes these climate actions in five representative US cities.
At the city scale, the potential for participation, flexibility, and innovativeness is maximized (Wilbanks, 2007), fostering the development of bottom-up mitigation and adaptation policies.
Cities are generally densely populated and major hubs of economic, industrial, and social activity.
Once individual citizens, businesses, neighborhoods, and sectors are mobilized, they can influence policy changes at higher levels of government (Moser, 2006), encouraging effective implementation of bottom-up strategies at the regional and even national scales (Burton et al., 2007). Conversely, research has shown that the existence of guiding principles regarding climate mitigation and adaptation at the national level empowers local-scale planning for adaptation (Granberg and Elander, 2007). Furthermore, top- down policies enacted at the national and international levels are critical for providing
Table 2. Comparison of climate mitigation and adaptation actions outlined in city-level climate action plans in five United States’ cities. Climate Action Plan Portland, ORSeattle, WANew York CityChicagoSan Francisco Current per 11.910.87.012.712.0 capita MTCO2e* Mitigation Sector Adaptation Sector * MTCO2e is metric tons of CO2equivalent.
• Reduce VMT 30% below 1990 levels • Increase fuel efficiency to 40 miles/gal. • Residents meet 90% of daily, non-work needs without cars
• Increase biodiesel use to 20% • Incentives for using alternative transportation 51% of the year • Regional road toll system, user fees • Double bike lanes • Parking fees
• Add transit capacity to improve travel times • Implement congestion pricing • Expand bikeway • Improve bus service • Installation of anti-idling technologies
• Increase transit ridership by 30% •Increase total bike/walk trips to 1 million • Support intercity rail development • Improve fuel efficiency for freight movement
• Expand local transit service • Expand and improve regional service and connections • Use GPS technology to provide real-time mass transit info. • Expand bike parking • Increase carpool lanes • Reduce total building energy use by 25%• Meet new electrical demand with conservation and renewable resources
• Switch to cleaner fuels for heating • Create a system of combined incentives, mandates and challenges
• Retrofit 50% of buildings to meet 30% energy reduction • Renovations meet green standards
• Provide financial assistance for building retrofits • Increase energy efficiency and demand management targets • Increase renewable energy to 10% of total energy • Increase non-transit renewable energy to 50% • Increase transit renewable energy to 35%
• Retire old power plants • Create a market for renewable energy
• Increase renewable electricity to 20% • Double household renewable energy use
• Install at least 100 rooftop solar electric systems • Develop wind and biomass energy generation • Reduce consumption of carbon- intensive food • Increase consumption of local food
• Farmland Preservation Program • Manure biogas digesters • Track food miles traveled • Reduce solid waste by 25% • Recover 90% of waste • Reduce GHG emissions of waste collection by 40%
• Increase methane capture for use as energy source • Favor construction projects that use cement substitutes
• Clean up all contaminated land • Large-scale air quality studies• Reduce, reuse, or recycle 90% of waste • Shift to alternative refrigerants in air conditioners and appliances
• Expand recycling and composting to meet zero waste goal • Divert solid leftover from sewage treatment away from landfills to agricultural lands • Expand the urban canopy to cover 1/3 of the city • Increase tree cover of urban streams and rivers to meet water temperature requirements
• Acquire 100,000 acres of forestland• Open 90% of waterways to recreation • Develop backup systems for aging infrastructure • Tree planting
• Increase rooftop gardens to a total of 6,000 buildings citywide • Plant 1 million trees • Capture storm water on-site
Transportation Buildings and Energy Efficiency Reduced Waste and Pollution Urban Forestry and Natural SystemsRenewable Energy Food and Agriculture
financial support for implementing large sector- based mitigation plans and for adaptation of infrastructure and urban design.
The purpose of this article is to progress beyond theoretical discussions of effective climate mitigation and adaptation at the local-scale and to present concrete examples of how top-down and bottom-up mitigation and adaptation strategies have been successfully implemented at the metropolitan level in Portland, Oregon, USA.
First, we review the critical literature relating to cities and climate change, organizing the review through a discussion of four theoretical approaches widely used to argue in favor of realizing climate mitigation and adaptation at the city scale. Next, we present a case study of Portland, Oregon demonstrating tangible strategies for successful development and implementation of climate mitigation and adaptation policy in the local-scale context.
2. Literature review
Research focused on local-scale climate mitigation and adaptation draws from a variety of theoretical backgrounds, most significantly:
sustainability science, global change science, multi-level governance, and structural engineering. These approaches demonstrate the interdisciplinary contributions to climate change research, specifically in the context of integrating mitigation and adaptation policy at the local- scale. There is substantial overlap between the four approaches presented in the following sections, especially with regard to the significance that scale plays in understanding the complex and dynamic relationship between climate policy and the urban environment. Geographers have long grappled with the issues of spatial and temporal scale, contributing significantly to
advancing understanding of the influence of scale on human and natural system interactions. In the case of climate mitigation and adaptation research, geographers are thus well-suited to provide insight and original contributions to this growing field of research.
