Search results

This case explains how qualitative comparative analysis has been used for a study of more than 60 voluntary programs in urban climate governance in 13 cities in Australia, India, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Singapore, and the United States. The number of cases is too small for traditional quantitative research approaches (variable or condition oriented) but too large for traditional qualitative approaches (case oriented). Qualitative comparative analysis is a configurational method, bridging the strengths of variable-oriented and case-oriented approaches, and provides a logic and tools for medium-n comparative research. This case study specifically illustrates (1) the strengths of qualitative comparative analysis studying equifinality, conjuctural causality, and data asymmetry; and (2) how qualitative comparative analysis can be used, within one study, for theory testing as well as theory development. Although the case does not assume that readers have working experience with the method, it is not meant as a first introduction to the method.

Building on unique data, this book analyses the efficacy of a prominent climate change mitigation strategy: voluntary programs for sustainable buildings and cities. It evaluates the performance of thirty-five voluntary programs from the global north and south, including certification programs, knowledge networks, and novel forms of financing. The author examines them through the lens of club theory, urban transformation theory, and diffusion of innovations theory. Using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) the book points out the opportunities and constraints of voluntary programs for decarbonising the built environment, and argues for a transformation of their use in climate change mitigation. The book will appeal to readers interested in sustainable city planning, climate change mitigation, and voluntarism as an alternative governance mechanism for achieving socially and environmentally desirable outcomes. The wide diversity of cases from the global north and south generate new insights, and offers practical guidelines for designing effective programs.

AbstractThe scaling of urban climate action and its governance is rapidly becoming a central focus in the urban climate governance literature and policy debates. Building on the broader scaling literature and inspired by related initiatives in other fields, this article calls for the development of a systematic "science of scaling" for urban climate governance. Such a science of scaling may help to give a better understanding of how well-performing urban climate action and its governance can be multiplied, accelerated and broadened (ie horizontal and vertical scaling and scaling out, up and down), and it may help to uncover scaling trajectories towards systemic change in cities (ie deep scaling).

AbstractScholars of regulation have long engaged with behavioral oriented research to assess its value for regulatory theory and practice. This book review discusses two recent publications in this area: Nudge: The Final Edition by Richard Thaler and Cas Sunstein (2021) and The Behavioral Code: The Hidden Ways the Law Makes Us Better or Worse by Benjamin van Rooij and Adam Fine (2021).

ABSTRACT
Around the world, cities have committed themselves to urban climate action strategies with targets that go beyond those of their national governments. To implement their strategies, cities have embraced a range of alternative governance instruments and approaches ('governance alternatives'). While they have long been lauded by academics, policymakers, and practitioners for doing so, these 'frontrunner' cities are now being seen to struggle to achieve their ambitious targets when using governance alternatives. This article seeks to unpack and better understand this struggle by zooming in on the progress made in reducing (non-renewable) energy consumption in the built environment of three major cities in the United States (Chicago, New York, and San Francisco) over the last decade. Informed by interviews and supplementary data, the article uncovers a pattern across these three cities. In the early 2000s, they all set ambitious urban climate change targets, but lacked the power and capacity to achieve these. They all used a largely uncoordinated 'scattergun approach', embracing a broad set of (at best) modestly ambitious and (regularly) opportunistic governance alternatives to achieve the aims of their ambitious strategies. Whilst this approach allowed the cities to obtain quick initial results, the resulting fragmented configuration of traditional and alternative governance instruments and approaches now hinders them from meeting their targets.

Statutory and other forms of government-led environmental regulation (further 'environmental regulation') have evolved considerably since the mid-twentieth century. However, JEPP scholarship has shown little engagement with these developments over the last two decades. This lack of attention is unwarranted because environmental regulation is still a dominant approach to achieving the goals of environmental policy and planning. This article seeks to map, explore and evaluate current JEPP engagement with environmental regulations; explore three of the major developments in statutory and other forms of government-led regulation over the last decades relevant to environmental policy and planning; and present an environmental regulation research agenda for future JEPP scholarship.