Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through development policies: A framework for analysing policy interventions

Climate and Development

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 175-186

  Linnér, Björn Ola ^a,b   Mickwitz, Per ^c   Román, Mikael ^d  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^d STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GREENHOUSE GAS; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; POLLUTION TAX; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 84876050125     PISSN: 17565529     EISSN: 17565537     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2012.698587     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Astbury, B. and Leeuw, F. L. 2010. Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3): 363-381.
2. Balkau, F. and Sonneman, G. 2010. Managing sustainability performance through the value-chain. Corporate Governance, 10(1): 46-58.
3. Baumert, K. A. and Winkler, H. 2005. "Sustainable development policies and measures and international climate agreements". In Growing in the greenhouse: Protecting the climate by putting development first, Edited by: Bradley, R. and Baumert, K. A. 15-23. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
4. Bazilian, M., de Coninck, H., Radka, M., Nakhooda, S., Boyd, W., MacGill, I., Bradley, R. (2008). Considering technology within the UN climate change negotiations. Amsterdam: Energy Research Center of the Netherlands ECN-E-08-077.
5. Bickman, L. 2000. "Summing up program theory". In Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities 87, Edited by: Rogers, P. J., Hacsi, T. A., Petrosino, A. and Huebner, T. A. 103-112. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6. Bradley, R. and Pershing, J. 2005. "Conclusion". In Growing in the greenhouse: Protecting the climate by putting development first, Edited by: Bradley, R. and Baumert, K. A. 111-116. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
7. Chen, H.-T. 1990. Theory-driven evaluations, London: Sage Publications.
8. Chen, H.-T. 2005. Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Chen, H.-T. 2006. A theory-driven evaluation perspective on mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1): 75-83.
10. Douthwaite, B., Kuby, T., van de Fliert, E. and Schulz, S. 2003. Impact pathway evaluation: An approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems, 78: 243-265. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(03)00128-8
11. Ellis, J., Baron, R. and Buchner, B. 2007. SD-PAMs: What, where, when and how?, 35Paris: OECD/IEA. JT03236771
12. Friman, M. and Linnér, B.-O. 2008. Technology obscuring equity: Historical responsibilities in UNFCCC. Climate Policy, 8(4): 339-354.
13. Funnell, S. 1997. Program logic: An adaptable tool for designing and evaluating programs. Evaluation News and Comment, 6(1): 5-17.
14. Gan, L. and Yu, J. 2008. Bioenergy transition in rural China: Policy options and co-benefits. Energy Policy, 36(2): 531-540.
15. Gerring, J. 2008. The mechanismic worldview: Thinking inside the box. British Journal of Political Science, 38(1): 161-179. doi: 0.1017/S0007123408000082
16. Hallding, K., Li, Y. and Wang, L. 2012. Learning from previous failures: Scaling up biogas production on the Chinese countryside. Climate and Development, (forthcoming)
17. Halsnæs, K., Shukla, P. R. and Garg, A. 2008. Sustainable development and climate change: lessons from country studies. Climate Policy, 8: 202-219. doi:10.3763/cpol.2007.0475
18. Hansen, M. B. and Vedung, E. 2010. Theory-based stakeholder evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3): 295-313. doi:10.1177/1098214010366174
19. Hoffmaister, J. P. and Román, M. 2012. Pursuing the link between development and climate change adaptation: The case of rice production in Mozambique. Climate and Development, doi: 10.1080/17565529.2012.698591
20. 2 emissions from fuel combustion, Paris: OECD/IEA.
21. Kaplinsky, R. and Morris, M. 2001. A handbook for value chain research, Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
22. Lange, A., Vogt, C. and Ziegler, A. 2007. On the importance of equity in international climate policy: An empirical analysis. Energy Economics, 29: 545-562.
23. Linnér, B.-O. and Pahuja, N. 2012. A registry of nationally appropriate mitigation actions: goals, outcomes, and institutional requisites. Ambio: a journal of the Human Environment. 2012, 41(S1): 56-67.
24. Levin, K. and Murray, W. 2010. The emission gap report: Are the Copenhagen accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2°C or 1.5 °C?: A preliminary assessment, Nairobi: UNEP.
25. Mahoney, J. 2003. "Tentative answers to questions about causal mechanisms". In Paper presented at the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Marriott Hotel.
26. Maroun, C. and Schaeffer, R. 2012. Emulating new policy goals into past successes: Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation as a side-effect of biofuels programs in Brazil. Climate and Development, doi:10.1080/17565529.2012.668849
27. Metz, B. and Kok, M. 2008. Integrating development and climate policies. Climate Policy, 8: 99-102. doi:10.3763/cpol.2008.0523
28. Mickwitz, P. 2003. A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments: Context and key concepts. Evaluation, 9(4): 415-436.
29. Mickwitz, P. 2006. Environmental policy evaluation: Concepts and practice, Helsinki: The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters.
30. Moreira, J. R., Nogueira, L. A.H. and Parente, V. 2005. "Biofuels for transport, development, and climate change: lessons from Brazil". In Growing in the greenhouse: Protecting the climate by putting development first, Edited by: Bradley, R. and Baumert, K. A. 25-47. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