1) Sustainability science
One theoretical approach to examining climate mitigation and adaptation is through the lens of sustainability science, which seeks to understand the character of nature-society interactions and the ability of human society to guide these complex interactions toward long-term sustainability, while building the social capacity necessary to successfully transition to a sustainable future (Kates et al., 2001). Followers of this approach argue that the urban development that occurs as cities and societies transition toward sustainable futures, commonly regarded as “sustainable development,” by definition incorporates climate mitigation and adaptation measures (McEvoy et al., 2006;
Bizikova et al., 2007; Burton et al., 2007;
Wilbanks, 2007; Coaffee, 2008). The purpose of sustainable development is to fulfill basic human needs, both current and future, without compromising the viability of Earth’s environmental systems (Kates et al., 2001;
Wilbanks, 2007). Implementing smart growth principles in urban design, simultaneously integrates climate change security and risk management, by promoting energy efficient building characteristics and reduced transportation dependency, which both limits energy use and reduces vulnerability to the negative impacts of climate change (McEvoy et al., 2006; Swart and Raes, 2007; Coaffee, 2008). In a special issue of Climate Policy, Bizikova and colleagues (2007) and Burton et al. (2007) call attention to an iterative method of integrating
adaptation (A) and mitigation (M) into the context of sustainable development (SD), referred to as AMSD, which relies on a participatory process based on scenario development and social learning that utilizes local knowledge of local systems and climate change impacts to design practical policy outcomes.
There exists a strong argument in favor of embedding mitigation and adaptation into the context of sustainable development, to reduce urban ecological footprints and enhance social wellbeing and environmental protection (McEvoy et al., 2006). However, conflicts and trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation measures present a limitation to realizing this theoretical approach. Synergies and conflicts between adaptation and mitigation, and security and sustainability, are present at every spatial scale, but tend to be location specific (McEvoy et al., 2006; Burch and Robinson, 2007; Wilbanks, 2007;
Coaffee, 2008). For example, increased vulnerability to intense heat waves resulting from urban densification (a mitigation strategy) is dependent upon local climate variability, the magnitude of future temperature increase under climate change, and any already existing urban heat island effect. At the local-scale, if climate policy is to be effectively integrated into sustainable development, it will be vital that policy- and decision-makers, academics, and urban planners work to identify and maximize local synergies between mitigation and adaptation (McEvoy et al., 2006; Swart and Raes, 2007), develop strong institutional links (Swart and Raes, 2007), and realize potentials for actions at different scales that are complementary and reinforcing (Wilbanks, 2007).
The promise and limitations of implementing the sustainability science approach to climate policy in cities is evident in two case studies: an examination of the effects of increasing urban density to mitigate climate change in Australia
(Hamin and Gurran, 2009); and a scenario analysis of how to best apply concepts of sustainable urbanism to an already densely populated city, Dhaka, Bangladesh (Roy, 2009).
Hamin and Gurran (2009) identified potential conflicts that might arise in practice, when mitigation and adaptation policies are intentionally integrated into sustainable urban design, and discovered that climate change creates a “density conundrum.” In Port Stephens, a city located on the New South Wales Coast of Australia, attempts to conserve Eucalyptus forest cover and protect vulnerable koala populations from the pressures of climate change, has resulted in planning policy and zoning laws that require low building density and car dependent housing, directly conflicting with mitigation strategies. In the case of Dhaka, a city especially vulnerable to riverine flooding, sea-level rise, and food shortages, sustainable urbanism is translated as restricting development from occurring on productive agricultural land and in flood-prone areas, thus further intensifying population overcrowding in the city core. Both of these examples elucidate that balancing sustainability and security in the planning, design and construction of the built environment is key (Coaffee, 2008), but that overcoming the conflicts between mitigation and adaptation poses a significant challenge.
2) Global change science
The theory of global environmental change examines human-induced systemic and cumulative changes that begin at the local scale but alter global physical earth systems (Turner et al., 1990). Although climate change is a global phenomenon, the causes of climate change, namely GHG emissions, originate in local places.
In the context of climate mitigation and adaptation, both scale (Turner et al., 1990; Kates
and Wilbanks, 2003) and the complexity of urban dynamics (Ruth and Coehlo, 2007) complicate understanding of how the impacts of local behaviors, such as energy use, land use, and waste production will be felt at a number of scales, including regional, national, and international levels. As the impacts from local- scale GHG emissions producing activity aggregate to larger spatial scales, both positive and negative feedback loops may be engaged triggering ripple effects throughout the system, characterized by time-lagged, non-linear relationships (Ruth and Coelho, 2007). In addition to aggregate differences among scales, Kates and colleagues (2003) argue that cross-scale interactions are highly significant and should not be ignored by examining global change at a single scale.
Global change research has been strongly influenced by geographers and is especially concerned with identifying the scales at which global change and responses, such as mitigation and adaptation, take place and elucidating scale mismatches, when salient (Kates and Wilbanks, 2003). Disjunctive scales tend to exist between where human behavior occurs (local-scale) and where policy assessment is traditionally designed and implemented (regional-, national-, global- scale), and are viewed as an impediment to effective mitigation and adaptation measures (Kates and Wilbanks, 2003). To reduce the obstacle of scale mismatch, research suggests that top-down strategies be downscaled using site- specific knowledge to meet the needs of local populations, while bottom-up policies should be upscaled to resonate with a broader audience and draw generalized conclusions (Kates et al., 2003; Burton et al., 2007; Wilbanks, 2007). In a case study based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Shaw et al. (2009) present a relevant example of scale mismatch. The authors argue that because the current climate change research agenda is largely global in focus, local decision-makers and
stakeholders may find it insufficient to anchor meaningful climate change action at local scales.
Instead, the authors recommend using a multi- scale scenario-based participatory process that identifies and engages key local stakeholders, ensures their representation and participation in research, and emphasizes using non-probabilistic scenarios to explore multi-scale consequences of various mitigation and adaptation choices.
