Introduction: Climate Governance After Paris

Held, David; Roger, Charles

doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12616

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This scholarship rests to a large degree on earlier insights from the literature on environmental and climate policy integration (Agenda 21) focusing on mainstreaming within the local government in non‐environmental sectors, and how the state constrains local environmental policies (Adelle & Russel, 2013; Lafferty & Hovden, 2003; Visseren‐Hamakers, 2018; Wang, Van Wart, & Lebredo, 2014). Beyond a focus on how climate change is institutionalized in policies and municipal planning, there is a specific and strengthened focus on how pilots and experimentations evolve to create innovative and transformative pathways to urban climate governance (van der Heijden, 2019; Díaz‐Pont, 2020; Hofstad and Vedeld, 2020; Smedby, 2019; Patterson et al, 2019; Smeds & Acuto, 2018; Gordon, 2018; Held & Roger, 2018; Hoelschera, Frantzeskakaia, McPhearson, & Loorbacha, 2019; Jordan et al, 2018; Kern, 2019; Bulkeley & Newell, 2015; Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013; Bulkeley, 2013; Bernstein & Hoffmann, 2018).…”

Section: Analytical Framework: a Polycentric And Multilevel Approach To Urban Climate Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…To this end, private firms and related networks play a driving role within what may be deemed as Oslo's dynamic ‘governance ecosystem’ in the climate arena (cf. Held & Roger, 2018). However, there are also limitations to their approaches, private businesses and developers also pursue own interests that may be at odds with broader environmental or societal goals, for example in compact city development regarding the need to protect green areas or public spaces or protests over restrictions on fossil‐fuelled vehicles.…”

Section: Findings: the ‘Oslo Climate Governance Approach’mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, as suggested above, a polycentric perspective on urban climate governance needs to fully acknowledge the crucial importance of private business, civil society and networks as components of a dynamic governance ecosystem in the climate arena (Held & Roger, 2018). The importance of such actors is manifest in a lot of spontaneous and distinctive institutional innovations and project experiments from the bottom‐up.…”

Section: Implications Of Empirical Findings For Theory and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Starting from such a broad understanding, we focus on three related topics identified in recent scholarship as central for explaining the role of city leadership in polycentric urban climate governance (building on van der Heijden, 2018, 2019). These topics are subsequently utilized to explain Oslo's public leadership and governance within the larger polycentric regime or ‘governance ecosystem’ in the climate arena (Gordon, 2018; Hausknost et al, 2018; Held & Roger, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Polycentric urban climate governance: Creating synergies between integrative and interactive governance in Oslo

Vedeld¹,

Hofstad²,

Hilde³

et al. 2021

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cities have emerged as important agents and sites in climate governance interventions, experimentations and networks. Drawing upon two strains of climate governance and collaborative governance literature, respectively, this article adopts a polycentric approach to the analysis of Oslo's urban climate governance. It unpacks the relationships between urban leadership, climate goal‐setting and institutional design, and reveals how these variables condition the employment of a combination of integrative and interactive governing instruments that foster both self‐governance and co‐creation in climate responses. The article argues that broad and long‐term political support facilitates the adoption of ambitious climate goals, utilization of regulatory powers, and the design and operations of innovative hybrid mixes of integrative and interactive governing instruments. The hybrid combination of instruments is what provides the basis for synergistic, predictable and dynamic forms of self‐governance and co‐created linkages among public and private ‘units’ within the wider urban climate governance ecosystem. Trans‐local and transnational networks play an important role in building such capacities for urban climate governance. Local processes of co‐creation and networked experimentations are ‘scaling up’ to change policies at city, national and international levels. The empirical observations from Oslo have implication for theories of polycentric urban climate governance and for the promise and limitations of co‐creation in the climate arena. The analysis draws upon qualitative interviews with close to 50 public and private stakeholders and policy document studies.

show abstract