Co-production and Resilient Cities to Climate Change

Abstract

Through a review of the scholarly literature and policy documents that have simultaneously treated participatory governance, resilience and/or adaptive management in urban contexts, with an emphasis on current framings and application of the concept and practice of co-creation or co-production, this chapter critically explores how citizens' participation is being discursively used and applied in urban resilience and climate change adaptation planning. It also examines how power dynamics within co-production processes for climate change adaptation planning already implemented in four European cities shape resulting resilience and adaptation measures.

The Use of IoT Technology in Smart Cities and Smart Villages: Similarities, Differences, and Future Prospects

“…If the first group emphasizes the conjunction of the smart city with its environment, the second group of definitions puts more focus on the role of ICT in SCs, as, to quote Cohen and Muñoz [ 7 ] “smart cities use information and communication technologies (ICT) to be more intelligent and efficient in the use of resources, resulting in the cost and energy savings, improved service delivery and quality of life, and reduced environmental footprint—all supporting innovation and the low-carbon economy”. The origins of this particular group of definitions can be attributed to initial conceptualizations of SCs, where, following Alawadhi et al, initial definitions stressed the significance of new ICT with regard to modern infrastructures [ 8 ] .…”

“…Ruiz-Mallén [ 7 ] is defining the concept and practice of co-production as an example of participatory or collaborative governance for providing legitimacy for the measures implemented by policymakers to tackle climate change. However, we argue that this approach can be applied within the context of SCs initiatives, based on the premise of public value, and even within other areas of technological innovation, science, policy, and society as well—SVs for example.…”

“…Co-production is about participatory process that supports stakeholders’ engagement in planning and management decision-making and can be referred to government, researchers, and community actors, but also to market and third sector actors [ 7 ], since it “recognizes the relevance of having a diversity of societal actors involved in the planning and decision-making [ 7 ] (p. 2). Via Arnstein, Ruiz-Mallén [ 7 ] (p. 3) states that “co-production is thus expected to entail a certain degree of citizens’ power through establishing a “partnership” between laypeople and traditional decision-makers (i.e., government), enabling non-expert citizens to engage in decision-making through contributing their knowledge and capacities”.…”

“…In this manner, the above indicated approach of co-production presents itself as a viable option, as it is based on “partnership” between laypeople, market, and third sector actors and traditional policy makers (i.e., government), enabling non-expert citizens to engage in decision-making through contributing their knowledge and capacities. Contrary to some of the challenges co-production faces in SCs particularly in terms of being a time-consuming process [ 7 ] (p. 9), this approach seems a lot more feasible in the digital innovation ecosystem of SVs, especially if synergies with the place-based approach are established.…”

“…Regarding the analysis of the social aspects of SVs, the works of Zavratnik et al [ 4 ], Provenzano et al [ 5 ] and Hosseini et al [ 6 ], Ruiz-Mallén [ 7 ], and the policies of the EU and the work of The international association Rurality–Environment–Development (R.E.D.) rendered the necessary analytical grounds.…”