3) Multi-level governance
Multi-level governance, a theoretical framework influenced by the disciplines of political science and political geography, views the interpretation and implementation of climate policy as a fundamentally political issue. This institutional perspective argues that local governments are not solely recipients of top-down predefined policy goals enacted at national and international scales, but themselves represent an important site for the governance of global issues (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003). Governance occurs through processes and institutions operating at multiple spatial scales, thus this theoretical approach is primarily concerned with interactions between economic, social, and political processes across different systems and scales of power (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003). In the context of climate mitigation and adaptation, Betsill and Bulkeley (2007) have demonstrated that the vertical interactions that occur between different levels of government represent a primary factor shaping the capacity for local climate change governance, as vertical linkages can act to either enable or constrain local climate policy. A relevant example, the authors argue, is that the degree of autonomy of a city or institution in relation to larger-scale governance structures is a defining factor in determining the effectiveness and innovativeness of local climate policy.
Multi-level governance recognizes that the
concept of sustainable development, specifically the ‘sustainable city,’ has become pervasive in the wider discussion of local-scale climate mitigation and adaptation. Although accepting of the idea that responses to climate change are effective when embedded in the context of sustainability science, Bulkeley and Betsill (2005) argue that the urban sustainability framework is limited because it does not sufficiently address the concept of governance, especially in regard to examining the wider social, political, and economic processes that shape the dynamic urban environment. As discussed earlier, understanding the interactions between vertical scales of governance is crucial to recognizing how and where implementation of sustainable development and climate policy may be constructed or contested, thus the urban arena must be analyzed through the framework of nested and discrete scales, not in isolation (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005).
The theory of multi-level governance has been used to examine the development and implementation of local-scale climate policy in a variety of locations, worldwide. Recent case studies include: Denver, USA (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003); Sweden (Granberg and Elander, 2007); South Africa (Holgate, 2007); Waterloo, Canada (Parker and Rowlands, 2007); and Mexico City, Mexico (Romero-Lankao, 2007). Three emergent themes from these case studies are clear: local areas can significantly contribute to larger-scales of governance by acting as donators of best practices rather than as recipients, strong leadership of committed local authorities is crucial to legitimize climate change policy in the eyes of local business and government, and for climate change policy to be effective, it must be integrated into the institutional structure of local government, most significantly into policy and financial decisions.
4) Structural engineering perspective
Urban areas are dependent on a complex set of infrastructure systems charged with providing vital human, economic, and environmental services. The interdisciplinary structural engineering perspective, developed by civil and environmental engineers, public policy analysts, and environmental geographers, scrutinizes climate policy based on the impacts, both positive and negative, that will be sustained by the local infrastructure systems. Urban infrastructure analysis is notably sensitive to issues of both spatial and temporal scale due to the physical proximity of infrastructure systems for different sectors in urban environments, and the long-term financial investment that traditional large-scale infrastructure represents (Ruth and Coehlo, 2007; Wilby, 2007; Kirshen et al., 2008;
Revi, 2008).
In the context of climate mitigation and adaptation, the existing spatial proximity of urban infrastructure systems can be advantageous, for example, in Boston, USA, the cost of implementing climate protection policies such as reuse of domestic and commercial waste water for cooling industrial complexes may be reduced (Kirshen et al., 2008). However, in terms of vulnerability to climate change impacts, the tight coupling of urban infrastructure systems increases overall risk, because disruptions in one sector can have a ripple effect across the entire infrastructure system (Ruth and Coehlo, 2007). The long life span and expensive cost of traditional infrastructure systems further complicates the capacity of urban areas to respond effectively to climate change. Although current infrastructure systems may be unable to accommodate future changes in climate and population density, long- term, high-cost legislation to improve large-scale infrastructure, such as bridges, dams, wastewater disposal systems, and energy grids, is difficult to
enact and nearly impossible to fund at the local level. Thus, bottom-up infrastructure policy tends to focus instead on short-term, lower-cost, and in the long-term generally less effective adaptation strategies.
A review of relevant case studies presents a number of recommendations for future infrastructure development to increase resilience of urban areas to negative climate change impacts. Location-specific research, in Sub- Saharan Africa (Muller, 2007), Boston, USA (Kirshen et al., 2008), and urban India (Revi, 2008), builds on the growing consensus that good land-use planning and zoning decisions are increasing crucial to reducing risk and vulnerability in the context of climate change. An increasingly popular avenue of structural engineering research is the development and analysis of ‘green’ or ‘soft’ infrastructure, which integrates ecological principles into infrastructure design. A case study of Manchester, UK (Gill et al., 2007) focuses on the increased resiliency of the metropolitan area as a result of local adaptive measures that increased urban greenspace to enhance infiltration of stormwater runoff during flooding and increase evaporative cooling to combat heat waves. An important takeaway
message of these case studies is that in general, if an adaptation action effectively lessens impact to infrastructure, it also lessens impact to the environment and helps to mitigate GHG emissions (Gill et al., 2007; Kirshen et al., 2008;
Revi, 2008).
The literature review presented in this section elucidates the complex, multidisciplinary frameworks within which climate mitigation and adaptation is studied, legislated, interpreted and implemented (Table 3). Although each of the four theoretical approaches outlined above views climate change policy through a seemingly disparate analytical lens, ultimately each approach supports the argument that the city is a prime spatial scale to develop and implement innovative and well-received climate mitigation and adaptation policy. Furthermore, this synthesis of diverse literature reveals four emergent themes in the context of combating threats posed by climate change that cross disciplines and theoretical perspectives: 1) both spatial and temporal scale matters; 2) local, place-based research provides insights into understanding complex global-scale processes; 3) partnerships between academic institutions and local stakeholders can and should foster local
Table 3. Summarizes main characteristics of these four different disciplines.
