AbstractThe seminal piece of Davidson, Coenen and Gleeson gives a good overview of the role of C40 as a global intermediary for establishing networked governance and knowledge brokerage of cities. The identified benefits for cities participating and even driving city networks are well presented, however require a closer conceptual and empirical development that also considers evidence and reflection from the institutional work of other transnational networks such as ICLEI, Climate Alliance, Asian Climate Change Cities Resilience Network, 100 Resilience Cities as well as the Covenant of Mayors and UCLG. In this response article we extend the conceptualization of the benefits and risks for the roles of city‐networks as curators of institutional spaces for co‐creation and knowledge co‐production to respond to the third theme of Davidson, Coenen and Gleeson paper on the ways that city networks shape urban institutions.
Nature-based solutions are proliferating in European cities over the past years as viable solutions to urban challenges such as climate change, urban degeneration and aging infrastructures. With evidence amounting about nature-based solutions, there is a need to translate knowledge about nature-based solutions to future policy and planning. In this paper, we analysed fifteen cases of nature-based solutions' experiments across 11 European cities. What makes our case studies stand out is the balanced focus between ecosystem and social benefits in contrast to many published cases on nature-based solutions that have a weighted focus on the climate benefits. From a cross-case comparative analysis we draw seven overarching lessons related to all stages of proof-of-concept and implementation of nature-based solutions in cities: (a) nature-based solutions need to be aesthetically appealing to citizens, (b) nature-based solutions create new green urban commons, (c) experimenting with nature-based solutions requires trust in the local government and in experimentation process itself, (d) co-creation of nature-based solutions requires diversity and learning from social innovation, (e) nature-based solutions require collaborative governance, (f) an inclusive narrative of mission for nature-based solutions can enable integration to many urban agendas and (g) design nature-based solutions so as to learn and replicate them on the long-term. The lessons we draw show that nature-based solutions require multiple disciplines for their design, diversity (of settings) for co-creation and recognition of the place-based transformative potential of nature-based solutions as 'superior' to grey infrastructure. We further discern that urban planners need to have an open approach to collaborative governance of nature-based solutions that allows learning with and about new appealing designs, perceptions and images of nature from different urban actors, allows forming of new institutions for operating and maintaining nature-based solutions ...
Nature-based solutions are proliferating in European cities over the past years as viable solutions to urban challenges such as climate change, urban degeneration and aging infrastructures. With evidence amounting about nature-based solutions, there is a need to translate knowledge about nature-based solutions to future policy and planning. In this paper, we analysed fifteen cases of nature-based solutions' experiments across 11 European cities. What makes our case studies stand out is the balanced focus between ecosystem and social benefits in contrast to many published cases on nature-based solutions that have a weighted focus on the climate benefits. From a cross-case comparative analysis we draw seven overarching lessons related to all stages of proof-of-concept and implementation of nature-based solutions in cities: (a) nature-based solutions need to be aesthetically appealing to citizens, (b) nature-based solutions create new green urban commons, (c) experimenting with nature-based solutions requires trust in the local government and in experimentation process itself, (d) co-creation of nature-based solutions requires diversity and learning from social innovation, (e) nature-based solutions require collaborative governance, (f) an inclusive narrative of mission for nature-based solutions can enable integration to many urban agendas and (g) design nature-based solutions so as to learn and replicate them on the long-term. The lessons we draw show that nature-based solutions require multiple disciplines for their design, diversity (of settings) for co-creation and recognition of the place-based transformative potential of nature-based solutions as 'superior' to grey infrastructure. We further discern that urban planners need to have an open approach to collaborative governance of nature-based solutions that allows learning with and about new appealing designs, perceptions and images of nature from different urban actors, allows forming of new institutions for operating and maintaining nature-based solutions to ensure inclusivity, livability and resilience.
