ABPL90064 USCC Policy Evaluation by Shruti Dalvi

Shruti Dalvi 993220

POLICY EVALUATION

Hong Kong Climate Action Plan 2030+ September 2021

ABPL90064 Urban Sustainability and Climate Change Assessment 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is a policy evaluation of the Hong Kong Climate Action Plan 2030+. Assessing plan quality is seen as a current need to provide better guidelines for future local climate action plans. The evaluation framework consists of 8 indicators and is developed from existing plan quality evaluation literature by Guyadeen et al. (2019) and Baynham & Stevens (2014): Fact base 1. Climate change context Goals 2. Adaptation 3. Mitigation: Long term GHG emissions 4. Mitigation: Short Term GHG Emissions Policies 5. Communication 6. Energy Implementation 7. Implementation Section 8. Timelines Each indicator was scored on a numerical scale of 0, 1 and 2 (not present, generally present and specified). This study found that the Hong Kong climate action plan excelled in naming policies and integrating adaptation and mitigation goals but scored poorly on having separate implementation section and a timeline for proposed actions. The overall plan quality was high with a few improvements suggested such as adding in implementation sections. Limitations of the study were found to be personal bias and single coder analysis which reduces reliability.

CONTENTS

Page no.

Executive summary

Introduction

Purpose of report

Overview of Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2030+

Method of analysis

Results

Discussion

Discussion of results table

7-8

Process of evaluation

Limitations

Recommendation

Conclusion

References

INTRODUCTION National partnerships for sustainable policy making have been a continuous effort over the years to combat climate change worldwide through programs such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change 2015 (United Nations, 2015). In addition to international efforts, literature has recognised cities and local authorities as key policy makers to tackle climate change which accelerated a need for climate action plans from local authorities (Guyadeen et al., 2019).

PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to evaluate the quality of the Hong Kong Climate Action Plan 2030+ through a set of indicators guided by policy evaluation literature. For a while mitigation was the sole focus of many climate action plans but through research the need for climate action plans to integrate adaptation into the response is evident (Baker et al., 2012). Baker et al. (2012) identifies that although international policies were focusing on adaptation, local climate response was lacking behind due to lack of research resources. Therefore, to assist future climate responses from local authorities as key policy makers to battle climate change, there is a need to evaluate the quality of existing climate change plans which combine both mitigation and adaptation strategies (Baker et al., 2012). The quality of plans is seen to have an impact on the effectiveness on communication of goals and implementation processes through the plan (Stevens et al., 2014). The report will establish an evaluation framework guided by (Guyadeen et al., 2019) and (Baynham & Stevens, 2014) literature on assessing plan quality. The plan quality will be evaluated based on 8 indicators through a numerical scale. Results and discussion of the results will follow, and recommendations will be made for the plan.

OVERVIEW OF HONG KONG’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Hong Kong, also known as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a key metropolitan city in China. The Central People’s Government decided that the Paris Agreement applies to Hong Kong, therefore leading to Hong Kong’s development of its first climate action plan (Environment Bureau, 2017). The Hong Kong Climate Action Plan 2030+ was published in 2017 by the Environment Bureau as the one and only existing climate change strategy to come from the Hong Kong government, while other reports are focused on specific aspects of climate change. This plan sets out carbon emissions targets to the year 2030 by using 2005 as a base year following with appropriate actions.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS The evaluation framework for this study was based on the initial principles developed by (Baynham & Stevens, 2014) which are fact base, goals, policies and implementation. These four principles are essential to address as they cover the critical umbrellas under which the specific indicators for assessing plan quality fall. Further, 8 indicators falling under the principles mentioned above were chosen from the 46 indicators developed by (Guyadeen et al., 2019 p. 139-141) in their study assessing 63 local level climate action plans. The chosen 8 indicators aimed to encompass the basic definitions of Baynham & Stevens' (2014) four principles and were worded as seen in Table 1: Table 1. List of indicators

Principle Fact base

Goals

Policies

Implementation

Indicator 1.

