The Dilemmas of Citizen Inclusion in Urban Planning and Governance to Enable a 1.5 °C Climate Change Scenario

Abstract

Cities around the world are facilitating ambitious and inclusive action on climate change by adopting participatory and collaborative planning approaches. However, given the major political, spatial, and scalar interdependencies involved, the extent to which these planning tools equip cities to realise 1.5°C climate change scenarios is unclear. This article draws upon emerging knowledge in the fields of urban planning and urban climate governance to explore complementary insights into how cities can pursue ambitious and inclusive climate action to realise 1.5°C climate change scenarios. We observe that urban planning scholarship is often under-appreciated in urban climate governance research, while conversely, promising urban planning tools and approaches can be limited by the contested realities of urban climate governance. By thematically reviewing diverse examples of urban climate action across the globe, we identify three key categories of planning dilemmas: institutional heterogeneity, scalar mismatch, and equity and justice concerns. We argue that lessons from urban planning and urban climate governance scholarship should be integrated to better understand how cities can realise 1.5°C climate change scenarios in practice.

Linking Water Infrastructure, Public Health, and Sea Level Rise: Integrated Assessment of Flood Resilience in Coastal Cities

“…Adaptive capacity depends on understanding across the planning and response system for integrative responses. Chu, Schenk, and Patterson (2018) identify key institutional, spatial, and equity aspects of dilemmas facing cities in responding to climate change impacts. Many of these became apparent in our study cities including procedural aspects comprising facilitator decentralization, decision-maker separation of duties, division of responsibilities across levels of government, and recognizing the needs and interests of most marginalized communities, and in a structural aspect, the siloed nature of urban planning and action.…”

Inclusivity insights: two urban development projects in Johannesburg

“…Beyond conceptual challenges, there are practical challenges to planning and realizing the inclusive city (Beall, 2000). For instance, power can be distributed unequally in the translation processes from policy goals to practical implementations (Chu et al, 2018;Rebernik et al, 2018). This reinforces the idea that inclusion must be incorporated in decision-making processes (Hudson & Rönnblom, 2020;Uitermark, 2009).…”

Equitable Urban Planning for Climate Change

“…Changing power relations in the remaking of sustainable cities means reducing subordination (control by others) by ceding control in urban planning processes. The transformation comes with shifting who is in the urban planning driver's seat (Chu, Schenk and Patterson 2018). People, rather than bureaucrats, experts, or elites, and socially vulnerable populations, in particular, gain the political power to shape what urban adaptation looks like (Anguelovski et al 2020;Holland 2017).…”

“…Responsiveness means ensuring that the needs, stories, values, and interests of socially marginalized and vulnerable residents are recognized and represented in their cities' climate change plans (Chu, Schenk and Patterson 2018;Hughes 2013;Malloy and Ashcraft 2020). Inclusive climate change planning processes are highlighted as a key way to enable such groups to self-identify their own needs and priorities (Fitzgibbons and Mitchell 2019).…”