Sustainability Science Global Change Science Multi-level Governance Structural Engineering
Academic disciplines
Scale
Climate policy Focus
Human-Environment Geography Urban Studies and Planning Sociology Anthropology
Human-Environment Geography
Earth System Sciences
Political Science Sociology Political Geography
Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Geoengineering Environmental Engineering
Mainly mitigation Adaptation is addressed to some extent
Mitigation &
Adaptation are considered equally
Mitigation &
Adaptation are considered equally
Mitigation focus Adaptation is addressed to some extent
Local to regional Multi-scale Multi-scale Local to regional
knowledge by identifying local research needs and supporting community-based research; and 4) local research informs local stakeholders and policy-makers, creating support for and legitimizing top-down climate policy initiatives from state and national government.
3. Case study: Portland, Oregon
The City of Portland is located in the Pacific Northwest of the United States and has a 2009 estimated population of 582,130 people (Population Research Center, 2009). Located in the marine west climate zone, Portland exhibits dry, warm summers and cool, wet winters. The wet season precipitation (November to April) is approximately 850mm. According to climate change simulation results (Mote and Salathe, 2009), the area is expected to experience hotter and drier summers and wetter winters in the 21st century.
Portland serves as an excellent case for investigating climate mitigation and adaptation policy because it is often symbolized as a green sustainable city in the literature owing to the urban growth boundary which limits urban sprawl (Abbott, 2002; Harvey and Works, 2002;
Works and Harvey, 2005), has made a serious commitment to combat climate change at multiple local scales (county, city, and neighborhood), has a number of active citizen organizations that help shape the grass-roots environmental movement, and has recently significantly expanded green infrastructure throughout the city. The Global Warming Progress Report (City of Portland, 2005) highlights energy savings occurring throughout Portland as a result of implementing the Local Action Plan on Global Warming in 2001. Successes of the 2001 plan include increasing the recycling rate to 54%;
construction of 40 high-performance green buildings; 7% reductions in per capita energy use;
converting all traffic signals to highly efficient LED bulbs, which saves 5 million kWh and
$500,000 (USD) per year; weatherization of 10,000 multifamily units; and increasing the percentage of renewable energy used for electricity to 11%.
1) Smart growth: integration of transpor- tation planning into land use planning
Portland is well known for its smart growth policies, such as the urban growth boundary (UGB), extensive public transit service, mixed land use, and transient oriented development (Jun, 2008). Portland’s UGB, approved by voters in 1980, has limited suburban sprawl and protected farmlands and open spaces in surrounding areas by containing in-fill development within UGB (Kline and Alig, 1999), although UGB has extended a few times since its inception. Metro is the regional governance institution that oversees the development and administration of land-use laws in the Portland metropolitan area. Metro encompasses 27 incorporated municipalities, with a current metropolitan Portland population of 1.5 million inhabitants (Metro, 2010).
Extensive public transit service exists in the Portland metropolitan area (Figure 1). The Tri- County Metropolitan Transit District (Tri-Met) operates light train and bus service in the Portland metropolitan area, operating four Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) lines, Westside Express Service Commuter Rail, and 81 bus lines.
The MAX light rail system with 84 stations connects downtown Portland to suburban cities, such as Beaverton, Gresham, and Hillsboro. The first 15-mile MAX Blue Line that connects downtown Portland to Gresham opened in 1986, followed in 2001 by the 5.5 mile MAX Red Line
with service to Portland International Airport. The 5.8 mile MAX Yellow Line and 8.3 mile MAX Green Line opened in 2004 and 2009, respectively. While the majority of funding for the installation of MAX lines came from federal sources, at least a quarter of its funding was also generated by state or local sources for all projects. Such an expansion of the MAX lines promoted the use of public transit in the Portland metropolitan area, providing approximately a third of weekday transit trips (Tri-Met, 2010a).
The transit oriented development (TOD) near MAX stations has also encouraged dense development and reduced single-occupant passenger car trips. Since 1980, more than $8 billion (USD) in TOD has occurred within walking distance of MAX stations. Such TOD exhibits mixed land uses typically integrating
multi-family housing into commercial and office buildings. For example, the base of the building is used for commercial and office spaces, while the upper levels of the building are used for residential purposes. The streets are also designed to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. According to a survey of more than 300 residents of TODs near four MAX stations in Portland (Dill, 2008), the surveyed residents used transit more than they had at their previous residences and commuted by transit at a significantly higher rate than residents city-wide.
However, transit was not the main mode of transportation, suggesting that while TOD has been somewhat successful, there is still room for encouraging the use of the public transportation system.
The expansion of MAX lines and dense TOD
Figure 1. Tri-Met system map in the Portland metropolitan area, 2010 (Source: Tri-Met, 2010b).
Figure 2. Number of cars and vehicle miles traveled in Portland, 1990-2008 (Source: Oregon Department of Transportation, 2010).
Figure 3. Portland Bikeway Network, 1996-2008 and planned buildout for 2030 (source: Portland Bureau of Transportation).
has positively affected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Portland. Despite population growth (130,000) and the increase in the number of registered cars, as shown in Figure 2, VMT has declined since the mid 1990s. While the number of registered cars consistently increased during the same period, VMT declined by more than 2 miles between 1996 and 2008. The dense development accompanied by the expansion of public transit and commuter bike-lanes appears to have contributed to the decline in VMT. Bike lane miles have increased from 150 miles in 1996 to more than 300 miles in 2008 (see Figure 3, City of Portland 2010a).
