Contestation and conflict in transport decarbonisation: The case of Sheffield, South Yorkshire

This paper responds to the question ‘what types of conflicts are salient in evolving climate policy making and why?’ by presenting a portion of the findings of a doctoral research project analysing power dynamics between state and civil society actors in transport decarbonisation interventions. The site selected as the case study of this PhD project, and by extension this paper, is Sheffield, a post-industrial city situated in the North of England. With a rich history of municipalist organising and resistance to service privatisation in the 1970s and 80s (Seyd, 1990, Payling, 2014, Beveridge and Cochrane, 2023), Sheffield has most recently seen restructuring in its governance systems, which include regionally devolved powers over public transport provision (Giovannini, 2017). Despite the history of radical politics, Sheffield City Council has been slow to implement decarbonisation policies and action across all sectors within its remit. Consequently, stakeholder conflicts have emerged between civil society groups with differing goals and needs for transport provision in the face of the climate emergency, which in Sheffield contributed 26% of its carbon emissions in 2017 (Sheffield City Council, 2023). Despite the ubiquity of (perceived or actual) anti-car and anti-driver sentiment in the cultural zeitgeist, relatively little research has explored the conflict between transport decarbonisation interventions and civil society actors who are challenging, celebrating, and co-creating them (Churchman and Longhurst, 2022, Upham, Simcock, Sovacool et al., 2023). This paper considers that, beyond the superficial attrition of pro- and anti-car discourse adopted by the media and political class, lies a fragile and salient debate that a conflict-centred approach is able to nurture. Where are transport decarbonisation policies, such as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, ULEZ schemes, and congestion charges, being implemented? By and to whom are these being done? Can the emerging conflicts be defined along traditional divides, including class, race, gender, (dis)ability, or sexual orientation? Why have transport decarbonisation interventions, particularly those impeding the use of cars in cities, been met with such resistance? How can these conflicts be navigated to enable transport decarbonisation policy while maintaining community cohesion and trust in governance institutions? In order to do this, this paper first synthesises a body of literature on power and conflict, and outlines the parameters of this case, in which conflict is considered to be productive and destructive, simultaneously producing both precarity and innovation where it emerges (Gidden and Hels, 1982, Deutsch, Coleman, and Marcus, 2006, Barkan, 2018,). Secondly, this paper presents the empirical findings of ethnographic (Brewer, 2000, Hammersley, 2006), netnographic (Bartl, Kannan and Stockinger, 2016), and interview data with activists, business owners, and residents who are challenging, celebrating, and co-creating transport decarbonisation interventions in the city of Sheffield. It finds key themes through which this particular conflict can be explored, including personal agency and vulnerability, inequality, encroaching dispossession, the role of the state, and societal freedoms, rights, and obligations. Finally, the conceptual advantages and limitations of the conflict-centred approach for stakeholder conflict in transport decarbonisation are evaluated, which are pertinent beyond Sheffield.