Urban Governance and the Politics of Climate change

Broto, Vanesa Castán

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.031

Cited by 251 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 158 publications

(144 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While climate governance in cities only represents one scale for addressing climate change, cities have become recognised as an increasingly important one both to prepare for the profound impacts of climate change urban populations and to mobilise the potential of cities for contributing to global resilience and sustainability (Castán Broto 2017;Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016). Additionally, urban climate governance is marked by complex multi-level and transnational relationships, including regional planning processes and transnational city networks (Castán Broto 2017).…”

Section: Illustrating Case Study: Understanding Transformative Climatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A growing number of scholars voice the urgency for a 'transformation of governance' to respond more radically and systemically to ongoing transformation dynamics and to address the mismatches of existing governance regimes that these dynamics reveal (Patterson et al 2016;Loorbach 2014;Termeer et al 2017). However, while existing work in climate governance and transformation governance literatures has informed policy and practice actions, the insights and knowledge on actors, responsibilities and roles in partnering for bringing these actions to realisation remain mostly theoretical (Gillard et al 2016;Koop et al 2017;Castán Broto 2017). Research on experimentation and politics in climate governance (Kivimaa et al 2017;Hoffman and Loeber 2015) and operational governance approaches like transition management (Loorbach et al 2015) contribute practical but fragmented insights on agency-level understandings of governance for transformation.…”

Section: Orchestrating Capacity In Rotterdammentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Steering transformations under climate change: capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In light of the persistent failure to reduce emissions decisively, facilitate long-term resilience against climate change and account for the connectedness of climate change with other social, environmental and economic concerns, we present a conceptual framework of capacities for transformative climate governance. Transformative climate governance enables climate mitigation and adaptation while purposefully steering societies towards low-carbon, resilient and sustainable objectives. The framework provides a systematic analytical tool for understanding and supporting the already ongoing changes of the climate governance landscape towards more experimental approaches that include multi-scale, cross-sectoral and public-private collaborations. It distinguishes between different types of capacities needed to address transformation dynamics, including responding to disturbances (stewarding capacity), phasing-out drivers of path dependency (unlocking capacity), creating and embedding novelties (transformative capacity) and coordinating multi-actor processes (orchestrating capacity). Our case study of climate governance in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, demonstrates how the framework helps to map the activities by which multiple actors create new types of conditions for transformative climate governance, assess the effectiveness of the capacities and identify capacity gaps. Transformative and orchestrating capacities in Rotterdam emerged through the creation of space and informal networks for strategic and operational innovation, which also propelled new types of governance arrangements and structures. Both capacities support stewarding and unlocking by integrating and mainstreaming different goals, connecting actors to each other for the development of solutions and mediating interests. Key challenges across capacities remain because of limited mainstreaming of long-term and integrated thinking into institutional and regulatory frameworks. As the ongoing changes in climate governance open up multiple questions about actor roles, effective governance processes, legitimacy and how effective climate governance in the context of transformations can be supported, we invite future research to apply the capacities framework to explore these questions.

show abstract

Section: Illustrating Case Study: Understanding Transformative Climatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Orchestrating Capacity In Rotterdammentioning

confidence: 99%

Steering transformations under climate change: capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For city governments, endogenous and contextual motivations such as local climate risks or political arrangements also come into play alongside exogenous factors such as national‐level policies, international climate actors and external climate‐related shocks (Carmin et al, ). In order to understand the nature of these city responses, it is important to examine how they relate to, and are integrated into, existing regimes, interests, and local politics, and how particular governance rationalities emerge (Anguelovski et al, ; Bulkeley, ; Castán Broto, ; Hughes, Chu, & Mason, ). Focusing on what Indian cities can do in this multilevel governance arrangement with its strong centrally driven architecture, we examine the governance and political motivations of climate action in Indian cities, and the variety of institutional forms with which such actions are pursued to find three overarching characteristics.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Indian Cities' Climate Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The global literature demonstrates that cities develop innovative climate approaches acting upon alignments between mitigation and adaptation, environment and development, government functions (Satterthwaite, ) and political coalitions (Bulkeley, ; Castán Broto, ; E. Chu et al, ). In India, the modus operandi of city climate actions, adaptation or mitigation, has been the linking of climate change with immediate and local development needs (Aggarwal, ; Beermann et al, ; E. Chu, ; E. K. Chu, ; Colenbrander et al, ; Cook & Chu, ; Sethi & Mohapatra, ; Sharma & Tomar, ).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Indian Cities' Climate Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urbanization in the time of climate change: Examining the response of Indian cities