Accordingly, daily bicycle trips over four major bridges crossing the Willamette River have increased from less than 200 trips in 1990 to more than 1600 trips in 2008, accounting for 13% of all vehicle traffic on those bridges (Figure 4). An empirical analysis of commuter trips in Portland suggests that providing transit service and dense development in residential zones (origination) were more effective in reducing car dependence than destination (Jun, 2008). Such integration of transportation planning as part of region wide land use planning resulted in a slight reduction in per capita GHG emissions from the transportation
sector in Portland between 1990 and 2008 while US carbon emissions increased by 13.5% for the same period.
2) Climate action plan
In April 2009, the City of Portland, in partnership with Multnomah County, released their first Climate Action Plan, which sets ambitious goals to reduce local-scale carbon emissions 40 % by 2030 and 80 % by 2050 (City of Portland 2009). The objectives most concretely target the transportation and energy sectors as these make up 40 % and 20 %, respectively of total Multnomah County emissions. The 2030 transportation emissions reduction goals include reducing per capita vehicle miles driven 50 % below 2008 levels and increasing average vehicle fuel efficiency to 40 miles per gallon, a more stringent requirement than the national government’s 35 mile per gallon goal. For the residential sector, the goals focus on improved energy efficiency and increased reliance on renewable sources, including reducing total energy use of all buildings built before 2010 by 25 %, achieving zero net carbon emissions in all new buildings and homes, and producing 10 % Figure 4. Daily Bicycle Ridership in Portland, Oregon, 1992-2008 (Source: City of Portland, 2008).
of total energy consumed from on-site renewable sources. After six months of its first release of the Climate Action Plan, in October 2009 Portland City Council and Multnomah County Commissioners approved the climate action plan.
The associated document also describes how individuals can participate in climate friendly actions at home and work. It contains detailed ways of reducing GHG emissions in every sector encompassing from building and energy to food and goods consumption behavior to mobility.
One notable point of this climate action plan is the spatially-explicit approach in collecting and analyzing neighborhood level data related to climate action. For example, by mapping natural gas consumption at a census track level, residents can see how their consumption rates are similar or different across different neighborhoods. As shown in Figure 5, household energy consumption shows distinct spatial patterns,
closely associated with building structural variables such as types of residence, size of dwelling, age of building, as well as other sociodemographic characteristics of each census track. While the compact, densely developed downtown and eastern Portland display low levels of gas consumption per house, relatively sparsely developed western and suburban areas show higher levels of Natural gas consumption.
This suggests that neighborhood-scale carbon reduction action can be more closely coordinated with land use planning.
3) Neighborhood-level grassroots climate action planning
A central focus of the Portland case study is to support the argument that the city is an effective spatial scale for the development and implementation of both bottom-up and top-down
Figure 5. Therms of natural gas used per house in 2008, for single-family houses with gas space heat, by census track (Source: Energy Trust of Oregon, 2010).
climate mitigation and adaptation strategies.
However, the city is not an independent unit free from the influence of political structures, policy decisions, and innovation at higher and lower levels of governance. Instead, climate policy and decision-making at the city level represent complex interactions among economic, social, and political processes that occur at multiple scales of power (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003). This section of the case study focuses on the development, interpretation, and implementation of climate policy at the neighborhood scale. We examine the ways that neighborhoods downscale top-down policies to meet their local needs and inversely, how bottom-up, grassroots climate initiatives developed at the neighborhood scale are upscaled and ultimately integrated into city and regional level policy decisions.
International climate policy, such as the Kyoto Protocol, is designed to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels and increase resiliency to the negative impacts of climate change at the global scale. However, to achieve success, large-scale, top-down climate policies require tangible actions at the local level and changes in the behavior of each individual member of the community. Thus, neighborhoods are an important scale for analysis because they epitomize a level of governance and decision-making that bridges the gap between the individual and policy activity at larger scales (Cohen et al., 2009). Neighborhoods not only indicate a smaller spatial entity, but also represent a shorter temporal scale, as neighborhood level decisions may be more likely to modify individual behaviors quickly, rather than waiting a long time for large-scale government policy and technology to be implemented and take effect (Cohen et al., 2009).
In addition to engaging individuals in climate mitigation, neighborhoods are also ideally suited to strengthen community resilience and affect shifts in local culture, leading to improved
capacity for climate adaptation.
Portland is an appropriate city to conduct a neighborhood level analysis of grass-roots climate action planning because it has a distinct system for financially supporting neighborhood-led programs and a history of executing community empowerment and environmental movements at the neighborhood level. All residents within the city boundaries live within one of ninety-five officially recognized and municipally funded neighborhoods, which are further supported by seven active neighborhood district coalitions (City of Portland, 2010c). The culture of strong, politically active neighborhoods emerged during the 1960s and 70s during Portland’s political revolution. Facing demolition of historic, inner- city neighborhoods as part of a highly unpopular city plan for urban renewal, community members organized to save their neighborhoods and used their collective political power to influence government policy. Through active neighborhood associations, local residents became the actors rather than the objects of neighborhood decisions and instead of reacting against unwanted changes, neighborhood groups formulated and advocated for policy decisions that improved the health, safety, and liveability of their neighborhoods (Abbot, 1983).
The Southeast Uplift (SEU) neighborhood coalition, created in 1968 as part of the community empowerment movement, currently supports twenty neighborhood associations and eleven business associations located on the eastern bank of the Willamette River. The SEU helps to coordinate and finance neighborhood scale sustainability measures by holding monthly sustainability committee meetings, coordinating the bulk purchasing for residential solar energy systems, organizing neighborhood sustainability groups, and assisting with community education and engagement (Cohen et al., 2009; Southeast Uplift, 2010). In 2009, in conjunction with the City
of Portland Climate Action Plan, the SEU published a grassroots Neighborhood Climate Action Handbook (Cohen et al., 2009) detailing strategies to support the coordination of neighborhood bulk energy purchasing, local weatherization, community composting and waste reduction, rain barrel installation for rainwater harvesting, tree planting, and alternative transportation networks.