31. Nagarajan, N. and Vanheukelen, M. 1997. Evaluating EU expenditure programmes: A guide-ex post and intermediate evaluation, Brussels: XIX/02-Budgetary overview and evaluation, Directorate-General XIX.
32. Nagurney, A. 2006. Supply chain network economics: Dynamics of prices, flows and profits, Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
33. Ng, W.-S. and Schipper, L. 2005. China motorization trends: Policy options in a world of transport challenges, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
34. Nilsson, M. and Nilsson, L. J. 2005. Towards climate policy integration in the EU: Evolving dilemmas and opportunities. Climate Policy, 5: 363-376.
35. Poluha, R. G. 2007. Application of the SCOR model in supply chain management, Youngstown, NY: Cambria Press.
36. Porter, M. E. and Millar, V. E. 1998. "How information gives you competitive advantage". In On competition, Edited by: Porter, M. E. 75-98. Boston, MA: A Harvard Business Review Book.
37. Prins, G., Galiana, I., Green, C., Grundmann, R., Hulme, M., Korhola, A., Tezuka, H. (2010). The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009. Oxford: Institute for Science, Innovation & Society, University of Oxford and LSE Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
38. Rabe, B. G., Román, M. and Dobelis, A.N. 2005. State competition as a source driving climate change mitigation. New York University Environmental Law Journal, 14(1): 1-53.
39. Reid, W. V. and Goldemberg, J. 1998. Developing countries are combating climate change: Actions in developing countries that slow growth in carbon emissions. Energy Policy, 26(3): 233-237.
40. Ribeiro, S. K. and Abreu, A. A.D. 2008. Brazilian transport initiatives with GHG reductions as a co-benefit. Climate Policy, 8(2): 220-240. doi: 10.3763/cpol.2007.0431
41. Rogelj, J., Hare, W., Chen, C. and Meinshausen, M. 2011. Discrepancies in historical emissions point to a wider 2020 gap between 2°C benchmarks and aggregated national mitigation pledges. Environmental Research Letters, 6
42. Rogers, P. J. 2008. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14(1): 29-48.
43. Rogers, P. J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T.A. and Hacsi, T.A. 2000. "Program theory evaluation: practice, promise, and problems". In Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. New directions for evaluation 87, Edited by: Rogers, P. J., Hacsi, T. A., Petrosino, A. and Huebner, T. A. 5-13. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
44. Román, M. and Carson, M. 2009. Sea change: US climate policy prospects under the Obama administration, Stockholm: Commission on Sustainable Development, Government of Sweden.
45. Román, M. and Hoffmaister, J. P. 2012. Climate and development: the potential for climate co-benefits in the Mozambican rice sector. Climate and Development, doi:10.1080/17565529.2012.698591
46. 2 emissions reduction. Energy Policy, 33: 349-364.
47. UNFCCC. 1992. United Nations framework convention on climate change, New York: United Nations.
48. UNFCCC. 2005. Sixth compilation and synthesis of initial national communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention: Inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases (FCCC/SBI/2005/18/Add.2), Bonn: UNFCCC.
49. UNFCCC (2006). Submission from South Africa (Dialogue Working Paper 18). Dialogue on long-term copperative action to address climate change by enhancing implementation of the Convention, second workshop. Nairobi: UNFCCC.
50. UNFCCC (2007). LCA-Report on the dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change by enhancing implementation of the Convention, note by the co-facilitators. FCCC/CP/2007/4/Add.1. Bonn: UNFCCC.z.
51. United Nations General Assembly (2009). Implementation of agenda 21, the programme for the further implementation of agenda 21 and the outcomes of the world summit on sustainable development [A/RES/64/236]. New York: United Nations.
52. Vedung, E. 1997. Public policy and program evaluation, London & New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
53. Vedung, E. 2009. Utvärdering i politik och förvaltning, Lund: Studentlitteratur.
54. Wang, J. (2012). Chinese electric car and SD-PAM: a case study. Climate and Development, doi:10.1080/17565529.2012.698588.
55. Weiss, C. H. 1995. "Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families". In New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts, Edited by: Connell, J. P., Kubisch, A. C., Schorr, L. B. and Weiss, C. H. 65-92. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
56. Weiss, C. H. 1998. Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
57. Weiss, C. H. 2000. "Which links in which theories shall we evaluate?". In Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities 87, Edited by: Rogers, P. J., Hacsi, T. A., Petrosino, A. and Huebner, T. A. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
58. Winkler, H., Brouns, B. and Kartha, S. 2006. Future mitigation commitments: Differentiating among non-Annex I countries. Climate Policy, 5: 469-486.
59. Winkler, H., Höhne, N. and Den Elzen, M. 2008. Methods for quantifying the benefits of sustainable development policies and measures (SD-PAMs). Climate Policy, 8: 119-134.
60. Winkler, H., Spalding-Fecher, R., Mwakasonda, S. and Davidson, O. 2002. "Sustainable development policies and measures: Starting from development to tackle climate change". In Building on the kyoto protocol: Options for protecting the climate, Edited by: Baumert, K. A., Blanchard, O., Llosa, S. and Perkaus, J. F. 61-87. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.