Participatory experimentation on a climate street

Abstract

Cities' role in addressing both climate change mitigation and adaptation is becoming increasingly important. Within the last decade, cities together with other actors have initiated neighborhood-level climate change projects that build on the concept of experimentation using participation and coproduction. Common features in these initiatives are the limitation of the project to a geographically specific area within the city, inclusion of stakeholders from that physical location, and the use of different types of experimentation through participation in order to pursue climate objectives. This qualitative case study discusses the participatory experimentation and potential structural transformations by focusing on the Climate Street project of Helsinki and Vantaa, Finland. More specifically, we examine how learning, participation, and public visibility contribute toward the impact of the project. Our results show that existing urban governance structures restrict experiments in many ways and only certain types of change are feasible. This implies that while participatory experimentation offers promise but is not a panacea in terms of governing climate change. K E Y W O R D S climate change, climate street, experimentation, urban governance 1 | INTRODUCTION Cities' role in addressing both climate change mitigation and adaptation is becoming increasingly important (Corfee-Merlot, Cochran,

The Role of Public-Private Partnerships in Housing as a Potential Contributor to Sustainable Cities and Communities: A Systematic Review

“…Together, the authors of these articles argue that if the PPP listens to the political voice of residents and local communities, it will benefit their housing development and make it more socially sustainable. Give residents a louder voice [50] Guarantee inclusion of all concerned citizens [51,55] Promote citizen led initiatives [56] Looking through the analytical lens used here, it is obvious that political voice often pertains to the establishment of structures that engender a culture of resident participation [50,59,69], as well as constitutes the basis for possible joint collaborative initiatives between residents and the PPP [50,59,68]. An example from Sweden shows how diverse and inclusive a participatory structure can be in terms of stakeholder involvement Olsson et al [50] (p. 310): Some of these structures concern interactions between different property owners, for example the BID [Business Improvement District] and local divisions of the Swedish Union of Tenant Association, as well as between property owners and their tenants.…”

“…In this case, the concerned authors are highlighting the possibility of building on existing networks that already include resident participation, not just PPP stakeholders. However, according to Juhola, Seppälä, and Klein [68], there is still room for much improvement. They [68] (p. 24) say that there should be more ... emphasis on creating innovative solutions in partnership with the private sector and a focus on efficiency has disturbed the long-term horizon of urban planning and democratic legitimacy, which are both resource and time demanding.…”

“…They have presented several different proposals for the creation of social networks from which are derived eight arguments in Table 6. Address collective action challenge [63] Construct formal and informal actor-network to mobilize support for urban development [56,73,74] Co-create value via, inter alia, co-management zones [55,59,61] Combine different mode of governing, participation, and coproduction as a counterweight to non-coordinated elite (neoliberal) strategies [66,68,72] Concerning the connectivity theme, there is an obvious need to reshape the social network in a way that, according to Schultz Larsen and Delica [71] (p. 17), addresses what they term as policy schizophrenia defined here as "fragmentations, splits and contradictions of the current policy regime of housing development". It is argued that the collaborative dimension of social network ought to have both a formal and an informal interaction character [56,73].…”

“…This implies co-creating innovative solutions for complex problems (see, for instance, [55,59,61]). This segment of the reviewed research claims that this specific kind of interaction can counteract the negative effects of housing development associated with one-sided neoliberal housing strategies with major legitimacy deficits [66,68,72].…”

“…[60] (p. 1095) This coincides with the aspirations of another cohort of the small research community in focus in our study. They argue for the promotion of the idea of social inclusion and participation in what they term as the existing urban governance structure [68,69]. This may be a solution to the policy schizophrenia referred to by Schultz Larsen and Delica [71].…”