Neighborhoods within the SEU are known throughout Portland for being especially green, and have developed and implemented innovative grassroots level climate mitigation and adaptation actions. For example, during the summer of 2009, SEU launched the first Solarize Portland project, with the mission of reducing financial and logistical barriers to implementing household solar energy systems. The first summer in operation, the project attracted over 300 interested homeowners and successfully installed 120 solar photovoltaic systems in SEU neighborhoods, creating 350 kW of clean energy (Southeast Uplift, 2010). Although the average price of solar energy per kilowatt in Portland is
$9,500 (USD), residents who installed solar energy systems through the Solarize Portland program received a discounted group rate of
$6,800 (USD) per kilowatt (Solarize Portland, 2010). Additionally, neighborhoods have implemented wide-spread use of a device known as the “kill-a-watt” meter, which residents can use to determine the amount of standby power consumed in the home by appliances that remain plugged in while not in use, such as computers and televisions.
Two SEU neighborhoods in particular, Hosford- Abernathy and Sunnyside, have made impressive steps toward sustainability. These neighborhoods approved the Campaign for a Carbon-Neutral Neighborhood and adopted the goals of reducing the neighborhood level carbon footprint by 10 percent in 2010, by 50 percent in 2025 and
ultimately becoming carbon-neutral by 2050. To accomplish these local climate mitigation goals, the neighborhoods established three target areas to reduce community-wide energy usage - transportation, home energy consumption, and increasing the vitality of green space.
Transportation goals are being met through the development of a website www.carpoolmatchnw.
org/ that helps people find a carpool partner based on their residence and workplace location, encouraging biking and walking with neighborhood maps and trip planning websites, and locating automobiles for shared use throughout the neighborhoods. To support reductions in home energy consumption, the neighborhood associations offer free compact fluorescent light bulbs, free home energy audits in partnership with a non-profit organization, Energy Trust of Oregon, and weatherization assistance for senior citizens and low-income families. Local adaptation measures in these neighborhoods include community tree planting events, restoring native habitat in backyards and participation in the Downspout Disconnection Program, financed by Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, which provides a monetary incentive of $53 (USD) for each downspout the homeowner agrees to disconnect (Hosford-Abernathy Neighborhood Development, 2010; Sunnyside Neighborhood Association, 2010).
The neighborhood level climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives detailed in this section represent both bottom-up ideas that have been upscaled to the city and regional level and top- down policy that has been implemented at the neighborhood scale. One example that illustrates the complexity of upscaling grassroots ideas to the city-scale is the SEU Buckman neighborhood community compost and waste reduction project (Figure 6). The successful implementation of the composting project at the neighborhood-level
influenced the City of Portland to develop a city- wide composting program. However, although at the neighborhood scale this sustainability initiative was widely accepted, the city-wide version is currently stalled because large-scale negotiations among residents, city officials, and waste management agencies are difficult to navigate.
One important factor is that resident attitudes and behaviors at the city-scale are far more heterogeneous than at the neighborhood scale, and the idea of sorting through household garbage to isolate compostable waste, and the reduction of garbage removal services to only twice monthly do not appeal to the entire constituency. Alternately, the neighborhood level energy audit programs and GHG emission reduction goals being implemented in the SEU Sunnyside and Hosford-Abernathy neighborhoods represent an example of down-scaling city-wide policy to meet the needs of a local community.
Although affecting change in behaviors at the neighborhood scale may be more efficient, small-
scale neighborhood associations struggle to significantly reduce emissions because they lack the financial capital to invest in expensive green infrastructure projects.
4) Green infrastructure
Green Infrastructures “are spaces in and around urban areas that provide ecological, economic and social benefits, promote sustainable living and support appropriate urban development”
(Town and Country Planning Association, 2004).
They can offer a means of social interactions and combating the effects of climate change at multiple levels (Mell, 2009). Using best-practice techniques that support ecological, economic and social sustainability across urban, urban-fringe and rural areas, green infrastructure promotes landscape connectivity to protect natural habits and biodiversity, enhances sustainable healthy urban lifestyle, responds to climate change or other biophysical changes, and supports the
Figure 6. Local-scale community composting and waste reduction program in the Buckman Neighborhood (Source: Kenneth Aaron, 2009).
urban and surrounding rural economy (Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Countryside Agency, 2006;
Davies et al., 2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships and multi-functional benefits across different sectors and regions are thus crucial components of a green infrastructure approach (Mell, 2009). Green infrastructure can also function as carbon sinks in urban areas by developing or preserving flora and fauna or water and green spaces such as urban parks.
Additionally, compared with traditional built infrastructure, green infrastructure can function as a climate adaptation environment by controlling microclimate in urban areas. Green infrastructure intercepts rainfall, absorbs solar radiation, and cools the ambient temperature (Scheuer and Koeleian, 2002), thus controlling the timing and magnitude of storm runoff and warmer temperatures, which are expected to increase under climate change scenarios.
In Portland, several different types of green infrastructure have been constructed at multiple scales. One notable example is the Metropolitan Greenspace Program that was formed by a group of representatives from Metro regional government, non-profit organizations, local governments and citizens to collaborate on greenspace protection in the Portland metropolitan area in the late 1980s. As one of two national programs that involve a US federal agency, namely the Fish and Wildlife Services and the regional government, this program illustrates a successful partnership in natural resource conservation effects in urban areas (Green infrastructure, 2009). The metropolitan greenspace program first mapped existing inventories of flora and fauna, utilizing the skills of the geographers and spatial scientists who participated. With the additional support of a
$135.6 million bond measure approved by voters in 1995, an extensive network of trails and greenspaces have been purchased and improved
for public access. By creating a number of regulatory and non-regulatory tools, this program is currently protecting greenspaces, water quality, floodplains, and fish and wildlife habitat. Among this program’s conservation effort is the preservation and improvement of Portland’s 2064 ha Forest Park, one of the largest US urban forests, which provides a habitat for more than 112 bird species and 62 mammal species, including trout and salmon (Houle, 1996). In addition to actively conserving Forest Park, the Metropolitan Greenspace Program also identified 57 urban natural areas and 34 trail and greenway corridors that function as the green infrastructure for the Portland metropolitan region. Following this program, other small scale tree-planting projects have been implemented in small cities.
Forest Park and other small urban parks currently serve as natural laboratories for teaching and education across elementary and high schools and universities throughout the Portland metropolitan area. According to an estimate from the City of Portland, each urban tree with a 50- year lifespan can save $273 (USD) a year in reduced costs for air conditioning, erosion and stormwater control, decreased air pollution, increased wildlife shelter and other infrastructure costs (Neighborhood Trees Project, 2006).
Another good example of green infrastructure discussion is the high performance green building policy that can effectively reduce the city’s GHG emissions. In 2007, Portland City Council developed policy options to improve the environmental performance of commercial and residential buildings to reduce GHG emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 by using recycled building materials, reducing wastes during construction and operation, and maximizing energy efficiency. For successful implementation, the policy proposes several performance targets such as reward programs for high efficiency new green building projects and the number of new
homes that conform to green building standards.
This policy, however, did not state any new requirements for old commercial, multifamily or single-family residential buildings, partially due to limited financing options (City of Portland, 2010b). The relatively long-term pay-back for renovating old building materials for energy saving is a barrier for most residents who occupy in old buildings. In 2009, the Portland City Council adopted a plan that requires all municipally owned new construction and major renovation building projects to be certified to the US Green Building Council’s LEED Silver standard with additional energy credits. Benefits of such green buildings include on-site stormwater management and a decrease in energy and water consumption, particularly during dry summer months.
Additionally, the City of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services (2009d) constructed green streets that effectively capture storm water runoff
and cool air temperature, thus enhancing neighborhood livability and strengthening the local economy. A green street is one that “uses vegetated facilities to manage storm water runoff at its sources (City of Portland, 2010d)”. As storm water runoff management is one of three major environmental problems in Portland, the City of Portland has been struggling with meeting the goals of regulatory compliance and resource protection. Because most urban non-point source pollution stems from storm water runoff, reducing storm water runoff is the first step to improve water quality and enhance watershed health (NRC, 2008). In April 2007, the Portland City Council approved a green street policy to promote green street facilities in public and private development. Green streets, by improving road conditions, not only reduce storm water runoff, but also increase groundwater recharge, improve air quality, enhance and pedestrian and bicycle safety. Additionally, green streets increase
Figure 7. Distribution of green streets in Portland (Source: City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services).
opportunities for industry professionals who are working on green economy. Figure 7 shows the distribution of such green streets in Portland. As shown in this Figure, green streets are not randomly distributed over space, suggesting that some neighborhoods have been more targeted than other neighborhoods.
In constructing these green streets, the City of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services partnered with such various organizations as neighborhood associations and educational institutes including universities and elementary schools. The forms of green streets also vary from a rain garden to a vegetated swale to a
Figure 8. Examples of green infrastructure in Portland. (a) Green street that effectively captures storm waters and (b) Leed Gold certified PSU building in downtown Portland.
(a)
(b)
permeable pavement, addressing the local conditions and needs (City of Portland 2010d).
Figure 8 illustrates the LEED-Gold certified building and associated storm water mitigation garden located on Portland State University (PSU)’s campus. In partner with the City of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services, PSU transformed traditional paved streets into an attractive green street that includes the improvement of street and sidewalk. As relatively small rainfall events (2-5 year floods) are likely to occur more frequently under several climate change scenarios (Chang et al., 2010), such installation of storm gardens are becoming important. The aforementioned examples illustrate the increasing trend in construction of green buildings in the public sector, but there remains room for improvement in the residential and commercial sectors.
5) The role of university in climate action
In Portland, the largest, urban university, Portland State University (PSU), epitomizes the four organizing themes of this paper. Notably, PSU is a collegiate leader in the integration of sustainable urban design and function, has implemented concrete measures and increased human and financial resources to significantly combat climate change, actively partners with community organizations and government institutions to contribute to the grassroots movement and affect changes in local culture, and is committed to constructing green infrastructure across the campus. In 2007, PSU signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment, which includes a provision mandating that all signatories track energy consumption and GHG emissions. In 2008, PSU released the first university-wide carbon inventory results finding that the university, home to 28,000 students, emits 96,103
metric tons of CO2equivalent per year (Beaudoin and Studer-Spevak, 2010). In 2009, PSU released the first draft of the university Climate Action Plan, which outlines ambitious goals, tangible strategies, and viable financing options for achieving significant emissions reductions, and ultimately carbon neutrality by 2050, in the four emissions categories: buildings; travel;
commuting; and materials (Table 4).