Transformative changes are required for a 21st century sustainable urban development transition involving multiple interconnected domains of energy, water, transport, waste, and housing. This will necessitate a step change in performance goals and tangible solutions. Regenerative urban development has emerged as a major pathway, together with decarbonisation, climate adaptation involving new blue-green infrastructures, and transition to a new green, circular economy. These grand challenges are all unlikely to be realised with current urban planning and governance systems within a time frame that can mitigate environmental, economic, and social disruption. A new national platform for urban innovation has been envisaged and implemented in Australia that is capable of enabling engagement of multiple stakeholders across government, industry, and community as well as real time synchronous collaboration, visioning, research synthesis, experimentation, and decision-making. It targets large strategic metropolitan, mission-scale transition challenges as well as more tactical neighbourhood-scale projects. This paper introduces the iHUB: National Urban Research and Development Platform, its underlying concepts, and multiple layers of technical (IT/AV), software/analytical, data, and engagement, as envisioned and implemented in Australia's four largest capital cities and five collaborating foundation universities.
This viewpoint presents insights on designing, engaging with and researching multi-stakeholder engagement spaces based on the experience of the ARTS project (2014–2016), active in five European cities also relevant for a broader European scale. We argue that those spaces represent an important new instrument of participatory governance that can elucidate the way different actors like community initiatives relate to and employ planning and policy contexts for working towards sustainable urban futures. The multi-stakeholder engagement spaces are analyzed regarding three functions they fulfill: co-creating new knowledge for action, making sense of contemporary transitions, and, exploring how sustainable solutions impact transitions. The lessons learned focus on the roles of different actors within those spaces as well as the link between the multi-stakeholder engagement spaces and a broader local context. We name three caveats including deeply entrenched mistrust between local transition initiatives and local government representatives, existing power imbalances and inclusivity.
Cities are key for sustainability and the radical systemic changes required to enable equitable human development within planetary boundaries. Their particular role in this regard has become the subject of an emerging and highly interdisciplinary scientific debate. Drawing on a qualitative literature review, this paper identifies and scrutinizes the principal fields involved, asking for their respective normative orientation, interdisciplinary constitution, theories and methods used, and empirical basis to provide orientations for future research. It recognizes four salient research epistemologies, each focusing on a distinct combination of drivers of change: (A) transforming urban metabolisms and political ecologies; (B) configuring urban innovation systems for green economies; (C) building adaptive urban communities and ecosystems; and (D) empowering urban grassroots niches and social innovation. The findings suggest that future research directed at cities and systemic change towards sustainability should (1) explore interrelations between the above epistemologies, using relational geography and governance theory as boundary areas; (2) conceive of cities as places shaped by and shaping interactions between multiple socio-technical and social-ecological systems; (3) focus on agency across systems and drivers of change, and develop corresponding approaches for intervention and experimentation; and (4) rebalance the empirical basis and methods employed, strengthening transdisciplinarity in particular.
We explore whether Rotterdam city has the governance capacity in terms of processes at place, and the attention in terms of vision and strategy to take up an integrated approach toward urban resilience. We adopt an interpretative policy analysis approach to assess the dynamics of urban ecosystem governance considering interviews, gray literature, and facilitated dialogues with policy practitioners. We show the inner workings of local government across strategic, operational, tactical, and reflective governance processes about the way urban ecosystems are regulated. Despite the existing capacity to steer such processes, a number of underlying challenges exist: need for coordination between planning departments; need to ease the integration of new policy objectives into established adaptive policy cycles; and need to assess the lessons learnt from pilots and emerging green initiatives. Regulating and provisioning ecosystem services receive heightened policy attention. Focus on regulating services is maintained by a policy renewal cycle that limits and delays consideration of other ecosystem services in policy and planning.
We explore whether Rotterdam city has the governance capacity in terms of processes at place, and the attention in terms of vision and strategy to take up an integrated approach toward urban resilience. We adopt an interpretative policy analysis approach to assess the dynamics of urban ecosystem governance considering interviews, gray literature, and facilitated dialogues with policy practitioners. We show the inner workings of local government across strategic, operational, tactical, and reflective governance processes about the way urban ecosystems are regulated. Despite the existing capacity to steer such processes, a number of underlying challenges exist: need for coordination between planning departments; need to ease the integration of new policy objectives into established adaptive policy cycles; and need to assess the lessons learnt from pilots and emerging green initiatives. Regulating and provisioning ecosystem services receive heightened policy attention. Focus on regulating services is aintained by a policy renewal cycle that limits and delays consideration of other ecosystem services in policy and planning.