Khosla

Bhardwaj

2018

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

India's urban transition is salient to the growing emphasis on city responses to climate change. While projected to experience the largest global urban transition with significant infrastructure investment in the next few decades, the welfare of Indian cities remains poor, which complicates the implications for climate change mitigation and adaptation. This paper traces, synthesizes and characterizes the emerging literature on Indian urban climate debates. It discusses the arc of urban climate efforts, from an initial emphasis on climate vulnerabilities and risks, broadening over time to include climate mitigation. The paper examines the governance forms and political motivations with which such actions are pursued in cities and finds three overarching characteristics: the use of local development priorities as an entry point to climate mitigation and adaptation; the role of nonstate actors in promoting climate-relevant outcomes; and the proclivity for discrete project-based activities. The paper suggests that while a range of Indian cities are beginning to consider climate concerns, a larger strategic understanding of the interaction between climate and development priorities, across policy and governance levels, is yet to be developed. The future trajectory of urban India's responses to climate change will be shaped by the institutional prioritising, linking and integrating of urgent local development and mitigation and adaptation goals.This article is categorized under:

show abstract

“…This was significant for the environmental arena as it epitomized the argument that responsibilities for governing global issues should be shared between public and private actors across all scales and governance levels [Bulkeley and Newell, 2010]. This fits in with the concept of governance as a changing meaning of government [Bevir and Rhodes, 2003], with decision-making spread across a range of actors at different levels [Máñez Costa et al, 2013], characterized by multiple forms of governance, rather than a traditional regulatory understanding of governing: "Governance relates to mechanisms directed toward the coordination of multiple forms of state and non-state action" and diverse actors that influence and act directly or through hybrid/networked arrangements, including partnerships [Castán Broto, 2017]. This appears to be particularly relevant for the urban level, with large cities such as London facing complex environmental and climate risks, which require collaborative management across spatial, political, and organizational boundaries since they cannot be adequately dealt with by just one category of actor [Bulkeley and Newell, 2010].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From agenda‐setting to implementation: The role of multisectoral partnerships in addressing urban climate risks

Surminski

Leck

2017

Earth's Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multisectoral partnerships (MSPs) form an increasingly popular and important part of the global climate and disaster risk governance landscape, but the literature offers little critical investigation of this phenomenon. In particular it remains unclear how MSPs can support the transition from agenda setting to implementation in response to multiple current and future pressures threatening the resilience of cities. Through the lens of the London Climate Change Partnership (LCCP) and drawing from other MSP examples, this paper investigates the scope for MSPs to enhance climate adaptation in an urban context. Our paper has two main aims: to expand understanding of the role of MSPs in the adaptation decision process in the context of the wider governance literature, and to shed some light on the complexities of transitioning through that process. To clarify the role of a MSP we propose a distinction between "first generation" and "second generation" MSPs, illustrating the progression from agenda-setting to implementation: "first generation" MSPs are focused on agenda setting and knowledge sharing in order to support decision makers, while "second generation" MSPs are aimed at implementing solutions. We consider this distinction from the perspective of the individual members and their perceptions, motivations, and expectations. We find that the dynamic nature of urban adaptation with a shifting focus from initial agenda setting toward the implementation of actions presents challenges for existing MSPs, particularly such long-established ones like the LCCP. Our investigation shows that "first generation" MSPs can play important roles in agenda setting, but finds little evidence of "second generation" MSPs achieving implementation.

show abstract

Urban Governance and the Politics of Climate change

Cited by 251 publications

References 158 publications

Steering transformations under climate change: capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Steering transformations under climate change: capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Urbanization in the time of climate change: Examining the response of Indian cities

From agenda‐setting to implementation: The role of multisectoral partnerships in addressing urban climate risks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About