The 2010 PSU Climate Action Plan outlines tangible strategies and methods to meet the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. It is important to note that although the university is not technically bound by legislation passed at the city or county level, PSU views the government as a key partner in affecting significant change in climate policy and thus the university’s Climate Action Plan mirrors much of the 2009 Multnomah County/City of Portland Climate Action Plan. To advance thinking and acting systematically about GHG reductions, PSU seeks to comprehensively connect sustainable building infrastructure with methods of transport to and from campus and the ways that materials are used, reused and recycled. Innovative strategies being tested by PSU include creating an energy fund to leverage money for large-scale green infrastructure projects, maximizing renewable energy generated on-site, including solar, wind and ground source heat pumps, designing a University EcoDistrict that encompasses the neighborhood surrounding the university and supports the development of multiple net zero emissions buildings by 2030, replacing existing central heating plants with new combined heat and power plants, and implementing comprehensive digital metering of all infrastructure such that real-time energy use can be displayed in all major buildings to encourage conservation (Beaudoin and Studer- Spevak, 2010).
4. Discussion and conclusions
In this article, we have utilized four central theoretical perspectives to examine the capacity and constraints that the city of Portland faces as it seeks to lead the nation in developing and implementing innovative climate change policy.
One important institution that is poised to play a key role in fostering and maintaining support for cutting edge climate mitigation and adaptation measures is the university (Knuth et al., 2007).
Universities are unique because they are large enough that their emission profiles rival small cities but as institutions, rather than
municipalities, they exert far more autonomy and authority over their energy consumption and production of GHG emissions and can often institute new policy and procedures on a significantly faster timescale (Knuth et al., 2007).
Furthermore, universities are a breeding ground for rigorous research and innovation. Through partnerships with community stakeholders across multiple levels of governance and spheres of influence, universities provide expert knowledge, local and global research experience, and highly skilled students and faculty members.
Because climate change is inherently rooted in local places through GHG emissions, the city is Table 4. Essential steps, strategies, and actions necessary to achieving carbon neutrality on Portland State University’s campus divided into 4 categories; buildings, travel, commuting, and materials.
Buildings Travel Commuting Materials
Goal
Reduce energy use per square foot 20% below 1990 levels
Minimize carbon emissions associated with travel
Reduce single occupancy vehicle trips to campus to 40% below 2000 levels
Divert 75% of materials from landfills
• Digitally meter steam and chilled water infrastructure
• Replace central heating plants with combined heat and power plant
• Increase efficiency of the energy distribution system
• Run boilers with carbon neutral fuels
• Establish energy efficient applicant purchasing standards
• Harvest waste heat from computer servers
• New construction and major renovations must meet LEED Silver standards
• Maximize renewable energy generated on- site from solar and wind
• Prioritize and provide incentives for air travel alternatives
• Bring big events closer to campus
• Include an extra cost in the price of airline travel to purchase offsets
• Require faculty to include the cost of carbon offsets for air travel in grant applications
• Increase online learning opportunities
• Increase on-campus student housing
• Increase bike infrastructure, including covered and secure parking
• Plan and develop new bike paths
• Increase parking fees at popular locations and peak periods
• Subsidize transit passes for students and employees
• Install charging stations for electric vehicles
• Continue “Breakfast for Bikers” events
• Compost all waste from campus dining and catering facilities
• Include indoor and outdoor recycling receptacles in budgets for all new
construction
• All campus
departments purchase paper that is at least 30% post-consumer recycled content
• All new printers and computers print duplex by default Strategies
an appropriate management scale that can effectively devise and implement climate mitigation and adaptation policy and planning.
For these climate actions to be successful, it is essential to address the multiple levels of stakeholder needs and interests across different sectors and geographical areas. An urban university can effectively coordinate such activities through innovations in climate mitigation and adaptation research and by fostering close community partnerships. A successful model of innovation in climate mitigation and adaptation will lead to improved community health and new economic opportunities for generations to come.
Acknowledgements
Financial assistance for this Sector Applications Research Program (SARP) project was provided by the Climate Program Office of the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) pursuant to NOAA Award No. NA09OAR4310140. Additional financial support was provided by James F. and Marion L. Miller Foundation sustainability grant.
We appreciate Deena Platman and Denver Igarta for providing transportation data for the Portland metro area. Thanks also go to two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped clarify some points of the manuscript. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the research team and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA, US Department of Commerce, or the US Government.
References
Abbott, C., 1983., Portland: Planning, Politics, and
Growth in a Twentieth-Century, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Abbott, C., 2002, Planning a sustainable city: The promise and performance of Portland’s urban growth boundary, in Squires, G. D.(ed.), Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Responses, Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC, 207-235.
Association of American Geographers (AAG) Global Change and Local Places Research Team, 2003, Global change and local places: estimating, understanding, and reducing greenhouse gases, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 270pp.
Beaudoin, F. and Studer-Spevak, N., 2010, Portland State University Climate Action Plan, Portland State University Office of Sustainable Processes and Practices.
Benedict, M. A. and McMahon, E. D., 2006, Green Infrastructure: Linking landscapes and Communities, Island Press, Washington DC.
Betsill, M. and Bulkeley, H., 2007, Looking back and thinking ahead. a decade of cities and climate change research, Local Environment, 12(5), 447- 456.
Bizikova, L., Robinson, J., and Cohen, S., 2007, Linking climate change and sustainable development at the local level, Climate Policy, 7, 271-277.
Bulkeley, H. and 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, 14(1), 42-63.
Burch, S. and Robinson, J., 2007, A framework for explaining the links between capacity and action in response to global climate change, Climate Policy, 7, 304-316.
Burton. I., Bizikova, L., Dickenson, T., and Howard, Y., 2007, Integrating adaptation into policy:
Upscaling evidence from local to global, Climate Policy, 7, 371-376.
Chang, H., Lafrenz, M., Jung, I-W., Figliozzi, M., Platman, D., and Pederson, C, 2010, Potential impacts of