Climate change context

Adaptation

Mitigation – short term greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions

Mitigation – long term GHG emissions

Communication

Energy

Implementation section

Timeline

To assess each indicator, a numerical scale was adapted from (Guyadeen et al., 2019) binary scale but was adjusted to include a third score based on Stevens & Senbel's (2017) scoring criteria. The scoring criteria was used as, 0 = not present 1 = generally present 2 = specified/detailed This scoring criteria allowed the quality indicators to be evaluated through a deeper lens rather than a simple present and not present system. It was necessary to discuss whether the climate action plan mentions some indicators on a general level or in a detailed matter as this has a direct impact on the way they are communicated.

RESULTS Indicator

Table 2. Hong Kong’s plan quality evaluation results table

Description

Score

Summary

Fact base Does the plan frame climate 1. Climate change change as both a global and context local issue?

• Strong reference to Paris Agreement 2015 • Addresses collaboration with parties around the world

• More than one specific and broad goal included • Broad: Strengthening urban fabric • Specific: Managing drainage and floods through Blue-Green infrastructure

• Reduce carbon intensity by around 50% by 2020 • Limited mention of short term actions for reduction of GHG emissions

• Reduce carbon intensity by 65-70% by 2030 using 2005 as a base year • Vague language of actions beyond 25 years

Goals

2. Adaptation

Does the plan include at least one broad AND one specific goal related to adaptation or reducing vulnerability to climate change?

3. Mitigation – short term GHG emissions

Does the plan include at least one short-term (i.e., less than 20 years) target for reducing GHG emissions?

4. Mitigation – long term GHG emissions

Does the plan include at least one long-term (i.e., 20 years or greater) target for reducing GHG emissions?

Policies Does the plan include at least one policy for public 5. Communication awareness, education, and participation?

6. Energy

Does the plan include at least one policy on renewable energy (e.g., solar energy and wind energy)? Does the plan include at least one policy on energy efficiency (e.g., energy star ratings and green buildings)?

• Education Bureau Inter-school Climate Change competition event 2

• Food Wise Hong Kong campaign – Use of cartoon characters for public awareness • Waste to energy plants to supply 480GWh electricity each year to around 100,000 households

• Detailed sections on renewable and energy efficiency policies • BEAM Plus system to promote green buildings

Implementation Does the plan include a 7. Implementation separate section that section addresses what needs to be done to implement the plan?

8. Timeline

Does the plan identify timelines for implementation?

• Examples of implementation included in a map 1

• No separate section with an implementation plan for the each action or policy • Timelines set for the overall report but no specific section for implementation 6 timeline

‘0’ = not present

‘1’ = generally present

‘2’ = specified/detailed

DISCUSSION

Page numbers referred in this section correspond to pages from Hong Kong Climate Action Plan 2030+

1. Climate Change context The plan scored 2 for this indicator suggesting that Climate Change context, described as considering climate change as a local and global issue, was specified clearly in the plan. The plan set up the context by narrating Hong Kong’s agreement to adhere to the Paris Agreement 2015 through local targets and timelines. The operational framework of 4Ts [Timeline, Transparency, Targets and Together] was developed in accordance with Paris Agreement guidelines. A clear section was allocated to addressing climate change as a collaborative effort between Parties international as well as Hong Kong’s collaboration with China’s national contributions (p. 11). 2. Adaptation The plan provides multiple specific and broad adaptation strategies such as working towards a stronger urban fabric through inspections of ageing building stock, reducing urban heat island effect and repair works on buildings to combat for an increased chance of tropical cyclone (p.65) . Specific goals are implementing the concept of Blue-Green infrastructure for better drainage incase of flood events due to sea level rise and increased rainfall (p.68). The entire section of adaptation strategies sufficiently addresses the extent of this indicator therefore achieving a score of 2 (p.62-73). 3. Mitigation – short term GHG emissions This indicator receiving a score of 1 indicates that the plan does not adequately provide enough mitigation strategies for short term GHG emissions. Using 2005 as a base year, the plan sets a target for 2020 to reduce GHG emissions by 50% and revisit the climate change actions every 5 years. However, the plan fails to mention specific targets in the short term. 4. Mitigation – long term GHG emissions Scoring of 2 on this indicator means that the plan specifically addresses long term GHG emissions targets. This is due to the plan setting a target of reducing carbon intensity by 65 to 70% by 2030. However, the language such as ‘continue to substantially reduce beyond 2030’ (p.16) suggests uncertainty in the plan for targets beyond the 25-year mark. This did not have a significant effect on the score as the targets till 2030 are sufficiently addressed. 7

