Setting the Scene: The Geographies of Urban Governance

Abstract

This chapter sets the context for the discussions on the geographies of urban governance in this book. It highlights the current themes of urban governance and how the recent wave of globalization has changed the geographies of urban governance in nine ways -by shaping dominant discourses about societal organization; through changing the goals, opportunities and arenas of urban development; by making cities prominent actors in transformation processes through decentralization and economic and capitalistic production; through the shift towards fragmented cityscapes; by enhancing a network society stimulated by increased digitalization, informatization, spatialization and ubiquitous computing; through the great acceleration in resource use, ecospace pollution and causing global climate change; through rescaling, but also re-territorialization; by changing the power of cities; and by transforming the drivers of change at various spatial levels. The geographical approach unpacks place as context; space as being absolute, relative and/ or relational; scale as spatial, temporal, jurisdictional and institutional; and humanenvironment interactions. The governance approach examines the opportunities and limits of governance beyond government within the context of changing geographies. Together they help understand the variety of socio-spatial confi gurations and patterns in cities. The book examines current governance patterns from the perspective of inclusive development, which is seen as including human wellbeing and protecting ecosystems. In doing so, it tries to understand how governance can contribute to the development of just and resilient cities.

Smart Governance For Sustainable Cities: Findings from a Systematic Literature Review

“…Contextual aspects include external placeor domain-specific circumstances, such as physical, political, institutional, societal, economic, and cultural conditions, as potential influences in digitalized governance processes. Although widely recognized, a systematic overview of the influence of contextual factors on smart governance processes is still lacking (Walters, 2011;Meijer, 2016;Gupta et al, 2015;Sampson, 2017;Hong, 2015;Zheng, 2015). This study fills this gap by opening the black box of the context-reliant nature of smart governance.…”

When opportunity backfires: exploring the implementation of urban climate governance alternatives in three major US cities

“…4 The governance alternatives appear relatively promising in addressing the relatively easy urban climate challenges of these cities, such as the construction of energy efficient new buildings (see, for example, the performance of LEED), but they are less successful in addressing more complex challenges such as the retrofitting of existing buildings (also reported by Trencher et al, 2016). In a related vein, targets do not comply with the governance alternative to which they 'commit', or are attracted to an alternative for self-interested reasons rather than a true willingness to act (also reported by Gupta et al, 2015). In sum, this study supports the growing literature that points to the struggle experienced by frontrunner cities in achieving their ambitious climate action targets through governance alternatives.…”

Auckland: Rescaled governance and post-suburban politics

“…Governance reforms were justified by imperatives for international competitiveness, Auckland's significance to the na-tional economy, and the desire to better serve interdependent needs for social, environmental, cultural and economic well-being (Salmon et al, 2009). The conceptualisation of global cities as strategic units in their own right (World Bank, 2015) has influenced political discourse and expectations of how cities are organised, both economically and socially (Gupta et al, 2015;Sassen, 2005). While the geographic limits of Auckland's governance are bounded to 560 km 2 , the scale across which governance networks are influenced, and have subsequent impacts, is much broader.…”