DISCUSSION 5. Communication Communication in terms of public awareness, education and participation received a score of 2 hence because the plan did have policies and strategies for communication of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Examples of this include education of young people through inter-school competitions for climate change research (p.96) and use of cartoon characters to promote reducing waste for the general public in Food Wise Hong Kong campaign (p.96). 6. Energy Renewable energy and energy efficiency policies are specifically addressed in the plan hence receiving a score of 2. Detailed sections on both areas of this indicator are provided in the plan. Waste to energy plants to supply electricity to households each year address need for renewable energy (p.30) and the BEAM Plus system is an example of addressing energy efficiency in new buildings and promoting construction of green buildings. 7. Implementation section The plan fails to provide a separate specific section for implementation of each policy but does address implementation throughout the report therefore receiving a score of 1. 8. Timeline Timelines are addressed in the report on a general scale, indicated by the score of 1, and not on a detailed basis for each policy or action.

The maximum score possible for this plan would be 16 which would indicate a climate action plan of highest quality based on the chosen indicators. The Hong Kong Climate Action Plan has received a total score of 13 out of 16 indicating the plan is of high quality but falls back in certain areas and could show improvement in revisions. The general quality of the plan is also enhanced by easy readability and clear diagrams and visual appeal.

DISCUSSION PROCESS OF EVALUATION To arrive at the scores for each indicator, the report was read in its entirety detail as well doing electronic search for key words present in the description of each indicator LIMITATIONS Limitations of the evaluation include the use of single coder analysis versus multiple coder analysis as emphasised by Stevens et al. (2014). As a single coder analysis, the reliability of this evaluation is reduced due the climate action plan being judged by one person only. Personal bias such as viewing the plan quality from a primarily western lens may also reduce the reliability of the evaluation.

RECOMMENDATION This paper recommends Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2030+ to introduce a specific separate implementation section along with a timeline for each action proposed in the plan. This would enhance the quality of the plan because being able to specify an implementation section increases accountability and shows the plan is able to be brought into action (Baynham & Stevens, 2014).

CONCLUSION The purpose of this report was to evaluate Hong Kong’s climate action plan through an evaluation framework based on existing plan quality assessment literature. Scoring the plan through 8 indicators found that the plan is of generally high quality but lacks in areas of implementation and provision of a timeline for the plan. Limitations of the study included single coder reliability and personal bias and it is understood that this evaluation of plan quality is broad in nature. Further possibilities for the study could include evaluating the plan based on a different set of indicators to target other important areas of climate change.

References Baker, I., Peterson, A., Brown, G., & McAlpine, C. (2012). Local government response to the impacts of climate change: An evaluation of local climate adaptation plans. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.009 Baynham, M., & Stevens, M. (2014). Are we planning effectively for climate change? An evaluation of official community plans in British Columbia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(4), 557–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.756805 Environment Bureau. (2017). Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2030+. https://www.climateready.gov.hk/files/report/en/HK_Climate_Action_Plan_2030+_ bookpdf Guyadeen, D., Thistlethwaite, J., & Henstra, D. (2019). Evaluating the quality of municipal climate change plans in Canada. Climatic Change, 152(1), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2312-1 Stevens, M. R., Lyles, W., & Berke, P. R. (2014). Measuring and Reporting Intercoder Reliability in Plan Quality Evaluation Research. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X13513614 Stevens, M. R., & Senbel, M. (2017). Are municipal land use plans keeping pace with global climate change? Land Use Policy, 68, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.026 United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda